Rail fares rise above inflation rate.

[Freakbro]

Why not food too which is arguably more important than all the above?

I knew you were going to ask that

 

[Irish_Tom]

It would be interesting to see what a properly run nationalised railway system could achieve with the level of funding received by all the privatised entities currently in operation.

This is what I'd like to know.

I was under the impression that things like the average age of rolling stock, reliability and customer satisfaction we so poor prior to privatisation because the government had cut (or frozen) spending precisely because they knew everything was about to be privatised.

 

[Jimz]

Why is there not another strike to change this and get the prices lower?

We need to do what the Students did and just go around London and burn things...

 

[Nutella33]

you might want to look at this thread: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18028196

finding a job is stupidly difficult right now. there are more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available, so most dont, as you said "CHOOSE to work miles and miles away from where they live" but are forced to because their "choice" is either work far away or starve

to be fair he thinks only 10% of the people use trains and its all full of business men who can afford to take a dip in their disposable income, whilst everyone should just move to be near where ever they need to go. he has clearly never even been near the service he is trying to make points about.

i spend roughly a quarter of my wage on travelling on the trains and i only do a weekend journey, with a railcard. i would honestly loose just short of half my income doing that trip without a railcard as it is. nevermind that it keeps going up roughly 5% every year whilst my income has stayed the same.

 

[estebanrey]

you might want to look at this thread: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18028196

finding a job is stupidly difficult right now. there are more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available, so most dont, as you said "CHOOSE to work miles and miles away from where they live" but are forced to because their "choice" is either work far away or starve

That doesn't explain why they don't move though.

Of course there will be a small number of people who use the trains out of necessity, pointing out this minority doesn't detract from my argument which is about economic commuters. The business types who sit on train with their lap tops etc who have chosen to work in, say, London because wages are higher there but don't want to live in London as it would mean less disposable income.

I'm basically using the same argument which is accepted as valid point when it comes to discussing things like HS2. Why should the average tax payer subsidise a load of over paid suits getting from London to Birmingham quicker?

 

[Gornall]

That doesn't explain why they don't move though.

Of course there will be a small number of people who use the trains out of necessity, pointing out this minority doesn't detract from my argument which is about economic commuters. The business types who sit on train with their lap tops etc who have chosen to work in, say, London because wages are higher there but don't want to live in London as it would mean less disposable income.

I'm basically using the same argument which is accepted as valid point when it comes to discussing things like HS2. Why should the average tax payer subsidise a load of over paid suits getting from London to Birmingham quicker?

Not everyone who travels on trains or even to London is on the megabucks. What about that don't you get?

From my experience they don't even represent the majority of people on my train let alone 90%.

Are you naive enough to think everyone in a suit is mega rich?

 

[estebanrey]

Not everyone who travels on trains or even to London is on the megabucks. What about that don't you get?

Which is what my second paragraph you quoted basically stated, talk about comprehension fail.

From my experience they don't even represent the majority of people on my train let alone 90%.

Are you naive enough to think everyone in a suit is mega rich?

You brought in the term "mega rich" not me. I only ever said 'above average wages'.

 

[Haggisman]

That doesn't explain why they don't move though.

The difference in house prices far outweighs the difference in train fares, i.e. you're talking a £3-400/month rent increase against a ~£50 fare increase.*

Do you really think someone who struggles to afford that fare increase can somehow afford a rent increase of that magnitude?

*figures may not be 100% accurate and simply used to illustrate the point.

You brought in the term "mega rich" not me. I only ever said 'above average wages'.

You're still implying that the only people who get the train are those on "above average wages". From my daily commute, I can assure you that's not the case.

 

[ltnmzh]

it's a shame to have such expensive and bad rail system.

 

[Gornall]

Which is what my second paragraph you quoted basically stated, talk about comprehension fail.

Your second paragraph suggests a minority which isn't the case. The majority of people on trains are just the average joe-bloggs making his way to work.

You're selecting a small demographic and making sweeping statements that suggest that everyone on the train deserves the price hike for playing some kind of system.

You brought in the term "mega rich" not me. I only ever said 'above average wages'.

In your words then, everyone on a train is an 'above average' earner?

The method of travel is an option, it's not for a certain class of people to use. It is a public service and one that everyone contributes to and can use.

I dont get your perception of train users as a whole being based on that group of commuters from x to London.

 

[estebanrey]

The difference in house prices far outweighs the difference in train fares, i.e. you're talking a £3-400/month rent increase against a ~£50 fare increase.*

Fine, so carry on commuting but don't moan or expect to the tax payer to pay for something which is granting you a net profit (compared to moving that is).

You're still implying that the only people who get the train are those on "above average wages". From my daily commute, I can assure you that's not the case.

No I'm not, I've only ever used the term 'commuters' and have regularly excluded people who don't use the trains often from my argument.

I've never been talking about the pensioner going down to see here sick grandson etc.

In your words then, everyone on a train is an 'above average' earner?

Why do you (and Haggisman) keep wanting to take what I'm saying and apply it to EVERYONE that ever uses the trains when I've been very specific that I'm talking about commuters only.

Maybe I'm the only one who knows what commuter means, it's not another word for traveller, it's someone who regularly travels a certain way to work or place of study.

Someone using the train to go for a weekend away isn't a commuter and I'm not referring to them.

The method of travel is an option, it's not for a certain class of people to use. It is a public service and one that everyone contributes to and can use.

I dont get your perception of train users as a whole being based on that group of commuters from x to London.

That's because you are willyfully ignoring the bits where I've specifically said I'm not talking about anyone who ever used a train.

But the fact is, someone who uses a train once or twice a year isn't going to be affected that much by a rise of rail fares. The people who use the service everyday will be and it is those commuters who seem to be moaning about this price hike.

If you can afford over a grand a year to spend on train fares, that suggests to me you are doing a job that pays more than grand where you work compared to if you did the same job locally.

That is fine, but if that's you then you should realise that you are making an economic decision that benefits you and you alone and you can't expect the rest of society, most of whom don't work miles away from where they live to pick up the bill. That is my only point here, I'm not having a go at the idea of commuting or saying working in a place with salaries whilst living somewhere cheaper is immoral in any way, I'm just saying it's not society's responsibility to pick up the bill when the gap between your travel costs and potential living costs of moving are reduced a little.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

To anyone that doesn't live in London:
It is literally impossible for even a small fraction of the current rail commuters to use other means to get to work.

I commute by train. It's roughly 20 minutes from there I live (Zone 4) into London Victoria of a morning.
If I tried to take a bus, given that there are few / no routes that go near to where I need to get to in London, it would take me 90 minutes / 2 hours to get to work. On a good day.
If I tried to drive, again, it would take at least 50 minutes, plus the cost of the Congestion charge, Westminster's extortionate parking fees (£4/hour street parking), and even the 'cheap' day carpark around here is nearly £30/day.
I personally cannot cycle because there are two big hills between where I live and the centre of London.

Moving closer to the centre is 'sort of' an option, but basically you are trading off living in a better area further away, for a slightly-shorter-similar-priced commute.
Even in the nicer areas towards the centre, you are often no more than two or three streets away from a bad area. That's just how London is.

The price rises are unjustified and borne out of greed and avarice at every level of the rail system (Looking directly at the rail operators and the rolling stock owners, mostly banks).

Reprivatise it and stop pretending it was anything but free pocket money for Tories.

 

[Gornall]

Fine, so carry on commuting but don't moan or expect to the tax payer to pay for something which is granting you a net profit (compared to moving that is).I think you have a seriously flawed view on money in general judging from you're last paragraph or so. Complete waste of my time trying to explain it t



No I'm not, I've only ever used the term 'commuters' and have regularly excluded people who don't use the trains often from my argument.

I've never been talking about the pensioner going down to see here sick grandson etc.



Why do you (and Haggisman) keep wanting to take what I'm saying and apply it to EVERYONE that ever uses the trains when I've been very specific that I'm talking about commuters only.

Maybe I'm the only one who knows what commuter means, it's not another word for traveller, it's someone who regularly travels a certain way to work or place of study.

Someone using the train to go for a weekend away isn't a commuter and I'm not referring to them.



That's because you are willyfully ignoring the bits where I've specifically said I'm not talking about anyone who ever used a train.

But the fact is, someone who uses a train once or twice a year isn't going to be affected that much by a rise of rail fares. The people who use the service everyday will be and it is those commuters who seem to be moaning about this price hike.

If you can afford over a grand a year to spend on train fares, that suggests to me your are doing a job that pays more than grand where you work compared to if you did the same job locally.

That is fine, but if that's you then you should realise that you are making an economic decision that benefits you and you alone and you can't expect the rest of society, most of whom don't work miles away from where they live to pick up the bill. That is my only point here, I'm not having a go at the idea of commuting or saying working in a place with salaries whilst living somewhere cheaper is immoral in anyway, I'm just saying it's not societies responsibility to pick up the bill when the gap between your travel costs and potential living costs of moving are reduced a little.

Sack it, I give up.

Let me know when you're out of your bubble.

One thing I will say, 1k in train fees is absolutely nothing.

 

[Xordium]

If you can afford over a grand a year to spend on train fares, that suggests to me you are doing a job that pays more than grand where you work compared to if you did the same job locally.

And what happens if that job is not available locally. What do you suggest people do? Move to London with it's oh so reasonable real-estate market?

 

[MrMoonX]

WTF is wrong with people saying if you dont like it move closer to work or dont use the train, well hello thats not an option to most people.

Why doesnt everyone who uses the train give up work and choose to go on benefits, cos lets face it we would probably all have a better quality of life.

I really dont know what is wrong with some people who are suggesting we choose to spend hours a day and £1000s on getting to work. The fact is people want to work and its not always an option to find a job within 5 minutes of home

The government should be encouraging people to use public transport as its much better for the environment and the roads would be less busy

 

[krooton]

snip

There are multiple variables though

salary
cost of commute
time of commute
affordability of housing

Now at the moment, the above things are working well for our household.

We can afford a 1-bed flat in an average Zone 4 area, my commute is a workable length of less than 1 hour 30 minutes each way, and pay is enough to cover all of this.

Where we are hamstrung though is when we want to start a family. At best we could afford a 2-bed flat in the same area, or look at terraces in a worse area. Neither are an option as we don't want to raise our children in London.

So we would have to look further out to afford a house with decent education options. This does mean that both our travel costs and commutes lengths increase dramatically.

Moving near to my work would mean we could push for a 1-bed flat at best, even if I had zero commuting costs, but as my gf works elsewhere, her travel costs would still increase. It would also mean no starting of a family for us.

There is no way in hell we would settle in the area she works (Sutton), especially given she works closely with the schools in that borough and knows the vast majority are crap.

So by moving further out, and stretching the meagre disposable income we have, we can manage a big enough house in a decent area. The ncomes the increased commute smack in the face, and suddenly even that would be pushing it.

We can't work where we want to live as the money is less, so we wouldn't be able to afford it in the first place. We don't want or can't afford to live where we currently work.

So in 2 years I am pretty much forced in to buying a cheap second hand car that has good mpg, and make an 80 mile round trip each day for work as that will be the only affordable way. Joy!

 

[Narj]

Someone needs to kick off a mass "no-pay/no ticket" day - they can't fine everyone. Those with season tickets simply don't produce them. Something social media could be useful for.

Continuing rises way above the increases in wages is unsustainable.

 

[Haggisman]

Fine, so carry on commuting but don't moan or expect to the tax payer to pay for something which is granting you a net profit (compared to moving that is).

It's not so much a net profit, as actually being able to pay my rent and bills. There is of course the alternative of quitting my job and claiming benefits

No I'm not, I've only ever used the term 'commuters' and have regularly excluded people who don't use the trains often from my argument.

I've never been talking about the pensioner going down to see here sick grandson etc.

Why do you (and Haggisman) keep wanting to take what I'm saying and apply it to EVERYONE that ever uses the trains when I've been very specific that I'm talking about commuters only.

Maybe I'm the only one who knows what commuter means, it's not another word for traveller, it's someone who regularly travels a certain way to work or place of study.

Someone using the train to go for a weekend away isn't a commuter and I'm not referring to them.

That's because you are willyfully ignoring the bits where I've specifically said I'm not talking about anyone who ever used a train.

But the fact is, someone who uses a train once or twice a year isn't going to be affected that much by a rise of rail fares. The people who use the service everyday will be and it is those commuters who seem to be moaning about this price hike.

Not sure why you're being quite so obtuse about it (other than attempting to give your puerile attempt at an argument some weight). Lets just state it in black and white then so there's no ambiguity:

You are implying that everyone who commutes by train is on "above average wages". While this may be true in London, in the rest of the UK this is very much not the case.

If you can afford over a grand a year to spend on train fares, that suggests to me you are doing a job that pays more than grand where you work compared to if you did the same job locally.

And if there isn't the same (or in fact any) job locally? What do you suggest people do then?

That is fine, but if that's you then you should realise that you are making an economic decision that benefits you and you alone and you can't expect the rest of society, most of whom don't work miles away from where they live to pick up the bill. That is my only point here, I'm not having a go at the idea of commuting or saying working in a place with salaries whilst living somewhere cheaper is immoral in any way, I'm just saying it's not society's responsibility to pick up the bill when the gap between your travel costs and potential living costs of moving are reduced a little.

Actually, you'll find that many people do actually live miles away from their work. The places where there are a lot of jobs generally have much higher living costs for that very reason, so for many people there isn't the choice of moving closer for a slight reduction in disposable income.

You seem to have absolutely no idea how many people live, but I guess you must be happy in your little bubble, so congrats to you.

 

[Floogie]

Why not food too which is arguably more important than all the above?

Can't tell if serious. Its nothing to do with importance...

Water, energy, transport and communications; nationalise the bloody lot!

 

[pitchfork]

You guys talk about commuting like for everyone there was a choice.
My dad hates commuting but it's the only choice if he wants a job in his line of work. And if he didn't he'd be in some crappy unskilled job and then not be able to pay the mortgage.

(Apprenticing with the railways then all the big manufacturing/ engineering firms slowly disappeared out of town to put a long story short)

Oh and before the "you can always retrain" crowd, you can't, it costs money and takes time. Unless you have massive reserves of savings it's not an option for most people.