| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 18:08 - Feb 16 with 2466 views | BedfordBlue |
This move to remove off-peak (non-advance) fares is worrying. But it's wrong to say its anything to do with nationalisation.
Under the franchising system that ran from privatisation in the 90s until Covid hit, the government (through DfT) would specify requirements for a route and prospective franchisees would bid on how they'd achieve this. In this way, DfT pushed through removal of guards on several routes.
Since 2020, most routes are now operating on a concession basis with the private company running the route no longer holding operating risk (instead they get paid a percentage of the turnover costs). DfT pushed all of the rail companies to independently "suggest" closing ticket offices. After the subsequent uproar, that proposal was dropped.
I have no doubt the trial to removal off-peak fares originated from DfT, not LNER. But the same process would have occurred regardless of which route it was trialled on. There's a strong argument this route was chosen because LNER has relatively high approval ratings (well, higher than Avanti, etc) so it would be more palatable on this line.
At the end of the day, the current government is guiding the railways to managed decline. That's the case regardless of the details of how the operating companies financial details are handled. |  | |  |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 18:23 - Feb 16 with 2429 views | DJR |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 18:08 - Feb 16 by BedfordBlue |
This move to remove off-peak (non-advance) fares is worrying. But it's wrong to say its anything to do with nationalisation.
Under the franchising system that ran from privatisation in the 90s until Covid hit, the government (through DfT) would specify requirements for a route and prospective franchisees would bid on how they'd achieve this. In this way, DfT pushed through removal of guards on several routes.
Since 2020, most routes are now operating on a concession basis with the private company running the route no longer holding operating risk (instead they get paid a percentage of the turnover costs). DfT pushed all of the rail companies to independently "suggest" closing ticket offices. After the subsequent uproar, that proposal was dropped.
I have no doubt the trial to removal off-peak fares originated from DfT, not LNER. But the same process would have occurred regardless of which route it was trialled on. There's a strong argument this route was chosen because LNER has relatively high approval ratings (well, higher than Avanti, etc) so it would be more palatable on this line.
At the end of the day, the current government is guiding the railways to managed decline. That's the case regardless of the details of how the operating companies financial details are handled. |
LNER is nationalised though, according to Private Eye and this from Wikipedia.
DfT OLR Holdings was established in 2018 by the Department for Transport to operate rail franchises should it become necessary to bring them into public ownership and operate as an operator of last resort in accordance with section 30 of the Railways Act 1993. As at May 2023, the company has four active subsidiaries; London North Eastern Railway, Northern Trains, Southeastern and TransPennine Express.
And of course the policy is being driven by DfT given it owns LNER, but my view is that is designed to increase rail revenue and reduce the cost of LNER to the taxpayer. And whatever the position, the removal of flexible (and cheaper) off peak returns is not in the customers' interest, and not something that would have been contemplated under old-fashioned nationalisation.
I might add that I took advantage of this flexibility with a return ticket to Liverpool starting on the day of the West Brom game, which enabled me to break my journey on the Saturday at Birmingham to take in the game, and travel on to Liverpool after the game.
EDIT: this is not to disagree with what you say in your last paragraph.
[Post edited 16 Feb 18:37]
|  | | |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 18:29 - Feb 16 with 2402 views | EastTownBlue |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 18:23 - Feb 16 by DJR |
LNER is nationalised though, according to Private Eye and this from Wikipedia.
DfT OLR Holdings was established in 2018 by the Department for Transport to operate rail franchises should it become necessary to bring them into public ownership and operate as an operator of last resort in accordance with section 30 of the Railways Act 1993. As at May 2023, the company has four active subsidiaries; London North Eastern Railway, Northern Trains, Southeastern and TransPennine Express.
And of course the policy is being driven by DfT given it owns LNER, but my view is that is designed to increase rail revenue and reduce the cost of LNER to the taxpayer. And whatever the position, the removal of flexible (and cheaper) off peak returns is not in the customers' interest, and not something that would have been contemplated under old-fashioned nationalisation.
I might add that I took advantage of this flexibility with a return ticket to Liverpool starting on the day of the West Brom game, which enabled me to break my journey on the Saturday at Birmingham to take in the game, and travel on to Liverpool after the game.
EDIT: this is not to disagree with what you say in your last paragraph.
[Post edited 16 Feb 18:37]
|
It is all very confusing regarding rail franchises. LNER, Northern and TransPennine Express (probably others too) are operators of a last resort and have been taken back by the DfT. Greater Anglia amongst isn’t but all the revenue is handed over to the treasury. | | | |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 09:32 - Feb 17 with 2191 views | You_Bloo_Right |
"Nationalisation these days thus means fare maximisation with no regard to the public good, a concept which was at the heart of old school nationalisation. So beware Labour proposals to bring franchises in-house (ie. nationalise them) once they expire."
Want to expand on that?
Or am I safe to assume a "In my view" beginning to that sentence? |  |
| |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 10:12 - Feb 17 with 2132 views | Swansea_Blue |
Why does everything in this country have to be so utterly sh*t? It’s beyond tiring. |  |
| |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 09:00 - Feb 18 with 1889 views | DJR |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 09:32 - Feb 17 by You_Bloo_Right |
"Nationalisation these days thus means fare maximisation with no regard to the public good, a concept which was at the heart of old school nationalisation. So beware Labour proposals to bring franchises in-house (ie. nationalise them) once they expire."
Want to expand on that?
Or am I safe to assume a "In my view" beginning to that sentence? |
Private Eye is critical of this too, and makes the point that it is government-owned LNER that is up to these tricks, so it does not seem to me to be evidence of nationalisation working in the public good. You may, however, disagree.
These are some snippets from its article.
"In the week that Which? exposed grocery "shrinkflation" , the government announced a similar sleight of hand on the railways.
Last week the government-owned LNER reduced ticket flexibility by scrapping return fares, which always permitted travel by different routes and breaks of journey of up to a month.
From 5 February LNER will "trial" replacing off-peak return fares (the old British Rail "savers" protected in the 1993 rail privatisation legislation) with "70 min Flex" fares, valid only for 70 minutes before or after the train specified when purchasing.
Thus passengers will get less for their money. They will have to specify a train in advance, and many will pay twice if their travel times change significantly on the day. For flexibility, Newcastle-London passengers need "anytime" singles costing £198.80 instead of the £83.80 fare LNER will abolish. Ouch!
Merriman and rail bosses have already declared 70min Flex better for passengers, so the convenience of affordable "walk-up" train travel could soon be scrapped across the network."
EDIT: I tend always to buy off peak return tickets whether for day trips or longer journeys, so their abolition would in my view be a disaster because you don't have to worry about which train you go out on or come back on. I might add that my wife visiting her ailing father in recent months has particularly taken advantage of this because she could not be sure precisely when she was coming back. [Post edited 18 Feb 9:52]
| | | |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 09:13 - Feb 18 with 1841 views | NthQldITFC |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 10:12 - Feb 17 by Swansea_Blue |
Why does everything in this country have to be so utterly sh*t? It’s beyond tiring. |
It's the epidemic of basic greed and "me first irrespective of anybody else's needs" at all levels of our society. There's no public service pride, or at least what there is is swamped by consumer obsession and personal wealth fetishes.
The majority of us don't want to face that our society is unsustainable BECAUSE the majority of us want easier and easier lives with more and more consumption of meaningless sh!t and unfettered travel and leisure. "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if... but NOT if it affects my pension pot!" - and then, of course, the parasites in charge who engender this attitude from above and suck unuseably obscene amounts of the products of effort and nature upwards for their troubles, shamelessly leaving a shattered husk of society and environment behind them. |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 09:59 - Feb 18 with 1789 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 09:00 - Feb 18 by DJR |
Private Eye is critical of this too, and makes the point that it is government-owned LNER that is up to these tricks, so it does not seem to me to be evidence of nationalisation working in the public good. You may, however, disagree.
These are some snippets from its article.
"In the week that Which? exposed grocery "shrinkflation" , the government announced a similar sleight of hand on the railways.
Last week the government-owned LNER reduced ticket flexibility by scrapping return fares, which always permitted travel by different routes and breaks of journey of up to a month.
From 5 February LNER will "trial" replacing off-peak return fares (the old British Rail "savers" protected in the 1993 rail privatisation legislation) with "70 min Flex" fares, valid only for 70 minutes before or after the train specified when purchasing.
Thus passengers will get less for their money. They will have to specify a train in advance, and many will pay twice if their travel times change significantly on the day. For flexibility, Newcastle-London passengers need "anytime" singles costing £198.80 instead of the £83.80 fare LNER will abolish. Ouch!
Merriman and rail bosses have already declared 70min Flex better for passengers, so the convenience of affordable "walk-up" train travel could soon be scrapped across the network."
EDIT: I tend always to buy off peak return tickets whether for day trips or longer journeys, so their abolition would in my view be a disaster because you don't have to worry about which train you go out on or come back on. I might add that my wife visiting her ailing father in recent months has particularly taken advantage of this because she could not be sure precisely when she was coming back. [Post edited 18 Feb 9:52]
|
But the focus of your original comment seemed to me to be nationalisation per se rather than an example of the actions of a (effectively) nationalised company in the hands of a Conservative government. And, it appeared, you couldn't resist adding a speculative "don't expect any change under Labour".
For me this distracted from the important points you raise about ticketing - not just on LNER but generally. The whole ticketing system needs review to reduce the confusing number of options but it is little surprise that a Conservative government should use its supine train set to introduce changes to suit operators under the guise of a "trial" and then allow all operators to roll out the changes regardless of their impact on customers.
As The Man in Seat 61 ( https://www.seat61.com/news.htm) says,
"LNER - in all other respects one of the best UK train operators - is launching simplified fares from London to Newcastle, Berwick & Edinburgh as a pilot scheme. From early February, only 3 fares will exist on these flows, all one way - which ought to be a good thing.
However, most of us had expected those 3 fares to be fully-flexible, semi-flexible & inflexible, in other words, Anytime, Off-Peak & Advance. LNER's new fares structure is Anytime, Advance & Advance, in other words fully-flexible and expensive, inflexible with a little flex, and inflexible."
What susprises me is that anyone would expect any Conservative government, let alone this one, to demand that LNER operates for the public good. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 10:33 - Feb 18 with 1742 views | DJR |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 09:59 - Feb 18 by You_Bloo_Right |
But the focus of your original comment seemed to me to be nationalisation per se rather than an example of the actions of a (effectively) nationalised company in the hands of a Conservative government. And, it appeared, you couldn't resist adding a speculative "don't expect any change under Labour".
For me this distracted from the important points you raise about ticketing - not just on LNER but generally. The whole ticketing system needs review to reduce the confusing number of options but it is little surprise that a Conservative government should use its supine train set to introduce changes to suit operators under the guise of a "trial" and then allow all operators to roll out the changes regardless of their impact on customers.
As The Man in Seat 61 ( https://www.seat61.com/news.htm) says,
"LNER - in all other respects one of the best UK train operators - is launching simplified fares from London to Newcastle, Berwick & Edinburgh as a pilot scheme. From early February, only 3 fares will exist on these flows, all one way - which ought to be a good thing.
However, most of us had expected those 3 fares to be fully-flexible, semi-flexible & inflexible, in other words, Anytime, Off-Peak & Advance. LNER's new fares structure is Anytime, Advance & Advance, in other words fully-flexible and expensive, inflexible with a little flex, and inflexible."
What susprises me is that anyone would expect any Conservative government, let alone this one, to demand that LNER operates for the public good. |
My view (and I have expressed it before on TWTD) is that the ethos, expertise and management that used to underpin nationalised industries no longer exists, so to expect present day nationalisation to replicate what was once there is unrealistic, whatever the government.
But I was also putting it in the context of what appears to be one of the few remaining supposedly radical Labour policies, and I was expressing the view that I am sceptical as to whether they would do much different to the Tories, especially given the fact that money is very tight.
After all, Labour's answer to the travails of the energy industry, which has led to customers' bills being increased to cover the cost of failed companies, is better regulation, rather than anything more root and branch. | | | |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 12:25 - Feb 18 with 1651 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 10:33 - Feb 18 by DJR |
My view (and I have expressed it before on TWTD) is that the ethos, expertise and management that used to underpin nationalised industries no longer exists, so to expect present day nationalisation to replicate what was once there is unrealistic, whatever the government.
But I was also putting it in the context of what appears to be one of the few remaining supposedly radical Labour policies, and I was expressing the view that I am sceptical as to whether they would do much different to the Tories, especially given the fact that money is very tight.
After all, Labour's answer to the travails of the energy industry, which has led to customers' bills being increased to cover the cost of failed companies, is better regulation, rather than anything more root and branch. |
The history of the 1945 nationalisation programme is a fascinating study.
There is a very strong argument that given the state of various industries pre-WWII, once that conflict ended a UK government would have had to place many such industries under state control with or without a commitment to nationalisation.
The creation of the NCB was I think largely welcomed as a means of enhancing the safety of mineworkers, although some both inside and outside the industry would doubtless have also embraced state control of the means of production from an idealistic point of view. British Rail, on the other hand, suffered at an early stage from jibes about unreliability and infrastructure shortages that pre-existed its creation - almost as if having a single rather than multiple regional targets served to focus pre-war complaints about the transport system.
Additionally, of course, the nationalisation programme faced a number of issues that, with hindsight perhaps, were entirely predictable.
Expectation of a brave new world was high and the reality of the levels of investment required to make a success of nationalisation in and of itself impinged early. So the principle was radical but the conflict between this principle and the reality hit early (not nationalisation perhaps but it was this kind of conflict that led to Bevan resigning over the introduction of prescription charges).
I don't think we can deny either that the running of those nationalised industries faced the kind of "tinkering" that ministers are wont to engage in leading to ineviatble confusion and thereby unnecessary levels of bureaucracy.
All this is to question the extent to which there was a public service driven "ethos, expertise and management" underpinning nationalised industries; my view is that such an ethos was in greater sight the further down an organisation's structure you went. Your implication, though, that such needs to exist at all levels if nationalisation is to be a success is in my view entirely correct.
It is not my intention to focus on the problems of those post-1945 nationalisations in order to pooh-pooh the idea. I, in common with the majority of that post-war population, am in favour. I do think it is important to recognise the issues faced 80 years ago so that we can make a better fist of it this time around and to in part impinge that reality on the rose-tinted principle before those problems happen again and we just repeat the nationalisation/privatisation cycle indefinitely.
In the 1945 Labour manifesto you would have had to look closely to see the statement "The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it." but nevertheless it was there, Oxford comma and all. The radicals in the party (not just Bevan but the likes of Foot and, at the time, Healey and even perhaps Wilson) were there. Where you and I would perhaps agree is that you could search for years and never find such a statement in the current Labour manifesto. Hell would freeze over, though, before you found anything like such a statement in any other, electable, party's manifesto in the UK. | |
| |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 13:16 - Feb 18 with 1568 views | Plums |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 10:12 - Feb 17 by Swansea_Blue |
Why does everything in this country have to be so utterly sh*t? It’s beyond tiring. |
We're not even trying as a nation anymore. One small example related to this thread from this week. The Football Supporters Association in conjunction with the rail companies put out a survey on match travel.
As a good citizen, I filled it in - hoping it was seeking information on potential improvements. Not at all. Nowhere was there the opportunity to say:
* I wouldn't consider getting a train to a midweek game because the perceived risk of being stranded is too high - even if late trains were scheduled
* When I go to Germany, if I have a match ticket, I can travel for free anywhere on a Saturday.
Nope, it was the usual harvesting of information to support ticket purchase windows and sizes of groups travelling etc.
If we want to improve, we really have to start thinking differently about how we do things - rather then working out how to sell the lowest quality product for the highest possible price. |  |
| |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 09:18 - Feb 19 with 1348 views | DJR |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 12:25 - Feb 18 by You_Bloo_Right |
The history of the 1945 nationalisation programme is a fascinating study.
There is a very strong argument that given the state of various industries pre-WWII, once that conflict ended a UK government would have had to place many such industries under state control with or without a commitment to nationalisation.
The creation of the NCB was I think largely welcomed as a means of enhancing the safety of mineworkers, although some both inside and outside the industry would doubtless have also embraced state control of the means of production from an idealistic point of view. British Rail, on the other hand, suffered at an early stage from jibes about unreliability and infrastructure shortages that pre-existed its creation - almost as if having a single rather than multiple regional targets served to focus pre-war complaints about the transport system.
Additionally, of course, the nationalisation programme faced a number of issues that, with hindsight perhaps, were entirely predictable.
Expectation of a brave new world was high and the reality of the levels of investment required to make a success of nationalisation in and of itself impinged early. So the principle was radical but the conflict between this principle and the reality hit early (not nationalisation perhaps but it was this kind of conflict that led to Bevan resigning over the introduction of prescription charges).
I don't think we can deny either that the running of those nationalised industries faced the kind of "tinkering" that ministers are wont to engage in leading to ineviatble confusion and thereby unnecessary levels of bureaucracy.
All this is to question the extent to which there was a public service driven "ethos, expertise and management" underpinning nationalised industries; my view is that such an ethos was in greater sight the further down an organisation's structure you went. Your implication, though, that such needs to exist at all levels if nationalisation is to be a success is in my view entirely correct.
It is not my intention to focus on the problems of those post-1945 nationalisations in order to pooh-pooh the idea. I, in common with the majority of that post-war population, am in favour. I do think it is important to recognise the issues faced 80 years ago so that we can make a better fist of it this time around and to in part impinge that reality on the rose-tinted principle before those problems happen again and we just repeat the nationalisation/privatisation cycle indefinitely.
In the 1945 Labour manifesto you would have had to look closely to see the statement "The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it." but nevertheless it was there, Oxford comma and all. The radicals in the party (not just Bevan but the likes of Foot and, at the time, Healey and even perhaps Wilson) were there. Where you and I would perhaps agree is that you could search for years and never find such a statement in the current Labour manifesto. Hell would freeze over, though, before you found anything like such a statement in any other, electable, party's manifesto in the UK. |
Each nationalised industry was different, and whilst there might have been tinkering and lack of investment in some, my dad worked in the electricity sector which was extremely profitable. And bear in mind that the UK led the world at one time when it came to civil nuclear power.
It must also not be forgotten that huge pension surpluses built up in the nationalised industries which in turn financed the large scale early retirement of experienced staff, my dad being one of them in the lead up to privatisation.
In addition to personal experience of nationalisation through my dad, my formative political years were the Wilson/Callaghan government when nationalisation was supported (at least before Thatcher) by both main parties, as well as by myself; remember MacMillan's warning against selling off the family silver.
As regards, my own personal experience of privatisation, I have two examples which demonstrate an absence of the public good.
My garden was flooded by sewage water 20 odd years ago when a mains manhole cover blew. It emerged, speaking to the workforce, that before privatisation the water company (Southern Water) regularly cleared out the mains drains to avoid such incidents but had got rid of many staff and stopped doing so because it was cheaper to clear up after an incident.
On an occasion a couple of years later, a leaking water main was not fixed overnight because it was cheaper for the water company (South East Water) to mend the following day. But the result was that water entered the gas network and ended up finding it way to my boiler, necessitating a water tanker to visit my property to drain all the water away.
As a result, I have severe doubts that nationalising such companies would somehow magically turn them back to what they once were, leaving aside that neither party has any desire to move away from the privatised model.
On the socialism front, the amended Clause 4 still reads "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.", and this is printed on membership cards.
It was this kept me hanging on as a member, but I came to the conclusion a couple of months ago that even a modicum of social democracy has been permanently banished from the Labour Party, thus prompting my resignation. [Post edited 19 Feb 9:20]
| | | |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 09:43 - Feb 19 with 1299 views | NthQldITFC |
I bow to the far better specific understanding of other contributors to this thread, detached as I am from day-to-day contact with the rail system and any meaningful personal involvement in the realities of nationalised/privatised infrastructure, but it seems to me that sometimes we are too constrained by the detail of where we are at the moment, and how difficult it would be to tinker with that dysfunctional and failing system without upsetting the pension funds.
I think it's hard to argue against the reality that the UK's infrastructure and governing ethos has been corrupted and eroded, almost destroyed in many cases, by decades of under-investment and corporate looting in a shareholder-focussed rather than service-focussed, greed-driven, post-Thatcher capitalist feeding frenzy. We now look largely like a failed country in comparison to most of our European neighbours and others.
So, I don't think we look radically enough at the situation - we need to break the UK, and rebuild on the basis of community and environment and not-for-profit infrastructure if we're going to be even in the same league as some other middling European countries, don't we? We're ITFC 2018 and 'be careful what you wish for' - we need to go down to the third division (take the risk of dismantling the privatised monopolies and accept that as individuals we're going to lose some of our luxuries) rebuild the squad (rebalance wealth and invest in infrastructure) and get promoted in a few years full of hope for the future. | |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 11:07 - Feb 19 with 1210 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Privatisation of trains is a flawed concept anyway, it operates more as a monopoly than a free market. My broadband just went up 14pc, so I thought sod them and their price gouging, and changed to a faster speed, and lower price at a competitor. If I want to get the train to London, I’ve got a choice of…erm one rail operator, no wonder they are are so fecking expensive - no competition. | | | |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 12:42 - Feb 19 with 1142 views | DJR |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 11:07 - Feb 19 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Privatisation of trains is a flawed concept anyway, it operates more as a monopoly than a free market. My broadband just went up 14pc, so I thought sod them and their price gouging, and changed to a faster speed, and lower price at a competitor. If I want to get the train to London, I’ve got a choice of…erm one rail operator, no wonder they are are so fecking expensive - no competition. |
The privatisation of virtually all public utilities is in my view flawed.
Water and drainage offer no choice, and even the choice in the energy market is very artificial given there there are not separate power supplies for each supplier. Instead, the fiction is put forward that a particular supplier supplies the energy and that it is green energy. Indeed, in an attempt in recent years to increase so-called competitiveness, the market was made much easier for new entrants, which ended up going bust, with customers picking up the bill for their bail out.
Even with broadband, there is an element of artificiality given Openreach operate the network, and the competitiveness is undermined by CPI plus 3% increases mid-contract.
As it is, when nationalised there were nationwide charges for, say, electricity, but I don't ever recall cost being an issue. And the system was fair for those (sometimes poor) who are not so savvy about switching.
EDIT: talk of rail privatisation brings back memories of when Private Eye jokingly called the regulator Offrails.
FURTHER EDIT: Private Eye touches on Wes Streeting's proposals for opticians to refer patients for cataract surgery at private operators. Apparently, some are owned by chains like Specsavers and the article points out concerns about there being pecuniary interests to refer patients which may not be in patients' best interests. In addition, the private operators of such services pay to doctors a going rate much higher than the NHS, with concerns expressed by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists that this means doctors are leaving the NHS for a much cushier and more well-paid life, when there is a shortage of 290-360 consultants in the NHS, as I found out with my mother who had problems with her eyes. The article also points out that, surprise, surprise, it is not the private sector which trains ophthalmologists.
[Post edited 19 Feb 13:21]
| | | |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 13:23 - Feb 19 with 1067 views | stonojnr |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 11:07 - Feb 19 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Privatisation of trains is a flawed concept anyway, it operates more as a monopoly than a free market. My broadband just went up 14pc, so I thought sod them and their price gouging, and changed to a faster speed, and lower price at a competitor. If I want to get the train to London, I’ve got a choice of…erm one rail operator, no wonder they are are so fecking expensive - no competition. |
You do have a choice though on rail services on most lines, we used to have it in East Anglia too, but the real choice people make isn't which train operator to use but train v car, or even train v plane. And let's ignore the silly UK based ones how many people will pick a flight to Holland or Paris or Germany instead of taking the train ?
How many who went to Swansea drove their cars ? How many actually drove their 4 seater cars with only 2 passengers ? | | | |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 14:10 - Feb 19 with 1015 views | DJR |
| The benefits of rail nationalisation? on 13:23 - Feb 19 by stonojnr |
You do have a choice though on rail services on most lines, we used to have it in East Anglia too, but the real choice people make isn't which train operator to use but train v car, or even train v plane. And let's ignore the silly UK based ones how many people will pick a flight to Holland or Paris or Germany instead of taking the train ?
How many who went to Swansea drove their cars ? How many actually drove their 4 seater cars with only 2 passengers ? |
I sense that choice of train is more of an option the further north you go.
It certainly isn't true on many routes into and out of London.
For me to get to a home game, I have only the option of Southeastern into London, then Greater Anglia to Ipswich.
As it is, I will always try to get the train, but often (because of engineering works) it means driving to, say, Shenfield to avoid the journey, with a replacement bus, taking an excessive amount of time. Indeed, this Saturday I will drive to Witham thus avoiding 3.5 hours for a journey on public transport of just over 100 miles.
And for away games, I will always try to take the train. [Post edited 19 Feb 14:11]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
