Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yellow Fever

Let's Talk About Rail

Recommended Posts

OK - This is meant to be a ruthless, probing discussion about the railways - and do we need them?

The rail industry is subsidized by the tax-payer to the tune of about £7Bn per year. I use the train on average about zero times a year - the same I would guess as nearly everybody else who lives in Norwich / Norfolk. The main users of this 'subsidy' would appear to be commuters to or in London.

I say why should we in the sticks (or nearly any regional city) subsize the CHOICE of those that wish to work in central London and then live elsewhere - make them pay the full cost of their transport / lifestyle choices or else they and their firms should move elsewhere where transport is cheaper. A forced levelling up.

Alternatively, I demand the same density of rail connections here as in London.

More reasonably, perhaps we should limit any subsidy to just the 'intercity' and freight routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

OK - This is meant to be a ruthless, probing discussion about the railways - and do we need them?

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The rail industry is subsidized by the tax-payer to the tune of about £7Bn per year. I use the train on average about zero times a year - the same I would guess as nearly everybody else who lives in Norwich / Norfolk. The main users of this 'subsidy' would appear to be commuters to or in London.

If we are ever to get close to meeting our climate change targets, then getting huge numbers of cars and Lorries off the road will be essential. We also know that tens of thousands of premature deaths and respiratory illnesses are caused by vehicular pollution. Hard to see how we resolve these problems without recognising the importance of developing a genuinely well-functioning rail network as a part of progressive public transport policy. There are plenty of examples from around the world to suggest what one might look like. There is a huge win to be had here if we could only develop the will and competence to make the railways work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, horsefly said:

If we are ever to get close to meeting our climate change targets, then getting huge numbers of cars and Lorries off the road will be essential. We also know that tens of thousands of premature deaths and respiratory illnesses are caused by vehicular pollution. Hard to see how we resolve these problems without recognising the importance of developing a genuinely well-functioning rail network as a part of progressive public transport policy. There are plenty of examples from around the world to suggest what one might look like. There is a huge win to be had here if we could only develop the will and competence to make the railways work.

The problem is the cost of travel is prohibitively expensive on trains. It's cheaper to fly the length of Australia (Melbourne to Cairns - approx 2000 miles) than it is to get a train from Newcastle to Birmingham (approx 200 miles) in the UK. Until the price of rail travel is resolved, it can't be part of the solution, especially these days.

I tend to drive everywhere and don't even look at the train as an option - the only time I use the rail network is if I go into London, I park somewhere near one of the end of the line tube stops and use that to go into and around central london. I don't get the train the whole way because it would cost me about double what the petrol does.

You're right, there are plenty of examples of successful and functioning rail systems around the world, but our whole rail network would require MASSIVE reforms to even run competently, let along to the levels that other countries manage.

Edited by kick it off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kick it off said:

The problem is the cost of travel is prohibitively expensive on trains. It's cheaper to fly the length of Australia (Melbourne to Cairns - approx 2000 miles) than it is to get a train from Newcastle to Birmingham (approx 200 miles) in the UK. Until the price of rail travel is resolved, it can't be part of the solution, especially these days.

I tend to drive everywhere and don't even look at the train as an option - the only time I use the rail network is if I go into London, I park somewhere near one of the end of the line tube stops and use that to go into and around central london. I don't get the train the whole way because it would cost me about double what the petrol does.

You're right, there are plenty of examples of successful and functioning rail systems around the world, but our whole rail network would require MASSIVE reforms to even run competently, let along to the levels that other countries manage.

Couldn't agree more! Public transport of all forms needs to be affordable, fast, reliable, comfortable, and convenient. It was a huge (foreseeable) error to think that this would be achieved through privatisation and the deregulated free market.  It is hard to see an easy way forward given the state of the economy and what 12-years of dreadful Tory mismanagement has bequeathed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

OK - This is meant to be a ruthless, probing discussion about the railways - and do we need them?

The rail industry is subsidized by the tax-payer to the tune of about £7Bn per year. I use the train on average about zero times a year - the same I would guess as nearly everybody else who lives in Norwich / Norfolk. The main users of this 'subsidy' would appear to be commuters to or in London.

I say why should we in the sticks (or nearly any regional city) subsize the CHOICE of those that wish to work in central London and then live elsewhere - make them pay the full cost of their transport / lifestyle choices or else they and their firms should move elsewhere where transport is cheaper. A forced levelling up.

Alternatively, I demand the same density of rail connections here as in London.

More reasonably, perhaps we should limit any subsidy to just the 'intercity' and freight routes.

City living is basically more efficient than rural living, because less individual travel over distances is required. Given the huge importance of reducing our energy consumption, maximising efficiency of transport in energy terms for both within cities and between cities should be a priority for getting as many cars off the road as possible. Trains are the best means of transport for this, which means the only debate about  trains should be how to promote the maximum usage for these purposes and what reform needs to happen to achieve that.

In contrast, the low population density in rural areas means there is little environmental gain from people in the countryside who necessarily have larger carbon footprints individually. Rural living is a luxury for many rather than a necessity, so it seems fair enough that they make their own transport arrangements when there's no benefit from making the huge investment in infrastructure to serve few people for a far smaller benefit.

I also live in the countryside; public transport is non-existent within about 15km. Consequently, I have a van for work and an SUV for leisure that I can use for work if the van has a problem. If I lived in a city, I could save myself that expense, but that's part of the price I pay for living in the countryside; I don't begrudge those in the cities this benefit of city life given that the facility of public transport for them reduces the overall environmental burden.

Rail is subsidised, yes, but sadly a lot of those subsidies go to profits that feed dividends for overseas stakeholders such as most of the nationalised rail operators in Europe, essentially resulting in British travellers in Britain subsiding the travel of passengers in France., Germany, Italy, and other places.

Overall, I think rail needs massive reform. It'd be interesting to create a model where regional franchises are allocated by season ticket holders for the existing franchise, who should be trusted as the most likely to want a balance of affordability and efficiency. Some sort of direct democratic accountability for operators rather than leaving it down to government committees maybe.

But rail should be the way forward, not something to get rid of.

 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we have a rail transport system that has its belief that shareholders come first, then profit not customers will stop it being a cheap, well used service.

Our local bus service has realised that if you halve the fares, you will double the custom. Not the railways, its trains half empty then double the fares.

As has been said, return continental flights can be cheaper than a reurn train fare within the UK.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve always considered that major utilities such as water, electricity, gas, and also railways should be in public ownership.  That doesn’t make them any more efficient, as any that remember the days of British Rail will probably agree, but it does at least make them directly accountable to the Government with any potential profits being reinvested directly into the organisation. 

During Covid the railways received inordinately large subsidies to maintain services and run empty trains despite government advice being to avoid using public transport.  However, despite the Government having effectively kept railway staff in employment over that period, pretty much as soon as the country started to come out of lockdown and function relatively normally we’ve had ongoing threats of strikes from Mick Lynch et al with services being disrupted significantly.  As a result many people have simply got out of the habit of using trains which are seen as expensive and unreliable.  They simply cannot continue without massive reform and modernisation, particularly of working practices, and in the absence of that the whole system may just wither and die, but this is something that Mick Lynch seems unwilling to accept.  He’s basically in the same situation as Arthur Scargill whose militant political views and resistance to reforms in the 1980s led to the complete decimation of the mining industry and the loss of jobs of all of the union members he was supposed to represent.

Edited by Naturalcynic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a situation where the Post Office and Royal Mail are claiming they cannot give a decent payrise but are handing out up to £2Bn to shareholders and the share price is up 7%.

However we still have our mail and parcels delivered each day. 

But many train services are cancelled or altered because of maintenance etc. So the customer doesn't get what they paid for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

I’ve always considered that major utilities such as water, electricity, gas, and also railways should be in public ownership.  That doesn’t make them any more efficient, as any that remember the days of British Rail will probably agree, but it does at least make them directly accountable to the Government with any potential profits being reinvested directly into the organisation. 

Completely agree.

The UK is the only country I've lived in where train travel is so prohibitively expensive. It's nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to take the train to LHR on an all too regular basis. However in order to get anything like a sensibly priced ticket (under £100 return) meant being on certain return trains off peak from Liverpool St - and given the vagaries of return flight delays inevitably usually meant hanging avoid for several hours at Liverpool St.

I gave up with the whole idea and always drive now. Convenient, flexible and even usually cheaper including parking.

The train may work for some but for many it's just a non-starter - literally these days.

Make intercity very cheap but full unsubsidized price for commuters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I used to take the train to LHR on an all too regular basis. However in order to get anything like a sensibly priced ticket (under £100 return) meant being on certain return trains off peak from Liverpool St - and given the vagaries of return flight delays inevitably usually meant hanging avoid for several hours at Liverpool St.

I gave up with the whole idea and always drive now. Convenient, flexible and even usually cheaper including parking.

The train may work for some but for many it's just a non-starter - literally these days.

Make intercity very cheap but full unsubsidized price for commuters.

There is an assumption here, and in the OP that everyone has the choice to drive. Which they don't. 

Railways provide essential transport for essential services. Would you rather the government/taxpayer paid for taxis for everyone who has access to free/reduced price essential travel. It already happens at huge cost to local government for those living in the countryside. I know someone who lives in the countryside who had a child collected by taxi everyday for specialist schooling, an hour trip. This is not uncommon.

I don't disagree that the siphoning off of money from our own network's profits to foreign owners is wrong but there is a much wider picture. Pricing is an issue for casual tickets and isn't consistent, you can book in advance and get a return to Liverpool street for £15 but it costs the same to get a return ticket to Diss. It puts people off even looking.

I use the railway every day, by choice. I can drive, but for my journey it's actually 10-15mins quicker, on par with petrol price and is far more environmentally friendly. I only wish more people would take that choice. I cycle 3 miles to the station every day, I watch car after car pass me with one person sat inside, probably not going much further than I am. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thumbbass said:

There is an assumption here, and in the OP that everyone has the choice to drive. Which they don't. 

Railways provide essential transport for essential services. Would you rather the government/taxpayer paid for taxis for everyone who has access to free/reduced price essential travel. It already happens at huge cost to local government for those living in the countryside. I know someone who lives in the countryside who had a child collected by taxi everyday for specialist schooling, an hour trip. This is not uncommon.

I don't disagree that the siphoning off of money from our own network's profits to foreign owners is wrong but there is a much wider picture. Pricing is an issue for casual tickets and isn't consistent, you can book in advance and get a return to Liverpool street for £15 but it costs the same to get a return ticket to Diss. It puts people off even looking.

I use the railway every day, by choice. I can drive, but for my journey it's actually 10-15mins quicker, on par with petrol price and is far more environmentally friendly. I only wish more people would take that choice. I cycle 3 miles to the station every day, I watch car after car pass me with one person sat inside, probably not going much further than I am. 

 

I haven't got anything against rail except it's patchy nature and huge costs. If you can make it work for you then good.

However, for whatever reasons for many (nearly all) of us it doesn't work so why expect us all to heavily subsidize your choice?

If you wish us all to spend £7Bn a year subsidizing rail, heavily tilted towards London and the SE, then I expect to see a lot more train stations and reopened lines in Norfolk / Norwich which I can use at a sensible price. Else the rest of the country is simply cross- subsidizing Londoners (and a few others). ASLEF beware.

Daily short commutes can be done by bus but intercity and freight is I think more sensible to subsidize.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

However, for whatever reasons for many (nearly all) of us it doesn't work so why expect us all to heavily subsidize your choice?

This is a nonsense argument.

'I don't have kids, why should I subsidise schools?'

'I don't drive why should my taxes subsidise road upkeep?'

'I have private medical care, why should my taxes subsidise the NHS?'

Etc etc etc...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, king canary said:

This is a nonsense argument.

'I don't have kids, why should I subsidise schools?'

'I don't drive why should my taxes subsidise road upkeep?'

'I have private medical care, why should my taxes subsidise the NHS?'

Etc etc etc...

No - It's a question of degree. Unlike all of the above where the huge majority do use such things - here the vast majority do not - apart from in a few locales principally near London. More, even if I wished to make use of them here in Norwich - and indeed I've tried - they are proven impractical.

It's not as if I'm asking you to subsidize my transatlantic or pacific flights, am I?

What I think is that the subsidy should be levied / collected principally in the areas that get the most benefit from them - and not in areas such as Norwich with 1 station (and even that is awkward to get to from the burbs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I haven't got anything against rail except it's patchy nature and huge costs. If you can make it work for you then good.

However, for whatever reasons for many (nearly all) of us it doesn't work so why expect us all to heavily subsidize your choice?

If you wish us all to spend £7Bn a year subsidizing rail, heavily tilted towards London and the SE, then I expect to see a lot more train stations and reopened lines in Norfolk / Norwich which I can use at a sensible price. Else the rest of the country is simply cross- subsidizing Londoners (and a few others). ASLEF beware.

Daily short commutes can be done by bus but intercity and freight is I think more sensible to subsidize.

 

Rail travel is far more environmentally friendly than travelling by car. We all live on the same planet although given some of the posts I've read it is questionable. We should be encouraging use of more efficient and carbon-free means of travel for everyone. 

Why should someone who doesn't own a car, or choose to make an environmentally sound decision, have to be subject to the pollution other people's cars emit? The truth of the matter is that you may not have a choice, and neither do they, but everyone is paying a price one way or the other. I'd rather it was financial than continuing to watch the planet burn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Thumbbass said:

Rail travel is far more environmentally friendly than travelling by car. We all live on the same planet although given some of the posts I've read it is questionable. We should be encouraging use of more efficient and carbon-free means of travel for everyone. 

Why should someone who doesn't own a car, or choose to make an environmentally sound decision, have to be subject to the pollution other people's cars emit? The truth of the matter is that you may not have a choice, and neither do they, but everyone is paying a price one way or the other. I'd rather it was financial than continuing to watch the planet burn.

I'm playing devil's advocate TB - I quite like the rail BUT not at any cost and certainly not to be held to ransom by the train drivers (I have sympathy for the much more lowly paid workers). That's why much of it was shut down by Beeching. It was hopeless.

We have to make a justifiable case why it costs us so much for what it now delivers. It seems from some of the responses it's a rather hazy sacred cow with no real argument for. What else could we spend £7BN on - insulation, heat pumps - I could go on all of which would have a much larger environmental benefit.

I wonder if we were to start again with rail we'd build it / fund it the same way?

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Thumbbass said:

Rail travel is far more environmentally friendly than travelling by car. We all live on the same planet although given some of the posts I've read it is questionable. We should be encouraging use of more efficient and carbon-free means of travel for everyone. 

Not if the trains are virtually empty, in which case it’s far more environmentally friendly to not run the train in the first place.  Public transport is only environmentally less damaging if it’s actually used.  For me to use the train to get to a home game I have to drive 10 miles to the station, pay to park the car, get on the train, change at Ely, wait for another train and eventually get in to Norwich two and a half hours after leaving home which isn’t really that good for a trip of less than 70 miles.  What’s the incentive for me to go by train, particularly when there’s never any certainty that they’re actually going to run?  As for carbon-free means of travel, what do you suggest?  I’m not cycling to and from the football!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm playing devil's advocate TB - I quite like the rail BUT not at any cost and certainly not to be held to ransom by the train drivers (I have sympathy for the much more lowly paid workers). That's why much of it was shut down by Beeching. It was hopeless.

We have to make a justifiable case why it costs us so much for what it now delivers. It seems from some of the responses it's a rather hazy sacred cow with no real argument for. What else could we spend £7BN on - insulation, heat pumps - I could go on all of which would have a much larger environmental benefit.

I wonder if we were to start again with rail we'd build it / fund it the same way?

I have my own axe to grind with the FOH workforce particularly with Greater Anglia. Many of whom would conveniently disappear at the sign of disruption. So I won't be fighting their corner, Mick Lynch can continue that. I've consciously tuned out of their industrial action as I'm torn.

I think there are a number of studies that correlate higher GDP figures with investment in public transport. It's not the black-hole it might appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Not if the trains are virtually empty, in which case it’s far more environmentally friendly to not run the train in the first place.  Public transport is only environmentally less damaging if it’s actually used.  For me to use the train to get to a home game I have to drive 10 miles to the station, pay to park the car, get on the train, change at Ely, wait for another train and eventually get in to Norwich two and a half hours after leaving home which isn’t really that good for a trip of less than 70 miles.  What’s the incentive for me to go by train, particularly when there’s never any certainty that they’re actually going to run?  As for carbon-free means of travel, what do you suggest?  I’m not cycling to and from the football!

You make David Attenborough cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Thumbbass said:

think there are a number of studies that correlate higher GDP figures with investment in public transport. It's not the black-hole it might appear.

Ok - Then the case must be made for in Norwich stations at Thorpe Business Park & Cringleford on existing lines as a minimum and quite possibly light rail from the NNUH / UEA to the centre and on towards say Sprowston. The Marriot line could also re-instated. 

It's what any sensible European city has.

However, I don't believe that will happen and then for most it becomes a questionable niche mode of transport and yes a fiscal black hole of very questionable environmental credibility given the usage and large dead-weight support / maintenance costs (carbon) involved! 

Lastly - Do you think £100Bn+ on HS2 will benefit you or anybody practically? FYI I was once told by someone quite senior that the real reason it's being built is to alleviate (or expand) capacity on the existing commuter lines into London from Bucks and Herts. etc.  Again, really a London centric infrastructure build spun as something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Ok - Then the case must be made for in Norwich stations at Thorpe Business Park & Cringleford on existing lines as a minimum and quite possibly light rail from the NNUH / UEA to the centre and on towards say Sprowston. The Marriot line could also re-instated. 

It's what any sensible European city has.

However, I don't believe that will happen and then for most it becomes a questionable niche mode of transport and yes a fiscal black hole of very questionable environmental credibility given the usage and large dead-weight support / maintenance costs (carbon) involved! 

Lastly - Do you think £100Bn+ on HS2 will benefit you or anybody practically? FYI I was once told by someone quite senior that the real reason it's being built is to alleviate (or expand) capacity on the existing commuter lines into London from Bucks and Herts. etc.  Again, really a London centric infrastructure build spun as something else.

I don't know enough about the HS2 scheme to comment. On the face of it it appears to be a major disaster budget-wise. But then we seem to have lurched from one to the next with this government. Maybe Michelle Mone has a sideline in concrete sleepers that are a foot too short.

People buy/rent houses/flats near to stations or in towns with good links purposely for the convenience of the service. Those towns and areas benefit because people are able to commute to better paid jobs from areas with cheaper accommodation. It's only niche for you because you don't use it. For some people it's the only mode of transport they do use. 

An affordable and more consistent pricing structure and profits being reinvested into network improvements and not siphoned out would be on my wishlist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Ok - Then the case must be made for in Norwich stations at Thorpe Business Park & Cringleford on existing lines as a minimum and quite possibly light rail from the NNUH / UEA to the centre and on towards say Sprowston. The Marriot line could also re-instated. 

It's what any sensible European city has.

However, I don't believe that will happen and then for most it becomes a questionable niche mode of transport and yes a fiscal black hole of very questionable environmental credibility given the usage and large dead-weight support / maintenance costs (carbon) involved! 

Lastly - Do you think £100Bn+ on HS2 will benefit you or anybody practically? FYI I was once told by someone quite senior that the real reason it's being built is to alleviate (or expand) capacity on the existing commuter lines into London from Bucks and Herts. etc.  Again, really a London centric infrastructure build spun as something else.

HS2 was initially quite a good idea and would have taken a lot of the fast trains off the existing network therefore freeing it up for  better commuter capacity. Well, that was the plan that made sense to me, but this government took too long, too much money and sold it to the public appallingly badly. It is now a bit of an albatross and has lost too much support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't drive, so rail is my preferred option for longer distances within the UK if flights don't get me close. The problem in Bolton for a long time was that the line was not electrified (Google the Farnworth Tunnel if you're really interested) and this was only relatively recently completed, along with Platform 5 being recommissioned.

The problem with rail is that other governments seem to benefit more as shareholders than our current government, so the prices are kept high. I accept that modernisation was needed, but it does look like shareholders earned far more from it than what the railways got and indeed needed. And as others have said, if you want to get cars off the road, rail's an obvious place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

I'm not sure where my nearest railway station is 

Thurso? Bergen?

🤔

Crikey, are you on the Shetland Islands or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Reykjavík 😀

Nearly ended up there for a half-marathon in October last year, but the pandemic put paid to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...