Companies using RPI to put up prices

Lol groen, you can't have competition. Do you have any idea how much the track costs and costs to maintain and the amount of backlash when they want to make new tracks.
Now imagine the cost and complaints building 3 tracks all to the same places.

The train operators are private, not private/public.
 
Private with state sanction monopoly privileges and centralised price system is more fascist than private. So that is why it is public/private, as we can't realy see where it starts and ends. Sure it operates for profit, but with many attributes of a public company.
 
One way or the other, if it is going to have state enabled monopolies and centralised price system then it should not operate for profit.

Although I would prefer a complete privatisation to a complete public sector run.

Take my favourite train operator at the moment. National Express East Anglia, "National Express East Anglia is the brand name of London Eastern Railway Ltd, a British train operating company. It is part of the National Express Group "

National express group, "The National Express brand was created in 1972 by the state-owned National Bus Company (NBC) to bring together the express bus and coach services operated by the bus operating companies within the NBC group.[3] The National Express network was largely a branding and management exercise, with services continuing to be operated by the individual companies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail more info

I tried to edit the wiki article with ie fascist as the end of the first paragraph, but they won't have it. "Network Rail is the government-created owner and operator of most of the rail infrastructure in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales).[4]; it is not responsible for railway infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Network Rail is a British "not for dividend" entity, technically a private company limited by guarantee, whose principal asset is Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, a company limited by shares."

They could start by allowing different train operators on to the same tracks and competing at different price levels for different levels of service quality.
 
Last edited:
Complete privatisation means profit, that's not a good idea. Especially in a sector where it is impossible to have competition.

And no they can't let different train companies on the track. It makes no sense and doesn't create competition.
You can't run trains at the same time and the vast majority of train use is for commuting. Which means set times.

I actually think they have the right idea (al be it poorly implemented) with network rail. A "private" not for profit company, that is eventually meant to operate without goverment spending and any profit is reinvested.
 
Why is it impossible?

Take for example my train journey where they charge me £220 per month to catch a train about 10 miles, the train a class 315 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_315

If they allowed competition on this section of the track and another operator came with a Mark 3 for example and designated seat numbers that came at a specific time in the morning and cost £10 more or the same price. This would encourage higher standards from National express and they would either have to improve their standards or reduce prices.

Practically and technically there is no reason not to allow competing trains operators on the same track.
 
You can't have two trains Running at the same time.
Most people are constrained by time, so will catch the train depending on time, not cost or services.

You would also have to at least double the capacity of the network and that's not going to happen.
 
Of course not, unless they have multiple lines going through the station and multiple platforms. But there would be still competition if there was one train of A and the B and A and then B etc or even a B train every three A trains etc. The train can just come in afterwards.

That is completely incorrect, people go to the train station and catch the next train that arrives going towards their destination because there is no choice in the matter.


If there was a choice then people might actually consider the options and pick a train that leaves at a specific time because it offers allocated seating and heating. You would have not have to double the capacity, just share it.
 
Last edited:
groen said:
Of course not, unless they have multiple lines going through the station and multiple platforms. But there would be still competition if there was one train of A and the B and A and then B etc or even a B train every three A trains etc. The train can just come in afterwards.
Click to expand...

It can't just come in afterwards. It's not a road. The tracks is split up into sections . You can't have trains following each other. Bupy splitting the service up. You massively increase overheads and most people are time constraint so they still have no competition.
And they are going to choose a train that makes them late for work, or add several hours on to their commute.

Really what you want can't happen and for that reason won't happen.
 
nothing beats the crosscountry service with a whole 2 carriages (and then 2x 2/3rds with the engines).

its astonishing to be honest. a train from york to leeds has the same length and this one is constantly packed travelling through most of the major cities in england.
 
groen said:
That is completely incorrect, people go to the train station and catch the next train that arrives going towards their destination because there is no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

Most people who use the trains know the exact train they are going to catch. In fact most of them catch the same one everyday commuting to work.
 
People catch a train based on the time at the moment because they have more often than not have no choice in the operator or the quality of the train, ok in some instances they chose a high class and pay double the price for a bigger seat. But that is not competition, it is still the same operator and the same train and same price system.

In instances of competing on speed then of course they would require additional tracks, which in this day and age is not technically impossible and on some routes is more than practical, it already occurs, with express trains and non express trains etc.

But when it comes to the train itself and added extras on the train, like allocated seating, heating, not breaking down every week etc. These are elements that could be competed on if there was not a centralised pricing system.
 
Glaucus said:
It can't just come in afterwards. It's not a road. The tracks is split up into sections . You can't have trains following each other. Bupy splitting the service up. You massively increase overheads and most people are time constraint so they still have no competition.
And they are going to choose a train that makes them late for work, or add several hours on to their commute.

Really what you want can't happen and for that reason won't happen.
Click to expand...

This.

Also who is signalling all these trains? a different company that covers all the signals?

And who is running the stations? This is currently done by the TOC for that area.

Having more companies will increase costs such as training and companies will be less flexible when staff are absent. Where would each company keep and maintain the trains? A new deopt for each one? or a new company to operate all the depots?
 
No groen, that isn't what happens. You can't just build new tracks, especially through cities. Just to have competition.

People now what train they are getting and as said use the same ones most days. Becuase works shifts for maor people are set.

Do you have any clue how much tracks cost, let alone buying the land and kicking resident and companies out and then all the other work, like building bridges for the roads.

It's simply not possible and you need to have a think how trains work and that you can't just have trains line a stern.
 
It is more than technically feasible to have one central signally authority that is compensated by the train operators. There are many industries that have competition that enjoy a central regulatory authority that can be private as well. The stations can and should be owned and run by owners of the station, where train operators pay the stations to use the station or the stations take a cut out of the passenger ticket sales from that station.
 
groen said:
It is more than technically feasible to have one central signally authority that is compensated by the train operators. There are many industries that have competition that enjoy a central regulatory authority that can be private as well. The stations can and should be owned and run by owners of the station, where train operators pay the stations to use the station or the stations take a cut out of the passenger ticket sales from that station.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue, that's what we currently have, network rail owns the track and signalling and runs all that stuff. The TOCs purchase time slots off networkrail.

The difference is the other companies are limited by tracks and this is a huge restriction.
 
It's all part of the plan. We all going to get poor to pay off the debts. The debts are being inflated away. There are regular dictates from government/BoE to exercise restraint when conducting pay reviews. However you never hear them asking the same of businesses when setting prices.
 
I am not talking about building new tracks all over the plane and completing changing the way everything works.

All i would like to see is a train from a different operator arrive at my station. I don't see why virgin can't operate one train an hour on my route with a brand new train, charging £10 a week more for a ticket. That would not affect anyone or cause massive disruption to the existing fascist model.
 
groen said:
All i would like to see is a train from a different operator arrive at my station. I don't see why virgin can't operate one train an hour on my route with a brand new train, charging £10 a week more for a ticket. That would not affect anyone but the fascist monopoly currently operating on the route.
Click to expand...

Becuase it adds complexity for no reason, most passengers are time constrained.

You going to get to work an hour early or an hour late?

What we need is for one company to take over and run not for profit.
With profit going bald into buying more carriages or newer trains. Rather than what we have now, multiple companies, with multiple pointless overheads. Like HR, fitters and the like and of course they run for a profit, not to improve services.

The whol competition on the railway doesn't and can't work. It is far to restrained compared to other industries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom