I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as
a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So
just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges
at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher
then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to
get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end
of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath.
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as
a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So
just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges
at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher
then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to
get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end
of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath.
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as
a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So
just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges
at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher
then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to
get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end
of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish
increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath.
Surely the extra parking charges will go straight to the government? GTR
was never a commercial franchise, even pre-Covid.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as >>> a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So
just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges >>> at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher
then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to
get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end >>> of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish >>> increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath.
Surely the extra parking charges will go straight to the government? GTR
was never a commercial franchise, even pre-Covid.
Perhaps there?s too many commuters starting later. Do some work, eg emails, before a later start to set off to the office. And perhaps too many retired folk using the car park for a day out in London.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as >>>> a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So
just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges >>>> at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher
then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to >>>> get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end >>>> of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish >>>> increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath.
Surely the extra parking charges will go straight to the government? GTR >>> was never a commercial franchise, even pre-Covid.
Perhaps there?s too many commuters starting later. Do some work, eg emails, >> before a later start to set off to the office. And perhaps too many retired >> folk using the car park for a day out in London.
Yes, both are very plausible explanations.
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as
a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So
just a warning:
It used to cost ?4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to ?11-40, an increase of 143%. The
charges at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much >higher then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to
get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end
of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such
outlandish increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my >breath.
On 23/04/2026 15:49, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:To answer an earlier question: I have not seen this car park full. I sometimes arrive late morning or early afternoon which is likely to be
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as >>>>> a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So >>>>> just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges >>>>> at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher >>>>> then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to >>>>> get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end >>>>> of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish >>>>> increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath.
Surely the extra parking charges will go straight to the government? GTR >>>> was never a commercial franchise, even pre-Covid.
Perhaps there?s too many commuters starting later. Do some work, eg emails, >>> before a later start to set off to the office. And perhaps too many retired >>> folk using the car park for a day out in London.
Yes, both are very plausible explanations.
the peak and always see plenty of spaces free. It may be that some
people are using the station car park longer term while they fly out of
the airport for a few days, but that would be a reason to raise the long-term e.g. weekly charges, but surely not the off-peak rates.
I don't know whether the current revenue goes to the government - I
assumed not. But I'll contact my MP and see if she knows.
In message <n4ug1oF34iU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:01:54 on Thu, 23 Apr 2026, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as
a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So
just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The
charges at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much
higher then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to
get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end
of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such
outlandish increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my
breath.
I was shocked to discover that parking at Ely [yes, I know] station is
now œ10/day, and Cambridge œ17.50; the price for Mendreth is unavailable
"I don't believe it!!". You can't easily park at Littleport currently, because the council have requisitioned it as depot for distributing new "grey bins" for waste food.
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 23/04/2026 15:49, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:To answer an earlier question: I have not seen this car park full. I
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as >>>>>> a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So >>>>>> just a warning:Surely the extra parking charges will go straight to the government? GTR >>>>> was never a commercial franchise, even pre-Covid.
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after >>>>>> 10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges >>>>>> at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher >>>>>> then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to >>>>>> get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end >>>>>> of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish >>>>>> increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath. >>>>>
Perhaps there?s too many commuters starting later. Do some work, eg emails,
before a later start to set off to the office. And perhaps too many retired
folk using the car park for a day out in London.
Yes, both are very plausible explanations.
sometimes arrive late morning or early afternoon which is likely to be
the peak and always see plenty of spaces free. It may be that some
people are using the station car park longer term while they fly out of
the airport for a few days, but that would be a reason to raise the
long-term e.g. weekly charges, but surely not the off-peak rates.
I don't know whether the current revenue goes to the government - I
assumed not. But I'll contact my MP and see if she knows.
Most MPs seem to be clueless about the railway finances. But GTR was
unusual in that, right from the beginning, the DfT took all revenue risk,
and paid the operator a fixed fee. From the Covid lockdowns, all franchises were switched to a similar form of contract. So, in effect, the railways
were re-nationalised by the Tories.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their original contract, the
Department for Transport pays GTR œ8.9 billion over the first seven-year period and receives all revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering works anticipated around London, which would be a significant challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
???
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 23/04/2026 15:49, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:To answer an earlier question: I have not seen this car park full. I
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as >>>>>> a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So >>>>>> just a warning:Surely the extra parking charges will go straight to the government? GTR >>>>> was never a commercial franchise, even pre-Covid.
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after >>>>>> 10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges >>>>>> at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher >>>>>> then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to >>>>>> get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end >>>>>> of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish >>>>>> increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath. >>>>>
Perhaps there?s too many commuters starting later. Do some work, eg emails,
before a later start to set off to the office. And perhaps too many retired
folk using the car park for a day out in London.
Yes, both are very plausible explanations.
sometimes arrive late morning or early afternoon which is likely to be
the peak and always see plenty of spaces free. It may be that some
people are using the station car park longer term while they fly out of
the airport for a few days, but that would be a reason to raise the
long-term e.g. weekly charges, but surely not the off-peak rates.
I don't know whether the current revenue goes to the government - I
assumed not. But I'll contact my MP and see if she knows.
Most MPs seem to be clueless about the railway finances. But GTR was
unusual in that, right from the beginning, the DfT took all revenue risk,
and paid the operator a fixed fee. From the Covid lockdowns, all franchises were switched to a similar form of contract. So, in effect, the railways
were re-nationalised by the Tories.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their original contract, the
Department for Transport pays GTR œ8.9 billion over the first seven-year period and receives all revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering works anticipated around London, which would be a significant challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
???
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
On 23/04/2026 16:16, Recliner wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 23/04/2026 15:49, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:To answer an earlier question: I have not seen this car park full. I
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as >>>>>>> a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So >>>>>>> just a warning:Surely the extra parking charges will go straight to the government? GTR
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after >>>>>>> 10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges
at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher >>>>>>> then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to >>>>>>> get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end >>>>>>> of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish
increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath. >>>>>>
was never a commercial franchise, even pre-Covid.
Perhaps there?s too many commuters starting later. Do some work, eg emails,
before a later start to set off to the office. And perhaps too many retired
folk using the car park for a day out in London.
Yes, both are very plausible explanations.
sometimes arrive late morning or early afternoon which is likely to be
the peak and always see plenty of spaces free. It may be that some
people are using the station car park longer term while they fly out of
the airport for a few days, but that would be a reason to raise the
long-term e.g. weekly charges, but surely not the off-peak rates.
I don't know whether the current revenue goes to the government - I
assumed not. But I'll contact my MP and see if she knows.
Most MPs seem to be clueless about the railway finances. But GTR was
unusual in that, right from the beginning, the DfT took all revenue risk,
and paid the operator a fixed fee. From the Covid lockdowns, all franchises >> were switched to a similar form of contract. So, in effect, the railways
were re-nationalised by the Tories.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management contract where
fare income does not go to GTR. Under their original contract, the
Department for Transport pays GTR œ8.9 billion over the first seven-year
period and receives all revenue. Consequently, the company carries less
revenue risk. This form of franchise was chosen because of long-term
engineering works anticipated around London, which would be a significant
challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
???
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
Well on that point, I managed to get through to APCOA by phone to
complain about the huge increase in prices. They said that it was set
by "the client" which must be messrs Govia Thameslink, but refused to go into more details. So I don't think that APCOA keeps the profits, at
least not all of them. Could be GTR or could be the government.
In message <n4ug1oF34iU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:01:54 on Thu, 23
Apr 2026, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway
as a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So >>just a warning:
It used to cost ?4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to ?11-40, an increase of 143%. The
charges at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much >>higher then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to
get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the
end of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such >>outlandish increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold
my breath.
I was shocked to discover that parking at Ely [yes, I know] station is
now ?10/day, and Cambridge ?17.50; the price for Mendreth is
unavailable "I don't believe it!!". You can't easily park at Littleport >currently, because the council have requisitioned it as depot for >distributing new "grey bins" for waste food.
On 23/04/2026 15:49, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as >>>> a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So >>>> just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges >>>> at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher >>>> then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to >>>> get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end >>>> of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish >>>> increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath.
Surely the extra parking charges will go straight to the government? GTR >>> was never a commercial franchise, even pre-Covid.
Perhaps there?s too many commuters starting later. Do some work, eg emails,
before a later start to set off to the office. And perhaps too many retired
folk using the car park for a day out in London.
Yes, both are very plausible explanations.
To answer an earlier question: I have not seen this car park full. I sometimes arrive late morning or early afternoon which is likely to be
the peak and always see plenty of spaces free. It may be that some
people are using the station car park longer term while they fly out of
the airport for a few days, but that would be a reason to raise the long-term e.g. weekly charges, but surely not the off-peak rates.
I don't know whether the current revenue goes to the government - I
assumed not. But I'll contact my MP and see if she knows.
In message <gYxDilCEQj6pFAKR@perry.uk>, at 16:00:20 on Thu, 23 Apr 2026, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <n4ug1oF34iU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:01:54 on Thu, 23
Apr 2026, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway
as a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London.
So just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%.ÿÿ The
charges at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also
much higher then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon
to get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at
the end of May.ÿ I just have to hope that when under DfT control such
outlandish increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold
my breath.
I was shocked to discover that parking at Ely [yes, I know] station is
now œ10/day, and Cambridge œ17.50; the price for Mendreth is
unavailable "I don't believe it!!". You can't easily park at
Littleport currently, because the council have requisitioned it as
depot for distributing new "grey bins" for waste food.
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
On 24/04/2026 07:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <gYxDilCEQj6pFAKR@perry.uk>, at 16:00:20 on Thu, 23 Apr 2026,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <n4ug1oF34iU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:01:54 on Thu, 23
Apr 2026, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway
as a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London.
So just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%.ÿÿ The
charges at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also
much higher then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon
to get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at
the end of May.ÿ I just have to hope that when under DfT control such >>>> outlandish increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold
my breath.
I was shocked to discover that parking at Ely [yes, I know] station is
now œ10/day, and Cambridge œ17.50; the price for Mendreth is
unavailable "I don't believe it!!". You can't easily park at
Littleport currently, because the council have requisitioned it as
depot for distributing new "grey bins" for waste food.
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the
next year or two....
On 24/04/2026 07:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <gYxDilCEQj6pFAKR@perry.uk>, at 16:00:20 on Thu, 23 Apr
2026, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <n4ug1oF34iU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:01:54 on Thu, 23 >>>Apr 2026, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport
Parkway as a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to >>>>London. So just a warning:
It used to cost ?4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after >>>>10am, now this has gone up to ?11-40, an increase of 143%.?? The >>>>charges at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also
much higher then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon >>>>to get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at
the end of May.? I just have to hope that when under DfT control
such outlandish increases will be brought under control, but I
won't hold my breath.
I was shocked to discover that parking at Ely [yes, I know] station
is now ?10/day, and Cambridge ?17.50; the price for Mendreth is >>>unavailable "I don't believe it!!". You can't easily park at
Littleport currently, because the council have requisitioned it as
depot for distributing new "grey bins" for waste food.
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has
risen from ?4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of ?11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the
next year or two....
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2026 07:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <gYxDilCEQj6pFAKR@perry.uk>, at 16:00:20 on Thu, 23 Apr 2026, >>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <n4ug1oF34iU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:01:54 on Thu, 23
Apr 2026, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway >>>>> as a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London.
So just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%.ÿÿ The
charges at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also
much higher then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon
to get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at
the end of May.ÿ I just have to hope that when under DfT control such >>>>> outlandish increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold >>>>> my breath.
I was shocked to discover that parking at Ely [yes, I know] station is >>>> now œ10/day, and Cambridge œ17.50; the price for Mendreth is
unavailable "I don't believe it!!". You can't easily park at
Littleport currently, because the council have requisitioned it as
depot for distributing new "grey bins" for waste food.
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the
next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so car park >charges shouldn?t affect them?
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 23/04/2026 15:49, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:To answer an earlier question: I have not seen this car park full. I
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as >>>>>> a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So >>>>>> just a warning:Surely the extra parking charges will go straight to the government? GTR >>>>> was never a commercial franchise, even pre-Covid.
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after >>>>>> 10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges >>>>>> at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher >>>>>> then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to >>>>>> get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end >>>>>> of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish >>>>>> increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath. >>>>>
Perhaps there?s too many commuters starting later. Do some work, eg emails,
before a later start to set off to the office. And perhaps too many retired
folk using the car park for a day out in London.
Yes, both are very plausible explanations.
sometimes arrive late morning or early afternoon which is likely to be
the peak and always see plenty of spaces free. It may be that some
people are using the station car park longer term while they fly out of
the airport for a few days, but that would be a reason to raise the
long-term e.g. weekly charges, but surely not the off-peak rates.
I don't know whether the current revenue goes to the government - I
assumed not. But I'll contact my MP and see if she knows.
Most MPs seem to be clueless about the railway finances. But GTR was
unusual in that, right from the beginning, the DfT took all revenue risk,
and paid the operator a fixed fee. From the Covid lockdowns, all franchises were switched to a similar form of contract. So, in effect, the railways
were re-nationalised by the Tories.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their original contract, the
Department for Transport pays GTR œ8.9 billion over the first seven-year period and receives all revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering works anticipated around London, which would be a significant challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
???
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management contract where
fare income does not go to GTR. Under their original contract, the
Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 billion over the first seven-year
period and receives all revenue. Consequently, the company carries less
revenue risk. This form of franchise was chosen because of long-term
engineering works anticipated around London, which would be a significant
challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all revenue e.g. >income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management contract where >>> fare income does not go to GTR. Under their original contract, the
Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 billion over the first seven-year >>> period and receives all revenue. Consequently, the company carries less
revenue risk. This form of franchise was chosen because of long-term
engineering works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>> challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all revenue e.g. >>income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking, so >presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the rents
from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get paid
direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for >catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid
for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get skimmed
off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee to the
TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits. >>>
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par >>>kway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various parking >companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP (with
recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by the >railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost from
the parking fees.
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2026 07:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <gYxDilCEQj6pFAKR@perry.uk>, at 16:00:20 on Thu, 23 Apr 2026, >>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <n4ug1oF34iU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:01:54 on Thu, 23
Apr 2026, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway >>>>> as a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London.
So just a warning:
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after
10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%.ÿÿ The
charges at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also
much higher then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon
to get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at
the end of May.ÿ I just have to hope that when under DfT control such >>>>> outlandish increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold >>>>> my breath.
I was shocked to discover that parking at Ely [yes, I know] station is >>>> now œ10/day, and Cambridge œ17.50; the price for Mendreth is
unavailable "I don't believe it!!". You can't easily park at
Littleport currently, because the council have requisitioned it as
depot for distributing new "grey bins" for waste food.
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the
next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so car park charges shouldn?t affect them?
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has risen >>>> from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the
next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so
car park charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must
equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has risen >>>>> from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the >>>> next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so
car park charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must
equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily
doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has risen >>>>>> from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the >>>>> next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so
car park charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must
equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was
something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily
doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages >economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to enact >policies that do exactly the opposite.
In message <10sknij$1gh7g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:57:39 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has risen >>>>>>> from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the >>>>>> next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so
car park charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must
equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was
something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily
doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages
economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to enact
policies that do exactly the opposite.
All recent governments do. They price gouge commuters in the south-east, then use that money to buy votes with highly subsidised fares in the
north.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sknij$1gh7g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:57:39 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the >>>>>>> next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so >>>>>> car park charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must
equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was
something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily
doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages
economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to enact >>> policies that do exactly the opposite.
All recent governments do. They price gouge commuters in the south-east,
then use that money to buy votes with highly subsidised fares in the
north.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spending-per-head- >in-the-uk/
In 2024/25, transport spending in London was 1,195 British pounds per
capita, compared with 670 pounds per capita for the UK as a whole. Most >regions of the UK had below average levels of transport spending per head, >and was lowest in the East Midlands at 376 pounds per head.
East (Ely land) 628 GBP per capita
South East 626
North East 496
Yorkshire 475
Scotland 841 - whose government takes a different view on transport
spending.
In message <10skovv$1gv7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:51 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sknij$1gh7g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:57:39 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the >>>>>>>> next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so >>>>>>> car park charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must >>>>>> equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages >>>> economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to enact >>>> policies that do exactly the opposite.
All recent governments do. They price gouge commuters in the south-east, >>> then use that money to buy votes with highly subsidised fares in the
north.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spending-per-head-
in-the-uk/
In 2024/25, transport spending in London was 1,195 British pounds per
capita, compared with 670 pounds per capita for the UK as a whole. Most
regions of the UK had below average levels of transport spending per head, >> and was lowest in the East Midlands at 376 pounds per head.
East (Ely land) 628 GBP per capita
South East 626
North East 496
Yorkshire 475
Scotland 841 - whose government takes a different view on transport
spending.
Very interesting, but completely irrelevant. The amount of spending
depends on the density of lines, number and quality of trains being
run, etc; and I'm talking about the ***FARES*** people are charged.
If for example tickets for a trip from Cambridge to London were
subsidised as much as journeys in the north (or indeed Wales and
Scotland) they'd be approximately half the price.
In message <10skovv$1gv7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:51 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sknij$1gh7g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:57:39 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station >>>>>>>>> has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease >>>>>>>> in the
next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so >>>>>>> car parkÿ charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must >>>>>> equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages >>>> economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to
enact
policies that do exactly the opposite.
All recent governments do. They price gouge commuters in the south-east, >>> then use that money to buy votes with highly subsidised fares in the
north.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spending-per-head-
in-the-uk/
In 2024/25, transport spending in London was 1,195 British pounds per
capita, compared with 670 pounds per capita for the UK as a whole. Most
regions of the UK had below average levels of transport spending per
head,
and was lowest in the East Midlands at 376 pounds per head.
East (Ely land) 628 GBP per capita
South East 626
North East 496
Yorkshire 475
Scotland 841 - whose government takes a different view on transport
spending.
Very interesting, but completely irrelevant. The amount of spending
depends on the density of lines, number and quality of trains being
run, etc; and I'm talking about the ***FARES*** people are charged.
If for example tickets for a trip from Cambridge to London were
subsidised as much as journeys in the north (or indeed Wales and
Scotland) they'd be approximately half the price.
On 26/04/2026 12:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10skovv$1gv7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:51 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sknij$1gh7g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:57:39 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station >>>>>>>>>> has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease >>>>>>>>> in the
next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so >>>>>>>> car parkÿ charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must >>>>>>> equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages >>>>> economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to
enact
policies that do exactly the opposite.
All recent governments do. They price gouge commuters in the south-east, >>>> then use that money to buy votes with highly subsidised fares in the
north.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spending-per-head- >>> in-the-uk/
In 2024/25, transport spending in London was 1,195 British pounds per
capita, compared with 670 pounds per capita for the UK as a whole. Most
regions of the UK had below average levels of transport spending per
head,
and was lowest in the East Midlands at 376 pounds per head.
East (Ely land) 628 GBP per capita
South East 626
North East 496
Yorkshire 475
Scotland 841 - whose government takes a different view on transport
spending.
Very interesting, but completely irrelevant. The amount of spending
depends on the density of lines, number and quality of trains being
run, etc; and I'm talking about the ***FARES*** people are charged.
If for example tickets for a trip from Cambridge to London were
subsidised as much as journeys in the north (or indeed Wales and
Scotland) they'd be approximately half the price.
I'd say it's the other way round. The density of lines, number and
quality of trains being run depend on the amount of spending. Much more
is spent in SE England, so they get more and better trains. Most people there live within walking distance of a station[1], whereas many parts
of the UK lie many miles from one.
[1] Source: I just made that up, but it's probably true.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 23/04/2026 15:49, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:To answer an earlier question: I have not seen this car park full. I
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
I know one or two on this group have suggested Luton Airport Parkway as >>>>>>> a place to park when not wanting to drive all the way to London. So >>>>>>> just a warning:Surely the extra parking charges will go straight to the government? GTR
It used to cost œ4-70 for the day if arriving at the car park after >>>>>>> 10am, now this has gone up to œ11-40, an increase of 143%. The charges
at several other Thameslink stations in the area are also much higher >>>>>>> then before.
My guess is that this is a last gasp of the Govia-Thameslink dragon to >>>>>>> get more return for shareholders before it gets nationalised at the end >>>>>>> of May. I just have to hope that when under DfT control such outlandish
increases will be brought under control, but I won't hold my breath. >>>>>>
was never a commercial franchise, even pre-Covid.
Perhaps there?s too many commuters starting later. Do some work, eg emails,
before a later start to set off to the office. And perhaps too many retired
folk using the car park for a day out in London.
Yes, both are very plausible explanations.
sometimes arrive late morning or early afternoon which is likely to be
the peak and always see plenty of spaces free. It may be that some
people are using the station car park longer term while they fly out of >>> the airport for a few days, but that would be a reason to raise the
long-term e.g. weekly charges, but surely not the off-peak rates.
I don't know whether the current revenue goes to the government - I
assumed not. But I'll contact my MP and see if she knows.
Most MPs seem to be clueless about the railway finances. But GTR was
unusual in that, right from the beginning, the DfT took all revenue risk,
and paid the operator a fixed fee. From the Covid lockdowns, all franchises >> were switched to a similar form of contract. So, in effect, the railways
were re-nationalised by the Tories.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management contract where
fare income does not go to GTR. Under their original contract, the
Department for Transport pays GTR œ8.9 billion over the first seven-year
period and receives all revenue. Consequently, the company carries less
revenue risk. This form of franchise was chosen because of long-term
engineering works anticipated around London, which would be a significant
challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
???
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all revenue e.g. >income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was
something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily
doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to enact policies that do exactly the opposite.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10skovv$1gv7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:51 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sknij$1gh7g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:57:39 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station >>>>>>>>>>has risen from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of >>>>>>>>>>
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease in the
next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so >>>>>>>> car park charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must >>>>>>> equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages >>>>> economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to enact >>>>> policies that do exactly the opposite.
All recent governments do. They price gouge commuters in the south-east, >>>> then use that money to buy votes with highly subsidised fares in the
north.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spending-per-head- >>> in-the-uk/
In 2024/25, transport spending in London was 1,195 British pounds per
capita, compared with 670 pounds per capita for the UK as a whole. Most
regions of the UK had below average levels of transport spending per head, >>> and was lowest in the East Midlands at 376 pounds per head.
East (Ely land) 628 GBP per capita
South East 626
North East 496
Yorkshire 475
Scotland 841 - whose government takes a different view on transport
spending.
Very interesting, but completely irrelevant. The amount of spending
depends on the density of lines, number and quality of trains being
run, etc; and I'm talking about the ***FARES*** people are charged.
If for example tickets for a trip from Cambridge to London were
subsidised as much as journeys in the north (or indeed Wales and
Scotland) they'd be approximately half the price.
And I was talking about subsidised public transport encouraging growth.
You still get more spent on your area per capita than the north of England,
so stop moaning about your fares.
If they were reduced then there would be even more spent on your area
per capita.
On 26/04/2026 12:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10skovv$1gv7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:51 on Sun, 26
Apr 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sknij$1gh7g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:57:39 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station >>>>>>>>>>has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures >>>>>>>>>decrease in the
next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so >>>>>>>> car parkÿ charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must >>>>>>> equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages >>>>> economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to >>>>>enact
policies that do exactly the opposite.
All recent governments do. They price gouge commuters in the south-east, >>>> then use that money to buy votes with highly subsidised fares in the
north.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spending-per-head- >>> in-the-uk/
In 2024/25, transport spending in London was 1,195 British pounds per
capita, compared with 670 pounds per capita for the UK as a whole. Most
regions of the UK had below average levels of transport spending per >>>head,
and was lowest in the East Midlands at 376 pounds per head.
East (Ely land) 628 GBP per capita
South East 626
North East 496
Yorkshire 475
Scotland 841 - whose government takes a different view on transport
spending.
Very interesting, but completely irrelevant. The amount of spending >>depends on the density of lines, number and quality of trains being
run, etc; and I'm talking about the ***FARES*** people are charged.
If for example tickets for a trip from Cambridge to London were >>subsidised as much as journeys in the north (or indeed Wales and
Scotland) they'd be approximately half the price.
I'd say it's the other way round. The density of lines, number and
quality of trains being run depend on the amount of spending. Much more
is spent in SE England, so they get more and better trains. Most people >there live within walking distance of a station[1], whereas many parts
of the UK lie many miles from one.
[1] Source: I just made that up, but it's probably true.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all revenue e.g. >>income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
As I understand it, all revenues and costs are the DfT's. This was brought in during the Covid period when,
essentially, all conventional franchises were about to go bankrupt. The DfT stepped in and nationalised them all,
sometimes making the operators pay for the privilege, if their pre-Covid revenues were below plan. After that, the DfT
took all revenue risk and paid all the costs. The TOCs just got a management fee thereafter.
On 26/04/2026 10:57, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was
something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily
doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport
encourages economic growth. This government claims to want that, but >>seems to enact policies that do exactly the opposite.
I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public
transport,
but I'm not sure that has helped any growth.
I?ve just compared the ticket price of Ely to Liverpool St and Sheffield to >Manchester Piccadilly. For an Anytime single, per km, the cost is near
enough identical.
In message <10sl4iv$1kamv$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:43 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I?ve just compared the ticket price of Ely to Liverpool St and Sheffield to >> Manchester Piccadilly. For an Anytime single, per km, the cost is near
enough identical.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the price[1], but remember the latter will be **subsidised** by about 20p/passenger-mile[2], which is
the feature of ticket pricing I'm concentrating on.
[1] I'd probably look at Off-peak day returns if doing the comparison myself.
[2] And the former not subsidised at all.
In message <10sl4iv$1kamv$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:43 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I?ve just compared the ticket price of Ely to Liverpool St and
Sheffield to
Manchester Piccadilly. For an Anytime single, per km, the cost is near
enough identical.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the price[1], but remember the latter will be **subsidised** by about 20p/passenger-mile[2], which is
the feature of ticket pricing I'm concentrating on.
[1] I'd probably look at Off-peak day returns if doing the comparison myself.
[2] And the former not subsidised at all.
On 26/04/2026 15:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl4iv$1kamv$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:43 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I?ve just compared the ticket price of Ely to Liverpool St and
Sheffield to
Manchester Piccadilly. For an Anytime single, per km, the cost is near
enough identical.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the price[1], but remember the
latter will be **subsidised** by about 20p/passenger-mile[2], which is
the feature of ticket pricing I'm concentrating on.
[1] I'd probably look at Off-peak day returns if doing the comparison
myself.
[2] And the former not subsidised at all.
Perhaps we should ask why running a train from Sheffield to Manchester requires a subsidy but Ely to London doesn't. It isn't the fares.
Are Sheffield to Manchester trains less full? Anecdotes suggest not
but I've not seen any loading figures. Does everyone from Ely travel
first class?
In message <th4suktmqjh37bo4eul8vhk8tg7mrsc80b@4ax.com>, at 14:57:08 on
Sun, 26 Apr 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all revenue e.g. >>> income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
As I understand it, all revenues and costs are the DfT's. This was
brought in during the Covid period when,
essentially, all conventional franchises were about to go bankrupt. The
DfT stepped in and nationalised them all,
sometimes making the operators pay for the privilege, if their pre-Covid
revenues were below plan. After that, the DfT
took all revenue risk and paid all the costs. The TOCs just got a
management fee thereafter.
Do you therefore subscribe to the view that (eg) Avanti send all the
supply bills for their FC catering offering to the DfT, and that the DfT collects all the rent (eg) APCOA pay for station car parks, and the
money taxi drivers pay to use the ranks.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sl4iv$1kamv$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:43 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I?ve just compared the ticket price of Ely to Liverpool St and >>>Sheffield to
Manchester Piccadilly. For an Anytime single, per km, the cost is near
enough identical.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the price[1], but remember the
latter will be **subsidised** by about 20p/passenger-mile[2], which is
the feature of ticket pricing I'm concentrating on.
[1] I'd probably look at Off-peak day returns if doing the comparison
myself.
[2] And the former not subsidised at all.
So where is all the extra public transport spending in the East region
going cf the North East?
In message <10sl7ko$1dvae$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:53 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 10:57, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was
something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily
doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
ÿIt is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport
encouragesÿ economic growth. This government claims to want that, but
seems to enactÿ policies that do exactly the opposite.
I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public transport,
You'd believe wrong.
Moving to Cambridgeshire I coincidentally got a card soon after, but use it maybe twice year, because the bus services are virtually useless for me (slow and infrequent).
And when I travel by train, especially to London, the fares structure is such that *I* pay more than it costs to deliver the service, due to the way the funds are divided up between the south and north.
but I'm not sure that has helped any growth.
As far as I'm concerned the one thing which contributes most to my ability to stimulate economic growth is broadband Internet.
On 26/04/2026 15:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl4iv$1kamv$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:43 on Sun, 26
Apr 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I?ve just compared the ticket price of Ely to Liverpool St and >>>Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly. For an Anytime single, per km,
the cost is near enough identical.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the price[1], but remember
the latter will be **subsidised** by about 20p/passenger-mile[2],
which is the feature of ticket pricing I'm concentrating on.
[1] I'd probably look at Off-peak day returns if doing the
comparison myself.
[2] And the former not subsidised at all.
Perhaps we should ask why running a train from Sheffield to Manchester >requires a subsidy but Ely to London doesn't.
It isn't the fares.
Are Sheffield to Manchester trains less full?
Anecdotes suggest not but I've not seen any loading figures. Does
everyone from Ely travel first class?
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 26/04/2026 15:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl4iv$1kamv$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:43 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I?ve just compared the ticket price of Ely to Liverpool St and
Sheffield to
Manchester Piccadilly. For an Anytime single, per km, the cost is near >>>> enough identical.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the price[1], but remember the >>> latter will be **subsidised** by about 20p/passenger-mile[2], which is
the feature of ticket pricing I'm concentrating on.
[1] I'd probably look at Off-peak day returns if doing the comparison
myself.
[2] And the former not subsidised at all.
Perhaps we should ask why running a train from Sheffield to Manchester
requires a subsidy but Ely to London doesn't. It isn't the fares.
Are Sheffield to Manchester trains less full? Anecdotes suggest not
but I've not seen any loading figures. Does everyone from Ely travel
first class?
Well we don?t actually know if Ely to Liverpool St is unsubsidised. The TOC >may not be, but Ely might be getting a cross subsidy from the commuters who >live closer to London. The density of commuters falls the further you get >from London. They might be cursing their high fares that bail out the >fenlanders.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <th4suktmqjh37bo4eul8vhk8tg7mrsc80b@4ax.com>, at 14:57:08 on
Sun, 26 Apr 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all revenue e.g.
income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
As I understand it, all revenues and costs are the DfT's. This was
brought in during the Covid period when,
essentially, all conventional franchises were about to go bankrupt. The
DfT stepped in and nationalised them all,
sometimes making the operators pay for the privilege, if their pre-Covid >>> revenues were below plan. After that, the DfT
took all revenue risk and paid all the costs. The TOCs just got a
management fee thereafter.
Do you therefore subscribe to the view that (eg) Avanti send all the
supply bills for their FC catering offering to the DfT, and that the DfT
collects all the rent (eg) APCOA pay for station car parks, and the
money taxi drivers pay to use the ranks.
Of course not, and nobody has suggested any such thing.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:[snip]
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
In message <zoqHR.8232$qhwb.3851@fx14.ams1>, at 15:43:27 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <th4suktmqjh37bo4eul8vhk8tg7mrsc80b@4ax.com>, at 14:57:08 on
Sun, 26 Apr 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all revenue e.g.
income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
As I understand it, all revenues and costs are the DfT's. This was
brought in during the Covid period when,
essentially, all conventional franchises were about to go bankrupt. The >>>> DfT stepped in and nationalised them all,
sometimes making the operators pay for the privilege, if their pre-Covid >>>> revenues were below plan. After that, the DfT
took all revenue risk and paid all the costs. The TOCs just got a
management fee thereafter.
Do you therefore subscribe to the view that (eg) Avanti send all the
supply bills for their FC catering offering to the DfT, and that the DfT >>> collects all the rent (eg) APCOA pay for station car parks, and the
money taxi drivers pay to use the ranks.
Of course not, and nobody has suggested any such thing.
"All the revenues and costs are the DfT's".
In what sense are the items I mentioned neither revenues or costs?
On 25/04/2026 22:03, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:[snip]
Well I just got a response from GTR to my complaint. It says:
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits. >>>
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
<quote>
Thanks for getting in touch regarding the increase in prices for parking
at Luton Airport Parkway, and I'm sorry if you were unaware of the
increases to the tariffs, these started on the 30th March this year.
From 30 March, parking charges at several of our stations changed as
part of our annual review. Changes may include:
ú Updated daily rates
ú A discounted evening rate?(after 5pm)
ú Adjusted off-peak times?to better reflect current usage
ú In some cases, a full tariff restructure
We appreciate that any change to costs can be frustrating, and we
understand why you?ve got in touch.
At this stage, the changes are part of our standard annual review and
they have been designed to reflect current demand at our car parks and ensure they remain well-maintained and managed. While we recognise you
are unhappy with the update, there are no plans to amend the changes.
Your feedback has been recorded so we can continue to monitor customer sentiment. If there?s anything else we can help with, please do let us know. Thanks again for getting in touch, and I hope you have a lovely afternoon. </quote>
From this it looks very much as if it is the decision of GTR to
increase charges and nothing to do with DfT. But maybe things will be different when they are nationalised? I'll try to find out.
Incidentally, Messrs Google has reviews with lots of reports of cars
with break-ins in this car park. It used to be staffed for at least the whole working day, but that was stopped a year or two back. And the
signs claiming it to be a certified "secure car park" (or something like that) have also been taken away. Obviously it isn't safe any more.
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 25/04/2026 22:03, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:[snip]
Well I just got a response from GTR to my complaint. It says:
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by >>>> APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits. >>>>
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
<quote>
Thanks for getting in touch regarding the increase in prices for parking
at Luton Airport Parkway, and I'm sorry if you were unaware of the
increases to the tariffs, these started on the 30th March this year.
From 30 March, parking charges at several of our stations changed as
part of our annual review. Changes may include:
ú Updated daily rates
ú A discounted evening rate?(after 5pm)
ú Adjusted off-peak times?to better reflect current usage
ú In some cases, a full tariff restructure
We appreciate that any change to costs can be frustrating, and we
understand why you?ve got in touch.
At this stage, the changes are part of our standard annual review and
they have been designed to reflect current demand at our car parks and
ensure they remain well-maintained and managed. While we recognise you
are unhappy with the update, there are no plans to amend the changes.
Your feedback has been recorded so we can continue to monitor customer
sentiment. If there?s anything else we can help with, please do let us know. >> Thanks again for getting in touch, and I hope you have a lovely afternoon. >> </quote>
From this it looks very much as if it is the decision of GTR to
increase charges and nothing to do with DfT. But maybe things will be
different when they are nationalised? I'll try to find out.
GTR does what the DfT tells it, and always has done, ever since it was
formed in 2014. So the decision might be technically GTR?s, but it will
have been taken with the full agreement, if not at the behest, of the DfT.
Incidentally, Messrs Google has reviews with lots of reports of cars
with break-ins in this car park. It used to be staffed for at least the
whole working day, but that was stopped a year or two back. And the
signs claiming it to be a certified "secure car park" (or something like
that) have also been taken away. Obviously it isn't safe any more.
I wonder whose decision that was? I suppose if GTR doesn?t insist on it being operated as a ?secure car park?, then APCOA can save money by cutting down on security.
In message <10skovv$1gv7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:51 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sknij$1gh7g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:57:39 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station >>>>>>>>> has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease >>>>>>>> in the
next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so >>>>>>> car parkÿ charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must >>>>>> equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages >>>> economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to
enact
policies that do exactly the opposite.
All recent governments do. They price gouge commuters in the south-east, >>> then use that money to buy votes with highly subsidised fares in the
north.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spending-per-head-
in-the-uk/
In 2024/25, transport spending in London was 1,195 British pounds per
capita, compared with 670 pounds per capita for the UK as a whole. Most
regions of the UK had below average levels of transport spending per
head,
and was lowest in the East Midlands at 376 pounds per head.
East (Ely land) 628 GBP per capita
South East 626
North East 496
Yorkshire 475
Scotland 841 - whose government takes a different view on transport
spending.
Very interesting, but completely irrelevant. The amount of spending n
depends on the density of lines, number and quality of trains being
run, etc; and I'm talking about the ***FARES*** people are charged.
If for example tickets for a trip from Cambridge to London were
subsidised as much as journeys in the north (or indeed Wales and
Scotland) they'd be approximately half the price.
On 26/04/2026 12:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10skovv$1gv7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:51 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sknij$1gh7g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:57:39 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sklrb$1fqvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:12 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
And in the news today: Car Parking at St Neots [ECML] Station >>>>>>>>>> has risen
from œ4.40 off-peak to a flat rate at all times of œ11.30
Re-Nationalisation, the gift which keeps giving.
It will be interesting to see if station usage figures decrease >>>>>>>>> in the
next year or two....
I?d have thought most LTN station users were using the airport, so >>>>>>>> car parkÿ charges shouldn?t affect them?
I was thinking more about other stations that have had rip-off
increases in parking charges. Especially for shorter trips, it must >>>>>>> equate to a substantial increase in the cost of travel by rail.
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport encourages >>>>> economic growth. This government claims to want that, but seems to
enact
policies that do exactly the opposite.
All recent governments do. They price gouge commuters in the south-east, >>>> then use that money to buy votes with highly subsidised fares in the
north.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spending-per-head- >>> in-the-uk/
In 2024/25, transport spending in London was 1,195 British pounds per
capita, compared with 670 pounds per capita for the UK as a whole. Most
regions of the UK had below average levels of transport spending per
head,
and was lowest in the East Midlands at 376 pounds per head.
East (Ely land) 628 GBP per capita
South East 626
North East 496
Yorkshire 475
Scotland 841 - whose government takes a different view on transport
spending.
Very interesting, but completely irrelevant. The amount of spending n
depends on the density of lines, number and quality of trains being
run, etc; and I'm talking about the ***FARES*** people are charged.
If for example tickets for a trip from Cambridge to London were
subsidised as much as journeys in the north (or indeed Wales and
Scotland) they'd be approximately half the price.
Indeed: I have just been planning a rail trip around Scotland and have
been surprised how cheap the fares are, compared to those in the London area.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 25/04/2026 22:03, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:[snip]
Well I just got a response from GTR to my complaint. It says:
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by >>>>> APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits. >>>>>
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
<quote>
Thanks for getting in touch regarding the increase in prices for parking >>> at Luton Airport Parkway, and I'm sorry if you were unaware of the
increases to the tariffs, these started on the 30th March this year.
From 30 March, parking charges at several of our stations changed as
part of our annual review. Changes may include:
ú Updated daily rates
ú A discounted evening rate?(after 5pm)
ú Adjusted off-peak times?to better reflect current usage
ú In some cases, a full tariff restructure
We appreciate that any change to costs can be frustrating, and we
understand why you?ve got in touch.
At this stage, the changes are part of our standard annual review and
they have been designed to reflect current demand at our car parks and
ensure they remain well-maintained and managed. While we recognise you
are unhappy with the update, there are no plans to amend the changes.
Your feedback has been recorded so we can continue to monitor customer
sentiment. If there?s anything else we can help with, please do let us know.
Thanks again for getting in touch, and I hope you have a lovely afternoon. >>> </quote>
From this it looks very much as if it is the decision of GTR to
increase charges and nothing to do with DfT. But maybe things will be >>> different when they are nationalised? I'll try to find out.
GTR does what the DfT tells it, and always has done, ever since it was
formed in 2014. So the decision might be technically GTR?s, but it will
have been taken with the full agreement, if not at the behest, of the DfT. >>
Incidentally, Messrs Google has reviews with lots of reports of cars
with break-ins in this car park. It used to be staffed for at least the >>> whole working day, but that was stopped a year or two back. And the
signs claiming it to be a certified "secure car park" (or something like >>> that) have also been taken away. Obviously it isn't safe any more.
I wonder whose decision that was? I suppose if GTR doesn?t insist on it
being operated as a ?secure car park?, then APCOA can save money by cutting >> down on security.
I wonder if off peak time boundaries for commuter services might become
less favourable? If they think they can get away with it for their car
parks the next step might be to catch out the late start morning rail commuters.
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management contract where >>> fare income does not go to GTR. Under their original contract, the
Department for Transport pays GTR œ8.9 billion over the first seven-year >>> period and receives all revenue. Consequently, the company carries less
revenue risk. This form of franchise was chosen because of long-term
engineering works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>> challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all revenue e.g. >> income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking, so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the rents
from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get paid direct
to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid
for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get skimmed
off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee to the TOC
to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits. >>>
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP (with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost from
the parking fees.
My daughter's flat in West London is rather odd, in that while there's arguably twelve railway stations within a mile and a half, there's none closer than a mile. That's in a borough with a population of around
400k.
On 26/04/2026 15:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl7ko$1dvae$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:53 on Sun, 26
Apr 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 10:57, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
?It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport >>>>encourages? economic growth. This government claims to want that,
but seems to enact? policies that do exactly the opposite.
I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public >>>transport,
You'd believe wrong.
Moving to Cambridgeshire I coincidentally got a card soon after, but
use it maybe twice year, because the bus services are virtually
useless for me (slow and infrequent).
But you do have access to free, subsiidised public transport?
And when I travel by train, especially to London, the fares structure
is such that *I* pay more than it costs to deliver the service, due
to the way the funds are divided up between the south and north.
But you could travel to and around London using free, subsidised,
slow, infrequent public transport?
but I'm not sure that has helped any growth.
As far as I'm concerned the one thing which contributes most to my >>ability to stimulate economic growth is broadband Internet.
Also available on free, subsidised public transport I believe.
In message <10slc26$1dvaf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:47:19 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 15:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl7ko$1dvae$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:53 on Sun, 26
Apr 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 10:57, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
?It is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport >>>>>encourages? economic growth. This government claims to want that, >>>>>but seems to enact? policies that do exactly the opposite.
I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public >>>>transport,
You'd believe wrong.
Moving to Cambridgeshire I coincidentally got a card soon after, but >>>use it maybe twice year, because the bus services are virtually
useless for me (slow and infrequent).
But you do have access to free, subsiidised public transport?
There's a bus five minutes walk away which I can take during whatever
the current Twirly Card hours are, but it's slightly less frequent than
once an hour. One direction goes to places I might want to visit a
handful of times a year [never used it in 2025; once so far 2026, but I
got a taxi back because it was too late in the evening to get a bus],
the other doesn't. If you call that "access", then so be it.
And when I travel by train, especially to London, the fares
structure is such that *I* pay more than it costs to deliver the >>>service, due to the way the funds are divided up between the south
and north.
But you could travel to and around London using free, subsidised,
slow, infrequent public transport?
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using
to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs
to Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>,
Stansted Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford
<change> [a relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood
<change>; then to Stratford [maybe another hour].
So I'm really not confused
what point you are trying to make. It's absolutely nothing to do with
train fares being twice the price in the southeast as the north, that's
for sure.
but I'm not sure that has helped any growth.
As far as I'm concerned the one thing which contributes most to my >>>ability to stimulate economic growth is broadband Internet.
Also available on free, subsidised public transport I believe.
Not very often on the sort of rural/outer-suburban buses I might use.
And "Broadband" is stretching the definition a bit, anyway.
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using
to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to Stratford [maybe another hour].
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would
require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using
to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to
Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted
Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to
Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can
travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That
would require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm
using to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is >>>1.5hrs to Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow >>><change>, Stansted Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; >>>Chelmsford <change> [a relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to >>>Brentwood <change>; then to Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the >tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental >elderly care etc.
In message <10slc26$1dvaf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:47:19 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 15:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl7ko$1dvae$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:53 on Sun, 26
Apr 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 10:57, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
ÿIt is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport
encouragesÿ economic growth. This government claims to want that,
but seems to enactÿ policies that do exactly the opposite.
I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public
transport,
You'd believe wrong.
Moving to Cambridgeshire I coincidentally got a card soon after, but
use it maybe twice year, because the bus services are virtually
useless for me (slow and infrequent).
But you do have access to free, subsiidised public transport?
There's a bus five minutes walk away which I can take during whatever
the current Twirly Card hours are, but it's slightly less frequent than
once an hour. One direction goes to places I might want to visit a
handful of times a year [never used it in 2025; once so far 2026, but I
got a taxi back because it was too late in the evening to get a bus],
the other doesn't. If you call that "access", then so be it.
And when I travel by train, especially to London, the fares structure
is such that *I* pay more than it costs to deliver the service, due
to the way the funds are divided up between the south and north.
But you could travel to and around London using free, subsidised,
slow, infrequent public transport?
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using
to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to Stratford [maybe another hour].
So I'm really not confused what point you are trying to make. It's absolutely nothing to do with train fares being twice the price in the southeast as the north, that's for sure.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would
require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using
to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to
Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can
travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the
morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental elderly care etc.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can
travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the
morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the >> tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental >> elderly care etc.
Not all the tab. My son pays a significantly greater amount of income tax >than if he worked in England.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:04:09 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>>>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>>>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>> travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>> morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the
tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental >>> elderly care etc.
Not all the tab. My son pays a significantly greater amount of income tax
than if he worked in England.
Is the tartan tax really that high?
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:04:09 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to
Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted
Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a >>>>>> relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>>> travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>>> morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up >the
tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental
elderly care etc.
Not all the tab. My son pays a significantly greater amount of income tax >>> than if he worked in England.
Is the tartan tax really that high?
A œ50k salary earner will pay around œ1500 per year extra
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:41:05 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:04:09 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to
Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted
Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a >>>>>>> relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>>>> travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>>>> morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up >> the
tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental
elderly care etc.
Not all the tab. My son pays a significantly greater amount of income tax >>>> than if he worked in England.
Is the tartan tax really that high?
A œ50k salary earner will pay around œ1500 per year extra
Ouch! The lefties in the SNP and Labour really making the UK an attractive place to live and work these days.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:41:05 -0000 (UTC)Well you don?t pay student loan repayments (if you attended a Scottish university)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Is the tartan tax really that high?
A œ50k salary earner will pay around œ1500 per year extra
Ouch! The lefties in the SNP and Labour really making the UK an attractive >> place to live and work these days.
but then they get it back this way.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10slc26$1dvaf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:47:19 on Sun, 26 AprExcept they aren?t twice the price. For the Sheffield Manchester route you >complained about my use of an Anytime single for the comparison and
2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 15:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl7ko$1dvae$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:53 on Sun, 26
Apr 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 10:57, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
ÿIt is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport
encouragesÿ economic growth. This government claims to want that,
but seems to enactÿ policies that do exactly the opposite.
I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public
transport,
You'd believe wrong.
Moving to Cambridgeshire I coincidentally got a card soon after, but
use it maybe twice year, because the bus services are virtually
useless for me (slow and infrequent).
But you do have access to free, subsiidised public transport?
There's a bus five minutes walk away which I can take during whatever
the current Twirly Card hours are, but it's slightly less frequent than
once an hour. One direction goes to places I might want to visit a
handful of times a year [never used it in 2025; once so far 2026, but I
got a taxi back because it was too late in the evening to get a bus],
the other doesn't. If you call that "access", then so be it.
And when I travel by train, especially to London, the fares structure
is such that *I* pay more than it costs to deliver the service, due
to the way the funds are divided up between the south and north.
But you could travel to and around London using free, subsidised,
slow, infrequent public transport?
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would
require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using
to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to
Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted
Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to
Stratford [maybe another hour].
So I'm really not confused what point you are trying to make. It's
absolutely nothing to do with train fares being twice the price in the
southeast as the north, that's for sure.
preferred an off peak day return. Providing you are content to use a super >off peak day return, per km, Ely - Liverpool St is cheaper. Off peak
returns are pretty much equal. This using the normal definition of fare, ie >what the passenger pays for the ticket.
In message <10snc6p$29532$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:02:01 on Mon, 27 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10slc26$1dvaf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:47:19 on Sun, 26 AprExcept they aren?t twice the price. For the Sheffield Manchester route you >> complained about my use of an Anytime single for the comparison and
2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 15:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl7ko$1dvae$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:53 on Sun, 26
Apr 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 10:57, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
ÿIt is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport
encouragesÿ economic growth. This government claims to want that, >>>>>>> but seems to enactÿ policies that do exactly the opposite.
I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public
transport,
You'd believe wrong.
Moving to Cambridgeshire I coincidentally got a card soon after, but >>>>> use it maybe twice year, because the bus services are virtually
useless for me (slow and infrequent).
But you do have access to free, subsiidised public transport?
There's a bus five minutes walk away which I can take during whatever
the current Twirly Card hours are, but it's slightly less frequent than
once an hour. One direction goes to places I might want to visit a
handful of times a year [never used it in 2025; once so far 2026, but I
got a taxi back because it was too late in the evening to get a bus],
the other doesn't. If you call that "access", then so be it.
And when I travel by train, especially to London, the fares structure >>>>> is such that *I* pay more than it costs to deliver the service, due >>>>> to the way the funds are divided up between the south and north.
But you could travel to and around London using free, subsidised,
slow, infrequent public transport?
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would
require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using
to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to
Stratford [maybe another hour].
So I'm really not confused what point you are trying to make. It's
absolutely nothing to do with train fares being twice the price in the
southeast as the north, that's for sure.
preferred an off peak day return. Providing you are content to use a super >> off peak day return, per km, Ely - Liverpool St is cheaper. Off peak
returns are pretty much equal. This using the normal definition of fare, ie >> what the passenger pays for the ticket.
They are only not Twice-The-Price because half of what people in the southeast pay for their tickets is sent to the north to halve the prices
up there.
I don't understand why you are in such denial about this basic
cross-subsidy economies.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10snc6p$29532$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:02:01 on Mon, 27 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10slc26$1dvaf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:47:19 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>> 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:Except they aren?t twice the price. For the Sheffield Manchester route you >>> complained about my use of an Anytime single for the comparison and
On 26/04/2026 15:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl7ko$1dvae$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:53 on Sun, 26 >>>>>> Apr 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 10:57, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was >>>>>>>>> something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>>>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
ÿIt is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport
encouragesÿ economic growth. This government claims to want that, >>>>>>>> but seems to enactÿ policies that do exactly the opposite.
I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public
transport,
You'd believe wrong.
Moving to Cambridgeshire I coincidentally got a card soon after, but >>>>>> use it maybe twice year, because the bus services are virtually
useless for me (slow and infrequent).
But you do have access to free, subsiidised public transport?
There's a bus five minutes walk away which I can take during whatever
the current Twirly Card hours are, but it's slightly less frequent than >>>> once an hour. One direction goes to places I might want to visit a
handful of times a year [never used it in 2025; once so far 2026, but I >>>> got a taxi back because it was too late in the evening to get a bus],
the other doesn't. If you call that "access", then so be it.
And when I travel by train, especially to London, the fares structure >>>>>> is such that *I* pay more than it costs to deliver the service, due >>>>>> to the way the funds are divided up between the south and north.
But you could travel to and around London using free, subsidised,
slow, infrequent public transport?
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would
require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to
Stratford [maybe another hour].
So I'm really not confused what point you are trying to make. It's
absolutely nothing to do with train fares being twice the price in the >>>> southeast as the north, that's for sure.
preferred an off peak day return. Providing you are content to use a super >>> off peak day return, per km, Ely - Liverpool St is cheaper. Off peak
returns are pretty much equal. This using the normal definition of fare, ie >>> what the passenger pays for the ticket.
They are only not Twice-The-Price because half of what people in the
southeast pay for their tickets is sent to the north to halve the prices
up there.
I don't understand why you are in such denial about this basic
cross-subsidy economies.
I?m not in denial of anything. You claimed your fares are twice the price
as those oop north. They are not.
Your per km ticket prices (as in what you directly pay for your ticket) are >roughly similar to those up north.
In message <10snj8e$2bg6m$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:22 on Mon, 27 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10snc6p$29532$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:02:01 on Mon, 27 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10slc26$1dvaf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:47:19 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>>> 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:Except they aren?t twice the price. For the Sheffield Manchester route you >>>> complained about my use of an Anytime single for the comparison and
On 26/04/2026 15:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl7ko$1dvae$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:53 on Sun, 26 >>>>>>> Apr 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 10:57, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party Manifesto was
something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily >>>>>>>>>> doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
ÿIt is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport >>>>>>>>> encouragesÿ economic growth. This government claims to want that, >>>>>>>>> but seems to enactÿ policies that do exactly the opposite.
I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public >>>>>>>> transport,
You'd believe wrong.
Moving to Cambridgeshire I coincidentally got a card soon after, but >>>>>>> use it maybe twice year, because the bus services are virtually >>>>>>> useless for me (slow and infrequent).
But you do have access to free, subsiidised public transport?
There's a bus five minutes walk away which I can take during whatever >>>>> the current Twirly Card hours are, but it's slightly less frequent than >>>>> once an hour. One direction goes to places I might want to visit a
handful of times a year [never used it in 2025; once so far 2026, but I >>>>> got a taxi back because it was too late in the evening to get a bus], >>>>> the other doesn't. If you call that "access", then so be it.
And when I travel by train, especially to London, the fares structure >>>>>>> is such that *I* pay more than it costs to deliver the service, due >>>>>>> to the way the funds are divided up between the south and north. >>>>>>But you could travel to and around London using free, subsidised,
slow, infrequent public transport?
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>>>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>>>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
So I'm really not confused what point you are trying to make. It's
absolutely nothing to do with train fares being twice the price in the >>>>> southeast as the north, that's for sure.
preferred an off peak day return. Providing you are content to use a super >>>> off peak day return, per km, Ely - Liverpool St is cheaper. Off peak
returns are pretty much equal. This using the normal definition of fare, ie
what the passenger pays for the ticket.
They are only not Twice-The-Price because half of what people in the
southeast pay for their tickets is sent to the north to halve the prices >>> up there.
I don't understand why you are in such denial about this basic
cross-subsidy economies.
I?m not in denial of anything. You claimed your fares are twice the price
as those oop north. They are not.
They are twice the price because half of what I pay is sent to the north
to halve their fares.
Your per km ticket prices (as in what you directly pay for your ticket) are >> roughly similar to those up north.
I don't think they are. You've quoted one example, but what about
another...
Cambridge to London Off Peak Return œ49.30, approx 100 miles in total,
so œ49p/passenger mile.
Lancaster to Preston œ8.40, 40 miles, 21p.
On 27/04/2026 12:07, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:41:05 -0000 (UTC)Well you don?t pay student loan repayments (if you attended a Scottish
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Is the tartan tax really that high?
A œ50k salary earner will pay around œ1500 per year extra
Ouch! The lefties in the SNP and Labour really making the UK an attractive >>> place to live and work these days.
university)
unless you're English, of course
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10snj8e$2bg6m$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:22 on Mon, 27 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10snc6p$29532$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:02:01 on Mon, 27 Apr >>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10slc26$1dvaf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:47:19 on Sun, 26 Apr >>>>>> 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:Except they aren?t twice the price. For the Sheffield Manchester >>>>>route you
On 26/04/2026 15:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10sl7ko$1dvae$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:53 on Sun, 26 >>>>>>>> Apr 2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 10:57, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
The only thing you'll probably find in the Labour Party >>>>>>>>>>>Manifesto was
something about keeping *fares* under control. Which they are busily
doing by withdrawing many of the cheaper ones.
ÿIt is well researched that cheap subsidised public transport >>>>>>>>>> encouragesÿ economic growth. This government claims to want that, >>>>>>>>>> but seems to enactÿ policies that do exactly the opposite.
I believe Roland has access to plenty of free subsidised public >>>>>>>>> transport,
You'd believe wrong.
Moving to Cambridgeshire I coincidentally got a card soon after, but >>>>>>>> use it maybe twice year, because the bus services are virtually >>>>>>>> useless for me (slow and infrequent).
But you do have access to free, subsiidised public transport?
There's a bus five minutes walk away which I can take during whatever >>>>>> the current Twirly Card hours are, but it's slightly less frequent than >>>>>> once an hour. One direction goes to places I might want to visit a >>>>>> handful of times a year [never used it in 2025; once so far 2026, but I >>>>>> got a taxi back because it was too late in the evening to get a bus], >>>>>> the other doesn't. If you call that "access", then so be it.
And when I travel by train, especially to London, the fares structure >>>>>>>> is such that *I* pay more than it costs to deliver the service, due >>>>>>>> to the way the funds are divided up between the south and north. >>>>>>>But you could travel to and around London using free, subsidised, >>>>>>> slow, infrequent public transport?
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>>>>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>>>>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a >>>>>> relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
So I'm really not confused what point you are trying to make. It's >>>>>> absolutely nothing to do with train fares being twice the price in the >>>>>> southeast as the north, that's for sure.
complained about my use of an Anytime single for the comparison and
preferred an off peak day return. Providing you are content to use a super
off peak day return, per km, Ely - Liverpool St is cheaper. Off peak >>>>> returns are pretty much equal. This using the normal definition of >>>>>fare, ie
what the passenger pays for the ticket.
They are only not Twice-The-Price because half of what people in the
southeast pay for their tickets is sent to the north to halve the prices >>>> up there.
I don't understand why you are in such denial about this basic
cross-subsidy economies.
I?m not in denial of anything. You claimed your fares are twice the price >>> as those oop north. They are not.
They are twice the price because half of what I pay is sent to the north
to halve their fares.
Your per km ticket prices (as in what you directly pay for your ticket) are >>> roughly similar to those up north.
I don't think they are. You've quoted one example, but what about
another...
Cambridge to London Off Peak Return œ49.30, approx 100 miles in total,
so œ49p/passenger mile.
Lancaster to Preston œ8.40, 40 miles, 21p.
I raise you Ely to Kings Lynn 19p/mile for an off peak day return.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management contract where >>>> fare income does not go to GTR. Under their original contract, the
Department for Transport pays GTR œ8.9 billion over the first seven-year >>>> period and receives all revenue. Consequently, the company carries less >>>> revenue risk. This form of franchise was chosen because of long-term
engineering works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>> challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all revenue e.g. >>> income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking, so
presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the rents
from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get paid direct
to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for
catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid
for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get skimmed
off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee to the TOC
to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by >>>> APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the profits. >>>>
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-parkway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various parking
companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP (with recent
very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by the
railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost from
the parking fees.
It appears that the parking revenue actually gets split three ways, between the park operator (NCP, APCOA, etc), TOC (ie, DfT) and NR (ie, DfT).
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would
require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using
to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to
Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the >tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental >elderly care etc.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:04:09 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>>>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>>>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>> travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>> morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the
tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental >>> elderly care etc.
Not all the tab. My son pays a significantly greater amount of income tax >>than if he worked in England.
Is the tartan tax really that high?
On 27/04/2026 12:07, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:41:05 -0000 (UTC)Well you don?t pay student loan repayments (if you attended a Scottish
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Is the tartan tax really that high?
A ?50k salary earner will pay around ?1500 per year extra
Ouch! The lefties in the SNP and Labour really making the UK an attractive >>> place to live and work these days.
university)
unless you're English, of course
but then they get it back this way.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:22:31 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:04:09 -0000 (UTC)Only if you are earning a fair bit.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to
Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted
Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a >>>>>> relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>>> travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>>> morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the
tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental
elderly care etc.
Not all the tab. My son pays a significantly greater amount of income tax >>> than if he worked in England.
Is the tartan tax really that high?
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:22:31 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:04:09 -0000 (UTC)Only if you are earning a fair bit.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to
Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted
Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a >>>>>>> relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>>>> travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>>>> morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the
tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental
elderly care etc.
Not all the tab. My son pays a significantly greater amount of income tax >>>> than if he worked in England.
Is the tartan tax really that high?
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:22:31 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:04:09 -0000 (UTC)Only if you are earning a fair bit. It is often ignored that income
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to
Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted
Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a >>>>>> relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>>> travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>>> morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the
tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental
elderly care etc.
Not all the tab. My son pays a significantly greater amount of income tax >>> than if he worked in England.
Is the tartan tax really that high?
tax for all earners is partly mitigated by a generally lower level of
council tax.
But yes, you do get
unmetered water thrown in.
On 28/04/2026 07:49, Tweed wrote:
But yes, you do get
unmetered water thrown in.
Unmetered, yes, but 'thrown in', no. It's listed as a separate item on
your Council Tax. œ380 ish iirc for us this year.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:28:41 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100It is an expansion of more localised application of concessionary
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the >>tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental >>elderly care etc.
travel for 60+ by non-SNP councils. Westminster pays the "tab" from
taxes raised in Scotland. Prescriptions were already at the point
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why does >Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw?
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really.
Some are happier, but a significant chunk are not. Highest drug abuse rate
in Europe with alcohol abuse not far behind. And I do know a lot of folk
who complain about the income tax rate.
On 28/04/2026 07:49, Tweed wrote:
But yes, you do get
unmetered water thrown in.
Unmetered, yes, but 'thrown in', no. It's listed as a separate item on
your Council Tax. ?380 ish iirc for us this year.
I've just checked my credit card bill and for a day at Luton Airport
Parkway I've only been charged ?11-40. But their website says
"Please note that all daily rates expire at 4am, and a 15p convenience
fee is applied to all tariffs."
There is no justification or explanation for this "convenience fee" so
I'm glad it hasn't actually been charged as an extra. Perhaps it only >applies to car parks which include a public convenience?
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why does
Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw?
Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all intents and purposes a single entity. If you think Brexit was hard you haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:Yes, but only as the Local Authority collect the money, so unlike in
On 28/04/2026 07:49, Tweed wrote:
But yes, you do get
unmetered water thrown in.
Unmetered, yes, but 'thrown in', no. It's listed as a separate item on
your Council Tax. œ380 ish iirc for us this year.
It might be broken out in the bill, as police fire etc is done in England. But when a Scottish band D council tax bill figure is quoted doesn?t that include the water charge?
In message <n59f85Flde5U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:55:40 on Mon, 27
Apr 2026, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
I've just checked my credit card bill and for a day at Luton Airport
Parkway I've only been charged œ11-40.ÿ But their website says
"Please note that all daily rates expire at 4am, and a 15p convenience
fee is applied to all tariffs."
There is no justification or explanation for this "convenience fee" so
I'm glad it hasn't actually been charged as an extra.ÿÿ Perhaps it
only applies to car parks which include a public convenience?
I think the "Convenience Fee" is probably what the parking-app providers charge the car park operator for each transaction. That's a cost of
doing business if a parking app is the only way to pay.
And I find parking apps *in*convenient - compared to shoving coins in a
slot which is far simpler and quicker.
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really. I
dont know anyone who complains about the Income Tax rates. We complain
about useless Councils and potholes, complain about the SNP who are
totally incompetent, but then compare them to the other Parties,and they arent so bad.
I'm totally against the SNP, but there's no way I can vote for any other Party either, as they are all useless twats with no ideas. The Liberals
are even campaigning on 'give us your second vote'. They know they arent going to get in, but want peoples second vote so that they do get a few MSPs. Why not just put put some good, thought out, policies, that people want, but no, they'd rather be 2nd. Which totally sums up our Political clesses now, clueless, out of touch and only in it for power.
And, as for the uK Government, Labour got in with a huge majority less
than 2 years ago. They could do whatever they wanted. One of the first things they did was cut pensioners allowances. No great policies to
build the Country, and sort out our many problems, but lots of cuts.
Compare that to the 1945 victory by Clement Attlees Labour (who, incidentally, had a similar backgorund to Starmer). They were
progressive, with a near bankrupt Country, who had lost so many people,
and had lots of wounded people to look after the war. They created the
NHS as we know it, started a national building program, started the
welfare system and lots more. And thats from a Country on its knees
after 6 years of war. Starmers lot havent done anything of importance,
and deserve to be bottom of the polls, they had every chance of doing
good, but threw it away through incompetence within 6 months, now they
go from one crisis to another.
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management contract
where
fare income does not go to GTR. Under their original contract, the
Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 billion over the first
seven-year
period and receives all revenue. Consequently, the company carries less >>>> revenue risk. This form of franchise was chosen because of long-term
engineering works anticipated around London, which would be a
significant
challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all
revenue e.g.
income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking,
so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the
rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get
paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for
catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid
for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get
skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee
to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by >>>> APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the
profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par >>>> kway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various
parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP
(with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by
the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost
from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost typically ?2k
for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or the parking operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); or maybe
they split it between themselves.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <zoqHR.8232$qhwb.3851@fx14.ams1>, at 15:43:27 on Sun, 26 Apr
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <th4suktmqjh37bo4eul8vhk8tg7mrsc80b@4ax.com>, at 14:57:08 on >>>> Sun, 26 Apr 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>>>revenue e.g.
income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
As I understand it, all revenues and costs are the DfT's. This was
brought in during the Covid period when,
essentially, all conventional franchises were about to go bankrupt. The >>>>> DfT stepped in and nationalised them all,
sometimes making the operators pay for the privilege, if their pre-Covid >>>>> revenues were below plan. After that, the DfT
took all revenue risk and paid all the costs. The TOCs just got a
management fee thereafter.
Do you therefore subscribe to the view that (eg) Avanti send all the
supply bills for their FC catering offering to the DfT, and that the DfT >>>> collects all the rent (eg) APCOA pay for station car parks, and the
money taxi drivers pay to use the ranks.
Of course not, and nobody has suggested any such thing.
"All the revenues and costs are the DfT's".
In what sense are the items I mentioned neither revenues or costs?
The business is owned by the DfT, but the TOC is paid a fee to manage the >company on behalf of the government. The fee starts out as a low flat fee, >topped up by a performance fee which is calculated based on how well the >manager delivers on the detailed business plan, with its numerous, mainly >non-financial, goals.
On 28/04/2026 07:08, Alan Lee wrote:
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really. I
dont know anyone who complains about the Income Tax rates. We complain
about useless Councils and potholes, complain about the SNP who are
totally incompetent, but then compare them to the other Parties,and they
arent so bad.
I'm totally against the SNP, but there's no way I can vote for any other
Party either, as they are all useless twats with no ideas. The Liberals
are even campaigning on 'give us your second vote'. They know they arent
going to get in, but want peoples second vote so that they do get a few
MSPs. Why not just put put some good, thought out, policies, that people
want, but no, they'd rather be 2nd. Which totally sums up our Political
clesses now, clueless, out of touch and only in it for power.
And, as for the uK Government, Labour got in with a huge majority less
than 2 years ago. They could do whatever they wanted. One of the first
things they did was cut pensioners allowances. No great policies to
build the Country, and sort out our many problems, but lots of cuts.
Compare that to the 1945 victory by Clement Attlees Labour (who,
incidentally, had a similar backgorund to Starmer). They were
progressive, with a near bankrupt Country, who had lost so many people,
and had lots of wounded people to look after the war. They created the
NHS as we know it, started a national building program, started the
welfare system and lots more. And thats from a Country on its knees
after 6 years of war. Starmers lot havent done anything of importance,
and deserve to be bottom of the polls, they had every chance of doing
good, but threw it away through incompetence within 6 months, now they
go from one crisis to another.
Ob rail: another comparison is between the creation of British Railways
and GBR (a change forced on the Tories, but developing under Labour).
On 26/04/2026 07:39 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management
contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their >>>>>original contract, the Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 >>>>>billion over the first seven-year period and receives all
revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This >>>>>form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering
works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>>>challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>revenue e.g. income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking,
so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the
rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get
paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for
catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid
for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get
skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee
to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by >>>>> APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the
profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par >>>>> kway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various
parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP
(with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by
the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost
from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost typically ?2k
for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or the parking
operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); or maybe
they split it between themselves.
There are only so many vehicles (some with one, some with two drivers,
in shifts) that may legally ply for hire from a rank (whether official
on the highway or ad-hoc on private property).
There would certainly be a breach of applicable law if vehicles other
than licensed hackney carriages were being allowed to use such a rank.
GBR was very much the Tories? idea, with an obviously Johnsonian name.
Labour is simply following the 2021 Williams-Shapps plan.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-british-railways-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail
The only difference is that it is, in some cases, taking the remaining >concessions in-house at the first available break-point, rather than the >slightly later planned end-points. Nevertheless, the last one to transfer >will be more than three years into this government?s term, meaning GBR
won?t be coming operation until nearly four years into its term.
In message <QK%HR.14092$9Bdc.13631@fx09.ams1>, at 10:13:04 on Tue, 28
Apr 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
GBR was very much the Tories? idea, with an obviously Johnsonian name.
Labour is simply following the 2021 Williams-Shapps plan.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-british-railways-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail
The only difference is that it is, in some cases, taking the remaining
concessions in-house at the first available break-point, rather than the
slightly later planned end-points. Nevertheless, the last one to transfer
will be more than three years into this government?s term, meaning GBR
won?t be coming operation until nearly four years into its term.
Do you mean "full operation"? There's not reason why it couldn't
be operating today on a subset, apart from Governments' legendary
inability to manage large projects.
Is GBR HQ still going to be in Derby, or was that just a mirage.
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really. I
dont know anyone who complains about the Income Tax rates. We complain
about useless Councils and potholes, complain about the SNP who are
totally incompetent, but then compare them to the other Parties,and they arent so bad.
I'm totally against the SNP, but there's no way I can vote for any other Party either, as they are all useless twats with no ideas. The Liberals
are even campaigning on 'give us your second vote'. They know they arent going to get in, but want peoples second vote so that they do get a few MSPs. Why not just put put some good, thought out, policies, that people want, but no, they'd rather be 2nd. Which totally sums up our Political clesses now, clueless, out of touch and only in it for power.
And, as for the uK Government, Labour got in with a huge majority less
than 2 years ago. They could do whatever they wanted. One of the first things they did was cut pensioners allowances. No great policies to
build the Country, and sort out our many problems, but lots of cuts.
Compare that to the 1945 victory by Clement Attlees Labour (who, incidentally, had a similar backgorund to Starmer). They were
progressive, with a near bankrupt Country, who had lost so many people,
and had lots of wounded people to look after the war. They created the
NHS as we know it, started a national building program, started the
welfare system and lots more. And thats from a Country on its knees
after 6 years of war. Starmers lot havent done anything of importance,
and deserve to be bottom of the polls, they had every chance of doing
good, but threw it away through incompetence within 6 months, now they
go from one crisis to another.
Some examples of the benefits cited are that drivers have a much faster, easier way of telling NR about rough track, intruding foliage, signal sighting, etc, and NR engineers can mount track monitoring cameras and thermal sensors on trains with far less bureaucracy than before. NR can better plan closures to disrupt the less busy or profitable services, and
the unified organisation can make more business-like decisions about
whether to schedule physical track inspections during the day or night.
These are all things that could have happened anyway, but they?re easier if all the bits are fully nationalised.
On 28/04/2026 08:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100Like there are on the A1 near Kileen and the railway near Jonesborough?
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why does
Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw?
Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of
seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all
intents and purposes a single entity. If you think Brexit was hard you
haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard
borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:47:40 +0100
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 28/04/2026 08:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100ÿLike there are on the A1 near Kileen and the railway near Jonesborough?
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why does
Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw?
Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of
seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all
intents and purposes a single entity. If you think Brexit was hard you
haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard >>> borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
No idea WTF you're talking about.
On 28/04/2026 16:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:47:40 +0100The UK land border.
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 28/04/2026 08:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100ÿLike there are on the A1 near Kileen and the railway near Jonesborough?
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why doesMainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of
Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw? >>>>
seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all >>>> intents and purposes a single entity. If you think Brexit was hard you >>>> haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard >>>> borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
No idea WTF you're talking about.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:41:55 +0100
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 28/04/2026 16:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:47:40 +0100The UK land border.
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 28/04/2026 08:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:No idea WTF you're talking about.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100ÿLike there are on the A1 near Kileen and the railway near Jonesborough? >>>
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why does >>>>>> Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw? >>>>>Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of >>>>> seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all >>>>> intents and purposes a single entity. If you think Brexit was hard you >>>>> haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard >>>>> borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
Oh Ireland. Yes, didn't going independent turn out well for the republic. Borderline bankrup until the 1950s and still one of the poorest countries
in western europe until the 90s. I'm sure having border posts really helped trade between the north and south too.
In message <n5bebnF1n38U3@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:54 on Tue, 28
Apr 2026, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 07:39 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026, >>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr >>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management >>>>>>contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their >>>>>>original contract, the Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 >>>>>>billion over the first seven-year period and receives all >>>>>>revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This >>>>>>form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering >>>>>>works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>>>>challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>>revenue e.g. income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking,
so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the
rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get
paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for
catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid >>>> for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get
skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee
to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by >>>>>> APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the
profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par >>>>>> kway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various
parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP
(with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by
the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost
from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost typically ?2k >>> for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or the parking
operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); or maybe
they split it between themselves.
There are only so many vehicles (some with one, some with two drivers,
in shifts) that may legally ply for hire from a rank (whether official
on the highway or ad-hoc on private property).
What sets the limit? The physical size of the rank (Central Cambridge is >notorious for cars over-ranking the public ones), or whether it's the >vehicle or the driver who the fee allows.
There would certainly be a breach of applicable law if vehicles other
than licensed hackney carriages were being allowed to use such a rank.
Of course, no-one suggested otherwise.
In message <n59f85Flde5U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:55:40 on Mon, 27
Apr 2026, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
I've just checked my credit card bill and for a day at Luton Airport >>Parkway I've only been charged ?11-40. But their website says
"Please note that all daily rates expire at 4am, and a 15p convenience
fee is applied to all tariffs."
There is no justification or explanation for this "convenience fee" so
I'm glad it hasn't actually been charged as an extra. Perhaps it only >>applies to car parks which include a public convenience?
I think the "Convenience Fee" is probably what the parking-app providers >charge the car park operator for each transaction. That's a cost of
doing business if a parking app is the only way to pay.
And I find parking apps *in*convenient - compared to shoving coins in a
slot which is far simpler and quicker.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:22:31 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:04:09 -0000 (UTC)Only if you are earning a fair bit.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to
Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted
Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a >>>>>>> relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>>>> travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>>>> morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the
tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental
elderly care etc.
Not all the tab. My son pays a significantly greater amount of income tax >>>> than if he worked in England.
Is the tartan tax really that high?
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really. I
dont know anyone who complains about the Income Tax rates. We complain
about useless Councils and potholes, complain about the SNP who are
totally incompetent, but then compare them to the other Parties,and they >arent so bad.
I'm totally against the SNP, but there's no way I can vote for any other >Party either, as they are all useless twats with no ideas. The Liberals
are even campaigning on 'give us your second vote'. They know they arent >going to get in, but want peoples second vote so that they do get a few >MSPs. Why not just put put some good, thought out, policies, that people >want, but no, they'd rather be 2nd. Which totally sums up our Political >clesses now, clueless, out of touch and only in it for power.
And, as for the uK Government, Labour got in with a huge majority less
than 2 years ago. They could do whatever they wanted. One of the first >things they did was cut pensioners allowances. No great policies to
build the Country, and sort out our many problems, but lots of cuts.
Compare that to the 1945 victory by Clement Attlees Labour (who, >incidentally, had a similar backgorund to Starmer). They were
progressive, with a near bankrupt Country, who had lost so many people,
and had lots of wounded people to look after the war. They created the
NHS as we know it, started a national building program, started the
welfare system and lots more. And thats from a Country on its knees
after 6 years of war. Starmers lot havent done anything of importance,
and deserve to be bottom of the polls, they had every chance of doing
good, but threw it away through incompetence within 6 months, now they
go from one crisis to another.
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really.
Some are happier, but a significant chunk are not. Highest drug abuse rate
in Europe with alcohol abuse not far behind. And I do know a lot of folk
who complain about the income tax rate. But I suppose complaining about tax >is a way of life for most.
In message <10spl4u$2uq77$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:46:54 on Tue, 28 Apr
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really.
Some are happier, but a significant chunk are not. Highest drug abuse rate >>in Europe with alcohol abuse not far behind. And I do know a lot of folk >>who complain about the income tax rate.
Personally, I'd complain about the weather.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:46:54 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:A lot of people complain about paying for anything then moan like mad
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really.
Some are happier, but a significant chunk are not. Highest drug abuse rate >> in Europe with alcohol abuse not far behind. And I do know a lot of folk
who complain about the income tax rate. But I suppose complaining about tax >> is a way of life for most.
when they cannot obtain a "free" service which their own favoured
party has restricted or withdrawn (see also Brexit).
As for drug abuse etc. the legislation is reserved to Westminster who
have only recently allowed different measures in Scotland after years
of arm twisting having greatly ctreated the problem themselves with
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which restricted dealing with the health
side of drug addiction thus creating and maintaining the customer
base.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:46:54 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:A lot of people complain about paying for anything then moan like mad
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really.
Some are happier, but a significant chunk are not. Highest drug abuse rate >>> in Europe with alcohol abuse not far behind. And I do know a lot of folk >>> who complain about the income tax rate. But I suppose complaining about tax >>> is a way of life for most.
when they cannot obtain a "free" service which their own favoured
party has restricted or withdrawn (see also Brexit).
As for drug abuse etc. the legislation is reserved to Westminster who
have only recently allowed different measures in Scotland after years
of arm twisting having greatly ctreated the problem themselves with
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which restricted dealing with the health
side of drug addiction thus creating and maintaining the customer
base.
I have no comment about the legislation, I just note that not everyone in Scotland is happy.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:28:41 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100It is an expansion of more localised application of concessionary
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to >>>>> Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted >>>>> Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a
relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>>travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>>morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the >>>tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental >>>elderly care etc.
travel for 60+ by non-SNP councils. Westminster pays the "tab" from
taxes raised in Scotland. Prescriptions were already at the point
Scotland doesn't pay its way tax wise. Thats well known.
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why does >>Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw?
Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of >seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all >intents and purposes a single entity.
If you think Brexit was hard you
haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard >borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
Its a total nonsense but the SNP live in a fantasy land politicaly and >economically and just stick their fingers in their ears going lalalalala.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:46:54 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:A lot of people complain about paying for anything then moan like mad
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really.
Some are happier, but a significant chunk are not. Highest drug abuse rate >>> in Europe with alcohol abuse not far behind. And I do know a lot of folk >>> who complain about the income tax rate. But I suppose complaining about tax >>> is a way of life for most.
when they cannot obtain a "free" service which their own favoured
party has restricted or withdrawn (see also Brexit).
As for drug abuse etc. the legislation is reserved to Westminster who
have only recently allowed different measures in Scotland after years
of arm twisting having greatly ctreated the problem themselves with
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which restricted dealing with the health
side of drug addiction thus creating and maintaining the customer
base.
I have no comment about the legislation, I just note that not everyone in Scotland is happy.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:47:40 +0100
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 28/04/2026 08:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100Like there are on the A1 near Kileen and the railway near Jonesborough?
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why does
Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw?
Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of
seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all
intents and purposes a single entity. If you think Brexit was hard you
haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard >>> borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
No idea
WTF you're talking about.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:17 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100It isn't "known" at all, there is no fully separate accounting and a
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:28:41 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:17:07 +0100It is an expansion of more localised application of concessionary
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 27/04/2026 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose I might be able to get to London free of charge. That would >>>>>> require changing buses several times and take about half a day.
Later... looking this up, there's no box to tick on the OJPs I'm using >>>>>> to say "buses which accept Twirly cards", but my best guess is 1.5hrs to
Cambridge; then Saffron Walden <change>, Great Dunmow <change>, Stansted
Airport <change> [another 2hrs clocked up]; Chelmsford <change> [a >>>>>> relatively rapid 4omins]; another hour to Brentwood <change>; then to >>>>>> Stratford [maybe another hour].
In Scotland, we're lucky that over-60s (and a lot of other people) can >>>>> travel free on almost all buses, including long-distance coaches in the >>>>> morning peak. The main exception is night buses.
Thats the SNP socialist paradise for you. Naturally Westminster picks up the
tab for it along with NHS prescriptions, university fees, eye tests, dental
elderly care etc.
travel for 60+ by non-SNP councils. Westminster pays the "tab" from
taxes raised in Scotland. Prescriptions were already at the point
Scotland doesn't pay its way tax wise. Thats well known.
lot of the money is "spent on Scotland's behalf" by Westminster
whether we want stuff or not.
Except there never was full integration and current disintegrationIf Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why does
Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw?
Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of
seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all
intents and purposes a single entity.
commenced in the 19th century with the creation of the Scottish
Office.
If you think Brexit was hard youLike we have with Ireland and the Crown Dependencies ? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/common-travel-area-guidance/common-travel-area-guidance
haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard
borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
Its a total nonsense but the SNP live in a fantasy land politicaly andYou need to take your blinkers off but you will have to pull your own
economically and just stick their fingers in their ears going lalalalala.
fingers out first.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:46:54 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:A lot of people complain about paying for anything then moan like mad
On 27/04/2026 22:09, Recliner wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.Is the tartan tax really that high?Only if you are earning a fair bit.
I'm not sure it does.
It's a different way of life here. People are happier, yes really.
Some are happier, but a significant chunk are not. Highest drug abuse rate >>>> in Europe with alcohol abuse not far behind. And I do know a lot of folk >>>> who complain about the income tax rate. But I suppose complaining about tax
is a way of life for most.
when they cannot obtain a "free" service which their own favoured
party has restricted or withdrawn (see also Brexit).
As for drug abuse etc. the legislation is reserved to Westminster who
have only recently allowed different measures in Scotland after years
of arm twisting having greatly ctreated the problem themselves with
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which restricted dealing with the health
side of drug addiction thus creating and maintaining the customer
base.
I have no comment about the legislation, I just note that not everyone in
Scotland is happy.
Indeed not:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Suicide_rates_within_the_United_Kingdom_per_100%2C000_people_in_2020.png
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:15:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <n5bebnF1n38U3@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:54 on Tue, 28AIUI from a TfL enforcement officer the size of the rank is mainly a >consideration of the space available with nothing to stop taxis
Apr 2026, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 07:39 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026, >>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr >>>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management >>>>>>>contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their >>>>>>>original contract, the Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 >>>>>>>billion over the first seven-year period and receives all >>>>>>>revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This >>>>>>>form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering >>>>>>>works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>>>>>challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>>>revenue e.g. income from advertising on stations and trains etc.?
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking, >>>>> so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the
rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get
paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for >>>>> catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid >>>>> for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get
skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee >>>>> to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by >>>>>>> APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the
profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par >>>>>>> kway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various
parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP
(with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by
the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost >>>>> from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost typically ?2k >>>> for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or the parking >>>> operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); or maybe >>>> they split it between themselves.
There are only so many vehicles (some with one, some with two drivers,
in shifts) that may legally ply for hire from a rank (whether official
on the highway or ad-hoc on private property).
What sets the limit? The physical size of the rank (Central Cambridge is >>notorious for cars over-ranking the public ones), or whether it's the >>vehicle or the driver who the fee allows.
queuing beyond the back end if there is legitimate space to do so,
i.e. during restricted parking hours the rank might be the only place
to freely wait but outwith those hours more can queue.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:41:55 +0100
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 28/04/2026 16:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:47:40 +0100The UK land border.
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 28/04/2026 08:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:No idea WTF you're talking about.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100ÿLike there are on the A1 near Kileen and the railway near Jonesborough? >>>>
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why does >>>>>>> Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw? >>>>>>Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of >>>>>> seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all >>>>>> intents and purposes a single entity. If you think Brexit was hard you >>>>>> haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard >>>>>> borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
Oh Ireland. Yes, didn't going independent turn out well for the republic.
Borderline bankrup until the 1950s and still one of the poorest countries
in western europe until the 90s. I'm sure having border posts really helped >> trade between the north and south too.
Republic of Ireland is now very rich
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:09:18 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.No packs of capitalist running dogs[TM] seem to have been observed
fleeing south. There are other factors to be considered such as e.g.
the higher cost of housing in England,
Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of >>seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all >>intents and purposes a single entity.Except there never was full integration and current disintegration
commenced in the 19th century with the creation of the Scottish
Office.
If you think Brexit was hard youLike we have with Ireland and the Crown Dependencies ? >https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/common-travel-area-guidance/common-t
haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard >>borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
ravel-area-guidance
Its a total nonsense but the SNP live in a fantasy land politicaly and >>economically and just stick their fingers in their ears going lalalalala.You need to take your blinkers off but you will have to pull your own
fingers out first.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:29:01 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:47:40 +0100Quite.
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 28/04/2026 08:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100Like there are on the A1 near Kileen and the railway near Jonesborough?
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why doesMainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of
Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw? >>>>
seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all >>>> intents and purposes a single entity. If you think Brexit was hard you >>>> haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard >>>> borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
No idea
WTF you're talking about.Two of hundreds of border crossing points between the UK and the
Republic of Ireland. There are more between the UK and the Crown
Dependencies where passports are not needed
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:03:00 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:41:55 +0100
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 28/04/2026 16:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:47:40 +0100The UK land border.
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 28/04/2026 08:29, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:No idea WTF you're talking about.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:54:34 +0100ÿLike there are on the A1 near Kileen and the railway near Jonesborough? >>>>>
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
If Scotland is such a millstone round England's neck then why does >>>>>>>> Westminster hang on to Scotland like a drowning man clutching a straw? >>>>>>>Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of >>>>>>> seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all >>>>>>> intents and purposes a single entity. If you think Brexit was hard you >>>>>>> haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard
borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
Oh Ireland. Yes, didn't going independent turn out well for the republic. >>> Borderline bankrup until the 1950s and still one of the poorest countries >>> in western europe until the 90s. I'm sure having border posts really helped >>> trade between the north and south too.
Republic of Ireland is now very rich
A combination of low corporation tax attarcting corporations to HQ there but which they've now had to raise due to some international ruling, plus the EU firehosing money at them like it did to the east european countries of which poland entirely uncoincidentaly is also doing well now.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:57:17 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality ofExcept there never was full integration and current disintegration
seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all
intents and purposes a single entity.
commenced in the 19th century with the creation of the Scottish
Office.
No doubt the scottish office, just like the money pit and talking shop called the scottish parliament, was created to stop the endless whinging coming from north of the border about hard done by they are.
If you think Brexit was hard youLike we have with Ireland and the Crown Dependencies ?
haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard >>> borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/common-travel-area-guidance/common-t
ravel-area-guidance
You think ireland going independent was an uncomplicated process and didn't cause any problems? Wow.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
A combination of low corporation tax attarcting corporations to HQ there but >> which they've now had to raise due to some international ruling, plus the EU
firehosing money at them like it did to the east european countries of which
poland entirely uncoincidentaly is also doing well now.
Also, some of that ?Irish? wealth is illusory. Those American
multinationals route their EU and some other revenues and profits via >Ireland, which boosts the reported size of the Irish economy. But the >revenues are really generated across the EU, and the low Irish corporation >tax rate means that relatively little tax stays in Ireland. Some Irish jobs >are generated, but nearly as many as the financial figures might suggest.
One particularly creative scheme was banned by the EU, but new variants
with tasty sounding names (Double Irish, Dutch Sandwich, Single malt) keep >being devised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:54:23 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
A combination of low corporation tax attarcting corporations to HQ there but
which they've now had to raise due to some international ruling, plus the EU
firehosing money at them like it did to the east european countries of which
poland entirely uncoincidentaly is also doing well now.
Also, some of that ?Irish? wealth is illusory. Those American >>multinationals route their EU and some other revenues and profits via >>Ireland, which boosts the reported size of the Irish economy. But the >>revenues are really generated across the EU, and the low Irish corporation >>tax rate means that relatively little tax stays in Ireland. Some Irish jobs >>are generated, but nearly as many as the financial figures might suggest.
One particularly creative scheme was banned by the EU, but new variants >>with tasty sounding names (Double Irish, Dutch Sandwich, Single malt) keep >>being devised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
Can't blame the corps for trying to avoid US tax. Taxing income made abroad >when its already had local tax applied seems like double dipping to me.
Of course our genius chancellor seems to think she can do the same with
non doms now, but exactly how she expects HMRC to track down earnings made >abroad which are paid into a foreign bank account is anyones guess. More >vacuous virtue signalling.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 10:33:29 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:54:23 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
A combination of low corporation tax attarcting corporations to HQ there but
which they've now had to raise due to some international ruling, plus the EU
firehosing money at them like it did to the east european countries of which
poland entirely uncoincidentaly is also doing well now.
Also, some of that ?Irish? wealth is illusory. Those American
multinationals route their EU and some other revenues and profits via
Ireland, which boosts the reported size of the Irish economy. But the
revenues are really generated across the EU, and the low Irish corporation >>> tax rate means that relatively little tax stays in Ireland. Some Irish jobs >>> are generated, but nearly as many as the financial figures might suggest. >>>
One particularly creative scheme was banned by the EU, but new variants
with tasty sounding names (Double Irish, Dutch Sandwich, Single malt) keep >>> being devised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
Can't blame the corps for trying to avoid US tax. Taxing income made abroad >> when its already had local tax applied seems like double dipping to me.
These schemes are to avoid non-US tax.
They have a different set of schemes for deferring US tax, by booking the profits from Ireland into holding subsidiaries
in the Cayman Islands or other tax havens. Only when the profits are
moved to the US do they have to pay US tax, but
they're quite adept at waiting till there's a deal available to do so at
a reduced tax rate.
Or, of course, they use the money held in the tax havens for corporate accusations.
Of course our genius chancellor seems to think she can do the same with
non doms now, but exactly how she expects HMRC to track down earnings made >> abroad which are paid into a foreign bank account is anyones guess. More
vacuous virtue signalling.
The really wealthy ones just move their residence to somewhere else that
only taxes local earnings, or is tax-free
altogether. Most already owns homes in such places, and they just arrange
to spend more time there, and much less time
in the UK. That means they spend much less, and employ fewer people, in
the UK. The tax they're keenest to avoid is IHT,
not income tax or even CGT.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 10:33:29 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:54:23 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
A combination of low corporation tax attarcting corporations to HQ there but
which they've now had to raise due to some international ruling, plus the EU
firehosing money at them like it did to the east european countries of which
poland entirely uncoincidentaly is also doing well now.
Also, some of that ?Irish? wealth is illusory. Those American
multinationals route their EU and some other revenues and profits via
Ireland, which boosts the reported size of the Irish economy. But the
revenues are really generated across the EU, and the low Irish corporation >>>> tax rate means that relatively little tax stays in Ireland. Some Irish jobs
are generated, but nearly as many as the financial figures might suggest. >>>>
One particularly creative scheme was banned by the EU, but new variants >>>> with tasty sounding names (Double Irish, Dutch Sandwich, Single malt) keep >>>> being devised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
Can't blame the corps for trying to avoid US tax. Taxing income made abroad >>> when its already had local tax applied seems like double dipping to me.
These schemes are to avoid non-US tax.
They have a different set of schemes for deferring US tax, by booking the
profits from Ireland into holding subsidiaries
in the Cayman Islands or other tax havens. Only when the profits are
moved to the US do they have to pay US tax, but
they're quite adept at waiting till there's a deal available to do so at
a reduced tax rate.
Or, of course, they use the money held in the tax havens for corporate accusations.
Of course our genius chancellor seems to think she can do the same with >>> non doms now, but exactly how she expects HMRC to track down earnings made >>> abroad which are paid into a foreign bank account is anyones guess. More >>> vacuous virtue signalling.
The really wealthy ones just move their residence to somewhere else that
only taxes local earnings, or is tax-free
altogether. Most already owns homes in such places, and they just arrange
to spend more time there, and much less time
in the UK. That means they spend much less, and employ fewer people, in
the UK. The tax they're keenest to avoid is IHT,
not income tax or even CGT.
From AI:
Ireland is experiencing a massive corporate tax windfall, driven heavily by
a ?14 billion ($16+ billion) payment from Apple following a European Court >ruling. This, alongside high tax payments from a few multinationals (such
as Microsoft and Eli Lilly), has led the government to invest heavily in >infrastructure, housing, and energy, with funds also diverted into
sovereign wealth funds.Key Aspects of the Irish Tax Windfall:The Apple >Windfall: In 2025, Ireland finalized the recovery of ?14 billion in back >taxes from Apple. This money is earmarked to enhance the National
Development Plan (NDP) 2021?2030, focusing on infrastructure, water, and >transport projects.Concentrated Revenue: Just three companies were >responsible for roughly half of Ireland's corporate tax receipts in >2024.Future Planning: The government has transferred over ?16 billion into >two new investment funds: the Future Ireland Fund and the Infrastructure, >Climate and Nature Fund.Budgetary Impact: In 2026, the government will >allocate ?19.1 billion for capital investment, the highest in state
history.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 10:33:29 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:54:23 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
A combination of low corporation tax attarcting corporations to HQ there but
which they've now had to raise due to some international ruling, plus the EU
firehosing money at them like it did to the east european countries of which
poland entirely uncoincidentaly is also doing well now.
Also, some of that ?Irish? wealth is illusory. Those American
multinationals route their EU and some other revenues and profits via
Ireland, which boosts the reported size of the Irish economy. But the
revenues are really generated across the EU, and the low Irish corporation >>>> tax rate means that relatively little tax stays in Ireland. Some Irish jobs
are generated, but nearly as many as the financial figures might suggest. >>>>
One particularly creative scheme was banned by the EU, but new variants >>>> with tasty sounding names (Double Irish, Dutch Sandwich, Single malt) keep >>>> being devised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
Can't blame the corps for trying to avoid US tax. Taxing income made abroad >>> when its already had local tax applied seems like double dipping to me.
These schemes are to avoid non-US tax.
They have a different set of schemes for deferring US tax, by booking the
profits from Ireland into holding subsidiaries
in the Cayman Islands or other tax havens. Only when the profits are
moved to the US do they have to pay US tax, but
they're quite adept at waiting till there's a deal available to do so at
a reduced tax rate.
Or, of course, they use the money held in the tax havens for corporate accusations.
Of course our genius chancellor seems to think she can do the same with >>> non doms now, but exactly how she expects HMRC to track down earnings made >>> abroad which are paid into a foreign bank account is anyones guess. More >>> vacuous virtue signalling.
The really wealthy ones just move their residence to somewhere else that
only taxes local earnings, or is tax-free
altogether. Most already owns homes in such places, and they just arrange
to spend more time there, and much less time
in the UK. That means they spend much less, and employ fewer people, in
the UK. The tax they're keenest to avoid is IHT,
not income tax or even CGT.
From AI:
Ireland is experiencing a massive corporate tax windfall, driven heavily by
a ?14 billion ($16+ billion) payment from Apple following a European Court ruling. This, alongside high tax payments from a few multinationals (such
as Microsoft and Eli Lilly), has led the government to invest heavily in infrastructure, housing, and energy, with funds also diverted into
sovereign wealth funds.Key Aspects of the Irish Tax Windfall:The Apple Windfall: In 2025, Ireland finalized the recovery of ?14 billion in back taxes from Apple. This money is earmarked to enhance the National
Development Plan (NDP) 2021?2030, focusing on infrastructure, water, and transport projects.Concentrated Revenue: Just three companies were responsible for roughly half of Ireland's corporate tax receipts in 2024.Future Planning: The government has transferred over ?16 billion into two new investment funds: the Future Ireland Fund and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund.Budgetary Impact: In 2026, the government will allocate ?19.1 billion for capital investment, the highest in state
history.
In message <u8m1vkdffdemi10opvq0qomu77824i7tj5@4ax.com>, at 17:09:23 on
Tue, 28 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:15:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <n5bebnF1n38U3@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:54 on Tue, 28AIUI from a TfL enforcement officer the size of the rank is mainly a >>consideration of the space available with nothing to stop taxis
Apr 2026, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 26/04/2026 07:39 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026, >>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr >>>>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking, >>>>>> so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the >>>>>> rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get >>>>>> paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management >>>>>>>>contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their >>>>>>>>original contract, the Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 >>>>>>>>billion over the first seven-year period and receives all >>>>>>>>revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This >>>>>>>>form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering >>>>>>>>works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>>>>>>challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>>>>revenue e.g. income from advertising on stations and trains etc.? >>>>>>
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for >>>>>> catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid >>>>>> for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get
skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee >>>>>> to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by >>>>>>>> APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the >>>>>>>> profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par >>>>>>>> kway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various
parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP >>>>>> (with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by >>>>>> the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost >>>>>> from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost typically ?2k >>>>> for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or the parking >>>>> operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); or maybe >>>>> they split it between themselves.
There are only so many vehicles (some with one, some with two drivers, >>>>in shifts) that may legally ply for hire from a rank (whether official >>>>on the highway or ad-hoc on private property).
What sets the limit? The physical size of the rank (Central Cambridge is >>>notorious for cars over-ranking the public ones), or whether it's the >>>vehicle or the driver who the fee allows.
queuing beyond the back end if there is legitimate space to do so,
i.e. during restricted parking hours the rank might be the only place
to freely wait but outwith those hours more can queue.
Not when the bit of road outwith the rank has stopping restrictions.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:21:26 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:09:18 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.No packs of capitalist running dogs[TM] seem to have been observed
fleeing south. There are other factors to be considered such as e.g.
Very few are left there now anyway.
the higher cost of housing in England,
Hmm , wonder why that might be.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:57:17 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
Mainly defense, social/family reasons and the sheer impracticality of >>>seperating 2 countries that have been joined for 300 years and for all >>>intents and purposes a single entity.Except there never was full integration and current disintegration >>commenced in the 19th century with the creation of the Scottish
Office.
No doubt the scottish office, just like the money pit and talking shop called >the scottish parliament, was created to stop the endless whinging coming from >north of the border about hard done by they are.
If you think Brexit was hard youLike we have with Ireland and the Crown Dependencies ? >>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/common-travel-area-guidance/common-t
haven't seen anything compared to scotland going independent. Fancy hard >>>borders on the M6 and A1? Passport checks on the WCML and ECML?
ravel-area-guidance
You think ireland going independent was an uncomplicated process and didn't >cause any problems? Wow.
Crown dependencies were never part of the UK in the first place. The clue's >in the name.
Its a total nonsense but the SNP live in a fantasy land politicaly and >>>economically and just stick their fingers in their ears going lalalalala. >>>You need to take your blinkers off but you will have to pull your own >>fingers out first.
Half my family is north of the border. I'm more clued up about the social
and economic issues than you sitting there in your croft.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:34:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <u8m1vkdffdemi10opvq0qomu77824i7tj5@4ax.com>, at 17:09:23 on >>Tue, 28 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>Which would be "during restricted hours".
remarked:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:15:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <n5bebnF1n38U3@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:54 on Tue, 28 >>>>Apr 2026, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:AIUI from a TfL enforcement officer the size of the rank is mainly a >>>consideration of the space available with nothing to stop taxis
On 26/04/2026 07:39 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026, >>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr >>>>>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking, >>>>>>> so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the >>>>>>> rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get >>>>>>> paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management >>>>>>>>>contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their >>>>>>>>>original contract, the Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 >>>>>>>>>billion over the first seven-year period and receives all >>>>>>>>>revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This >>>>>>>>>form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering >>>>>>>>>works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>>>>>>>challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>>>>>revenue e.g. income from advertising on stations and trains etc.? >>>>>>>
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for >>>>>>> catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid >>>>>>> for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get
skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee >>>>>>> to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the >>>>>>>>> profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par
kway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various
parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP >>>>>>> (with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by >>>>>>> the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost >>>>>>> from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost typically ?2k >>>>>> for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or the parking >>>>>> operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); or maybe >>>>>> they split it between themselves.
There are only so many vehicles (some with one, some with two drivers, >>>>>in shifts) that may legally ply for hire from a rank (whether official >>>>>on the highway or ad-hoc on private property).
What sets the limit? The physical size of the rank (Central Cambridge is >>>>notorious for cars over-ranking the public ones), or whether it's the >>>>vehicle or the driver who the fee allows.
queuing beyond the back end if there is legitimate space to do so,
i.e. during restricted parking hours the rank might be the only place
to freely wait but outwith those hours more can queue.
Not when the bit of road outwith the rank has stopping restrictions.
Those restrictions do not inevitably apply to a taxi which is plying
for hire and for which a TRO provides exception.
In message <lq57vk9ph82v4t0j7o1b6lc53ea1tm987a@4ax.com>, at 19:14:20 on
Thu, 30 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:34:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <u8m1vkdffdemi10opvq0qomu77824i7tj5@4ax.com>, at 17:09:23 on >>>Tue, 28 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>Which would be "during restricted hours".
remarked:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:15:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>wrote:
In message <n5bebnF1n38U3@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:54 on Tue, 28 >>>>>Apr 2026, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:AIUI from a TfL enforcement officer the size of the rank is mainly a >>>>consideration of the space available with nothing to stop taxis
On 26/04/2026 07:39 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr >>>>>>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking, >>>>>>>> so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the >>>>>>>> rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get >>>>>>>> paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management >>>>>>>>>>contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their >>>>>>>>>>original contract, the Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 >>>>>>>>>>billion over the first seven-year period and receives all >>>>>>>>>>revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This >>>>>>>>>>form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering >>>>>>>>>>works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>>>>>>>>challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise.
I wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>>>>>>revenue e.g. income from advertising on stations and trains etc.? >>>>>>>>
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for >>>>>>>> catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid >>>>>>>> for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get >>>>>>>> skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee >>>>>>>> to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the >>>>>>>>>> profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par
kway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various >>>>>>>> parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP >>>>>>>> (with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by >>>>>>>> the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost >>>>>>>> from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost typically ?2k
for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or the parking >>>>>>> operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); or maybe >>>>>>> they split it between themselves.
There are only so many vehicles (some with one, some with two drivers, >>>>>>in shifts) that may legally ply for hire from a rank (whether official >>>>>>on the highway or ad-hoc on private property).
What sets the limit? The physical size of the rank (Central Cambridge is >>>>>notorious for cars over-ranking the public ones), or whether it's the >>>>>vehicle or the driver who the fee allows.
queuing beyond the back end if there is legitimate space to do so,
i.e. during restricted parking hours the rank might be the only place >>>>to freely wait but outwith those hours more can queue.
Not when the bit of road outwith the rank has stopping restrictions.
The rank I have in mind, the prohibition on over-ranking is "At Any
Time".
Those restrictions do not inevitably apply to a taxi which is plying
for hire and for which a TRO provides exception.
The moon might be made of green cheese.
The moon might be made of green cheese.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:41:14 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Half my family is north of the border. I'm more clued up about the socialThere is probably more north of the border than you are aware of.
and economic issues than you sitting there in your croft.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:07:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <lq57vk9ph82v4t0j7o1b6lc53ea1tm987a@4ax.com>, at 19:14:20 on >>Thu, 30 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>How is the restriction on joining beyond the box applied (presuming it
remarked:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:34:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <u8m1vkdffdemi10opvq0qomu77824i7tj5@4ax.com>, at 17:09:23 on >>>>Tue, 28 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>remarked:Which would be "during restricted hours".
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:15:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>wrote:
In message <n5bebnF1n38U3@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:54 on Tue, 28 >>>>>>Apr 2026, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:AIUI from a TfL enforcement officer the size of the rank is mainly a >>>>>consideration of the space available with nothing to stop taxis >>>>>queuing beyond the back end if there is legitimate space to do so, >>>>>i.e. during restricted parking hours the rank might be the only place >>>>>to freely wait but outwith those hours more can queue.
On 26/04/2026 07:39 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 >>>>>>>>Apr 2026,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking, >>>>>>>>> so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the >>>>>>>>> rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get >>>>>>>>> paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?FromI wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>>>>>>>revenue e.g. income from advertising on stations and trains etc.? >>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management >>>>>>>>>>>contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their >>>>>>>>>>>original contract, the Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 >>>>>>>>>>>billion over the first seven-year period and receives all >>>>>>>>>>>revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This >>>>>>>>>>>form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering >>>>>>>>>>>works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>>>>>>>>>challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise. >>>>>>>>>>
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for >>>>>>>>> catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid
for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get >>>>>>>>> skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee >>>>>>>>> to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, >>>>>>>>>>>operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the >>>>>>>>>>> profits.
kway-station-lutonhttps://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various >>>>>>>>> parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP >>>>>>>>> (with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by >>>>>>>>> the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost >>>>>>>>> from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost >>>>>>>>typically ?2k
for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or the parking
operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); or maybe >>>>>>>> they split it between themselves.
There are only so many vehicles (some with one, some with two drivers, >>>>>>>in shifts) that may legally ply for hire from a rank (whether official >>>>>>>on the highway or ad-hoc on private property).
What sets the limit? The physical size of the rank (Central Cambridge is >>>>>>notorious for cars over-ranking the public ones), or whether it's the >>>>>>vehicle or the driver who the fee allows.
Not when the bit of road outwith the rank has stopping restrictions.
The rank I have in mind, the prohibition on over-ranking is "At Any
Time".
is on-street) ? The nearest restriction to that which I have seen is a >(non-enforceable but "Wilful Obstruction" applies anyway) sign
prohibiting queuing across a junction.
There is nothing to stop carriers of green cheese being mentioned in aThose restrictions do not inevitably apply to a taxi which is plying
for hire and for which a TRO provides exception.
The moon might be made of green cheese.
TRO but the usual unstated (on the street signs) exceptions tend to be
more general and tailored to local conditions. I used to park and wait
within the restricted zone around Wimbledon during the tennis
fortnight, the exception for allowing me to simply enter the area
being buried inside a four page TRO. Taxis are a common exception in
TROs not inevitably without a requirement to be plying for hire.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:41:14 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Crown dependencies were never part of the UK in the first place. The clue's >>in the name.I never said they were.
Half my family is north of the border. I'm more clued up about the social >>and economic issues than you sitting there in your croft.There is probably more north of the border than you are aware of.
In message <vab7vkpbfllme6cgg6pfunn6m5d3jratcr@4ax.com>, at 20:50:21 on
Thu, 30 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:07:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <lq57vk9ph82v4t0j7o1b6lc53ea1tm987a@4ax.com>, at 19:14:20 on >>>Thu, 30 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>How is the restriction on joining beyond the box applied (presuming it
remarked:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:34:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>wrote:
In message <u8m1vkdffdemi10opvq0qomu77824i7tj5@4ax.com>, at 17:09:23 on >>>>>Tue, 28 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>>remarked:Which would be "during restricted hours".
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:15:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>wrote:
In message <n5bebnF1n38U3@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:54 on Tue, 28 >>>>>>>Apr 2026, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:AIUI from a TfL enforcement officer the size of the rank is mainly a >>>>>>consideration of the space available with nothing to stop taxis >>>>>>queuing beyond the back end if there is legitimate space to do so, >>>>>>i.e. during restricted parking hours the rank might be the only place >>>>>>to freely wait but outwith those hours more can queue.
On 26/04/2026 07:39 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 >>>>>>>>>Apr 2026,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking, >>>>>>>>>> so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the >>>>>>>>>> rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get >>>>>>>>>> paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?FromI wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>>>>>>>>revenue e.g. income from advertising on stations and trains etc.? >>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway >>>>>>>>>>>>
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management >>>>>>>>>>>>contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their >>>>>>>>>>>>original contract, the Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 >>>>>>>>>>>>billion over the first seven-year period and receives all >>>>>>>>>>>>revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This >>>>>>>>>>>>form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise. >>>>>>>>>>>
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for >>>>>>>>>> catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid
for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get >>>>>>>>>> skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee
to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, >>>>>>>>>>>>operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the >>>>>>>>>>>> profits.
kway-station-lutonhttps://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various >>>>>>>>>> parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP >>>>>>>>>> (with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by >>>>>>>>>> the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost
from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost >>>>>>>>>typically ?2k
for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or the parking
operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); or maybe
they split it between themselves.
There are only so many vehicles (some with one, some with two drivers, >>>>>>>>in shifts) that may legally ply for hire from a rank (whether official >>>>>>>>on the highway or ad-hoc on private property).
What sets the limit? The physical size of the rank (Central Cambridge is >>>>>>>notorious for cars over-ranking the public ones), or whether it's the >>>>>>>vehicle or the driver who the fee allows.
Not when the bit of road outwith the rank has stopping restrictions.
The rank I have in mind, the prohibition on over-ranking is "At Any >>>Time".
is on-street) ? The nearest restriction to that which I have seen is a >>(non-enforceable but "Wilful Obstruction" applies anyway) sign
prohibiting queuing across a junction.
It's simply a narrow, congested street (the rank itself - for about five >cabs - is set into a layby in the pavement), where nobody is entitled to >stop.
There is nothing to stop carriers of green cheese being mentioned in aThose restrictions do not inevitably apply to a taxi which is plying >>>>for hire and for which a TRO provides exception.
The moon might be made of green cheese.
TRO but the usual unstated (on the street signs) exceptions tend to be
more general and tailored to local conditions. I used to park and wait >>within the restricted zone around Wimbledon during the tennis
fortnight, the exception for allowing me to simply enter the area
being buried inside a four page TRO. Taxis are a common exception in
TROs not inevitably without a requirement to be plying for hire.
I'm quite sure they aren't an exception at the location I have in mind.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:40:31 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:41:14 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Crown dependencies were never part of the UK in the first place. The clue's >>>in the name.I never said they were.
So what relevance do they have to the issues of seperating scotland from the >rest of the UK?
Half my family is north of the border. I'm more clued up about the social >>>and economic issues than you sitting there in your croft.There is probably more north of the border than you are aware of.
No idea what thats supposed to mean.
On Fri, 1 May 2026 09:30:37 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:40:31 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:41:14 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Crown dependencies were never part of the UK in the first place. The clue's
They are part of the Common Travel Area. Any interference with the CTA >affects all the states and countries which are party to it. The CTA isin the name.I never said they were.
So what relevance do they have to the issues of seperating scotland from the >>rest of the UK?
a matter of international agreement not of UK command.
On Sat, 02 May 2026 23:59:17 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Fri, 1 May 2026 09:30:37 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:40:31 +0100They are part of the Common Travel Area. Any interference with the CTA
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:41:14 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Crown dependencies were never part of the UK in the first place. The clue's
in the name.I never said they were.
So what relevance do they have to the issues of seperating scotland from the
rest of the UK?
affects all the states and countries which are party to it. The CTA is
a matter of international agreement not of UK command.
Clearly you've never been to the channel islands because if you had you'd know they do passport checks when they feel like it.
So, I'll ask again - what relevance do they have to the issues of seperating scotland from the rest of the UK?
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2026 23:59:17 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Fri, 1 May 2026 09:30:37 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:40:31 +0100They are part of the Common Travel Area. Any interference with the CTA
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:41:14 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Crown dependencies were never part of the UK in the first place. The clue's
in the name.I never said they were.
So what relevance do they have to the issues of seperating scotland from the
rest of the UK?
affects all the states and countries which are party to it. The CTA is
a matter of international agreement not of UK command.
Clearly you've never been to the channel islands because if you had you'd
know they do passport checks when they feel like it.
So, I'll ask again - what relevance do they have to the issues of seperating >> scotland from the rest of the UK?
You need some sort of ID to enter the Channel Islands, but you don?t need a passport. This is similar to all CTA countries, because you need to be able to show you are a CTA national and therefore exempt from immigration requirements for non CTA nationals.
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. It?s got a bit of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other countries
have unpicked themselves, eg Ireland, Czechoslovakia velvet divorce, and
East Germany formed a merger into West Germany. (Please don?t quibble about their various official names). Whether or not it is a good idea is another matter.
On Fri, 1 May 2026 08:30:30 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <vab7vkpbfllme6cgg6pfunn6m5d3jratcr@4ax.com>, at 20:50:21 on >>Thu, 30 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>That seems to describe a consequential restriction (with "Wilful
remarked:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:07:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <lq57vk9ph82v4t0j7o1b6lc53ea1tm987a@4ax.com>, at 19:14:20 on >>>>Thu, 30 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>remarked:How is the restriction on joining beyond the box applied (presuming it
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:34:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>wrote:
In message <u8m1vkdffdemi10opvq0qomu77824i7tj5@4ax.com>, at 17:09:23 on >>>>>>Tue, 28 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>>>remarked:Which would be "during restricted hours".
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:15:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>wrote:
In message <n5bebnF1n38U3@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:54 on Tue, 28 >>>>>>>>Apr 2026, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:AIUI from a TfL enforcement officer the size of the rank is mainly a >>>>>>>consideration of the space available with nothing to stop taxis >>>>>>>queuing beyond the back end if there is legitimate space to do so, >>>>>>>i.e. during restricted parking hours the rank might be the only place >>>>>>>to freely wait but outwith those hours more can queue.
On 26/04/2026 07:39 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 >>>>>>>>>>Apr 2026,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on >>>>>>>>>>>Sat, 25 Apr
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking,FromI wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>>>>>>>>>revenue e.g. income from advertising on stations and trains etc.? >>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management >>>>>>>>>>>>>contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their >>>>>>>>>>>>>original contract, the Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 >>>>>>>>>>>>>billion over the first seven-year period and receives all >>>>>>>>>>>>>revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This
form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>>works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise. >>>>>>>>>>>>
so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the >>>>>>>>>>> rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get >>>>>>>>>>> paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for
catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class >>>>>>>>>>>catering, paid
for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get >>>>>>>>>>> skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or >>>>>>>>>>>variable) fee
to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, >>>>>>>>>>>>>operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the >>>>>>>>>>>>> profits.
kway-station-lutonhttps://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-a >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various >>>>>>>>>>> parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP >>>>>>>>>>> (with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by >>>>>>>>>>> the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover >>>>>>>>>>>
from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost >>>>>>>>>>typically ?2k
for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or >>>>>>>>>>the parking
operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); >>>>>>>>>>or maybe
they split it between themselves.
There are only so many vehicles (some with one, some with two drivers, >>>>>>>>>in shifts) that may legally ply for hire from a rank (whether official >>>>>>>>>on the highway or ad-hoc on private property).
What sets the limit? The physical size of the rank (Central Cambridge is
notorious for cars over-ranking the public ones), or whether it's the >>>>>>>>vehicle or the driver who the fee allows.
Not when the bit of road outwith the rank has stopping restrictions. >>>>>>
The rank I have in mind, the prohibition on over-ranking is "At Any >>>>Time".
is on-street) ? The nearest restriction to that which I have seen is a >>>(non-enforceable but "Wilful Obstruction" applies anyway) sign >>>prohibiting queuing across a junction.
It's simply a narrow, congested street (the rank itself - for about five >>cabs - is set into a layby in the pavement), where nobody is entitled to >>stop.
Obstruction" applying) caused by the road layout backed up by a
non-mandatory sign which by itself might have no direct force but
could be used as evidence that "you were warned" if a driver chooses
to dispute a ticket/charge in court. Most cab ranks I encounter won't
involve a practical obstruction if cabs queue off the back but I have
a vague memory of one signed with words comparable to your example but
where there is no enforceable restriction outwith the hours of
controlled parking.
There is nothing to stop carriers of green cheese being mentioned in a >>>TRO but the usual unstated (on the street signs) exceptions tend to be >>>more general and tailored to local conditions. I used to park and wait >>>within the restricted zone around Wimbledon during the tennisThose restrictions do not inevitably apply to a taxi which is plying >>>>>for hire and for which a TRO provides exception.
The moon might be made of green cheese.
fortnight, the exception for allowing me to simply enter the area
being buried inside a four page TRO. Taxis are a common exception in
TROs not inevitably without a requirement to be plying for hire.
I'm quite sure they aren't an exception at the location I have in mind.
On 03/05/2026 10:42, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2026 23:59:17 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Fri, 1 May 2026 09:30:37 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:40:31 +0100They are part of the Common Travel Area. Any interference with the CTA >>>> affects all the states and countries which are party to it. The CTA is >>>> a matter of international agreement not of UK command.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:41:14 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Crown dependencies were never part of the UK in the first place. The clue's
in the name.I never said they were.
So what relevance do they have to the issues of seperating scotland from the
rest of the UK?
Clearly you've never been to the channel islands because if you had you'd >>> know they do passport checks when they feel like it.
So, I'll ask again - what relevance do they have to the issues of seperating
scotland from the rest of the UK?
You need some sort of ID to enter the Channel Islands, but you don?t need a >> passport. This is similar to all CTA countries, because you need to be able >> to show you are a CTA national and therefore exempt from immigration
requirements for non CTA nationals.
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. It?s got a bit of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other countries
have unpicked themselves, eg Ireland, Czechoslovakia velvet divorce, and
East Germany formed a merger into West Germany. (Please don?t quibble about >> their various official names). Whether or not it is a good idea is another >> matter.
[The Republic of] Ireland doesn't seem to require any form of ID from UK
or Irish citizens, though most air and ferry companies do. In practice,
the land border is completely open, with no effort to stop even Johnny Foreigner hopping between NI and RoI at will. I imagine an independent Scotland would be similar, though I oppose the idea for other reasons.
On Fri, 1 May 2026 08:30:30 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <vab7vkpbfllme6cgg6pfunn6m5d3jratcr@4ax.com>, at 20:50:21 onThat seems to describe a consequential restriction (with "Wilful
Thu, 30 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:07:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <lq57vk9ph82v4t0j7o1b6lc53ea1tm987a@4ax.com>, at 19:14:20 on >>>> Thu, 30 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>How is the restriction on joining beyond the box applied (presuming it
remarked:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:34:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <u8m1vkdffdemi10opvq0qomu77824i7tj5@4ax.com>, at 17:09:23 on >>>>>> Tue, 28 Apr 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>Which would be "during restricted hours".
remarked:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:15:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
In message <n5bebnF1n38U3@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:54 on Tue, 28 >>>>>>>> Apr 2026, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:AIUI from a TfL enforcement officer the size of the rank is mainly a >>>>>>> consideration of the space available with nothing to stop taxis
On 26/04/2026 07:39 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <sy4g4fClSZ7pFAhX@perry.uk>, at 05:29:25 on Sun, 26 >>>>>>>>>> Apr 2026,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <10sja7r$15cdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:55 on Sat, 25 Apr
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
Slightly more complicated, because some train fares include parking,FromI wonder whether that applies only to fares revenue, or to all >>>>>>>>>>>> revenue e.g. income from advertising on stations and trains etc.? >>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The franchise has an unusual structure: it is a management >>>>>>>>>>>>> contract where fare income does not go to GTR. Under their >>>>>>>>>>>>> original contract, the Department for Transport pays GTR ?8.9 >>>>>>>>>>>>> billion over the first seven-year period and receives all >>>>>>>>>>>>> revenue. Consequently, the company carries less revenue risk. This
form of franchise was chosen because of long-term engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>> works anticipated around London, which would be a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge to organise within the normal form of franchise. >>>>>>>>>>>>
so presumably that's handed to APCOA/NCP/etc, and then there's the >>>>>>>>>>> rents from often quite small retail outlets. Or do those rents get >>>>>>>>>>> paid direct to Network Rail, rather than the TOC?
<Thread convergence> I wonder what the flow of funds is wrt paid-for
catering on trains. Then there's the "free" First Class catering, paid
for as part of the fare, so does the cost of providing that get >>>>>>>>>>> skimmed off by the TOC, or does the DfT pay a fixed (or variable) fee
to the TOC to buy the materials.
But, note that the station car park is itself a franchise, >>>>>>>>>>>>> operated by
APCOA, so the chances are that it sets the prices and keeps the >>>>>>>>>>>>> profits.
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/find-parking/locations/luton/luton-airport-par
kway-station-luton
I suspected that might be the case here.
Almost all station car parks are operated by one of the various >>>>>>>>>>> parking companies. For example several in Cambs are operated by NCP >>>>>>>>>>> (with recent very high price rises).
But what we have is a food chain, with the land being rented out by >>>>>>>>>>> the railways, and the operator having to attempt to recover that cost
from the parking fees.
Another source of 'rent' is station taxi ranks, which cost >>>>>>>>>> typically ?2k
for an annual permit. I wonder if that's paid to the TOC or the parking
operator (the latter having the ANPR which would enforce it); or maybe
they split it between themselves.
There are only so many vehicles (some with one, some with two drivers,
in shifts) that may legally ply for hire from a rank (whether official
on the highway or ad-hoc on private property).
What sets the limit? The physical size of the rank (Central Cambridge is
notorious for cars over-ranking the public ones), or whether it's the >>>>>>>> vehicle or the driver who the fee allows.
queuing beyond the back end if there is legitimate space to do so, >>>>>>> i.e. during restricted parking hours the rank might be the only place >>>>>>> to freely wait but outwith those hours more can queue.
Not when the bit of road outwith the rank has stopping restrictions. >>>>>>
The rank I have in mind, the prohibition on over-ranking is "At Any
Time".
is on-street) ? The nearest restriction to that which I have seen is a
(non-enforceable but "Wilful Obstruction" applies anyway) sign
prohibiting queuing across a junction.
It's simply a narrow, congested street (the rank itself - for about five
cabs - is set into a layby in the pavement), where nobody is entitled to
stop.
Obstruction" applying) caused by the road layout backed up by a
non-mandatory sign which by itself might have no direct force but
could be used as evidence that "you were warned" if a driver chooses
to dispute a ticket/charge in court. Most cab ranks I encounter won't
involve a practical obstruction if cabs queue off the back but I have
a vague memory of one signed with words comparable to your example but
where there is no enforceable restriction outwith the hours of
controlled parking.
There is nothing to stop carriers of green cheese being mentioned in aThose restrictions do not inevitably apply to a taxi which is plying >>>>> for hire and for which a TRO provides exception.
The moon might be made of green cheese.
TRO but the usual unstated (on the street signs) exceptions tend to be
more general and tailored to local conditions. I used to park and wait
within the restricted zone around Wimbledon during the tennis
fortnight, the exception for allowing me to simply enter the area
being buried inside a four page TRO. Taxis are a common exception in
TROs not inevitably without a requirement to be plying for hire.
I'm quite sure they aren't an exception at the location I have in mind.
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. It?s got a bit of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other countries
In E & W, taxi-ranks (officially hackney carriage stands) are appointed
via a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) or local bylaw under the Town
Police Clauses Act 1847 and/or the Local Government (Miscellaneous >Provisions) Act 1976. Signs marking out and desc ribing a rank have the >force of law.
In Scotland, the applicable legislation is the Civic Government
(Scotland) Act 1982.
Because the restriction is created by law, any other vehicle stopping
or waiting there means a contravention by the driver.
Some ranks operate only at certain times but if there is no indication
of such a time on the signage, the restriction operates 24/7.
On Sun, 3 May 2026 09:42:31 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. It?s got a bit of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other countries
The legal system is the least of the problems. At Brexit we just carried over EU law. Far more of an issue is social, defence**, currency, economics, public
services such as electricity, transport, broadcasting, north sea oil & gas and probablhy a dozen other things I haven't thought of.
Yes, scotland could unpick itself but it would be a bloody mess, take years and fuck the uk even more than it is.
** The pathetic SNP won't bother with a military and Putin or whichever psychopath succeeds him will take that as an open door to plant his navy around the scottish coast. What will Holyrood do, paint their faces blue
and wave the Saltire?
On 03/05/2026 16:00, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 09:42:31 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. It?s got a bit of a >>> head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other countries
The legal system is the least of the problems. At Brexit we just carried over
EU law. Far more of an issue is social, defence**, currency, economics, public
services such as electricity, transport, broadcasting, north sea oil & gas >> and probablhy a dozen other things I haven't thought of.
Yes, scotland could unpick itself but it would be a bloody mess, take years >> and fuck the uk even more than it is.
** The pathetic SNP won't bother with a military and Putin or whichever
psychopath succeeds him will take that as an open door to plant his navy
around the scottish coast. What will Holyrood do, paint their faces blue
and wave the Saltire?
Would the SNP be re-elected after independence? They're a single-issue party, and would become about as relevant as UKIP did after Brexit.
UKIP had other policies and their demise* left a gap for Reform, but
Scotland has no shortage of left-wing parties already promoting similar socialist** ideals to the SNP.
*UKIP still exists but isn't exactly likely to form the next government.
**Of course, the SNP were once tartan Tories; they switch to whatever
part of the spectrum is in vogue because their only real interest is in independence.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 493850:10:59 |
| Calls: | 146 |
| Files: | 547 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (97K bytes) |
| Messages: | 76,927 |
