Re-nationalisation & Shares?

Glen_Clark

msallen wrote: »

It most certainly wasn't. I have vivid memories of wanting to go from St Pancras to Sheffield when I was in my late teens (mid 80s) and being advised in the ticket office to buy a return and throw the second ticket away.

Fair comment, but I was thinking earlier than that. The privatisation / maximising profit mentality started creeping in after 1979. Prior to that, for example, British Rail hung on to old inefficient Steam Engines long after other countries had converted to more efficient diesel electric. There were good reasons for hanging on to inefficient steam engines - Britain had coal not oil, and the facilities to build and maintain steam. So public owned BR hung on to inefficient steam engines for the benefit of British jobs and balance of payments. Privatised companies are under no such constraints.

Glen_Clark

Voyager2002 wrote: »

I was commenting on a hysterical and inappropriate attack upon a public figure.

Yes it was.
But perhaps you should have said so, instead of making what looks like a flippant insulting comment.
(I saw it but thought it too ridiculous to bother replying to.)

Thrugelmir

bostonerimus wrote: »

It would be interesting to know how much of the ridership increase was from people in SE/London where train travel is almost the only commuter option and who often have their costs defrayed by their employers.

After many years not travelling by train. My usage has increased considerably. Ticket prices have a bearing. Peak day return to London is just under £120. Off peak considerably cheaper. As an example I'm travelling on a Saturday at the end of this month, and it's only £22 return. With reserved seats. Likewise I can go to Bath for £8, or travel down to Totnes in Devon for around £30. Likewise Cardiff for less than £20. Cheaper than driving and paying to park for the day.

Glen_Clark

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Cheaper than driving and paying to park for the day.

Not surprising since the car is heavily taxed and the train heavily subsidised.

Glen_Clark

EachPenny wrote: »

. it has the potential to be an interesting discussion about investment risks.

Discussing Mr Corbyn's attributes (or lack thereof)

So Mr Corbyn is not an investment risk?

EachPenny

Thrugelmir wrote: »

After many years not travelling by train. My usage has increased considerably. Ticket prices have a bearing. Peak day return to London is just under £120. Off peak considerably cheaper. As an example I'm travelling on a Saturday at the end of this month, and it's only £22 return. With reserved seats. Likewise I can go to Bath for £8, or travel down to Totnes in Devon for around £30. Likewise Cardiff for less than £20. Cheaper than driving and paying to park for the day.

This is one of the issues - there is a huge difference in cost between the turn up and travel standard (peak) fares and the whole range of off-peak and saver tickets. Part of this is due to the way the regulated fares system has operated over the years, but also the popularity (or no other option) of rail travel which means there is no shortage of customers ready to stump up whatever it costs.

eskbanker

EachPenny wrote: »

I'd agree that a lot of people would draw the same conclusion from the chart, but it would be a poor use of statistical information and certainly doesn't support the assertion "railtrack had an appalling safety record".

[...]

There were a lot of things wrong with Railtrack, and many reasons to criticise them. But anyone making the assertion that "railtrack had an appalling safety record" should be able to back it up with something far more robust than a chart showing the number of railway fatalities per year.

I wasn't posting the chart to support the assertion "railtrack had an appalling safety record", I was posting it to challenge your counter-assertion that "Of course there were never any rail accidents (including fatal ones) before privatisation, and obviously there have been none under Network Rail's management either"!

While fatality numbers are a perfectly legitimate measure, I do agree that comprehensive assessment of the subject should look deeper than high-level stats for the reasons you've highlighted, such as root cause analysis, changes in technology and investment, and the distorting effect of individual significant incidents in a low-number environment, although that obviously wouldn't justify ignoring the likes of Ladbroke Grove to suit a specific viewpoint, as removal of such incidents from the Railtrack era stats would clearly need to be mirrored by doing the same for the other periods too.

Anyway, accepting that those stats don't necessarily paint the full picture, do you have any more meaningful ones to share?

Voyager2002

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I remember the simple honest ticket pricing under British Rail. You didn't need to research it and jump through hoops backwards to get a reasonable ticket price. It was same price however you bought it, and a return was twice the price of a single.(Which we still have with CalMac ferries in Scotland.)

I also remember those days, and while the pricing was simple and honest it meant that a journey would almost invariably cost more than I could pay for it. And then they dreamed up "saver tickets", so that if you bought in advance and travelled at particular times long journeys became affordable. I like the fact that if you are willing to "jump through hoops backwards" you can find bargains, while if you value your time more than your money you can buy a ticket without too much trouble, travel when you want, and subsidise people like me.


Incidentally, complex ticketing was introduced well before privatisation.

Alexland

I do enjoy it when we have a thread that goes a bit off topic and we get to see the regulars applying their same logic to less financial situations.

Alex.

eskbanker

Alexland wrote: »

I do enjoy it when we have a thread that goes a bit off topic and we get to see the regulars applying their same logic to less financial situations.

Are you suggesting it's been derailed?