Andy Burnham in pledge to renationalise railway network

[matt_world2004]

Is there no BIK on staff travel benefits?

Not for staff travel benefits that have no direct cost to the employer.

 

[route:oxford]

Does that make it all right?

Yes, it does.

Twice as many passengers means twice as much revenue (actually more, because fares have consistently risen higher than inflation since privatisation, contrary to government promises). Any normal business where sales doubled would see its profits soar yet, on the privatised railway, it's dependence on public subsidy that soared. Something is clearly not working. There is also the point that rising passenger numbers means more crowded trains and fewer trains running around half empty, so increasing the average profitability per train.

If you were familiar with running business, you'd understand that often when sales "double", there is corresponding increase in costs too.

Say, for example, you were running a 8 bedroom brothel in Westminster. At peak times, all your ladies (or gentlemen) would be kept busy - but for much of the day you are ticking over with just a couple of rooms in use. There is scope for increasing levels of business around peak times - but in order to meet demand you have to buy bigger 16 bedroom premises - this adds to fixed costs then you have the variable costs of the totty and bed linen, showers, towels pension contributions and tax. So a doubling of sales doesn't guarantee "soaring" profits.

Taxpayers (many of whom never use the railways) are more concerned about overall subsidy, not subsidy per passenger. The bottom line is that the overall subsidy is significantly higher following privatisation, even though we were promised it would be less.

There are a lot of taxpayers who don't use a considerable number of services. Returning to the sex industry, like most tax payers, I don't have a weekly HIV test* at the local sexual health clinic. So despite not using these services, for the general health of the nation, I think it is important that these 100% subsidised services are available to all who want to use them.


(*I do come into contact with human tissue, so have an annual test for my own reassurance).

 

[jon0844]

I'm glad someone has pointed out that double the users doesn’t mean double the income and therefore no problem.

Those extra passengers, many using peak services, have created the need for massive station upgrades, platform lengthening, more rolling stock and more infrastructure work. As well as more services and less time to do work or the higher cost of working on a live railway.

And if we reduce subsidies then fares go up. Which is what previous Governments seemed to think was fine, until - like petrol fuel tax accelerators - it became rather unpopular.

What is it to be? Reduced cost to the tax payer or only the actual users? I doubt all the difference is going to line the pockets of fat cat TOC directors.

 

[LateThanNever]

I'm glad someone has pointed out that double the users doesn’t mean double the income and therefore no problem.

Those extra passengers, many using peak services, have created the need for massive station upgrades, platform lengthening, more rolling stock and more infrastructure work. As well as more services and less time to do work or the higher cost of working on a live railway.

And if we reduce subsidies then fares go up. Which is what previous Governments seemed to think was fine, until - like petrol fuel tax accelerators - it became rather unpopular.

What is it to be? Reduced cost to the tax payer or only the actual users? I doubt all the difference is going to line the pockets of fat cat TOC directors.

The additional requirements for peak services, platforms etc is in fact largely another subsidy for the south east as most of the rest of the country has to cram in to little,if anything, more than normal quantities of coaches - though admittedly without the rush hour surge such rail services might not survive at all!

 

[CdBrux]

I'm glad someone has pointed out that double the users doesn’t mean double the income and therefore no problem.

Those extra passengers, many using peak services, have created the need for massive station upgrades, platform lengthening, more rolling stock and more infrastructure work. As well as more services and less time to do work or the higher cost of working on a live railway.

And if we reduce subsidies then fares go up. Which is what previous Governments seemed to think was fine, until - like petrol fuel tax accelerators - it became rather unpopular.

What is it to be? Reduced cost to the tax payer or only the actual users? I doubt all the difference is going to line the pockets of fat cat TOC directors.

This then adds to the effect of having more spare capacity available off peak so the TOC's can offer cheaper tickets to encourage demand. As long as they cover their variable costs (fuel, any extra drivers, additional maintenance from more mileage,...) it makes money. They do not have to in any way cover the vast majority of their fixed costs with the off-peak ticket price for this to be a good idea finacially. So journeys can increase without necessarily greatly reducing the subsidy needed to cover the increased fixed costs needed to deliver the peak capacity.

As with most things I would say it's far from being as clear cut as some on either side of the debate here would seem to suggest.

Do I think its near the top of the priorities for a government? No. In terms of the railways I would firstly rather that NR and it's suppliers (re)built their expertise at delivering projects such as electrification and signaling on time and to a sensible budget.

 

[matt_world2004]

I'm glad someone has pointed out that double the users doesn’t mean double the income and therefore no problem.

.

Double the passengers does not mean double the number of trains needed or double the amount of track needwd either in fact the line I live on has had iits passenger numbers doubled. Yet still receives a subsidy and high fares despite no increase in service. From 1993. And the rolling stock is from the network south east era and some before that

 

[suzanneparis]

Is it quantum rather than linear?

 

[HowardGWR]

How do we incentivise them now?

I had hoped for something more comprehensive rather than an interrogative answer. How would you incentivise a function-based private company (Inter-City, NSE, etc- which was your preferred split up) as opposed to regionalised franchises with competitive tendering, which is how it is done now.

I don't really see a difference, unless you did indeed have a better idea.

 

[jon0844]

Double the passengers does not mean double the number of trains needed or double the amount of track needwd either in fact the line I live on has had iits passenger numbers doubled. Yet still receives a subsidy and high fares despite no increase in service. From 1993. And the rolling stock is from the network south east era and some before that

Not literally of course, but a huge number of people who have increased passenger numbers all want to travel in the peaks. Now you need more, longer, trains for a handful of hours each day, but sitting idle for many more.

If we could stagger usage somehow, we could save on some upgrade work, or at least make travel more comfortable for some people.

I've had little to complain about since the start of the 2000s, but obviously I know that not everyone is so lucky.

 

[suzanneparis]

Couldn't those 'idle' trains be put to better use offering super cheap travel to those who otherwise could not afford it?

I've seen trains running with very few passengers off peak but still the tickets aren't at giveaway prices. Yes I know that it's not quite so simplistic. But still, I'm sure there must come a point when you can sell a ticket from, for example, Leicester to London for a fiver and fill the train rather than running it with a low percentage occupancy.

 

[6Gman]

Couldn't those 'idle' trains be put to better use offering super cheap travel to those who otherwise could not afford it?

I've seen trains running with very few passengers off peak but still the tickets aren't at giveaway prices. Yes I know that it's not quite so simplistic. But still, I'm sure there must come a point when you can sell a ticket from, for example, Leicester to London for a fiver and fill the train rather than running it with a low percentage occupancy.

Why am I not surprised that you used Leicester - London as an example!

There are lots of examples of TOCs offering very cheap tickets at certain times but it's not always practical or sensible.

 

[HH]

Tfl recently complained that it lost staff to overseas rail projects I don't know how true it is.

I personally know several rail people who have gone to work abroad.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(I don't normally reply to someone who is so gratuitously insulting, so consider yourself lucky.)

http://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/0913a84d-b740-4111-b6f8-bf6470e2d7b7

Since the official ORR figures show an enormous rise in taxpayer funding to the railways since privatisation (the opposite of what was promised by the Tory government), it logically follows that a return to the unified publicly owned model we had under BR would eliminate the inefficiency, duplication and waste of the present structure. If you feel this isn't so, then the onus is on you to explain why, with all the figures to back it up.

LOL. I truly consider myself lucky. Your logical fallacy has already been shot down, so at least I don't need to bother.

The detail of where the savings will come from is included in "The Great Train Robbery" report, a thorough analysis of the shambolic and costly failure that is rail privatisation:

http://www.cresc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/GTR%20Report%20final%205%20June%202013.pdf

If you disagree with any of this report then the onus, once again, is on you to explain where its authors have gone wrong. In detail, please.

The report was part funded by the TUC; it's pretty clear what it's conclusions were going to be - just ask Sir Humphrey. Of course it contains truths, but it also contains some stretching of the truth. For example right at the very beginning of the executive summary it states, "TOCs can make profits only because since 2002 the quasi-public Network Rail runs the infrastructure with a public subsidy of around £4 billion each year". This is simply nonsense. TOCs bid knowing what NR charges are going to be for the length of the franchise. If NR was subsidised less and therefore charged more, then the premium paid by the TOC to the government would be smaller.

I don't have the time to examine every single statement to sort the wheat from the chaff for your benefit. As Oscar Wilde said, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple." Your taking this report at full face value is no better than believing everything you read in the Daily Mail.