More travel woes on way as train subsidies dry up
Discussion
Again from the Times
www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-515287,00.html
Captain Darling admitted last week that instead of cutting car usage, he could now only hope to reduce the level of growth of road traffic.
Quite how he's to achieve that when a potential 20% cut in train services looks to be imminent I don't know.
www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-515287,00.html
They're totally losing their grip on transport strategy. Their anti-car pro-trains strategy is coming badly unstuck.
Fewer trains and higher fares 'sink transport policy'
THE Government’s transport policy was condemned as an “utter shambles” yesterday over the revelation that a last-minute clampdown on funds could mean fewer trains at higher prices.
Rail services could be cut by a fifth next year, up to 3,500 trains a day, in a further blow to commuters. The cuts will follow the introduction of congestion charging in Central London when many commuters are expected to make the switch from roads to rail.
Train operators have been told by the Government to come up with plans to run the railways on 20 per cent less money from central funds. Cuts in services are expected to start next summer and long-awaited improvements to the rail network are also expected to be scaled back.
Tim Collins, the Shadow Transport Secretary, demanded an urgent statement from the Government on the potential cutbacks.
The Government — which wants passenger numbers to rise by 50 per cent in the next ten years — said that the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) was conducting only a “prudent” contingency exercise with train operating companies. High spending cuts would not necessarily follow.
But Mr Collins said: “The Government’s ten-year transport plan is now an utter shambles. Not only are plans for better rail services on indefinite hold, but now it appears that even existing services may be cut back dramatically and passengers expected to pay even more for them.
“Alistair Darling must make an urgent statement explaining the reasons behind any such cutback, and justifying why passengers or commuters can any longer have any faith whatsoever in a Government whose transport policies have been such a spectacular across-the-board failure.”
Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, warned the SRA that it would have a fight on its hands if members’ jobs were threatened.
“If the Government is serious about getting people out of their cars and on to trains, it is choosing a strange way of going about it,” he said. “Last week they announced billions in roadbuilding projects and now we are told the railways are being left to rot.
“The SRA handling of the crisis has been an unmitigated disaster. If it wants to cut costs it should take steps to end the dangerous and wasteful fragmentation of railways, not look to hammer services and rail workers’ jobs and pay.”
Richard Bowker, chairman of the SRA, admitted yesterday that many projects to bring the railways up to scratch will be scaled back. He will announce a revised rail strategy next month.
Operators bidding for new franchises had been asked to submit plans for running services based on up to 20 per cent less funding.
Mr Darling is set to make a statement this week reviewing progress on the ten-year transport plan.
Captain Darling admitted last week that instead of cutting car usage, he could now only hope to reduce the level of growth of road traffic.
Quite how he's to achieve that when a potential 20% cut in train services looks to be imminent I don't know.
Every time the anti-car-pro-train thing comes up I wonder whether ANYONE in government has used a train recently. Every service into and out of London in peak times is standing room only.
The train operators said yesterday, quite rightly, that the majority of their costs are fixed - train lease, track time from Railtrack etc. so the only way they can make savings is to cut staff or services. So with less services, how can more people use them when they are packed out already?
My other half spent 6 months commuting to London from Chippenham - 1hr 10 mins. In exchange for a £5k per year season ticket, she got to stand most of the way on most journeys. They're now introducing new stock on the line which has LESS capacity than the old stuff. WTF???
The train operators said yesterday, quite rightly, that the majority of their costs are fixed - train lease, track time from Railtrack etc. so the only way they can make savings is to cut staff or services. So with less services, how can more people use them when they are packed out already?
My other half spent 6 months commuting to London from Chippenham - 1hr 10 mins. In exchange for a £5k per year season ticket, she got to stand most of the way on most journeys. They're now introducing new stock on the line which has LESS capacity than the old stuff. WTF???
John Prescot is very keen to point out that Government ministers can't travel on Public transport because of the security risk - need to travel by Jag instead (funny how a Rover or Ford doesn't provide the same level of security).
Interesting point - I believe that it can be translated into:-
Four legs good, two legs better!
Come to think of it, that phrase (and the message behind it) pretty much summs up our present administration!
Interesting point - I believe that it can be translated into:-
Four legs good, two legs better!
Come to think of it, that phrase (and the message behind it) pretty much summs up our present administration!
First point - 50% increase quoted is for passenger miles, not passenger numbers - BIG, BIG difference!
Second point - train journeys account for approximately 7% of all personal travel mileage in the UK........ so even if a 50% increase was achieved the resulant "drop?" in driven mileage would have little or no effect on congestion - even the rail users/owners know this.
Study after study after study has shown that rail is of NO PRACTICAL USE for the majority of day to day travelling.
Buses are a possible solution in urban areas, but again most people would only use them if they were cleaner, warmer, more regular, more varied routes. Our socity today demands that people are able to travel where they want, when they want - not at the dictat of some central Burea of Peronal Movement.
Did anyone watch Dimbleby yesterday (Sunday) afternoon. What a load of BOLL*CKS! I was soooo close to chucking a brick through the screen when Dunwoody started spouting - wot a miserable, sour-faced old crone.
Second point - train journeys account for approximately 7% of all personal travel mileage in the UK........ so even if a 50% increase was achieved the resulant "drop?" in driven mileage would have little or no effect on congestion - even the rail users/owners know this.
Study after study after study has shown that rail is of NO PRACTICAL USE for the majority of day to day travelling.
Buses are a possible solution in urban areas, but again most people would only use them if they were cleaner, warmer, more regular, more varied routes. Our socity today demands that people are able to travel where they want, when they want - not at the dictat of some central Burea of Peronal Movement.
Did anyone watch Dimbleby yesterday (Sunday) afternoon. What a load of BOLL*CKS! I was soooo close to chucking a brick through the screen when Dunwoody started spouting - wot a miserable, sour-faced old crone.
I didn't see it but I do know that she is one of our most serious and dangerous adversaries. She's quite obviously completely barking but she's an accomplished and effective parliamentarian.. she can get things done.. be very afraid..
mondeoman said: Did anyone watch Dimbleby yesterday (Sunday) afternoon. What a load of BOLL*CKS! I was soooo close to chucking a brick through the screen when Dunwoody started spouting - wot a miserable, sour-faced old crone.
mondeoman said:
Study after study after study has shown that rail is of NO PRACTICAL USE for the majority of day to day travelling.
Where on earth is this from. My office has approx 700 staff, I know a couple who use a motocycle and one nutter who cycles but the magority off my office commute by train ever woking day. I would think that the rest of the insurance industry is the same.
Try standing near London Bridge or Fenchurch Street Stations and tell me that "rail is of NO PRACTICAL USE" for the thousands of people who rely on the train to get to work.
I am not defending the train just stating that people do us it on a daily basis. Connex Southeast just sent £15 vouchers to all season ticket holders as compensation for bad service. I know how bad the service is but cant see an atractive alternative.
Paul
To get in to, and out of, central London, the train can be immeasureably better than the car. It makes enough of a difference to me that I am going to move house so I can use the train again.
I love driving, and riding motorbikes, but that doesn't mean that I want to sit in rush hour traffic for hours every day. I would like to be able to save my driving for when it's eithe fun, or truly necessary, and would prefer that the latter was never.
Even for a dedicated car nut like me, my life would probably be more improved by more frequent and reliable trains than it would be by motorway improvements, or a road building programme. The fun B roads are not going to be part of any programme anyway, and are just fine as they are.
If we all put a bit more effort into living near work, or on good public transport links, then the roads would be a bit clearer for those times that the train was no good, or that we wanted to go out for a blast.
If you didn't have to rack up the miles commuting, either, then the choice of car could be skewed a lot more towards performance over practicality.
I love driving, and riding motorbikes, but that doesn't mean that I want to sit in rush hour traffic for hours every day. I would like to be able to save my driving for when it's eithe fun, or truly necessary, and would prefer that the latter was never.
Even for a dedicated car nut like me, my life would probably be more improved by more frequent and reliable trains than it would be by motorway improvements, or a road building programme. The fun B roads are not going to be part of any programme anyway, and are just fine as they are.
If we all put a bit more effort into living near work, or on good public transport links, then the roads would be a bit clearer for those times that the train was no good, or that we wanted to go out for a blast.
If you didn't have to rack up the miles commuting, either, then the choice of car could be skewed a lot more towards performance over practicality.
I'm with Mondeoman on this one. Trains are of little use to the majority of people in this country.
Please understand, England does not consist entirely of London and it's surrounding commuter belt. That's half the problem with the politicians, they assume that we all have the facilities that people in and around London take for granted, WE DON'T!
Andy
Please understand, England does not consist entirely of London and it's surrounding commuter belt. That's half the problem with the politicians, they assume that we all have the facilities that people in and around London take for granted, WE DON'T!
Andy
Surely the transport problem has got worse due to high house prices as well with people having to move further away from London to get a house big enough then having to jump on a train (add 10% to the house price!) or having to drive in.
Its so expensive round here now that I know people who are commuting from north London to Banbury because its cheaper than buying in Banbury!
I think this is the general problem that the effects of one policy (interest rates etc) has a profound effect on another policy. Surely rather than just an integrated transport policy we need an Integrated Government Policy.
Just an idea...
Its so expensive round here now that I know people who are commuting from north London to Banbury because its cheaper than buying in Banbury!
I think this is the general problem that the effects of one policy (interest rates etc) has a profound effect on another policy. Surely rather than just an integrated transport policy we need an Integrated Government Policy.
Just an idea...
NorthernBoy - we've had this exchange before but....
Given that my current journey would take twice as long by train and would cost more, it's not at all viable to use the train. When you take into account the fact that I work successive relatively short term (<1 year) contracts, it's not desirable or economically viable to move house everytime my work venue changes.
Many of those who have children must choose a house firstly for the school district they get access to. Uprooting children from their schools is a bad thing. So for most, moving house to suit one's commute is simply not an option and that's before we've even considered to cost in legal fees, stamp duty etc.
What's more, the areas surrounding every station on the major south-east railway lines are eye-wateringly expensive or involve foregoing such (subjective) quality of life benefits as I have where I live now. (A mile from the M3 - I did buy a house located to serve my transport needs!)
So, your solution to the problem of making rail usage feasible sounds expensive and hence is not an option open to many of us. Bear in mind that the sort of money you earn in your game is beyond what many can hope for even if we leverage our skills properly and/or work in the City. Without wanting to sound facetious, we can't all become bankers so as to afford to fit into Tony's Transport Plan..
So yes, there are many who work in the centre of London and other major cities for whom the Train is viable. The fact remains, though, that for the vast majority of us, rail travel remains completely unfeasible for most journeys.
Until businesses start to relocate out of the south-east in significant numbers, we're not going to be able to sort these problems out.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 16th December 15:01
Given that my current journey would take twice as long by train and would cost more, it's not at all viable to use the train. When you take into account the fact that I work successive relatively short term (<1 year) contracts, it's not desirable or economically viable to move house everytime my work venue changes.
Many of those who have children must choose a house firstly for the school district they get access to. Uprooting children from their schools is a bad thing. So for most, moving house to suit one's commute is simply not an option and that's before we've even considered to cost in legal fees, stamp duty etc.
What's more, the areas surrounding every station on the major south-east railway lines are eye-wateringly expensive or involve foregoing such (subjective) quality of life benefits as I have where I live now. (A mile from the M3 - I did buy a house located to serve my transport needs!)
So, your solution to the problem of making rail usage feasible sounds expensive and hence is not an option open to many of us. Bear in mind that the sort of money you earn in your game is beyond what many can hope for even if we leverage our skills properly and/or work in the City. Without wanting to sound facetious, we can't all become bankers so as to afford to fit into Tony's Transport Plan..
So yes, there are many who work in the centre of London and other major cities for whom the Train is viable. The fact remains, though, that for the vast majority of us, rail travel remains completely unfeasible for most journeys.
Until businesses start to relocate out of the south-east in significant numbers, we're not going to be able to sort these problems out.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 16th December 15:01
CarZee said: NorthernBoy - we've had this exchange before but....
So yes, there are many who work in the centre of London and other major cities for whom the Train is viable. The fact remains, though, that for the vast majority of us, rail travel remains completely unfeasible for most journeys.
December 15:01
It is very easy as a City person to perceive travel in a very different way to a Rural or Smalltown person. My wife commutes to London. She does it by train. Its absolutely the best method for achieving the journey - although she loathes it and would rather work at any office to which she could commute by car.
I cannot commute to work by train (doesn't go there). I can't even do it by bus (Takes over an hour for a ten minute journey). So I travel by car - the ONLY feasible means.
Come the summer I hope to do my bit by using a bicycle - it just so happens that that WILL be viable for me. In no way do I expect the bike to viable for anyone else.
I know that not everyone has the luxury of living an easy train journey to work, but I also get the sense that most people haven't even given it a thought when choosing where they live.
Because people (quite underestandably) act out of self interest, that's why we need government policies that, although not maybe seeming the best now, will work for the best in the long run. That's why I'd like to see train journeys improved. If trains ran every 5 minutes, were warm, confortable, and reliable, and if the tube worked equally well, we'd probably find more people happy to try and make the change. There'd obviously be a lot of people still needing to drive, but maybe fewer than now.
Many contribotors seem to have an anti public transport zeal that seems very hard to understand. There are certain journeys that are much easier by train than car, even if these are in the minority, and it isn't helpful to forget about them, when we're working out a good transport policy.
Personally, I don't view the current trends as acceptable. We are too close to gridlock in too many cities alrady.
Because people (quite underestandably) act out of self interest, that's why we need government policies that, although not maybe seeming the best now, will work for the best in the long run. That's why I'd like to see train journeys improved. If trains ran every 5 minutes, were warm, confortable, and reliable, and if the tube worked equally well, we'd probably find more people happy to try and make the change. There'd obviously be a lot of people still needing to drive, but maybe fewer than now.
Many contribotors seem to have an anti public transport zeal that seems very hard to understand. There are certain journeys that are much easier by train than car, even if these are in the minority, and it isn't helpful to forget about them, when we're working out a good transport policy.
Personally, I don't view the current trends as acceptable. We are too close to gridlock in too many cities alrady.
I do take your point, NB. But what actions (unpopular or otherwise) are NL taking in order to improve rail transport?
Do you take issue with New Labour's apparent plan to execute a funding reduction that stands to do considerable further damage to the usefulness of the rail network?
How would you feel if you'd just bought a nice house, 5 minutes from a station where you could get into London in 40 minutes, only for the service level to be subsequently halved during rush hour and stopped at 7pm every night owing to these proposed cuts?
Do you think that NL are just 'bending with the wind' in admitting that motoring will prevail or are they admitting that they just do not have the will or means to give us the (integrated) transport infrastructure we need?
Do you take issue with New Labour's apparent plan to execute a funding reduction that stands to do considerable further damage to the usefulness of the rail network?
How would you feel if you'd just bought a nice house, 5 minutes from a station where you could get into London in 40 minutes, only for the service level to be subsequently halved during rush hour and stopped at 7pm every night owing to these proposed cuts?
Do you think that NL are just 'bending with the wind' in admitting that motoring will prevail or are they admitting that they just do not have the will or means to give us the (integrated) transport infrastructure we need?
Yes it would be great if trains were clean/safe/reliable/frequent/cheap, but the rail infrastructure in this country needs so much cash spending to sort it out due to years and years of neglect, nobody is willing to find the cash.
Most of the time when I use the train for travelling to london (off peak) it isnear empty. This is on one of the busiest routes in the country (Reading to Waterloo)..
The only way forward (in the short term) I can see realistically is to try and get freight off the roads and onto rail where possible. This would mean more cash spent on rail, better investment without having to wait for the passenger numbers to increase. (Which they won't unless the service improves...)
In 40 years time I'd ideally like cars to be something that we as enthusiasts care about and drive for enjoyment, while the rest of the population uses matter transporters...
Most of the time when I use the train for travelling to london (off peak) it isnear empty. This is on one of the busiest routes in the country (Reading to Waterloo)..
The only way forward (in the short term) I can see realistically is to try and get freight off the roads and onto rail where possible. This would mean more cash spent on rail, better investment without having to wait for the passenger numbers to increase. (Which they won't unless the service improves...)
In 40 years time I'd ideally like cars to be something that we as enthusiasts care about and drive for enjoyment, while the rest of the population uses matter transporters...
well, Ken's aiming for that in London. Except that there's not going to be anywhere to park them all and there'll be a significant increase in casualties when all these new bikers/scooterers take to the roads of London IMO..
bosshog said: Force eveyone to ride motorbikes for commuting - its only solution - unless we all have sinclar's 5 with lids!!
northernboy said: I know that not everyone has the luxury of living an easy train journey to work, but I also get the sense that most people haven't even given it a thought when choosing where they live.
Northernboy - consider your life pre investment banking. Yes London has pretty good rail links (I shall let each of you comment on the acceptability of the service however). One or two other major cities do also have links into the middle of town (although these are usually by bus). However, anybody that doesn't work in the middle of the local smoke, simply does not have the option. To get from central Sheffield to where I work (on the Sheffield side of Rotherham) is about ten miles, which takes about 25 minutes in the morning by car. Otherwise it would be a bus into Sheffield, bus or train to Rotherham, bus out of Rotherham. I don't think that I am alone in this situation.
Yes I could live in Rotherham (as you could live in Brixton - just the first non banking borough I could think of) - but why would anybody do that out of choice. Simplest reasoned arguement is that I live near decent schools, so if it was one day appropriate I could send my kids there. Being honest though, my quality of life is simply better in Sheffield!
As has been said earlier, London is the exception rather than the rule in this country. Outside of London, the car rules for very good reasons (we can't afford to devote an additional four hours per day to commuting).
Do we need to get onto needing a car for work I wonder.....
I am not unhappy with them for dropping the pledge to cut motoring. The only way they were going to achieve it within the timescale would be to make it ever more unpleasant. The pledge would have been a good one if they'd kept cars as appealing, but made public transport more so.
I am very unhappy with them, though, for seeming to lack the commitment to improve the trains into and out of London, as well as in the regions. I think it would be money well spent.
I a malso unhappy at how their commitment to "put motorbikes at eh heart of our transport policy" seems to have been forgotten. Keeping us out of bus lanes, allowing councils to remove bike parking, etc, is not helping the problem either.
Of course, they do not control councils, private funding, or even all of the roads, so not everything that is going wrong is attributable to central government.
As I've pointed out before, I'd personally benefit from road charging, but have so far been against it. As more of my life ebbs away in London evening traffic, I can feel my opposition wavering.
Perhaps London is eventually sapping my community spirit, like it seems to have done to so many before me.
I am very unhappy with them, though, for seeming to lack the commitment to improve the trains into and out of London, as well as in the regions. I think it would be money well spent.
I a malso unhappy at how their commitment to "put motorbikes at eh heart of our transport policy" seems to have been forgotten. Keeping us out of bus lanes, allowing councils to remove bike parking, etc, is not helping the problem either.
Of course, they do not control councils, private funding, or even all of the roads, so not everything that is going wrong is attributable to central government.
As I've pointed out before, I'd personally benefit from road charging, but have so far been against it. As more of my life ebbs away in London evening traffic, I can feel my opposition wavering.
Perhaps London is eventually sapping my community spirit, like it seems to have done to so many before me.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff