Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:02 am  

bramleyrhino wrote:

Isn't "on-time" considered to be anything 9 minutes late or less? You can't measure improvement by constantly changing the definition of what you are measuring.

Could well be. I know there's a cut off time for when you can claim any refund, which is slightly more than that. As I found out when Southern Railways were late arriving from Brighton to London by less than said cut-off (with no announcements or apologies), which meant I missed my booked Virgin train to Preston. Virgin re-charged me the full £75 to get home and Southern's response to my complaint might as well have said "tough sh*t."

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:05 am  

dr_feelgood wrote:

The state is already subsidising the rail companies to a bigger extent than it ever did when the system was nationalised.

Wrt the post on food being an essential service. Every state should ensure it has a policy to provide enough food for its population. You could argue that we already make sure people are fed by the provision of free school meals for kids and the welfare state providing benefits for adults so that they can purchase food.

We have the greatest food distribution and supply system.....entirely beyond the comprehension of previous populations.
Have a think about worldwide cases where the state has tried to manage food production distribution and supply.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:08 am  

DaveO wrote:

No because it is not a service. Unlike things like the buses, railways or power generation.

Food distribution and supply isn't a service? Food is a product, distribution and supply are services.

DaveO wrote:

It also isn't a monopoly enterprise requiring a regulator to ensure the public isn't ripped off. There is nothing wrong with private industry providing us with goods such as food where the market naturally provides for competition. Wherever you see a regulator involved you can guarantee the market doesn't actually exist to do this.

So you don't believe there is competition in the provision of transport service? For all journeys, there is only one single method of transport open to you?

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:52 am  

Richie wrote:

Food distribution and supply isn't a service? Food is a product, distribution and supply are services.

So you don't believe there is competition in the provision of transport service? For all journeys, there is only one single method of transport open to you?

For many people either the bus or the train is the only option of getting to work. So regardless of quality of service or, to a large extent, price, many people have no option but to use that bus service or that train service. Unless there were 3/4 buses from competing companies waiting at the bus stop then the passenger is forced into a monopoly system.
There is an element of competition in that those companies have to win the franchise to provide that service, but that kind of situation is not where the private sector flourishes and I believe that the state/council/region could run these services just as well for a lower cost without the need for costly franchise applications, changeover of franchise costs, and no need for profits to be made or dividends to be paid.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:35 am  

Him wrote:

For many people either the bus or the train is the only option of getting to work. So regardless of quality of service or, to a large extent, price, many people have no option but to use that bus service or that train service. Unless there were 3/4 buses from competing companies waiting at the bus stop then the passenger is forced into a monopoly system.
There is an element of competition in that those companies have to win the franchise to provide that service, but that kind of situation is not where the private sector flourishes and I believe that the state/council/region could run these services just as well for a lower cost without the need for costly franchise applications, changeover of franchise costs, and no need for profits to be made or dividends to be paid.

So we've already moved on from the trains being a monopoly, to train or bus now, therefore trains are no longer a monopoly. It's going to vary between networks, but even on the same line I have the choice between Virgin and London-Midland for a journey.
That's before we have even thought about walking, cycling (own or Boris-bike style hire), taxis, coach services, trams, driving (own car, hire car) car-share schemes, flying.
The railways are far from being a monopoly in the provision of transport.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:08 am  

Richie wrote:

So we've already moved on from the trains being a monopoly, to train or bus now, therefore trains are no longer a monopoly. It's going to vary between networks, but even on the same line I have the choice between Virgin and London-Midland for a journey.
That's before we have even thought about walking, cycling (own or Boris-bike style hire), taxis, coach services, trams, driving (own car, hire car) car-share schemes, flying.
The railways are far from being a monopoly in the provision of transport.

Nice attempt to shift the goalposts.

Virgin (for instance) has a monopoly on the rail route from London to Manchester. No other companies run that route.

That is a monopoly.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:17 am  

Mintball wrote:

Nice attempt to shift the goalposts.

Virgin (for instance) has a monopoly on the rail route from London to Manchester. No other companies run that route.

That is a monopoly.

You think Virgin have a monopoly on travel between London and Manchester? There no other ways to travel between London and Manchester, other than on a Virgin Train? erm......OK

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:20 am  

Him wrote:

For many people either the bus or the train is the only option of getting to work. So regardless of quality of service or, to a large extent, price, many people have no option but to use that bus service or that train service. Unless there were 3/4 buses from competing companies waiting at the bus stop then the passenger is forced into a monopoly system.
There is an element of competition in that those companies have to win the franchise to provide that service, but that kind of situation is not where the private sector flourishes and I believe that the state/council/region could run these services just as well for a lower cost without the need for costly franchise applications, changeover of franchise costs, and no need for profits to be made or dividends to be paid.

Perhaps you could provide examples of where the state has run things more cost effectively and more efficiently than private enterprise?

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:23 am  

Mintball wrote:

Nice attempt to shift the goalposts.

Virgin (for instance) has a monopoly on the rail route from London to Manchester. No other companies run that route.

That is a monopoly.

Are you serious - I could get a train from London to Leeds and then a train from Leeds to Manchester - neither train is run by Virgin!!

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:28 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Are you serious - I could get a train from London to Leeds and then a train from Leeds to Manchester - neither train is run by Virgin!!

There you go Mintball. Another option on how to travel between Manchester and London. So even someone with a bizarre train fetish, who could only travel by train, and who could not possibly consider any methods of travel other than trains, still has an option other than Virgin.
That's on top of all the other methods of travelling other than rail that anyone without a train fetish could use.