Trains...why?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Oldjohnw
Posts: 1831
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Trains...why?

Postby Oldjohnw » 16 Apr 2019, 11:59am

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.
John

Cycling and recycling

kwackers
Posts: 13587
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Trains...why?

Postby kwackers » 16 Apr 2019, 12:41pm

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!

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17220
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Trains...why?

Postby Vorpal » 16 Apr 2019, 12:44pm

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.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
Lance Dopestrong
Posts: 1227
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm

Re: Trains...why?

Postby Lance Dopestrong » 16 Apr 2019, 4:29pm

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.
https://themediocrecyclist.home.blog
Self employed MIAS L5.B Instructor.
Warwickshire Lowland Rescue Bike lead.
IPMBA certified member.
Cyctech C2 hammer and crowbar bodger.
Lapsed CTC Ride Leader, amateur hour stuff from the fun old days.

PH
Posts: 7515
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Trains...why?

Postby PH » 16 Apr 2019, 4:50pm

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.

kwackers
Posts: 13587
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Trains...why?

Postby kwackers » 16 Apr 2019, 4:57pm

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!

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13789
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Trains...why?

Postby mjr » 16 Apr 2019, 5:49pm

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!
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 1831
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Trains...why?

Postby Oldjohnw » 16 Apr 2019, 6:18pm

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.
Last edited by Oldjohnw on 16 Apr 2019, 6:27pm, edited 1 time in total.
John

Cycling and recycling

mercalia
Posts: 11371
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Trains...why?

Postby mercalia » 16 Apr 2019, 6:23pm

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

User avatar
100%JR
Posts: 851
Joined: 31 May 2016, 10:47pm
Location: High Green,Sheffield.

Re: Trains...why?

Postby 100%JR » 16 Apr 2019, 7:34pm

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:
Last edited by 100%JR on 27 Apr 2019, 1:52am, edited 1 time in total.
Canyon Ultimate CF SL
Boardman CX Comp
We hate "speed" Cameras Fracking is the future.

brynpoeth
Posts: 11058
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Trains...why?

Postby brynpoeth » 26 Apr 2019, 7:18pm

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:
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

irc
Posts: 4537
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Trains...why?

Postby irc » 26 Apr 2019, 7:27pm

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

User avatar
100%JR
Posts: 851
Joined: 31 May 2016, 10:47pm
Location: High Green,Sheffield.

Re: Trains...why?

Postby 100%JR » 27 Apr 2019, 1:54am

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:
Canyon Ultimate CF SL
Boardman CX Comp
We hate "speed" Cameras Fracking is the future.

pete75
Posts: 11740
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Trains...why?

Postby pete75 » 27 Apr 2019, 7:00am

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.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9512
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Trains...why?

Postby Cunobelin » 27 Apr 2019, 8:57am

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