If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I love it.
But why does Bertie the Bus sound like a train!?
I would point out who is insisting on these cuts.
It isn't First.
It is the "strategic" Rail Authority- that's the Government Aladdin would trust to run the trains, folks.
I used to
Admittedly this Labour government is starting to look even worse than the Tories when it comes to railway management.
I'm not sure I get your argument. Government should run the railways, but in the UK they're not interested and mismanage it. Not a very compelling argument..
Railways are an essential public service.
Essential public services must never be run for profit, but to provide the best service possible to consumers.
In most of the Continent railways are fully or partially state owned, and are far beter, faster, cleaner and cheaper to use. Investment to keep it that way comes from taxation.
In Britain however there appears to be a virulent resistance to the concept of high quality public services financed through taxation. And such, successive British governments chose to neglect BR and starve it of cash, resulting in chronic underinvestment and a progressive deterioration of the service.
Then the last Tory government decided to sell BR altogether to the vultures (sorry, private 'rail operators') and the last vestiges of the revolutionary concept that services should be run for the benefit of passengers (instead of shareholders) were scrapped.
Then the Labour government backtracked on its promise to renationalise the railways and chose instead to further promote privatisation and franchising, and to consider axing routes that weren't profitable enough.
You would think that a government would have the interest of the country it runs at heart, but apparently in this country keeping taxes low for the rich takes precedence over having an efficient, cheap and modern railway network.
You make it sound like they are mutually exclusive. They're not.
If a train company doesn't run a good service people won't use it. No customers = no profit for the shareholders. I could drive to London, but I don't, because GNER run a train from here every 30 minutes and charge me £25 return. Under BR the return was more expensive, and the service was less frequent.
GNER have to pay the Government £100m a year to run these services. They would go bust if they didn't operate a fantastic service.
And as I've said before, look at the Settle-Carlisle line to see what private companies can do.
That said, German trains are much better. Why? Because the Germans run them. It has nothing to do with it being a public or private operator- Germany has both, and both are as good as each other.
France's rail network is pretty awful, really, despite the hype. Sure, they have TGV, but away from TGV the train service is truly deeply diabolical. And even TGV isn't that good, often with frequencies of only every two hours, even to important cities. To compare, Manchester has a half-hourly service to London, as does Newcastle and York.
Over here I honestly believe that trains would be better free from Government interference. The Government can subsidise trains for communities that otherwise wouldn't have them, but for most train routes private competition would be much much better.
Virgin certainly wouldn't be able to charge such high walk-up fares if Midland Mainline could operate to London for £50 less.
Railway companies have in effect a monopoly. No other company exists or operates trains in the same route, in most cases though not all- so it doesn't really matter how bad the service gets: passengers have no option but to continue using the only service that is available to them.
Talk about licences to print money...
The simple fact of the matter is that Governments operate trains for the benefit of themselves not the people. They always have done, which is why nearly all rural services were decimated (literally) by BR in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Private companies of course set out to make a profit, but what's wrong with that? Profit serves to improve services in many areas. No area has seen a reduction of services since privatisation, don't forget TOCs were contractually obliged to provide the same service as BR did. Most have extended it dramatically.
And for all the wanking on about how walk-up fares have increased on some routes, so what? Buy in advance, you can buy one day in advance and get much cheaper tickets than the old BR fares. Train fares are still significantly lower than those of their direct competitor, the airlines.
I actually don't think the privatisation went far enough. Which is the biggest problem. The Government didn't want private finance to operate the trains, they simply wanted to blame someone else for the mess. Which is why Labour won't re-nationalise.
People don't do things for nothing. That's life. Profit has increased services in most areas simply because companies want to get as many people on their trains as possible. More trains = more money.
"The greater good" doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?
Most people have to take the train for certain journeys, especially commuters. And most people are stuck with the same inefficient, overcharging company because it is the only one that will operate the route.
Thus the argument that private companies are good for passengers because competition will make the rail operators work harder is completely untrue.
I'll tell you what's wrong with that: companies might and in many (if not most) cases will cut corners where they shouldn't in order to maximise profits. As are result the service deteriorates, the lack of staff causes endless cancellations and delays and passengers see train fares rise to unprecedented levels.
I think you might want rethink that... from rail operators that claimed trains couldn't stop at certain stations at weekends because the station was too bendy for safe alighting (mysteriously the problem corrected itself during busy periods however) to second class carriages being replace by first class ones because they're more profitable, the horror stories are to be found aplenty.
I have a Private Eye cut out somewhere that explains all this very well. Rail operators, in particular Virgn, are making fewer and fewer off peak seats available, and they're making them more difficult to obtain and more restricted than ever. Anyone who doesn't have the luxury to plan a journey 2 weeks in advance will pay absolute exhorbitant amounts of money for a train ticket. There are fewer cheap seats on trains than ever before, and the average cost of travelling by rail in Britain today is simply breath-takingly high.
Most rail travel is actually for leisure.
So why is it any better that a state-owned company ran it? Do you seriously think that any Government would start charging 2p a ticket and letting the taxpayer pick up the bill?
My point is that it doesn't matter what colour the train is. RedRail would still charge ticket prices, and they would still be higher when demand is highest.
Profit makes them work harder.
Perhaps not in London at 9am, but certainly elsewhere during the day. Most train companies exceed their MSR because running more trains makes them more money.
With one notable exception at SWT when the TOC was first given to Stagecoach, that simply isn't the case.
Where has that happened?
No they're not.
Only if they want an open return, valid at all times, which I think is fair enough.
I can get a walk-up return to London for £50. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
I remember the hassle it was to get a SuperSaver under BR. You're either wearing rosey specs or you are simply talking from no experience.
The system we have isn't perfect, but its no worse than under BR, and in many cases it is fantastically better. I think further improvements would come from true competition, and the abolition of ROSCOs.
To compare:
BR's service at Appleby in Westmorland: one train a day
Private service at Appleby: one train every two hours, only recently reduced because the Government demanded it.
Are you seriously trying to say that if the Government ran the trains they'd be 2p a ticket and never late? If you are you're insane.
A state run railways would certainly not put prices up as much as private companies, because they aren't obsessed with profits and they don't have shareholders to please.
Other consequences of running railways for profit (and therefore cutting costs and investment) are delays and cancellations due to shortages of staff or fewer cheap seats available.
I could go on.
How do you work that one out?
Running more trains has little to do with them on most cases- that's rather more to do with line capacity and demand.
What is at stake is the quality of the service provided and the price of travel. And as you will be very aware, since there is no competing services for most travellers to go to, private operators could smear shit on the seats for a laugh and still get exactly the same amount of business from long suffering passengers who have no other options.
The ultra piss-poor Virgin excels at it.
Private Eye must have been tellinig lies then.
But lest you accuse Private Eye of bias, let's allow someone you're bound to trust a bit more to tell you: the boss of your beloved GNER
Really? Good for you. For most travellers, travelling at most normal hours, on the most popular routes, the cost would be up to £200 if they had the temerity to buy a walk-in fare.
Travelling on the East Coast route is 3 times more expensive than on equivalent routes in France and Belgium.
But never mind. Your personal travel needs appear to be inexpensive, so the whole network in Britain must also be cheap...
I wonder how that hassle compares with a passenger today trying to book a London-Glasgow ticket and finding 45 different fares.
(no link at hand but I think I saved one on my work pc as I knew it'd come handy).
No, this and past governments have proven they're not interested in running a good service. But I am saying that a properly managed and funded state-run railways is infinitely better than the best private owned railways in the world.
Trains should be run for the benefit of passengers, not shareholders and profits.
Fuck shareholders and profits.
Bollocks.
BR put fares up, far above the rate of inflation.
And that never happens if it's a Government train?
So how have they managed to increase leisure travel by between 1/3 and 1/2 in many cases?
You don't increase business if you're providing a bad service. It's not as if we don't own cars.
That's not the same Virgin that's bright in new trains across the board to replace trains that were forty years old, is it?
That's not the same Virgin that's increased services from Birmingham to Scotland, Edinburgh and Newcastle by 500% is it?
Yeah, I agree.
Funny that the BBC didn't put his quotes in context though- that the fact the state-operated timetabling people can't get a decent national rail system running. As even Gwyneth Dunwoody acknowledges, the ticketing system is "chaos". That ain't GNER's fault, as any fule kno.
No it wouldn't, and no it isn't.
One or two top fares are, but that's it. But when you compare to the equivalent air fares- and that's what intercity train fares should be compared to- even they are bargaintastic.
To travel tomorrow to London is £134 by train, or £179 by air.
Same everywhere.
Yes.
Why?
You've not said why. You've made some non-comittal whinges about prices and profit, as if BR never charged high fares for commuters.
You still haven't explained why the two are mutually exclusive, y'know.
Of course I should say that the current system is a very very long way from being perfect, but the blame for that lies 100% at the feet of the Government you so dearly trust to run the trains. Up here one franchise bidder promised new trains and better frequency, and one promised being cheap- guess who got the franchise?
Private operators however couldn't give a fuck about passengers because they know they have a captive clientele and they can exploit them with gusto to please the only people they ever care for: shareholders.
No.
South West Train's very first action, on very first day of business: sacking a whopping 200 drivers to rake up profits.
You're the first one to complain how difficult it is to park in cities nowadays, don't you?
Leisure travel (i.e. off peak, not busy times) are not the problem here incidentally.
The very same Virgin that has managed to suck out several hundred million Pounds out of government subsudies while keeping every last penny of profit.
You keep reminding us how GNER ends up paying money to the government. That is certainly the exception to the rule. Practically all other rail operators get tens of millions in subsidies or to buy new equipment and then keep all the profits for themselves. Virgin is the biggest culprit of them all.
The timetable has little to do with the number of fares GNER 'offers' to the public. The high number of fares simply reflects the many different ways the fat greedy cats in the boardroom devise to suck up every last penny possible from travellers. Nothing stops them from offering 3 or 4 fares maximum.
I apologise for saying you could pay up to £202 for a return ticket to Glasgow.
The actual figure is in fact £222, or an incredible £328 for first class.
Yes, of course there are cheaper fares to be found. But the point is, often they aren't.
And why would you want to compare it with plane fares? Plane fares should be fare more expensive than train fares. If you read the broadsheets you will have noticed that air travel is fast becoming the single biggest environmental concern when it comes to global warming. They are calls for penalising travel to Europe, let alone domestic.
If we're to compare cheapest fare against cheapest fare you might find out is often cheaper to fly than to get the cheapest train fare available anyway. And a lot faster too.
Why not compare train fares against those of National Express while we're at it? That is the competition the railways should be trying to target the most.
Yes.
I've explained it several times, but here it goes again:
- Worse quality of service
- Poor value for money
- Far higher fares
- Interest of passengers never at heart
- Only objective of business is to make maximum amount of profits possible for benefit of shareholders. As a result, corners can and will be cut where they shouldn't: in training, in staffing, in mainteneance, in safety. People have already died as a direct result of negiglence through greed. No doubt they won't be the only ones.
What more reasons do you need ffs?
This is breaking now and we are pretty sure that the source is correct.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=210.msg509#msg509
Proof?
Yes, it was.
It was an isolated example.
Money that Virgin was owed because your beloved GOvernment couldn't build the West Coast main line properly.
1. All the intercity operators do so. First GW also pay a lot of money, as do MML and one.
2. That's how it was under BR too. Intercity subsidises rural lines. Still is the case. GNER's £100m goes to the rural operators.
3. The equipment is required- would you rather that we were all riding around on trains that were forty or fifty years old?
4. The new equipment belongs to the franchise not the franchisee.
Actually, the government prevents them.
Many of the fares are government-imposed fares.
Many of the other "sixteen" fares are advance purchase fares that have different advance booking conditions. It is spurious and stupid to argue that a 14-day advance purchase ticket is different to a 7-day advance purchase ticket.
And?
In real terms fares have gone up, but not too much.
You could pay that. But how many people do?
Funnily enough I get a £50 return FIRST CLASS to London, arriving quite early too.
They are.
Although obviously if you go to the station two hours before your train you won't get a 14-day AP ticket, will you?
Because on a journey from London to Glasgow, they are the competitor.
Funny you mention National Express. EVIL CORPORATE COMPANY SCUM!
Ahem.
Rail fares compare well to a lot of coach fares. £10 return on NatEx to London, or £18 on train. And trains take a full four hours less time.
No, you've just gone on auto-rant.
Here's a challenge- prove it.
I still suggest you toddle off and read up on the Settle and Carlisle Railway. Get back to me about governments running trains for the people when you've read all about it.
I.e. not letting them run intercity stuff on the Settle-Carlisle line?
Interesting answer to a parliamentary question , as the link below explains.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F3641215?thread=2842893&show=200
Visit our site for more info.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1517
Especially this item.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F3641215?thread=2827022&show=200
You might want the the thread to be dead. We would prefer our lines and stations not to go the same way.
Private companies are alright as long as they're not Stagecoach;)
The thread is dead now. There's no need for more tubthumping about a tiny station in the middle of nowhere a few miles from Swindon.
Remember how a little while ago we were discussing TOCs (as you and me always do
Well, think again.
- Virgin did not pay for the trains.
- When Virgin first applied for a franchise to run trains, it promised to pay £1bn to improve the network as part of its 140mph train pledge bollocks. This was a deciding factor in granting Virgin a franchise. Guess what... not only Virgin did not pay a penny for the trains, it did not give a penny for the track improvements either, as it had promised. On the contrary: it actually got money from the hapless government.
Some food for thought below, not only on Virgin but on the lovely SWT:
Regardless of other TOCs, I hope you will agree with me now that Virgin Trains is a useless, money grabbing thieving TOC that has ripped off the taxpayer of hundreds of millions of Pounds and that it should have its licence taken away forever.
Ah yes, but which homophobic Scottish transport conglomerate owns Virgin Trains, hm?;)
Virgin are now on a cost-plus management scheme, which is partly why their performance has dropped, to be honest. Most of what is happened is as a direct result of Railtrack being wound up by the Government though, contracts were signed and then broken by the Government, leaving Virgin stranded.
But as I say, I won't defend Souter or Gloag.
Answer me one question then :
If a "tiny station in the middle of nowhere a few miles from Swindon" shows a 7 fold increase in passenger numbers over 5 years , then why is its service being reduced from 5 round trips a day to 2 round trips a day? Answer that one and i will gladly kill the thread. By the way , this pattern is being repeated across the South West Region , not just Melksham.