Rail fares to rise by 3.1% in January
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Fullofsurprises
You may well be right, but in all seriousness, this is a pretty big psychological barrier isn't it? I think it's a bit like the automated car idea - sitting in the front with the computer doing things which you can override is one thing - lolling in the back with no driver hurtling along the M25, hmmm. Not so sure. 
That's a human trust issue, not a computer issue.
As I said, if you're getting on a passenger plane then you're being flown by a computer for 99% of your flight as it is. If that's fine, why not 100%?
Original post by Drewski
That's a human trust issue, not a computer issue.
As I said, if you're getting on a passenger plane then you're being flown by a computer for 99% of your flight as it is. If that's fine, why not 100%?
As I said, if you're getting on a passenger plane then you're being flown by a computer for 99% of your flight as it is. If that's fine, why not 100%?
Yes, I imagine people do trust computers in that way - but not enough that they don't care if there's a pilot at all. Maybe you are in a minority if you genuinely don't care.
I have to say, I sometimes feel a bit nervous on the DLR, seeing nobody at the controls. OK, it doesn't go very fast and feels a bit like being on a model railway set, but for me, there's always that little frisson of fear.
Original post by Drewski
That's a human trust issue, not a computer issue.
As I said, if you're getting on a passenger plane then you're being flown by a computer for 99% of your flight as it is. If that's fine, why not 100%?
As I said, if you're getting on a passenger plane then you're being flown by a computer for 99% of your flight as it is. If that's fine, why not 100%?
Because it's better to have an override option than not to have one at all.
Original post by DSilva
Any evidence train drivers habitually turn up drunk?
So you'd happily get on a plane without a pilot? Guess it's better not to have anyone there in the case of an emergency...
So you'd happily get on a plane without a pilot? Guess it's better not to have anyone there in the case of an emergency...
Yes and his friends went on strike to protect him. Safety first!
If you've been on a commercial airliner then that flight was largely flown by a computer on autopilot. Military planes are already flying huge missions completely controlled remotely by computers. Would you ever get in a car? There's a much greater chance of that crashing than a computer controlled train or plane.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Yes, I imagine people do trust computers in that way - but not enough that they don't care if there's a pilot at all. Maybe you are in a minority if you genuinely don't care.
I have to say, I sometimes feel a bit nervous on the DLR, seeing nobody at the controls. OK, it doesn't go very fast and feels a bit like being on a model railway set, but for me, there's always that little frisson of fear.
I have to say, I sometimes feel a bit nervous on the DLR, seeing nobody at the controls. OK, it doesn't go very fast and feels a bit like being on a model railway set, but for me, there's always that little frisson of fear.
That'll change over time. Most people simply aren't aware of how much of what a plane does is already controlled by computer.
Original post by DSilva
Because it's better to have an override option than not to have one at all.
Not really.
But, luddites gonna luddite.
Original post by Drewski
But, luddites gonna luddite.
But, luddites gonna luddite.
Surely it's "luddites gonna ludd"?
Original post by Drewski
As I said, if you're getting on a passenger plane then you're being flown by a computer for 99% of your flight as it is. If that's fine, why not 100%?
As I said, if you're getting on a passenger plane then you're being flown by a computer for 99% of your flight as it is. If that's fine, why not 100%?
Yeah but there is a human present that can step in at any moment (this may or may not be a good thing
)Original post by jameswhughes
Yes and his friends went on strike to protect him. Safety first!
If you've been on a commercial airliner then that flight was largely flown by a computer on autopilot. Military planes are already flying huge missions completely controlled remotely by computers. Would you ever get in a car? There's a much greater chance of that crashing than a computer controlled train or plane.
If you've been on a commercial airliner then that flight was largely flown by a computer on autopilot. Military planes are already flying huge missions completely controlled remotely by computers. Would you ever get in a car? There's a much greater chance of that crashing than a computer controlled train or plane.
That's a single case, not evidence of a habitual problem.
I know commercial flights are largely controlled by computers but there's still a pilot and an option for an override. I know military planes are pilotless, but theyret not crryingc hundreds of passnegers.
We're getting away from the main issue though. You're tinkering around the edges of the problem by focusing on drivers wages, rather than the system as a whole which is incredibly poor. Even if we reduced wages, our prices would still be far in excess of other systems and the service provided would still be rather poor.
Other, nationalised systems far outperform ours, there's no reason we can't do the same.
Original post by DSilva
Other, nationalised systems far outperform ours, there's no reason we can't do the same.
But there's also no evidence that ours would because it didn't before.
Original post by Drewski
But there's also no evidence that ours would because it didn't before.
Decades ago. Nationalised systems today work. Why wouldn't it work for us?
Original post by DSilva
Decades ago. Nationalised systems today work. Why wouldn't it work for us?
Because we're **** at it, have politicians who are in it only for themselves or for point scoring against the opposition, have unions opposed to change and the future, and have zero track record of doing it well.
The more pertinent question is, why do you think it will, when you've got no evidence to back it up?
Especially when you consider that a lot of those foreign nationalised systems you lord up are actually running our franchises and doing a shite job of it.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by DSilva
That's a single case, not evidence of a habitual problem.
I know commercial flights are largely controlled by computers but there's still a pilot and an option for an override. I know military planes are pilotless, but theyret not crryingc hundreds of passnegers.
We're getting away from the main issue though. You're tinkering around the edges of the problem by focusing on drivers wages, rather than the system as a whole which is incredibly poor. Even if we reduced wages, our prices would still be far in excess of other systems and the service provided would still be rather poor.
Other, nationalised systems far outperform ours, there's no reason we can't do the same.
I know commercial flights are largely controlled by computers but there's still a pilot and an option for an override. I know military planes are pilotless, but theyret not crryingc hundreds of passnegers.
We're getting away from the main issue though. You're tinkering around the edges of the problem by focusing on drivers wages, rather than the system as a whole which is incredibly poor. Even if we reduced wages, our prices would still be far in excess of other systems and the service provided would still be rather poor.
Other, nationalised systems far outperform ours, there's no reason we can't do the same.
What's the difference? If I can fly a military cargo safely round the world why not passengers? On a computerized plane, like Drewski has already mentioned the fly by wire systems mean everything is already done by the computer - if the computer fails then the pilot can't do anything either.
Automation is actually a great way to improve train services, whether state run or not. Computers can driver the trains much better than humans can, programmed with the exact stopping distances and speeds etc. If you don't have as many staff then that saves a huge amount of money, you eliminate the possibility of strikes, and you don't have to ensure everyone's in the right place to run the trains.
Original post by jameswhughes
What's the difference? If I can fly a military cargo safely round the world why not passengers? On a computerized plane, like Drewski has already mentioned the fly by wire systems mean everything is already done by the computer - if the computer fails then the pilot can't do anything either.
Automation is actually a great way to improve train services, whether state run or not. Computers can driver the trains much better than humans can, programmed with the exact stopping distances and speeds etc. If you don't have as many staff then that saves a huge amount of money, you eliminate the possibility of strikes, and you don't have to ensure everyone's in the right place to run the trains.
Automation is actually a great way to improve train services, whether state run or not. Computers can driver the trains much better than humans can, programmed with the exact stopping distances and speeds etc. If you don't have as many staff then that saves a huge amount of money, you eliminate the possibility of strikes, and you don't have to ensure everyone's in the right place to run the trains.
There woikd be no overirde option at all. Again, you are skirting round the edges rather than tackling the main problem.
The poor service isn't caused by drivers wages, or by strikes. Other countries have drivers and offer better services than we do. Why can't we do the same?
Original post by Drewski
Because we're **** at it, have politicians who are in it only for themselves or for point scoring against the opposition, have unions opposed to change and the future, and have zero track record of doing it well.
The more pertinent question is, why do you think it will, when you've got no evidence to back it up?
Especially when you consider that a lot of those foreign nationalised systems you lord up are actually running our franchises and doing a shite job of it.
The more pertinent question is, why do you think it will, when you've got no evidence to back it up?
Especially when you consider that a lot of those foreign nationalised systems you lord up are actually running our franchises and doing a shite job of it.
Because they provide a brilliant service in their own country. And because our nationalsied systems like TFl easily outperform private operators.
And a public service that's a natural monopoly should not be owned by a private firm.
TFL have just announced a price freeze on fares. Private operators have announced a 3.1% increase.
Original post by DSilva
There woikd be no overirde option at all. Again, you are skirting round the edges rather than tackling the main problem.
The poor service isn't caused by drivers wages, or by strikes. Other countries have drivers and offer better services than we do. Why can't we do the same?
The poor service isn't caused by drivers wages, or by strikes. Other countries have drivers and offer better services than we do. Why can't we do the same?
What do you mean by override? On a modern airliner like a Boeing 777 or Airbus A380 the computers fly the plane. What would the pilots do in a complete computer failure? Turn the engines themselves?
Strikes are a huge issue. In northern England, Northern have been on strike every weekend for a few months now, of course that's the cause of the poor (or lack of) service.
Original post by jameswhughes
What do you mean by override? On a modern airliner like a Boeing 777 or Airbus A380 the computers fly the plane. What would the pilots do in a complete computer failure? Turn the engines themselves?
Strikes are a huge issue. In northern England, Northern have been on strike every weekend for a few months now, of course that's the cause of the poor (or lack of) service.
Strikes are a huge issue. In northern England, Northern have been on strike every weekend for a few months now, of course that's the cause of the poor (or lack of) service.
There was a fatal crash involving an automated car wasn't there recently? Perhaps a driver could have prevented it. It's not perfect by any means.
You keep ignoring the main issue which is the system itself, not drivers wages or strikes. Why is TFL able to provide such a good and reasonably priced service? Why are other countries rail service far greater than our own?
Having a disjointed private system rather than a joined up public one is the main issue here. Why on earth should a public service that's a natural monopoly be privatised? There's no consumer choice at all. You can't choose a different train if the service is poor. There is next to no motivation for the operator to offer a good service when they get a fixed fee.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by DSilva
There was a fatal crash involving an automated car wasn't there recently? Perhaps a driver could have prevented it. It's not perfect by any means.
You keep ignoring the main issue which is the system itself, not drivers wages or strikes. Why is TFL able to provide such a good and reasonably priced service? Why are other countries rail service far greater than our own?
Having a disjointed private system rather than a joined up public one is the main issue here.
You keep ignoring the main issue which is the system itself, not drivers wages or strikes. Why is TFL able to provide such a good and reasonably priced service? Why are other countries rail service far greater than our own?
Having a disjointed private system rather than a joined up public one is the main issue here.
I've said it about 10 times on this thread, those governments put in more of the taxpayers' money. TfL is in a huge amount of debt and will have to be bailed out sometime. Is their service really such a good example? The tube is unpleasant to travel on, by no means immune to strikes and can be pretty expensive.
It's not even a nationalized/private train operating company issue, the train operators in the country are told what routes to run, and which rolling stock they use by the government on the nationalized Network Rail track. There's really nothing to suggest that nationalization would be anything more than a rebranding exercise.
We could have the Shinkansen running with 10 drivers on each train, a guard in every carriage, free tickets, maybe a few restaurant cars too if the government would put enough taxpayers money in, though I don't suppose this would go down well with most people.
Original post by jameswhughes
I've said it about 10 times on this thread, those governments put in more of the taxpayers' money. TfL is in a huge amount of debt and will have to be bailed out sometime. Is their service really such a good example? The tube is unpleasant to travel on, by no means immune to strikes and can be pretty expensive.
It's not even a nationalized/private train operating company issue, the train operators in the country are told what routes to run, and which rolling stock they use by the government on the nationalized Network Rail track. There's really nothing to suggest that nationalization would be anything more than a rebranding exercise.
We could have the Shinkansen running with 10 drivers on each train, a guard in every carriage, free tickets, maybe a few restaurant cars too if the government would put enough taxpayers money in, though I don't suppose this would go down well with most people.
It's not even a nationalized/private train operating company issue, the train operators in the country are told what routes to run, and which rolling stock they use by the government on the nationalized Network Rail track. There's really nothing to suggest that nationalization would be anything more than a rebranding exercise.
We could have the Shinkansen running with 10 drivers on each train, a guard in every carriage, free tickets, maybe a few restaurant cars too if the government would put enough taxpayers money in, though I don't suppose this would go down well with most people.
Yes the tube is great, with very high satisfaction ratings. Of course it's crowded at rush hour, but you usually have trains every minute or two minutes at peak times. They also run late into the night, have night tubes on popular linesline the system is very well joiend up, making travel around London very easy. And it's all rather reasonably priced. It's cheaper than Manchester's private team, for example.
I've alrwdya said several times it should be fixed through taxtaion which would also provide a better service, as it has done in many other countries, with a better joined up system.
Original post by jameswhughes
I've said it about 10 times on this thread, those governments put in more of the taxpayers' money. TfL is in a huge amount of debt and will have to be bailed out sometime. Is their service really such a good example? The tube is unpleasant to travel on, by no means immune to strikes and can be pretty expensive.
It's not even a nationalized/private train operating company issue, the train operators in the country are told what routes to run, and which rolling stock they use by the government on the nationalized Network Rail track. There's really nothing to suggest that nationalization would be anything more than a rebranding exercise.
We could have the Shinkansen running with 10 drivers on each train, a guard in every carriage, free tickets, maybe a few restaurant cars too if the government would put enough taxpayers money in, though I don't suppose this would go down well with most people.
It's not even a nationalized/private train operating company issue, the train operators in the country are told what routes to run, and which rolling stock they use by the government on the nationalized Network Rail track. There's really nothing to suggest that nationalization would be anything more than a rebranding exercise.
We could have the Shinkansen running with 10 drivers on each train, a guard in every carriage, free tickets, maybe a few restaurant cars too if the government would put enough taxpayers money in, though I don't suppose this would go down well with most people.
There are things that wouldn't just be rebranding - for example, the split between TOCs (Train Operating Companies - like Virgin or Stagecoach) and Network Rail. This split between train operators and the people who run the infrastructure and stations sounds logical, but it isn't in practise. It has generated quite a considerable bureaucracy of intermediaries between the two and their main obsession is accounting and blame-shoving, because the government set up payment arrangements that penalise one or other depending on who is to 'blame' for delays.
Anyone who reads Private Eye regularly will also be aware that the DfT plays a terrible role in administering the railways. Bizarre things that should never be controlled at that level are - for example, the lengths of trains and the selection of rolling stock. This is what lies behind many of the worst decisions and difficulties and also it is what continues to deprive underprivileged parts of the system, like Northern Rail, from better services. The reason behind this is again to do with the way privatisation was structured - they can't just leave all the decision making, even quite minor decision making, with the TOCs, so it has to be done by clueless civil servants and arbitrary whims of (often very stupid or devious) ministers. So the end result is often just as bad as the alleged 'government interference' of a nationalised system.
At the very least, the whole thing should be one entity and the TOCs, which are simply licensed rent takers from the system who do very little other than rebadge trains for a regular flow of cash and the routine rejection of any investment proposals that involve their cash (and treble failure protections from oh-so-generous taxpayers), not to mention guaranteed inflation-busting increases in their income every year, should be sent packing. It's no wonder that Branson has that permanent sickly grin - who paid for his island bolthole? The fare paying passengers and the taxpayers.
The most sensible thing would be an independent corporation run by a professional board, including passenger and staff representatives and perhaps run like a co-op with travelling rail passengers given shares or stamps. Season ticket holders would get more. However, to run this, we would need a clear idea of the level of services that would be offered and commitment by government to future subsidies - as they have in most developed countries apart from Britain, where neo-liberal extremist views dominate. In particular, the environmental benefits of rail travel ought to be recognised as the basis of subsidy.
Original post by DSilva
Actually to follow you argument to its logical end, I have claimed that its easier than other jobs. Therefore to fulfil your requirements I'd also have to have "extensive experience" of every other job possible to in order to make a fair comparison.
Obviously, I am able to make claims based on non-experiential sources. The is done in, for example, government, or by chief executives of large companies, every single day.
I may have said its easier than average but I've only ever asked to give them average wages. You are the one wanting to bump that up threefold. I also have provided limited sources - the accounts of a couple train drivers. I still await what experiences you have to counter this.
Again, stop ducking the question, what's your job?
Not a train driver. I fail to see any further relevance.
As for nurses, of course they should be paid more. But paying nurses badly is no reason to pay others less.
It is when its the general public funding the lavish wages! Nurses get the train too, you know. If a nurse spends £2k of her take-home pay on a season ticket £500 of that is going on staff wages.
And drivers salaries are not the main reason tickets are so expensive. Even if their wages were halved we would still have a far more expensive service than other countries do and a poorer service to boot.
Its a contributor. Perhaps 5%, which is loads. If Tesco lost 5% of its revenues it'd go out of business.
Well no, because mechanics aren't there for split second emergencies which could kill hundreds of people. Mechanics operate on a car when it's not in motion. Poor analogy.
Train drivers don't 'operate' when the train is in motion either! In fact they don't 'operate' at all - they have minimal education in engineering.
What split second emergencies? Trains take like 2 minutes to stop and they certainly can't change direction - there is nothing split second about them! Unlike, for example, a bus driver!
Even if such a situation did exist... how does making the passengers pay more improve reaction times, exactly? If this is your position then why aren't you arguing for cutting driver wages back to national average, and having 2-3 drivers per train instead? That'd surely be safer right?
(edited 5 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Textile Interviw
- The Ultimate Guide To London's Transport System (Megathread For London Freshers)
- One Day Travelcard saved.
- Student living London
- Affordable way to Commute to Herts from London
- Train travel daily commute
- London Contacless
- Santander account
- Witness Statement Penalty Fare
- Can I travel contactless from Stevenage Railway Station to zone 1?
- TRAVELLING FROM LONDON TO READING EVERYDAY. Know any Cheap Ways To Get There?
- Trainline monthly ticket with travelcard
- travel costs - train
- Rail Discount? (over 30)
- Student travel in London? totally confused
- Train fine help needed!
- Fare evasion mistaken the postcode
- Tfl fare evasion
- Travel between Coventry and London
- Archive.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
