Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[HSTEd]

The disadvantage is you're still disconnecting the price people pay from the actual cost of the resources used for each journey - which is always going to lead to economically inefficient decisions. Far better really to just charge people a reasonable price for each journey that reflects the cost of providing that transport, and also sort out a decent road pricing system for cars so that motorists also pay the appropriate marginal cost for each journey.

The problem here is that reflecting the actual cost of the rail industry with each journey is extremely difficult.

Off peak journeys on lines not near capacity limits don't really cost much at all, but other journeys are extraordinarily expensive.

 

[yorksrob]

The thing about making railways completely free is that it removes any operational independence from treasury, leaves the railway at the mercy of the business cycle and risks another Beeching everytime there is a recession. If somewhat "paying it's way", even if it only pays it way through budgetary sleight of hand, is that it makes the political case for closures harder and stops the government using it as piggybank to raid every time it feels skint


Any fantasy of Britain returning to a primarily industrial export economy will first of all need to find a way of making our energy significantly cheaper (which will clash with environmental goals), and make British workers purchasing power much less, so they can work for cheap again, which won't be popular. While we have goods defecit we have a service surplus. I don't think it would be a clever idea to copy Trump and make our population poorer on purpose so we can factories again like the "good ol days".

I'd settle for more restrictions on multi-national takeovers. Many western countries already have restrictions on who can swoop in and buy what.

 

[renegademaster]

I'd settle for more restrictions on multi-national takeovers.

And have British investments in other countries siezed in retaliation? That would surely good for the economy. What decriers of foreign investment forget is that we just as many fingers in foreign pies than foreigners have fingers in ours.

 

[yorksrob]

And have British investments in other countries siezed in retaliation? That would surely good for the economy. What decriers of foreign investment forget is that we just as many fingers in foreign pies than foreigners have fingers in ours.

"Siezing things" is always going to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Better to be more choosy about when such takeovers are made in the first place.

If we do have as many fingers in other pies, where is the wealth and the growth from those going. Several years of economic stagnation suggest not here.

 

[renegademaster]

"Siezing things" is always going to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Better to be more choosy about when such takeovers are made in the first place.

If we do have as many fingers in other pies, where is the wealth and the growth from those going. Several years of economic stagnation suggest not here.

Your logic is a bit flawed here.

Poor growth doesn't mean the financial sector and it's revenues don't exist, it shows that since other sectors declined, if you decided to chase them away as well, we'd be even poorer.

If we want good relations with the EU, we can't be xenophobic and stop their companies investing in our economy. If you want to ban foreign investment, prepare for a lot more trade barriers

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If we do have as many fingers in other pies, where is the wealth and the growth from those going. Several years of economic stagnation suggest not here.

Where's the wealth going? Well we did have 18 months or so of Covid, don't forget. And energy is much scarcer and more expensive now we (rightly) don't want to buy Russian energy - that alone likely puts a big brake on growth. Brexit will have had an impact. And the other thing is - people forget that the last few decades have been characterised by a huge growth in environmental and safety etc. regulations. Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. Thanks to that many of us for example breathe much cleaner, less polluted air than we would have done 20 years ago. But the economic resources spent making that happen are economic resources that can't be spent making us better off in more material ways - and that's bound to have been reflected a bit in our growth/living standards.

 

[yorksrob]

Where's the wealth going? Well we did have 18 months or so of Covid, don't forget. And energy is much scarcer and more expensive now we (rightly) don't want to buy Russian energy - that alone likely puts a big brake on growth. Brexit will have had an impact. And the other thing is - people forget that the last few decades have been characterised by a huge growth in environmental and safety etc. regulations. Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. Thanks to that many of us for example breathe much cleaner, less polluted air than we would have done 20 years ago. But the economic resources spent making that happen are economic resources that can't be spent making us better off in more material ways - and that's bound to have been reflected a bit in our growth/living standards.

These are good points, but should also be true of other western countries with less stagnant economies.

 

[renegademaster]

These are good points, but should also be true of other western countries with less stagnant economies.

The important question is what countries?

The only big country has that fared well out of Covid has been the USA. Germany and much of the EU have been pretty much the same boat.

 

[yorksrob]

The important question is what countries?

The only big country has that fared well out of Covid has been the USA. Germany and much of the EU have been pretty much the same boat.

Even the Europeans seem to be doing better at the moment.

The French for example have a good network of large companies which they see as strategically important and which they don't allow takeovers.

 

[JamesT]

Even the Europeans seem to be doing better at the moment.

The French for example have a good network of large companies which they see as strategically important and which they don't allow takeovers.

If you think growth in the UK has been poor, I'm not sure you want to pick out the French as an example to us as their growth has been even worse.

 

[renegademaster]

The French for example have a good network of large companies which they see as strategically important and which they don't allow takeovers

They are also going through a big austerity push at the moment.

 

[yorksrob]

If you think growth in the UK has been poor, I'm not sure you want to pick out the French as an example to us as their growth has been even worse.

They are also going through a big austerity push at the moment.

Well, I hope it doesn't lead to them flogging off all the family silver, otherwise they'll be properly screwed (fortunately I sense that the continental Europeans wouldn't be so stupid).

To be fair, it might be the Eurozone as a whole we're lagging in growth.

 

[Wolfie]

Well, I hope it doesn't lead to them flogging off all the family silver, otherwise they'll be properly screwed (fortunately I sense that the continental Europeans wouldn't be so stupid).

To be fair, it might be the Eurozone as a whole we're lagging in growth.

Without getting political, the UK went through a self-imposed economic issue which the Eurozone did not....

 

[yorksrob]

Without getting political, the UK went through a self-imposed economic issue which the Eurozone did not....

Well, that's not the only self-imposed economic issue we've created for ourselves over the past few decades.

 

[Meerkat]

Well, that's not the only self-imposed economic issue we've created for ourselves over the past few decades.

Indeed - nationalised industries and letting the unions run them for a start….

 

[The Ham]

That kind of system has the advantage of evening out the playing field with cars, where for a car you pay a massive upfront cost and then the marginal additional cost of each journey is so low that you get incentivised to drive even when buses and trains are perfectly adequate, or walking or cycling would be feasible.

The disadvantage is you're still disconnecting the price people pay from the actual cost of the resources used for each journey - which is always going to lead to economically inefficient decisions. Far better really to just charge people a reasonable price for each journey that reflects the cost of providing that transport, and also sort out a decent road pricing system for cars so that motorists also pay the appropriate marginal cost for each journey.

Capacity would likely stop people from taking short trips at busy times, when capacity isn't an issue then taking unnecessary travel wouldn't be an issue.

Yes you'd want to look at improving capacity, which would come at a cost, however some of that cost would be built into the numbers assumed.

For example the £5bn of TfL revenue includes income from their road pricing (some of which would disappear), however had nothing to do with how much it costs to run public transport.

Likewise, the £1bn of revenue at First Group would include some income from railways and possibly overseas - which means either I've double counted or it's extra money which I've allowed for which isn't needed.

That's before you consider cost savings (less station "office costs" and fewer staff needed - and even if you retain some for customer service or safety reasons there would be some savings you could deliver; for example a station with two ticket staff and a member of platform staff could see that reduce by one member of staff and still have a better customer facing service than currently) or other forms of income (rather than needing ticket windows and queuing space you could have another retail space).

That's assuming no cost savings from roads (less road building and less maintenance would be needed) and no cost savings from people being healer (walking to/from/between public transport stops).

 

[Meerkat]

Capacity would likely stop people from taking short trips at busy times, when capacity isn't an issue then taking unnecessary travel wouldn't be an issue.

Unless it being free meant that capacity is short at most times.
Peaks will be crushloaded without pricing push.
And parts of the system will be the Wild West with scratters and roadmen

 

[andy33gmail]

Rail accounts for 10% of miles travelled, if we were to close all the railways we'd need an extra 10% road capacity.

Yeah ... but a lot of it would need to be in cities where cars don't fit.

I've got a few opinions, which I don't think have been mentioned so far:

1. Emissions should be taxed uniformly, as should most/all public bads. So in some cases a very efficient ICE car full of passengers might be penalised less per mile than a poorly utilised diesel train. Aviation would ... struggle a bit ... and rightly so. It's a nonsense having to pay a premium to use the Eurostar vs two BrianAir flights to get to Europe.
2. Ticket barriers should be completely removed. Make ticketing simple enough you can't make a mistake, then make travelling without a ticket have a severe enough penalty that no-one does it. After all, even shops containing expensive items don't need barriers. That and it works fine in Berlin.
3. Rail safety standards should be relaxed. A bit. After all, making railways more economical would take people off the roads and save more lives / increase quality of life
4. People shouldn't priorities newts and small number of residences over strategicly important things like HS2. Give them compensation and/or throw them in a lake.

 

[eldomtom2]

3. Rail safety standards should be relaxed. A bit. After all, making railways more economical would take people off the roads and save more lives / increase quality of life

I do think a comparison of safety standards between the UK and other countries would be helpful - if another country doesn't have rule X, have there been casualties that could be attributed to them not having rule X?

 

[HSTEd]

Unless it being free meant that capacity is short at most times.
Peaks will be crushloaded without pricing push.

Ultimately, crowding would control demand.

Just as it does on the Northern Line in rush hour!

 

[Bald Rick]

After all, even shops containing expensive items don't need barriers.

Many do, they call them locked doors and security guards!

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed - nationalised industries and letting the unions run them for a start….

I was thinking more of half-baked privatisations and allowing banks and foreign companies to take ownership of critical infrastructure (British Steel, Thames water etc).

Some of it makes railway privatisation look vaguely sensible in comparison.

Anyway - going off topic - apologies.

 

[The Ham]

Just been thinking about the cost to provide public transport for free, per tax payer is likely to be a cost of about £1,000 per year, if not less (Compared with the current government spend per tax payer of £17,000).

Sorry, my memory was off by a factor of about 2, it's not £17,000 per tax payer, as that's the amount per person.

Per tax payer is around £32,000!

 

[HSTEd]

The railway should not be relying on cycling platform screens through multiple pages of text any longer.
Especially when they have started (at least on the ECML) having someone sign out each train in sequence.

You end up waiting a long time for the page to turn over.