Local elections

[Duke Fame]

Interesting to see Duke quietly rewriting his past misdeeds.   Two years ago he boasted that he dodged the fare every time because it was too expensive. 
Now it has become only two offences, and they were entirely accidental.  How times change.....   

Seems consistent to me, i go to Mankchester a few times a year, Manure away, Man C away and in the evening for a night out. I only have to use the tram when I go to Manure and I didn't pay to get on the tram but there was some confusion as to whether it was needed.

Similarly, does anyone need a TV licence these days? I don;t think I need one, the TV licensing folks claim I do even if I watch foreign channels on the intertwaddle

[marplerambler]

Oh well, it just goes to show that there is hope for all of us. Duke may well have become a born-again fare payer who can now righteously bang his tambourine every time he wishes to pontificate about the wonders of the privatised rail system. Praise be to the Blessed Margaret for guiding him along the right track (although I must admit the left track always seemed to be more beneficial to the traveller and to the few bits and pieces of the nation that have not been sold off to foreign companies).

[Dave]

Interesting to see Duke quietly rewriting his past misdeeds.   Two years ago he boasted that he dodged the fare every time because it was too expensive.

When I've used the tram, I've been stunned by the price - basically i've jumped the fare every time.

 
Now it has become only two offences, and they were entirely accidental. 

I've evaded a fare on two occasions and completely inadvertently

How times change.....   

[Duke Fame]

PS Mr Moderator. Duke's reply was either much better with the referral to Marple Hypnotherapy in it or I am being totally delusional and truly in need of psychiatric care?

I think you are looking to be somehow offended at a comment that wasn't intended to be anything of the sort.

[marplerambler]

PS Mr Moderator. Duke's reply was either much better with the referral to Marple Hypnotherapy in it or I am being totally delusional and truly in need of psychiatric care?

[marplerambler]

Wow! The cheek of the man who now makes a profession out of clobbering the ramblers and spent ages boasting about his fare dodging antics  but a personal referral to Marple Hypnotherapy!  Never heard of the place but you certainly deserve some discount for your advertisement when you visit next - keep up the attendance because it certainly seems to be having a positive effect upon your sense of humour. It must have been very distressing for you to have bought a return to Macclesfield and suddenly find that you slept all the way to Milton Keynes on one of those many Saturdays that the mighty United played at Wembley.  How the heck can I come up with a response to that while I am choking with laughter on my coffee with the tears of laughter stream down my cheeks? Cheeky sod! Game, set and match Duke Fame for the time being. I think I will go back to watching Wimbledon.

[Duke Fame]

I absolutely love Dukes comment that 'The marple trains also suffer from the use of ramblers, hikers and bikers so the best trains are not likely to be used as so much space is given over to storage'. The very big difference between this particular hiker and Duke is that we have adopted a very different approach from funding the Marple trains from our own pockets. There is a four-letter word which never Duke never utters but which I unashamedly shout at the railway guard and that word is FARE. Duke's many boasts on the Marple website about his own fare evasion in the past make him the most inappropriate person to make any comments about the railways and how they should be funded. Suffer as you may from having to share a carriage with the ramblers, hikers and bikers if it were not for this group of untouchables you would not have a Sunday train service. There was a long spell during the 1990s when this particular member of the great unwashed used to go banging on the door on the guard's cab demanding to pay my fare who had, I believed, received instructions from his/her employer to check no train tickets and collect absolutely no fares on the Sunday services in order to provide justification for the withdrawal the unprofitable Sunday service. I would argue with guards whose ticket machines always seem to break down on Sunday mornings and demand that they take my fare then write to GMPTE and the train company to complain and you know what? It was only the low life with rucksacks on their backs who seemed to demand to pay. If it were not for the ramblers and the Ramblers Association fighting for this train there would be no Sunday train service. Perhaps the best solution would be the reintroduction of a first class carriage to enable Duke to evade his fare without having to mix with the riff-raff.
 

I've evaded a fare on two occasions and completely inadvertently having gone to see the mighty United play away at Newton Heath of Milton Keynes. Car parking though, that's another matter.

Otherwise Rambler, I really think you have a chip on the shoulder there "low life" "great unwashed", have you considered self esteem classes

[marplerambler]

I absolutely love Dukes comment that 'The marple trains also suffer from the use of ramblers, hikers and bikers so the best trains are not likely to be used as so much space is given over to storage'. The very big difference between this particular hiker and Duke is that we have adopted a very different approach from funding the Marple trains from our own pockets. There is a four-letter word which never Duke never utters but which I unashamedly shout at the railway guard and that word is FARE. Duke's many boasts on the Marple website about his own fare evasion in the past make him the most inappropriate person to make any comments about the railways and how they should be funded. Suffer as you may from having to share a carriage with the ramblers, hikers and bikers if it were not for this group of untouchables you would not have a Sunday train service. There was a long spell during the 1990s when this particular member of the great unwashed used to go banging on the door on the guard's cab demanding to pay my fare who had, I believed, received instructions from his/her employer to check no train tickets and collect absolutely no fares on the Sunday services in order to provide justification for the withdrawal the unprofitable Sunday service. I would argue with guards whose ticket machines always seem to break down on Sunday mornings and demand that they take my fare then write to GMPTE and the train company to complain and you know what? It was only the low life with rucksacks on their backs who seemed to demand to pay. If it were not for the ramblers and the Ramblers Association fighting for this train there would be no Sunday train service. Perhaps the best solution would be the reintroduction of a first class carriage to enable Duke to evade his fare without having to mix with the riff-raff.
 

[Duke Fame]

This is a real puzzle. I can think of a couple of reasons why Dave would want people to make a completely false assumption but neither of them would flatter him.

I have already said that, in 2012/13,  the TOCs, as a group, were able to deal with their operating costs from revenue. Those costs include £2bn paid direct to Network Rail in track access charges. The TOCs did not make use of the rail network for free and to say that my previous post only made sense if they did is rubbish.

So, in 2012/13, the government made available to the railway industry subsidies totalling £5.1bn in relation to franchised passenger services comprising £1.9bn to the TOCs and £3.2 billion to Network Rail. In the event the privatised TOCs, as a group, didn’t need theirs. They were able to finance their business from revenue and had enough left over to pay an extra £1bn to the government as a premium as well as paying company tax on what remained of their profit.. The nationalised Network Rail needed all of its subsidy so the government paid that company £3.2bn although the net cost was £2.2 billion after taking into account the premium received from the TOC’s. The major part of this subsidy was required to pay their £1.5bn financing costs. This might be the equivalent of dividends in a privately owned company, something which left wing socialists denounce with apoplexic rage but wouldn’t greet with a murmur when it appears in the accounts of a nationalised business

The amounts of £2bn paid direct to Network Rail by the TOCs plus the premium which they paid to the government were more than sufficient to cover Network Rail's total operating costs of £2.7bn for the year.

I have no stake in this matter. I am not a railwayman, I am not a member of any political party, and I recognise that a mixed economy is necessary but renationalise the railways, no, no, no. The franchising system needs to be vigorously tweaked but probably not replaced.  I do not believe that the passengers, the taxpayer or anyone else would benefit.

Oh, sorry, I forgot about the Unions.

I originally posted in response to a post from tsheldon, aka “tigerman”. I will resist the temptation to respond to his comments regarding the energy industry and cartels.

I believe that we have now driven all other readers of this thread off to find more interesting topics and, as far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed

I think most accept that the railways will always need a subsidy however it's operated. The question then will be, does this subsidy produce enough good outcomes. i.e. we're a small country therefore it's good to get people off roads etc.

If railways are worth having, then what's the cheapest way of achieving this. The franchise model, although not perfect has massively increased passenger numbers, trains and the service, from a qualitative view is far more enjoyable than in the BR days. We've also had far fewer strikes to an extent where we can rely on trains actually running.

The system is not perfect and needs tweeking but re-nationalisation would not deliver good outcomes unless you are a union.

[alstan]

... the rest of Franz's post only makes sense if you regard the TOCs as making use of the rail network for free! 

This is a real puzzle. I can think of a couple of reasons why Dave would want people to make a completely false assumption but neither of them would flatter him.

I have already said that, in 2012/13,  the TOCs, as a group, were able to deal with their operating costs from revenue. Those costs include £2bn paid direct to Network Rail in track access charges. The TOCs did not make use of the rail network for free and to say that my previous post only made sense if they did is rubbish.

So, in 2012/13, the government made available to the railway industry subsidies totalling £5.1bn in relation to franchised passenger services comprising £1.9bn to the TOCs and £3.2 billion to Network Rail. In the event the privatised TOCs, as a group, didn’t need theirs. They were able to finance their business from revenue and had enough left over to pay an extra £1bn to the government as a premium as well as paying company tax on what remained of their profit.. The nationalised Network Rail needed all of its subsidy so the government paid that company £3.2bn although the net cost was £2.2 billion after taking into account the premium received from the TOC’s. The major part of this subsidy was required to pay their £1.5bn financing costs. This might be the equivalent of dividends in a privately owned company, something which left wing socialists denounce with apoplexic rage but wouldn’t greet with a murmur when it appears in the accounts of a nationalised business

The amounts of £2bn paid direct to Network Rail by the TOCs plus the premium which they paid to the government were more than sufficient to cover Network Rail's total operating costs of £2.7bn for the year.

I have no stake in this matter. I am not a railwayman, I am not a member of any political party, and I recognise that a mixed economy is necessary but renationalise the railways, no, no, no. The franchising system needs to be vigorously tweaked but probably not replaced.  I do not believe that the passengers, the taxpayer or anyone else would benefit.

Oh, sorry, I forgot about the Unions.

I originally posted in response to a post from tsheldon, aka “tigerman”. I will resist the temptation to respond to his comments regarding the energy industry and cartels.

I believe that we have now driven all other readers of this thread off to find more interesting topics and, as far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed

[Duke Fame]

Agreed.  But the rest of Franz's post only makes sense if you regard the TOCs as making use of the rail network for free!   The DFT does not do that, of course, as it would make no commercial sense.  Hence the text in the government's own statement (see the link previously provided) which explains it like this:

For this indicator, total subsidy includes:
(a) subsidy paid directly to train operators by government
figures published by the Office of Rail Regulation based on passenger kilometres, converted to miles
(b) an allocation of the Network Grant (that is, payments made directly to Network Rail)
this is calculated by taking the total network grant, apportioned according to each franchise’s share of fixed track access charges

In other words, element (b) is the fixed track access charges paid to Network Rail by the taxpayer on behalf of the TOCs.   There's a good brief explanation of how the franchising system works here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_franchising_in_Great_Britain

Note the bit that says that the premium  'masks the public subsidy of most rail franchises through the UK Government's direct grant to Network Rail, which therefore does not levy a full access charge to the franchisee for use of the infrastructure.'

I hope that helps to clarify the way it works. 

In fairness Dave, Franz doesn't need anything clarifying by you, he doesn't sound like he's just spent Friday night looking at Wiki to answer a point on a local forum.

I'll not look up wiki as it seems better to get you to do it. Including the franchise fee, were nxec making a net payment to the treasury?

Given the outcome of the franchise was to increase services, as East Coast have actually reduced their services, will you agree that having East coast state owned means the service is stagnating. The new private franchise actually demands extra routes to Leeds and Newcastle it also demands new rolling stock.

You skate around these points whilst annoyingly talking in the 3rd person all the time.

Whilst I agree there is an appetite for nationalisation from some on the left, as ever, they've not thought it through.

[Dave]

the direct subsidy to the train operating companies in 2012/13 was a negative, -£968,100,000. In other words, the premium paid by the TOCs to the taxpayer exceeded their subsidy by that amount.

Agreed.  But the rest of Franz's post only makes sense if you regard the TOCs as making use of the rail network for free!   The DFT does not do that, of course, as it would make no commercial sense.  Hence the text in the government's own statement (see the link previously provided) which explains it like this:

For this indicator, total subsidy includes:
(a) subsidy paid directly to train operators by government
figures published by the Office of Rail Regulation based on passenger kilometres, converted to miles
(b) an allocation of the Network Grant (that is, payments made directly to Network Rail)
this is calculated by taking the total network grant, apportioned according to each franchise’s share of fixed track access charges

In other words, element (b) is the fixed track access charges paid to Network Rail by the taxpayer on behalf of the TOCs.   There's a good brief explanation of how the franchising system works here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_franchising_in_Great_Britain

Note the bit that says that the premium  'masks the public subsidy of most rail franchises through the UK Government's direct grant to Network Rail, which therefore does not levy a full access charge to the franchisee for use of the infrastructure.'

I hope that helps to clarify the way it works. 

[Duke Fame]

Cascading rolling stock has for many years been both policy and practice. The stock is owned by leasing companies (ROSCOs) and the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) lease the stock from them . As stock ages its leasing cost falls and because of that they gravitate towards the TOCs which are financially hard  pressed. Northern Rail is possibly the best example but it also includes, among others, Merseyrail, Arriva Trains Wales with their Valley Lines services and, to a lesser degree, First Great Western with their Bristol suburban services and one or two other lines, including Reading to Basingstoke

A good example of cascading occurred a couple of years ago. London Overground got a delivery of brand new Turbostars and their Sprinters, built in the mid 1980s were passed down to First Great Western, their old Pacers, the lowest of the low, no bogies, just two axles, were then cascaded down to Northern.

It doesn’t have much to do with hikers or ramblers, just economics.

By the way, I didn’t mention “the south”, please read the quote again, nor did I object to cascading. Northern struggle to make ends meet and it would be daft to lease new Tubostars for our 20 minute journey into Manchester. Oh and, just for the record, I am a southerner.

I do apologise, I was concentrating on the  comment that the south get shiny new trains and the old stuff pushed up north. The point I was making was in agreement, the scenic route from Sheffield is not going to get the serious punters and yes, for a 20 min journey to Manc, it's not really a problem.

The commute  I was referring to was the Reading to Basingstoke line which again, a 20 min journey on an old rattler was no bother. Incidentally, FGW run these far more frequently than British Rail where they ran 1 an hour until the evening when we were lucky to get a train after 10 pm

[alstan]

I find a lot of northerners have a chip on their shoulder re. 'the south' 

Cascading rolling stock has for many years been both policy and practice. The stock is owned by leasing companies (ROSCOs) and the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) lease the stock from them . As stock ages its leasing cost falls and because of that they gravitate towards the TOCs which are financially hard  pressed. Northern Rail is possibly the best example but it also includes, among others, Merseyrail, Arriva Trains Wales with their Valley Lines services and, to a lesser degree, First Great Western with their Bristol suburban services and one or two other lines, including Reading to Basingstoke

A good example of cascading occurred a couple of years ago. London Overground got a delivery of brand new Turbostars and their Sprinters, built in the mid 1980s were passed down to First Great Western, their old Pacers, the lowest of the low, no bogies, just two axles, were then cascaded down to Northern.

It doesn’t have much to do with hikers or ramblers, just economics.

By the way, I didn’t mention “the south”, please read the quote again, nor did I object to cascading. Northern struggle to make ends meet and it would be daft to lease new Tubostars for our 20 minute journey into Manchester. Oh and, just for the record, I am a southerner.

[Duke Fame]

I  agree with you, Barbara, in relation to our local rolling stock. It’s called cascading. The south east get the shiny new trains and pass their 15/20 year old stock on to the Midlands who pass their 25/30 year old stock up North. However, with regard to the cost of fares it is not just seniors who benefit from Virgin’s progressive and easy to operate (provided you have access to a computer) ticketing system. There are ten other railcards which provide discounts and, even if you are one of the estimated 33% who are unable to access a railcard, you can still get to Euston and back for £25.

Good contribution but for the bit above. It's not a north-south thing, after all, it's just down to the individual companies. However, you will find the popular routes get the newer trains whilst the slower, least popular routes , understandably, get the older stock.

For example, my old commute was in rather clumsily adapted ex-slam-door trains and last time I was down 'home' last summer, the route ran 'sprinter' trains which are similar to whatever we have in Marple. The marple trains also suffer from the use of ramblers, hikers and bikers so the best trains are not likely to be used as so much space is given over to storage.

I find a lot of northerners have a chip on their shoulder re. 'the south' but I find what they really mean when the y say 'the south' they mean London. It may be fair to say London gets the better trains but there are a hell of a lot more commuters going to London than doing the scenic route from Sheffield to Manchester.