 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
|
|
1
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Bicycles on trains (merged topics)
|
on: October 29, 2010, 11:47:25
|
- 'Cycles are not to be left for more than a 24 hour period' - erm, what about those wishing to travel to PAD» on Monday morning and return on Friday evening, for example?
Also, how are cyclists expected to know this beforehand? If they turn up at Temple Meads planning to leave it for several days, then read this sign, are they supposed to cancel their journey and the work or holiday at the other end of it, to comply with an unexpected regulation? I don't know how long that rule has existed, but I would never again leave my bike overnight at Temple Meads as in my experience, it will probably get stolen, despite being right outside a so-called police station. |
|
|
|
|
2
|
All across the Great Western territory / Fare's Fair / Re: Rail fare prices - the basis of increases (merged ongoing discussion)
|
on: October 29, 2010, 11:27:35
|
On top of that the TOCs▸ would have an interest in maintaining the value of their assets, not to mention trying to procure durable trains in the first place that will retain their value better. For the *entire* length of their franchise? I don't think so....they'd maintain them up until there were a few years left & then cut costs drastically & probably leave them in areally crap state for whoever took over.... Not if the price paid by the new franchisee was based on the market value of the assets, taking into account their condition and expected remaining useful life. I am assuming that some regulatory system would be in place to ensure this, rather than the outgoing franchise holder being able to charge what they like for clapped out stock. |
|
|
|
|
3
|
All across the Great Western territory / Fare's Fair / Re: Rail fare prices - the basis of increases (merged ongoing discussion)
|
on: October 27, 2010, 19:41:10
|
Why can't the TOC▸ 's buy the rolling stock? They are all substantial enterprises with plenty of capital behind them, surely the only reason they don't buy trains is because the franchises are too short. I think Rhydgaled's proposal is pretty sound in principle -- if you could take out the substantial profit element enjoyed by the ROSCO» 's, the savings could be used for the benefit of the railways.
And so it came to pass, that about 4 or 5 years ago the Labour government set the competition commission onto the big bad profiteering Roscos, and after much detailed analysis (available online if I could be bothered to look for it) they reported back that the Roscos didn't actually make a substantial profit after all, and the main problem with the rolling stock market was that it was too tightly controlled by the DfT» ... Paul Well, assuming that the commission's findings are correct, then allegations that the ROSCOs are profiteering are incorrect. And indeed control by the DfT is clearly stifling TOC's ability to get new stock. However the ROSCOs still require a profit -- understandably -- which is why it would be cheaper for the TOCs if they could cut out the middleman and own the rolling stock. On top of that the TOCs would have an interest in maintaining the value of their assets, not to mention trying to procure durable trains in the first place that will retain their value better. Not that I am accusing any TOCs of failing to maintain the trains they lease to the highest standard, of course.  |
|
|
|
|
4
|
All across the Great Western territory / Fare's Fair / Re: Rail fare prices - the basis of increases (merged ongoing discussion)
|
on: October 27, 2010, 13:43:04
|
Don't you think that the rest of Europe might possibly be correct in thinking that transport infrastructure is vital to the long-term economic situation of a nation? Now that is purely a political decision - at the moment, HMG wants the user to pay 75% of the running costs, hence the increase in fares etc. I'm not sure political debate is for this forum? We could argue fors & against until the train arrives.... The railways have been a political football since 1830 -- how can we discuss them without being political? Anyway my point there was that once again we are out of step with Europe, believing we are right and everyone else is wrong. Of course, maybe sometimes we are right, but anyone who has been on a train in both the UK▸ and on continental Europe must realise that we're getting something wrong, even though as you say the reasons are debatable. |
|
|
|
|
5
|
All across the Great Western territory / Fare's Fair / Re: Rail fare prices - the basis of increases (merged ongoing discussion)
|
on: October 27, 2010, 13:30:33
|
The idea that the whole system should be renationalized and that will solve all problems is fantastically naive - do you remember British Rail and the utopian world of low fares, tidy stations, new stock, polite staff and fast, frequent trains? No, neither do I. It was, bluntly, a national joke. The European countries that are often quoted as good examples of nationalized rail services (e.g. France, Switzerland, Germany even though DB» is engaged in all sorts of political and structural machinations that are leading to creeping part-privatization) aren't good because they're nationalized, they're good because government policy in those countries is to pour in large sums of subsidy and accept that railways are a public service rather the a profit-making enterprise. Many of the tickets you can buy on those systems simply don't cover the cost of your journey, and the government picks up the tab. End of.
Don't you think that the rest of Europe might possibly be correct in thinking that transport infrastructure is vital to the long-term economic situation of a nation? That's why they subsidise it, not because they are more stupid than us. I do agree that nationalisation won't in itself solve the railways' problems -- because our governments will probably continue to ensure that whatever system we have is designed as far as possible to starve them of investment. Privatisation didn't change that and nor would re-nationalisation. However it was better in British Rail days.... trains were faster, more punctual, more comfortable, didn't break down so often, and fares were much lower in real terms. The only improvement that I've noticed since 1995 has been in frequency. |
|
|
|
|
6
|
All across the Great Western territory / Fare's Fair / Re: Rail fare prices - the basis of increases (merged ongoing discussion)
|
on: October 27, 2010, 13:17:11
|
Someone has to finance the purchase of rolling stock. Currently, the ROSCOEs do this (using Government guarantees but no cash), hence the lease payments from the TOCs▸ repaying the loans that the ROSCOEs take out.
Nationalising the ROSCOEs means that the DfT» has to finance the rolling stock - how, currently, do you suggest that they do this? Why can't the TOC's buy the rolling stock? They are all substantial enterprises with plenty of capital behind them, surely the only reason they don't buy trains is because the franchises are too short. I think Rhydgaled's proposal is pretty sound in principle -- if you could take out the substantial profit element enjoyed by the ROSCO» 's, the savings could be used for the benefit of the railways. Lastly, all recent Governments have accepted that franchising is a cheaper all-round way of running the railways, otherwise they would nationalise, surely - especially Labour. I think they probably have a better handle on national finances than you, possibly?
Although no-one has ever been able to give me ONE example where privatisation has improved a public service, it has been a consistent mantra for every government since 1979. In my view, the only possible reason for that is corruption -- the gravy train that starts with the promise of the magic wand of the market making everything better, and ends with former government ministers getting lucrative non-executive directorships on the boards of the companies they gave the contracts to when they were in power. So let's bin our rose-tinted spectacles and stop thinking that governments behave as they do because they know best and have the nation's best interests at heart. |
|
|
|
|
9
|
All across the Great Western territory / Fare's Fair / Re: Advance First from Heathrow...is this legitimate?
|
on: October 16, 2010, 09:36:07
|
The 'AP not London' is an interesting one. Does anybody really want to change at Hayes and Harlington and Reading and Swansea?
A lot cheaper though!
I'm going from Bristol to Heathrow in November changing at Reading and Hayes & Harlington. Cost ^16.70 (booked early but missed the cheapest which is ^14.20 -- so I'm not the only one!). I have to leave 1/2 hour earlier than if I was getting the coach from Reading or changing at Paddington, but I'm not in a hurry. Coming back I haven't bought an advance ticket because of the unpredictability of long haul arrivals, and I will be impatient to get home, so I'll give Heathrow Connect a miss and pay ^43 for an offpeak single via the Railair coach. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Journey by Journey / Plymouth and Cornwall / Re: Man struck by train between St Austell and Par - 31 August 2010
|
on: September 01, 2010, 18:09:21
|
I was on the 0940 from Penzance (changed plans and held my nose because I saw the London trains were messed up) and found out the reason for the disruption from this excellent announcement by the Guard after we left Camborne or Redruth (forget which): This is a special announcement for the four young ladies and two young men who ran across the track in front of this train before boarding. We've already had one fatality on the railways in Cornwall this morning and the same could have happened to you.... Services were not normal by 0930 -- at Plymouth I saw that the 1044 to Paddington was expected at c.1204 and the 1200 around 20 minutes later. |
|
|
|
|
13
|
All across the Great Western territory / Buses and other ways to travel / Re: Oyster Cards for Bristol - an ongoing issue, with no real progress so far?
|
on: December 16, 2009, 12:25:31
|
Obviously it's too much to ask for them to work on local trains too,
It will be introduced when the FGW▸ franchise chnages hands. All recent new franchises (since SWT▸ ) have been required to bring in ITSO ticketing as part of the ITT▸ . Paul Yeah but the franchise won't change hands, will it. Besides, is there a requirement that ITSO be integrated with other forms of transport? That would require a major re-organisation of ticketing, and brings up the thorny issue of how First is "competing" with itself, and has a commercial imperative to encourage profitable bus services at the expense of loss-making local trains, because the bus fares are so much higher than the train fares. Which to my mind is why we don't have through trains from Bedminster to Avonmouth, or St Ives to Penzance. |
|
|
|
|
14
|
Journey by Journey / Cross Country services / Re: Cross Country Destruction of service
|
on: December 16, 2009, 12:14:08
|
I haven't seen a double voyager for a few years, do you still get them? I've been on a fair few 4-car sets that had enough passengers for two....
Not too sure where you live Bemmy but there are platform restrictions for Voyagers in the West Country, max of eight vehicles in public use West of Exeter and a max of seven in public use West of Plymouth, hence the lack of double sets in the far West. I believe there are services that double up at Bristol, the PLY» -DEE springs to mind. I live in Bedminster (hence the name) and just going about Bristol I probably see at least one Voyager every day, and can't remember the last time I saw a double one. I often travel to Cornwall and these days usually manage to avoid using them. Although I haven't travelled north for a while, I often see Voyagers at Temple Meads or on Filton Bank, and again can't remember a double one in the last few years. So either the doubling up is limited to a very few services such as those people have mentioned, or it's a bizarre coincidence that I never happen to see one. |
|
|
|
|
15
|
All across the Great Western territory / Buses and other ways to travel / Oyster Cards for Bristol - an ongoing issue, with no real progress so far?
|
on: December 15, 2009, 21:41:08
|
From the Bristol Evening Post: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Travel-Bristol-paper-ticket-years/article-1610272-detail/article.htmlPassengers could travel in Bristol without a paper ticket within five years
Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 12:00
Bristol is among nine major cities where passengers will be able to use public transport without a paper ticket within five years, it was revealed today.
Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis announced that England's nine largest urban areas will receive ^20 million to introduce smart and integrated ticketing.
The Government also wants every area of England to benefit from the Smart and Integrated Ticketing Strategy by 2020.
Smart tickets ^ a system where a ticket is stored on a microchip, on a smartcard (like Oyster▸ ) or even on a phone or bank card ^ can give improved journey times and faster, hassle-free purchasing and use of tickets, with associated benefits for local government and operators.
"Integrated smart" ticketing could be worth over ^1 billion per year, the Government believes.
To encourage bus operators to introduce smart ticketing systems, the Government has also announced an eight per cent increase in the Bus Service Operator Grant (BSOG▸ ).
Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis said: "The benefits of smart ticketing to passengers are clear ^ quicker, easier and potentially better value journeys on trains, buses and trams, whichever company runs the service. We could even see the death of the paper ticket as direct payment and mobile phone technology picks up pace.
"If passengers had smart tickets they'd almost certainly use public transport more. That's why I'm incentivising bus operators to make our vision of universal coverage of smart ticketing in England a reality and why we'll continue to require ITSO smart ticketing in rail franchises.
"Getting this technology on-board will help reduce congestion and pollution, improve the local environment, and help us, operators and local authorities provide the 21st century public transport network that we know people want."
The ^20m smart ticketing fund will be available in the nine largest urban areas in England outside London ^ Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Tyne and Wear, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire, Nottingham, Leicester and Bristol.
The funding will go towards implementing ITSO smart ticketing schemes in each region.
Bus operators will also receive a further two per cent increase in their BSOG rate if they fit GPS technology to their buses which allows the operator to track the position of their bus. Together these incentives could be worth around an additional ^1,000 in grant per bus each year.
Encouraging the take up and use of GPS systems will help realise the potential for passengers to receive real-time information about bus services and bus performance.
A recent survey commissioned by the Department indicated that integrated smart tickets have the potential to attract as many as 25 per cent of current non-public transport users onto the system and that a pre-pay smartcard with a daily "cap" could increase some individuals' trip rates by over 14%.
I hope this is true, it's what we're crying out for. The buses would get quicker overnight, demand would go up, and there would be many more cases of individuals choosing to use public transport instead of driving. It worked in London. Obviously it's too much to ask for them to work on local trains too, but it could be the single biggest improvement to Bristol area transport in the 30 years I've been here. Although as one commentor pointed out, First withdrew the Buscard Plus tickets, where you bought ^10 of travel at 10% discount and used a card reader as you entered the bus.... but this is a more advanced and flexible system than that. With real time information for all bus stops now available online, maybe in a few years First's boast that "Travelling around Bristol, Bath and the West on First bus services has never been easier" might actually be true. |
|
|
|
|
