• 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!

Minimum Service Levels Bill receives Royal Assent

Status
Not open for further replies.

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
9,540
Location
London
Instructing hardly seems worth it. Huge amounts of responsibility (second guessing someone else is hard work) for hardly any extra pay.

It’s also a catch 22; not many instructors > lots of pressure on instructors > instructor burnout > instructor steps back > advertise for instructors > few applicants due to poor pay > not many instructors.

Not everything is about pay (and you definitely don’t want DIs in it solely for the money), but to take on that responsibility needs to be attractive and acceptable to go candidates.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,321
Location
Plymouth
I'm sure you are right. But if the next election is a rerun of the 1992 election which I have a sneaking feeling it will be (for the reasons outlined above) they will live to bitterly regret it.
Well we will all regret it as we all on here have an interest in the railway. None of us want it to be wrecked, but make no mistake Sunak will take a wrecking ball to our railway system. So perhaps "Starmer will be no better" , but there is no doubt he will not be as bad as what the Tories have lined up for the railway when and if they win the GE, and I have a sneaking suspicion that they probably will now, with the immoral pro car stance they are adopting that sadly plays well with their core voters (the sod the planet , I'm all that matters types).
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
4,714
Location
Wales
No single entity is more powerful than the DfT
What about the Treasury? They are behind a lot of this.

Have you been to places like Italy? I suspect not, as this "terrible plan" works fine there.
Does it work fine? The limited anecdotes I've heard are along the lines that some trains run, but the service has many holes, even against the contingency timetable.

I'd like to hear more direct experiences before I draw any conclusions about the effectiveness in other countries.

Are they with expansion of ULEZ and 20 mph limits which a number of people seem to be up in arms about to the point of direct action protests?
Generally speaking those policies haven't come from Whitehall. Not directly, at least.

As an alternative to disruption to passengers for the purpose of standing up to poor pay/working conditions/changes to working conditions, could public transport workers here ever consider doing what has been done in Japan. Over there, there was an occasion when bus drivers were involved in some dispute they didn't withdraw labour, they worked as normal but refused to take any fares. This enabled no inconvenience to the general public whilst hitting the bus companies with no revenue and having to pay for fuel.
1. How are drivers supposed to refuse to take fares when they don't take revenue in the first place?

2. Doing so would open individual members of staff up to disciplinary action.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,637
As an alternative to disruption to passengers for the purpose of standing up to poor pay/working conditions/changes to working conditions, could public transport workers here ever consider doing what has been done in Japan. Over there, there was an occasion when bus drivers were involved in some dispute they didn't withdraw labour, they worked as normal but refused to take any fares. This enabled no inconvenience to the general public whilst hitting the bus companies with no revenue and having to pay for fuel.
It has been noted before when this has been suggested that this would be illegal under current UK strike law.
You either withdraw your labour or not. Performing only part of your job is usually deemed misconduct. The action short of a strike here is normally to work to rule, i.e. to do your job, no more no less, no overtime, no favours, etc.
 

D Williams

Member
Joined
27 Jul 2022
Messages
298
Location
Worcestershire
He was able to draft in experienced Air Traffic Controllers from the military. There is no strategic reserve of train drivers - nor of the instructors who train them.
None would be required. Just shut the network down. After a short time buses, coaches and air lines would take up the slack. Most people don't use trains for essential travel. The current system is an expensive extravagance and it has been demonstrated time and time again that it cannot break even, let alone make a profit. This is unpalatable to most people on this forum but it is a fact. When the sea wall was washed out at Dawlish , for all of the hype in the press and the grandstanding by the prime minister,it made not a jot of difference to 99% of people living west of Dawlish.
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
4,714
Location
Wales
None would be required. Just shut the network down. After a short time buses, coaches and air lines would take up the slack.
There's no strategic reserve of bus/coach drivers either. Nor will airports/roads cope with the demand.

Forward-looking countries are encouraging rail transport. It's only the UK that seems to be looking across the Atlantic for inspiration.
 

baz962

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2017
Messages
3,558
The other thing people keep missing is that the pay alone isn't an issue. Many staff would accept the offer , if there wasn't any trashing of terms and conditions. All Labour have to do is offer the same percentage with no changes and get an easy win.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
18,058
Location
East Anglia
None would be required. Just shut the network down. After a short time buses, coaches and air lines would take up the slack. Most people don't use trains for essential travel. The current system is an expensive extravagance and it has been demonstrated time and time again that it cannot break even, let alone make a profit. This is unpalatable to most people on this forum but it is a fact. When the sea wall was washed out at Dawlish , for all of the hype in the press and the grandstanding by the prime minister,it made not a jot of difference to 99% of people living west of Dawlish.

It cost the West Country very dear indeed & was welcomed back with open arms.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,550
Forward-looking countries are encouraging rail transport. It's only the UK that seems to be looking across the Atlantic for inspiration.
Yes, the UK is pretty much a clone of America these days. That seems to be the collective choice of the population.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

It has been noted before when this has been suggested that this would be illegal under current UK strike law.
You either withdraw your labour or not. Performing only part of your job is usually deemed misconduct. The action short of a strike here is normally to work to rule, i.e. to do your job, no more no less, no overtime, no favours, etc.
I might have known that direct action protests which harm the perpetrator without causing harm to others would be illegal, being as optimal as it is.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
9,540
Location
London
None would be required. Just shut the network down. After a short time buses, coaches and air lines would take up the slack. Most people don't use trains for essential travel. The current system is an expensive extravagance and it has been demonstrated time and time again that it cannot break even, let alone make a profit. This is unpalatable to most people on this forum but it is a fact. When the sea wall was washed out at Dawlish , for all of the hype in the press and the grandstanding by the prime minister,it made not a jot of difference to 99% of people living west of Dawlish.

"Just shut the network down" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this forum. Most people realise public transport isn't meant to make a profit; it's a public good.

As for your statements about Dawlish, that's a number you've plucked out of thin air, and it cost the economy around £1.2 billion. I reckon you're just being controversial for the sake of it.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
18,058
Location
East Anglia
"Just shut the network down" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this forum. Most people realise public transport isn't meant to make a profit; it's a public good.

As for your statements about Dawlish, that's a number you've plucked out of thin air, and it cost the economy around £1.2 billion. I reckon you're just being controversial for the sake of it.

I think most of us got the gist of that particular post and its intentions.
 

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
928
I think most of us got the gist of that particular post and its intentions.
Yes indeed, but whilst I love the journey past Dawlish, especially if the weather is just a bit bad, is there any progress on a more reliable route? If the quoted cost of the repair and damage to the economy was £1.2bn, how many outages will we need to break even?
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
18,058
Location
East Anglia
Yes indeed, but whilst I love the journey past Dawlish, especially if the weather is just a bit bad, is there any progress on a more reliable route? If the quoted cost of the repair and damage to the economy was £1.2bn, how many outages will we need to break even?

I don’t think cost comes into it let alone breaking even. Just one of those things. No further plans on an alternative route have been taken forward as far as I am aware.
 

Purple Train

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2022
Messages
1,959
Location
Despond
"Just shut the network down" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this forum. Most people realise public transport isn't meant to make a profit; it's a public good.
Heartily agreed. The "cost of everything, value of nothing" approach - as with quite a lot of similar approaches espoused by our current government - conveniently ignores the fact that humans are not emotionless beings run like clockwork by cold, hard numerical statistics. In that sense, the Romantics got it right!
 

Mugby

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2012
Messages
2,031
Location
Derby
The other thing people keep missing is that the pay alone isn't an issue. Many staff would accept the offer , if there wasn't any trashing of terms and conditions. All Labour have to do is offer the same percentage with no changes and get an easy win.
Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately this isn't being conveyed to the general public, they think it's all about money and money alone.

It's vital that this message is hammered home at every opportunity by both unions, in all television interviews and perhaps by full page statements in some daily newspapers. I get the feeling the initiative is continually being lost in the MSM.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,637
"Just shut the network down" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this forum. Most people realise public transport isn't meant to make a profit; it's a public good.
Public transport isn’t a public good. It excludes those who don’t pay to use it.
 

Thirteen

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2021
Messages
1,617
Location
London
We need to put the whole Government will shut down the entire railway network to bed because that won't happen like ever.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
9,540
Location
London
Public transport isn’t a public good. It excludes those who don’t pay to use it.

If I don't have children, I still pay for education. You can use that argument for anything on which taxes are paid and you are not a direct recipient, but it's not a reasonable one.
 

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
928
If I don't have children, I still pay for education. You can use that argument for anything on which taxes are paid and you are not a direct recipient.
Major city centres cannot function without public transport. As a country where services and especially financial services are a major part of our GDP and therefore tax base.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,637
If I don't have children, I still pay for education. You can use that argument for anything on which taxes are paid and you are not a direct recipient, but it's not a reasonable one.
It’s not an argument. It’s the definition of a public good, something that is non-excludable (can be used by all) and non-rivalrous (one person using it doesn’t stop someone else getting the benefit). Free to air TV and national defence are examples of public goods.
 

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
928
It’s not an argument. It’s the definition of a public good, something that is non-excludable (can be used by all) and non-rivalrous (one person using it doesn’t stop someone else getting the benefit). Free to air TV and national defence are examples of public goods.
That’s your definition perhaps.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,637
That’s your definition perhaps.
It’s not my definition, it’s the standard definition from economics. See the IMF - https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2021/12/Global-Public-Goods-Chin-basics
Public goods are those that are available to all (“nonexcludable”) and that can be enjoyed over and over again by anyone without diminishing the benefits they deliver to others (“nonrival”). The scope of public goods can be local, national, or global.
Or, Britannica - https://www.britannica.com/money/topic/public-good-economics
public good, in economics, a product or service that is non-excludable and nondepletable (or “non-rivalrous”).
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,989
Location
West is best
Good or goods? These are very different things. You don’t see freight trains with private owner wagons hauling good, but they may be hauling goods…

There are actually a surprisingly number of industries that get U.K. government support, such as oil:
The Guardian said:
Analysis by the House of Commons library found that a fifth of the money given directly to the fossil fuel industry was to support new extraction and mining. In 2021, support for fossil fuel extraction rose by 20% to nearly £2bn
From this article in The Guardian
The Guardian said:
Fossil fuels received £20bn more UK support than renewables since 2015
Helena Horton Environment reporter
Thu 9 Mar 2023

The UK government has given £20bn more in support to fossil fuel producers than those of renewables since 2015, the Guardian can reveal.

The research, commissioned by the Liberal Democrats, found that while renewable energy was given £60bn in support over that time, fossil fuel companies were given close to £80bn.

In 2020, renewable energy support was greater than fossil fuel support for the first time. However, fossil fuels have been receiving greater additional investment recently. From 2020 to 2021 they received an extra £1bn support from the government compared with 2020, a 10.7% increase. For renewable energy in the same year, total support for projects increased by just £1m, or 0.01%.
Analysis by the House of Commons library found that a fifth of the money given directly to the fossil fuel industry was to support new extraction and mining. In 2021, support for fossil fuel extraction rose by 20% to nearly £2bn.

Politicians have asked the government to put net zero at the heart of policy decisions instead of funding fossil fuel corporations.
Wera Hobhouse, the Liberal Democrat climate and energy spokesperson, said: “It is extremely alarming that the Conservative government has been giving these staggering amounts to the fossil fuel industry. Not only have the Conservatives failed to properly tax the record profits of the oil and gas giants, they have showered these companies with taxpayer money too.

too.
“We have been through one of the toughest winters on record and the energy crisis is still biting hard. The government squandered the opportunity to shield us from these spiralling energy bills through their lack of long-term thinking. For years, they gave billions to the fossil fuel industry, rather than actually improving our energy security by investing properly in renewables.
“This is just yet more proof of the government’s legacy of failure on climate change. They need to get a grip and start putting net zero at the heart of all our policy decisions. It will grant us the energy-secure, green future we desperately need.”
She added that, when in the coalition government, the Liberal Democrats tripled renewable energy generation, and said the Lib Dems would also end new listings of fossil fuel companies on the London Stock Exchange and require existing fossil fuel companies to set out how they will transition to net zero.
Fossil fuel companies have been criticised for not investing sufficiently in renewables, despite getting tax breaks and funding from government. Shell and BP made £32bn and £23bn in profit last year respectively while energy bills rose. Shell invested nearly £10bn into oil and gas projects over the year, compared with just £3bn in its renewable energy division. Similarly, BP has announced that it is scaling back the ambition for its emission-cutting targets. Previously, the fossil fuel producer had said it wanted to cut emissions by 35-40% by 2030, but now it has committed to a 20-30% reduction.

A government spokesperson said: “This is utterly misleading analysis. The Climate Change Committee themselves have said we’ll still need some fossil fuels as part of our move towards the net zero target, which is why we must ensure we remain an attractive investment for all energy sectors, as we have consistently been for renewables.
“Our domestic oil and gas industry have a vital role ensuring energy security and the transition to net zero, and alongside that since 2010 the UK has seen more than a 500% increase in the amount of renewable electricity capacity connected to the grid, making the UK a world leader in offshore wind with the most installed capacity in Europe. This will play a key role in achieving net zero by 2050, and will create thousands of new jobs around the country.”

Is that for the public good? And is that better or worse than funding the national rail network?
 
Last edited:

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
4,714
Location
Wales
Public transport isn’t a public good. It excludes those who don’t pay to use it.
The lads hiding in the toilet would beg to differ.

It’s not an argument. It’s the definition of a public good, something that is non-excludable (can be used by all) and non-rivalrous (one person using it doesn’t stop someone else getting the benefit). Free to air TV and national defence are examples of public goods.
You realise that everyone benefits from public transport, even if they don't use it?

If you're just making an argument that trains should be free, just like in Luxemburg then good luck getting that past the Treasury.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,637
You realise that everyone benefits from public transport, even if they don't use it?

If you're just making an argument that trains should be free, just like in Luxemburg then good luck getting that past the Treasury.
I am not arguing that there is no societal benefit from public transport. But that ‘a public good’ is a term with a specific meaning that public transport doesn’t meet.
Free public transport probably doesn’t meet the criteria either from the non-rivalrous side. Trains have a finite capacity, if you’re sitting in a seat then nobody else can sit in that seat.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
9,540
Location
London
I am not arguing that there is no societal benefit from public transport. But that ‘a public good’ is a term with a specific meaning that public transport doesn’t meet.
Free public transport probably doesn’t meet the criteria either from the non-rivalrous side. Trains have a finite capacity, if you’re sitting in a seat then nobody else can sit in that seat.

If someone uses a hospital bed, nobody else can use that bed. There’s still capacity issues to public services (if that’s the term you want to use), but I think you’re splitting hairs somewhat.

Ultimately, the railway has not really been one (in modern times) to “make a profit” but that is because most governments around the world - include most of the UKs - have over time seen that it offers a significant benefit that is worth subsidising.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,989
Location
West is best
Trains have a finite capacity, if you’re sitting in a seat then nobody else can sit in that seat.
Maybe, but due to the huge number of trains that operate each day, the railway over time could be argued to have effectively an infinite capacity, because over the lifetime of an individual person, there would have been millions or billions of possibilities of that individual potentially being able to travel by train (assuming that they do move around the country and don’t live their entire life away from any railway station).

Whereas if we were talking about a physical object such as buying a car, then there is obviously only a finite number available for sale at any point in time. If I buy a new car today, it will take a while for the manufacturer to build another. Meanwhile the car that I have just bought is not available for purchase by anyone else. But at my nearby station, assuming the normal weekday timetable is running (and there’s no delays or cancellations), there’s a train every half hour. So even if the first is full, there is the possibility that the next or the one after will have a unoccupied seat.
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
4,714
Location
Wales
I am not arguing that there is no societal benefit from public transport. But that ‘a public good’ is a term with a specific meaning that public transport doesn’t meet.
Free public transport probably doesn’t meet the criteria either from the non-rivalrous side. Trains have a finite capacity, if you’re sitting in a seat then nobody else can sit in that seat.
So you're just being pedantic about terminology? Perhaps "common good" or "public benefit" would work. Do you actually have a point to make?
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,555
"Just shut the network down" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this forum. Most people realise public transport isn't meant to make a profit; it's a public good.

As for your statements about Dawlish, that's a number you've plucked out of thin air, and it cost the economy around £1.2 billion. I reckon you're just being controversial for the sake of it.
You would be surprised how many people have that view.

There are large swaythes of the country who literally never travel by train. I live at the northern end of Thameslink in Bedfordshire. A while back my teenage son wen't to London for the day with some of his sixth form mates. One had NEVER been on a train before. Imagine what it is like further out of London.

The some people pay tax for education but don't have kids argument dosent really wash. For a start they themselves went to school and their kith and kin have kids.

When going by train is wholly alien, paying £10 billion a year out of taxes to support the *minority* who do rather grates.

Not that those who travel on Thameslink are subsidised by anyone. An annual season ticket from Flitwick to Bedford (one stop) costs £1824, compared with £1364 from Wigan to Manchester, about three times the distance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top