Controversial opinion: The UK has a pretty decent rail system

[al78]

Who does then? The magic money fairy?

He meant that the money gained from taxing motoring related activities exceeds the money spent on the road network, so road investment is not a net cost. Unfortunately this line of thinking requires ignoring externalised costs, which do place a burden on the taxpayer, and which neo-liberal capitalism chooses to conveniently ignore on the balance sheet, because financial costs are all that matters, and destructive side effects and social costs don't exist.

 

[Master29]

A subjective point really. Decent would be an opinion. Geographic's and aesthetics could play play a large part in this too, e.g Dawlish, a pain in the `arris in adding on time to the journey between Exeter and Plymouth but very scenic and enjoyable to go through the area.

 

[chris_in_salop]

Do you lot ever get tired of telling each other how wonderful your precious railway is?

The fact is that a substantial minority (perhaps even a majority) of UK people don't get on a train from one year to the next. Part of this is that the whole passenger experience of rail travel, at least in the provinces, is pretty poor - rundown, overcrowded and expensive. As a regular rail commuter, even on a good day, I will have to listen to continual nagging drone of announcements, I will slowly get funnelled through hugely inadequate ticket barriers, and I will probably get barked at by some charmer in uniform.

I know you're all going to get defensive, but imagine if a supermarket offered the same level of customer service as the railway. It wouldn't stay in business long.

 

[Meerkat]

It is clear that commuter tickets are unaffordable for many low earners

I disagree. Wages are too low. Subsidising suburban commuting is just subsidising inner city employers and the further concentration of jobs in city centres, whilst distorting the job and housing markets in the suburbs.

 

[Modron]

Do you lot ever get tired of telling each other how wonderful your precious railway is?

The fact is that a substantial minority (perhaps even a majority) of UK people don't get on a train from one year to the next. Part of this is that the whole passenger experience of rail travel, at least in the provinces, is pretty poor - rundown, overcrowded and expensive. As a regular rail commuter, even on a good day, I will have to listen to continual nagging drone of announcements, I will slowly get funnelled through hugely inadequate ticket barriers, and I will probably get barked at by some charmer in uniform.

I know you're all going to get defensive, but imagine if a supermarket offered the same level of customer service as the railway. It wouldn't stay in business long.

You haven't shopped at Tesco on Black Friday then!

 

[squizzler]

Do you lot ever get tired of telling each other how wonderful your precious railway is?

Nope.

The fact is that a substantial minority (perhaps even a majority) of UK people don't get on a train from one year to the next.

According to a recent letter on Modern Railways 65% of the population use the train once or more per year (attributed to National Travel Survey).

Part of this is that the whole passenger experience of rail travel, at least in the provinces, is pretty poor - rundown, overcrowded and expensive.

Not all provinces are equal. The other home nations are doing well. English regions less so, but that is the government not the fault of the industry.

 

[radamfi]

I disagree. Wages are too low. Subsidising suburban commuting is just subsidising inner city employers and the further concentration of jobs in city centres, whilst distorting the job and housing markets in the suburbs.

City centres are better for public transport access so encouraging city centre employment over suburban jobs means reduced car usage, as long as people walk or cycle to the station.

 

[sheff1]

I'm happy that those lines are still open, but I'm dubious that they are vital links in the modern network

You do not think the Hope Valley line is a vital link ?? It directly connects two of the largest cities in the country as well as providing links (very well used) to/from the major North of England airport. The alternative road network is not even dual carriageway for most of its length and is closed by snow at various times during the winter.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

So it IS the taxpayer?

I'm confused!

If you're confused, I can't help you. The post you snipped is written in plain English.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I remember reading somewhere, once quite long ago, that somebody proposed doing 'Orbital Railways' around major cities like Manchester, London and Birmingham (like an M25, but for trains). I think I read it in RAIL back in the early 2000s but am not 100% sure.

Although it would cost a lot of money to do, would the idea of these 'Orbital Railways' as a bypass to these cities be a good or bad idea, so that trains don't get held up in city centres?

I think in a lot of cases, orbital railways would be a very good idea, but not for the reason you suggest. To take Manchester as an example, you could for example build a Northern Orbital line, which in principle would allow trains to get from Liverpool to Leeds by-passing Manchester. That would be pretty silly though, (a) because the roundabout route would probably more than cancel out any savings from avoiding the slow bit in central Manchester, and (b) more importantly, because you'd then lose all the passengers travelling to/from Manchester - and those passengers are a big part of why such frequent services on that corridor are viable. Realistically, trains don't get held up in city centres nearly as much as cars and buses do anyway.

But on the other hand, the same hypothetical orbital railway would be extremely useful for allowing journeys such as Bolton to Bury or Bury to Rochdale - which are currently pretty short distances by road but not really viable by rail.

The same logic would apply to most other places where you could build an orbital railway: It wouldn't be very useful for by-passing the major city, but it would be a very good idea for allowing local orbital journeys that can have quite significant flows but for which rail doesn't currently cater at all.

And - to bring that back to the topic of the thread - I would say that the almost universal lack of orbital railways around most of our big cities is one area in which our rail network could have been a lot better.

 

[Mikey C]

You do not think the Hope Valley line is a vital link ?? It directly connects two of the largest cities in the country as well as providing links (very well used) to/from the major North of England airport. The alternative road network is not even dual carriageway for most of its length and is closed by snow at various times during the winter.

I wasn't necessarily talking about every example in that list, though in the case of the Hope Valley Line, that was kept open instead of the Woodhead Line. There was never a plan to remove ALL lines between Manchester and Sheffield

 

[radamfi]

Do high fares mean that some people make journeys by car that could have been done by train?

 

[mmh]

Do high fares mean that some people make journeys by car that could have been done by train?

Yes, lots, especially when more than one person is travelling.

 

[RichT54]

I noticed the following, inevitably pro-car, opinion piece on Auto Express' website yesterday:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-n...h-a-decade-ago-and-is-even-more-rubbish-today

It’s godawful, embarrassing and pathetic enough that the Government-funded watchdog, Transport Focus, revealed a few days ago that rail services are worse now than they were way back in 2008. Put another way, train travel was rubbish a decade ago and is even more rubbish today. Progress? What progress? Generally, there hasn’t been any.

I wonder whether the majority of the public agree with his point of view or that of the OP?

 

[Mikey C]

Do high fares mean that some people make journeys by car that could have been done by train?

As passenger numbers have nearly doubled in the last 20 years or so, that doesn't suggest that it's had an impact on overall numbers.

And petrol prices have shot up massively during this period as well. Duties may have been frozen in recent years, but went up significantly before then

 

[squizzler]

I noticed the following, inevitably pro-car, opinion piece on Auto Express' website yesterday:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-n...h-a-decade-ago-and-is-even-more-rubbish-today



I wonder whether the majority of the public agree with his point of view or that of the OP?

I seem to recall this Mike Rutherford chap wrote for the Saturday Telegraph's motoring supplement under the column name "mr money" or similar, and tried to adopt the persona of being savvy and frugal.

He will twist a headline any which way to talk up the humble motorcar as a practical transport choice. Fair play. Britain needs eccentrics like Mike banging the drum for alternative transport, it provides us with fun to point out holes in his logic.

It is obvious why public satisfaction with the rail service to have reached one of its cyclical nadirs. Growth in passengers has outstripped the delivery of extra capacity during the last decade, whereas the investment made in the meantime is belatedly starting to bear fruit. The darkest hour is before the dawn, etc, etc.

 

[Meerkat]

City centres are better for public transport access so encouraging city centre employment over suburban jobs means reduced car usage, as long as people walk or cycle to the station.

That works for inner suburban metro areas, but as soon as you get to the outer suburbs people are driving to the stations and bus services concentrate on the stations rather than local employment zones. You would reduce more traffic by concentrating on services between outer urban areas - ie services like Redhill-Guildford-Reading

 

[radamfi]

As passenger numbers have nearly doubled in the last 20 years or so, that doesn't suggest that it's had an impact on overall numbers.

And petrol prices have shot up massively during this period as well. Duties may have been frozen in recent years, but went up significantly before then

Passenger growth may have something to do with increased concentration of employment in London and other city centres that are inconvenient to drive to.

 

[Mikey C]

Passenger growth may have something to do with increased concentration of employment in London and other city centres that are inconvenient to drive to.

London and the South East has by far the biggest numbers of course, but the growth pattern is pretty consistent elsewhere too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Great_Britain#Annual_passenger_numbers

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I noticed the following, inevitably pro-car, opinion piece on Auto Express' website yesterday:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-n...h-a-decade-ago-and-is-even-more-rubbish-today

I wonder whether the majority of the public agree with his point of view or that of the OP?

Judging from the comments following the article, a fair few readers have twigged that the article is basically rubbish. Very few comments in support of the article and lots pointing out that in many cases, rail is the only reasonable way to get lots of people into city centres.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Do high fares mean that some people make journeys by car that could have been done by train?

Clearly that's going to have some impact, as cost is going to be something that people take into account when planning journeys. Where I live, in SE London, there are anecdotal reports of commuters driving in from Kent and then getting the train the rest of the way into central London because it's cheaper than getting the train all the way.

However, I doubt that it's a huge impact. Realistically, on many routes, trains are already packed out, so lack of capacity on the railways will be as much a factor as price in persuading some people to drive. I suspect that if you - say - reduced fares by 10%, you'd pull a few people out of cars, but it would be marginal.

 

[sheff1]

Do high fares mean that some people make journeys by car that could have been done by train?

In my circle of friend/acquaintances the answer is undoubtedly 'yes'. Many have considered rail for journeys but, upon finding out the fare, have driven instead, even when rail would be quicker. Most have no particular antipathy to rail per se - they will happily fly to various countries and travel round by train, rather than hiring a car, if they consider the rail fares "reasonable".

 

[6Gman]

Do you lot ever get tired of telling each other how wonderful your precious railway is?

The fact is that a substantial minority (perhaps even a majority) of UK people don't get on a train from one year to the next. Part of this is that the whole passenger experience of rail travel, at least in the provinces, is pretty poor - rundown, overcrowded and expensive. As a regular rail commuter, even on a good day, I will have to listen to continual nagging drone of announcements, I will slowly get funnelled through hugely inadequate ticket barriers, and I will probably get barked at by some charmer in uniform.

I know you're all going to get defensive, but imagine if a supermarket offered the same level of customer service as the railway. It wouldn't stay in business long.

I travel mostly in "the provinces". Granted I don't commute and I very rarely travel in the morning peak (but frequently in the evening peak).

The trains range from rundown and grotty (142s), via rundown but comfy (175s), via other variations to comfortable (390s). A Pendolino from Stockport to Crewe! I can remember when Stockport to Crewe was usually a Class 304 ! !

Overcrowded? Sometimes, though I very rarely have to stand. Granted, I'm glad I don't use the Manchester - Stoke stopper!

Expensive? Well, that's subjective.

Announcements range from useful to tedious (and lacking purpose). The barriers can be a nuisance but in some places there are only so many you can fit. Rarely barked at by "some charmer in uniform".

[ Have to say that in my experience station toilets are better maintained and train buffets better stocked than my local Sainsburys manages ... ]

 

[Meerkat]

My answer to “it’s too expensive” is
How would you make it cheaper - what would you cut or is there some efficiency everyone is missing?
Or are you just expecting someone else to sub you?

 

[6Gman]

My answer to “it’s too expensive” is
How would you make it cheaper - what would you cut or is there some efficiency everyone is missing?
Or are you just expecting someone else to sub you?

Just looking at season ticket prices from my local station to Manchester.

Works out around 20p per mile, which hardly seems excessive.

 

[sheff1]

My answer to “it’s too expensive” is
How would you make it cheaper - what would you cut or is there some efficiency everyone is missing?

The friends etc I mentioned make it cheaper by using their car instead.

I make my travel cheaper by using split tickets and loopholes. As, nowadays, all my journeys are optional then if, in my view, the fare for a particular journey is still "too expensive" I don't make it.

Ideas for 'efficiencies' (realistic or otherwise) have been discussed at length on various threads. No need to go over them again on this one.

 

[Meerkat]

Works out around 20p per mile, which hardly seems excessive.

Especially not when subsidy for Northern Rail is 26p per passenger kilometre!

 

[radamfi]

The primary reason for rail is to reduce congestion and pollution, so if people are still driving because fares are too high then it goes against that. Rail also provides transport for those without a car and provides additional transport capacity, but that is incidental.

 

[squizzler]

Perhaps the success of the rail system identified by the OP is due to the diversity of ownership and management systems. It's a spectrum of public, private and voluntary sector, a true melting pot of different business cultures. Sure, no proponent of any business culture is really happy, but that's a feature not a bug, right?

Those who prefer private enterprise can marvel at a number of thrusting businesses within the franchise system and, for those who really like free enterprise, there is a handful of open access operators.

The other camp who believe in state enterprise get the satisfaction of knowing that Network Rail is government owned. Imagine the joy for proponents of a nationalised train operator to discover there is in fact a whole smorgasbord of national operators to choose from: France, Netherlands, Germany and even Hong Kong! Want to wave the flag of your own British nationalised operator? That'll be East Coast.

For those who believe in the goldilocks approach of mixed economy: regionalisation and municipal control with partnership style franchises there is Transport for Wales leading the way.

Voluntary sector or the civic activism scene more your thing? Go heritage railways and community rail partnerships!

With such a diverse ecosystem containing public, voluntary, private and all in-between, it is no wonder this whole nationalisation versus privatisation debate has been well and truly put to bed.

 

[yorksrob]

Especially not when subsidy for Northern Rail is 26p per passenger kilometre!

But Northern rail is itself an artificial construct. Why not merge the part of it centred around Manchester with the WCML, and see the subsidy magically reduce ! True, WC would deliver less money to the treasury, but they would only have to pay it out in subsidy otherwise.

It's impossible to run a decent public transport system without subsidy somewhere.