Rail Fares

[Podie]

Flip Martian said:

Podie said:

Likewise, I use LM daily.

Blue seats still exist - all of them are still in service.

A survey was done and commuters were asked what they wanted most. The response was "more seats" - so guess what, they shoe-horned another 20 in to a carriage.

They do exist yes; on the trains I get from Wolverton, sometimes there are still some; more often there isn't now. Silverlink had left us with the blue seat trains which were at least comfortable (and far better than the older ones now in use on the Watford local line). LM seemed to bring their green carriages with them when they took over on our route and they're spectacularly unpopular. The blue seat carriages will fill first.

Sorry, strayed off topic.

3rd set of trains ordered for delivery in 2014.

The question is... which seating setup...?

[FiF]

thinfourth2 said:

I'd be perfectly happy if they spent 50% of my motoring taxes on maintaining the roads

and the other 50% went towards public transport

Sort of following on from this, something with which I tend to agree without having thought about the numbers too much.

Does anyone have a the figures, or a link where to find them easily, to determine if it would be practical to ring fence revenue and spending related to transport. All transport, roads incl buses, rail, air, sea, and how it stacks up at the moment.

It's clear road users are, and presumably still will be, the milk cow.

[Flip Martian]

Podie said:

3rd set of trains ordered for delivery in 2014.

The question is... which seating setup...?

I would guess more green ones so they can phase out the blue ones altogether, sadly. The blue ones are all Silverlink livery trains. As with the Pendolinos in the UK (not overseas apparently!), smaller seats seems to be the way we're going. Unfortunate with the increase in obesity in the population...

[Podie]

Flip Martian said:

Podie said:

3rd set of trains ordered for delivery in 2014.

The question is... which seating setup...?

I would guess more green ones so they can phase out the blue ones altogether, sadly. The blue ones are all Silverlink livery trains. As with the Pendolinos in the UK (not overseas apparently!), smaller seats seems to be the way we're going. Unfortunate with the increase in obesity in the population...

I thought the blues were central trains, not silverlink. Silverlink had the old 321s (of which there a couple about in LM colours!)

[Flip Martian]

Podie said:

I thought the blues were central trains, not silverlink. Silverlink had the old 321s (of which there a couple about in LM colours!)

Could be similar - certainly on my route to Euston, Silverlink were running those. I never know the names of train types (apart from the Pendos). The really old Silverlink trains are now only used on the local Euston-Watford service. 12 years ago they were the "luxurious new trains" on our line. They got replaced by the blue seated stock you see now. Then LM came in when Silverlink lost the franchise and "it all went green".

[Podie]

Flip Martian said:

Podie said:

I thought the blues were central trains, not silverlink. Silverlink had the old 321s (of which there a couple about in LM colours!)

Could be similar - certainly on my route to Euston, Silverlink were running those. I never know the names of train types (apart from the Pendos). The really old Silverlink trains are now only used on the local Euston-Watford service. 12 years ago they were the "luxurious new trains" on our line. They got replaced by the blue seated stock you see now. Then LM came in when Silverlink lost the franchise and "it all went green".

LM took both the Silverlink and Central Trains franchises.

IIRC, Central ran from NMP to BHM.

[Mr Snap]

Flip Martian said:

They cram more people in fewer carriages, don't they? Anyone 6 foot+ tall sat on a Virgin Pendolino for more than an hour in a window seat?! Bloody horrible things. The old intercity trains were huge by comparison.

I'm less than 6". I don't see why should I subsidise those thoughtless enough to be over 6"...?

[Huff]

I am both motorist and rail commuter.

Latest above-inflation rise now means it's cheaper to crawl my 4L V8 Bath -Bristol-rtn everyday than take the train. That is simply daft.

(Train for me, when not cycling...)

[FiF]

Mr Snap said:

Flip Martian said:

They cram more people in fewer carriages, don't they? Anyone 6 foot+ tall sat on a Virgin Pendolino for more than an hour in a window seat?! Bloody horrible things. The old intercity trains were huge by comparison.

I'm less than 6". I don't see why should I subsidise those thoughtless enough to be over 6"...?

There has to be a joke about size matters there, but this isn't the Lounge.

[Flip Martian]

Mr Snap said:

Flip Martian said:

They cram more people in fewer carriages, don't they? Anyone 6 foot+ tall sat on a Virgin Pendolino for more than an hour in a window seat?! Bloody horrible things. The old intercity trains were huge by comparison.

I'm less than 6". I don't see why should I subsidise those thoughtless enough to be over 6"...?

[anonymous-user]

Too Late said:

How much will it cost for me to live on the Strand in London?
Possibly alot more than it costs to drive and get the train from Essex.

I drive to the station and get the train.

How much a year does your car cost you?
My train costs 2.8k

I come into the Strand from Hampshire costs me over 4k! I would love to be able to drive to work but it would take well over 2 hours and there is no way I can afford to live as close to work as the OP.

[JagLover]

Subsidies are not evenly distributed throughout the rail network. On many routes more is paid in fares the cost of running that route, most of which are the commuter routes.

On other routes it would be cheaper to send every passenger using them by taxi to their destination.

[Storer]

I seem to have caused a bit of a stir with my original post.

If you go back 200 years people lived within walking distance of their employment. Then came the railways and people moved into the commuter belt/suburbs. Following WW2 more workers moved further from the centres of employment, until now when some live more than 100 miles from their work.

I still fail to understand why those that commute by train feel that their journey to work should be subsidised by others. Each person has their own reasons for not living close to their employment but the reason (if you are honest) is normally a personal/family lifestyle choice. It's not because you can't find or afford a home closer to your employment. You can walk or cycle a long way in the time it takes to commute by train!

I may have this point wrong but I seem to remember a figure of only 20% of all taxes raised from the motorist are spent on our roads. Road users actually subsidise pensions, hospitals railways, etc, etc and not non-drivers subsidising us.

[Flip Martian]

Storer said:

I seem to have caused a bit of a stir with my original post.

If you go back 200 years people lived within walking distance of their employment. Then came the railways and people moved into the commuter belt/suburbs. Following WW2 more workers moved further from the centres of employment, until now when some live more than 100 miles from their work.

I still fail to understand why those that commute by train feel that their journey to work should be subsidised by others. Each person has their own reasons for not living close to their employment but the reason (if you are honest) is normally a personal/family lifestyle choice. It's not because you can't find or afford a home closer to your employment. You can walk or cycle a long way in the time it takes to commute by train!

I may have this point wrong but I seem to remember a figure of only 20% of all taxes raised from the motorist are spent on our roads. Road users actually subsidise pensions, hospitals railways, etc, etc and not non-drivers subsidising us.

I don't expect most commuters are actually aware of who subsidises what. But in any case, when its a decision for government and not the individual maybe us commuters don't see it as an issue. Protests are more about companies putting up the prices above inflation (as they are now allowed to do of course) and the services not getting any better or getting worse.

Judging by the numbers I see every day on my commute, there are an awful lot of us who work a lot further than a cycle ride away; and if I walked my commuting time I would still be wandering around country lanes...

[FiF]

The Chingford skinhead told us to get on our bikes to find work iirc.

[anonymous-user]

Storer said:

I seem to have caused a bit of a stir with my original post.

If you go back 200 years people lived within walking distance of their employment. Then came the railways and people moved into the commuter belt/suburbs. Following WW2 more workers moved further from the centres of employment, until now when some live more than 100 miles from their work.

I still fail to understand why those that commute by train feel that their journey to work should be subsidised by others. Each person has their own reasons for not living close to their employment but the reason (if you are honest) is normally a personal/family lifestyle choice. It's not because you can't find or afford a home closer to your employment. You can walk or cycle a long way in the time it takes to commute by train!

I may have this point wrong but I seem to remember a figure of only 20% of all taxes raised from the motorist are spent on our roads. Road users actually subsidise pensions, hospitals railways, etc, etc and not non-drivers subsidising us.

It appears to me that you have no idea of why people choose (aro have no other choice) to commute

[Piersman2]

Storer said:

I seem to have caused a bit of a stir with my original post.

If you go back 200 years people lived within walking distance of their employment. Then came the railways and people moved into the commuter belt/suburbs. Following WW2 more workers moved further from the centres of employment, until now when some live more than 100 miles from their work.

I still fail to understand why those that commute by train feel that their journey to work should be subsidised by others. Each person has their own reasons for not living close to their employment but the reason (if you are honest) is normally a personal/family lifestyle choice. It's not because you can't find or afford a home closer to your employment. You can walk or cycle a long way in the time it takes to commute by train!

I may have this point wrong but I seem to remember a figure of only 20% of all taxes raised from the motorist are spent on our roads. Road users actually subsidise pensions, hospitals railways, etc, etc and not non-drivers subsidising us.

But you also need to note that people, and jobs, and companies are more mobile now than ever before.

Personally I'm a contractor. Something that was relatively rare when I started over 20 years ago. Now it's very, very common. And with contracting comes the need to move to differing clients and locations, possibly for only 6 months. So it makes more sense to pick a spot to live and then be prepared to either commute to various locations or stay near location during the week if required.

[London424]

I didn't realise only commuters used the railways...those selfish bds!

[Dixie68]

Storer said:

I seem to have caused a bit of a stir with my original post.

If you go back 200 years people lived within walking distance of their employment. Then came the railways and people moved into the commuter belt/suburbs. Following WW2 more workers moved further from the centres of employment, until now when some live more than 100 miles from their work.

I still fail to understand why those that commute by train feel that their journey to work should be subsidised by others. Each person has their own reasons for not living close to their employment but the reason (if you are honest) is normally a personal/family lifestyle choice. It's not because you can't find or afford a home closer to your employment. You can walk or cycle a long way in the time it takes to commute by train!

I may have this point wrong but I seem to remember a figure of only 20% of all taxes raised from the motorist are spent on our roads. Road users actually subsidise pensions, hospitals railways, etc, etc and not non-drivers subsidising us.

Everybody pays for the roads through their taxes whether they have a car or not.

[JagLover]

Storer said:

I still fail to understand why those that commute by train feel that their journey to work should be subsidised by others.

As I pointed out as a whole the rail network is subsidised by the taxpayer, but passengers on many commuter routes more than pay their way.