Train Fares Going Up Again

[mancmackem]

What's this got to do with trains?

 

[mcfcliam]

What's this got to do with trains?

Ask the bloke having a go at me 2 pages back.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In February 2001 I spent the weekend in Dublin on the piss. At about half four on the Saturday I wanted to find the City result and this being the days before you could watch every kick of the Premier League in every corner of the globe, I went to a department store and headed for their TV section awaiting 'Final Score'..

I remember this well because we were playing at away at Newcastle and we got a rare win courtesy of a Shaun Goater goal. I also remember this because in the TV section was what had to be a 50 inch TV which was 60,000 Euros, some 40,000 quid at the time. That TV (or its equivalent) would set you back around 1% of that price today a little over a decade later. And why is that?

Competition.

If I think a Sony doesn't give me value then I can buy a Panasonic. It is this consumer choice which has made manufacturers strive for competitive advantage over each other in terms of features and price which has meant that a product that was once only for the very rich is now widely accessible. This is capitalism at its finest.

If I don't like the service that I am getting from a train provider what can I do? In reality little other than to use an alternative mode of transport. Supporters of the current system would say that the competition occurs within the tendering process but this is a specious argument, not least because the interests of the consumer are subservient to other considerations within that process, not least the amount that the successful tenderer bungs the government in de facto tax revenue.

The capitalistic model does not work in this sector of the economy. It does not serve the common wider interests of society in any discernible manner.

The transport infrastructure should be in public hands in the public interest. This is not a matter of politics, but rather one of common sense.

do you accept that they tend to be run badly under government control?

I believe any state run organisation will have inherent issues with efficiency and bureaucracy. It's just the way it is.

I take that fully into account when forming my view on this matter. The fact is that the benefits that capitalism is meant to deliver in terms of efficiencies (and those efficiencies being passed on to consumers) has failed to materialise in the railways. This is due to an absence of competition on each of the networks. The railway system does not lend itself to competing providers offering the same service on the same tracks - it would be utter chaos and dangerous. If you accept that then it is difficult to describe the current arrangement as anything other than a series of monopolies with the sole purpose of those monopolies being the enrichment of the shareholders.

I am under no illusions that British Rail was piss poor, but that fact cannot prevent a debate on re-nationalisation occurring in perpetuity. The rolling stock, for example, has improved but so it fucking should have - what hasn't in the last 20 years?

If it's going to be inefficient (as it currently is) and expensive (which it currently is) and disinterested in the needs of passengers (which it currently is) then it may as well be in state hands imo.

 

[hilts]

In February 2001 I spent the weekend in Dublin on the piss. At about half four on the Saturday I wanted to find the City result and this being the days before you could watch every kick of the Premier League in every corner of the globe, I went to a department store and headed for their TV section awaiting 'Final Score'..

I remember this well because we were playing at away at Newcastle and we got a rare win courtesy of a Shaun Goater goal. I also remember this because in the TV section was what had to be a 50 inch TV which was 60,000 Euros, some 40,000 quid at the time. That TV (or its equivalent) would set you back around 1% of that price today a little over a decade later. And why is that?

Competition.

If I think a Sony doesn't give me value then I can buy a Panasonic. It is this consumer choice which has made manufacturers strive for competitive advantage over each other in terms of features and price which has meant that a product that was once only for the very rich is now widely accessible. This is capitalism at its finest.

If I don't like the service that I am getting from a train provider what can I do? In reality little other than to use an alternative mode of transport. Supporters of the current system would say that the competition occurs within the tendering process but this is a specious argument, not least because the interests of the consumer are subservient to other considerations within that process, not least the amount that the successful tenderer bungs the government in de facto tax revenue.

The capitalistic model does not work in this sector of the economy. It does not serve the common wider interests of society in any discernible manner.

The transport infrastructure should be in public hands in the public interest. This is not a matter of politics, but rather one of common sense.

do you accept that they tend to be run badly under government control?

I think GDM is right.

BR was run badly of that there is no doubt, as i remember it, it was ramshackle and run down. But its not the systems fault that it was so, it was the management who did badly.

Nationalise it and put people in charge who can run it properly, involve the unions as there members work on the floor and know what works and what doesnt. Public transport should be just that, public owned.

agree but getting the right management and the right type of unions is the key, my old man worked for GMB and then stagecoach and he admits that he preferred it under GMB because he didnt have to work as hard or as effectively

can a nationalised company be run with a private companies ethos? i'm not so sure

 

[117 M34]

What's this got to do with trains?

Ask the bloke having a go at me 2 pages back.

I asked you a question, you called me a prick and a moron. Who is having a go at who? Wonder why you got banned so much?

Anyway, why am I bitter of you?

 

[Rascal]

In February 2001 I spent the weekend in Dublin on the piss. At about half four on the Saturday I wanted to find the City result and this being the days before you could watch every kick of the Premier League in every corner of the globe, I went to a department store and headed for their TV section awaiting 'Final Score'..

I remember this well because we were playing at away at Newcastle and we got a rare win courtesy of a Shaun Goater goal. I also remember this because in the TV section was what had to be a 50 inch TV which was 60,000 Euros, some 40,000 quid at the time. That TV (or its equivalent) would set you back around 1% of that price today a little over a decade later. And why is that?

Competition.

If I think a Sony doesn't give me value then I can buy a Panasonic. It is this consumer choice which has made manufacturers strive for competitive advantage over each other in terms of features and price which has meant that a product that was once only for the very rich is now widely accessible. This is capitalism at its finest.

If I don't like the service that I am getting from a train provider what can I do? In reality little other than to use an alternative mode of transport. Supporters of the current system would say that the competition occurs within the tendering process but this is a specious argument, not least because the interests of the consumer are subservient to other considerations within that process, not least the amount that the successful tenderer bungs the government in de facto tax revenue.

The capitalistic model does not work in this sector of the economy. It does not serve the common wider interests of society in any discernible manner.

The transport infrastructure should be in public hands in the public interest. This is not a matter of politics, but rather one of common sense.

do you accept that they tend to be run badly under government control?

I believe any state run organisation will have inherent issues with efficiency and bureaucracy. It's just the way it is.

I take that fully into account when forming my view on this matter. The fact is that the benefits that capitalism is meant to deliver in terms of efficiencies (and those efficiencies being passed on to consumers) has failed to materialise in the railways. This is due to an absence of competition on each of the networks. The railway system does not lend itself to competing providers offering the same service on the same tracks - it would be utter chaos and dangerous. If you accept that then it is difficult to describe the current arrangement as anything other than a series of monopolies with the sole purpose of those monopolies being the enrichment of the shareholders.

I am under no illusions that British Rail was piss poor, but that fact cannot prevent a debate on re-nationalisation occurring in perpetuity. The rolling stock, for example, has improved but so it fucking should have - what hasn't in the last 20 years?

If it's going to be inefficient (as it currently is) and expensive (which it currently is) and disinterested in the needs of passengers (which it currently is) then it may as well be in state hands imo.

I find this post pleasing :)

Commie

 

[mcfcliam]

What's this got to do with trains?

Ask the bloke having a go at me 2 pages back.

I asked you a question, you called me a prick and a moron. Who is having a go at who? Wonder why you got banned so much?

Anyway, why am I bitter of you?

I said you were bitter overall, not of me personally, just of everything. No other person felt the need to pick on my post apart from you, so you must be a bit of a moron.

Okay, there, I answered the bitter question and the moron question. I could answer the prick one if you like but I'm afraid you're not worth anymore strain on my fingers.

Happy?

 

[117 M34]

yep, very thanks.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

do you accept that they tend to be run badly under government control?

I believe any state run organisation will have inherent issues with efficiency and bureaucracy. It's just the way it is.

I take that fully into account when forming my view on this matter. The fact is that the benefits that capitalism is meant to deliver in terms of efficiencies (and those efficiencies being passed on to consumers) has failed to materialise in the railways. This is due to an absence of competition on each of the networks. The railway system does not lend itself to competing providers offering the same service on the same tracks - it would be utter chaos and dangerous. If you accept that then it is difficult to describe the current arrangement as anything other than a series of monopolies with the sole purpose of those monopolies being the enrichment of the shareholders.

I am under no illusions that British Rail was piss poor, but that fact cannot prevent a debate on re-nationalisation occurring in perpetuity. The rolling stock, for example, has improved but so it fucking should have - what hasn't in the last 20 years?

If it's going to be inefficient (as it currently is) and expensive (which it currently is) and disinterested in the needs of passengers (which it currently is) then it may as well be in state hands imo.

I find this post pleasing :)

Commie

I'm a complicated character, Rasc ;-)

 

[johnny on the spot]

Great post gdm.