Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn’t sound very sustainable to me - taxes can’t keep going up

Taxes don't need to *keep* going up, but they do need to be set at a level where public services of an acceptable quality can be provided, which means reversing the *reductions* of recent years.

That or we remove the subsidy from those services, but then you watch half the railway close. Doing a wide-ranging public service approach while not funding it properly simply doesn't work, it's either-or.

 

[HSTEd]

Taxes don't need to *keep* going up, but they do need to be set at a level where public services of an acceptable quality can be provided, which means reversing the *reductions* of recent years.

That or we remove the subsidy from those services, but then you watch half the railway close. Doing a wide-ranging public service approach while not funding it properly simply doesn't work, it's either-or.

Producing any sort of "public service" railway is likely to require a root and branch consideration of what the railway is for. I don't think anyone has even attempted such a thing since Serpell, and obviously that was for a very different purpose.

I worry that the railway industry still tries to answer questions using answers from 1994, without really considering how the world or the railway has changed in the intervening three decades.
The cost base of the railway industry has changed markedly since the late BR era, when a senior signalling technician could do seven day weeks and still only be paid £16,000 (as the senior technician involved in the Clapham Junction accident was).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Aren't opinions in this thread supposed to be controversial?

Some take any criticism of "God's Wonderful Railway" as, well, heresy!

 

[Magdalia]

the railway system needs to be nationalised (including ROSCOs) from top to bottom. Losing some money is fine

This is fantasy economics with huge costs both on Nationalisation and ongoing. Losing some money is not fine, though it can be a political choice.

Doesn’t sound very sustainable to me - taxes can’t keep going up

You are right, it is not sustainable.

Taxes don't need to *keep* going up, but they do need to be set at a level where public services of an acceptable quality can be provided, which means reversing the *reductions* of recent years.

The UK tax burden is the highest it has been for 60 years. In macro terms there are no reductions to reverse.

The only way to get more tax revenue without tax rates going up is the grow the economy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The UK tax burden is the highest it has been for 60 years.

As a proportion of GDP yes. But not in absolute real terms. Percentage of GDP isn't a useful measure when you're looking to buy stuff. The cost of the railway doesn't get cheaper if GDP decreases.

Infinite and indefinite economic growth is a Ponzi scheme.

 

[HSTEd]

Also that location would likely mean a vast amount of archaeological investigation.

Not exactly wonderfully served by the Underground...

It is in something of a desert, you get the subsurface lines and a ~400m connection to the Central, but nothing else. You can get a DLR extension fairly easily though.

Unfortunately, there isn't an obvious site that gets you all of crossrail, thameslink and a large number of underground lines.

I think Crossrail and THameslink are probably the two most important, but I expect opinions will differ on that.

 

[Magdalia]

As a proportion of GDP yes. But not in absolute real terms. Percentage of GDP isn't a useful measure when you're looking to buy stuff. The cost of the railway doesn't get cheaper if GDP decreases.

Infinite and indefinite economic growth is a Ponzi scheme.

Taxes fund expenditure (buying stuff) and the main taxes are on components of GDP so taxes as a percentage of GDP is the most useful measure available. Income tax, National Insurance, Corporation Tax and Value Added Tax are all taxes on components of GDP. The more GDP grows, the more the revenue from those taxes grows, without having to increase the tax rates.

Absolute real terms is a contradiction, can't be both. Generally speaking real terms means adjusted for inflation. GDP is in real terms and adjusted for inflation. Absolute terms is not adjusted for inflation and in absolute terms tax revenue is the highest it has ever been, because we don't have falling prices.

You are right that the railway does not get cheaper if GDP decreases, but the tax income to pay for the railway would not increase in line with the increased costs. That is unsustainable, eventually the government runs out of money.

Indefinite economic growth is not a Ponzi scheme. With a few hiccups it has been happening for the whole of human history. It is indefinite increases in public expenditure not funded by tax income that it the Ponzi scheme.

I think that it depends on how we view this money —economies like France, altogether historically less tight-fisted than the UK and builder of the TGV in the 1990s, are more likely to view money as “invested” whereas (as with both government and media coverage of HS2, but also more generally with austerity) we over in the UK are more likely to view money invested into the railway/public services as “lost”. This is of course a massive generalisation, but it’s nonetheless a generalisation I’ve picked up as a citizen of — and voter in — both countries.

There is usually a recognised distinction between borrowing for investment, and covering current expenditure from taxes. Going back to Gordon Brown this is usually made reference to in the fiscal rules that each Chancellor claims to follow. A new railway, such as TGV or HS2, is investment, and can be financed by borrowing, but the railway costing more to run than is raised in fares is current expenditure which should be covered from taxes.

 

[The Ham]

Doesn’t sound very sustainable to me - taxes can’t keep going up

It depends, for example you could make the railways a lot cheaper to run if you didn't have to have a lot of staff selling tickets, other staff checking tickets, more staff catching people without tickets and yet more staff issuing refunds due to trains running late. That's before you consider the costs of managing all those people, providing training and providing uniforms for them.

Likewise, if people didn't have to pay for public transport buses would be able to run faster as each stop would take less time. Also with far less being spent on car ownership (a lot of it going overseas in buying fuel and paying for cars which aren't made in the UK) then there would be more money for people to spend on other things.. In addition, the savings could mean less debt, which again further increases the amount of money available to be spent on other things. Finally with it being easy to go places to find employment you could find that the economy is larger as Pele are more able to find work/find higher paid work without worrying about the cost of their travel.

It would also save the costs of taking payments (be that card payments or handling cash).

There could even be other cost benefits, for example older people would be less likely to be isolated and all people are likely to be fitter (even walking a little bit to catch the bus rather than driving, would make people a little healthier) and so save the NHS in diseases associated with inactivity. As well as the health benefits from reduced car use and the massive amount of time lost due to road congestion.

It then comes down to would it be cheaper overall to the tax payer to try and squeeze every penny out of passengers or to allow every passenger to travel for free and the cost savings that would produce?

I don't know the answer, but I ask the question to challenge the assumption that we have to reduce the subsidy by users paying more for it.

In a similar vein people can get upset about the increasing benefit costs and so say that we need to encourage people into work - only the largest cost of benefits to those not currently working are to those who are planning on never working again. Should we force them into work?

However, when you look at what is the reason for the big increases in benefit payments, it turns out the pensions are that largest cost and the pensioners would get grumpy if they had to go back to work.

Sometimes the narrative isn't as clear cut as it appears at surface level and I wonder if public transport subsidies is one of those examples.

 

[Sonic1234]

It depends, for example you could make the railways a lot cheaper to run if you didn't have to have a lot of staff selling tickets, other staff checking tickets, more staff catching people without tickets and yet more staff issuing refunds due to trains running late. That's before you consider the costs of managing all those people, providing training and providing uniforms for them.

Or even used these people better. If you request a refund for a ticket, you send a form off into the ether and wait 2 weeks for someone to check it (there's a question there if a more liberal refund policy would reduce admin costs), if they make a mistake you then have to contact customer relations who have a month's worth of emails to get through before they read yours. Meanwhile, the same company has a bank of people with ticketing knowledge, sat in an office at a station, doing nothing. Couldn't they do some online sales admin/customer relations work while they're waiting for customers? Nationwide are doing this with their branch staff.

Ironically, the bored ticket office clerk sits next to a poster saying "avoid the queue, use the app". There isn't a queue at a lot of stations. It should read "help with our staff boredom problem, use the ticket office"

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It depends, for example you could make the railways a lot cheaper to run if you didn't have to have a lot of staff selling tickets, other staff checking tickets, more staff catching people without tickets and yet more staff issuing refunds due to trains running late. That's before you consider the costs of managing all those people, providing training and providing uniforms for them.

I very much doubt that the costs of ticket sales (including the salaries of all the associated staff) form a very high % of the costs of running the railway - next to the costs of actually buying and maintaining the trains, and running all the signalling, maintaining the track, etc.

Besides, staff who sell tickets double up as being people who are on trains / in stations and whose presence helps a bit to deter anti-social behaviour (even where that's not officiallly part of their duties). You'd still need staff to perform that role. In fact you'd probably need more of them because if trains became free, they'd become much more attractive to exactly the kinds of people who are most likely to vandalise the trains and terrorize or harass other passengers.

(I'd bet you'd also find homeless people using trains as their homes - which might well be good for the homeless people but wouldn't be good for the 'genuine' passengers)

 

[Magdalia]

It depends, for example you could make the railways a lot cheaper to run if you didn't have to have a lot of staff selling tickets, other staff checking tickets, more staff catching people without tickets and yet more staff issuing refunds due to trains running late.

The best example of a service provided free at the point of use is the National Health Service. At busy times, such as Accident and Emergency on a Saturday night, or the GP surgery phone line on a Monday morning, demand exceeds supply and is rationed by queue.

From what I read here, Cross Country is an example of a service that already has a severe problem with demand exceeding supply, resulting in overcrowding and people not being able to get on trains. Removing the need to pay for a ticket will only exacerbate that problem by increasing demand without a matching increase in supply. What should be happening on routes like Cross Country is fares going up not down: that will raise more revenue without increasing costs.

A free at the point of use railway is definitely an idea which will get no further than this discussion because it does have no firm foundation in logic.

 

[Falcon1200]

the railway should be run as a public network run for the good of all. Never as a business seeking to profit.

I posted in this thread last night, with the quote from Post #1528 above. Soon afterwards my post was removed with 'reason 76 - Referring to deleted content'. Yet the content to which I referred is still there, today!

 

[Leogilbert007]

I posted in this thread last night, with the quote from Post #1528 above. Soon afterwards my post was removed with 'reason 76 - Referring to deleted content'. Yet the content to which I referred is still there, today!

That was because I reread my post and decided the views expressed were digressing from the original topic, and getting extremely political considering my full name is on this forum, so I decided to remove it — apologies!

 

[Bletchleyite]

From what I read here, Cross Country is an example of a service that already has a severe problem with demand exceeding supply, resulting in overcrowding and people not being able to get on trains. Removing the need to pay for a ticket will only exacerbate that problem by increasing demand without a matching increase in supply. What should be happening on routes like Cross Country is fares going up not down: that will raise more revenue without increasing costs.

No, what should happen on routes like CrossCountry is the appropriate capacity being provided, which means all the 22x going there instead of the likes of open access operators. The problem would not exist if all trains were 9 or 10 coaches.

 

[Magdalia]

No, what should happen on routes like CrossCountry is the appropriate capacity being provided, which means all the 22x going there instead of the likes of open access operators. The problem would not exist if all trains were 9 or 10 coaches.

But that uses up some, all, or more of the costs allegedly saved by not issuing tickets. Extra capacity is not free.

 

[Indigo Soup]

(I'd bet you'd also find homeless people using trains as their homes - which might well be good for the homeless people but wouldn't be good for the 'genuine' passengers)

The solution to that isn't in ticketing policy, but in housing policy... even if you had a truly draconian ticketing policy, you'd still get some homeless people using trains for shelter.

A free at the point of use railway is definitely an idea which will get no further than this discussion because it does have no firm foundation in logic.

It does have a foundation in a certain, very specific, kind of logic. It is a kind of logic which requires rather different assumptions about how society works, and what the railway network is for, but it's not totally devoid of it.

 

[Falcon1200]

That was because I reread my post and decided the views expressed were digressing from the original topic, and getting extremely political considering my full name is on this forum, so I decided to remove it — apologies!

No problem, thanks - Although your Post is still there! Did it get reinstated?

 

[Zomboid]

But that uses up some, all, or more of the costs allegedly saved by not issuing tickets. Extra capacity is not free.

Cross Country as it is now it's suppressing demand by charging a lot of money for a pretty mediocre product.
It'd be interesting to know what the level of demand would be if they had enough capacity to meet it and more sensible prices, and whether that would be a better or worse financial proposition than the current situation is.

 

[Meerkat]

time. Also with far less being spent on car ownership

Any evidence that free public transport would have a nationally significant impact on car ownership?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any evidence that free public transport would have a nationally significant impact on car ownership?

Evidence can probably be found in the form of the effect on free bus passes. It generally doesn't cause homes to go to no cars, but it often does cause a drop to one car. Free is quite powerful - see the effect on carrier bag usage that even a small charge has had.

 

[Meerkat]

Evidence can probably be found in the form of the effect on free bus passes. It generally doesn't cause homes to go to no cars, but it often does cause a drop to one car. Free is quite powerful - see the effect on carrier bag usage that even a small charge has had.

Who gets a free bus pass and had two cars?
Free public transport is less likely to be comprehensive and will be even more crowded in peak times, in fact ridiculously crowded as there will be no off peak fares to spread demand.

 

[Zomboid]

Who gets a free bus pass and had two cars?

Many pensioners. Generally the better off end of society, but both my parents and my in laws fall into that category.
And it has definitely altered their behaviors - not having to work obviously gives them less immediate time pressure, but for my parents at least prior to the bus pass they'd never have considered the bus an as option for getting around, but now they're using it for most journeys where it's a credible option.

 

[cle]

We've seen this in London with Freedom Passes too. My parents barely drive anywhere and love that transport is free for them.

It'd be a big, complex experiment, but I'd be interested to see trial versions of it (e.g. start with Croydon Tramlink - kill some buses accordingly) - or maybe certain London Overground lines / routes where there is a orbital or incentive to reduce local traffic.

Difficult to extract, hence the self-contained Tramlink as an example.

 

[Meerkat]

Many pensioners. Generally the better off end of society, but both my parents and my in laws fall into that category.
And it has definitely altered their behaviors - not having to work obviously gives them less immediate time pressure, but for my parents at least prior to the bus pass they'd never have considered the bus an as option for getting around, but now they're using it for most journeys where it's a credible option.

I don’t believe many pensioners have two cars!

 

[Zomboid]

I don’t believe many pensioners have two cars!

Maybe not a majority, but I doubt it's a negligible proportion. My parents still have 2 cars (and use the bus a lot now it's free) and my in laws have a car and a camper van (and until a couple of years ago they had a "hobby" car as well).

Not saying they're representative of everyone, but they're not several standard deviations away from the norm.

There will also be retirees who had two cars and dropped to one because the bus pass made that viable.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Many pensioners. Generally the better off end of society, but both my parents and my in laws fall into that category.
And it has definitely altered their behaviors - not having to work obviously gives them less immediate time pressure, but for my parents at least prior to the bus pass they'd never have considered the bus an as option for getting around, but now they're using it for most journeys where it's a credible option.

Is it necessary for public transport to be free to provide that incentive, or would it merely be necessary for it to be significantly cheaper than people's perceived marginal cost of driving?

 

[Zomboid]

Is it necessary for public transport to be free to provide that incentive, or would it merely be necessary for it to be significantly cheaper than people's perceived marginal cost of driving?

People don't charge themselves market rate for driving, so it would certainly need to be cheap. But quality is at least as important - a free bus that runs infrequently at unpredictable times isn't going to attract much custom, whereas a reasonably priced bus that runs frequently and reliably is going to do better.

That's where the £2 fare cap was good (though round here it meant £2 flat fare), as through the place I live most of the day there are 2 buses per hour, and we're at the lower end of frequency for Oxford bus services - combine that with a reasonable price and you get full buses a lot of the time.

 

[HSTEd]

Is it necessary for public transport to be free to provide that incentive, or would it merely be necessary for it to be significantly cheaper than people's perceived marginal cost of driving?

The problem is, in the electric era, that the perceived cost of driving will be very low indeed.
Offpeak electricity charging (available to the bulk of household if not all), tyre wear and insurance mileage will be the only costs.

I've thought alot about a railway optimised to compete with the car, and I don't think it looks like the current system.

I think you probably have to try and do a "high speed metro", simple stopping patterns but extremely high intensity. You have to beat the car even with random arrival times, or even worst case arrival times.
I think it can be done, but again, requires total reimagining of the industry from the beginning.