Pre-Budget Report

[I'm With Stupid]

Pre-Budget Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6211176.stm)

Any thoughts?

[Disillusioned]

I don't agree with the 100% increase in air passenger duty. I completely oppose government attempts to make air travel less affordable and make it a privilege solely for the wealthy.

[Aladdin]

I on the contrary agree with the rise.

Air fuel should be taxed, not subsidied. Certainly when it comes to short-haul flights. Long haul is a different story as air travel is often the only alternative.

The proportion of air travel between London and Scotland is unnaceptably high. Though to be fair it is difficult to convince travellers to switch to trains when our network is so pisspoor.

[Disillusioned]

The proportion of air travel between London and Scotland is unnaceptably high. Though to be fair it is difficult to convince travellers to switch to trains when our network is so pisspoor.

I didn't know that it was particularly high. GNER run an overall pretty good service and on a different note until pretty recently they even had a smoking carriage which was nice.

It's easy to criticise domestic air travel if you live in London, if you don't it often makes sense. For example, if you live in Leeds and need to fly to the States you might fly from Leeds and then change at Heathrow. If you got the train you'd have to go into Leeds, go to Kings X, then get the tube to Heathrow or fork out for the Heathrow Express...In short, it would be quicker and easier to just fly from Leeds. (And if you've ever got the piccadilly line from Central London to Heathrow you'll know it's horribly slow).

[Bullseye]

Maybe the money will be put towards improving the British Public transport for Cross-Country travel...but most likely not.

I think that the increase on Air travel is right, but if you think of the size of some of the air company profits, you would think a cap could also be applied to cost of tickets so prices can not be passed to the customer. That is an opinion, i havent looked at the specifics of costs though.

I thought the Shadow Chancellor did well in the Commons though when he questioned the Report.

[MrG]

I want subsidised peanut kit kat chunkies on the nhs, they are very therapeutic.

[I'm With Stupid]

It's easy to criticise domestic air travel if you live in London, if you don't it often makes sense. For example, if you live in Leeds and need to fly to the States you might fly from Leeds and then change at Heathrow. If you got the train you'd have to go into Leeds, go to Kings X, then get the tube to Heathrow or fork out for the Heathrow Express...In short, it would be quicker and easier to just fly from Leeds. (And if you've ever got the piccadilly line from Central London to Heathrow you'll know it's horribly slow).
Well I'd just go from Manchester instead. ;)

Anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with any of these measures if the train prices hadn't increased ahead of inflation yet again. It's all well and good trying to use taxes to get people to change their behaviour, but you've got to present them with a viable alternative.

[Teh_Gerbil]

I don't agree with the 100% increase in air passenger duty. I completely oppose government attempts to make air travel less affordable and make it a privilege solely for the wealthy.

Myself, I'll agree with you.

I fell personally, that this is, as with any democratic party, sidestepping the issue just to be seen to be taking action.

What really pollutes? Cars? No. Planes? No. Big Industry and Fossil Fuel powerplants? Oh yes! However, the government WILL NOT take action against big industry because it makes them nice piles of cash. Fossil Fuel powerplants are cheaper than the far more sensible nuclear long term prospect (when we get them? 2012 ffs?) and as such, are good for hte short term too!

I mean, fucking hell. Even China is making some steps towards regulating Industry pollution now. I thought "WTF?" at first then realised there were looking at the long term future. Little steps, but it is more than the USA has done, and it isn't Brown's farcical idea to distract us from his lack of real action on climate change.

Flight should be cheap, Ryanair, EasyJet, etc (as annoying and crap as they are to fly with) has bought Air Travel to the masses. I love it personally, I put up with a crap flight, leaking ventilation system, and a sideways landing (I shit you not.) and I get more spending money on holiday. Brill.

[Aladdin]

I didn't know that it was particularly high. GNER run an overall pretty good service and on a different note until pretty recently they even had a smoking carriage which was nice. According to the following report, of all the journeys between London and Glasgow & Edinburgh taken by air or train, an incredible 75% is done by air with only the remaining 25% being done by train:

The SKM research shows that some 350,000 trips per year are made by London residents to and from Scotland to visit friends and relatives. Between London, and Edinburgh and Glasgow, air has three-quarters of the combined air and rail market. On routes where rail should be viable, air has a high share of traffic. The lack of a high speed line coupled with poor operator performance means that air travel may often be preferred to rail, particularly if time is at a premium, for example a weekend away. http://tinyurl.com/ychbql


So I believe we should do everything we can to change that trend, higher taxes & duties included. Though like I said earlier the situation is not helped by our shit rail network. Some expert was talking about this two days ago on the telly and he said how country after country in Europe, from France to Spain to Germany to even Portugal, has already their major cities linked by true high speed lines or is in the process of opening them.

In Britain on the other hand, it will have taken 12 years to have our first real high speed line by the time is finished in 2008, and the only place it takes you is abroad. It is nothing short of a national disgrace and an embarassement that a high speed line has never been built between London and Scotland. Pendolinos or not, the stratospherically high prices and the 4 hours + it takes to get there are simply not good enough.

They should increase the air taxes on domestic flights even more, and use the revenue to give Britain a decent high speed line so it can join the 21st century.

[Senor Miguel]

i feel sorry for the bugger who's got to go through the books and sort out the economy when he's gone, whoever it is won't be a very popular man.......cheers gordie.

[Disillusioned]

What really pollutes? Cars? No. Planes? No. Big Industry and Fossil Fuel powerplants? Oh yes! However, the government WILL NOT take action against big industry because it makes them nice piles of cash. Fossil Fuel powerplants are cheaper than the far more sensible nuclear long term prospect (when we get them? 2012 ffs?) and as such, are good for hte short term too!

I bet every Brit could drive a 4x4 to work, fly to Paris and back every weekend and still, Brits would constitute a tiny proportion of emissions compared to China or the US. Our emissions equal just 2% of global emissions - comply with the green brigade and take every 4x4 off the road and ground every aeroplane, it will not make any difference. Green taxes have nothing to with being green, they're nothing more than a pointless gesture and a stealth tax by the government designed to take even more money from us.

If climate change is happening and if it is affected by human behaviour and if it can be prevented by humans changing their habits - all big if's that have not been proven, it will take an extraordinary level of united co-operation with the entire world on board. In other words when pigs fly...

[Disillusioned]

the stratospherically high prices and the 4 hours + it takes to get there are simply not good enough.

I do not disagree with Britain needing better high speed inter-city rail travel (although I would fund it differently).

But, I do not think 4+ hours London-Scotland is that unacceptable. With a Young Persons Railcard (valid on most journeys, 1/3 off, about £20 a year) I've been up to Edinburgh before for about £35 return and it's took a bit over 4 hours I think). Driving would take longer and factoring in getting to the airport, check-in, baggage and the airport not being in the centre of the city flying often isn't any quicker. And admittedly I've only done it a few times but the train has always been a lot cheaper than flying...Which makes me think that many people fly because they have a good reason, i.e. they're catching a connecting flight from Heathrow.

Tbh if you really want to get tough on flying I wouldn't pick on domestic flights, I'd guess a higher proportion of 'unnecessary' flights are taken to European cities by people taking advantage of a cheap fare to take a short break. (Almost everyone has done it..)

[Senor Miguel]

Green taxes have nothing to with being green, they're nothing more than a pointless gesture and a stealth tax by the government designed to take even more money from us.

wow, for once we are in 100% agreement. I think 5-10 years ago the govt wouldn't have the balls to try this but now that there is more focus on the environment, global warming etc they can get away with this shit and not lose too many votes over it, because the public will think their government is being environmentally responsible :lol: pull the other one......will this money be put towards investment in public transport or research into renewable energy etc? i think not, it will probably end up in the blackhole that is GBs i'll-tax-you-to-the-grave-and-still-have-a-massive-budget-deficit legacy.

[Disillusioned]

wow, for once we are in 100% agreement. I think 5-10 years ago the govt wouldn't have the balls to try this but now that there is more focus on the environment, global warming etc they can get away with this shit and not lose too many votes over it, because the public will think their government is being environmentally responsible :lol: pull the other one......will this money be put towards investment in public transport or research into renewable energy etc? i think not, it will probably end up in the blackhole that is GBs budget deficit legacy.

Indeed. But I'm not sure Brown will buy into some of the more extreme 'green' tax proposals. Brown is not averse to resort to populism. And Cameron's gimmicky focus on the environment is designed to win over middle class LibDems.

In Australian political commentators frequently refer to 'battlers' - a term for blue collar workers who have abandoned Labor for John Howard's Liberals. 'Green' taxes would affect the poor disproportionately wherever and there is potential for a political party to make capital out of that. Environmental legislation frequently has the effect of increasing costs and bureaucracy whilst not doing a great deal to protect the environment; invariably it hurts industry and the consequent redundancies rarely affect the chattering classes advocating such measures. Howard in Australia seems to have realised this.

Brown isn't stupid and if he continues to lag behind in the polls I could see him following Howard's lead and opposing green taxes and the like - because other than comforting the consciences of concerned middle class do-gooders they really aren't going to make much difference.

[Aladdin]

The thing is the further the destination the more justified air travel becomes. Yes, there are a lot of air journeys to the Continent. But then again it is quite impractical- and expensive- for a family to go to the Costa del Sol or to Majorca by train. They'd spend half their holiday getting there and back anyway.

Whereas I can understand the practicality of using an internal flight to connect from 'the Counties' to London when you're flying abroad, we should target other internal flights that could be avoided. Such as London to Scotland, or indeed to Cornwall.

[Kermit]

Air travel has only become an issue because of EasyJet and their ilk, and it is a huge growing problem for the environment.

Train travel in this country is excellent, and much cheaper than flying. To compare, to fly tomorrow (walk on fare) from Newcastle to London return is £90 by train or £195 by air, and the air fare restricts you to one flight out and back, whereas the train fare is for any train for a month. The train is proven to be quicker door-to-door too.

Air taxes are being raised not for "green" issues, though, its simply to raise more cash for the Treasury. But that's fine, seeing as how airlines get huge tax breaks anyway, its time that they were all abolished and that airlines should have to pay commercial rates.

It's a problem that many stealth taxes affect the poor but don't affect the rich at all, I'm not sure how to change this though. I think internal flights should attract more tax than continental flights, though.

[Aladdin]

Train travel in this country is excellent I know you and me have discussed this issue countless times, but I never cease to be amazed by your thoughts in the state of rail transport.

No doubt train services are all great and good round your parts. They aren't down South, believe me.

In every country where there is a proper high speed line that works well, is affordable, reliable and comfortable, air travel for that route has been significantly reduced. And there is cheap air travel there too.

That the London-Scotland route continues to be dominated by air travel to the tune of 4 to 1 is all the proof you need that rail services in this country are far from excellent.

In fact they are expensive, unreliable, and worse of all you don't even get a seat sometimes and have to spend several hours sitting on your suitcase next to the toilets freezing your nuts off. Little wonder most people would rather go by air.

[BumbleBee]

Child Benefit to be paid to pregnant women from 29 weeks from April 2009.

Moving away from one aspect of the PBR... does anyone have any views on this?

[Kermit]

I know you and me have discussed this issue countless times, but I never cease to be amazed by your thoughts in the state of rail transport.

And I think you know jack shit about the railways...especially as you seem to think a taxi is public transport :)

Railways are cheaper than flying, they are quicker than flying, but people fly because of clever marketing by the airlines, and because of prolonged and unjustified attacks on the railways by clueless journalists with a very badly hidden agenda.

In just about every area railways beat the airlines hands down- safety, punctuality, cost, customer service, speed- yet because the media says planes are good and trains are bad everyone believes that. It continues to astound me how people get so upset at a 10-minute delay on the trains, but don't think twice about sitting in a traffic jam that adds a delay measurable in hours.

[I'm With Stupid]

In just about every area railways beat the airlines hands down- safety, punctuality, cost, customer service, speed- yet because the media says planes are good and trains are bad everyone believes that. It continues to astound me how people get so upset at a 10-minute delay on the trains, but don't think twice about sitting in a traffic jam that adds a delay measurable in hours.
Because a ten minute delay on the train almost always translates into an actual delay of about an hour since you've just missed the train you were supposed to be getting on and have to wait for the next one. Sometimes even longer. My train to Aberystwyth came every 2 hours, so ten minutes meant it took me 2 hours more than it should to get there (and that would happen probably one in two times I made the journey). And don't get me started on Sunday travel. 6 1/2 hours from Aberystwyth to Birmingham, entirely down to the incompetence of the staff! The trains can get fucked for all I care, I'm buying a car.

[Aladdin]

And I think you know jack shit about the railways...especially as you seem to think a taxi is public transport :) At least I don't pretend the entire rail netowrk works great because my local service does.

Railways are cheaper than flying Sometimes. Some other times they are way more expensive. It's pot luck, really. But it shouldn't be. In every other country train prices are competitive. In this country they are the most expensive in Europe, probably the world.

they are quicker than flying If the train arrives on time and if there is a horrendeous traffic jam between the airport and the city centre, this can sometimes happen. But that's seldom the case.

but people fly because of clever marketing by the airlines, and because of prolonged and unjustified attacks on the railways by clueless journalists with a very badly hidden agenda. I should think it's the countless horror stories and personal experiences of passengers that drive them away from it.

In just about every area railways beat the airlines hands down- safety, punctuality, cost, customer service, speed- yet because the media says planes are good and trains are bad everyone believes that. It continues to astound me how people get so upset at a 10-minute delay on the trains, but don't think twice about sitting in a traffic jam that adds a delay measurable in hours. Oh people get upset about a lot more than 10-minute delays. Rip-off fares for instance. Or the fact that you might spend a 5-hour journey standing up. At least you know you will get a seat on an airplane.

[CptCoatHanger]

Trains in the south-east are shocking, expensive and regularly broken. Fact. I travel from Brighton to Luton regularly, (allegedly) a straight through line. The past three journeys I’ve made I’ve had to disembark at Three Bridges / Hayward’s Heath and get a bus the remain 30 – 40 miles of the journey. 50% of return journeys to Brighton involve me having to get off in North London, traipse across London on the tube, then get on another train for the final leg of the journey. This 90 mile journey, if driven in clear conditions, can be done 1hr 15mins and have plenty of fuel left from a £20 fill-up. On a train it takes 2hr 15mins, costs me £35, and often involves a fair amount of leg work.

I have no knowledge of trains in the North, but in the South it would be a fallacy to purport they are nothing but atrocious.

[Toadborg]

Oh people get upset about a lot more than 10-minute delays. Rip-off fares for instance. Or the fact that you might spend a 5-hour journey standing up. At least you know you will get a seat on an airplane.

It is perfectly simple to book a seat on a train. It also greatly reduces the cost if you book in advance and there are numerous railcards available.

Most people would not turn up to an airport and expect to get a seat, they book substantially in advance, which is what you should do for trains as well, at least for long and/or important journeys......

Yes trains are often late, but then so have most of the planes i have used recently (3 out of 4).

When I lived in sheffield I found the sheffield to leicester service to be perfectly adequate, and decently priced compared to buses, taxis and probably cars when you factor in the many costs associated with them.......

[I'm With Stupid]

It is perfectly simple to book a seat on a train. It also greatly reduces the cost if you book in advance and there are numerous railcards available.
The last train I was on, you physically couldn't walk down the isle to get to the toilet, so I can't imagine what the people with big suitcases had to put up with (well actually I can, because I've had to do that before). So to try and find your seat on that would be ridiculous. I'm happy to travel on the train as long as there's no changeovers involved. As soon as there is, you might as well walk, it'll get you there quicker (once I actually failed to get off the train at the right stop because there was so much shit in the way of the door, and the staff blatantly refused to do anything about it even though they could see I was trying to get off). A car might not be reliable at getting you to certain places on time, but then it doesn't claim to get you there at a certain time, like trains do. And it gets you there in comfort, with your own seat, radio, no phones going off constantly, sets off when you want, and it takes no effort to aim in a service station toilet. I don't know about planes. I can't be arsed with the whole check-in process personally.

[CptCoatHanger]

It is perfectly simple to book a seat on a train.

:lol:

The scene: 5pm - Kingscross - 100 people sandwiched into a carriage.

"Excuse me sir, that's my seat you're sitting in."

[Kermit]

At least I don't pretend the entire rail netowrk works great because my local service does.

I've travelled all over the country through both business and pleasure...the worst delay I've ever had was about two hours because someone threw themselves under a train.

es. Some other times they are way more expensive. It's pot luck, really. But it shouldn't be. In every other country train prices are competitive. In this country they are the most expensive in Europe, probably the world.

I just compared two fares for the next day above. Train, full fare, was £90 return, plane was over double that, and the plane restricted you to one service in each direction.

The cheapest return train fare from Newcastle centre to Central London is £15. The cheapest air fare is at least £15, and then you have to spend another £15 on getting from Stansted or Luton.

If the train arrives on time and if there is a horrendeous traffic jam between the airport and the city centre, this can sometimes happen. But that's seldom the case.

Take Newcastle-London. The quickest train is under 3 hours centre to centre. The plane involves a 30-minute tube ride to Newcastle airport, 30 minutes at check-in, 1 hour to get through security, one hour in the air, 30 minutes at baggage reclaim and then another 30 mins on the tube/HEx into London.

I should think it's the countless horror stories and personal experiences of passengers that drive them away from it.

Most are grossly overstated, some are complete fabrications.

This is the same media that blamed the railways for a crash resulting from someone parking a Land Rover on a 125mph main line because of incompetent driving, and that blamed the railways for the crash resulting from someone committing suicide on a level crossing, remember.

Or the fact that you might spend a 5-hour journey standing up. At least you know you will get a seat on an airplane.

If train companies started only letting as many people on trains as there are seats you'd have a heart attack.

[Kermit]

:lol:

The scene: 5pm - Kingscross - 100 people sandwiched into a carriage.

"Excuse me sir, that's my seat you're sitting in."

An average carriage has about 70 seats, so 100 people ain't that many!

[CptCoatHanger]

An average carriage has about 70 seats, so 100 people ain't that many!

On one of your fancy northern trains, maybe. On southern rail we have to fight over 6 up-turned buckets. :D

[I'm With Stupid]

We can argue about the media representation and percentage of trains that are late, and any other irrelevant facts all we want. The fact is that most people are turned off the trains by their own personal experiences in using them. And no amount of statistics is going to change that. It's like quoting unemployment figures to someone who's just been made redundant.

[Kermit]

Most people are unrealistic idiots who will be apoplectic if the train is 30 seconds late but will not think twice about setting off driving an hour earlier than they need to "because of the traffic".

[I'm With Stupid]

Yes, because naturally you know everyone elses experiences better than them. :rolleyes:

[Aladdin]

I've travelled all over the country through both business and pleasure...the worst delay I've ever had was about two hours because someone threw themselves under a train. Half hour delays on a 90 minute journey on a regular basis are extremely disruptive. And that happens disturbingly often.



I just compared two fares for the next day above. Train, full fare, was £90 return, plane was over double that, and the plane restricted you to one service in each direction.

The cheapest return train fare from Newcastle centre to Central London is £15. The cheapest air fare is at least £15, and then you have to spend another £15 on getting from Stansted or Luton. You have to ask yourself how many people end up using the cheaptest fare, and more importantly how much does someone get charged if they commit the outrage of buying a ticket for next day travel at peak times (not to mention same say travel).

It doesn't matter if sometimes the train is a bit cheaper. It should be a lot cheaper, most if not all of the time.



Take Newcastle-London. The quickest train is under 3 hours centre to centre. The plane involves a 30-minute tube ride to Newcastle airport, 30 minutes at check-in, 1 hour to get through security, one hour in the air, 30 minutes at baggage reclaim and then another 30 mins on the tube/HEx into London. Sure, the closer to London, the more appealing it becomes.

Try the London to Scotland route, which is the one being discussed and the one where air travel beats train travel by 4 to 1.



Most are grossly overstated, some are complete fabrications. Really? People lie for the sake of it do they? If they say something you don't like to hear, they must be lying.

This is the same media that blamed the railways for a crash resulting from someone parking a Land Rover on a 125mph main line because of incompetent driving, and that blamed the railways for the crash resulting from someone committing suicide on a level crossing, remember. I reckon they have far better reason to blame the railway operators: for instance for claiming to fork out millions in new trains when the government ends up footing the bill (Virgin). For sucking up hundreds of millions in subsidies and yet pocketing all the profits (practically all operators apart from GNER). For increasing profitable first class carriages at the detriment of cattle-class (Virgin). For pretending their trains are not "compatible" with certain stations due to their curvature in order to justify not serving small stations at weekends- despite having no such trouble at weekedays (some South West England operator). For sacking hundreds of drivers out of greed and having to reinstate some of them the very next week as there was nobody left to drive (South West Trains). Etc etc etc.



If train companies started only letting as many people on trains as there are seats you'd have a heart attack. Really? How do you work that one out?

I don't think there is a single country in the First World, and not many in the Third World, that would sell long distance tickets and not guarantee a seat. Certainly not unless they they're selling a standing ticket only.

It's an embarrassement and a disgrace of indescribable proprotions. Simple as.

[Aladdin]

It is perfectly simple to book a seat on a train. It also greatly reduces the cost if you book in advance and there are numerous railcards available. A lot of people don't have much choice in the matter of when to book seats. And for full, physically able adults who don't travel every day, the discounts available are few and far between.

Most people would not turn up to an airport and expect to get a seat, they book substantially in advance, which is what you should do for trains as well, at least for long and/or important journeys...... You're missing the point. Nobody should be made to stand on a long distance journey. We wouldn't do that to cattle.

When I lived in sheffield I found the sheffield to leicester service to be perfectly adequate, and decently priced compared to buses, taxis and probably cars when you factor in the many costs associated with them....... I'm sure some services are okay. But many others are not. There are simply unnaceptably high number of piss-poor services. And there is also an unnaceptable lack of investment. There should be a true high speed line between London and Scotland. The only reason there isn't is because of greed and reluctance to invest. Which is stupid really, because for every Pound spend on the transport infrastructure you get many more in return thanks to increased trade and tourism.

It's nice to see Britain falling behind such industrial powerhouses and wealthy nations as Portugal or Spain when it comes to high speed lines isn't it?

[Teh_Gerbil]

If climate change is happening and if it is affected by human behaviour and if it can be prevented by humans changing their habits - all big if's that have not been proven, it will take an extraordinary level of united co-operation with the entire world on board. In other words when pigs fly...

SORRY?

What the fuck more proof do you need lad? SIBERIA is MELTING. The sea level is rising. Freak floods and droughts hit countries in the same year. Mere months apart. A tornado if fecking London. And that is only half of it.

As for 4x4's - I dislike them for a different reason. They are a danger to other road users, and I hate people who have one with no good reason. If you don't needs it offroading abilities, you shouldn't have one. Get an MPV instead.

China and the US (more so the US) are being short sighted. China has begun some (some, not much) action. The US continues its oblivious uncaring path towards the destruction of its own next generation.

MY generation. Motherfuckers. It isn't just hte US that will suffer, this is what annoyes me. The whole World must pay for the US's sort sighted selfish policies. I mean, we can't excuse China, but alot of that is the fault of our own - we sent industry to a backwards (at the time) and cheap labour nation because we wanted to cut costs instead of doing it at home - so the Chinese did it cheaply with little regulation. If we had instead made it in our countries and paid our wokrers minimum wage, we'd most likley be better off. But the foreign workers don't need a minimum wage, they're just silly foreigners!:rolleyes:

[Kermit]

It doesn't matter if sometimes the train is a bit cheaper. It should be a lot cheaper, most if not all of the time.

Why should it?

The entire tax system is set up to make the train more expensive. Whilst TOCs have to pay a largely commercial rate on their fuel (electricity prices charged by Network Rail have doubled in the last year, which is one of the reasons why GNER have hit financial trouble), airlines do not.

Really? People lie for the sake of it do they? If they say something you don't like to hear, they must be lying.

I think many journalists do lie, about every conceivable subject. You know they lie about everything else, what makes you think that they're telling the truth about the trains (especially as most journos don't know one end of a train from another)? It's fashionable to nail TOCs for small issues without breathing a word about lorry drivers and operators or car drivers. That's why six deaths in a train crash caused by a driver error or an engineer's error it is a national scandal, and everyone should spend trillions on making sure it never happens again, but when some pissed truck driver kills ten on the M1 it barely even makes the local news unless he's Polish.

I don't think there is a single country in the First World, and not many in the Third World, that would sell long distance tickets and not guarantee a seat. Certainly not unless they they're selling a standing ticket only.

You're right- most other countries enforce mandatory reservations, and if you don't have a seat booked you can't get on the train. They should do that over here, then there'd be no overcrowding at all.

In this country there are no mandatory reservations, and as such at peak times (weekday evenings, Sunday afternoon) there are more people trying to get on a train than there are seats. The reason why this does not happen on airlines or on the Shinkansen or on the TGV is because once the train or plane is full you cannot buy a ticket for that service. There's no overcrowding because you can't get on a train without a reservation.

If Virgin brought in a policy of no boarding without a reservation (like they want to) the media and you would be wringing your panties in knots about how its a national disgrace. You can't have it both ways. You can't compare apples with oranges and then get pissed off when an apple becomes an orange.

As for a high-speed line between London and Scotland, I could see the advantages, but the cost would be astronomical. When 40 miles of the CTRL cost nearly £6billion, the 350 miles from Edinburgh to London would cost perhaps as much as £100billion, and its very hard to justify that kind of spending when it could be put to much better use on hospitals and schools.

[Aladdin]

Why should it?

The entire tax system is set up to make the train more expensive. Whilst TOCs have to pay a largely commercial rate on their fuel (electricity prices charged by Network Rail have doubled in the last year, which is one of the reasons why GNER have hit financial trouble), airlines do not. It's not just tax is it? It's a chronic problem in this country with underinvestment. And to be fair governments past and present are much to blame for it. But the bottom line remains that operators, Network rail and government blame each other for rises, passengers end up paying for it all. Prices in this country are disproportionally high.



I think many journalists do lie, about every conceivable subject. You know they lie about everything else, what makes you think that they're telling the truth about the trains (especially as most journos don't know one end of a train from another)? It's fashionable to nail TOCs for small issues without breathing a word about lorry drivers and operators or car drivers. That's why six deaths in a train crash caused by a driver error or an engineer's error it is a national scandal, and everyone should spend trillions on making sure it never happens again, but when some pissed truck driver kills ten on the M1 it barely even makes the local news unless he's Polish. The thing Kermit is that I can think of many instances of bad delays, bad service, lack of seat etc that were told directly to me by people I know. Nothing to do with the press.



You're right- most other countries enforce mandatory reservations, and if you don't have a seat booked you can't get on the train. They should do that over here, then there'd be no overcrowding at all.

In this country there are no mandatory reservations, and as such at peak times (weekday evenings, Sunday afternoon) there are more people trying to get on a train than there are seats. The reason why this does not happen on airlines or on the Shinkansen or on the TGV is because once the train or plane is full you cannot buy a ticket for that service. There's no overcrowding because you can't get on a train without a reservation.

If Virgin brought in a policy of no boarding without a reservation (like they want to) the media and you would be wringing your panties in knots about how its a national disgrace. You can't have it both ways. You can't compare apples with oranges and then get pissed off when an apple becomes an orange. ?Actually you can have it both ways. Too many passengers? Increase trains. Too many trains? Improve signalling to increase capacity. Still trouble? Double up the lines. Problem with adjacent land? Compulsory purchase.

Many other countries appear to solve such problems. If it's not so in Britain is not because it is unsolvable, but because this country appears to have a natural repulsion to the concept of investing in order to have an adequate network.

As ever it all boils down to money.

As for a high-speed line between London and Scotland, I could see the advantages, but the cost would be astronomical. When 40 miles of the CTRL cost nearly £6billion, the 350 miles from Edinburgh to London would cost perhaps as much as £100billion, and its very hard to justify that kind of spending when it could be put to much better use on hospitals and schools. I don't think it would cost nearly as much. But when you are talking about vital infrastructure, initial investment is secondary. The benefits of it will be there for decades to come. Railway building doesn't come cheap anywhere. But if it has to come out of taxes, so be it.

If there was to be a true high speed dedicated line between London and the North, trains could get to Glasgow or Edinburgh in well under 3 hours. And if tickets were kept at reasonable prices instead of worrying about profitability, even if the taxpayer had to part-pay for it, few people would feel the need to fly- and indeed to drive- to those destinations. The benefits in reduced congestion and pollution would justify the initial investment very quickly.

[Kermit]

Many other countries have the room to build the high-speed lines that they require. Even in Germany there isn't the density of population that there is in the UK.

There isn't the room to extend most urban railways, and that is where the delays occur. And as most of the UK is urban or semi-urban, there isn't the scope to extend. As in Europe, TGV-style trains would have to travel on normal tracks when entering cities. Great if the big cities are 300 miles apart, as in France or Spain, but not so great when the big cities are 40 miles apart. The only way to get major time savings would be to have "parkway" stations- time savings which would be negated by having to get to the out-of-town station in the first place.

A TGV-style line is a fantastic pipe-dream, I'd love to see one too, but it is nothing more than that. Given the cost of the WCML upgrade, and the cost of the CTRL, I don't think £100bn is an exceptionally high estimate. And £100bn on one railway line is far too much money, especially for a time saving of only 45 minutes at most. Infrastructure upgrades at key pinch points, such as Welwyn Viaduct on the way into Kings Cross, would have the same effect at a fraction of the price.

[Replicant]

one problem with this; tax doesn't decrease emmisions. so it's a bit of a futile gesture, as I really don't see it effecting the amount of flights made in the UK.

[I'm With Stupid]

Why should it?
Well that depends on whether you want people to use them or not. If it's not cheaper to travel on a train, then don't be surprised when people choose the more convenient and affordable option that is the car. If you want people to travel in a more environmentally friendly way, then you've got to make it cheaper and better for them, or not complain when everyone gets into their 4x4 instead.

[Aladdin]

Many other countries have the room to build the high-speed lines that they require. Even in Germany there isn't the density of population that there is in the UK.

There isn't the room to extend most urban railways, and that is where the delays occur. And as most of the UK is urban or semi-urban, there isn't the scope to extend. As in Europe, TGV-style trains would have to travel on normal tracks when entering cities. Great if the big cities are 300 miles apart, as in France or Spain, but not so great when the big cities are 40 miles apart. The only way to get major time savings would be to have "parkway" stations- time savings which would be negated by having to get to the out-of-town station in the first place. Last time I went on a train up North I noticed vast expands of countryside between cities and towns.

Outside the metropolitan area of London there is plenty of space available for building an extra line. Of the 300 odd miles between London and Scotalnd, what are we talking about that would be in really densely populated areas? 20? 30 at the most?

A TGV-style line is a fantastic pipe-dream, I'd love to see one too, but it is nothing more than that. Given the cost of the WCML upgrade, and the cost of the CTRL, I don't think £100bn is an exceptionally high estimate. £20bn would be a lot closer to the mark actually. £25bn at the most I should think.

But in any case it does not matter, because study after study shows that you'd get at least twice the orginal investment back in benefits and profits

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_032563.hcsp

[Kermit]

Last time I went on a train up North I noticed vast expands of countryside between cities and towns.

Yep, but it isn't there that you would get the time savings, as any fule kno. There isn't that much difference between 125mph and 160mph.

The biggest gap between two cities up here that I can think of is the 85-mile gap between York and Newcastle. You'd still have to slow down onto "normal" tracks through the cities, as TGV does, or build a parkway that avoids the cities but makes everyone trapise out to it on local transport.

I'd love to see TGV in this country, but I don't ever think it could be justified in terms of cost. And, as in France, I see smaller towns being overlooked and ignored by the development of high-speed lines. Whereas now towns like Peterborough and Penrith get fast and regular intercity trains, either the new line would avoid them completely (as has happened to places like Brive in France) or the train would be stopping every 40 miles negating all the speed increases.

You might get Edinburgh-London down to, say, 3hr instead of 4hr, but I doubt the cost would justify that.

I'd solve the cost problem of public transport by making car users pay the real cost of their travel. Roads should be self-financing, from road tax and road tolls, bus lanes should be improved, and car parking should become more expensive. As it is the Government pays a huge hidden subsidy to the road network, paid for by those who don't use cars.

[Aladdin]

On proper high speed lines trains would run at 190mph+. They would also be dedicated lines and high speed trains wouldn't have to share them with freight or commuter trains. The reduction in journey times would be quite dramatic. And more to the point, the only way to drag people away from air travel.

[Kermit]

TGV has a top speed of 186mph;)

There are too many problems facing a TGV-style line in this country, not least of all the size of the country. The average gap between stops on the ECML is about 40 miles, and most stops are major stops. That's not long enough to get up to speed and slow down again (on emergency brakes it takes about two miles to stop from 186mph), so the full speed benefit wouldn't be felt.

Sure, you could cut stops out, but why should major intermediate towns have to make do with a second-rate train service because the small number of businessmen who want to travel to Edinburgh at speed? Because that is what happens- TGV is rightly hailed as a success, but towns that aren't deemed important enough for a station are left at the side making do with two or three very slow trains a day.