Snap General Election called

[Digby]

Walking maybe

[Banquo]

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Germany does have private operators as does Denmark. That tier system is also based on pure outcomes, which is quite heavily skewed by state subsidies. Comparable data is difficult to find but you can rank those countries by subsidy and it’s a similar result to the tier ranking system. The only real outlier is Sweden....which uses a franchise system. Italy is almost wholly nationalised, is subsidised far more heavily than ours and still sits in the same tier. SNF is such a large drain on govt resources that they are looking for external investors...or at least they would do if the French would stop striking for at least one day. Germany’s train operator is also heavily state subsidised.

I’m no huge fan of privatised train companies as I think privatisation only works at its best in a truly competitive market. However, this idea that state run trains are automatically better than private providers is a falsehood.

Pragmatism not ideology.

Train companies argue that they compete with cars, coaches and even planes- I worked for a while with a leading TOC in developing their channels (call centre, website), and they spent a lot of time thinking about getting car drivers especially to use the train for long journeys, and very successfully. Its a decent point though- in the Uk's case, privatisation of rail has lead to a miles better service than under BR with a long needed investment in both infrastructure and esp rolling stock. Unfortunately people who also made (too much) money were the rolling stock lessors.

[Mellsblue]

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Germany does have private operators as does Denmark. That tier system is also based on pure outcomes, which is quite heavily skewed by state subsidies. Comparable data is difficult to find but you can rank those countries by subsidy and it’s a similar result to the tier ranking system. The only real outlier is Sweden....which uses a franchise system. Italy is almost wholly nationalised, is subsidised far more heavily than ours and still sits in the same tier. SNF is such a large drain on govt resources that they are looking for external investors...or at least they would do if the French would stop striking for at least one day. Germany’s train operator is also heavily state subsidised.

I’m no huge fan of privatised train companies as I think privatisation only works at its best in a truly competitive market. However, this idea that state run trains are automatically better than private providers is a falsehood.

Pragmatism not ideology.

Train companies argue that they compete with cars, coaches and even planes- I worked for a while with a leading TOC in developing their channels (call centre, website), and they spent a lot of time thinking about getting car drivers especially to use the train for long journeys, and very successfully. Its a decent point though- in the Uk's case, privatisation of rail has lead to a miles better service than under BR with a long needed investment in both infrastructure and esp rolling stock. Unfortunately people who also made (too much) money were the rolling stock lessors.

The number of train journeys has shot up since privatisation and not all of that can be put down anything other than taking from other forms of transport. However, given input from the correct brains there’s no reason a nationalised operator couldn’t do the same. Whether a govt obsessed with nationalisation would pluck those brains from the private sector, and properly remunerate the, is another matter entirely. Obviously, there’s less incentive when in public hands as there are no shareholders to please, other franchises to bid for etc but it I’m sure it could be done though, perhaps not to the same degree.
You also point to another issue I have with state owned train provision. Funding the improvements on rolling stock etc is a long way down any priority list in the political cycle. Private providers almost guarantee that this investment will be forthcoming.
Personally, I’d be happy to see a state owned company bid for the franchises in competition with private companies. If the state provider will run the franchise efficiently enough to make the £60mil profit Stom stated earlier and return that profit to the exchequer for reinvestment, we’ll soon end up with a fully nationalised train provider.....

As you allude to, there are pros and cons to both. Good and bad examples of both. It’s not one good the other bad.

[Banquo]

Germany does have private operators as does Denmark. That tier system is also based on pure outcomes, which is quite heavily skewed by state subsidies. Comparable data is difficult to find but you can rank those countries by subsidy and it’s a similar result to the tier ranking system. The only real outlier is Sweden....which uses a franchise system. Italy is almost wholly nationalised, is subsidised far more heavily than ours and still sits in the same tier. SNF is such a large drain on govt resources that they are looking for external investors...or at least they would do if the French would stop striking for at least one day. Germany’s train operator is also heavily state subsidised.

I’m no huge fan of privatised train companies as I think privatisation only works at its best in a truly competitive market. However, this idea that state run trains are automatically better than private providers is a falsehood.

Pragmatism not ideology.

Train companies argue that they compete with cars, coaches and even planes- I worked for a while with a leading TOC in developing their channels (call centre, website), and they spent a lot of time thinking about getting car drivers especially to use the train for long journeys, and very successfully. Its a decent point though- in the Uk's case, privatisation of rail has lead to a miles better service than under BR with a long needed investment in both infrastructure and esp rolling stock. Unfortunately people who also made (too much) money were the rolling stock lessors.

The number of train journeys has shot up since privatisation and not all of that can be put down anything other than taking from other forms of transport. However, given input from the correct brains there’s no reason a nationalised operator couldn’t do the same. Whether a govt obsessed with nationalisation would pluck those brains from the private sector, and properly remunerate the, is another matter entirely. Obviously, there’s less incentive when in public hands as there are no shareholders to please, other franchises to bid for etc but it I’m sure it could be done though, perhaps not to the same degree.
You also point to another issue I have with state owned train provision. Funding the improvements on rolling stock etc is a long way down any priority list in the political cycle. Private providers almost guarantee that this investment will be forthcoming.
Personally, I’d be happy to see a state owned company bid for the franchises in competition with private companies. If the state provider will run the franchise efficiently enough to make the £60mil profit Stom stated earlier and return that profit to the exchequer for reinvestment, we’ll soon end up with a fully nationalised train provider.....

As you allude to, there are pros and cons to both. Good and bad examples of both. It’s not one good the other bad.

There isn't much evidence that the state runs many things well in this country, and much to the contrary. Hence my point on needing to be convinced....what would be different this time? I've highlighted the flaw in your plan.

[Mellsblue]

Train companies argue that they compete with cars, coaches and even planes- I worked for a while with a leading TOC in developing their channels (call centre, website), and they spent a lot of time thinking about getting car drivers especially to use the train for long journeys, and very successfully. Its a decent point though- in the Uk's case, privatisation of rail has lead to a miles better service than under BR with a long needed investment in both infrastructure and esp rolling stock. Unfortunately people who also made (too much) money were the rolling stock lessors.

The number of train journeys has shot up since privatisation and not all of that can be put down anything other than taking from other forms of transport. However, given input from the correct brains there’s no reason a nationalised operator couldn’t do the same. Whether a govt obsessed with nationalisation would pluck those brains from the private sector, and properly remunerate the, is another matter entirely. Obviously, there’s less incentive when in public hands as there are no shareholders to please, other franchises to bid for etc but it I’m sure it could be done though, perhaps not to the same degree.
You also point to another issue I have with state owned train provision. Funding the improvements on rolling stock etc is a long way down any priority list in the political cycle. Private providers almost guarantee that this investment will be forthcoming.
Personally, I’d be happy to see a state owned company bid for the franchises in competition with private companies. If the state provider will run the franchise efficiently enough to make the £60mil profit Stom stated earlier and return that profit to the exchequer for reinvestment, we’ll soon end up with a fully nationalised train provider.....

As you allude to, there are pros and cons to both. Good and bad examples of both. It’s not one good the other bad.

There isn't much evidence that the state runs many things well in this country, and much to the contrary. Hence my point on needing to be convinced....what would be different this time? I've highlighted the flaw in your plan.

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

[Banquo]

The number of train journeys has shot up since privatisation and not all of that can be put down anything other than taking from other forms of transport. However, given input from the correct brains there’s no reason a nationalised operator couldn’t do the same. Whether a govt obsessed with nationalisation would pluck those brains from the private sector, and properly remunerate the, is another matter entirely. Obviously, there’s less incentive when in public hands as there are no shareholders to please, other franchises to bid for etc but it I’m sure it could be done though, perhaps not to the same degree.
You also point to another issue I have with state owned train provision. Funding the improvements on rolling stock etc is a long way down any priority list in the political cycle. Private providers almost guarantee that this investment will be forthcoming.
Personally, I’d be happy to see a state owned company bid for the franchises in competition with private companies. If the state provider will run the franchise efficiently enough to make the £60mil profit Stom stated earlier and return that profit to the exchequer for reinvestment, we’ll soon end up with a fully nationalised train provider.....

As you allude to, there are pros and cons to both. Good and bad examples of both. It’s not one good the other bad.

There isn't much evidence that the state runs many things well in this country, and much to the contrary. Hence my point on needing to be convinced....what would be different this time? I've highlighted the flaw in your plan.

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

[Stom]

There isn't much evidence that the state runs many things well in this country, and much to the contrary. Hence my point on needing to be convinced....what would be different this time? I've highlighted the flaw in your plan.

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

I agree, actually.

I think there's definitely room to change how state run bodies do their business, to make them operate more as businesses just that the profits go back into investment in service.

It was something Labour tried to say but got it lost in their messaging, actually. They wanted shareholder panels made up of users, experts, and so on, who the nationalised energy companies would be answerable to.

I think that's a pretty good idea.

But, as you say, the devil is in the detail.

[Mellsblue]

There isn't much evidence that the state runs many things well in this country, and much to the contrary. Hence my point on needing to be convinced....what would be different this time? I've highlighted the flaw in your plan.

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

Agreed but I’m not advocating renationalising the trains do you’ll have to get to get your operating model from someone who is

[Digby]

I'd again like to note a lot of the problems with a lack of state investment in companies now privatised stemmed from investment levels that were low 'cause the government doesn't have the money to invest, but also 'cause the Tories intentionally under invested to make the various bodies cheaper to buy, and whilst there has been a lot of private investment a lot of that is actually just based on borrowing. So you could get very similar investment levels if you simply allowed public bodies to borrow, whether that's a good thing is open to debate, but private investment does tend to push up debt held in the country rather than see new money coming in, whether that's a good or bad thing is also open to debate.

I'm of the view there tends to be good and bad in things run by the state and done privately, a plague on both their houses. But I lean towards state run organisations when it's national infrastructure with natural monopolies, and I'm amenable to not for profits sitting slightly outside the state.

I'm also of the view however if you want to renationalise you need a really clear idea where the money is coming from, to understand debt isn't free, and that you cannot nationalise in the cheap without risking a lot of investment beyond those previously private firms. So maybe now it's done I'd choose to work with what there is than launch into some massive public purchasing projects, it rather feels like there's already enough to be getting on with

[Banquo]

I'd again like to note a lot of the problems with a lack of state investment in companies now privatised stemmed from investment levels that were low 'cause the government doesn't have the money to invest, but also 'cause the Tories intentionally under invested to make the various bodies cheaper to buy, and whilst there has been a lot of private investment a lot of that is actually just based on borrowing. So you could get very similar investment levels if you simply allowed public bodies to borrow, whether that's a good thing is open to debate, but private investment does tend to push up debt held in the country rather than see new money coming in, whether that's a good or bad thing is also open to debate.

I'm of the view there tends to be good and bad in things run by the state and done privately, a plague on both their houses. But I lean towards state run organisations when it's national infrastructure with natural monopolies, and I'm amenable to not for profits sitting slightly outside the state.

I'm also of the view however if you want to renationalise you need a really clear idea where the money is coming from, to understand debt isn't free, and that you cannot nationalise in the cheap without risking a lot of investment beyond those previously private firms. So maybe now it's done I'd choose to work with what there is than launch into some massive public purchasing projects, it rather feels like there's already enough to be getting on with

Well you got there in the end. But its not just about the money source, its about the culture, and there is a very different mindset in running a service that will never be allowed to fail, versus one that has to succeed- definition of success is the interesting bit- or be replaced (see rail franchises although that specific model had its own issues).

[Banquo]

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

Agreed but I’m not advocating renationalising the trains do you’ll have to get to get your operating model from someone who is

and again, pretty sure the Labour Party didn't spell that out.

[Banquo]

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

I agree, actually.

I think there's definitely room to change how state run bodies do their business, to make them operate more as businesses just that the profits go back into investment in service.

It was something Labour tried to say but got it lost in their messaging, actually. They wanted shareholder panels made up of users, experts, and so on, who the nationalised energy companies would be answerable to.

I think that's a pretty good idea.

But, as you say, the devil is in the detail.

Labour set out a whole bunch of bodies/quangos to oversee the Energy re-nationalisation. Looked like the old regional boards (14 of them). They were very vague about rail.

[Stom]

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

I agree, actually.

I think there's definitely room to change how state run bodies do their business, to make them operate more as businesses just that the profits go back into investment in service.

It was something Labour tried to say but got it lost in their messaging, actually. They wanted shareholder panels made up of users, experts, and so on, who the nationalised energy companies would be answerable to.

I think that's a pretty good idea.

But, as you say, the devil is in the detail.

Labour set out a whole bunch of bodies/quangos to oversee the Energy re-nationalisation. Looked like the old regional boards (14 of them). They were very vague about rail.

Yeah, I know.

But some kind of independent oversight is necessary

[Sandydragon]

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

Agreed but I’m not advocating renationalising the trains do you’ll have to get to get your operating model from someone who is

and again, pretty sure the Labour Party didn't spell that out.

A big problem with the railways is that the railway companies have to rely on someone else owning and managing the track.

[Sandydragon]

I'd again like to note a lot of the problems with a lack of state investment in companies now privatised stemmed from investment levels that were low 'cause the government doesn't have the money to invest, but also 'cause the Tories intentionally under invested to make the various bodies cheaper to buy, and whilst there has been a lot of private investment a lot of that is actually just based on borrowing. So you could get very similar investment levels if you simply allowed public bodies to borrow, whether that's a good thing is open to debate, but private investment does tend to push up debt held in the country rather than see new money coming in, whether that's a good or bad thing is also open to debate.

I'm of the view there tends to be good and bad in things run by the state and done privately, a plague on both their houses. But I lean towards state run organisations when it's national infrastructure with natural monopolies, and I'm amenable to not for profits sitting slightly outside the state.

I'm also of the view however if you want to renationalise you need a really clear idea where the money is coming from, to understand debt isn't free, and that you cannot nationalise in the cheap without risking a lot of investment beyond those previously private firms. So maybe now it's done I'd choose to work with what there is than launch into some massive public purchasing projects, it rather feels like there's already enough to be getting on with

Renationalisation would scare investors and make them wary about investing in other areas. I’d prefer to make the railways more efficient and user friendly by other means, such as subsidies. I get that many tax payers don’t want to pay for someone else’s travel, but equally I don’t want to pay for someone else’s police response. That’s just the way it works.

Cheaper public transport would make it more cost efficient to work further from home and for those whose incomes can’t sustain significant transport costs. It would also ease traffic on the roads.

[Son of Mathonwy]

To be fair, Labour were only planning to nationalise enterprises that are natural monopolies, where competition is not present or is weak at best.

No doubt, with the benefit of hindsight, too many nationalisations were planned. Indeed, I'm not sure that Labour's core goals required any urgent nationalisations. They probably should have picked just one - say, the railways - not to frighten people, or in fact to overload government's workload.

[Mellsblue]

I'd again like to note a lot of the problems with a lack of state investment in companies now privatised stemmed from investment levels that were low 'cause the government doesn't have the money to invest, but also 'cause the Tories intentionally under invested to make the various bodies cheaper to buy, and whilst there has been a lot of private investment a lot of that is actually just based on borrowing. So you could get very similar investment levels if you simply allowed public bodies to borrow, whether that's a good thing is open to debate, but private investment does tend to push up debt held in the country rather than see new money coming in, whether that's a good or bad thing is also open to debate.

I'm of the view there tends to be good and bad in things run by the state and done privately, a plague on both their houses. But I lean towards state run organisations when it's national infrastructure with natural monopolies, and I'm amenable to not for profits sitting slightly outside the state.

I'm also of the view however if you want to renationalise you need a really clear idea where the money is coming from, to understand debt isn't free, and that you cannot nationalise in the cheap without risking a lot of investment beyond those previously private firms. So maybe now it's done I'd choose to work with what there is than launch into some massive public purchasing projects, it rather feels like there's already enough to be getting on with

Renationalisation would scare investors and make them wary about investing in other areas. I’d prefer to make the railways more efficient and user friendly by other means, such as subsidies. I get that many tax payers don’t want to pay for someone else’s travel, but equally I don’t want to pay for someone else’s police response. That’s just the way it works.

Cheaper public transport would make it more cost efficient to work further from home and for those whose incomes can’t sustain significant transport costs. It would also ease traffic on the roads.

The problem is you’re predominantly subsidising the middle classes. You’re subsidising those who don’t need it. Good luck explaining to Workington man that my mates earning six figures commuting from Herts, Beds and Bucks deserve their train tickets being subsidised. Even I don’t want to and I know and like them. Due to the nature of my job I can’t commute by train. Why should I subsidise others when I have no option to use public transport?
The UK rail subsidies are 6p per passenger per mile. Give me that and I’ll buy an electric car as part of the deal. Why should the green subsidy argument only apply to trains.
Police, fire service etc is universal coverage, we all might need them and we have no choice when/whether to use them. That isn’t true of trains.

[Digby]

Surely electric cars and the network for charging them receive subsidy, as in effect do roads

[Mellsblue]

Surely electric cars and the network for charging them receive subsidy, as in effect do roads

You get a one off lump sum for electric cars not a yearly subsidy. However, with current battery technology I would need a hybrid which wouldn’t be subsidised via a lump sum. I believe the lump sum is also only on new electric cars. Another subsidy for the middle classes.

The charging points are subsidised but that’s an essential as it’s not economically viable any other way. I’m certain they won’t be once the private sector feels its viable to be involved.

Everyone uses the roads be it car, bus or bike. It’s a universal provision. This is not true of rail.

[Digby]

Surely electric cars and the network for charging them receive subsidy, as in effect do roads

You get a one off lump sum for electric cars not a yearly subsidy. However, with current battery technology I would need a hybrid which wouldn’t be subsidised via a lump sum. I believe the lump sum is also only on new electric cars. Another subsidy for the middle classes.

The charging points are subsidised but that’s an essential as it’s not economically viable any other way. I’m certain they won’t be once the private sector feels its viable to be involved.

Everyone uses the roads be it car, bus or bike. It’s a universal provision. This is not true of rail.

I haven't used any tanks today

[Son of Mathonwy]

Everyone uses the roads be it car, bus or bike. It’s a universal provision. This is not true of rail.

Different people use roads to vastly different degrees. The same for rail. Rail is a universal provision - how many people do you know who've never travelled by train?

Anyway, what difference does this "universality" make? It doesn't change the fact that road use is subsidised.

[Puja]

The problem is you’re predominantly subsidising the middle classes. You’re subsidising those who don’t need it. Good luck explaining to Workington man that my mates earning six figures commuting from Herts, Beds and Bucks deserve their train tickets being subsidised. Even I don’t want to and I know and like them. Due to the nature of my job I can’t commute by train. Why should I subsidise others when I have no option to use public transport?

It's subsiding the middle class as things currently stand because they're the people who can afford to travel on the train with prices as exhorbitant as they are. If trains were significantly cheaper, they'd become a much more viable public transport method for a lot of people, as well as allowing flexibility for poorer people when job-seeking, instead of forcing them to look in their immediate local area.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Everyone uses the roads be it car, bus or bike. It’s a universal provision. This is not true of rail.

Different people use roads to vastly different degrees. The same for rail. Rail is a universal provision - how many people do you know who've never travelled by train?

Anyway, what difference does this "universality" make? It doesn't change the fact that road use is subsidised.

It is a universal provision, of sorts, yes in that everyone can use it but one that is used less widely. There are numerous towns and villages with no train stations. I live in a market town with train links to only two of the three cities within 90mins. Train is not truly universal. Roads are.
Universality does make a difference unless you’re happy for the many to be subsidising the few. Train subsidies are predominantly a subsidy for the better off.

[Mellsblue]

The problem is you’re predominantly subsidising the middle classes. You’re subsidising those who don’t need it. Good luck explaining to Workington man that my mates earning six figures commuting from Herts, Beds and Bucks deserve their train tickets being subsidised. Even I don’t want to and I know and like them. Due to the nature of my job I can’t commute by train. Why should I subsidise others when I have no option to use public transport?

It's subsiding the middle class as things currently stand because they're the people who can afford to travel on the train with prices as exhorbitant as they are. If trains were significantly cheaper, they'd become a much more viable public transport method for a lot of people, as well as allowing flexibility for poorer people when job-seeking, instead of forcing them to look in their immediate local area.

Puja

Only if that poorer person’s house and job is by a train station. I’m good with targeted subsidies, eg people below a certain income or season ticket:salary ratio. By that logic, let’s also give them subsidies for other modes of transport, too. Where I live there are three cities within 90mins but only two connected by train. What use is rail subsidies if someone needs to get to a job in the third city. There’s a market town near by that has no railway station at all. Rail subsidies are literally no use to those that live there.

[Digby]

The problem is you’re predominantly subsidising the middle classes. You’re subsidising those who don’t need it. Good luck explaining to Workington man that my mates earning six figures commuting from Herts, Beds and Bucks deserve their train tickets being subsidised. Even I don’t want to and I know and like them. Due to the nature of my job I can’t commute by train. Why should I subsidise others when I have no option to use public transport?

It's subsiding the middle class as things currently stand because they're the people who can afford to travel on the train with prices as exhorbitant as they are. If trains were significantly cheaper, they'd become a much more viable public transport method for a lot of people, as well as allowing flexibility for poorer people when job-seeking, instead of forcing them to look in their immediate local area.

Puja

Only if that poorer person’s house and job is by a train station. I’m good with targeted subsidies, eg people below a certain income or season ticket:salary ratio. By that logic, let’s also give them subsidies for other modes of transport, too. Where I live there are three cities within 90mins but only two connected by train. What use is rail subsidies if someone needs to get to a job in the third city. There’s a market town near by that has no railway station at all. Rail subsidies are literally no use to those that live there.

Or we could spend to provide coverage where it doesn't currently exist until rail is of use to far more people.