Public perception of railways

[Krokodil]

Nobody should really be surprised that high earners pay more tax, and the UK personal tax burden (while it has increased recently, notably under the Tories) is still only low to middling internationally.

There's quite a skew these days though, thanks to the personal allowance having gone up dramatically it seems to be quite a small segment of the population who are funding almost all public services. How does that compare internationally?

 

[yorksrob]

The issue here is that fares being lower would lead to far more crowding, so your two stated wants are somewhat contradictory . Limited capacity is the elephant in the room so, absent a major rethink, we are likely to end up with busier trains and paying more for them, so that the crowding increases at a slower rate.

Maybe, but then again in Scotrail peak fares were dropped dramatically and extreme overcrowding doesn't seem to have resulted.

I agree that there is a risk of crowding on some already busy routes, however this seems to be as a result of too many short trains pootling about. Perhaps that angle needs to be looked at !

As a motorist tax payer I agree with you! It's barmy that fuel duty has been frozen for so long. And the cut that Sunak made was even more ludicrous. Its beyond time that fuel duty was increased again at least by the 5p that Sunak cut and then further in the future.

Indeed.

 

[Krokodil]

Rather puts the lie to the "war on motorists" cobblers

 

[Meerkat]

No. People are happy to pay more for things to improve. Survey after survey has shown that, and if you disagree then your view is out of step

Which surveys are these, and if they say that why don’t elections prove it?

The NHS is a money pit and the amount spent on the railway pales in comparison, so it’s a rather odd comparison, although I note upthread you seemed to be suggesting that the NHS is underfunded, so there’s another inconsistency in your position.

The railway is a money pit - Crossrail, electrification, HS2, simple stations…..
I think public services are underproviding, but increasing sums of tax they consume imply something is going wrong within them. My position is based on observation of how democracy has matured to a stage where people know they can vote for more stuff whilst also voting against paying for it themselves, and they repeatedly reject at the ballot box anyone who says they must choose between less stuff and more tax.

As a non-motorist tax payer, I disagree with my taxes being squandered on the never-ending fuel duty freeze. I'd far rather some of that potential funding was spent on public services and infrastructure.

A clear example of voter and protest power. The unions can shut Down the railway but the worst damage is to the railway…….fuel duty protests can shut down the country.

It needs to be understood that the attitude to transport planning then, and in fact until very recently, was one of 'predict and provide'

I’m curious (but not curious enough to research it myself!) what population growth was predicted during the birth of the motorways/Beeching era. Did they think it was going to rocket like it has?

 

[yorksrob]

The railway is a money pit - Crossrail, electrification, HS2, simple stations…..
I think public services are underproviding, but increasing sums of tax they consume imply something is going wrong within them. My position is based on observation of how democracy has matured to a stage where people know they can vote for more stuff whilst also voting against paying for it themselves, and they repeatedly reject at the ballot box anyone who says they must choose between less stuff and more tax.

A clear example of voter and protest power. The unions can shut Down the railway but the worst damage is to the railway…….fuel duty protests can shut down the country.

Is it right that the country should be held to ransom by road hauliers ?

I notice in your previous "money pit" point, you're highlighting large scale infrastructure projects, rather than day to day funding of the public service.

 

[Meerkat]

Is it right that the country should be held to ransom by road hauliers ?

I notice in your previous "money pit" point, you're highlighting large scale infrastructure projects, rather than day to day funding of the public service.

Is it right that the railway is held to ransom by unions?
Fuel duty hits the struggling people, particularly in less urban areas.
i chose the obvious examples. I could pick the HUGE subsidy for Merseyrail and Northern services.

 

[PauloDavesi]

Increasing fuel duty has a significant inflationary effect on all goods and services and is regressive, in that it hits those on low incomes the hardest.

Is that really what we want?

 

[Indigo Soup]

I think public services are underproviding, but increasing sums of tax they consume imply something is going wrong within them. My position is based on observation of how democracy has matured to a stage where people know they can vote for more stuff whilst also voting against paying for it themselves, and they repeatedly reject at the ballot box anyone who says they must choose between less stuff and more tax.

Public services are particularly prone to the cost disease, which is probably a bigger contributor than people voting for free stuff.

 

[12LDA28C]

Increasing fuel duty has a significant inflationary effect on all goods and services and is regressive, in that it hits those on low incomes the hardest.

Is that really what we want?

If you can afford to run a car with all the associated costs that entails, I suggest there are plenty of people on lower incomes.

 

[yorksrob]

Is it right that the railway is held to ransom by unions?
Fuel duty hits the struggling people, particularly in less urban areas.
i chose the obvious examples. I could pick the HUGE subsidy for Merseyrail and Northern services.

I think "being right" is too much of a value judgement to put on industrial action by unions of which I'm not a member.

I personally believe that organised labour has the right to undertake industrial action, so long as it does so legally.

I do find it fascinating that the same people who decry industrial action on the railway, actively support the outcomes of the fuel blockade.

You also mention "struggling people particularly in less urban areas" yet these are precisely the people that Northern's subsidy supports (in the face of indignation from some quarters on here).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Fuel duty hits the struggling people, particularly in less urban areas

That's simply not true.

Sunak's 5p fuel duty cut cost the country £2.4bn a year. Just 4.6% of these 'savings' made their way back to the pockets of the poorest 10% of society. By contrast, 27% of these 'savings' made their way to the richest 20% in society.

38% of the poorest households don't own or have access to a car at all. It is richer people who have multiple cars and it is also richer people who have larger cars which consume more fuel. Brand new Range Rovers and Audi Q4s consume more fuel than a clapped out old Toyota Aygo.

Source: https://www.smf.co.uk/commentary_podcasts/fuel-duty-cut-giveaway-to-rich/

If the Chancellor were to go ahead with a duty freeze, the bottom decile would receive just 4.6% of savings from an upcoming fuel duty freeze compared to 12.8% for the top 10%. This is based on 2019 expenditure and does not account for changes in behaviour prompted by price decreases. Altogether, due to their lower expenditure on fuel, the bottom 50% will receive just 39% of total savings.

Despite the claims of campaigners who portray fuel duty cuts as help for people who are struggling, people in poorer deciles gain relatively little from these freezes, and much less than richer people. An average household in the lowest income decile is estimated to have spent just £232 on fuel duty in 2019, the most recent year with regular travel patterns. This translates to £4.46 a week. Any cuts in fuel duty will therefore be barely noticeable to many motorists, even poorer ones, while having significant impacts on the public finances.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I’m curious (but not curious enough to research it myself!) what population growth was predicted during the birth of the motorways/Beeching era. Did they think it was going to rocket like it has?

It’s hardly relevant to current perceptions of the railways - this thread - but in an attempt to head off another historical ramble I will just state that significant background growth in GB population was explicitly assumed in seminal transport planning documents of the early-mid-1960s, such as Traffic In Towns and the Development of Trunk Routes report. It was the age of the Baby Boomer and mass immigration. Actual growth was in fact slower than expected.

 

[Meerkat]

I do find it fascinating that the same people who decry industrial action on the railway, actively support the outcomes of the fuel blockade.

industrial action on the railway and a rise in fuel duty both cost working people money

You also mention "struggling people particularly in less urban areas" yet these are precisely the people that Northern's subsidy supports (in the face of indignation from some quarters on here).

The numbers using northern’s trains don’t really support this. The railway doesn’t even cover much of those areas.

That's simply not true.

Sunak's 5p fuel duty cut cost the country £2.4bn a year. Just 4.6% of these 'savings' made their way back to the pockets of the poorest 10% of society. By contrast, 27% of these 'savings' made their way to the richest 20% in society.

Not the same argument. Not saving the most in absolute terms doesn’t mean that rising it won’t hurt the struggling workers.

38% of the poorest households don't own or have access to a car at all.

How many of them need a car, and how many of them benefit from rail subsidies? The poorest people don’t go by train (except maybe in inner London), buses cover the distances they travel.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The poorest people don’t go by train (except maybe in inner London), buses cover the distances they travel.

Indeed.

Which is why, given a choice between keeping fuel duty low and keeping the £2 bus fare cap, the choice should always be to raise fuel duty to maintain low bus fares.

Not the same argument. Not saving the most in absolute terms doesn’t mean that rising it won’t hurt the struggling workers.

It is the same argument. The 'savings' back to them from Sunak's fuel duty cut were negligible precisely because they were not actually spending that much on fuel duty in the first place. An increase in fuel duty back to pre-Sunak levels would similarly have a negligible impact on them.

The people paying most of the fuel duty are the people with two or more cars and the people whose cars are fuel-hungry SUVs.

 

[Carlisle]

I personally believe that organised labour has the right to undertake industrial action, so long as it does so legally.

I do find it fascinating that the same people who decry industrial action on the railway, actively support the outcomes of the fuel blockade.

Little difference really both nowadays seem primarily about looking after No 1 not that there’s anything wrong with that ☹️

 

[JamesT]

Indeed.

Which is why, given a choice between keeping fuel duty low and keeping the £2 bus fare cap, the choice should always be to raise fuel duty to maintain low bus fares.

It is the same argument. The 'savings' back to them from Sunak's fuel duty cut were negligible precisely because they were not actually spending that much on fuel duty in the first place. An increase in fuel duty back to pre-Sunak levels would similarly have a negligible impact on them.

The people paying most of the fuel duty are the people with two or more cars and the people whose cars are fuel-hungry SUVs.

Though that's only considering those directly paying fuel duties. Almost everything ends up being transported by road transport, increased costs there will get passed on to everyone.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Though that's only considering those directly paying fuel duties. Almost everything ends up being transported by road transport, increased costs there will get passed on to everyone.

Fuel duty is crippling the road haulage industry, yet 30% of all HGV movements involve completely empty trucks. Empty trucks do 3,677,000,000 miles a year in the UK.

Domestic road freight statistics: July 2021 to June 2022

www.gov.uk

In the 12-month period ending June 2022, GB registered HGVs travelled 5,884 million kilometres whilst empty. This is 30% of total (loaded and empty) vehicle kilometres travelled during the same period (19,746 million kilometres).

Seems there's a heck of a lot of fat to be trimmed. Maybe a rise in fuel duty might focus their minds.

 

[Western Lord]

Fuel duty is crippling the road haulage industry, yet 30% of all HGV movements involve completely empty trucks. Empty trucks do 3,677,000,000 miles a year in the UK.

Domestic road freight statistics: July 2021 to June 2022

www.gov.uk

Seems there's a heck of a lot of fat to be trimmed. Maybe a rise in fuel duty might focus their minds.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Empty running is inevitable, whether it be HGVs, Amazon delivery vans or, indeed, freight trains. Do you think that shipping containers are use once and throw away? Empties have to be returned to where they are needed for the next load.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Empty running is inevitable, whether it be HGVs, Amazon delivery vans or, indeed, freight trains.

Some empty running is, indeed, inevitable.

But when one third of a business' entire mileage is empty running, perhaps they need to look at making their operation slightly more efficient before complaining that fuel duty is crippling them.

 

[JamesT]

Fuel duty is crippling the road haulage industry, yet 30% of all HGV movements involve completely empty trucks. Empty trucks do 3,677,000,000 miles a year in the UK.

Domestic road freight statistics: July 2021 to June 2022

www.gov.uk

Seems there's a heck of a lot of fat to be trimmed. Maybe a rise in fuel duty might focus their minds.

I'm not sure how you get from 30% of HGV movements being empty to there being lots of fat to be trimmed. That merely says there are a lot of journeys which are effectively only one-way. Delivering goods from the producer to the consumer doesn't tend result in a large flow in the other direction.
https://www.mandata.co.uk/insights/rha-manifesto-2024/ claims

most haulage operators coming away with a minimal 2% business margin

A 10% rise in running costs, coupled with a simultaneous 10% decline in freight volume, has no doubt had an influence on the record-breaking collapse of 450 haulage operators in the past year, underscoring the industry’s financial challenges.

That doesn't indicate an industry with lots of 'fat' to it.

 

[sh24]

Some empty running is, indeed, inevitable.

But when one third of a business' entire mileage is empty running, perhaps they need to look at making their operation slightly more efficient before complaining that fuel duty is crippling them.

Simple in principle, very difficult in practice. The geographical imbalance of trade, UK imports much more than it exports, Scotland similarly, store deliveries are effectively one way trips means there will always be a big chunk of empty running. The haulage industry has tried everything to minimise it but there are some basics of economic geography that mean it can't be eliminated.

I can't think of a single haulier who makes good money, it's a high risk, very low margin business with record levels of insolvencies.

 

[Western Lord]

Some empty running is, indeed, inevitable.

But when one third of a business' entire mileage is empty running, perhaps they need to look at making their operation slightly more efficient before complaining that fuel duty is crippling them.

Back in the day half the mileage of merry go round coal trains was empty.

 

[Donny Dave]

Some empty running is, indeed, inevitable.

But when one third of a business' entire mileage is empty running, perhaps they need to look at making their operation slightly more efficient before complaining that fuel duty is crippling them.

My former employer had about half of its truck moves involving empty trailers. After all, once the poultry products have been delivered to the various supermarket RDCs, what can be transported back to the factory?

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

My former employer had about half of its truck moves involving empty trailers. After all, once the poultry products have been delivered to the various supermarket RDCs, what can be transported back to the factory?

There are always back loads to be had from most areas if you are clever with your planning.

 

[Donny Dave]

There are always back loads to be had from most areas if you are clever with your planning.

Back loads of what? By the time the driver has gone from Scunthorpe to Avonmouth (for example), that's getting on for half his driving time. He can't they go and get a load of live chicken from a farm to take back to the factory, as the trailers are refrigerated, and have no ventilation so are completely unsuitable (not to mention illegal) for the transport of livestock. Other products are not allowed, as they could be classed as potential contaminates, which would mean the trailer needs deep cleaning upon arrival back at the factory. The only thing the lorries can bring back to the factory are empty pallets, but that is only when they are needed, and the RDC has some available.

 

[Krokodil]

A clear example of voter and protest power. The unions can shut Down the railway but the worst damage is to the railway…….fuel duty protests can shut down the country.

The protests were in the year 2000. Following which Brown removed the above-inflation element but kept the increases at the rate of inflation. It was from 2011 that the Conservatives began their programme of real terms cuts in fuel duty.

Increasing fuel duty has a significant inflationary effect on all goods and services and is regressive, in that it hits those on low incomes the hardest.

Is that really what we want?

The Sunak cut went straight into the pockets of the oil giants. Consumers (particularly the poorer ones) hardly saw anything.

Though that's only considering those directly paying fuel duties. Almost everything ends up being transported by road transport, increased costs there will get passed on to everyone.

Rich people consume more than poor people.

My former employer had about half of its truck moves involving empty trailers. After all, once the poultry products have been delivered to the various supermarket RDCs, what can be transported back to the factory?

Chicken feed. But personally I buy from small businesses anyway which keeps the food miles down.

 

[Magdalia]

I’m curious (but not curious enough to research it myself!) what population growth was predicted during the birth of the motorways/Beeching era.

The UK birth rate was very high, over 700k in every year from 1956 to 1972, with a peak of 876k in 1964.

By way of comparison, the 2023 figure was announced today, the first time since 2002 that it has fallen below 600k.

Fuel duty is crippling the road haulage industry

Fuel duty is not crippling the road haulage industry.

Almost everything ends up being transported by road transport, increased costs there will get passed on to everyone.

Almost all of those goods will still be transported, whatever the duty level is. There will still be almost the same amount of work for the road haulage industry if fuel duty is raised. That's not being crippled.

 

[Cowley]

I think at this point it’s fairly clear that we’re drifting away from the subject, so that’ll probably do us.

Thanks everyone