Companies using RPI to put up prices

There would be no rail infrastructure or trains if it was not private enterprise. So I realy struggle to see how you think that a public sector scheme of "no profit" is magically going to improve standards.

What will happen then is all the money they take will go in to the BIG government pot and will end up being spent on everything but improvements on the train network. No matter what polices or regulations the bureaucrats implement, it won't work, public sector can barely run a bath let a lone a national rail network. :D
 
There would be no rail infrastructure or trains if it was not private enterprise. So I realy struggle to see how you think that a public sector scheme of "no profit" is magically going to improve standards.

What will happen then is all the money they take will go in to the BIG government pot and will end up being spent on everything but improvements on the train network. No matter what polices or regulations the bureaucrats implement, it won't work, public sector can barely run a bath let a lone a national rail network. :D

No it doesn't go into the big goverment pot. As it is technically a private non for profit company. Network rail made 6.5billion last year, all of which is reinvested. Just shows more lack of understanding..

And what does railways initially being private got anything g to do with it. They had a certain mandate and still exist. Like moving coal within a mine. That are still private sidings.
 
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.

Currently the Thameslink route north of London is partly served by East Midlands and First Capital Connect (FCC) - The same ticket can be used on either service. In the morning and evening both are full and it makes no difference which service I choose except FCC are able to take me closer to work and the closest station to home. If they competed on price all you would have is everyone attempting to jam themselves onto an already full service.
 
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.

Well it does happen in some places. Certainly along the West Coast Mainline where Virgin and someone else operate - if you want to get on the Virgin train you need a specific ticket.
 
Well it does happen in some places. Certainly along the West Coast Mainline where Virgin and someone else operate - if you want to get on the Virgin train you need a specific ticket.

It happens most places, you have sprinters and cross country servicing same stations. But it doesn't add competition or improve anything like in other industries.

People already complain how complicated tickets are, let alone splitting the service up even more.
 
Last edited:
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.

Actually you appear to be continually missing groens point. I don't think he is saying there should be two 08:00 trains from A to B each morning operated by different companies. It is of course illogical and technically impossible for this to happen. He is saying that there should be an 08:00 GroenRail service and perhaps an 08:10 AcidhellTrains service, both from A to B.

Contrary to the AcidHells bleatings there is no technical reason why this cannot happen - infact in many areas it DOES happen. Travel from Plymouth to Exeter and you have a choice of frequent services from two operators. FGW only tickets are cheaper, as well.

What does prevent it happening on a more widespread basis is legal, not technical or physical restrictions. It is also not necessarily a railway thing but more a trait of the method of privatisation chosen.

The passenger rail companies, with a few notable low volume exceptions, are franchised. Large companies buy a franchise to operate a TOC. The franchise agreements will contain regulations they must adhere to and one of these relates to competition. It is in most TOC's franchise agreements which operating areas they can operate in. They are legally prevented from deciding to run a service on somebody elses 'patch'. This is a franchise business model thing, not a government thing or a railway thing. It is inherent in all franchise models because you don't want to cannibalise your market if you are the one selling the franchises. Try buying a Subway franchise to open next door, or even within a certain distance, of another branch of Subway. You can't. It's the same with the railways.

The other issue is that of ticketing revenues. Because of the fact the UK runs an integrated ticketing system, revenue is shared over routes where multiple TOC's operate. This means that in my example above, GroenRail and AcidHellTrains would both receive a cut of the tickets sold for each other's service. They can sell operator specific tickets but there are limitations to this. The benefit of this is you avoid issues such as those in America where you need a certain ticket for a certain train and connections are often a pain. The disadvantage is there is little incentive for price competition.

Competition does exist in some areas. You can for example chose London Midland or Virgin Trains to get from Birmingham to London, over two different routes with two different pricing structures. But sadly in this example price is all they can compete on - London Midland don’t have an ex InterCity franchise so don't have the routes to operate such trains on, and are instead limited to running more local trains, if that makes sense. Ie, Virgin will be quicker and there is little LM can do to avoid that.

New operators have arrived on the scene under open access regulations - ie, no franchise. But what they can and cannot do is again limited - the Rail Regulator doesn't want Bob Trains to come in, undercut Virgin Trains who have huge liabilities incurred as a result of the investment they've made in stock, and subsequently ruin the franchise and make it unsustainable. This tends to end up killing these ventures - see Wrexham and Shropshire who started London to Wrexham services but have withdrawn due to making a loss. A loss they may not have made had they been able to pick up people from stations closer to London - something they were prevented from doing.

I don't disagree its all ridiculous. To me it points at one thing - the privatised railway is a bad idea and is better run as a non-profit making state run enterprise. However sadly with the system we have now much of what would appear to make sense can never happen, and the steps that would require it to happen are all but impossible.
 
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...

No they don't. They catch a train because of the time they need to get to and from work. It's that simple.
 
Well if you read my last post, I picked up on that and say it does exist. But it doesn't introduce competition.
That competition is impossible. It's not workable, becuase you cant have trains running at the same time and that's the point. Two companies running at different times, is not true competition, especially when vast percentage of passengers are time restricted.

Just like I said when he said have alternatibpng trains every 30mins. Is he really going to work an 30mins early and leve work 30mins late, just to use a different service, that will have even higher operating cost becuase their will be even more TOCs
 
Last edited:
No they don't. They catch a train because of the time they need to get to and from work. It's that simple.

Well no, it's not. Commuters do, but commuters are not the only people to use trains. When I use the train, my time is usually dictated by the availability of a service or the price of the service in question.
 
and when Network Rail need to take a possession of the line to carry out upgrades they have to negotiate with 10 operators instead of 2.

i'm not saying the current system works, and i'm not saying your idea does not, but nearly all conversations about the railway include a massive underestimation of the complexity of the British railway system and this one is no different.
 
[TW]Fox;20841010 said:
Well no, it's not. Commuters do, but commuters are not the only people to use trains. When I use the train, my time is usually dictated by the availability of a service or the price of the service in question.

No, but the majority of train use is by commuters, who don't have the flexibility to travel 30 minutes later or earlier depending on price.

(63% in 2008 and I imagine this has probably increased)

http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/railways/nrtsupdate.pdf
 
So only 63% of people catching a train are going to and from work. Whilst thats a majority it's not nearly as big a majority as you need to go around categorically stating its 'that simple' that people only catch a train to go to work!
 
63% plus a % which again is time constrained. Even out side of commuting. People have places to go by certain times, or don't wont massive inconvience of wasting an extra hour of their day.
It's a pretty low number which is totally not time constrained.
 
You don't need to be 'totally not time constrained' to choose between an XX:05 and an XX:15 service if they are priced differently. Heck I'm not exactly 'totally not time constrained' when I travel yet I'm still able to pick based on price to a certain extent. Mind you this is completely academic as the current setup more or less prevents this sort of thing happening anyway.
 
[TW]Fox;20841171 said:
You don't need to be 'totally not time constrained' to choose between an XX:05 and an XX:15 service if they are priced differently. Mind you this is completely academic as the current setup more or less prevents this sort of thing happening anyway.

If there's a 10 minute service. Plenty of services are 30mins or hour.
So add all that extra cost for services that still can't compete directly and most users can't use.
 
For someone that doesn't earn a very large amount of money, trains are disgustingly expensive. Disgusting.

Cheaper to go pretty much any useful journey via car or bus, in a quicker time too. And no, I'm not one to book a ticket 50 years in advance.
 
For someone that doesn't earn a very large amount of money, trains are disgustingly expensive. Disgusting.

Cheaper to go pretty much any useful journey via car or bus, in a quicker time too. And no, I'm not one to book a ticket 50 years in advance.

I find them really quite reasonable for long distance travel - on journeys where you don't spontaneously decide with 10 minutes notice to travel on a 400 mile round trip therefore the requirement to purchase in advance is completely acceptable. Nobody complains about the price of walk-on plane tickets.

I'm going to London between Christmas and New Year. £65 return in First Class, 440 mile round trip, 3 hours 20 minutes each way. To drive is 4.5 hours and £82 there and back in fuel, plus parking.

Often, trains work. Infact sometimes for local trips as well. Went Christmas Shopping in Exeter with the GF the other weekend. 85 mile round trip Two return tickets, with Railcards, £5 each, walk-on fare. Fuel in the car £20 + parking.

Yet travel from Taunton to Bristol, a similar distance, and it's 15 quid each...
 
Back
Top Bottom