Rail Spend is now 150% of Road Spend
Discussion
Hydrogen in a form you can use to power vehicles doesn't just happen. As an element it is abundant in the universe but on this planet it is tied up in other compounds, mostly organic matter and water. Getting it out of those compounds into a state where you can burn it is expensive and environmentally damaging. Circa 95% of commercial hydrogen production comes from fossil fuels by steam reforming, or partial oxidation of methane, and coal gasification.
The tailpipe at point of use isn't really the point in terms of greenhouse gases given that the only realistic process to make the hydrogen on the required scale is out of other fuels, mostly fossil fuels. It's nice in terms of local air quality in inner cities, but so are the already-available electric options using batteries charged at the depot and/or by mains power down the route. And give that our society already requires vast amounts of electricity generation and transmission, then it's a lot simpler and cheaper to expand that than it is to build some complete new infrastructure for generating and distributing hydrogen for road use.
There is not a country in the world that runs a sizeable rail network without various forms of state transfer from non-users to users. As far as I can see it can't be done. National governments make that choice for the overall economic benefit of the country as a whole. Since the rest of the country, economically speaking, depends on the tax generation of London and the SE, then that's the mechanism by which it gets the benefit back.
It's absolutely true to say that railway systems as we know them are very expensive and the infrastructure is most of that cost. as I said several posts ago, if we were designing new countries from scratch today then I don't think anyone would reproduce the rail networks that were mostly laid down in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But we're not in any position to bulldoze everything within 50 miles of Tower Bridge and start again.
Replacing short-haul commuter rail (50 mile radius sort of thing) by busways has some theoretical attractions. But what rules it out in practice is that most of the infrastructure used by short-haul commuter rail also used by long distance heavy passenger rail and freight.
The tailpipe at point of use isn't really the point in terms of greenhouse gases given that the only realistic process to make the hydrogen on the required scale is out of other fuels, mostly fossil fuels. It's nice in terms of local air quality in inner cities, but so are the already-available electric options using batteries charged at the depot and/or by mains power down the route. And give that our society already requires vast amounts of electricity generation and transmission, then it's a lot simpler and cheaper to expand that than it is to build some complete new infrastructure for generating and distributing hydrogen for road use.
mshsrfc said:
Should rail get 16 times more support than road and as 65% of all rail journeys are in SE are you saying London et al
deserve 16 times more money.
I'm not making a moral argument about "deserves" at all. I'm simply saying the cost to the taxpayer is more than offset by the tax generation it enables, via personal and corporate taxation of various types that would disappear if we eliminated the ability of people to commute by rail into those cites.deserve 16 times more money.
There is not a country in the world that runs a sizeable rail network without various forms of state transfer from non-users to users. As far as I can see it can't be done. National governments make that choice for the overall economic benefit of the country as a whole. Since the rest of the country, economically speaking, depends on the tax generation of London and the SE, then that's the mechanism by which it gets the benefit back.
It's absolutely true to say that railway systems as we know them are very expensive and the infrastructure is most of that cost. as I said several posts ago, if we were designing new countries from scratch today then I don't think anyone would reproduce the rail networks that were mostly laid down in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But we're not in any position to bulldoze everything within 50 miles of Tower Bridge and start again.
Replacing short-haul commuter rail (50 mile radius sort of thing) by busways has some theoretical attractions. But what rules it out in practice is that most of the infrastructure used by short-haul commuter rail also used by long distance heavy passenger rail and freight.
Edited by Lowtimer on Thursday 2nd November 09:54
mshsrfc said:
The wages of bus & lorry were to show how union negotiating has pushed up rail & tube costs as compared to
other professional drivers. These wages are the high point across rail industry, but show unions negotiating
with government controlled departments force prices up across industry.
Software Manager £40k+
The wages of train drivers have always been above that of Bus and lorry drivers.other professional drivers. These wages are the high point across rail industry, but show unions negotiating
with government controlled departments force prices up across industry.
Software Manager £40k+
Also afaik, TrainDrivers wage negotiations are held with the Train Operating Companies, TOC's who are private companies, not Goverment controlled departments and it is these companies who determine the cost of Rail travel.
That's not really correct. About half of UK rail fares are directly regulated by the state, They include most standard and saver return fares, as well as weekly season tickets. These are predominantly a feature of travel to/from London and other major city commuter routes which carry the most passengers.
The mechanism for increases in regulated fares is determined by the DfT (or other tendering authorities in Scotland and Wales) and is currently based on an inflation-linked formula.
On most operations TOCs have some flexibility to set some fares, but the overall levels of how much of the cost is met via the fare box versus the from the taxpayer is determined by the franchise specification issued by DfT and the other franchising bodies.
Since 2004 it has been consistent policy from both Labour and Conservative govts to increase the proportion of overall operating costs paid by the passenger and reduce the proportion coming from general taxation. This is the direct cause of above-inflation fares increases, which the DfT and Treasury were happy to implement. As long as passenger numbers continued to increase they saw it as a win:win.
On the largest contract UK rail contract, the operator has no exposure to fare revenue at all. All the fares revenue goes direct to the DfT, with the operator being paid a flat fee to provide the labour (in much the same way as the operators of TfL London buses don't see any of the fare revenue, just the contract fees).
Employee pay is in theory a matter between TOCs and the unions, though pay is also part of the three-cornered negotiation with DfT. If DfT requires TOCs to implement changes which the unions see as a bargaining chip (e.g. the introduction of trains where the doors are controlled by the drivers rather than the guards) then some concession elsewhere, including on pay, often has to be applied.
The mechanism for increases in regulated fares is determined by the DfT (or other tendering authorities in Scotland and Wales) and is currently based on an inflation-linked formula.
On most operations TOCs have some flexibility to set some fares, but the overall levels of how much of the cost is met via the fare box versus the from the taxpayer is determined by the franchise specification issued by DfT and the other franchising bodies.
Since 2004 it has been consistent policy from both Labour and Conservative govts to increase the proportion of overall operating costs paid by the passenger and reduce the proportion coming from general taxation. This is the direct cause of above-inflation fares increases, which the DfT and Treasury were happy to implement. As long as passenger numbers continued to increase they saw it as a win:win.
On the largest contract UK rail contract, the operator has no exposure to fare revenue at all. All the fares revenue goes direct to the DfT, with the operator being paid a flat fee to provide the labour (in much the same way as the operators of TfL London buses don't see any of the fare revenue, just the contract fees).
Employee pay is in theory a matter between TOCs and the unions, though pay is also part of the three-cornered negotiation with DfT. If DfT requires TOCs to implement changes which the unions see as a bargaining chip (e.g. the introduction of trains where the doors are controlled by the drivers rather than the guards) then some concession elsewhere, including on pay, often has to be applied.
Edited by Lowtimer on Thursday 2nd November 18:22
mshsrfc said:
Good for you, enjoy, we all really love subsidising you 36p / mile
Rail is very good if a) you can afford it b) it goes from where u r to where u want to go
Let me guess either you or GF lives in a city?
I live in a market town, 1 train an hour each way to Derby or Crewe, change onto the mainline and Incan get to most places. Rail is very good if a) you can afford it b) it goes from where u r to where u want to go
Let me guess either you or GF lives in a city?
My parents live between Chester and Northwich and sadly while the line is still carrying trains 'their station' was axed in the Beeching era.
However I think as cars and our use of cars changes we might end up using railways more. Couple of self driving electric vehicles at each station for the last mile, happy days maybe?
Daniel
Lowtimer said:
That's not really correct. About half of UK rail fares are directly regulated by the state, They include most standard and saver return fares, as well as weekly season tickets. These are predominantly a feature of travel to/from London and other major city commuter routes which carry the most passengers.
The mechanism for increases in regulated fares is determined by the DfT (or other tendering authorities in Scotland and Wales) and is currently based on an inflation-linked formula.
On most operations TOCs have some flexibility to set some fares, but the overall levels of how much of the cost is met via the fare box versus the from the taxpayer is determined by the franchise specification issued by DfT and the other franchising bodies.
Since 2004 it has been consistent policy from both Labour and Conservative govts to increase the proportion of overall operating costs paid by the passenger and reduce the proportion coming from general taxation. This is the direct cause of above-inflation fares increases, which the DfT and Treasury were happy to implement. As long as passenger numbers continued to increase they saw it as a win:win.
On the largest contract UK rail contract, the operator has no exposure to fare revenue at all. All the fares revenue goes direct to the DfT, with the operator being paid a flat fee to provide the labour (in much the same way as the operators of TfL London buses don't see any of the fare revenue, just the contract fees).
Employee pay is in theory a matter between TOCs and the unions, though pay is also part of the three-cornered negotiation with DfT. If DfT requires TOCs to implement changes which the unions see as a bargaining chip (e.g. the introduction of trains where the doors are controlled by the drivers rather than the guards) then some concession elsewhere, including on pay, often has to be applied.
UK fares are 30% higher than comparable Euro countries, so they cant raise them much or would be rebellion. The £4bn government subsidy goes to TOC's and then straight to Network Rail, this makes up 2/3 of normal operating cost of £6bn but that is not enough so they have 'borrowed' £48bn extra to pay for 'projects'. NW is broke and set to overspend by about £5-8bn for foreseeable future with no way of ever paying back the 'loans'. The mechanism for increases in regulated fares is determined by the DfT (or other tendering authorities in Scotland and Wales) and is currently based on an inflation-linked formula.
On most operations TOCs have some flexibility to set some fares, but the overall levels of how much of the cost is met via the fare box versus the from the taxpayer is determined by the franchise specification issued by DfT and the other franchising bodies.
Since 2004 it has been consistent policy from both Labour and Conservative govts to increase the proportion of overall operating costs paid by the passenger and reduce the proportion coming from general taxation. This is the direct cause of above-inflation fares increases, which the DfT and Treasury were happy to implement. As long as passenger numbers continued to increase they saw it as a win:win.
On the largest contract UK rail contract, the operator has no exposure to fare revenue at all. All the fares revenue goes direct to the DfT, with the operator being paid a flat fee to provide the labour (in much the same way as the operators of TfL London buses don't see any of the fare revenue, just the contract fees).
Employee pay is in theory a matter between TOCs and the unions, though pay is also part of the three-cornered negotiation with DfT. If DfT requires TOCs to implement changes which the unions see as a bargaining chip (e.g. the introduction of trains where the doors are controlled by the drivers rather than the guards) then some concession elsewhere, including on pay, often has to be applied.
Edited by Lowtimer on Thursday 2nd November 18:22
These concessions have made a bloke who pushes a button when he see's a green light and then releases it when he see's a red being paid with OT £90k / annum, didn't they teach monkey's how to do something like that?
We passed a significant point in 2016 with public sector on average being paid more than private, the cost of government and publicly funded bodies is much to high and something will eventually have to give.
I point blank refuse to use trains wherever humanly possible in protest.
I live directly opposite a high speed link directly into central London. 45 minutes I think it is.
My car broke two weeks ago and I had to go to london to see a customer. I looked at using the train. Day return after 9 am was nearly £40.
I phoned a local car hire company. £27 for a fiesta and £10 in fuel there and back.
Took me about the same time to drive to the customer site for the same amount as the train.
Utterly ridiculous and I simply refuse to accept using the train being more expensive than using my car. It is heavily subsidised as it is.
I live directly opposite a high speed link directly into central London. 45 minutes I think it is.
My car broke two weeks ago and I had to go to london to see a customer. I looked at using the train. Day return after 9 am was nearly £40.
I phoned a local car hire company. £27 for a fiesta and £10 in fuel there and back.
Took me about the same time to drive to the customer site for the same amount as the train.
Utterly ridiculous and I simply refuse to accept using the train being more expensive than using my car. It is heavily subsidised as it is.
mshsrfc said:
gooner1 said:
In what way are the unions pushing up wages?
£90k / annum for 4 + 1 days SE rail driver £55k / annum for tube driver
lorry driver £25 - £35k and he / she has to steer
bus driver £30k and he / she has to steer and close the doors
Edited by mshsrfc on Wednesday 1st November 14:28
Your figures are totally wrong which is no suprise as your posting style is that of a chimpanzee who has learnt how to use a keyboard.
No train driver earns 90k basic so where you got that figure from I don't know and if they do I'm asking my bosses for a substantial rise. It's maybe possible on overtime if you don't value any home/personal life at all.
Look at the bigger picture, passenger trains don't make sod all for the railway considering that's the bulk of the traffic. I'm a freight driver and on one train I can be moving in the region of 2million litres of petroleum/diesel for example... That's a lot of lorries off the road.
Look at the bigger picture, passenger trains don't make sod all for the railway considering that's the bulk of the traffic. I'm a freight driver and on one train I can be moving in the region of 2million litres of petroleum/diesel for example... That's a lot of lorries off the road.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff