Sussex rail passengers protest at anticipated fare rise (From The Argus)

If I was a London commuter I would certainly be looking for an alternative means of transport or a new job - the people that make these decisions obviously have no consideration for the people that use the services. I have recently travelled on a London commuter train and have never seen such a miserable bunch of people - mind you it was a 12 carriage train that had been reduced to 4 carriages due to vandalism. Really, there must be a better alternative than throwing your hard earned cash to the railway companies (and being held to ransom in the process) - adding hours of (unpaid) time to your daily routine, waving goodbye to any chance of a social life in the week, missing time with the kids / family and probably feeling constantly tired? I now walk to work, OK I don't earn a few extra grand for London but I would suggest that a far better quality of life far outweighes the extra money much of which is handed over to the train company anyway.

This will show those rail companies that have increased fares above inflation for the last 10 years. If only people had tried protesting before.

Just think... all those fare
hikes to fund extensive rail improvements - all the bus replacement services that saved the rail companies money whilst not affecting performance ratings.

So many rail managers on £200000 a year will be shocked to find out the people they, and successive governments, have been shafting for so long were not happy. Well, well, well.

The protesters should think themselves lucky. They would pay much more if the tax payers subsidies were removed. I don't see why people travelling to work by train should expect to be subsidised by others. The same goes for people using trains for leisure. Tax payers are effectively funding their holidays.

Morpheus wrote:
The protesters should think themselves lucky. They would pay much more if the tax payers subsidies were removed. I don't see why people travelling to work by train should expect to be subsidised by others. The same goes for people using trains for leisure. Tax payers are effectively funding their holidays.

I totally agree Morpheus. Why should people have their travel subsidised? It's the same with those car drivers going to shops on roads that my taxes have paid for! They're just leeches! That's why I always travel by jet pack to avoid putting a single foot down on publicly subsidised land. I suggest that perhaps others should do the same!

Morpheus wrote:
The protesters should think themselves lucky. They would pay much more if the tax payers subsidies were removed. I don't see why people travelling to work by train should expect to be subsidised by others. The same goes for people using trains for leisure. Tax payers are effectively funding their holidays.

Ah! There speaks a motorist fed up with subsidising other forms of transport because they pay WAY too much tax on petrol!

You obviously have a point, but there are other issues at stake. Firstly there is the campaign to get people to stop driving and use public transport. Nobody willingly commutes to London by train (I certainly don't), so there has to be some advantage in doing so and cheaper cost is a great incentive. Or rather it would be if it WERE significantly cheaper - which it isn't.

Secondly the rail operators all make a profit, so the subsidies don't actually help the travellers, they simply line the pockets of the private companies (who gleefully jack up the fares as much as they are allowed)

Why does Morpheus keep advocating the kind of economic policies successful only to a remote group of Peruvian goat farmers?

The protest was a bit of a damp squib.

Apparently, most of the protesters were held up behind a train awaiting fitters' attention because the indicator light on the disabled toilet was broken and arrived three hours late.

The commuters are treated as a cash cow thats it. The private firms put their prices up because they can and they are allowed to. It's completely wrong, and it's just to satisfy the greedy shareholders and chief executives with their pig noses in the trough. There has to be a limit to these increases and a point where it becomes uneconomical to commute every day. Since the experience of commuting does not improve, trains are getting fairly old, and trains are late, the increases year on year are totally unjustified. The only reason is to increase profits for the private companies. I feel for the commuters, there is no other method that could get them into work quicker. The rail companies know this and just put prices up indiscriminately. It's disgusting.

Goldenwight wrote:
The protest was a bit of a damp squib.

Apparently, most of the protesters were held up behind a train awaiting fitters' attention because the indicator light on the disabled toilet was broken and arrived three hours late.

Disabled toilets are not the same thing as toilets for disabled people.
Aren't disabled toilets just ordinary toilets that have been locked so they don't have to be cleaned? It seems to be becoming customary.

Morpheus will, no doubt, want to know why disabled people are being subsidised to travel by rail? Many of them have perfectly good subsidised wheels they should use on the subsidised pavements outside their subsidised houses.

We have the most expensive rail fares in Europe.Why??????????
??

These rises are completely unacceptable. They should not be tolerated. Action must be taken. Can you imagine this type of inflammatory, provocative and aggressive action being accepted anywhere else in Europe right now, in the middle of a deep recession. The government need to rethink this very quickly.

Joshiman wrote:
We have the most expensive rail fares in Europe.Why??????????

??

because there allowed to get away with it,i would really love to be a fly on the wall in government when they decide to allow these hikes to keep happening,where is the justification!!!!!

I blame The Green Party for encouraging this type of protester to Brighton. This place is going downhill fast due to all these so-called commuters.

Why can't they all get a job? (...a bit closer to home).

Alan G Skinner wrote:
These rises are completely unacceptable. They should not be tolerated. Action must be taken. Can you imagine this type of inflammatory, provocative and aggressive action being accepted anywhere else in Europe right now, in the middle of a deep recession. The government need to rethink this very quickly.

I think you will find it is a case of 'mind over matter'.
The government don't mind and the people don't matter.

"Hike". Ouch. Are we in America?

timm wrote:
"Hike". Ouch. Are we in America?

No, if we were in America there wouldn't be a functioning passenger rail system.

southwicker2 wrote:
If I was a London commuter I would certainly be looking for an alternative means of transport or a new job - the people that make these decisions obviously have no consideration for the people that use the services. I have recently travelled on a London commuter train and have never seen such a miserable bunch of people - mind you it was a 12 carriage train that had been reduced to 4 carriages due to vandalism. Really, there must be a better alternative than throwing your hard earned cash to the railway companies (and being held to ransom in the process) - adding hours of (unpaid) time to your daily routine, waving goodbye to any chance of a social life in the week, missing time with the kids / family and probably feeling constantly tired? I now walk to work, OK I don't earn a few extra grand for London but I would suggest that a far better quality of life far outweighes the extra money much of which is handed over to the train company anyway.

Yeah I agree. I have considered it, but I like my local job and short driving commute. Compare that to having to get up at 6am and getting home at 7 or 8 at night 5 days a week with no social life for a bit more extra money I won't be able to enjoy I think i'll keep doing what I am doing. Maybe do it for a couple of years to get the mortgage down or save some money perhaps but not long term it must be a killer to your morale and social life.

It certainly seems a lot but when you break it down it means that the least expensive fare is just over £10 a day for travelling a 100 miles. How much does it cost for a bus ride in Brighton and Hove and yet the Bus costs less to set up.

The Argus should use an FOI to find out how much money in subsidy Southern & First Capital get from us tax payers!

To all those saying that we commuters choose the life, this is not true, there are simply no jobs doing what I do in Brighton, I either work in London or claim the dole. I would give my right arm to work in Brighton and would gladly take a pay cut to not have to get on the stinking, noisy and uncomfortable trains every day. It really is a third rate service for which we pay top-wack.

DSummers wrote:
To all those saying that we commuters choose the life, this is not true, there are simply no jobs doing what I do in Brighton, I either work in London or claim the dole. I would give my right arm to work in Brighton and would gladly take a pay cut to not have to get on the stinking, noisy and uncomfortable trains every day. It really is a third rate service for which we pay top-wack.

Exactly the same here. I once had a nice and easy 15 minute stroll to work (at a rather well known company based in Edward Street) but got made redundant some years ago. Wanting to stay in the same line of work forced me to London as there were/are no jobs in Brighton doing what I do. My commute is not a choice, it is a necessity.

southwicker2 wrote:
If I was a London commuter I would certainly be looking for an alternative means of transport or a new job - the people that make these decisions obviously have no consideration for the people that use the services. I have recently travelled on a London commuter train and have never seen such a miserable bunch of people - mind you it was a 12 carriage train that had been reduced to 4 carriages due to vandalism. Really, there must be a better alternative than throwing your hard earned cash to the railway companies (and being held to ransom in the process) - adding hours of (unpaid) time to your daily routine, waving goodbye to any chance of a social life in the week, missing time with the kids / family and probably feeling constantly tired? I now walk to work, OK I don't earn a few extra grand for London but I would suggest that a far better quality of life far outweighes the extra money much of which is handed over to the train company anyway.

This is one of the reasons I have taken the decision to leave the commute and England. The 'london wage' doesn't really exist since the gross amount in difference only covers my trainticket, and because this is non tax deductable i'm actually worse off than when I did a similar job in Brighton.

How on earth official inflation figures are produced I don't know. With rising prices for utilities and commodities and now this. HMG really needs to be careful as the credibility of any statiistics produced will get seen as having NO credibility whatever - as opposed to just plain VIRTUALLY no credibility as at present.

Are the trains 6.2% better? Are you 6.2% more likely to get a seat?

As for comments regarding subsidies, blaming the Greens, being lucky... etc. Get a grip people. The road network is funded (virtually) wholly by the taxpayer. The Greens don't set national transport policy (in so far as the UK can be said to have a national transport policy). As for lucky, when we pay through the nose for overcrowded unreliable services while train leasing companies (mostly city 'investment' money) make a packet from covering the cracks in the franchising system, it's they who are lucky we're so busy arguing amonst ourselves that we don't start asking some pretty basic questions.

The notions on which privitisation were sold to the public on have been shown to be utterly false. While marketing may be better these days, for the rest, the amount of public subsidy going to prop up the profits of private operators dwarfs the costs of the former British Rail, which although far from perfect represented far better value for money than the present set up.

The old nationalised model isn't what I'd argue for, but for a publicly owned company, operating under it's own charter (to prevent the whole thing becoming a political football as in the past), professionally run and accountable to it's shareholders - the public. 'Ownership' of huge swathes of the domestic rail industry by Deutsche Bahn, the SNCF or other state enterprises makes a total mockery of the concept of 'privatisation', and it's high time the UK stopped allowing it's infrastructure to be sacrificed on the alter of globalisation.

The Heretic wrote:
How on earth official inflation figures are produced I don't know. With rising prices for utilities and commodities and now this. HMG really needs to be careful as the credibility of any statiistics produced will get seen as having NO credibility whatever - as opposed to just plain VIRTUALLY no credibility as at present.

Are the trains 6.2% better? Are you 6.2% more likely to get a seat?

As for comments regarding subsidies, blaming the Greens, being lucky... etc. Get a grip people. The road network is funded (virtually) wholly by the taxpayer. The Greens don't set national transport policy (in so far as the UK can be said to have a national transport policy). As for lucky, when we pay through the nose for overcrowded unreliable services while train leasing companies (mostly city 'investment' money) make a packet from covering the cracks in the franchising system, it's they who are lucky we're so busy arguing amonst ourselves that we don't start asking some pretty basic questions.

The notions on which privitisation were sold to the public on have been shown to be utterly false. While marketing may be better these days, for the rest, the amount of public subsidy going to prop up the profits of private operators dwarfs the costs of the former British Rail, which although far from perfect represented far better value for money than the present set up.

The old nationalised model isn't what I'd argue for, but for a publicly owned company, operating under it's own charter (to prevent the whole thing becoming a political football as in the past), professionally run and accountable to it's shareholders - the public. 'Ownership' of huge swathes of the domestic rail industry by Deutsche Bahn, the SNCF or other state enterprises makes a total mockery of the concept of 'privatisation', and it's high time the UK stopped allowing it's infrastructure to be sacrificed on the alter of globalisation.

My wife travels on SNCF with super trains on time and the equivilent of 150 miles for £20.All the time the consumer allows the Railways to get away with it they will continue to do so.

Dr.Draconian wrote:
The Argus should use an FOI to find out how much money in subsidy Southern & First Capital get from us tax payers!

That would involve some "journalism".

The UK govt subsidises the rail system by £4 billion per year.
In the EU the level is considerably higher. However, one Italy, Spain and Greece go bust they wont have the money to offer such subsidies.
In the UK, it must be getting to the point where it would be economical for a group of commuters to share a car journey and share the costs of the car, fuel and parking at the nearest tube.
Has anyone done the maths?

One of the reasons things are the way they are in this country is that the British people just accept things and it isn't in the British nature to get out on the streets, demonstrate, protest and if necessary cause a riot. They wouldn't stand for it in a lot of other countries. Things cant be done if the people rise up and refuse to accept it. The poll tax was a good example. But we will have people moaning for a week or two then all pay the extra money for their tickets and so it will continue. If the masses got out there and stopped the railways running so the country was grinding to a halt, it would soon be reviewed.

PorkBoat wrote:

Dr.Draconian wrote:
The Argus should use an FOI to find out how much money in subsidy Southern & First Capital get from us tax payers!

That would involve some "journalism".

and a couple of hundred quick of taxpayers' money, for some civil service lackey to do a little mouse clicking, and respond to the FoI request.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The UK govt subsidises the rail system by £4 billion per year.
In the EU the level is considerably higher. However, one Italy, Spain and Greece go bust they wont have the money to offer such subsidies.
In the UK, it must be getting to the point where it would be economical for a group of commuters to share a car journey and share the costs of the car, fuel and parking at the nearest tube.
Has anyone done the maths?

Yep, that's why London took a punt on the congestion charge, and now they've got away with that, watch out everywhere else!!

Plenty of angry comments but the lack of knowledge of who is to blame and why is worrying and that will be why they will get away with it. Commuters who spend so much time and money on the railways could do more to learn the system that they contribute to.

My old dad is a retired design engineer for a German company which worked on railways all over the world from HongKong to the USA.
He tells me that 30 years ago it was calculated that it would be cheaper to rip out all the rail lines and turn them into highways for road freight and passenger bus transport only, freeing up motorways for cars/motorbikes.
He said the problems in the UK are the high labour costs to maintain the rail infrastructure which is a lot of high tech gear and the lack of Govt subsidy.

The problem of cost primarily lies in the idealogical breakup of the nationalised railway system in the 90s replacing one body with 104 privatised companies, a complicated regulatory framework and disenfrinchising the customer (passenger and local transport authorities). BR was often good, often dire but on the relative cheap. Money has been pumped in on an incredible scale to keep the whole thing going. It is largely private yet controlled by Whitehall. The worst sort of compromise. Civil servants guarenteeing private profits and fat salaries at the top for no / low risk. Much of which now ironically goes to foreign nationalised railways as they own most of the train franchises! Check out Germany; better trains and stations, equivalent frequencies, high levels of investment, more customer friendly and responsive and way cheaper fares and the railways remain mostly in public hands.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
My old dad is a retired design engineer for a German company which worked on railways all over the world from HongKong to the USA. He tells me that 30 years ago it was calculated that it would be cheaper to rip out all the rail lines and turn them into highways for road freight and passenger bus transport only, freeing up motorways for cars/motorbikes. He said the problems in the UK are the high labour costs to maintain the rail infrastructure which is a lot of high tech gear and the lack of Govt subsidy.

If the railways were allowed to kill a comparable number of people a year compared to the roads then no doubt the railways would be more cost competative.

What a silly thing to say HJarrs.
Actually there are more deaths on A roads and residential roads than motorways and also the majority are pedestrian deaths, which although may be speed related are due to pedestrian error of stepping into roads etc and therefore, it is likely that a road freight/passenger route wihtout cars via a former rail route without any cross junctions or pedestrians would in fact be safer and have a safety record comparable to rail taking into account the passenger numbers transported.
Perhaps you have seen the Govt figures released this week about the 24 per cent increase in pedestrian deaths in 20mph zones in a year in the UK. However, perhaps we could also look at the recent horrific rail incidents and the lack of safety from the fact that we allow passengers to sit on the floor and standing in packed conditions without anything to hold onto which is not allowed in any other vehicle.
Ripping up rail isn't such a mad idea after all because the current system is pretty atrocious and if you have spent peak time on the tube at stations like Kings Cross you will know that this is one of the more dangerous and unacceptable examples of human transport I have encountered apart from being on a bus in Salvador with a cocaine fuelled driver trying to stay awake on a 24 hour journey.
British rail transport is poor unless you are rich and rich in time.

Joshiman wrote:
We have the most expensive rail fares in Europe.Why??????????

??

because the railways are in private hands, most of Europes railways are state owned, with proper investment from public funds. the public then benefit from lower fares!

What makes me laugh is the government keeps going on about how these fare rises will pay for all the planned rail improvements and investment, when those that are planned down this way i.e. the new Thameslink trains, the contract hasn't even been signed off yet and is delayed, we won't see the benefits of that for years yet!

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
What a silly thing to say HJarrs. Actually there are more deaths on A roads and residential roads than motorways and also the majority are pedestrian deaths, which although may be speed related are due to pedestrian error of stepping into roads etc and therefore, it is likely that a road freight/passenger route wihtout cars via a former rail route without any cross junctions or pedestrians would in fact be safer and have a safety record comparable to rail taking into account the passenger numbers transported. Perhaps you have seen the Govt figures released this week about the 24 per cent increase in pedestrian deaths in 20mph zones in a year in the UK. However, perhaps we could also look at the recent horrific rail incidents and the lack of safety from the fact that we allow passengers to sit on the floor and standing in packed conditions without anything to hold onto which is not allowed in any other vehicle. Ripping up rail isn't such a mad idea after all because the current system is pretty atrocious and if you have spent peak time on the tube at stations like Kings Cross you will know that this is one of the more dangerous and unacceptable examples of human transport I have encountered apart from being on a bus in Salvador with a cocaine fuelled driver trying to stay awake on a 24 hour journey. British rail transport is poor unless you are rich and rich in time.

Which horrific rail incident? There has not been a train crash with a passenger death since 2007 to my knowledge. The reason you remember train crashes is that rightly a great song and dance is made. The last death of a car driver or passenger was probably this morning; it might make the local paper.


Railways can make very efficient use of land. You simply could not convey the same amount of people as travel on the Brighton lines within the same space if you tarmac over the tracks (you would need another motorway)nor is there space for parking at either end of the journey given that Victoria alone has 73 million journies to / from it a year.

My point is that like is not compared with like and that a significant proportion of the cost is attributable to the industries structure.

Oh so it's ok that the last horrific crash was in 2007. I think the people who lost their lives in the Paddington rail crash and the staff who suffered PTSD would disagree.
You are like some born again evangelical with regards to anything green or Green.
The rail system is failing. Face it.
Your lot do nothing to address it, you don't even accept or even acknowledge any negative issues about eco issues because your obsessive devotion to eco ideology has removed your ability to be objective.
You say you are not religious, but you actually show the same psychological, blind faith that religious people do so you have a religion of a type.
Public transport in the UK is a disaster.
I paid £49.30 for a rail ticket to London last week without a seat. Shocking. Then the train was late for both journeys.
So while you can meander about in your flexi-time manner, ther est of us have key meetings to attend and cannot rely on overly priced, poor public transport solutions.
They are fit for leisure travel only.