Bring back BR say the people!

[Isambard]

I think "just" to go back to BR is not the right way forward.
I think there needs to be a purchaser / provider split with local authorities buying in a level of service.

The private passenger operators in Germany pay their staff less too.
Possible strike over that one in the coming months.

 

[ALondonStation]

The great privatisation experiment has failed. We could probably do with retaking control of our utilities at the same time. They were never Thatcher's to sell.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes, but it would have needed a substantial amount of extra investment to build proper HS lines. It somehow seems unlikely that New Labour would have committed to anything like that even if they had inherited a nationalised railway.

You're missing the point, which is that if Maggie and her scrotum-faced bean-counters hadn't run down investment and infrastructure funding to facilitate privatisation, "new" Labour would likely not have inherited projects, they'd have inherited completed or near completed "tracks on the ground" instead.

 

[ALondonStation]

You're missing the point, which is that if Maggie and her scrotum-faced bean-counters hadn't run down investment and infrastructure funding to facilitate privatisation, "new" Labour would likely not have inherited projects, they'd have inherited completed or near completed "tracks on the ground" instead.

...and I'd love to see a forensic accountant go through their estimations of the worth of capital equipemnt and fixed assets. As with CDC and Qinetic, I'd bet my last quid they were valued below fair open market rate (for the time).

 

[starfish2000]

In Scotland they have taken the sensible step of introducing a national branding for the trains which will supposedly stay the same regardless of who is running the franchise at any one time.

Unfortunately it's a bit crap as liveries go, but the basic idea is a good one.

I think that there should be a standard branding all over the UK and the different franchisees should be effectively invisible to the passenger. This should extend to ticketing arrangements as well as cosmetic stuff.

Much the way London buses operate, in fact.

But in the election Manifesto they were going to Nationalise rail in Scotland.

Then Stagecoachs Brian Souter gave the SNP £1 million and that idea went away....funny that

 

[lintin]

why not sell the network + rail co's to sncf and let them run it ?
at the same time get the dutch in to do a cycle network.

 

[teuchter]

why not sell the network + rail co's to sncf and let them run it ?
at the same time get the dutch in to do a cycle network.

It's not who's running it that is the main problem, it's the way the whole system is set up with too many small bits and ineffective regulation.

Sncf are free to bid for any franchise they want - in fact I've got a feeling they've got a stake in one somewhere, as has Netherlands Rail. Certainly the German state operator DB has large stakes in several passenger franchises and a major freight operator.

 

[Onket]

Got handed a www.farefail.org flyer on the train today.

 

[Dan U]

Got handed a www.farefail.org flyer on the train today.

Was it your train broke down near Worthing?

 

[Onket]

I missed that one and was on the one behind it.

 

[Bungle73]

That website is based on a fallacy. The rail companies are not "robbing use blind", they are simply setting the fares they've been told you set by the government. If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. Nothing to do with privatisation.

 

[agricola]

That website is based on a fallacy. The rail companies are not "robbing use blind", they are simply setting the fares they've been told you set by the government. If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. Nothing to do with privatisation.

er - no. Only around half of fares are regulated by the government, regulation which consists of setting an upper limit by which fares can go up (RPI + a certain percentage), which the individual TOC can increase in certain circumstances. The rest of the fares are unregulated. The government does not set the cost of fares.

 

[Bungle73]

er - no. Only around half of fares are regulated by the government, regulation which consists of setting an upper limit by which fares can go up (RPI + a certain percentage), which the individual TOC can increase in certain circumstances. The rest of the fares are unregulated. The government does not set the cost of fares.

Government policy is shift payment for the railways from the taxpayer to the passenger, hence the fare rises. That and the improvements need to be paid for.

 

[agricola]

Government policy is shift payment for the railways from the taxpayer to the passenger, hence the fare rises. That and the improvements need to be paid for.

So not "setting the fares they've been told to set by the government", then?

 

[Bungle73]

So not "setting the fares they've been told to set by the government", then?

As a good as. But the point is the fare are rising so much because the government decided they should. Vote for someone else.

 

[teuchter]

er - no. Only around half of fares are regulated by the government, regulation which consists of setting an upper limit by which fares can go up (RPI + a certain percentage), which the individual TOC can increase in certain circumstances. The rest of the fares are unregulated. The government does not set the cost of fares.

Most of the fares that have increased (AFAIK) are the regulated ones. And the government has been increasing the "+ a certain percentage" part of that equation. It's a stated policy as Bungle73 says.

 

[agricola]

Most of the fares that have increased (AFAIK) are the regulated ones. And the government has been increasing the "+ a certain percentage" part of that equation. It's a stated policy as Bungle73 says.

Which is true, but it doesnt make Bungles' claim that its the government who are at fault for the rise in fares correct - unless you think that, without regulation, the fares on those routes would be lower.

 

[teuchter]

It's the regulation that controls the fares, and the government controls the regulation. So, the government controls the fares and decides how high they will let them rise. This government has a policy that rail fares will rise over time to reduce the subsidy it pays to keep them low. So I think it's perfectly fair to say it's the government's fault.

If the railways were still nationalised the same pressures would exist. The fares would be set by BR according to government policy and the subsidy given to them. A government with a stated policy of transferring more of the cost of the railway onto passengers would do the same thing - reduce the subsidy - and the fares would have to go up.

 

[editor]

I just want the GWR back with its pretty chocolate and cream livery. And no more slippery 'meet the new boss same as the old boss' franchises, natch.

 

[Balham]

I just want the GWR back with its pretty chocolate and cream livery. And no more slippery 'meet the new boss same as the old boss' franchises, natch.

Feel the same way except for the Southern, with proper trains and buffet cars on the Express trains, and reinstate the London Victoria to Portsmouth Harbour and Bognor Regis Express train going via Mitcham Junction (it did from about 1938 to the late seventies I think), used to be good for days at the coast. I was born well after nationalisation but do remember green trains.
Perhaps a compromise? A nationalised railway but each region having it's own strong identity . . .

 

[ViolentPanda]

That website is based on a fallacy. The rail companies are not "robbing use blind", they are simply setting the fares they've been told you set by the government. If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. Nothing to do with privatisation.

No, with regulated fares they're setting the fares within a band imposed by legislation/regulation. The railcos choose where in the band to set the rises. With unregulated fares, they set whatever they want to.

Do yourself a favour, think before posting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Government policy is shift payment for the railways from the taxpayer to the passenger, hence the fare rises. That and the improvements need to be paid for.

So you admit you were talking bollocks, then?

BTW, what you're calling "government policy" has signally (geddit?) failed to shift the burden of payment, despite the fare hikes, given the £4 billion+ that annual support for the private railcos etc had reached by 2011-12.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Most of the fares that have increased (AFAIK) are the regulated ones. And the government has been increasing the "+ a certain percentage" part of that equation. It's a stated policy as Bungle73 says.

Increases are reflected/publicised differently, though. RPI + X is always going to look more intimidating in a time of higher-than-usual (at least over the last 20 or so years pre-2008) inflation, so they often get a fair bit more publicity (locally and nationally) than rises in unregulated fares (which often, without that RPI addition, look significantly smaller and therefore "less interesting" and/or sensationalisable by the media).

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's the regulation that controls the fares, and the government controls the regulation. So, the government controls the fares and decides how high they will let them rise. This government has a policy that rail fares will rise over time to reduce the subsidy it pays to keep them low. So I think it's perfectly fair to say it's the government's fault.

Does the regulation (and therefore the government) control the fares, or merely the annual "uprating" that's permissible?

If the railways were still nationalised the same pressures would exist. The fares would be set by BR according to government policy and the subsidy given to them. A government with a stated policy of transferring more of the cost of the railway onto passengers would do the same thing - reduce the subsidy - and the fares would have to go up.

You're right, the same pressures would exist, but as we know from BR's history, the model by which BR operated allowed profitable services to subsidise non-profitable services, and often meant that fare rises could be mitigated in a way that is impossible with the privatised system due to the commercial imperative.

 

[teuchter]

Increases are reflected/publicised differently, though. RPI + X is always going to look more intimidating in a time of higher-than-usual (at least over the last 20 or so years pre-2008) inflation, so they often get a fair bit more publicity (locally and nationally) than rises in unregulated fares (which often, without that RPI addition, look significantly smaller and therefore "less interesting" and/or sensationalisable by the media).

Do you have figures that show how much unregulated fares have risen by? And, significantly, any attempt to compare them with similar fares pre-privatisation? Because the unregulated fares include all of the advance purchase fares many of which are now available at a much lower cost than the cheapest fares pre-privatisation.

The reason the regulated fares are more important when it comes to talking about fare increases is that they tend to be the fares commuters pay (and effectively have to pay) so they have a very significant impact on people's cost of living. Likewise, they include most of the walk-up fares, again the fares you effectively *have* to pay if you need to travel at short notice.

 

[teuchter]

Does the regulation (and therefore the government) control the fares, or merely the annual "uprating" that's permissible?

The regulation controls the annual uprating that's permissible. I'm not sure I understand your question.

You're right, the same pressures would exist, but as we know from BR's history, the model by which BR operated allowed profitable services to subsidise non-profitable services, and often meant that fare rises could be mitigated in a way that is impossible with the privatised system due to the commercial imperative.

That's not true - in the current system the profitable franchises subsidise the unprofitable ones because those operators pay a premium to the government to operate the profitable franchises. It may operate through a more convoluted process, and you can argue about how efficient it is, but essentially the same principle applies.

 

[Roadkill]

Most of the fares that have increased (AFAIK) are the regulated ones. And the government has been increasing the "+ a certain percentage" part of that equation. It's a stated policy as Bungle73 says.

See here for my thoughts the last time this suggestion was made. To précis, it is true that it's government policy to pass more of the railways' costs onto the fare payer, but that is not the whole explanation by a long chalk. The privatised railway is certainly more expensive to run than latter-day British Rail, although slightly less so than it was a few years back for various reasons.

Perhaps a compromise? A nationalised railway but each region having it's own strong identity . .

That roughly was the case in the early years of British Rail, and it didn't work. The regions pulled in different directions, meaning that the advantages offered by nationalisation - especially standardisation of equipment - were lost. BR worked better when the centre asserted more control.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The regulation controls the annual uprating that's permissible. I'm not sure I understand your question.

Q: Does the regulatory framework in the legislation give the government control over the fares per se, or merely over the permissible annual uprating (i.e. are the regulations solely of use for doing that)?

That's not true - in the current system the profitable franchises subsidise the unprofitable ones because those operators pay a premium to the government to operate the profitable franchises. It may operate through a more convoluted process, and you can argue about how efficient it is, but essentially the same principle applies.

I'd argue that it isn't even a similar process, given that the current system of "subsidy" is mediated through several external stages of administration and through bodies that weren't extant concurrent with BR. Sure, a similar principle applies, but only in the way that, for example, rugby union and rugby league are "similar".

 

[Onket]

As a good as. But the point is the fare are rising so much because the government decided they should. Vote for someone else.

Voting for someone else is the only course of action, is it? A mark on a piece of paper every general election & then just lump it to the next one whilst crossing your fingers?!

 

[youngian]

Blimey, and I thought Enfield Lock station and National Express trains looked basic and run down - it's almost Grand Central compared to that!

I have a totally black and white memory of hanging around a Czechslovakian station in the dying Communist days. It was eerily familiar and started to feel like I was in Brief Encounter, but without any middle class English housewives to pull.