Residents in locked-down Chinese city plead for food
Chinese officials have admitted supply issues for residents in locked-down Xi'an, after the city's inhabitants decried food shortages and called for help.
Some 13 million residents in northern Xi'an are in their seventh day of home confinement, and national health officials have called for measures to be strengthened further as China battles its worst virus surge in months.
Beijing has followed a strict "zero Covid" strategy involving tight border restrictions and targeted lockdowns since the virus first surfaced in a central city in late 2019.
But officials admitted at a press conference on Wednesday that "low staff attendance and difficulties in logistics and distribution" had led to trouble providing essential supplies.
A day before, many residents asked on social media for help acquiring food and other essentials, with some saying their housing compounds would not let them out even though they were running out of food.
----
Its definitely only 200 cases.....
I, for one, like the use of videos. After yesterday's mass spraying, we have name and shame parades.
I guess the timing is completely coincidental. Completely.
Seeing the footage, it does again rather seem like the Chinese authorities watch these Western Dystopian films as an instruction manual rather than a warning.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
Care to say why it is 'hideously expensive' ?
Compare it to the cost of a train in Europe
Isn't the trope that the UK has the highest rail prices massively distorted by relatively short-distance commuter rail?
Pretty much.
Just from my own experiences - Paris Metro and RER was dirt cheap while unprepared travel in UK can be costly.
There is a slightly different pricing structure - buying in advance is much cheaper in the UK, being able to plan in advance cheaper still - but if there were deals in France, I could never find them.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
It's amusing to see so many zero Covid zealots in a circlejerk denying that a smaller percentage of a bigger number is as serious as a bigger percentage of a smaller number ... When that was the entire point of the Omicron panic.
Chris Whitty and others have been saying that even if the virus is less severe if it effects more people it's just as serious a problem.
So yes 20x5% = 1. That is a mathematical truism.
Isn't the problem also that Whitty's calculation assumes the world in November 2020, when nobody was vaccinated, nobody was boosted and nobody had antibodies. Ie the world of Delta....
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
I note that even the tube offers lower cost options to manage demand across different times of day with different demand for services.
But I'm not saying the price shouldn't vary at different times of day, I'm saying however that the price should be fixed at a particular time of day, regardless of whether its booked in advance or not.
If you can book anything in advance it is cheaper, you can book French, Spanish, Italian tickets in advance.
The point is that if you want to go somewhere, you go. If you're flexible sites like Trainline will tell you when to go but the reality is that people get on the train when they want to go.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Interesting that the energy industry is asking for a £20bn 10 year state backed loan for energy subsidies and the government is considering giving it to them in order to keep prices down. Imagine winding the clock back to 2012 and creating the same £20bn state backed loan fund for companies to borrow and invest cheaply in renewable energy creation and for industry to borrow cheaply to create a whole renewable energy industry for countries where solar isn't viable.
We're going to spend the money either way, this way all we're doing is subsidising high gas prices, effectively a transfer of taxpayer cash to Qatar, Russia and Shell.
Once again, a real lack of strategic thinking from the government and the same treasury bods who don't understand the concept of value creation.
The IEA came up with the astonishing claim the other day the government actually wants much higher energy prices because of the potential profit motive. The logic is that high prices will supercharge investment in new non carbon alternatives to make a buck - bringing the price down long term.
Its brave, minister.
That might make for economic sense, and help with getting the country away from dependence on foreign-sourced fuels - but it’s political suicide.
Even David Cameron dropped the “Green Crap”, when he realised where it was going with regard to energy bills.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
Can I ask a silly question - why do the 2 options in the chart not add up to 100%? It seems to be a 2 option Yes/No question, so according to me it should do that.
Implied chance from betting odds always adds up to >100%. That's the margin the bookies make the profit from.
Cheers. I had nor considered that applying here.
So a lowish, but not very low, overround.
I think 8% is pretty standard. Certainly you can easily find 15% in markets with many runners. Basically, the harder it is to see how badly they're screwing you, the worse you can expect it to be. Pretty easy to spot bad value in a two horse race, though, so 8% is expected.
I don’t think that’s right though - the field is bigger so the profit is greater for the bookie but the individual is paying less
Assuming punters bet in equal numbers on each horse
With 2 horses, there is one loser so with 80 punters there are 40 to pay the bookies margin
With 8 horses there are 7 losers, so with 80 punters there are 70 to pay the bookies margin.
If the overround is 15% on the larger race the individual losing punter is paying 1/70*0.15 = 0.002 vs 1/40*.08 = 0.002
Excellent point. For a full analysis, you'd need to know whether there is a systemic bias on the longer or shorter odds, or whether it's spread evenly across all prices. My hunch is that favourite prices tend to be fairer and the longer odds are way too short, but I don't have any inside information on that.
I don’t think long odds are set based on probabilities. At some level they are a marketing tool.
Let’s say there is a 3% chance of a horse winning. The “fair” price is 33-1. A bookie may price at 50-1 to attract more business (and hopefully both losers on that horse plus they will bet at the same time on other horses).
At that point it’s a theoretical loss leader with the price set by the risk of the book rather than the probability of the horse winning.
In contrast if they price at 25-1 in the absence of any better information they will take fewer bets and make less money but at a lower risk
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Last time I was in Germany, rail fares seemed quite high, especially if bought at short notice. I did get a good deal from Berlin to Leipzig, but I was able to buy that one in advance. There are some good group tickets, but I was travelling on my own. The Land/Regional day tickets can be good value, especially if bought as a group, but some seem no longer available - I'm sure there used to be a Berlin-Brandenburg-Vorpommen one that took you to Szczecin, but it no longer seemed to exist.
In Europe generally, you need to book well ahead to get the best fares.
Although the real European rip-off is charging half the second class fare for dogs, who are only allowed on the floor, when in the UK they travel for free.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
Residents in locked-down Chinese city plead for food
Chinese officials have admitted supply issues for residents in locked-down Xi'an, after the city's inhabitants decried food shortages and called for help.
Some 13 million residents in northern Xi'an are in their seventh day of home confinement, and national health officials have called for measures to be strengthened further as China battles its worst virus surge in months.
Beijing has followed a strict "zero Covid" strategy involving tight border restrictions and targeted lockdowns since the virus first surfaced in a central city in late 2019.
But officials admitted at a press conference on Wednesday that "low staff attendance and difficulties in logistics and distribution" had led to trouble providing essential supplies.
A day before, many residents asked on social media for help acquiring food and other essentials, with some saying their housing compounds would not let them out even though they were running out of food.
----
Its definitely only 200 cases.....
I, for one, like the use of videos. After yesterday's mass spraying, we have name and shame parades.
I guess the timing is completely coincidental. Completely.
Seeing the footage, it does again rather seem like the Chinese authorities watch these Western Dystopian films as an instruction manual rather than a warning.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
So you'd prefer expensive predictable fares over potentially cheaper variable ones?
Fair enough.
Either you can have predictability or cheapness, not both. Some people require stability in prices and that's why they pay a surcharge to financial services companies for futures etc
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
We have had standardised offpeak fares for many many years - An LNER Super Offpeak single from Newcastle to London is £76.20
Peak singles are £169.
Which is why we now have fixed tickets because they work out way, way cheaper.
Dutch economist Robin Fransman, the founder of an anti-lockdown group who refused to get vaccinated because coronavirus poses a "minimal risk," has died of COVID-19. He was 53
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Of course you can. One (possibly public) company owns the infrastructure, and other companies provide competitive services and compete for business. Same as road haulage, airports, broadband…
The mistake with rail, was the huge regional service monopolies, especially on intercity routes.
Why isn't there more competition with bus services? Most places end up with a local monopoly.
Local bus services are usually loss-making, and end up either run by the council or under council subsidy. Where there’s competition for buses, is in large cities and on long-distance services, and you usually see competition on those routes.
Transport systems are natural monopolies because they are networks. Hence you don't get competition for the entire network of routes, just the most profitable routes. It was what Freddy Laker and Richard Branson did to BA back in the day. And it is why US domestic routes are now all organized around hubs and spokes.
Dutch economist Robin Fransman, the founder of an anti-lockdown group who refused to get vaccinated because coronavirus poses a "minimal risk," has died of COVID-19. He was 53
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
I have some sympathy with your view, as I mostly use railways on an on-demand basis getting back from walks.
But convenience can be the other way. If I'm out on a walk, I often need to get back to my start point. Instead of having to catch (say) the 15.35 train from station C, I might choose to walk a little further to station D and get a later one. Or station B and get an earlier one.
I *hate* having a ticket booked in advance (or having to catch the one train or bus that runs in an afternoon), and having the entire day planned around having to catch that one service.
Walk-on tickets are convenient for me, and I'm willing to pay the little extra expense for that convenience.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
So you'd prefer expensive predictable fares over potentially cheaper variable ones?
Fair enough.
Either you can have predictability or cheapness, not both. Some people require stability in prices and that's why they pay a surcharge to financial services companies for futures etc
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
So you'd prefer expensive predictable fares over potentially cheaper variable ones?
Fair enough.
Either you can have predictability or cheapness, not both. Some people require stability in prices and that's why they pay a surcharge to financial services companies for futures etc
Actually you can have both.
That £76.20 gets you on any super offpeak train - what it doesn't guarantee you is a seat because if they have all been bought a seat won't be available.
Oh and the people in the seats will have traded some flexibility in time in return for a far cheaper (say £32) ticket.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Last time I was in Germany, rail fares seemed quite high, especially if bought at short notice. I did get a good deal from Berlin to Leipzig, but I was able to buy that one in advance. There are some good group tickets, but I was travelling on my own. The Land/Regional day tickets can be good value, especially if bought as a group, but some seem no longer available - I'm sure there used to be a Berlin-Brandenburg-Vorpommen one that took you to Szczecin, but it no longer seemed to exist.
In Europe generally, you need to book well ahead to get the best fares.
Although the real European rip-off is charging half the second class fare for dogs, who are only allowed on the floor, when in the UK they travel for free.
That made me blink.
Where else is a dog going to go - perhaps in the luggage rack or on the roof?
KEY: Country From To (Distance in miles) - Monthly season ticket price 2019 (% of monthly earnings)
UK Chelmsford London (28) - £393.19 (13%)
UK Manchester Liverpool (31) - £256.90 (8%)
Germany Eberswalde Berlin (40) - £120.61 (4%)
France Étampes Paris (35) - £67.50 (2%)
Belgium Ghent Brussels (35) - £150.31 (4%)
Ireland Drogheda Dublin (29) - £116.11 (3%)
For people that actually use the trains, the costs are absurd
Yes, those are certainly more expensive. But different from the earlier claim about London to Leeds being absurdly expensive.
I stand by that, that is hideously expensive
What's the scale of outrage on prices? Does it immediately go to hideously expensive (despite them actually being comparable to continental prices), or is there a continuum?
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
So you'd prefer expensive predictable fares over potentially cheaper variable ones?
Fair enough.
Either you can have predictability or cheapness, not both. Some people require stability in prices and that's why they pay a surcharge to financial services companies for futures etc
Dutch economist Robin Fransman, the founder of an anti-lockdown group who refused to get vaccinated because coronavirus poses a "minimal risk," has died of COVID-19. He was 53
Darwin award contender.
Not sure Fort Knox holds enough gold to make all the Darwin awards due this year.
KEY: Country From To (Distance in miles) - Monthly season ticket price 2019 (% of monthly earnings)
UK Chelmsford London (28) - £393.19 (13%)
UK Manchester Liverpool (31) - £256.90 (8%)
Germany Eberswalde Berlin (40) - £120.61 (4%)
France Étampes Paris (35) - £67.50 (2%)
Belgium Ghent Brussels (35) - £150.31 (4%)
Ireland Drogheda Dublin (29) - £116.11 (3%)
For people that actually use the trains, the costs are absurd
Yes, those are certainly more expensive. But different from the earlier claim about London to Leeds being absurdly expensive.
I stand by that, that is hideously expensive
What's the scale of outrage on prices? Does it immediately go to hideously expensive (despite them actually being comparable to continental prices), or is there a continuum?
Just a lot of money to spend on a train, it seems to me.
KEY: Country From To (Distance in miles) - Monthly season ticket price 2019 (% of monthly earnings)
UK Chelmsford London (28) - £393.19 (13%)
UK Manchester Liverpool (31) - £256.90 (8%)
Germany Eberswalde Berlin (40) - £120.61 (4%)
France Étampes Paris (35) - £67.50 (2%)
Belgium Ghent Brussels (35) - £150.31 (4%)
Ireland Drogheda Dublin (29) - £116.11 (3%)
For people that actually use the trains, the costs are absurd
Yes, those are certainly more expensive. But different from the earlier claim about London to Leeds being absurdly expensive.
I stand by that, that is hideously expensive
What's the scale of outrage on prices? Does it immediately go to hideously expensive (despite them actually being comparable to continental prices), or is there a continuum?
Just a lot of money to spend on a train, it seems to me.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
So you'd prefer expensive predictable fares over potentially cheaper variable ones?
Fair enough.
Either you can have predictability or cheapness, not both. Some people require stability in prices and that's why they pay a surcharge to financial services companies for futures etc
No, I want cheap predictable fares thanks.
That's an oxymoron.
Do you also want hot ice cream?
Well you're Captain Oxymoron so I'm quite happy with my opinion on this, thanks.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
Of course. Ever turned up at the airport looking to buy a ticket on a plane?
The people with the cheap tickets committed weeks ago to a particular plane or train, those booking late or needing flexibility pay more for those services.
Can I ask a silly question - why do the 2 options in the chart not add up to 100%? It seems to be a 2 option Yes/No question, so according to me it should do that.
Implied chance from betting odds always adds up to >100%. That's the margin the bookies make the profit from.
Cheers. I had nor considered that applying here.
So a lowish, but not very low, overround.
I think 8% is pretty standard. Certainly you can easily find 15% in markets with many runners. Basically, the harder it is to see how badly they're screwing you, the worse you can expect it to be. Pretty easy to spot bad value in a two horse race, though, so 8% is expected.
I don’t think that’s right though - the field is bigger so the profit is greater for the bookie but the individual is paying less
Assuming punters bet in equal numbers on each horse
With 2 horses, there is one loser so with 80 punters there are 40 to pay the bookies margin
With 8 horses there are 7 losers, so with 80 punters there are 70 to pay the bookies margin.
If the overround is 15% on the larger race the individual losing punter is paying 1/70*0.15 = 0.002 vs 1/40*.08 = 0.002
Excellent point. For a full analysis, you'd need to know whether there is a systemic bias on the longer or shorter odds, or whether it's spread evenly across all prices. My hunch is that favourite prices tend to be fairer and the longer odds are way too short, but I don't have any inside information on that.
I don’t think long odds are set based on probabilities. At some level they are a marketing tool.
Let’s say there is a 3% chance of a horse winning. The “fair” price is 33-1. A bookie may price at 50-1 to attract more business (and hopefully both losers on that horse plus they will bet at the same time on other horses).
At that point it’s a theoretical loss leader with the price set by the risk of the book rather than the probability of the horse winning.
In contrast if they price at 25-1 in the absence of any better information they will take fewer bets and make less money but at a lower risk
I believe the tech term for the "fair" (reflecting actual probability) price is tissue price.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
Of course. Ever turned up at the airport looking to buy a ticket on a plane?
The people with the cheap tickets committed weeks ago to a particular plane or train, those booking late or needing flexibility pay more for those services.
Yeah I know how it works, and I don't like it, that's why I want it changed. It isn't hard to grasp.
I want an increased state subsidy to encourage ad-hoc use of the railways.
KEY: Country From To (Distance in miles) - Monthly season ticket price 2019 (% of monthly earnings)
UK Chelmsford London (28) - £393.19 (13%)
UK Manchester Liverpool (31) - £256.90 (8%)
Germany Eberswalde Berlin (40) - £120.61 (4%)
France Étampes Paris (35) - £67.50 (2%)
Belgium Ghent Brussels (35) - £150.31 (4%)
Ireland Drogheda Dublin (29) - £116.11 (3%)
For people that actually use the trains, the costs are absurd
Yes, those are certainly more expensive. But different from the earlier claim about London to Leeds being absurdly expensive.
I stand by that, that is hideously expensive
What's the scale of outrage on prices? Does it immediately go to hideously expensive (despite them actually being comparable to continental prices), or is there a continuum?
Just a lot of money to spend on a train, it seems to me.
In London I pay £1.50
To go 200 miles?
17.3 miles can do £1.55, so a walk up ticket should be at most £17.90 but it's going to be over £100 I would expect
The amount we subsidise our railways, it is absurd just how expensive they are.
It's weird we're anti subsidy for trains but pro subsidy for railways, nobody is calling for them to be privatised
The ultimate condemnation of privatisation is that the subsidy now is significantly greater (in real terms) than the net loss when it was publicly owned.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
Of course. Ever turned up at the airport looking to buy a ticket on a plane?
The people with the cheap tickets committed weeks ago to a particular plane or train, those booking late or needing flexibility pay more for those services.
Then we have a fundamental disagreement about the role of the train I am afraid. I don't think it similar to a plane.
I am quite happy to say if you want to book in advance, you can get good deals.
But that is not how people actually use the train, it's a total misnomer
It depends on the train service - for long distance people do book days in advance most of the time.
For shorter commuter type journeys its more likely to be turn up, pay and go - it's a different market but one that IRP so comprehensively destroys outside of commuting into London there is little point caring about it.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Last time I was in Germany, rail fares seemed quite high, especially if bought at short notice. I did get a good deal from Berlin to Leipzig, but I was able to buy that one in advance. There are some good group tickets, but I was travelling on my own. The Land/Regional day tickets can be good value, especially if bought as a group, but some seem no longer available - I'm sure there used to be a Berlin-Brandenburg-Vorpommen one that took you to Szczecin, but it no longer seemed to exist.
In Europe generally, you need to book well ahead to get the best fares.
Although the real European rip-off is charging half the second class fare for dogs, who are only allowed on the floor, when in the UK they travel for free.
That made me blink.
Where else is a dog going to go - perhaps in the luggage rack or on the roof?
The point was simply that you pay half a fare for the dog yet don’t get anything in return for it. Whereas a child travels at a discount (often the very same half fare) but still fills a whole seat.
The UK allowing dogs to travel free is by far the best arrangement.
The Netherlands comes second, with a nominal €3 charge for a dog ticket.
Most of Europe charges half the second class fare, for absolutely nothing other than a space on what would otherwise have been an empty floor.
France comes almost last for not even allowing dogs on many of its high speed services.
Eurostar comes bottom for not allowing dogs at all; one of the very few rail routes in Europe where you can’t travel with a dog. Generating a lot of revenue for Stena Line to Holland and that taxi company in Folkestone.
The amount we subsidise our railways, it is absurd just how expensive they are.
It's weird we're anti subsidy for trains but pro subsidy for railways, nobody is calling for them to be privatised
The ultimate condemnation of privatisation is that the subsidy now is significantly greater (in real terms) than the net loss when it was publicly owner.
And yet the actual performance is about the same, we just pay the Germans and French to rent trains that the taxpayer paid to build.
For example, if I booked a train from Newcastle to London and for whatever reason missed my train, I don't want to have to pay double what I originally paid for a new ticket for the next train.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
So you'd prefer expensive predictable fares over potentially cheaper variable ones?
Fair enough.
Either you can have predictability or cheapness, not both. Some people require stability in prices and that's why they pay a surcharge to financial services companies for futures etc
No, I want cheap predictable fares thanks.
I want safest, fastest, cheapest. What do you mean, I can't have all three? Ask NASA, you say?
I am quite happy to say if you want to book in advance, you can get good deals.
But that is not how people actually use the train, it's a total misnomer
It depends on the train service - for long distance people do book days in advance most of the time.
For shorter commuter type journeys its more likely to be turn up, pay and go - it's a different market but one that IRP so comprehensively destroys outside of commuting into London there is little point caring about it.
For example, if I booked a train from Newcastle to London and for whatever reason missed my train, I don't want to have to pay double what I originally paid for a new ticket for the next train.
KEY: Country From To (Distance in miles) - Monthly season ticket price 2019 (% of monthly earnings)
UK Chelmsford London (28) - £393.19 (13%)
UK Manchester Liverpool (31) - £256.90 (8%)
Germany Eberswalde Berlin (40) - £120.61 (4%)
France Étampes Paris (35) - £67.50 (2%)
Belgium Ghent Brussels (35) - £150.31 (4%)
Ireland Drogheda Dublin (29) - £116.11 (3%)
For people that actually use the trains, the costs are absurd
Yes, those are certainly more expensive. But different from the earlier claim about London to Leeds being absurdly expensive.
I stand by that, that is hideously expensive
What's the scale of outrage on prices? Does it immediately go to hideously expensive (despite them actually being comparable to continental prices), or is there a continuum?
Just a lot of money to spend on a train, it seems to me.
In London I pay £1.50
Yeah, that shows why London's transport is massively in debt , and some Londoners want the rest of us to bail them out ...
KEY: Country From To (Distance in miles) - Monthly season ticket price 2019 (% of monthly earnings)
UK Chelmsford London (28) - £393.19 (13%)
UK Manchester Liverpool (31) - £256.90 (8%)
Germany Eberswalde Berlin (40) - £120.61 (4%)
France Étampes Paris (35) - £67.50 (2%)
Belgium Ghent Brussels (35) - £150.31 (4%)
Ireland Drogheda Dublin (29) - £116.11 (3%)
For people that actually use the trains, the costs are absurd
Yes, those are certainly more expensive. But different from the earlier claim about London to Leeds being absurdly expensive.
I stand by that, that is hideously expensive
What's the scale of outrage on prices? Does it immediately go to hideously expensive (despite them actually being comparable to continental prices), or is there a continuum?
Just a lot of money to spend on a train, it seems to me.
In London I pay £1.50
Yeah, that shows why London's transport is massively in debt , and some Londoners want the rest of us to bail them out ...
I don't think the point of a transport network is to make money.
You never seemed to complain about TfL's debt when Johnson was running it. Khan was on track to run a surplus prior to COVID
I am quite happy to say if you want to book in advance, you can get good deals.
But that is not how people actually use the train, it's a total misnomer
It depends on the train service - for long distance people do book days in advance most of the time.
For shorter commuter type journeys its more likely to be turn up, pay and go - it's a different market but one that IRP so comprehensively destroys outside of commuting into London there is little point caring about it.
Commuters get a rotten deal, that needs solving
Commute services are incredibly loss generating except in some very interesting circumstances.
Intercity rail done correctly is profitable, few other parts of the railway are (except freight).
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
I am quite happy to say if you want to book in advance, you can get good deals.
But that is not how people actually use the train, it's a total misnomer
That’s pretty much exactly how my parents use the train.
They’ll book off-peak services at least a fortnight in advance, usually in First, for half the price of turn-up standard class, and guarantee themselves a pair of seats. Their alternative, with standard rail pricing, would be to drive instead.
There’s actually several different markets served by trains - ad-hoc business, commuting, local leisure and flexible long-distance leisure. The train companies try to differentiate the groups as much as possible with pricing, to maximise overall revenues.
For example, if I booked a train from Newcastle to London and for whatever reason missed my train, I don't want to have to pay double what I originally paid for a new ticket for the next train.
You can do that you buy the Super Off Peak ticket rather than the cheaper fixed ticket and reserve a seat.
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
They can never make money? Tell that to the German or French government.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
So you'd prefer expensive predictable fares over potentially cheaper variable ones?
Fair enough.
Either you can have predictability or cheapness, not both. Some people require stability in prices and that's why they pay a surcharge to financial services companies for futures etc
No, I want cheap predictable fares thanks.
I want safest, fastest, cheapest. What do you mean, I can't have all three? Ask NASA, you say?
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Last time I was in Germany, rail fares seemed quite high, especially if bought at short notice. I did get a good deal from Berlin to Leipzig, but I was able to buy that one in advance. There are some good group tickets, but I was travelling on my own. The Land/Regional day tickets can be good value, especially if bought as a group, but some seem no longer available - I'm sure there used to be a Berlin-Brandenburg-Vorpommen one that took you to Szczecin, but it no longer seemed to exist.
In Europe generally, you need to book well ahead to get the best fares.
Although the real European rip-off is charging half the second class fare for dogs, who are only allowed on the floor, when in the UK they travel for free.
Spain seemed quite random. Tickets on the long distance high speed services were quite expensive, although I got a cheap deal on Granada-Cordoba on an intercity. For other journeys I used the regional trains as they were cheaper and not much slower, and I was on holiday so didn't care too much. Often there are one or two cheap services a day, but at inconvenient times (such as early in the morning) I guess they are less popular so the cheap seats last longer. However I was most struck by the rather random nature of the network with mostly poor connections. I ended up doing Malaga-Granada by express coach for that very reason.
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
If you go on Transport Tycoon and plan your routes sensibly, you can make millions.
For example, if I booked a train from Newcastle to London and for whatever reason missed my train, I don't want to have to pay double what I originally paid for a new ticket for the next train.
You can do that you buy the Super Off Peak ticket rather than the cheaper fixed ticket and reserve a seat.
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
If you go on Transport Tycoon and plan your routes sensibly, you can make millions.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
An acquaintance was working in northern Germany. The company he worked for decided they needed him ASAP in southern Germany to deal with an emergency. The head office (in the US) got him a chauffeur-driven limo, as the company guaranteed they would get him to the site in time, and would not get paid if they did not make it. The limo was arriving at the site as they were telling him he needed to go.
He got a very, very fast trip in luxury, with a driver who was (ahem) willing to take risks. The journey back was rather less speedy by train. He did the entire thing without ID (aside from his work pass) as he'd left everything in his jacket at Site A.
He says the company was also looking at getting a helicopter, but it was difficult organising it in time.
It was the sort of job where if the plant went down, it would cost hundreds of thousands per hour. Hence it's worth spending virtually any amount to get experts onto site to avoid unplanned shutdowns.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
You do know that back in 1990 a return Journey to and from London was about £70 return (used to do it weekly while at Newcastle University and working in London, much to the annoyance of some of the lecturers in the department, who couldn't grasp why I wasn't at Tuesday / Wednesday lectures).
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
If you go on Transport Tycoon and plan your routes sensibly, you can make millions.
Don't tempt me. A great game.
cities : skylines for me is the best of those games. I believe a sequel is coming soon.
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
If you go on Transport Tycoon and plan your routes sensibly, you can make millions.
Don't tempt me. A great game.
cities : skylines for me is the best of those games. I believe a sequel is coming soon.
Yeah, after the disappointment that was the latest sim city.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
An acquaintance was working in northern Germany. The company he worked for decided they needed him ASAP in southern Germany to deal with an emergency. The head office (in the US) got him a chauffeur-driven limo, as the company guaranteed they would get him to the site in time, and would not get paid if they did not make it. The limo was arriving at the site as they were telling him he needed to go.
He got a very, very fast trip in luxury, with a driver who was (ahem) willing to take risks. The journey back was rather less speedy by train. He did the entire thing without ID (aside from his work pass) as he'd left everything in his jacket at Site A.
He says the company was also looking at getting a helicopter, but it was difficult organising it in time.
It was the sort of job where if the plant went down, it would cost hundreds of thousands per hour. Hence it's worth spending virtually any amount to get experts onto site to avoid unplanned shutdowns.
Yep, sometimes you really *need* to travel, and the cost is irrelevant.
Or, as Michael O’Leary put it, in the way he does best: “Our best customers, are going to a funeral”
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
You do know that back in 1990 a return Journey to and from London was about £70 return (used to do it weekly while at Newcastle University and working in London, much to the annoyance of some in my department).
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
So your point is basically: it used to be more expensive, so stop complaining?
All I'm saying is that I'd personally use the railways much more if I could simply rock up and buy a ticket at a known, cheap, price. Otherwise I just drive inter-city like I do now because the fuel price is known and it doesn't matter if I'm late.
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
If they don't make money why are the companies involved doing it? Charity?
They certainly won't make money if they're answering to political concerns instead of a market though.
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
What you want is the best service for that money. And sadly compared with what went before the privatised railways are magnitudes better. They transport far more people, far more safely and in far greater comfort than BR ever did. The period of nationalisation of rail in Britain was the absolute low point in terms of safety and comfort and also in terms of investment. It is no coincidence that the Beeching cuts occurred during the period of nationalisation, reversing the advances that had been made over the previous century by the private rail companies.
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
What you want is the best service for that money. And sadly compared with what went before the privatised railways are magnitudes better. They transport far more people, far more safely and in far greater comfort than BR ever did. The period of nationalisation of rail in Britain post 1947 was the absolute low point in terms of safety and comfort and also in terms of investment. It is no coincidence that the Beeching cuts occurred during the period of nationalisation, reversing the advances that had been made over the previous century by the private rail companies.
The infrastructure and the rolling stock is nationalised, isn't it?
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
So you'd prefer expensive predictable fares over potentially cheaper variable ones?
Fair enough.
Either you can have predictability or cheapness, not both. Some people require stability in prices and that's why they pay a surcharge to financial services companies for futures etc
No, I want cheap predictable fares thanks.
I want safest, fastest, cheapest. What do you mean, I can't have all three? Ask NASA, you say?
cheap is not the same as cheapest, etc.
Fast, cheap and safe are all still relative terms, and it is not possible, using those relative terms coherently, to be fast, cheap and safe when viewing all the options for speed, cost and safety.
It is possible to have any combination of two, but not all three.
To put it another way: - safety costs both money and speed - speed costs both money and safety - value costs both safety and speed
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
You do know that back in 1990 a return Journey to and from London was about £70 return (used to do it weekly while at Newcastle University and working in London, much to the annoyance of some in my department).
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
So your point is basically: it used to be more expensive, so stop complaining?
All I'm saying is that I'd personally use the railways much more if I could simply rock up and buy a ticket at a known, cheap, price. Otherwise I just drive inter-city like I do now because the fuel price is known and it doesn't matter if I'm late.
Of course you'd use them more if you could do that. And if there were an abundance of empty seats I'm sure the price would fall to entice you to do just that.
But why should those who need to use the trains on a daily basis be subject to a higher minimum price, so you can have the certainty of a lower maximum one?
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
You do know that back in 1990 a return Journey to and from London was about £70 return (used to do it weekly while at Newcastle University and working in London, much to the annoyance of some in my department).
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
So your point is basically: it used to be more expensive, so stop complaining?
All I'm saying is that I'd personally use the railways much more if I could simply rock up and buy a ticket at a known, cheap, price. Otherwise I just drive inter-city like I do now because the fuel price is known and it doesn't matter if I'm late.
Of course you'd use them more if you could do that. And if there were an abundance of empty seats I'm sure the price would fall to entice you to do just that.
But why should those who need to use the trains on a daily basis be subject to a higher minimum price, so you can have the certainty of a lower maximum one?
I don't think there should be a higher minimum price, as I keep saying.
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
What you want is the best service for that money. And sadly compared with what went before the privatised railways are magnitudes better. They transport far more people, far more safely and in far greater comfort than BR ever did. The period of nationalisation of rail in Britain post 1947 was the absolute low point in terms of safety and comfort and also in terms of investment. It is no coincidence that the Beeching cuts occurred during the period of nationalisation, reversing the advances that had been made over the previous century by the private rail companies.
The infrastructure and the rolling stock is nationalised, isn't it?
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
You do know that back in 1990 a return Journey to and from London was about £70 return (used to do it weekly while at Newcastle University and working in London, much to the annoyance of some in my department).
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
So your point is basically: it used to be more expensive, so stop complaining?
All I'm saying is that I'd personally use the railways much more if I could simply rock up and buy a ticket at a known, cheap, price. Otherwise I just drive inter-city like I do now because the fuel price is known and it doesn't matter if I'm late.
No my point is that
1) flexible train tickets are not as expensive as they used to be 2) the introduction of fixed tickets has allowed them to be even cheaper than that if you are willing / able to trade flexibility in return for saving some money.
Your problem is that you don't regard £150 as a cheap enough price for a train journey to and from London. And you are probably right there but the ECML is running at capacity so the prices are set to ration demand because without HS2E nothing is going to solve the issue and allow prices to become lower.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
You do know that back in 1990 a return Journey to and from London was about £70 return (used to do it weekly while at Newcastle University and working in London, much to the annoyance of some in my department).
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
So your point is basically: it used to be more expensive, so stop complaining?
All I'm saying is that I'd personally use the railways much more if I could simply rock up and buy a ticket at a known, cheap, price. Otherwise I just drive inter-city like I do now because the fuel price is known and it doesn't matter if I'm late.
No my point is that
1) flexible train tickets are not as expensive as they used to be 2) the introduction of fixed tickets has allowed them to be even cheaper than that if you are willing / able to trade flexibility in return for saving some money.
Which is fair, but, in my opinion, the price of the fixed tickets is the price the flexible tickets should be.
Trains don't make money. They never can, they never will.
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
If they don't make money why are the companies involved doing it? Charity?
They certainly won't make money if they're answering to political concerns instead of a market though.
Because the taxpayer guarantees them a profit. Have you seen the new Great British Railways procedure?
Comments
Just from my own experiences - Paris Metro and RER was dirt cheap while unprepared travel in UK can be costly.
There is a slightly different pricing structure - buying in advance is much cheaper in the UK, being able to plan in advance cheaper still - but if there were deals in France, I could never find them.
Barcelona to Madrid leave today, return 1st Jan: £81.48 - 388 miles each way
The point is that if you want to go somewhere, you go. If you're flexible sites like Trainline will tell you when to go but the reality is that people get on the train when they want to go.
Even David Cameron dropped the “Green Crap”, when he realised where it was going with regard to energy bills.
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
Let’s say there is a 3% chance of a horse winning. The “fair” price is 33-1. A bookie may price at 50-1 to attract more business (and hopefully both losers on that horse plus they will bet at the same time on other horses).
At that point it’s a theoretical loss leader with the price set by the risk of the book rather than the probability of the horse winning.
In contrast if they price at 25-1 in the absence of any better information they will take fewer bets and make less money but at a lower risk
Although the real European rip-off is charging half the second class fare for dogs, who are only allowed on the floor, when in the UK they travel for free.
Fair enough.
Either you can have predictability or cheapness, not both. Some people require stability in prices and that's why they pay a surcharge to financial services companies for futures etc
Peak singles are £169.
Which is why we now have fixed tickets because they work out way, way cheaper.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rail-fares-rise-2019-how-13799396
KEY: Country From To (Distance in miles) - Monthly season ticket price 2019 (% of monthly earnings)
UK Chelmsford London (28) - £393.19 (13%)
UK Manchester Liverpool (31) - £256.90 (8%)
Germany Eberswalde Berlin (40) - £120.61 (4%)
France Étampes Paris (35) - £67.50 (2%)
Belgium Ghent Brussels (35) - £150.31 (4%)
Ireland Drogheda Dublin (29) - £116.11 (3%)
For people that actually use the trains, the costs are absurd
But convenience can be the other way. If I'm out on a walk, I often need to get back to my start point. Instead of having to catch (say) the 15.35 train from station C, I might choose to walk a little further to station D and get a later one. Or station B and get an earlier one.
I *hate* having a ticket booked in advance (or having to catch the one train or bus that runs in an afternoon), and having the entire day planned around having to catch that one service.
Walk-on tickets are convenient for me, and I'm willing to pay the little extra expense for that convenience.
It's weird we're anti subsidy for trains but pro subsidy for railways, nobody is calling for them to be privatised
And the train will probably turn up, unlike here where it won't
That £76.20 gets you on any super offpeak train - what it doesn't guarantee you is a seat because if they have all been bought a seat won't be available.
Oh and the people in the seats will have traded some flexibility in time in return for a far cheaper (say £32) ticket.
Where else is a dog going to go - perhaps in the luggage rack or on the roof?
They must be privatised.
Oh wait, owned by the Government
Do you also want hot ice cream?
In London I pay £1.50
But that is not how people actually use the train, it's a total misnomer
The people with the cheap tickets committed weeks ago to a particular plane or train, those booking late or needing flexibility pay more for those services.
I want an increased state subsidy to encourage ad-hoc use of the railways.
For shorter commuter type journeys its more likely to be turn up, pay and go - it's a different market but one that IRP so comprehensively destroys outside of commuting into London there is little point caring about it.
The UK allowing dogs to travel free is by far the best arrangement.
The Netherlands comes second, with a nominal €3 charge for a dog ticket.
Most of Europe charges half the second class fare, for absolutely nothing other than a space on what would otherwise have been an empty floor.
France comes almost last for not even allowing dogs on many of its high speed services.
Eurostar comes bottom for not allowing dogs at all; one of the very few rail routes in Europe where you can’t travel with a dog. Generating a lot of revenue for Stena Line to Holland and that taxi company in Folkestone.
You never seemed to complain about TfL's debt when Johnson was running it. Khan was on track to run a surplus prior to COVID
Intercity rail done correctly is profitable, few other parts of the railway are (except freight).
Once you accept that, it's about how we best spend the money. And that cannot be on paying German or French Government to do it and paying £Millions to train leasing companies to lease us trains we paid to build
Pretty much from the moment of arriving.
They’ll book off-peak services at least a fortnight in advance, usually in First, for half the price of turn-up standard class, and guarantee themselves a pair of seats. Their alternative, with standard rail pricing, would be to drive instead.
There’s actually several different markets served by trains - ad-hoc business, commuting, local leisure and flexible long-distance leisure. The train companies try to differentiate the groups as much as possible with pricing, to maximise overall revenues.
He got a very, very fast trip in luxury, with a driver who was (ahem) willing to take risks. The journey back was rather less speedy by train. He did the entire thing without ID (aside from his work pass) as he'd left everything in his jacket at Site A.
He says the company was also looking at getting a helicopter, but it was difficult organising it in time.
It was the sort of job where if the plant went down, it would cost hundreds of thousands per hour. Hence it's worth spending virtually any amount to get experts onto site to avoid unplanned shutdowns.
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
Or, as Michael O’Leary put it, in the way he does best: “Our best customers, are going to a funeral”
All I'm saying is that I'd personally use the railways much more if I could simply rock up and buy a ticket at a known, cheap, price. Otherwise I just drive inter-city like I do now because the fuel price is known and it doesn't matter if I'm late.
They certainly won't make money if they're answering to political concerns instead of a market though.
It is possible to have any combination of two, but not all three.
To put it another way:
- safety costs both money and speed
- speed costs both money and safety
- value costs both safety and speed
But why should those who need to use the trains on a daily basis be subject to a higher minimum price, so you can have the certainty of a lower maximum one?
Whacamole
1) flexible train tickets are not as expensive as they used to be
2) the introduction of fixed tickets has allowed them to be even cheaper than that if you are willing / able to trade flexibility in return for saving some money.
Your problem is that you don't regard £150 as a cheap enough price for a train journey to and from London. And you are probably right there but the ECML is running at capacity so the prices are set to ration demand because without HS2E nothing is going to solve the issue and allow prices to become lower.