Well I'm not sure we can deal with climate change if actions to tackle it rely on the voluntary activities of the I'm alright Jack's.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Election 2019 - promises
- Thread starter mawallace
- Start date
- Status
Well I'm not sure we can deal with climate change if actions to tackle it rely on the voluntary activities of the I'm alright Jack's.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
At least there is a preserved line to Dereham! Though not an easy task to allow NR trains to run on presumably, but better than it not existing.
My understanding was the likes of France and Spain could build LGV's far cheaper than HS2 because they go through largely rural areas. HS2 is linking various urban areas without much in between. However the engineering challenges north of Lancaster could be costly, and certainly where the M6, A6 and WCML alignments between Oxenholme and Carlisle make me think there isn't really much room for a high speed rail route!
Is this meant to be serious or sarcasm?
He's just sticking up for those ordinary workers with private education, hired gardeners, multiple holidays, multiple cars, the real silent majority!
There is a lot of stuff in the media today about how an audience member on Question Time seriously thought that over 50% of the population earned more than £80,000 per annum, whereas the actual percentage is 5%!
Overall levels of general ignorance are staggering.
I mean trains are fun but for goodness sake get some education.
Oxfordblues
Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 661
Labour's plan to renationalise the railways while leaving the road haulage industry in unfettered private ownership would be a disaster for rail freight in the UK. It would put an end to on-rail competition for freight and eliminate growing, innovative companies like GBRf who have done so much to revitalise the industry.
We would be back to the old days of BR when rail-freight sales managers visited customers and bluntly confronted them with huge increases in their rates, with a "take-it-or-leave-it" approach. Eager hauliers unencumbered by state bureaucracy would be waiting to pounce with cut-price offers, so many users decided to leave it and switch to road.
And I'd expect a return to the ridiculous restrictive practices that made a lot of rail traffic uneconomic, such as "Arpley drivers don't work beyond Guide Bridge" and other such nonsenses. Labour want to "put passengers first" and therefore presumably put freight last. Labour ex-Transport Minister Lord Adonis even proposed banning freight trains during daytime hours in case they delayed passenger trains. And can they be serious in promising that every train will have a guard. Will they really build a vast fleet of new brakevans to attach to the rear of freight trains? Madness!
We would be back to the old days of BR when rail-freight sales managers visited customers and bluntly confronted them with huge increases in their rates, with a "take-it-or-leave-it" approach. Eager hauliers unencumbered by state bureaucracy would be waiting to pounce with cut-price offers, so many users decided to leave it and switch to road.
And I'd expect a return to the ridiculous restrictive practices that made a lot of rail traffic uneconomic, such as "Arpley drivers don't work beyond Guide Bridge" and other such nonsenses. Labour want to "put passengers first" and therefore presumably put freight last. Labour ex-Transport Minister Lord Adonis even proposed banning freight trains during daytime hours in case they delayed passenger trains. And can they be serious in promising that every train will have a guard. Will they really build a vast fleet of new brakevans to attach to the rear of freight trains? Madness!
Oxfordblues
Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 661
I might have been wrong about the provision of guards on all trains as promised by Labour. The manifesto only says they would "end driver-only operation". To be fair this could be achieved by reinstating the second-man on freight trains rather than building a new fleet of freight brakevans. The exact role of the second-man was always unclear. The only identifiable duty seemed to be to keep the driver company and pour him cups of tea. The reality was that, far from being an additional pair of eyes, the second-man was more often a distraction and interfered with the driver's concentration. You really couldn't make this up!
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,026
I'd be extremely surprised if ending DOO wasn't just ending DOO(P) - I cannot see them ending DOO on freight, or for ECS, or anything else
What do you mean, "a return to"? That's exactly how the railway currently works, and many would argue with good reason.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
I don't think there is any intention to nationalise freight, or change its operation.
Andy McDonald has said as much previously, they are just concentrating on the passenger railway (where the votes are).
What is in the manifesto is just a sop to the RMT and its campaign to stop DOO.
Previous statements have talked about stopping more DOO, but this one suggests they want to roll back to 1983.
It's an example of why micromanagement of the railway by politicians is not going to go away.
Andy McDonald has said as much previously, they are just concentrating on the passenger railway (where the votes are).
What is in the manifesto is just a sop to the RMT and its campaign to stop DOO.
Previous statements have talked about stopping more DOO, but this one suggests they want to roll back to 1983.
It's an example of why micromanagement of the railway by politicians is not going to go away.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
And the electrification of all Wales' main routes.
Somebody trotted out the old saw about Wales and Albania being the only countries in Europe without any rail electrification.
In a few weeks that will be out of date when GWR's electrics reach Cardiff from Bristol Parkway.
The Valley lines (partial) electrification is also WG policy.
bramling
Veteran Member
Seems pointless to me. Some of the DOO schemes work reasonably well - GTR out of King's Cross / Moorgate has been DOO(P) for pretty much as long as living memory, and being honest without ever causing much of a problem. I couldn't see much value in providing a second person just to provide an extra presence on the train.
Fact is DOO does work reasonably well on commuter routes where manned stations are frequently spread and the service frequency is intensive. From a passenger's perspective it's simply one extra reason for a train to be cancelled.
Naturally it's a completely different issue for rural or Intercity routes.
I can't see guards being reintroduced on LU either. Again it's one other thing to go wrong, and with the density of service now operated on many lines more or less right through the day the workload in providing a second man on every train, especially during disruption, would be pretty much unworkable. Anecdotally most drivers prefer being on their own - a good guard was worth its weight in gold, but a bad one was more trouble than it was worth. Realistically we're never again going to have someone hanging out of an open door and taking up valuable passenger-carrying space.
And therein lies a big problems for the RMT as they don't want to do that bit!
The Merseryrail consultation a few years ago largely suggested the public wanted a bouncer type role for the second person on board especially in the evenings.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,576
I may be wrong but haven't at least some drivers received pay rises for accepting DOO?
Is McDonnell going to tell them about the impending pay cuts?
squizzler
Established Member
This. I would do the opposite and renationalise the lorries (yes, they were all nationalised for a bit). My new British Road Services could then be ordered to use rail for the trunk haul wherever reasonably practical.
The wouldn't want some locally controlled rail services showing them up would they!
You can disagree with a policy without resorting to hyperbole. It doesn't reinforce your argument, more the opposite.
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,026
Haven't much to add other than I completely agree.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Yeah but if they've been renationalised they benefit from (the definitely not an election giveaway) Labour promise of a 5% pay rise for every public employee.
:P
The vast majority of people who will be caught will not be oligarchs and Bitcoin billionaires. They will be the middle classes. Who have expensive lifestyles but don’t have the spare cash to suck the extra tax up. They will start to cut their cloth. Which means that they will reign in discretionary spending. Which will impact upon the people they spend their money with. Hence all the grafters of this country who make a reasonable living/eke out an existence will suffer the most.....
I’ve no problem with taxation funding services. But, be honest with people about where the tax burden will fall. Pretending that only the top 5% are affected is just fundamentally dishonest - it will affect everybody, because in the end, tax rises are passed on to the consumer and so we all pay more.
Also, be honest about where money taken in taxation will end up. The working classes are fed up of being taken for a ride, we should be using the State to provide for the needy and not the greedy who just want a free ride.
This is very confused thinking. Increasing income tax on the 5% of individuals who earn more than £85k per annum does not mean that living costs would automatically rise for everyone else. That is because generally we buy from businesses who pay corporation tax not income tax.
Drogba11CFC
Member
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 868
I highly doubt Labour's railway would be run for the passengers. It would be run solely for the benefit of the RMT and the passengers would be told to go whistle.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
On the topic of fibre broadband while I don’t believe the Govt should just give it away freely, I do believe that they should encourage the private sector to deliver it to more areas.
The same applies to mobile coverage especially in rural areas, regardless of where you are I believe you should be able to get a mobile signal and not have a poor service just because you live in the middle of nowhere.
As to 5G, well surely the Govt should be encouraging the operators to improve their 4G reception first before rolling out 5G after all, after all it’s silly that there are still areas that you can’t get a decent 4G connection including in buildings where you only get a signal if you’re lucky in a specific room.
Technology should have moved on and removed this liability so yes the UK could and should do more in this area but free broadband for all is not the answer especially as it be the people on low incomes paying for it all.
The same applies to mobile coverage especially in rural areas, regardless of where you are I believe you should be able to get a mobile signal and not have a poor service just because you live in the middle of nowhere.
As to 5G, well surely the Govt should be encouraging the operators to improve their 4G reception first before rolling out 5G after all, after all it’s silly that there are still areas that you can’t get a decent 4G connection including in buildings where you only get a signal if you’re lucky in a specific room.
Technology should have moved on and removed this liability so yes the UK could and should do more in this area but free broadband for all is not the answer especially as it be the people on low incomes paying for it all.
Labour are not just proposing an increase in income tax though, are they? It’s tax rises across the board - CGT for example too, and if you think that a rise in corporation tax will not be passed on to consumers then I have some magic beans and the Sydney Harbour Bridge to sell you, because you are clearly naive.
I think you need to reconsider your arguments, because it is clearly you who is confused as to what the manifesto says.
HullRailMan
Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 320
The starting position for these Labour socialists is that state control of an industry/service will deliver a better service. There is little real logic behind this, other than a hatred of wealth creators and profit.
The reality is that state ownership of most industries will have little impact on their finances. Most rail services, for example, will still be loss making and require subsidy. Their plans fail to recognise that its an industry with very high costs, and that won’t change.
The reality is that state ownership of most industries will have little impact on their finances. Most rail services, for example, will still be loss making and require subsidy. Their plans fail to recognise that its an industry with very high costs, and that won’t change.
- Status