British Rail-Who wants it back

[symyjym]

Definition of efficiency – “Getting the most out – when putting the least in”.
In 1959 there were about 1,000,000 railway employees – in the early nineties it was 100,000.
In the late eighties, British rail were carrying more passengers than at any time in their history!

Definition of efficiency -The good use of time and energy in a way that does not waste any:

Definition of inefficient - Not achieving maximum productivity; wasting or failing to make the best use of time or resources.

 

[GT49er]

Definition of efficiency – “Getting the most out – when putting the least in”.
In 1959 there were about 1,000,000 railway employees – in the early nineties it was 100,000.
In the late eighties, British rail were carrying more passengers than at any time in their history!

Yes, but they were not then (in the 90s) forced to act as common carriers, delivering small amounts of freight and parcels to most stations on a daily basis. More passengers, yes, less items of freight.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I look back on them with fond memories. Ticketing was incredibly simple and cheap, stations were staffed, staff were helpful and knowledgable, services were integrated.

Then we have very different BR experiences HT

 

[DataPoint]

That doesn't make them the 5th most efficient organisation in the world, i would just say that they were at least ten times less efficient beforehand. BR were a joke, everything that we need to avoid

No – you’re wrong! They were never more efficient than at that time – every possible saving that could be made, was. Especially on staffing - which became dangerously low as deserted stations relied on ticket machines and “penalty fare” threats to balance the books.
Was it a great service? Off course not! Was it cost effective? Absolutely! Never in the history of railways in Britain had the expenditure been as relatively low.

Private or nationalised it won’t make any difference. Britain’s railways are an enigma.

 

[Hampster Gull]

No – you’re wrong! They were never more efficient than at that time – every possible saving that could be made, was. Especially on staffing - which became dangerously low as deserted stations relied on ticket machines and “penalty fare” threats to balance the books.
Was it a great service? Off course not! Was it cost effective? Absolutely! Never in the history of railways in Britain had the expenditure been as relatively low.

Private or nationalised it won’t make any difference. Britain’s railways are an enigma.

Nope, I'm not wrong. BR was never the 5th most efficient organisation in the world. I am flabbergasted that anyone would argue that it was true, but hey ho, i will leave it there.

 

[beorhthelm]

Did I say that?

Why should one mean the other?

Are you a bit dim?

whoever said it was correct. if the rail isnt asking the passengers to pay, then the tax payer is picking up the difference. you cant expand public services without expanding tax receipts, taking more from somewhere else in the economy. one can discuss who pays that, but it must be paid. anyone who doesnt understand this is very dim, hoodwinked into fantasy economics.

 

[beorhthelm]

No – you’re wrong! They were never more efficient than at that time – every possible saving that could be made, was. Especially on staffing - which became dangerously low as deserted stations relied on ticket machines and “penalty fare” threats to balance the books.
Was it a great service? Off course not! Was it cost effective? Absolutely! Never in the history of railways in Britain had the expenditure been as relatively low.

doesnt make for one of the most efficient organisation in the world. methinks your German friend had meant 5th most efficient railway organisation.

 

[fat old seagull]

Then we have very different BR experiences HT

I can only imagine that if you think that the railways today aren't a shambles compared to bygone days, you clearly don't use them.

 

[Beach Hut]

whoever said it was correct. if the rail isnt asking the passengers to pay, then the tax payer is picking up the difference. you cant expand public services without expanding tax receipts, taking more from somewhere else in the economy. one can discuss who pays that, but it must be paid. anyone who doesnt understand this is very dim, hoodwinked into fantasy economics.

I said it some people look on past industries and have zero understanding on cost to tax payers

 

[Bry Nylon]

I don't have any particular ideological bias as to what the business model should be - private or state owned. I just want it to be easy.

I travel around the country a fair bit and the option of going by rail often seems quite appealing - especially for long trips. However the convoluted hoops that you are forced to jump through to establish routes, operators, connections etc just make it too much effort - especially when at the back of your mind there is always that nagging doubt that the TOCs know more than you so you end up paying way more than necessary.

So I always end up driving instead. That can't be right. Just make it EASY.

 

[Beach Hut]

I don't have any particular ideological bias as to what the business model should be - private or state owned. I just want it to be easy.

I travel around the country a fair bit and the option of going by rail often seems quite appealing - especially for long trips. However the convoluted hoops that you are forced to jump through to establish routes, operators, connections etc just make it too much effort - especially when at the back of your mind there is always that nagging doubt that the TOCs know more than you so you end up paying way more than necessary.

So I always end up driving instead. That can't be right. Just make it EASY.

The fares system is ludicrous now and needs a total overhaul there are far too many advanced purchase tickets and gimmicky offers

 

[danielson81]

BR in the early 1990s, quite interesting. https://youtu.be/sULj6UpGAyU

 

[Diego Napier]

whoever said it was correct. if the rail isnt asking the passengers to pay, then the tax payer is picking up the difference. you cant expand public services without expanding tax receipts, taking more from somewhere else in the economy. one can discuss who pays that, but it must be paid. anyone who doesnt understand this is very dim, hoodwinked into fantasy economics.

What a load of old cant.

Here's some economic news for you; it's already being paid and being used inefficiently. Tax receipts subsidise privatised UK rail franchises to the tune of £4bn per annum, companies that still manage to pay dividends approaching £200m to their shareholders whilst charging us commuters on average 3 times more of our salary (for less reliable services) than German, French and Spanish travellers pay for similar length journeys.

 

[Beach Hut]

whilst charging us commuters on average 3 times more of our salary (for less reliable services) than German, French and Spanish travellers pay for similar length journeys.

And ignoring the fact those three countries have no National Health fund and exact higher tax, nothing is free you know these days

 

[Guy Fawkes]

What a load of old cant.

Here's some economic news for you; it's already being paid and being used inefficiently. Tax receipts subsidise privatised UK rail franchises to the tune of £4bn per annum, companies that still manage to pay dividends approaching £200m to their shareholders whilst charging us commuters on average 3 times more of our salary (for less reliable services) than German, French and Spanish travellers pay for similar length journeys.

We have had to replace virtually the whole rolling stock and most of the slam door carriages have been replaced with more health and safety conscious carriages at considerable cost. How do you think the money appeared to pay for this?

 

[Beach Hut]

We have had to replace virtually the whole rolling stock and most of the slam door carriages have been replaced with more health and safety conscious carriages at considerable cost. How do you think the money appeared to pay for this?

Blissfully ignored under the assumption rolling stock is free

 

[beorhthelm]

Blissfully ignored under the assumption rolling stock is free

or new track, signals, or staffing, or pensions etc. the continental networks are smaller, so i assume either their costs are lower, fewer rolling stock, staff, paid less, or they have more subsidy. this is the thing ignored, for that few % going to shareholders, >95% of the subsidy is going to the rail, oh and including capped season ticket rates. i'd be better off if the tax payer picked up more of my ticket, but not quite fair on the vast majority that dont use rail.

 

[Diego Napier]

We have had to replace virtually the whole rolling stock and most of the slam door carriages have been replaced with more health and safety conscious carriages at considerable cost. How do you think the money appeared to pay for this?

Well, I imagine that it has been paid for by our taxes. What is the point you're struggling to make?

 

[Beach Hut]

Well, I imagine that it has been paid for by our taxes. What is the point you're struggling to make?

You are very wrong, taxes have contributed precious little to the railway as opposed to the NHS, you ignorance is truly stunning

 

[Diego Napier]

And ignoring the fact those three countries have no National Health fund and exact higher tax, nothing is free you know these days

As the topic under discussion was rail transport, I also naturally ignored those countries education, social security, defence, housing, statutory sick pay, carers allowance, foreign aid, debt payments, etc. expenditures. Thanks for your insightful closing comment though.