Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Since this is a thread about cars, I thought this article from the Guardian might be of interest as providing a reason why the government cannot allow us all to switch to transit and bikes:
Car finance payments are typically the second-largest household expense after mortgage costs, and the car industry is nervously waiting to see how many people struggling with the cost of living default on loans, or use a little-known clause to voluntarily terminate their agreement.
I would not like to ascribe the actions of the government to an ulterior motive but we do know the current PM came from finance. What happens to finance houses when motorists upgrade to bikes or transit and bin their cars and associated finance deals? The article says you can put the keys through the letterbox of the loan office once you are halfway settled. Perhaps that is why the government is so desperate to keep our transport system and bikes down to the point that motoring remains a credible alternative?
A lot of government policy only makes sense viewed through the lens of finance houses having captured the legislature and now trying to strip the country bare.
As for the headline in the OP, you never meet a business owner who tells the customers they are struggling. When car sales are up, it is due to buoyant demand. When they are down: well it's not because customers don't want their product; it is due to the economy, the shortage of semiconductors, leaving the EU, etc.
Most of the railway loses money even on marginal costs. Cutting services cuts subsidy. It is a very dangerous position when the government realise that cutting rail services by half means more money for the NHS.
Customers, productivity, efficiency and financial sustainability are all important.
In not sure that most of the railway makes a loss when you look at only TOC costs, not when the Tavistock reopening claims to note than cover GWR's costs for a new hourly service (in addition to the current 0.5tph service over the existing branch - which is still starting from Plymouth).
Cutting services may cut subsidy, but given that (for example) if you cut rail services by half you can't cut the £1bn in loan costs at all (let alone by half).
Also looking at rail subsidies is only half the picture. If you cut a branch line to a tourist area you reduce the number who can get there as easily, which is likely to have a detrimental impact on the economy of that area. You probably don't need many ending up claiming benefits and no longer pating taxes before a line that was costing £50,000 in support ended up costing more to the country by being closed than being open.
Part of the current issue is that the likes of TPE, XC and Avanti are running 60-65% of services. These are likely TOC's (being long distance and running 4+ coach trains) where costs are likely to be covered by ticket sales if they were running closer to 90% of services. They also would likely make travel on other TOC's more viable (for example SWR connecting to XC services at Basingstoke or GWR connecting to XC services at Exeter).
Taking the roads as an example VED and fuel duty are a tax, if we're not counting taxes in how we count what is support for transport then arguably the toll roads fall well sorry of the level of support that the roads cost the government and so we should shut them all down (an extreme argument, but it highlights that taxes do need to come into the equation when it comes to what we count when it comes to government costs).
That's not too say that there shouldn't be any cuts, rather such cuts should be considered to ensure that it doesn't end up costing there government more than the DfT saves.
The challenge isn't to cut rail services as that will definitely make them less appealing to passengers and only used for travel to London and maybe some other city centres where driving isn't ideal. The challenge is to lower the cost base of the rail industry to provide the same or better service at a lower cost. The relative comfort of a private car has increased significantly in the last 40 years, even if you are delayed, you are delayed in comfort.
The idea of a relaxing long distance rail journey with food and drink is very pleasant. It's just not a very accurate representation of current travel experiences.
Taking the roads as an example VED and fuel duty are a tax, if we're not counting taxes in how we count what is support for transport then arguably the toll roads fall well sorry of the level of support that the roads cost the government and so we should shut them all down (an extreme argument, but it highlights that taxes do need to come into the equation when it comes to what we count when it comes to government costs).
I don't think anyone thinks we shouldn't have a public road network to all but the most remote locations. The argument is whether we need a second transport system as extensive as the current railway.
There is no such argulant outside a self-flagellating sect within this forum. It is certainly not my understanding of this thread topic nor is it something being argued in society at large by anyone with a shred of credibility.
There is no such argulant outside a self-flagellating sect within this forum. It is certainly not my understanding of this thread topic nor is it something being argued in society at large by anyone with a shred of credibility.
I think it's a valid argument that a few of the quieter branch lines could viably be removed (and probably would have been had BR continued), but the idea of closing mainlines and urban commuter routes is cloud cuckoo land.
Yeah but it’s not something being discussed by serious people in wider society. Quite the contrary in light of the programme to reconnect towns to the railway network.
Since this is a thread about cars, I thought this article from the Guardian might be of interest as providing a reason why the government cannot allow us all to switch to transit and bikes:
I would not like to ascribe the actions of the government to an ulterior motive but we do know the current PM came from finance. What happens to finance houses when motorists upgrade to bikes or transit and bin their cars and associated finance deals? The article says you can put the keys through the letterbox of the loan office once you are halfway settled. Perhaps that is why the government is so desperate to keep our transport system and bikes down to the point that motoring remains a credible alternative?
A lot of government policy only makes sense viewed through the lens of finance houses having captured the legislature and now trying to strip the country bare.
As for the headline in the OP, you never meet a business owner who tells the customers they are struggling. When car sales are up, it is due to buoyant demand. When they are down: well it's not because customers don't want their product; it is due to the economy, the shortage of semiconductors, leaving the EU, etc.
As ever for the Graun - a slightly misleading article.
Firstly, it's only if it is a 'secured' loan i.e. finance taken out form the dealer - if you've bought it on a credit card or bank loan as some do, then this absolutely does not apply.
And it hides the reality that it is 50% *of the amount borrowed* , that since the balloon payment is such a high part of most PCPs, the reality of hitting the 50% any time before the end is remarkably low.
To give a practical example using a Ford Fiesta, it has a cash price of £ 23,894 and for a PCP deposit of £ 5,984 - so the amount being borrowed is £ 17,910.
The monthly payments over 24 months are £ 235 / month and the balloon payment at the end is £ 12,266.
And that deal is currently 0% - so there's no way somebody could hand that car back ahead of time.
Yeah but it’s not something being discussed by serious people in wider society. Quite the contrary in light of the programme to reconnect towns to the railway network.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's being discussed at the DfT though.
I wonder what the people of Smallville would say if they were given the choice of maintaining their infrequent train service which 90% of them don't use or having their narrow, dangerous road to the outside world upgraded?
I wouldn't be surprised if it's being discussed at the DfT though.
I wonder what the people of Smallville would say if they were given the choice of maintaining their infrequent train service which 90% of them don't use or having their narrow, dangerous road to the outside world upgraded?
Agreed. Especially as the bus could serve Newville which is two miles from the railway but didn't exist when it was built 150 years ago and go into Largeville town centre which is a mile from the station up a steep hill.
The trains seemed even busier today, which is perhaps not surprising given a lot of people now work maybe 3 days a week in an office and choose to have Monday and Friday off.
So still not seeing signs of people all taking to the roads. The horrible weather may also be a factor I suppose - many roads are flooded around here, made worse by blocked drains with leaves.
Good public transportation does benefit the economy and there is evidence of it like when the London Trams started in 2000, places like New Addington saw their unemployment numbers drop and I would imagine that was true with the DLR in the 1980s.
The Elizabeth Line has been touted as having already benefitting the London economy and it's been running for 8 months.
I wonder what the people of Smallville would say if they were given the choice of maintaining their infrequent train service which 90% of them don't use or having their narrow, dangerous road to the outside world upgraded?
I have lived in rural areas (mid wales) and know quite well they would take rail investment over highway. This was illustrated in recent works to “improve” the A470 in the area, generally seen as an unwelcome imposition.
If the town centre had bad congestion and it was a bypass proposed it would win more favour (as with nearby Newtown) but even there it would not be unanimous with the business community worried about loss of passing trade.
I have lived in rural areas (mid wales) and know quite well they would take rail investment over highway. This was illustrated in recent works to “improve” the A470 in the area, generally seen as an unwelcome imposition.
If the town centre had bad congestion and it was a bypass proposed it would win more favour (as with nearby Newtown) but even there it would not be unanimous with the business community worried about loss of passing trade.
Perhaps that's slightly different as the A470 is the main route between north and south Wales and presumably the improvements were more for the benefit of long distance traffic than local? What were the bases of the objections?
Motorways obviously never close in your world. Unfortunately in mine I’ve had to take random detours off the M4 and ended up stuck with all the other traffic heading down the same single lane suburban road. This of not uncommon.
Let’s not forget that those detours and rail replacement bus services are a necessary short term pain to enable such massive upgrades as the electrification from Paddington to Cardiff. You will probably be able to make use of that with a lower cost open access operator quote soon.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Shouldn’t that be 25 to 60? Which is when people are at their most economically active so can afford it the most.
Yes. I have been down parts of the A4 a few times on diversion off the M4. But on a coach service we do not have to detour to some of the stations the train was supposed to serve. And that simpler diversion is a lesser ordeal accompanied by a cheaper non-rail ticket.
But the evidence shows passengers do come back, much as that might annoy you. Can you identify a historical railway strike where that hasn’t happened?
The other day you seemed to suggest we shouldn’t live in cities anymore, to avoid using trains, so I’m not sure how seriously to take this.
Most people who use trains, and public transport generally, understand the concept that they run to a timetable, and that they need to go to a station to catch it. Very few public transport options, outside of intensely operated urban metros, are “turn up and go”.
Yet LNER trains are full to bursting, so the comments upthread about long distance rail travel being the preserve of the rich are clearly absurd. In my experience long distance trains are used by a broad cross section of people including students, day trippers etc. who clearly aren’t “rich”, but are savvy enough to benefit from the various discounts and railcards that are available.
The problem is more, as is too often the case, that it isn't just a full car that's cheaper than a train. Just two people in the car can often be cheaper.
Car clubs can be helpful, especially given you can hire then for the time that you need them (rather than for 24 hours at a time).
Whilst what you say is true, too many people drive when they could walk or cycle. Someone for little benefit.
For example if you need a little extra milk it can be cheaper to walk to the petrol station to buy outrageously expensive milk than it is to drive to buy it at a supermarket (only counting fuel costs).
Likewise where's the benefit in driving 600m to school to drop the kids off to drive back again every day (when it's cold and/or wet I can understand, however even those are few in number)?
Cars are useful, however if you want to carry on using them you certainly don't want fewer people cycling, going by train and walking.
However there are a lot of people who are using the railways (regardless of what many people feel).
This reminds me of stories of people driving miles to buy petrol slightly cheaper.
I must admit I find myself walking where youngers would drive. My granddaughter knows she will be walking if it is me volunteering to do the school run rather than her parents.
Since this is a thread about cars, I thought this article from the Guardian might be of interest as providing a reason why the government cannot allow us all to switch to transit and bikes:
I would not like to ascribe the actions of the government to an ulterior motive but we do know the current PM came from finance. What happens to finance houses when motorists upgrade to bikes or transit and bin their cars and associated finance deals? The article says you can put the keys through the letterbox of the loan office once you are halfway settled. Perhaps that is why the government is so desperate to keep our transport system and bikes down to the point that motoring remains a credible alternative?
A lot of government policy only makes sense viewed through the lens of finance houses having captured the legislature and now trying to strip the country bare.
As for the headline in the OP, you never meet a business owner who tells the customers they are struggling. When car sales are up, it is due to buoyant demand. When they are down: well it's not because customers don't want their product; it is due to the economy, the shortage of semiconductors, leaving the EU, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's being discussed at the DfT though.
I wonder what the people of Smallville would say if they were given the choice of maintaining their infrequent train service which 90% of them don't use or having their narrow, dangerous road to the outside world upgraded?
Agreed. Especially as the bus could serve Newville which is two miles from the railway but didn't exist when it was built 150 years ago and go into Largeville town centre which is a mile from the station up a steep hill.
Good public transportation does benefit the economy and there is evidence of it like when the London Trams started in 2000, places like New Addington saw their unemployment numbers drop and I would imagine that was true with the DLR in the 1980s.
The Elizabeth Line has been touted as having already benefitting the London economy and it's been running for 8 months.
I still wonder why the service from West Croydon to Wimbledon was so awful before 2000 how over full the replacement trams are now. How did all those people travel before.
The Elizabath line does seem to have tapped in to quite some pent up demand.
I don't think anyone thinks we shouldn't have a public road network to all but the most remote locations. The argument is whether we need a second transport system as extensive as the current railway.
I certainly don't think that we should have a public road network (not least I'd be out of a job as I design roads), likewise I have no issue with there being changes to the existing rail network as long as any restriction is evaluated to ensure that it was actually beneficial to the country as a whole (i.e. didn't result in reduced tax take and higher benefits payments than it cost to retain the rail line).
I wouldn't be surprised if it's being discussed at the DfT though.
I wonder what the people of Smallville would say if they were given the choice of maintaining their infrequent train service which 90% of them don't use or having their narrow, dangerous road to the outside world upgraded?
It very much depends. Do tourists come by train? Would they still need to use rail to get to Urbancity and how many work there? Does the TOC cover their costs in running the trains (i.e. excluding most NR costs)? How much short is that NR costs shortfall? How much money would actually be spent on the road upgrades? Who would lose property for the road building (a few farmers, probably not much of an issue, but if it starts impacting houses that's not going to go down well)? Would the road upgrades result in more development (altering the nature of Smallville)?
However such changes are likely to be minor tinkering compared with what many think is needed.
It certainly won't impact on the £1bn of NR loan costs, where the only way to ensure that's covered is to have people using railways (the more the better)
I still wonder why the service from West Croydon to Wimbledon was so awful before 2000 how over full the replacement trams are now. How did all those people travel before.
The Elizabath line does seem to have tapped in to quite some pent up demand.
I'm guessing by bus, car and train which would have been very congested. I wonder how much of IKEA's success in Croydon is driven by having the tram stop nearby.
I'm guessing by bus, car and train which would have been very congested. I wonder how much of IKEA's success in Croydon is driven by having the tram stop nearby.
I'm guessing by bus, car and train which would have been very congested. I wonder how much of IKEA's success in Croydon is driven by having the tram stop nearby.
A reasonable percentage of those who just want to pick at the small goods section but I would imagine most IKEA customers arrive by car in order to transport large items.
A bigger problem is the bulk of rail investment goes into the South East and the other regions have substandard local services, or Cross Country services that don't go through London.
A reasonable percentage of those who just want to pick at the small goods section but I would imagine most IKEA customers arrive by car in order to transport large items.
I dunno, having seen the picture of the lady trying to get furniture onto an Overground train, I can imagine some people might attempt bringing something large from IKEA onto the tram.
A reasonable percentage of those who just want to pick at the small goods section but I would imagine most IKEA customers arrive by car in order to transport large items.
Coincidenatally, I drove to Ikea Wembley yesterday to buy something their website advertised as in stock. On arriving there I found that it wasn't so having seen that Greenwich had it in stock, left my car at Wembly, then bussed to Wembley Park, Jubilee to North Greenwich, bus to Ikea, picked up the goods and then returned home via Wembley where I picked up my car. Faced with carrying three light fittings and bulbs, I blew 75p on a blue carrier bag. It was the first time that I'd carried Ikea goods on public transport, but worth it to me.
I dunno, having seen the picture of the lady trying to get furniture onto an Overground train, I can imagine some people might attempt bringing something large from IKEA onto the tram.
Coincidenatally, I drove to Ikea Wembley yesterday to buy something their website advertised as in stock. On arriving there I found that it wasn't so having seen that Greenwich had it in stock, left my car at Wembly, then bussed to Wembley Park, Jubilee to North Greenwich, bus to Ikea, picked up the goods and then returned home via Wembley where I picked up my car. Faced with carrying three light fittings and bulbs, I blew 75p on a blue carrier bag. It was the first time that I'd carried Ikea goods on public transport, but worth it to me.
It is nice being able to buy those smaller items and transport them home on public transport, presumably that's why Ikea are opening high street stores just for that purpose (the one in Hammersmith especially springs to mind).
Unfortunately the days of standard roof rack rails on cars has long gone and if you want them you need the specific ones.
You can to be fair do short-term van hire from many Ikeas, but more likely you'll take your own car or use a car club one from nearer home, otherwise you have a double journey.
Perhaps that's slightly different as the A470 is the main route between north and south Wales and presumably the improvements were more for the benefit of long distance traffic than local? What were the bases of the objections?
I recall the usual ecological, farmland severance were valid. Some may argue this is par for the course. But the biggest concern amongst the local community was the perception of a colossal waste of public money for lack of tangible benefit.
The imaginary arguments levied against HS2 were absolutely true in the case of this highway - all that expenditure and a blot in the landscape to save a couple of minutes per (motorist) journey. Unlike HS2 there were no capacity issues and the road was totally uncongested. Moreover this work was bracketed by Builth wells and Rhayader where tue route went through tue town streets and which problem was unaddressed.
Good public transportation does benefit the economy and there is evidence of it like when the London Trams started in 2000, places like New Addington saw their unemployment numbers drop and I would imagine that was true with the DLR in the 1980s.
The DLR really doesn't count, because it was built as part of the overall redevelopment of the London Docklands area.
That development would have taken place with or without the DLR and unemployment in that area would have dropped as new businesses moved in to replace the defunct docks.
Addington's an odd one because in many ways it was a post war, "New Towns" esque development, but without the transport links. Basically a housing estate with no real link to the nearest main "town".
I have lived in rural areas (mid wales) and know quite well they would take rail investment over highway. This was illustrated in recent works to “improve” the A470 in the area, generally seen as an unwelcome imposition.
If the town centre had bad congestion and it was a bypass proposed it would win more favour (as with nearby Newtown) but even there it would not be unanimous with the business community worried about loss of passing trade.
Which specific "improvements" to the A470 are those ? Asking as I used it quite a bit for a week last year - I assume by 'mid Wales' you mean between Builth Wells and Dolgellau ?
Most of the recent improvements looked like they'd been tidying up dangerous junctions, a bit of widening here and there - nothing significant.
The biggest improvement that seemed to be underway was on the A487 to bypass the narrow Dyfi Bridge at Machynlleth.
Certainly the money spent on those wouldn't buy anything significant in terms of rail improvements - the A487 bridge was meant to cost about £ 45m, so less than a mile of rail re-opening.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
