thanks for the figures re rail you sent; I've spent an hour or so
going through them but as you say they are not much use. For one
thing, you have to wonder how accurate figures can be for 2009.

On the radio today I heard someone say the total rail subsidy was £22
billion.

My idea is to nationalise all these companies and remerge them as
British Rail but with the caveat that there should be no train fares
for passengers.

If you think this is nutty, check out

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/k...ne_letter.html

Using the figure above, and assuming the burden of this subsidy were
to be met by 20 million people, that works out to around £1100 per
head,
or around £21.16 per person per week.

Let's be uncharitable though and say the entire cost including fares
came to around £40 per week. That sounds one hell of a tax bill, but

a lot of commuters are paying a great deal more than that anyway

there would be a massive reduction in costs - no ticket offices,
ticket inspectors or audit staff, no prosecutions for "fare dodging",
a lot less in the way of security.

And with a totally subsidised service, a lot more people would travel
by train, leave the car at home.

Okay, this would mean more trains, but off-peak most of the trains are
80% and more empty, and it costs nearly as much to run an empty train.

Think of all the other gains too, less traffic on the roads, fewer
accidents, less congestion, better quality air, far less for the
country to spend on oil and imports.

You could extend this to domestic bus and coach services for not much
more.

If someone really did the homework on this, the only real objection
would come from vested interests.

thedarkman wrote:
thanks for the figures re rail you sent; I've spent an hour or so
going through them but as you say they are not much use. For one
thing, you have to wonder how accurate figures can be for 2009.

On the radio today I heard someone say the total rail subsidy was =A322
billion.

My idea is to nationalise all these companies and remerge them as
British Rail but with the caveat that there should be no train fares
for passengers.

If you think this is nutty


Nutty? No, not at all. ;-)

In message
, at
08:45:01 on Mon, 18 Oct 2010, thedarkman
remarked:

And with a totally subsidised service, a lot more people would travel
by train, leave the car at home.

I am frequently invited to meetings in London, which would involve a
return fare of over £100. I can't (on behalf of various charitable
clients) afford to do that. If I could travel for much less (or even for
free) I'd be able to contribute a great deal to discussions that are
nothing to do with railways. But in the current environment I am
disenfranchised on account to the rail fares.

ps. I would not travel by car, the only options are "train" or
"abstain".
--
Roland Perry

Okay, this would mean more trains, but off-peak most of the trains are
80% and more empty, and it costs nearly as much to run an empty train.



Not round here. About 80% full.
Seems you were thinking of London commuter lines.
Quite happy with my old folks buss pass thanks.
And off peak fares can be very cheap. Last week did South Lancashire
to Edinburgh return first class for £32. "Free" cofees, sandwiches,
cakes and biscuits must have been a good £10 - couldn't eat any more
even though the catering lad seemed desperate for passengers to eat
his stock before journey end.

If someone really did the homework on this, the only real objection
would come from vested interests.

Apart from the possible objections from those who:

o could not get on the train (or bus etc) - not even when they were
desperately trying to reach a dying parent/birthing partner/sick child
because there was no price rationing

o could get on (sometimes) but found the service abhorrent because
there was little or no incentive for the operator to provide good
service

o could get on (sometimes) but found the service abhorrent because of
the vehicles being used as doss houses, shooting galleries, etc

o were asked to pay more in tax to provide a service they did not or
could not use.

But if you remain keen on your idea would you be happy to go beyond
buses and coaches to provide free mini-mini-coach travel on routes
where there is demand for specific destinations and/or specific times?
That service could be delivered more efficiently by small vehicles
called "cars". Their cost could be kept lower by dispensing with
employed drivers and relying on passengers to self-drive the vehicles
(after passing a suitable test of course).




--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

We can't have that there could be no first class if it was all for
free.

We used to have free toilets on main line stations and they were
pretty grotty.

Now there's a charge they've become quite beautiful.

Make something free, no one values it and it will be abused.

thedarkman wrote:
thanks for the figures re rail you sent; I've spent an hour or so
going through them but as you say they are not much use. For one
thing, you have to wonder how accurate figures can be for 2009.

On the radio today I heard someone say the total rail subsidy was £22
billion.

My idea is to nationalise all these companies and remerge them as
British Rail but with the caveat that there should be no train fares
for passengers.

If you think this is nutty, check out

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/k...ne_letter.html

Using the figure above, and assuming the burden of this subsidy were
to be met by 20 million people, that works out to around £1100 per
head,
or around £21.16 per person per week.

Let's be uncharitable though and say the entire cost including fares
came to around £40 per week. That sounds one hell of a tax bill, but

a lot of commuters are paying a great deal more than that anyway

there would be a massive reduction in costs - no ticket offices,
ticket inspectors or audit staff, no prosecutions for "fare dodging",
a lot less in the way of security.

And with a totally subsidised service, a lot more people would travel
by train, leave the car at home.

Okay, this would mean more trains, but off-peak most of the trains are
80% and more empty, and it costs nearly as much to run an empty train.

Think of all the other gains too, less traffic on the roads, fewer
accidents, less congestion, better quality air, far less for the
country to spend on oil and imports.

You could extend this to domestic bus and coach services for not much
more.

If someone really did the homework on this, the only real objection
would come from vested interests.

How would you stop the trains becoming doss houses ?
How would you stop gangs of yobs from boarding for
a variety of illegal/antisocial purposes?

Jim Hawkins

On Oct 23, 10:12*am, "Jim Hawkins" wrote:
thedarkman wrote:
thanks for the figures re rail you sent; I've spent an hour or so
going through them but as you say they are not much use. For one
thing, you have to wonder how accurate figures can be for 2009.

On the radio today I heard someone say the total rail subsidy was £22
billion.

My idea is to nationalise all these companies and remerge them as
British Rail but with the caveat that there should be no train fares
for passengers.

If you think this is nutty, check out

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/k...ne_letter.html

Using the figure above, and assuming the burden of this subsidy were
to be met by 20 million people, that works out to around £1100 per
head,
or around £21.16 per person per week.

Let's be uncharitable though and say the entire cost including fares
came to around £40 per week. That sounds one hell of a tax bill, but

a lot of commuters are paying a great deal more than that anyway

there would be a massive reduction in costs - no ticket offices,
ticket inspectors or audit staff, no prosecutions for "fare dodging",
a lot less in the way of security.

And with a totally subsidised service, a lot more people would travel
by train, leave the car at home.

Okay, this would mean more trains, but off-peak most of the trains are
80% and more empty, and it costs nearly as much to run an empty train.

Think of all the other gains too, less traffic on the roads, fewer
accidents, less congestion, better quality air, far less for the
country to spend on oil and imports.

You could extend this to domestic bus and coach services for not much
more.

If someone really did the homework on this, the only real objection
would come from vested interests.

How would you stop the trains becoming doss houses ?
How would you stop gangs of yobs from boarding for
a variety of illegal/antisocial purposes?

Jim Hawkins

But in thedarkman's utopia, everybody would be content and there would
be no dossers or yobs.

Andy

On 23 Oct, 10:12, "Jim Hawkins" wrote:

How would you stop the trains becoming doss houses ?
How would you stop gangs of yobs from boarding for
a variety of illegal/antisocial purposes?

Why would you want to stop somebody doing something just because it's
illegal? Being illegal doesn't make something bad, or good.

As for anti-social activities, people do these things today; charging
for the use of the railways doesn't stop them from doing so.

I think the main reason that it couldn't be done is the one mentioned
previously, that use of the railways would rise considerably, and
there would be no income to raise capacity to cope. I suppose that in
theory it might work if trains, rails etc. were given to the railways
for free, but this couldn't happen unless the train builders were
given steel etc. for free, and all of their workers were prepared to
work without payment. This in turn would require steelworks to be
able to obtain free iron ore, coal, limestone etc. and for their
workers to work unpaid, which they might be prepare to do if food,
housing and everything else that they need was provided to them free
of charge. Unless you could get to the point where everybody on the
World would provide everything for free, then it's not going to work.

Some transport is provided free of charge; the bus from Reading
Station to the place on the old power station site where Microsoft
are, I can't remember the name of it, was free the last time I used
it, I would guess that the companies on that site contribute towards
the cost, to enable visitors to reach their otherwise rather
inaccessible location.

What seems to be unusual in this country is for a transport operator
to make a service free if the cost of collecting the fares would make
it uneconomic to do so. This does seem to be more common elsewhere; A
couple of examples from the USA, Until recently only the St. George
station on the Staten Island Railway had turnstiles, and a fare would
be paid by a passenger entering or exiting at this system (unless they
were making a free transfer from the Subway via the free ferry). Most
passengers probably are passing through St. George, but those who were
not could ride for free. The last I heard, a couple of years ago,
turnstiles were likely to be installed, and fares charges, at a couple
of other stations on the system. One was the next station, only a
short distance from St. George, because it was thought that to many
passengers were walking this distance, and thereby not having to pay
the fare. I'm not sure about this, as many would transfer to the
Subway in Manhattan, and therefore would get a free transfer and pay
no more, unless they had used up their free transfer on a bus on
Staten Island, or needed to transfer from Subway to bus, or make a non-
free transfer between Subway station. The other was Eltingville,
which is a busy station. I don't know if they have actually started
charging for trips from these stations yet, but the MTA has some
pretty serious financial problems at the moment.

The other case was at the PATH station in Harrison, NJ where
passengers entering the system there would get a free ride. On PATH
one ride is deducted from a card when entering the system but you just
walk out on exit. Since there were no Turnstiles, or ticket issuing
facility, at Harrison this resulted it the rather odd situation that
rides to that station were charged for, but rides from it were free.
This ended a few years ago when the turnstiles throughout the system
were replaced, and all stations, including Harrison, now have them.
Wasn't the Gosport ferry free in one direction but charged in the
other at one time?

There does seem to be a difference in that here operators seem to be
unwilling to allow passengers to travel for free, even if they make no
loss by doing so due to the costs involved in collecting the fares,
but elsewhere they sometimes seem to be more willing to do so.

Stephen Furley wrote:
On 23 Oct, 10:12, "Jim Hawkins" wrote:

How would you stop the trains becoming doss houses ?
How would you stop gangs of yobs from boarding for
a variety of illegal/antisocial purposes?

Why would you want to stop somebody doing something just because it's
illegal? Being illegal doesn't make something bad, or good.

Depends what it is, does it not.
Most people wouldn't want to be robbed, for example. A gang of yobs might
well be able to rob a coach full of pax, pull the cord and jump off before
the fuzz got anywhere near.

As for anti-social activities, people do these things today; charging
for the use of the railways doesn't stop them from doing so.

It presents them with novel opportunities that they might not be able
to resist.

Jim Hawkins