| Martin lewis 21:35 - Jun 17 with 4490 views | stowmarketrange |
I don’t watch his program,but I get his weekly emails.Tonight’s mentioned the savings by buying an oyster card over using contactless if you have a railcard.
Apparently you have to register your Oyster card on the TfL website,and go to a manned tube or Elizabeth line station and get your railcard added to your Oyster card and you save 33% on fares on the tube and Elizabeth line fares.
If you travel in London regularly you could save a fortune according to him.
I’m in London for gunsnroses next Thursday at Wembley so I will give it a try.
I’ve just seen that it doesn’t work with a network card,two together or a family railcard. [Post edited 17 Jun 21:39]
|  | | |  |
| Martin lewis on 15:35 - Jun 19 with 900 views | stowmarketrange |
| Martin lewis on 13:02 - Jun 19 by NewBee |
Of course transport should be a basic public service and I doubt it could ever make a profit, even if you tried for one.
But in the end it incurs a cost, which someone has to pay. In the context of London, people often complain about the cost of commuting in and out of the city - fair enough.
But in doing so, they invariably mean the cost of train fares, and demand that these be subsidised. But this subsidy comes out of the taxes paid by the general population, most of whom don't commute, with many of them poor enough as it is.
Worse still, train commuters generally earn more than other commuters, all the more so in the South East of England, where wages are higher in the rest of the country.
And UK-wide, far more workers commute by bus than do so by train and are generally poorer paid. Yet we don't hear the same clamour for bus subsidies that we do for trains. |
So make the off peak fares affordable for those who want to travel,not the ridiculous £250 fare to Newcastle or Edinburgh when you can fly for £25-£50. | | | |
| Martin lewis on 15:44 - Jun 19 with 881 views | stowmarketrange |
| Martin lewis on 10:45 - Jun 19 by TheChef |
Couple of years ago had a weekend in Dusseldorf, for the whole month of August train travel in Germany was free!
Unbelievable Fritz. [Post edited 19 Jun 11:05]
|
I remember it being €9 for any train journey for the month when we had a decent preseason tour of Germany. | | | |
| Martin lewis on 16:47 - Jun 19 with 820 views | kensalriser |
| Martin lewis on 13:20 - Jun 19 by hoops_legend |
Maybe I misunderstood this but train companies do make profits - massive ones at that.
So there would not need to be a subsidy if priced right... |
Yes and no. Rail is heavily subsidised and the only reason operators can make a profit. It's essentially a political decision to enrich private companies out of the public purse.
The current government is taking the franchises back into public ownership as they expire, which I fully agree with. Whatever your views on free markets, I think it's outrageous for governments to hand over billions of our money to private companies to run industries that are essential public utlilities, and a key driver in rising inequality and political dissatisfaction. |  |
| |
| Martin lewis on 17:20 - Jun 19 with 771 views | NewBee |
| Martin lewis on 13:20 - Jun 19 by hoops_legend |
Maybe I misunderstood this but train companies do make profits - massive ones at that.
So there would not need to be a subsidy if priced right... |
They make profits - but only after receiving massive HMG subsidy. This report on Rail Industry Finance for Apr23 to Mar24 states:
"Total income for the operational rail industry was £25.4 billion. Adjusted for inflation this is an increase of 5.7% compared with the previous year. This consisted of £12.5 billion from government funding, £11.0 billion from passenger operators (£10.4 billion of fares and £0.7 billion of other operator income), and £1.9 billion from other sources."
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-industry-finance/
Now it's a whole different argument as to whether HMG should be paying these subsidies (they'd argue that it's still cheaper and more efficient than if nationalised, I'll not go into that). But in the end, if private companies weren't getting these subsidies they wouldn't make a profit. And if they weren't making a profit, they'd pull out (In fact I think some already have).
As for your "no need to be a subsidy of priced right", seeing as the subsidy amounts to half the operators' revenue, without it, fares would need to double.
Alternatively, if redirected that £12bn - that's twelve thousand million pounds for one year - would go a long way towards providing free buses for everyone in the UK, I'd imagine. (Not suggesting that either, btw)
EDIT: Just seen Kensal's post, above. [Post edited 19 Jun 17:23]
|  | | |
| Martin lewis on 17:36 - Jun 19 with 748 views | NewBee |
| Martin lewis on 15:35 - Jun 19 by stowmarketrange |
So make the off peak fares affordable for those who want to travel,not the ridiculous £250 fare to Newcastle or Edinburgh when you can fly for £25-£50. |
Leaving aside the fact that not all offpeak fares to NCL/EDI cost that much - peak fares certainly do - it's not that simple.
First, to get fares down to compete with the budget airlines would take yet further subsidy, on top of what's already being handed over.
And second there the question of capacity. With those fares, demand would shoot up and the present rail lines couldn't cope. As it is, our trunk routes are already full to capacity, meaning the only way you could meet demand would be to take freight trains off the system, which would then only see our motorways even more congested.
All of which reflects that aside from the Channel Tunnel Link (HS1), this country hasn't built a new trunk railway route since Victoria times. And considering we only invented the bloody railways, why should this be?
A major reason is that during all those decades when the railways were nationalised, successive governments baulked at the massive investment needed for such major infrastructure, which would need to be spent before any returns came in (fares etc).
(It is notable that HS1 only got built because Thatcher insisted the British half be built with private investment. And although the line now makes a small operating profit, I believe the original investors all lost their socks on the building of ir.) | | | |
| Martin lewis on 17:47 - Jun 19 with 736 views | stowmarketrange |
| Martin lewis on 17:36 - Jun 19 by NewBee |
Leaving aside the fact that not all offpeak fares to NCL/EDI cost that much - peak fares certainly do - it's not that simple.
First, to get fares down to compete with the budget airlines would take yet further subsidy, on top of what's already being handed over.
And second there the question of capacity. With those fares, demand would shoot up and the present rail lines couldn't cope. As it is, our trunk routes are already full to capacity, meaning the only way you could meet demand would be to take freight trains off the system, which would then only see our motorways even more congested.
All of which reflects that aside from the Channel Tunnel Link (HS1), this country hasn't built a new trunk railway route since Victoria times. And considering we only invented the bloody railways, why should this be?
A major reason is that during all those decades when the railways were nationalised, successive governments baulked at the massive investment needed for such major infrastructure, which would need to be spent before any returns came in (fares etc).
(It is notable that HS1 only got built because Thatcher insisted the British half be built with private investment. And although the line now makes a small operating profit, I believe the original investors all lost their socks on the building of ir.) |
So how do other countries run their transport systems and seem to make a better fist of it than we do.
And the off peak fares are £250 upwards for travel in the next few days.You can only get cheaper tickets if you buy well in advance,which isn’t always possible.And if you’re travelling with a family the cost is just extortionate. | | | |
| Martin lewis on 18:00 - Jun 19 with 722 views | NewBee |
| Martin lewis on 17:47 - Jun 19 by stowmarketrange |
So how do other countries run their transport systems and seem to make a better fist of it than we do.
And the off peak fares are £250 upwards for travel in the next few days.You can only get cheaper tickets if you buy well in advance,which isn’t always possible.And if you’re travelling with a family the cost is just extortionate. |
Other countries put a whole lot more into their trains than we do. Meaning that if we were prepared to put even more money into our train system than we presently do, then we'd have a better service.
Now I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, but as the old saying goes: "You pays your money, you makes your choice"
Two further points occur: I'm old enough to remember when rail was nationalised and I can tell you that it was bloody awful - at best a national joke (remember the Morecambe & Wise running gag about BR catering, or Reggie Perrin's daily commute?). And at worst, it was a scandal. Then again, as the man says, 'Nostalgia ain't what it used to be'.
Second, the railways now carry twice as many passengers as in the days of (nationalised) BR. And if they couldn't provide a decent service then, how would they have managed today? | | | |
| Martin lewis on 19:12 - Jun 19 with 680 views | stowmarketrange |
| Martin lewis on 18:00 - Jun 19 by NewBee |
Other countries put a whole lot more into their trains than we do. Meaning that if we were prepared to put even more money into our train system than we presently do, then we'd have a better service.
Now I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, but as the old saying goes: "You pays your money, you makes your choice"
Two further points occur: I'm old enough to remember when rail was nationalised and I can tell you that it was bloody awful - at best a national joke (remember the Morecambe & Wise running gag about BR catering, or Reggie Perrin's daily commute?). And at worst, it was a scandal. Then again, as the man says, 'Nostalgia ain't what it used to be'.
Second, the railways now carry twice as many passengers as in the days of (nationalised) BR. And if they couldn't provide a decent service then, how would they have managed today? |
I’m old enough to remember when we had to pay income tax at a basic rate of 33%.Now we have a basic rate of 20%,and people wonder why there is a shortage of money to pay for the things that make a country worth living in.
I’d prefer to live in a country without a record number of billionaires that are getting richer while some working people are struggling to live and eat.
I know they pay a fair amount of taxes already,but how much do some people need?And when you ask them to pay a little bit more they pick up their ball and run off to Monaco with it.
In the 5th/6th richest country in the world our public services are more like those in a 3rd world country.
In the very unlikely event of me becoming a millionaire let alone a billionaire,I’d like to think I would use my wealth to help make it a better country rather than try to dodge as much tax as I could.
Sorry Clive. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Martin lewis on 19:37 - Jun 19 with 642 views | kensalriser |
| Martin lewis on 18:00 - Jun 19 by NewBee |
Other countries put a whole lot more into their trains than we do. Meaning that if we were prepared to put even more money into our train system than we presently do, then we'd have a better service.
Now I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, but as the old saying goes: "You pays your money, you makes your choice"
Two further points occur: I'm old enough to remember when rail was nationalised and I can tell you that it was bloody awful - at best a national joke (remember the Morecambe & Wise running gag about BR catering, or Reggie Perrin's daily commute?). And at worst, it was a scandal. Then again, as the man says, 'Nostalgia ain't what it used to be'.
Second, the railways now carry twice as many passengers as in the days of (nationalised) BR. And if they couldn't provide a decent service then, how would they have managed today? |
False argument (and a favourite one deployed against public ownership).
If BR wasn't providing a decent service (playing along here, I don't know if that's supported by evidence) then it was much more likely the result of bad management and lack of investment.
Current passenger numbers are also no indication that the service is any better - for a start the population is larger and social habits have changed. | |
| |
| Martin lewis on 23:19 - Jun 19 with 540 views | NewBee |
| Martin lewis on 19:12 - Jun 19 by stowmarketrange |
I’m old enough to remember when we had to pay income tax at a basic rate of 33%.Now we have a basic rate of 20%,and people wonder why there is a shortage of money to pay for the things that make a country worth living in.
I’d prefer to live in a country without a record number of billionaires that are getting richer while some working people are struggling to live and eat.
I know they pay a fair amount of taxes already,but how much do some people need?And when you ask them to pay a little bit more they pick up their ball and run off to Monaco with it.
In the 5th/6th richest country in the world our public services are more like those in a 3rd world country.
In the very unlikely event of me becoming a millionaire let alone a billionaire,I’d like to think I would use my wealth to help make it a better country rather than try to dodge as much tax as I could.
Sorry Clive. |
That's a fair enough stance to take, whether I agree with all of it or not.
One minor point - we're NOT the "5th/6th richest country in the world", in fact we're not even the 5th/6th richest in Western Europe.
Many people repeat this canard, when in fact we're the 5th/6th biggest economy in the world. ("Richest" is measured by income per capita) | | | |
| Martin lewis on 23:47 - Jun 19 with 510 views | NewBee |
| Martin lewis on 19:37 - Jun 19 by kensalriser |
False argument (and a favourite one deployed against public ownership).
If BR wasn't providing a decent service (playing along here, I don't know if that's supported by evidence) then it was much more likely the result of bad management and lack of investment.
Current passenger numbers are also no indication that the service is any better - for a start the population is larger and social habits have changed. |
I'm not arguing that public ownership is better/worse than private ownership. Though I happily accept that the way the current privatisation was done was very defective in many ways.
But history tells us that Nationalisation had many problems too. In very crude terms, successive governments found it very hard to manage, since the Unions, big donors the Labour Party, had them by the short stuff, leading to high wages and overstaffing etc.
While the Tories were no better i.e. they crumbled at the threat of a strike, since angry commuters (majority Tory voters, esp in the SE) and Industry wouldn't tolerate the disruption.
Keeping fares low was also a priority (those pesky voters again), even when the railways were making increasing losses and needed greater fare income.
And as regards investment, governments of both parties, when under financial pressure, invariably concentrate on operating costs, at the expense of long term infrastructure spending. This is made worse by the fact that the Minister who announces a new investment project and writes the cheque, is pretty much guaranteed not to be in post to cut the tape and get the credit when it finally opens up some years later. In fact his Party may not even be in government.
Which all means that by the time of Privatisation, the network was in a terrible state. Hence their desire of the government to get the railways off their hands at any cost.
Which, I repeat, is not to say that Privatisation is a magic solution either - it was clearly heavily flawed, but don't imagine that Nationalisation must work either.
And if you need proof of that, you only need to look at the total fiasco, scandal even, that is HS2 - a Government project, remember. | | | |
| Martin lewis on 00:17 - Jun 20 with 495 views | stowmarketrange |
| Martin lewis on 23:19 - Jun 19 by NewBee |
That's a fair enough stance to take, whether I agree with all of it or not.
One minor point - we're NOT the "5th/6th richest country in the world", in fact we're not even the 5th/6th richest in Western Europe.
Many people repeat this canard, when in fact we're the 5th/6th biggest economy in the world. ("Richest" is measured by income per capita) |
According to the IMF in April 2025 the UK has the 6th largest economy in the world.You can google it yourself if you don’t believe me,although you’ll probably twist it and say that I said richest. | | | |
| Martin lewis on 09:57 - Jun 20 with 374 views | TheChef |
| Martin lewis on 19:12 - Jun 19 by stowmarketrange |
I’m old enough to remember when we had to pay income tax at a basic rate of 33%.Now we have a basic rate of 20%,and people wonder why there is a shortage of money to pay for the things that make a country worth living in.
I’d prefer to live in a country without a record number of billionaires that are getting richer while some working people are struggling to live and eat.
I know they pay a fair amount of taxes already,but how much do some people need?And when you ask them to pay a little bit more they pick up their ball and run off to Monaco with it.
In the 5th/6th richest country in the world our public services are more like those in a 3rd world country.
In the very unlikely event of me becoming a millionaire let alone a billionaire,I’d like to think I would use my wealth to help make it a better country rather than try to dodge as much tax as I could.
Sorry Clive. |
I always look at the Scandi model where they have higher taxes but seem to invest it well in public infrastructure, education, etc. Why is it so difficult for us to do the same? |  |
| |
| Martin lewis on 10:23 - Jun 20 with 339 views | stowmarketrange |
| Martin lewis on 09:57 - Jun 20 by TheChef |
I always look at the Scandi model where they have higher taxes but seem to invest it well in public infrastructure, education, etc. Why is it so difficult for us to do the same? |
I watched the bbc series on Scandinavia and I thought some aspects of their countries were brilliant and some not so great.
They seem to realise that if you want public services to work,you have to pay for them.I don’t know how we change a culture like ours that seems to think more about themselves rather than the greater good.The legacy of Thatcher is alive and well in the UK. | | | |
| Martin lewis on 11:16 - Jun 20 with 281 views | TheChef |
| Martin lewis on 10:23 - Jun 20 by stowmarketrange |
I watched the bbc series on Scandinavia and I thought some aspects of their countries were brilliant and some not so great.
They seem to realise that if you want public services to work,you have to pay for them.I don’t know how we change a culture like ours that seems to think more about themselves rather than the greater good.The legacy of Thatcher is alive and well in the UK. |
True.
Shame. | |
| |
| Martin lewis on 17:34 - Jun 20 with 154 views | NewBee |
| Martin lewis on 00:17 - Jun 20 by stowmarketrange |
According to the IMF in April 2025 the UK has the 6th largest economy in the world.You can google it yourself if you don’t believe me,although you’ll probably twist it and say that I said richest. |
Eh?
Here verbatim is EXACTLY what you said in the post to which I was responding:
"In the 5th/6th richest country in the world our public services are more like those in a 3rd world country."
So absolutely no "twisting" needed.
P.S. If you tell me that our public services could/should be better than they are, then you'll get no argument from me. But I've been to many 3rd world countries, in different continents, and your comparison bears no relation to anything I've seen.
https://i0.wp.com/asiatimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/India-Indian-Railway-
[Post edited 20 Jun 17:43]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
