Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

The Don said:
My experiences are not consistent with yours. I've commuted on and off from Bristol to London by train since 1991 and my experience is that:

  • The fastest train used to take 59 minutes, the normal service was 1 hour 19 minutes now each is half an hour slower
  • Late arrivals into London in particular were rare, now 5-10 minutes late is par for the course
  • Ticket costs are significantly higher in real terms
  • There are fewer off-peak services
  • It's the same rolling stock

There are a couple of positive points, specifically airplane style seating and power points on board but that's it.

Now some of the problems (like late arrivals) are no doubt caused by increased traffic. I haven't mentioned overcrowding because that's also a function of greater popularity (although the non-stop Bristol service wouldn't have the Reading/Didcot/Swindon customers on it) and so would likely have occurred regardless.

I am comparing the low point of BR to the high point (so far) of post-privatisation. Who can say what would have happened if BR had the levels of investment and subsidy that the private rail companies have enjoyed.

I get a slower, less frequent, less reliable and more expensive service. :mad:
Click to expand...

Is that half an hour slower and still late by up to ten minutes.

I have certainly heard that rail times have been "padded" giving the operators a more generous window in which to arrive - although that's hearsay. The first time I remember reading about that was in the Lonely Planet Guide to Russia where the rail service was being mocked for its supposed punctuality being artificial. Similarly up to ten minutes late means that they are not recorded as late even though they are.

This doesn't mean I have only have a dim view of railway privatization. It works really well here in Japan.
 
angrysoba said:
Is that half an hour slower and still late by up to ten minutes.
Click to expand...

Yes. In the past the 0630 from Bristol Parkway would reliably get into London Paddington at 0730 or just before. Now the 0630 is scheduled to arrive at 0800 but in reality is usually there at 0810 or a little later.

angrysoba said:
I have certainly heard that rail times have been "padded" giving the operators a more generous window in which to arrive - although that's hearsay. The first time I remember reading about that was in the Lonely Planet Guide to Russia where the rail service was being mocked for its supposed punctuality being artificial. Similarly up to ten minutes late means that they are not recorded as late even though they are.
Click to expand...

That is true. Even with this generous definition of punctuality, it's still regularly less than 90% and in the past has barely scraped over 80% for "high speed" services

https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/about-us/our-business/performance

angrysoba said:
This doesn't mean I have only have a dim view of railway privatization. It works really well here in Japan.
Click to expand...

The issue for the last 100 years or so has been a chronic lack of investment. The two world wars put an immense strain on the system but there was never the investment to repair the network. Successive governments post-war saw railways as a business as opposed to part of the national infrastructure and so tried to limit subsidy.
 
asydhouse said:
The argument is actually that if we don't have them, there is no need for an enemy to attack us first with their own nuclear weapons. Nuclear states would not attack a non-nuclear state, making the place uninhabitable.
Click to expand...

I don't know who, specifically, is making this argument, but they don't know what they're talking about.
 
Antony said:
You forgot the plus point that the public address announcers now call us "customers" and not "passengers". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Is that because "passenger" implies that there will be some physical movement whereas "customer" merely implies a transfer of money from one party to the other ;)
 
angrysoba said:
Is that half an hour slower and still late by up to ten minutes.

I have certainly heard that rail times have been "padded" giving the operators a more generous window in which to arrive - although that's hearsay. The first time I remember reading about that was in the Lonely Planet Guide to Russia where the rail service was being mocked for its supposed punctuality being artificial. Similarly up to ten minutes late means that they are not recorded as late even though they are.

This doesn't mean I have only have a dim view of railway privatization. It works really well here in Japan.
Click to expand...


I have read, I think, that in Japan, if a train is seconds late, it's late, but I can't find a source.



(Edit - really should finsh reading before posting...)

"PPM represents the percentage of trains which are ‘on time’ compared to the total number of trains planned. A train is defined as on time if it arrives at its final destination within five minutes of the scheduled destination arrival time for London and South East and regional operators; or within ten minutes for long distance operators."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ent_data/file/443088/measurement-template.pdf
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
My experiences are not consistent with yours. I've commuted on and off from Bristol to London by train since 1991 and my experience is that:

  • The fastest train used to take 59 minutes, the normal service was 1 hour 19 minutes now each is half an hour slower
  • Late arrivals into London in particular were rare, now 5-10 minutes late is par for the course
  • Ticket costs are significantly higher in real terms
  • There are fewer off-peak services
  • It's the same rolling stock
Click to expand...
On the plus side the first group pay around £250m in dividends each year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom