I think the need to refurbish the Houses of Parliament is a great opportunity to move everything to Manchester (temporarily if it has to be), just to get MPs to think in a less London-centric way. There's work outside of London for sure, but it's the basket that people continue to want to pile all the eggs into.
Trains in the UK vs other countries
- Thread starter Christmas themed thank
- Start date
I think the need to refurbish the Houses of Parliament is a great opportunity to move everything to Manchester (temporarily if it has to be), just to get MPs to think in a less London-centric way. There's work outside of London for sure, but it's the basket that people continue to want to pile all the eggs into.
There are plenty of options. Cambridge and Manchester are looking very attractive to me at the moment and there's also the M4 corridor or the south west coast where a lot of financial institutions have a presence.
Moving outside London also gives you an opportunity to shine as London typically poaches talent (plus the blaggers) from the regions and results in less competition elsewhere.
Moving outside London also gives you an opportunity to shine as London typically poaches talent (plus the blaggers) from the regions and results in less competition elsewhere.
Cambridge is a beautiful city, having grown up there I cannot recommend it enough as a town to live in. However, it's becoming incredibly expensive to live there now, even compared to London. You're not the only one who's wanting to move out of London to places like Cambridge, so the prices have sky rocketed. Add in the ever expanding bio-tech industries and it's a very expensive city now, as are the surrounding towns and villages. There are of course cheap places, Kings Hedges for example won't cost you a fortune, nor is it Cambridge as you'd imagine. However a house on Hills Road or one of the side streets will cost you minimum £1M these days.
In reply to this original thread, trains in...
Italy, horrific, don't bother. The one from Milan Malpensa to Milan central is lovely the rest are ****. Mussolini had taste though, Milan station is a stunning building.
Spain, simular to Italy, minus fascist leaders making nice buildings.
Netherlands, incredible, clean, efficient, comfortable, fantastic.
Germany, A train was once a minute late, I was not impressed. Once on the train much the same as NL.
Sweden, the few trains I've taken were very good.
Denmark, puts the rest to shame.
France, TGV is trés bon, not tried locals, but I imagine they're usually striking so I'd take a car.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2015
- Posts
- 4,058
I often take the Frecciarossa between Milan and Rome (it's quicker than flying) and the trains have always been on time, never broken down and been very comfortable on board. Totally not the norm for Italy.
Dutch trains are very hit and miss. They frequently have signalling problems between Schiphol and Amsterdam so unless I usually don't take the train unless I'm not in a rush to get to Eindhoven or if I'm flying home from Schiphol the following day.
Dutch trains are very hit and miss. They frequently have signalling problems between Schiphol and Amsterdam so unless I usually don't take the train unless I'm not in a rush to get to Eindhoven or if I'm flying home from Schiphol the following day.
Okay. Third time for the hard of thinking, then. Companies need money to function, typically through investment for large, capital-intensive companies like a rail network. They secure investment by people expecting a return on that investment - i.e. profit. Without that profit, people do not invest. More than this, the profit returned needs to be competitive with other companies. If company A gives you 1% return on your investment and company B gives you 3% return, then you invest in company B. Additionally, both need to be competitive with inflation.
You seem to think that the profit part of the pie is unnecessary because the company 'already has money' to cover its operating costs. You're missing the point. The profit is necessary to secure investment and investment is necessary to the company both being established and expanding.
I don't think you quite get it. Firstly they can't exactly 'grow' like most companies since they are a utility. Secondly that investment that is normally provided by investors is actually taken from users. Have a look at the pie chart. It's a rather large wedge.
I get it just fine. Can I ask if any other posters are having trouble understanding what I wrote because I've said it three times now in increasingly redundant detail?
Dis86. Firstly, when you say investment is actually taken from users, can I take it by users you mean customers? Because the revenue from those who use the rail services is "a wedge" on the chart, it's the entire chart. The chart is a break down of how revenue is spent. There's nothing on the chart that isn't "from users".
And yes, of course rail networks - just like other utilities - can "grow". They can improve tracks, improve services, add more trains, staff, lines... And as well as growth going forward, investment was also required upfront to get started.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'm not sure the logic totally follows here - being the source of something doesn't mean that others can't improve it or that you can't learn from how others implement it. It is sometimes claimed that England invented football, the Germans typically play that better too...
Although slight flippancy aside I don't know enough about the situation to comment properly.
I think you and Dis86 might be talking at slightly crossed purposes - I think he's saying that the investment in the rail network infrastructure is paid for by customers (as per the pie chart) so what investors/shareholders are funding with their investment is the running of the company but they'll get 3% of what customers pay as the profit/shareholder dividend (although we don't know how much is held in reserve by the train company as an entity). As a bit of a subtext I think he may be questioning this model and the comparative risk/reward. While you're saying that without a 3% return (or whatever) then the investors won't put the money into running the company because otherwise why would you want to put your money into this option if you got nothing when you could use it to make returns elsewhere but you also acknowledge that the investment in network infrastructure comes largely from customers.
It looks as if you're both focusing on a particular angle but don't disagree on the fundamentals of how it operates in practice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 23,180
- Location
- Was 150 yds from OCUK - now 0.5 mile; they moved
UK rail pricing is silly for long journeys. It is cheaper and sometimes quicker to drive.
For example Inverness to Stoke - 7 hr journey on train, 6hrs in car. 1 car can hold 5 people, fuel cost £80. Train ticket £140 EACH!
For example Inverness to Stoke - 7 hr journey on train, 6hrs in car. 1 car can hold 5 people, fuel cost £80. Train ticket £140 EACH!
A large amount of the big investment in terms of what Network Rail are responsible for comes from government - the pie chart isn't showing all of the inward flows of cash into the rail network, I'd assume the 22p and 26p figures go straight to Network Rail and have been worked out based on how Network Rail spend their budgets.
I'm not an habitual train user, anywhere, but a few years back, when I'd visit my elder son, who lives in Bielefeld, Germany, I'd fly into Hanover, Dortmund, or Münster, or on occasion, Düsseldorf, and take the train to Bielefeld.
My wife sometimes came with me, and she once said, "The difference between Deutsche Bahn and British trains, is that people could eat off the floor on Deutsche Bahn, but on British trains, it looks like people have left their dinner on the floor."
We are talking at "cross-purposes" if you wish to see it like that. The thing is I am AWARE of that and trying to get them to understand it. When they make basic errors like confusing revenue with one of the wedges, I don't see them understanding. You could say we're focusing on different aspects if you like but what I'm trying to do is get them to accept that yes, I see their aspect and they don't understand that it's not enough. Rail networks are huge operations. They require investment. And to get it, they have to offer something in return. Dis86 is pedantically trying to ignore that and just keeps repeating that there is revenue from the customers with no awareness that I can see that outside investment is also needed. I mean when they declare absurdities like utilities cannot grow, there's a problem. Honestly, they're just being obtuse in service of trying to make an ideological point.
if only the public had any idea of the insane waste.
Improvements in East-West connectivity in the North is just as important (if not more than) HS2. Urban areas such as Warrington, Huddersfield and Bradford are under utilised in terms of population who could travel into the nearby cities but don't due to inadequate trains. I think the government is finally beginning to get this so things are looking promising.
I'm looking forward to Northern Rail's Pacer trains finally being replaced next year. On my last journey the noise of the engine drowned out my headphones whilst my legs were simultaneously crushed from seats which must have been designed for amputees.
As for other countries in recent memory:
Hong Kong MTR - Probably the best I've been on. Quiet, air-conditioned, clean (no food allowed), excellent graphical displays showing route information.
Taiwan - High speed trains look awesome and live up to their name. Local trains are nothing special but no complaints either. Easier to get around than I expected. Taipei metro is almost as good as HK, just not quite as 'polished'. However, big bonus for them finding and holding on to my glasses when I left them on the seat!
France - More expensive than expected, and lots of delays. TGV was quite infrequent so not very convenient.
I'm looking forward to Northern Rail's Pacer trains finally being replaced next year. On my last journey the noise of the engine drowned out my headphones whilst my legs were simultaneously crushed from seats which must have been designed for amputees.
As for other countries in recent memory:
Hong Kong MTR - Probably the best I've been on. Quiet, air-conditioned, clean (no food allowed), excellent graphical displays showing route information.
Taiwan - High speed trains look awesome and live up to their name. Local trains are nothing special but no complaints either. Easier to get around than I expected. Taipei metro is almost as good as HK, just not quite as 'polished'. However, big bonus for them finding and holding on to my glasses when I left them on the seat!
France - More expensive than expected, and lots of delays. TGV was quite infrequent so not very convenient.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
The reason why rail fares continue to increase is because the governments stated aim is to shift the burden of subsidy from the taxpayer to the fare payer. The result of this is higher fares.
I personally think its counter productive - it's in our interests as a nation to have a good value railway network, even if we don't personally use it ourselves. After years of constant price increases I have pretty much given up using the rail network now and drive absolutely everywhere - I used to make probably 70% of my longer distance journeys by train, now I drive myself, in a diesel powered car, for less money, contributing to higher emissions and higher levels of traffic.
How is it sensible to have a transport policy that pretty much encourages private car use in this way?
I personally think its counter productive - it's in our interests as a nation to have a good value railway network, even if we don't personally use it ourselves. After years of constant price increases I have pretty much given up using the rail network now and drive absolutely everywhere - I used to make probably 70% of my longer distance journeys by train, now I drive myself, in a diesel powered car, for less money, contributing to higher emissions and higher levels of traffic.
How is it sensible to have a transport policy that pretty much encourages private car use in this way?
This pretty much, the government needs people need to get out of cars but it just isn't going to happen when the prices are insane.
My house to Central London is 85 Miles.
My house to London costs £98.10 return PLUS tube, lets face it your not going to just go to Kings Cross.
If you split the ticket at Cambridge it costs £59.10 (WHY??!!).
I can drive to Stratford which is 79 Miles each way £16.95, pay to park for £6.50 and get the tube £9. A grand total of £32.45. If you drive to Epping or Redbridge it is even less but parking is pot luck.
Both options take about the same amount of time which is crazy but in a car your not stuck on an hourly service in a smelly hot train (tube aside) at times you may not want to travel.
Don't get me wrong you can get there a bit cheaper off peak or using Greater Anglia super off peak into Liverpool Street but it takes much more time and the times are really restrictive and its still only about equal to the car. If there is more than one of you then a car is a much better option.
Yes. Mass transit should be more efficient than individual transit for a number of obvious reasons. The fact that it costs so much more shows clearly that there is something wrong.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,166
The Government does have very odd views on travel. Why not privatise the roads?
They have? Virtually all bus and truck services operated on our roads are privately operated. The roads themselves are publicly operated - but so are the rails.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,166
I mean the roads themselves. The Government seems to think putting money into the roads is investment but doing the same with the trains is subsidy.
Peter Hitchens explains it brilliantly.