39 replies to this topic

[waistline expansionist]

http://www.telegraph...fare-rises.html

"To pay for improvements to rail infrastructure"

No, you thieving gits, the point of privatisation was that the private sector franchisees would pay for infrastructure improvements, so as long as the franchisees are making a penny profit, ALL that cash should be going into infrastructure and there should be NO fare increases whatsoever.

Again, government with balls (not of the Ed variety) required.

[Griff9of13]

And we wonder why our roads are so overcrowded...

[ckn]

Sometimes I wonder whether these people have any clue at all. They want to encourage public transport but allow the profit-making industries to make consistently above inflation fare rises while not improving the service in one tiny area.

Same with many other things around public transport. Ipswich received a £25m grant to reduce congestion in the town centre, within weeks the council announced that it was going to shut one of the subsidised Park and Ride locations! They also received about £800,000 to help small businesses reduce their car usage in the town. Now there's not going to be the capacity for Park & Ride customers and they'll have to drive into the town centre to park. Public transport off the Park & Ride scheme is also not up to covering it and is already substantially inadequate for the purpose.

[Millman]

http://www.telegraph...fare-rises.html

"To pay for improvements to rail infrastructure"

No, you thieving gits, the point of privatisation was that the private sector franchisees would pay for infrastructure improvements, so as long as the franchisees are making a penny profit, ALL that cash should be going into infrastructure and there should be NO fare increases whatsoever.

Again, government with balls (not of the Ed variety) required.

No the point of selling off the railways was to raise a few quid for the government of the time, and to secure the financial futures of their mates by putting them in a position to clean up post sale.

[waistline expansionist]

No the point of selling off the railways was to raise a few quid for the government of the time, and to secure the financial futures of their mates by putting them in a position to clean up post sale.

And to fragment the unions.

[Millman]

And to fragment the unions.

Yes I bet all the tory voting rail travellers are laughing now. Much better services, much reduced costs etc.....

[Li0nhead]

I think the problem is simply the whole process of handing out the services.

The private firms bid for the right to run a franchise. Top bid wins....Govt gets a payoff, company passes that straght onto the passanger fares pushing up prices.

A better system in my eyes would be take the bidding process out of it. Ok we as taxpayers dont get a payoff but have a bidding process based on who will have the best bid and run it the best. Taking into account a companys pledge in its bid in regards to fare increase limits, customer serivce pleges, infrastructure investment etc. Meaning that the process takes out a large chunk that would otherwise have to be lumped onto passangers.

Then again there are lots of holes in my idea, but just a suggestion or a base for an idea.

[Griff9of13]

The infrastructure stuff is a red herring - the infrastructure is run by Network Rail, not the ATOC members (train operators). The operators effectively pay a rent to Network Rail to use the lines.

Network Rail aren't directly accountable to the customers.

[Li0nhead]

The infrastructure stuff is a red herring - the infrastructure is run by Network Rail, not the ATOC members (train operators). The operators effectively pay a rent to Network Rail to use the lines.

Network Rail aren't directly accountable to the customers.

Dam, that blows my idea out of the water then....

Suppose we could always privatise network rail.....<runs out of thread and hides>.

[ckn]

The infrastructure stuff is a red herring - the infrastructure is run by Network Rail, not the ATOC members (train operators). The operators effectively pay a rent to Network Rail to use the lines.

Network Rail aren't directly accountable to the customers.

The rolling stock is owned by them though. For my £70 return fare to London, I have to use an ancient InterCity train that always looks like its last service is far overdue and they're invariably filthy. Also, try getting a seat at peak times, even in First Class.

[Griff9of13]

The rolling stock is owned by them though. For my £70 return fare to London, I have to use an ancient InterCity train that always looks like its last service is far overdue and they're invariably filthy. Also, try getting a seat at peak times, even in First Class.

On the whole, the train operators don't own the rolling stock, but lease it from third parties. That is why (or at least the excuse used) it can take 3 years to add an extra carriage or two to a train!

[Millman]

On the whole, the train operators don't own the rolling stock, but lease it from third parties.

I bet the people at the leasing companies have made a right killing over the years.

[Griff9of13]

I bet the people at the leasing companies have made a right killing over the years.

Therein lies the problem; too many fingers in the pie. What profit there is has to be stretched over not just the train operators, but the stock leasing companies, network rail and others

For example, a company is paid to collect, collate and distribute all the fares collected between the operating companies at a cost of over £30m. The same company also owns and leases to the TOCs all the ticket machines (both hand held & static). There are numerous other companies with a hand in the till.

Rail privatisation has been very good & profitable to all those private companies out of sight to the customer.

It is my belief the motivation for privatisation, the way it was done, could never have been to provide a better and more efficient rail service.

[The Bobster]

I used to get the train for business meetings in London It’s cheaper and less hassle to fly on the BA shuttle from Manchester.

[Futtocks]

I used to get the train for business meetings in London It’s cheaper and less hassle to fly on the BA shuttle from Manchester.

Give it another 10 years and it'll be cheaper to buy your own aeroplane.

[waistline expansionist]

For example, a company is paid to collect, collate and distribute all the fares collected between the operating companies at a cost of over £30m. The same company also owns and leases to the TOCs all the ticket machines (both hand held & static).

And yet you still can't buy a Metrolink add-on ticket on Yorkie or Scouse trains that run through Manchester.

Why have they insisted on keeping the old BR regionalised ticketing systems when the BR regions are long-since irrelevant?

[Griff9of13]

And yet you still can't buy a Metrolink add-on ticket on Yorkie or Scouse trains that run through Manchester.

Why have they insisted on keeping the old BR regionalised ticketing systems when the BR regions are long-since irrelevant?

To you're first point, I don't know. You can, for example, buy an underground ticket on a train, or even a ferry ticket (for example to cross to the Isle of Wight).

They did not keep the old BR regions, the ticketing distribution is between the 27 operating companies. Each sells tickets on behalf of all the others, and of course one journey can be on more than one operators trains. It can get very complex (there exists an algorithm that works out all the different possible combinations of getting from any station to any other in the country)!

[waistline expansionist]

To you're first point, I don't know. You can, for example, buy an underground ticket on a train, or even a ferry ticket (for example to cross to the Isle of Wight).

They did not keep the old BR regions, the ticketing distribution is between the 27 operating companies. Each sells tickets on behalf of all the others, and of course one journey can be on more than one operators trains. It can get very complex (there exists an algorithm that works out all the different possible combinations of getting from any station to any other in the country)!

However it seems to be more complicated than that.

Within an individual operating company there seem to be some conductors' machines that sell the add-on and some that don't.

Their comment usually goes "oh no mate it's not in the machine coz this is a Liverpool/etc based train."

[Steve May]

The rolling stock is owned by them though. For my £70 return fare to London, I have to use an ancient InterCity train that always looks like its last service is far overdue and they're invariably filthy. Also, try getting a seat at peak times, even in First Class.

I don't know what route that is but I much prefer the old InterCity trains to the Voyager and Pendolino ones.

They have better seats, a usable drop down table in the seat back, more legroom, more headroom, bigger windows, a smoother ride, toilet doors that lock properly, more luggage space, they are much quieter, they don't have doors that close on you while you're stood in the doorway, and - this is the biggy - they don't stink of ###### and ###### like the modern trains still do.

And all the window seats get at least part of a window. Half the "window" seats on the newer trains are right next to massive pillars so you can't see out.

[Griff9of13]

However it seems to be more complicated than that.

Within an individual operating company there seem to be some conductors' machines that sell the add-on and some that don't.

Their comment usually goes "oh no mate it's not in the machine coz this is a Liverpool/etc based train."

Then the're being lazy. All TOCs use the same ticket machines and they all run the same software & have the same ticket options. Like I said, the only thing they may not be able to give you is a ticket for something outside the rail network (i.e. buses or trams).