Trains Killing Jobs

[workingnomad]

Bloody hell. What tales of misery and commuting hell. I'm glad i don't commute it only takes me 5 mins to drive to work. Why do the commute. Move house or move job. Less money is worth it to save that hell. Unless you are paid £50k there and you will only earn 20K locally I can't see the point.

I agree. I used to commute in London and I just remember seeing the sad old faces of me in their 40s/50s doing the same and that woke me up, no way did I want to end up like that.

People that commute into London are mugs.

[Guest happy?]

+1

The south-east is already overcrowded - I don't think anyone will disagree with that.

Yet the government carries on subsidising new transport infrastructure in the region, which will inevitably make it even more attractive for businesses, bring in more workers, etc...

For example, the proposed Crossrail link will get funding "of over £5 billion" from the taxpayer (info from the crossrail site) - and as big infrastructure projects invariably go massively over budget, the total funding received from the taxpayer could well end up being several times that.

Now, don't get me wrong - large rail projects need state help to get off the ground. However, this means that the state has a hand in deciding which parts of the country will get new infrastructure, followed by economic growth. They need to use that power wisely.

I think you'll find CrossRail will never get off the ground - they intend tunnelling.

[catmandu]

My main bug bear is having to pay silly money to travel before 9am though. Travelling for meetings in London from Brighton which is only a 50 minute journey is over £20 normally which seems steep enough. Travel before 9am though and you have to pay more than £40.

I think in Tokyo there is a slightly different incentive system - travel before 9:30, pay exactly the same as at any other time but not have the ability to read a book or even change the tune on your ipod. Travel after 9:30 and you might just have space to read a multiple times folded newspaper. `course after 9:30 you don't get the nice guy with white gloves helping you get into the carriage.

In Tokyo on all lines, it's physically impossible to get more trains running down the line during rush hour - the train companies really do do their best to maximise capacity (e.g. train leaves every 2-3 minutes). I wonder can the same be said about London? - I've never lived there but would be interested to know.

[piece of paper]

The playing field is already badly skewed in favour of London.

Despite the complaints about high fares in London, they are still substantially subsidised.

The Tube raises almost exactly half its revenue in fares, the other half comes direct from the government,

Network Rail receives a grant almost exactly the same size as the Underground, and most of Network Rail's track is in the South-East and London.

.................................

I agree that these subsidies should be scrapped. I don't think that fares would necessarily rise that much because the rail companies would be forced to generate their revenue from providing services rather than expoliting the small print of the subsidy legislation.

p-o-p

[Quagmire]

I paid $3.50 (£1.47) today to get into Auckland by train today. The train was clean and timely.

I'm convinced that in the UK the train operators weigh up the cost of driving to a location and price the train ticket to be slightly cheaper (with convenience taken into account).

Rip-off Britain is alive and well. Do yourself a favour, leave the shithole.

[Greg Bowman]

The playing field is already badly skewed in favour of London.

If the market wasn't rigged in favour of Londoners, train and tube fares would be roughly 100% higher, which would force businesses out of London to the provinces, so you wouldn't need a regional policy. It would also significantly reduce taxes, as well as reducing over-population in London and reduce the depopulation in Northern and Scottish cities.

I agree it is already skewed in favour of a world city that competes hard for and wins billions of pounds of investment. We pay significantly higher housing costs which lead to higher salaries- which are paid because the world wants to be in London not the provinces.

If you think the only thing going for London is the tube than you obviously do belong in the provinces, which are called that for a reason.

I think this sums it up quite well:

Main Entry: Province

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: rural area; area away from city

Synonyms: back country, backwoods, boondocks, boonies, bush, countryside, cow country, farmland, farms, forests, green belt, hinterland, middle of nowhere, outback, outdoors, province, sticks, up country, wide open space, wilderness, wilds, woodlands, woods

Edited September 12, 2009 by Greg Bowman

[DTMark]

I'd say it was this way round (corrected inline)

I'm convinced that in the UK the train operators weigh up the cost of driving to a location and price the train ticket to be slightly more expensive (without the inconvenience taken into account).

Rip-off Britain is alive and well. Do yourself a favour, leave the shithole.

We are :-)

I also don't know why anyone would want to work in London, unless you're on 60k plus you can get the same job elsewhere paying the same or more; for most jobs London is not well paid. But then people were moving to London centuries ago when it was infested with rats and plague. It has some mystical quality that attracts people.

[Guest happy?]

I'd say it was this way round (corrected inline)

We are :-)

I also don't know why anyone would want to work in London, unless you're on 60k plus you can get the same job elsewhere paying the same or more; for most jobs London is not well paid. But then people were moving to London centuries ago when it was infested with rats and plague. It has some mystical quality that attracts people.

Straightforward indoctrination as children. Made to watch panto on Auntie Pravda or worse taken to one by a well-meaning relative. Learn about cat Whittington and his dick and end-up believing streets paved with gold.

They never learn.

[pl1]

Why commute? Sony TL50 and an xDSL connection or SIP trunk.

Not all jobs can be done over 'tinternet. Some jobs still actually require you to physically be in situ believe it or not.

Edited September 12, 2009 by pl1

[winkie]

Nothing better than doing business face to face, eye to eye, touchy-feely, shake a hand...nod and and a wink so to speak, and to do that we need mobility, reliable affordable transport available to everyone....if not we might as well stay at home, save our pennies and deal on-line.

[porca misèria]

the tube is also subsidised by charging tourists £4 per journey if they can't work out how to apply for an oyster card.

Never mind "can't work out". I got done for four squid crossing London, having come off the sleeper at Paddington, and needing to get a boat train leaving Liverpool Street at about 7 a.m. I hadn't even heard of an oyster card, let alone how to get one in a hurry at that time of morning.

FWIW, that was a once-only. I always take the overnight ferry on that route now, so it's an evening train from Liverpool Street, and the morning on the return journey. The ferry is not much fun without a cabin, and the sleeper train to Paddington was a never-again experience. But the overnight ferry is a real pleasure, and the daytime train is OK.

[porca misèria]

I agree. I used to commute in London and I just remember seeing the sad old faces of me in their 40s/50s doing the same and that woke me up, no way did I want to end up like that.

People that commute into London are mugs.

I did for a couple of years.

Onna bike - quicker than anything else.

[winkie]

I did for a couple of years.

Onna bike - quicker than anything else.

You're brave.

[Vaevictus]

What with all this geen nonsense why has there been no encouragement in getting employers to offer a telecommute option to their workers? How many workers now sit in front of a pc all day, something they could do anywhere in the world?

because on the whole, people are lazy *******, and if they were at home with noone keeping an eye on them they would be even more lazy.

I speak from experience.

[daniel stallion]

Bloody hell. What tales of misery and commuting hell. I'm glad i don't commute it only takes me 5 mins to drive to work. Why do the commute. Move house or move job. Less money is worth it to save that hell. Unless you are paid £50k there and you will only earn 20K locally I can't see the point.

Quite.

However for me, my choice is:

1) Pay 800 quid a month (720 for the train 80 for parking) - to earn 71k a year in London

2) Move to London away from my friends, family, everything I care about and buy / rent a place I despise and suffer general misery

3) Earn nothing (OK, I could always earn something, but it doesn't sound so dramatic). Whilst applying for jobs earlier this year, I was prepared to work for 31k less than I get in London and still didn't even get an interview, despite months of many applications

I still weep gently each day as I get on my 720 a month train - on which I often have to stand (OK, dramatic effect again, but I have to stand probably 2-3 times a month)

Edit: user error

Edited September 12, 2009 by daniel stallion

[porca misèria]

Nothing better than doing business face to face, eye to eye, touchy-feely, shake a hand...nod and and a wink so to speak,

All that face-to-face contact favours the con-man.

I recollect blogging about how one particular Liar seemingly conned the nation into giving him support, and even in retrospect the benefit of the doubt:

http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2006/12/15/b...e-liars-friend/

The Indy today reports previously-suppressed evidence that the Prime Minister/Government never believed its own lies about Iraq.

That comes as no surprise to me. Throughout the lead in to the war, it seemed blatently obvious that Blair was lying. Just hearing his voice on the radio gave it away. So how come it wasn’t obvious to all those in the chattering classes who believed him, or at least gave him the benefit of the doubt?

Here’s a theory. Blair’s body language tells an altogether different story. So anyone who saw him on the telly saw a convincing display of a man who truly believed what he was saying.

This is courtroom technique in action. As a successful barrister, his job was always to convince an audience (jury) of a case. That would commonly involve a virtuoso display of distorting the truth out of all recognition. After all, a litigant who has truth on his side is unlikely to see any need for the hideous cost of a barrister, so his livelihood comes almost entirely from the dishonest.

So that’ll be why those who live by deception insist on the importance of face-to-face contact, while those of us who can’t or won’t lie can envisage a better world.

[winkie]

Quite.

However for me, my choice is:

1) Pay 800 quid a month (720 for the train 80 for parking) - to earn 71k a year in London

2) Move to London away from my friends, family, everything I care about and buy / rent a place I despise and suffer general misery

3) Earn nothing (OK, I could always earn something, but it doesn't sound so dramatic). Whilst applying for jobs earlier this year, I was prepared to work for 31k less than I get in London and still didn't even get an interview, despite months of many applications

I still weep gently each day as I get on my 720 a month train - on which I often have to stand (OK, dramatic effect again, but I have to stand probably 2-3 times a month)

Edit: user error

Give it up believe me it is not worth it.....life is short.

[DTMark]

To me, the most worrying aspect of the centralisation is that a "24" [tv] style small nuke placed in the middle of London would literally put an end to the country.

I think that the actual nature of the shift with the trains seems to have passed most people by.

Trains are not public transport. They are not a "utility". They are private enterprise only kept going with taxpayer money. Like the Banks. There is no particular requirement for "access to all" or that people should be able to afford them even when it no longer makes any sense.

The pricing is set at a level which squeezes the absolute maximum possible out of commuters who use them; I suspect that's gone a little too high now.

You either drive and pay extra tax (tax on fuel, road tax, city/congestion charges) or pay your money directly to the private train companies.

Even if, like me, you don't and won't use trains, you still have to pay for them through general taxation some of which is then given to the private companies. This is the UK Plc which gave up on "doing infrastructure" a long time ago in favour of corporate socialism.

[winkie]

To me, the most worrying aspect of the centralisation is that a "24" [tv] style small nuke placed in the middle of London would literally put an end to the country.

I think that the actual nature of the shift with the trains seems to have passed most people by.

Trains are not public transport. They are not a "utility". They are private enterprise only kept going with taxpayer money. Like the Banks. There is no particular requirement for "access to all" or that people should be able to afford them even when it no longer makes any sense.

The pricing is set at a level which squeezes the absolute maximum possible out of commuters who use them; I suspect that's gone a little too high now.

You either drive and pay extra tax (tax on fuel, road tax, city/congestion charges) or pay your money directly to the private train companies.

Even if, like me, you don't and won't use trains, you still have to pay for them through general taxation some of which is then given to the private companies. This is the UK Plc which gave up on "doing infrastructure" a long time ago in favour of corporate socialism.

There may come a day when driving is not a viable option.....we will then require a rail service that we can all rely on..fail to plan, plan to fail.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

not my forte so i know nothing of the costs involved in both but i simply cant understand the cost disparity between the trains and the budget airlines in the UK. Maybe the electricity companies are shafting them

[bugged bunny]

If you're one of those mugs who puts up with all that crap of living in the spectacularly overpopulated South East then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Stop moaning and take some positive action by voting with your feet.

I totally agree with comments that over-centralisation is a major blight on the UK (compare London to Paris and Rome - much more pleasant cities due to their significantly smaller size).

[winkie]

not my forte so i know nothing of the costs involved in both but i simply cant understand the cost disparity between the trains and the budget airlines in the UK. Maybe the electricity companies are shafting them

The budget airlines seem to act as well run businesses ...the train services seem to be bleeding money and are a drain on anyone who uses or wishes to use them.

[daniel stallion]

If you're one of those mugs who puts up with all that crap of living in the spectacularly overpopulated South East then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Stop moaning and take some positive action by voting with your feet.

I totally agree with comments that over-centralisation is a major blight on the UK (compare London to Paris and Rome - much more pleasant cities due to their significantly smaller size).

Yes Londoners. If you had an ounce of decency you would live elsewhere. You are spoiling the vista for others. Savages!

[ScaredEitherWay]

Skipped most of it ... but I think I picked up that the OP was in Reading?

If so, Reading to Paddington, 1 month season ticket, standard. £368/month = £85/week

Cheaper than many people running a car and driving 25-35 miles each way each day.

[bugged bunny]

Yes Londoners. If you had an ounce of decency you would live elsewhere. You are spoiling the vista for others. Savages!

It's just as much about doing something positive for yourself.