How Much is a Corbyn?

BobQ

martinsurrey wrote: »

The use of the railways held steady for 50 years under the government at around 20billion passenger miles per year (and given the rising population, that is less per person per year).

As soon as the private sector was involved this has climbed year after year after year, to today, were we are are at nearly 40 billion passenger miles.

You assume a causal link. Road congestion and Fuel price increases have a part to play. You could infer a causal link to these as well.

The government subsidy per mile travelled has halved since 2010, so we're getting a lot more bang for our buck

It was government policy to reduce the subsidies and increase fare costs by RPI+ To infer that we are gainingfrom changing the funding source is misleading.

Why the sudden increase in miles travelled if the service is so significantly worse than it used to be?

Because it is still cheaper than driving, particularly into major cities a and especially London due to congestion and parking charges.

I agree that privatisation has made positive changes and that it is not perfect. The customer satisfaction information you quote is I agree encouraging too.

chewmylegoff

cells wrote: »

Even if you are a monopoly you have some competition for non direct competitors

so if train prices are to high or too unreliable people might use the buses or just live closer to work or use their car.

Anyway the railways will die a slow painful death once the self drive car kicks in which imo is likely within 10 years

None of the things you mention are effective competition in the South East for people commutting into London by rail. For instance according to TFL my journey to work would take 4 hours 10 minutes by 7 different buses and I only live a couple of miles outside zone 6. Driving is simply not an option as there isn't anywhere to park and the traffic is so bad it would likely take 3 hours I should think.

Similarly there aren't enough houses in London for everyone who commutes into London to up sticks and move there even if they could afford current prices.

It is different in other places, but I expect the majority of rail commuters in the UK are travelling to London anyway.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Yes people do not understand. Of course prices would rise, but why privatise something and pretend it is profitable when that firm relies on subsidies? If it is running at a loss the public should know and then would realise that privatisation is not an easy option.



It is just an idea. If we are going to have privately run energy firms, they should not be able to rig the market. At preesnt they have no incentive to bring prices down.



At present they operate power stations and sell power to their retail groups. I am saying that power production ought to be competed and sell to retail suppliers. We already have suppliers selling energy through the single infrastructure.



It introduces more competition particularly if the retailers are not allowed to operate the power stations. What is your solution?

Have you read the OFT report?

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2014/03/assessment_document_published_1.pdf

what do you see as a PROBLEM with the electricity industry?

do they provide security of supply?

do we have electricity when we want it?

is it too expensive? if so then what is the correct level of profits?
would a government monopoly be cheaper?

personally I see no evidence, in spite of many regulatory investigations, that price are too high.

we certainly have many problems with government interference in that the prices include all the green nonsense.

michaels

chewmylegoff wrote: »

None of the things you mention are effective competition in the South East for people commutting into London by rail. For instance according to TFL my journey to work would take 4 hours 10 minutes by 7 different buses and I only live a couple of miles outside zone 6. Driving is simply not an option as there isn't anywhere to park and the traffic is so bad it would likely take 3 hours I should think.

Similarly there aren't enough houses in London for everyone who commutes into London to up sticks and move there even if they could afford current prices.

It is different in other places, but I expect the majority of rail commuters in the UK are travelling to London anyway.

But if train cost much more there would be more buses and coaches competing, plus I am surprised you still have a desk more than 40% of your contracted working hours and are not expected to work from home or a 'commuter hub' the rest of the time.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

what's the right profit for a company?

A profit which isn't achieved through exploitation......why do you ask? Did you think you were being clever!

zagubov

michaels wrote: »

But if train cost much more there would be more buses and coaches competing, plus I am surprised you still have a desk more than 40% of your contracted working hours and are not expected to work from home or a 'commuter hub' the rest of the time.

I'm old enough to remember when the bus market in Glasgow opened up and masses of rival businesses moved in.
It was a chaotic gridlock with every clapped out coach or bus in the UK diverted from the scrapyard and repainted in locally-relevant livery. It clogged up a city whose wide streets and grid system have been replicated all over the Norh America.
If they try to deregulate the buses in London, you can forget the congestion charge; cars will simply be useless and we'll all have to find ways to work at home.
In which place, why pay London property prices?
London, don't let train prices rise or bus deregulation happen. It ain't going to work.:(

cells

chewmylegoff wrote: »

None of the things you mention are effective competition in the South East for people commutting into London by rail. For instance according to TFL my journey to work would take 4 hours 10 minutes by 7 different buses and I only live a couple of miles outside zone 6. Driving is simply not an option as there isn't anywhere to park and the traffic is so bad it would likely take 3 hours I should think.

Similarly there aren't enough houses in London for everyone who commutes into London to up sticks and move there even if they could afford current prices.

It is different in other places, but I expect the majority of rail commuters in the UK are travelling to London anyway.

Plenty of people rent near work and return home for the weekend and others use a hotel for 4 nights a week. Probably million relocate to be closer to work I have done it half a dozen times

driving into London is a pain but door to door it can be as fast if notifaster. From where I am now to hyde park is a 1 hour drive. Via the trains its more like 2 hours in total. Even the coaches are about the same speed (more direct)

also niw imagine a uk without intercity trains.
the train stations could be high very density flats. The train lines could be parking or even more homes. With no trains there woild be a LOT more coaches and you would probably have a lot more point to point coaches. Train lines are grwat if you are within a five minute walk on either end of a station, if you need a bus ir a taxi at both ends they end up being oretty !!!!.

anyway my prediction is that the arrival of the self drive car will be the beginning of the end of the majority of intercity train lines and domestic flights

cells

zagubov wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember when the bus market in Glasgow opened up and masses of rival businesses moved in.
It was a chaotic gridlock with every clapped out coach or bus in the UK diverted from the scrapyard and repainted in locally-relevant livery. It clogged up a city whose wide streets and grid system have been replicated all over the Norh America.
If they try to deregulate the buses in London, you can forget the congestion charge; cars will simply be useless and we'll all have to find ways to work at home.
In which place, why pay London property prices?
London, don't let train prices rise or bus deregulation happen. It ain't going to work.:(

London has too many coucil homes. If half were sold off to train users that would be upto 1 million less train passengers.

plenty of council homes in z1 and z2 with pensioners or unemployed folk. While mr reading to docklands does 500 miles a week on a train. Swap places with a z1/2 council tenant and save the railways 24,000 miles a year

princeofpounds

we are also some of the MOST satisfied people in Europe with our railways (tables 12a, 12b 12c d e f g (we're in the top 5 for all)

Although I actually agree wholeheartedly with a lot of your post, including the financial comments in particular (when will people realise British Rail was unsustainable at these usage rates?), I've always found this metric annoying. It depends massively on expectations, which are arguably very low in the UK. Rail travel is simply often a much better experience in other major European countries.

what's the right profit for a company?

For a utility-like service, which is often what natural monopolies tend to be managed at, having a return on equity that meets the cost of equity over time is about right.


Alas 98% of the general public have no concept of such things, and often think that profits are somehow bad.

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

For a utility-like service, which is often what natural monopolies tend to be managed at, having a return on equity that meets the cost of equity over time is about right.


Alas 98% of the general public have no concept of such things, and often think that profits are somehow bad.

that seems to discourage any attempt at innovation and cost cutting