Page 15 of 20

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 11:59am
by Oldjohnw
Lance Dopestrong wrote:I used trains a helluva lot in the late 80s when I was in the army. If you think they're bad now you should hop in a Tardis and try them when British Rail were still running the the show. I don't know what the root cause was, be it apathy, underinvestment, or what, but as bad as they are today they're a different league to days of yore.



Usual and recurring problem. Starve the organisation of funds, show that it is failing, convince people that only privately run organisations work.

Of course, huge subsidy is given to keep these bodies functioning today.

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 12:41pm
by kwackers
Oldjohnw wrote:Usual and recurring problem. Starve the organisation of funds, show that it is failing, convince people that only privately run organisations work.

Of course, huge subsidy is given to keep these bodies functioning today.

Yeah but subsidising private companies is fine, that money goes to a good home.
Public owned companies otoh, well that's OUR money!

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 12:44pm
by Vorpal
And by contrast, NSB, the national rail system in Norway is government managed (through a government owned company), efficient and easy to use. It's quite clear which trains take bikes by reservation only, and which ones are first-come-first-served. The same company serves the entire country, and it is reasonably well-coordinated with services from neiboring countries, and other modes of transport.

Oldjohnw has the right of it. There is a clear strategy in some places to apply increasingly stringent budgets on public sector services, including public transport. Then, the people clamour for reform in the face of the resultant degradation. IMO, the same thing has been happening to the NHS.

The reform thus far has mainly been privitisation and consolidation, neither of which have helped much because the investment has continued to decline.

I somewhat prefer state run enterprise to privitisation, but either way, significant improvements require significant investment. And no, you can't wave HS2 in my face because that sort of thing has limited impact on the rest of the system. New rolling stock, cross rail; these things will help, but not enough to make up for 30 years or more of increasingly stringent budgets.

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 4:29pm
by Lance Dopestrong
Oldjohnw wrote:
Lance Dopestrong wrote:I used trains a helluva lot in the late 80s when I was in the army. If you think they're bad now you should hop in a Tardis and try them when British Rail were still running the the show. I don't know what the root cause was, be it apathy, underinvestment, or what, but as bad as they are today they're a different league to days of yore.



Usual and recurring problem. Starve the organisation of funds, show that it is failing, convince people that only privately run organisations work.

Of course, huge subsidy is given to keep these bodies functioning today.


Could well be, could well be. But where would we get the funds from to subsidise it today? I'd be quite happy to strip the foreign aid budget myself, but I suspect that isn't such a popular stance with those who would support re nationalisation anyway.

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 4:50pm
by PH
Lance Dopestrong wrote:
Could well be, could well be. But where would we get the funds from to subsidise it today?

First we’d need to decide if public transport was a service or a business, all decisions would follow from that one. If we treated the road network as a business motorists would soon be crying in their petrol.

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 4:57pm
by kwackers
PH wrote:
Lance Dopestrong wrote:
Could well be, could well be. But where would we get the funds from to subsidise it today?

First we’d need to decide if public transport was a service or a business, all decisions would follow from that one. If we treated the road network as a business motorists would soon be crying in their petrol.

If you add up what motorists spend on cars and travel it's a staggering amount.
A public transport system funded to the same level would be all grand entrance halls, shoe shine boys and large chandeliers. Not to mention a 300mph train between Warrington and Liverpool.

I could be in work in less than 10 minutes!

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 5:49pm
by mjr
Lance Dopestrong wrote:But where would we get the funds from to subsidise it today? I'd be quite happy to strip the foreign aid budget myself, [...]

It's been a while since anyone on this forum has been willing to argue in favour of measures like that to increase immigration. Chapeau to you!

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 6:18pm
by Oldjohnw
Lance Dopestrong wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:
Lance Dopestrong wrote:I used trains a helluva lot in the late 80s when I was in the army. If you think they're bad now you should hop in a Tardis and try them when British Rail were still running the the show. I don't know what the root cause was, be it apathy, underinvestment, or what, but as bad as they are today they're a different league to days of yore.



Usual and recurring problem. Starve the organisation of funds, show that it is failing, convince people that only privately run organisations work.

Of course, huge subsidy is given to keep these bodies functioning today.


Could well be, could well be. But where would we get the funds from to subsidise it today? I'd be quite happy to strip the foreign aid budget myself, but I suspect that isn't such a popular stance with those who would support re nationalisation anyway.


We already do subsidise it today! About £5bn a year. The taxpayer, of course, pays the capitalist! I believe that the only time a rail company gave the taxpayer something back was when East Coast was temporarily back in state control. So I fear your argument doesn't really work.

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 6:23pm
by mercalia
trains? well they are better than coaches or buses. I cant stand the continuous buffeting as they turn left right and centre and the noise makes me feel sick eventually Trains on the other hand are generally smooth and quiet unless you are on one of thise diesel buses on rails they run from eg Ipswich to Lowestoft - but still better than a bus or coach

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 7:34pm
by 100%JR
brynpoeth wrote:
100%JR wrote:
brynpoeth wrote:What does the 'E' in Edale stand for?

Can only find this:-
As spelt, the name is first recorded in 1732. Earlier recorded versions of the name are Aidele (1086), Heydale (1251), Eydale (1275), Eydal (1285) and Edall (1550).[4]:9
Historically, Edale was the name of the valley of the River Noe
..

Puzzled this out myself, there are e-bikes, e-cigarettes, e-cities etc
e-dale was obviously dreamed up the day before yesterday for marketing porpoises :wink:


Yes but Edale is one word,not hyphenated :wink:

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 26 Apr 2019, 7:18pm
by brynpoeth
Greta Thunberg got a first-class rail pass, travelled from Stockholm to Strasbourg, Roma, London and back home, Plus One
Now she is back at school :wink:

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 26 Apr 2019, 7:27pm
by irc
PH wrote:
Lance Dopestrong wrote:
Could well be, could well be. But where would we get the funds from to subsidise it today?

First we’d need to decide if public transport was a service or a business, all decisions would follow from that one. If we treated the road network as a business motorists would soon be crying in their petrol.


Why is that. Road expenditure is far less than motoring taxes/

https://www.racfoundation.org/data/road ... data-chart

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 27 Apr 2019, 1:54am
by 100%JR
brynpoeth wrote:Greta Thunberg got a first-class rail pass, travelled from Stockholm to Strasbourg, Roma, London and back home, Plus One
Now she is back at school :wink:

She either has a very high boredom threshold or is a sucker for punishment.....or both :lol:

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 27 Apr 2019, 7:00am
by pete75
irc wrote:
PH wrote:
Lance Dopestrong wrote:
Could well be, could well be. But where would we get the funds from to subsidise it today?

First we’d need to decide if public transport was a service or a business, all decisions would follow from that one. If we treated the road network as a business motorists would soon be crying in their petrol.


Why is that. Road expenditure is far less than motoring taxes/

https://www.racfoundation.org/data/road ... data-chart


As is often mentioned here roads are for everyone not just drivers.

Re: Trains...why?

Posted: 27 Apr 2019, 8:57am
by Cunobelin
irc wrote:
PH wrote:
Lance Dopestrong wrote:
Could well be, could well be. But where would we get the funds from to subsidise it today?

First we’d need to decide if public transport was a service or a business, all decisions would follow from that one. If we treated the road network as a business motorists would soon be crying in their petrol.


Why is that. Road expenditure is far less than motoring taxes/

https://www.racfoundation.org/data/road ... data-chart



One of my favourite arguments........

I drink beer - it is taxed, why is that tax not being used to subsidise the eclosing pubs?

I pay tax on my shoes, why is this tax not spent on better pavements?

I pay tax on take-away coffee, why is that money not spent on public toilets?

I pay tax on books, why is that not spent on libraries?

There is no "motoring tax" - simples

However, if there was such a tax, then cherrypicking just one of the expenditure is devious, blinkered and dishonest..... you need to include costs like policing, accidents, emergency services, pollution, congestion, the cost to the NHS of vehicle-related illness and accidents.... the list is endless

It is also arguable how far you should go in including things land lost to parking. Should we include the cost to the tax-payer for the subsidies and scrappage schemes/

For that reason, there are wide variations in the estimates, but none place the realistic costs of motoring to the UK as less than the pa;try sum the "motoring tax" would bring in. Estimates of each car being subsidised by between £500 to £3,000 per year