Transport Tycoon Forums

Kogut wrote:

We all have huge debts, but this isn't about money, it's about redistributing resources.

It is NOT about money? And that debts are results of numerous stupid projects like dotating shipyards, mines, farmers, stupid "innovative" projects, factories of big companies, early retirement age and free travel.

Aye. Completely. And while it might be partly about redistributing resources, the resources at the moment are extremely limited, and can't afford to be redistributed!

The resources are there. The trains are running, off-peak there are lots of free seats.

But while the trains may currently be there, they still cost a lot of money to run. And at a time when we're having to cut public services to attempt to balance the books, we just can't afford to lose what little income the trains may make.

Had the government taken a leaf out of Norway's book and saved money in the good times, we might not be in this mess, and what you're suggesting might actually be viable. But alas, we've got a huge debt, and we really shouldn't let it get any bigger.

Class 165 wrote: The thing is, the UKs railways can't be very competitive, as not many routes are duplicated, particuarly because the railways were nationalized, and so duplicated routes were seen as (rightly at the time) wasteful. At the moment, there is competiton between Chiltern, Virgin and London Midland between London and Birmingham, as well as the three open access operators, however, without the Beeching Axe, then there would be more competiton,

And that will always be the case until we get more rails - when you physically can't run more trains, you simply don't get competition.

Its like the lack of runway slots in the south east - demand is exceeding supply, so proper competition goes out the window...

doktorhonig wrote:The resources are there. The trains are running, off-peak there are lots of free seats.

Fair point, but the underlying resources required to run those trains may not exist for much longer. I think its probably better to allow the railways to gain some form of farebox contribution to profit than none at all. I understand your point that rail is a public good, but its not non-rivalrous because if I take a train, I'm taking up a space on it someone else could use, and its not non-excludable because if you don't live near a station, you can't take a train. Roads, I would argue, satisfy these conditions more fully.

Besides, would you also argue that we should have free electricity, gas, water, telephone, and internet, all subsidised by the state? Private enterprise has helped to improve the provision of many of these and people would use these environmentally sensitive resources much less responsibly than at present. Yet free access to all 'infrastructure industries' is surely the logical conclusion of your argument.

Kevo00 wrote:Besides, would you also argue that we should have free electricity, gas, water, telephone, and internet, all subsidised by the state? Private enterprise has helped to improve the provision of many of these and people would use these environmentally sensitive resources much less responsibly than at present. Yet free access to all 'infrastructure industries' is surely the logical conclusion of your argument.

Difficult question. In case of internet, there are practically only flat-rates out there, even mobile flat-rates, so you already pay for the power-users. A reason against providing free internet access is, that it's probably hard to nationalize, because internet service providers would complain about their business model being destroyed.
Free electricity is a problem with the current energy mix, but electricity is not that expensive, so even unemployed people can afford air conditioning (at least if they don't spend all of their money on cigarettes and booze). And I think air conditioners are the best reason, why electricity shouldn't be free.
Concerning water: I live in a house with 32 apartments and one shared water meter. I don't have a problem, if I pay a bit too much and the single parenting mum pays a bit too little (<- that correct? tell me, native speakers!). It would probably be different, if I shared my water meter with people having a garden, without having one myself, but I think it wouldn't be that bad. We alread have some kind of a "real estate tax" or "land tax", so why use that to pay for water?

Of course you could ask "If you scale a tax by the expected costs for X, why not pay for X directly?" and you're right. It's just a model that could work. Maybe it wouldn't work that well, but I don't think the current model works that well either.

doktorhonig wrote: The trains are running, off-peak there are lots of free seats.

No, there are not. There is a proportion of EMPTY seats, none of them are free at the point of sitting.

doktorhonig wrote:The resources are there. The trains are running, off-peak there are lots of free seats.

Opportunity cost of those same passengers not paying. That's a resource in itself.

Interesting day today discussing the future of concessionary fares - it's going to be interesting times...

The thing for me is that I don't think that many more old people would use the trains. It won't fill up the empty seats, it'll just mean that some of the full ones aren't making any money. And I still fail to see why an OAP needs to travel beyond the distance a bus is suitable for, and why they shouldn't pay.

I genuinely don't understand this "give old people free things" lark. Yes, they've worked and contributed for society - but that's what a pension is for... surely it's up to them how they spend it? I'm under no illusion that a basic pension is a large amount of money but it's more than I have to live on as a student, and I manage to travel a lot more than most pensioners would want to, AND I have to pay for my own heating.

Realistically we need to get more full price people on trains and buses, not pensioners. As a full price person I'd use my local bus service more, but its so bad it doesn't seem worth the cost in terms of time either (frequently buses come more than 10 mins early!). Goodness knows what being elderly/infirm in Milton Keynes is like.

They all come to Wales :/

Wales? Pah.

They all come down here. Hence, Sidmouth exists.

The Lake District, actually - have you never heard of Grange-over-Sands... the only town in the country where the shops have bi-focal windows.

The station signage on the below photo has not been photoshopped... the text genuinely is that big.

audigex wrote:The Lake District, actually - have you never heard of Grange-over-Sands... the only town in the country where the shops have bi-focal windows.

The station signage on the below photo has not been photoshopped... the text genuinely is that big.

might wanna check whether you can direct link...
I believe one user got in trouble for that.

Pah, over-reacting webmasters of websites. This thread hardly gets enough views to be leeching bandwidth - and I'm advertising the Grange-over-Sands retirement village.

Changed to wikipedia, I hope.

Sorry for warming this up:
City of Hasselt

Yes, it's local transport, which has different problems than long-running trains. But it works. And since its cheaper, I assume, that with a ticket price you simply pay the guy checking your ticket. That's sending money in circles without actually paying for your journey.

So wait, they have just abandoned bus fares? Why?

Ameecher wrote:So wait, they have just abandoned bus fares? Why?

Well if you actually read the article,...

There's also an English Wikipedia article: public transport in Hasselt