Trains and fares

And before the boom in road freight, the local lines and overstaffing made it possible to send stuff door to door pretty quickly. But it only worked because people were paid peanuts and lived cheaply in a council house and eating cheap imported meat, dairy and fruit from NZ and other places.

Think they were initially created by driving cattle to a market, etc.

Heavy vehicles have never paid the true costs of them using the roads.

Tee hee. Ever actually watch local London news today?

The congestion on all of the london area PT today is far far worse than when I first worked in London some 50 years ago.

Would you care to speculate the percentage of the average wage spent on food then against now?

Typical of one who gives himself such a pretentious name. Most don't give a flying f**k who owns a company if it works well for them.

Typically trains go by road because:

- there's some fault which means they can't be run on the main line

- they're speed limited such they would cause congestion

- there's no paths for them because the lines are too busy

- they're not cleared for a particular route (a route needs to be assessed to check the train will fit, and be compatible with signalling, traction, etc)

- they're going somewhere without a rail connection (some industrial sites, preserved railways, metro systems)

It's better to send one coach by road if the alternative is cancelling a 12 car train.

It's roughly the same question as 'why do people trailer cars?'. Answer: they don't if they can be driven, but sometimes they can't.

Theo

ITYM 'HM Treasury', by means of the Department for Transport and Network Rail. Operating companies are cash-light franchises: lots of cashflow, relatively little cash investment (but investment in branding, marketing etc). Look at how much public money goes into Network Rail. The idea of 'profit' or 'subsidy' of train companies is mythical because the amount of money they pay Network Rail, and the amount paid directly from the Treasury, are essentially an arbitrary division.

Rolling stock companies do invest cash, but this is like the car market where previously everyone owned their car outright and now they all lease it and the freehold is owned by a bank. It's actually less efficient (the bank takes their profit) but it means you can get something newer quicker. You do end up paying more at the end of the day.

(also, now-30-year-old trains were sold off cheap at privatisation and now cost far more to lease than depreciation would suggest)

Theo

Southern has mostly 15-YO stock, Thameslink and Gatwick express much newer stock. South West Trains has fairly new trains, and a lot of GWR stock is quite recent too.

This is principally because the railways were (and are) not privatised in any meaningful sense.

Not on my commuter route, they are mostly the original sliding door stuff which must be well over 20 years old.

and SWT lost their franchise nearly a year ago - it's now South Western Railway.

Because you couldn't have a fully privatized service with competition as is usually thought of. Same really as water etc supplies.

That's because Southern/SWT/Southeastern 10-15 years ago replaced the previous generation of stock that was ~50 years old. Likewise GWR are currently replacing 40 year old HSTs.

Look at the stock for Greater Anglia:

or Arriva Trains Wales:

- a lot of 1980s stock there.

Recently, the price of borrowing is so low that lots of rolling stock deals have been done, precisely because it's cheaper to pay lease fees and interest to the bank for new trains than it is to lease 30 year old trains that should be fully depreciated. Even more so, the new South Western Railway are sending nearly-new class 707 trains (built 2016/17) back to the leasing company because they could sign a cheaper leasing deal for new trains built by someone else:

Theo

It ws more than 15 years ago on SWT. I was still commuting by train at the time - so before 1990.

I would say that applies to most commuters.

In fact I don't see any argument, unless you vote communist and only read the Morning Star.

Yes, it is vital to 'swipe out' when leaving the station, even if it is unmanned, to ensure you pay the correct fare, otherwise a penalty fare is charged.

The problem for vistors to London was the Oyster card, as they invariably returned home with a card with unused credit on it but the good news is that you no longer need an Oyster card as any contactless credit or debit card can now be used instead.

The only thing to be aware of is that, if you have more than one, that you always use the same card.

Fares in London are capped so, for example, if you use the buses, which have a flat fare of £1.50, the fare is capped after the third journey until 0330 (might be 0430) the following day, no matter how many buses you use but you still have to 'swipe' your card on each journey. Obviously, if you use more than one card, you will start multiple accounts, which could prove costly!

From wikipedia:

Class 401 (BIL): 1935-1971 Class 402 (HAL): 1939-1971 Class 404 (COR): 1937-1972 Class 405 (SUB): 1941-1983 Class 415/416 (EPB): 1951-1995 Class 411 (CEP): 1956-2005 Class 421 (CIG): 1964-2005 (Lymington branch until 2010) Class 423 (VEP): 1967-2005 Class 455: 1982-present Class 442: 1988-2017 (left SWT 2007) Class 159: 1993-present Class 444: 2004-present Class 450: 2003-present Class 456: 1991-present (mostly on Southern, only recently on SWT) Class 458: 2000-present Class 707: 2017-2019 (handing back to leasing company)

Theo

I'll be down there next week, as much as I detest the place it's work...

Can you just walk up to a tube station and use a contactless credit/debit card without setting up an "account" with TfL before hand? The TfL site pushes you towards an account but sort of mentions you don't *need* one. Bear in mind it was some time last centuary that I last went to London so an account seems a bit superflous but I need some form of receipt to put the fares against tax.

Yes.