On 31 Jul 2022 12:31:24 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2022 12:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>> There will be pressure for all sorts of exemptions and discounts
>>>> (eg, for taxis, public service vehicles, or people living in rural areas),
>>>> but with every discount comes an evasion loophole, so it's best to keep it
>>>> simple.
>>>
>>> That is OK if you live in an urban area with mainly short distances and
>>> good public transport.
>>>
>>
>> People in rural areas trade higher transport costs for much lower property
>> costs.
>>
>>
>
>I’m not sure that is true for many areas where it is a desirable place to
>live ,Cornwall for instance
>where Fisherman can no longer afford to live in the small fishing ports and
>have to commute in
>from small towns like Redruth . Similar with agricultural workers who now
>can’t live in a village near the farms they work but drive in from a small
>town estate. This creates more traffic as the more well off who have moved
>in from London and surrounds driven out by even more wealthy people from
>abroad now commute out of the villages to the motorway or railway station
>meeting the farm workers, care workers etc commuting the other way.
>So a once rural road often single track gradually goes from a cheaply
>maintained road resurfaced
>about once in 15 years with a bit of paint to one thats gets eroded on the
>edges needing constan repair then widened , then come more signs that have
>to be maintained followed by some traffic lights or illuminated bollards
>and a cheap to maintain country lane becomes a more expensive thoroughfare
>needing constant attention.

Yes, agreed, the relatively small number of popular second home locations do get inflated property prices (though not
usually to urban levels).

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:35:58 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tc5ao4$s18$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:24:52 on Sun, 31 Jul
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>Really? So they don't require any maintenance of the surface, drainage,
>>traffic lights, street lights, signage, miscellanious road furniture? It all
>>just lasts forever?
>
>That's maintenance, and like railways, does happen. I was talking about
>*operating* costs for each individual passenger mile.

There is no operating cost for the track other than maintenance and
signalling (which is getting more automated each year). Operating costs for
vehicles are born by the vehicle operator on both road and rail.

>>>Roads also have a public utility for things like ambulances and bin
>>>lorries, neither of which applies to the railways.
>>
>>Irrelevant. Railways were a public utility to many communities. That didn't
>>stop Beeching.
>
>Many of the lines which didn't get closed, and now cost a fortune to
>operate, survived because they did provide an important and less easily
>substituted (for example by a new bus service) utility.

And many didn't but there was little logic anyway. Haddenham kept its
line but the much bigger Thame down the road lost it.

>Most of the lines were built to carry freight, and one that had been
>transferred to road by societal changes after WW2, there simply wasn't
>sufficient demand from the public for passenger travel.

Plenty of roads in the UK barely see a few dozen vehicles a day. Perhaps
they should be closed and left to rot?

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 11:41:47 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tc5htv$8bcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:27 on Sun, 31 Jul
>2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>It is not correct to say roads cost nothing to operate.
>>
>>The following needs be paid for:-
>>Police control rooms for the motorways
>>Policing costs for roads
>>NHS costs for accidents
>>Fire service costs for accidents
>>Building new roads
>>Maintaining existing roads
>>Operation Stack
>>Department for roads in all four counties
>>Local authority costs (road closures etc)
>>Plus whatever I've forgotten
>
>Is your solution to make all roads toll-roads? After all, railways are
>overwhelmingly toll-railways, with almost everyone paying a fare.

The "fare" for the roads is road tax and fuel duty.

>What toll would you charge ambulances? More, I expect, because they want
>other people to get out of their way.

You do know that emergency vehicles on a call don't need to worry about
speed cameras, ULEZ etc? Why would they need to pay tolls?

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 31/07/2022 10:15, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 30/07/2022 11:29, Certes wrote:
>>>> On 30/07/2022 01:07, Nobody wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 16:21:55 -0700, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 23:18:13 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:56 +0100, Mark Goodge
>>>>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 17:26:50 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <sou7eh1681bau4ho3bnqr5lajm2vmq0chi@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>> 10:43:32 on
>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 29 Jul 2022, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Tunnel#Car_transport
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> During 1924, the Great Western Railway started a car shuttle train
>>>>>>>>>>> service using the tunnel, which would transport cars on rail trucks
>>>>>>>>>>> through the tunnel between Pilning and Severn Tunnel Junction. The
>>>>>>>>>>> service functioned as a rail-based alternative to the Aust Ferry,
>>>>>>>>>>> which was operated under an erratic timetable determined by the
>>>>>>>>>>> tides,
>>>>>>>>>>> or lengthy road journeys via Gloucester. The rail shuttle
>>>>>>>>>>> service was
>>>>>>>>>>> continued after the end of World War II, but was ultimately made
>>>>>>>>>>> redundant by the opening of the Severn Bridge in 1966, leading
>>>>>>>>>>> to its
>>>>>>>>>>> discontinuation shortly thereafter.[15]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but what was the fare, and did it reflect the operating cost?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fare in 1962 was 22s 6d, or £1.15 in decimal[1].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 125.5p
>>>>>>>> See also "they will round everything up with decimalisation" ;-)
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Splinters in finger from scratching head vigorously: wooden tit in
>>>>>>> exactitude before any rounding be 112.5p?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank goodness NZ followed RSA and Oz by splitting at ten shillings,
>>>>>>> and thus bits on DC Day were rounded both down and up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, the 55th anniversary just passed three weeks ago: 10 July 1967,
>>>>>>> that much-heralded Monday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of
>>>>>> a pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your point being, to a then Dominion-ite from the South Pacific who
>>>>> had intimate knowledge of £sd as a (manual) Payroll Person for about
>>>>> five dozen employees under varying union contracts waitiing to receive
>>>>> Fresh Multi-Coloured Notes on Tuesday, the day following DC Day in
>>>>> Aotearoa!
>>>>>
>>>>> My (and Recliner's) response was about the strict conversion value of
>>>>> 22/6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those were the days when a slash had a different meaning... <g>
>>>>
>>>> So did Lsd.
>>>
>>> An acid comment!
>>
>> Like groovy, man!
>>
>> Sam (who does actually remember the 60s)
>>
>
> In which case you weren't really there!

[sploof]

Sam (who has just vanished in a puff of logic)

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>
> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.

That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which she
would bring out and show the grandchildren. Farthings must have been
withdrawn progressively up to that date. I do, however, remember 4-a-penny
chews.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 31/07/2022 18:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>
>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>
> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
> circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which she
> would bring out and show the grandchildren. Farthings must have been
> withdrawn progressively up to that date. I do, however, remember 4-a-penny
> chews.
>
> Sam
>

I was born in 1950 and recall the farthing in use, albeit not a lot. Had
a robin on it which is probably why I remember it.

--
Colin

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 31/07/2022 18:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>
>>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>>
>> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
>> circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which she
>> would bring out and show the grandchildren. Farthings must have been
>> withdrawn progressively up to that date. I do, however, remember 4-a-penny
>> chews.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
> I was born in 1950 and recall the farthing in use, albeit not a lot. Had
> a robin on it which is probably why I remember it.

I’m a little younger than that.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 31/07/2022 18:13, ColinR wrote:
> I was born in 1950 and recall the farthing in use, albeit not a lot. Had
> a robin on it which is probably why I remember it.

The farthing gained importance during the Second World War, but never
circulated as freely as the halfpenny; minting ceased in 1956 and
farthings were demonetised at the end of 1960.

On 31/07/2022 18:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>
>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>
> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
> circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which she
> would bring out and show the grandchildren. Farthings must have been
> withdrawn progressively up to that date. I do, however, remember 4-a-penny
> chews.
>

I still have a shillings worth of farthings!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 18:13:41 +0100, ColinR wrote:

> On 31/07/2022 18:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100
>>>> of a pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>
>>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>>
>> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
>> circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which
>> she would bring out and show the grandchildren. Farthings must have
>> been withdrawn progressively up to that date. I do, however, remember
>> 4-a-penny chews.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>>
> I was born in 1950 and recall the farthing in use, albeit not a lot. Had
> a robin on it which is probably why I remember it.

A wren I think.

nib

On 31/07/2022 18:24, nib wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 18:13:41 +0100, ColinR wrote:
>
>> On 31/07/2022 18:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100
>>>>> of a pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>>
>>>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>>>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>>>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>>>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>>>
>>> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
>>> circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which
>>> she would bring out and show the grandchildren. Farthings must have
>>> been withdrawn progressively up to that date. I do, however, remember
>>> 4-a-penny chews.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>> I was born in 1950 and recall the farthing in use, albeit not a lot. Had
>> a robin on it which is probably why I remember it.
>
> A wren I think.
>
> nib

Oops, you are correct. Memory is not what it used to be!!

--
Colin

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 31/07/2022 18:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>
>>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>>
>> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
>> circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which she
>> would bring out and show the grandchildren. Farthings must have been
>> withdrawn progressively up to that date. I do, however, remember 4-a-penny
>> chews.
>>
>
> I still have a shillings worth of farthings!

Blimey, you were rich!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 31/07/2022 21:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/07/2022 18:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>>>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>>
>>>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>>>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>>>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>>>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>>>
>>> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
>>> circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which she
>>> would bring out and show the grandchildren. Farthings must have been
>>> withdrawn progressively up to that date. I do, however, remember 4-a-penny
>>> chews.
>>>
>>
>> I still have a shillings worth of farthings!
>
> Blimey, you were rich!
>

Been downhill ever since…

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 31/07/2022 17:48, muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:35:58 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tc5ao4$s18$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:24:52 on Sun, 31 Jul
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> Really? So they don't require any maintenance of the surface, drainage,
>>> traffic lights, street lights, signage, miscellanious road furniture? It all
>>> just lasts forever?
>>
>> That's maintenance, and like railways, does happen. I was talking about
>> *operating* costs for each individual passenger mile.
>
> There is no operating cost for the track other than maintenance and
> signalling (which is getting more automated each year). Operating costs for
> vehicles are born by the vehicle operator on both road and rail.
>
>>>> Roads also have a public utility for things like ambulances and bin
>>>> lorries, neither of which applies to the railways.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. Railways were a public utility to many communities. That didn't
>>> stop Beeching.
>>
>> Many of the lines which didn't get closed, and now cost a fortune to
>> operate, survived because they did provide an important and less easily
>> substituted (for example by a new bus service) utility.
>
> And many didn't but there was little logic anyway. Haddenham kept its
> line but the much bigger Thame down the road lost it.

The line through Haddenham stayed open, and the line through Thame
didn't, for good reasons that had little to do with either place.

Keeping a station open when trains are passing anyway has a much lower
cost than keeping a line open specially for that station, and hence
requires a much lower benefit for the BCR to be adequate.

>> Most of the lines were built to carry freight, and one that had been
>> transferred to road by societal changes after WW2, there simply wasn't
>> sufficient demand from the public for passenger travel.
>
> Plenty of roads in the UK barely see a few dozen vehicles a day. Perhaps
> they should be closed and left to rot?
>

On 31/07/2022 18:17, MB wrote:
> On 31/07/2022 18:13, ColinR wrote:
>> I was born in 1950 and recall the farthing in use, albeit not a lot. Had
>> a robin on it which is probably why I remember it.
>
>
>
> The farthing gained importance during the Second World War, but never
> circulated as freely as the halfpenny; minting ceased in 1956 and
> farthings were demonetised at the end of 1960.

What gave the farthing importance in World War II?

In message <tc6crp$emed$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:05 on Sun, 31 Jul
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>
>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>
>That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
>circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which she
>would bring out and show the grandchildren.

It was compulsory to put a silver 3d bit in the Xmas pudding.

>Farthings must have been withdrawn progressively up to that date.

I remember farthings in circulation, and must have known about them
being withdrawn, because it may have been one of the first collectables
I put aside in a drawer (and I'm sure I'd still have a few). It was
also interesting to look at the dates on especially Victorian Bronze 1d
coins, and preserve the oldest one or two that passed through one's
hands. I have and extremely worn example of either an 1860, or is it the
second year of issue 1861.

>I do, however, remember 4-a-penny chews.

Indeed.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tc6d83$ene9$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:13:41 on Sun, 31 Jul
2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 31/07/2022 18:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>
>>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.

>> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing
>>in circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit,
>>which she would bring out and show the grandchildren. Farthings must
>>have been withdrawn progressively up to that date. I do, however,
>>remember 4-a-penny chews.
>
>I was born in 1950 and recall the farthing in use, albeit not a lot.
>Had a robin on it which is probably why I remember it.

What I remember about them is that (in contrast to many of the higher
denomination bronze coins, or even the silver 3d) they were usually in
very good [crisp] condition.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tc6bot$1qcm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:48:29 on Sun, 31 Jul
2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:35:58 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <tc5ao4$s18$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:24:52 on Sun, 31 Jul
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>Really? So they don't require any maintenance of the surface, drainage,
>>>traffic lights, street lights, signage, miscellanious road furniture? It all
>>>just lasts forever?
>>
>>That's maintenance, and like railways, does happen. I was talking about
>>*operating* costs for each individual passenger mile.
>
>There is no operating cost for the track other than maintenance and
>signalling (which is getting more automated each year).

On one hand, routine maintenance isn't an *operating* cost in this
context, on the other hand I'd classify platform dispatchers (and at
least half the role of a guard where they still exist is dispatching) as
a *track* operating cost, because they are part of the signaling system
- giving the Right Away indication to the driver.

I was at Crewe last week, and stood next to the chap with his thunderer
whistle, and key round his neck that he inserted in a box when it was
safe for departure.

If the staff at a station are allocated to ramp-duty for wheelchairs,
that is also not a *train* operating cost. Nor are the announcers (which
although also increasingly automated do usually have a manual over-ride
for when things go pear-shaped, platform numbers change a the last
minute, and so on.

Perhaps it would help to call all these various tasks *infrastructure*
operating costs, to distinguish them from *train* operating costs.

Emergency maintenance (fixing broken axle counters, fixing broken level
crossings, the occasional broken rail or tangled OHL, are all operating
costs, because without doing it the trains can't run on that specific
bit of track at that specific time.

There's a few corner cases: is leaf fall and de-icing operations routine
maintenance, for example? Removing tress blown across the line is
definitely emergency maintenance.

>Operating costs for
>vehicles are born by the vehicle operator on both road and rail.

That's a separate category, and as I'm sure you know about 10% of it is
the toll paid to Network Rail (or "Track Access Charge") as it's known.

>>>>Roads also have a public utility for things like ambulances and bin
>>>>lorries, neither of which applies to the railways.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. Railways were a public utility to many communities. That didn't
>>>stop Beeching.
>>
>>Many of the lines which didn't get closed, and now cost a fortune to
>>operate, survived because they did provide an important and less easily
>>substituted (for example by a new bus service) utility.
>
>And many didn't but there was little logic anyway. Haddenham kept its
>line

But the station closed in 1963

>but the much bigger Thame down the road lost it.

That's because Haddenham was on a main line, and Thame was (for
historical reasons) a branch line; in fact originally the terminus of a
branch from Princes Risborough, although later extended to Oxford.

>>Most of the lines were built to carry freight, and one that had been
>>transferred to road by societal changes after WW2, there simply wasn't
>>sufficient demand from the public for passenger travel.
>
>Plenty of roads in the UK barely see a few dozen vehicles a day. Perhaps
>they should be closed and left to rot?

They have negligible operating costs, but railways with a handful of
trains a day do cost a lot of money to keep open.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tc7038$ghh0$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:35:19 on Sun, 31 Jul
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 31/07/2022 17:48, muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:35:58 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tc5ao4$s18$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:24:52 on Sun, 31 Jul
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> Really? So they don't require any maintenance of the surface, drainage,
>>>> traffic lights, street lights, signage, miscellanious road
>>>>furniture? It all
>>>> just lasts forever?
>>>
>>> That's maintenance, and like railways, does happen. I was talking about
>>> *operating* costs for each individual passenger mile.
>> There is no operating cost for the track other than maintenance and
>> signalling (which is getting more automated each year). Operating costs for
>> vehicles are born by the vehicle operator on both road and rail.
>>
>>>>> Roads also have a public utility for things like ambulances and
>>>>>
>>>>> lorries, neither of which applies to the railways.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. Railways were a public utility to many communities. That didn't
>>>> stop Beeching.
>>>
>>> Many of the lines which didn't get closed, and now cost a fortune to
>>> operate, survived because they did provide an important and less easily
>>> substituted (for example by a new bus service) utility.
>> And many didn't but there was little logic anyway. Haddenham kept
>>its
>> line but the much bigger Thame down the road lost it.
>
>The line through Haddenham stayed open, and the line through Thame
>didn't, for good reasons that had little to do with either place.
>
>Keeping a station open when trains are passing anyway has a much lower
>cost than keeping a line open specially for that station, and hence
>requires a much lower benefit for the BCR to be adequate.

But they still closed Haddenham Station (and the other four stations
between Princes Risborough and Bicester. Closer to London they also
closed West Wycombe on that line (in 1958, so predates Beeching).

>>> Most of the lines were built to carry freight, and one that had been
>>> transferred to road by societal changes after WW2, there simply wasn't
>>> sufficient demand from the public for passenger travel.

>> Plenty of roads in the UK barely see a few dozen vehicles a day.
>>Perhaps they should be closed and left to rot?

Some are. There's what today we might call today a "Green Lane" on the
ourskirts of Manchester, that I used to drive every day (a significant
shortcut from where I was living to where I worked). Today it has
concrete blocks across the entrance from the main road, I lived at the
other end.

And near where I live in Cambs there's a road which was one of the more
prominent thoroughfares in former times, but now has a gate across one
end. I keep meaning to investigate what caused it to no longer be a
highway at that end (I assume the gate is legal). The other 95% of it is
still marked on the County definitive map as a highway, and even the
Streetcar has driven the first half, although to a townie it probably
looks like a dirt track through the middle of a field.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tc6brk$1r4u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:49:56 on Sun, 31 Jul
2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 11:41:47 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <tc5htv$8bcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:27 on Sun, 31 Jul
>>2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>It is not correct to say roads cost nothing to operate.
>>>
>>>The following needs be paid for:-
>>>Police control rooms for the motorways
>>>Policing costs for roads
>>>NHS costs for accidents
>>>Fire service costs for accidents
>>>Building new roads
>>>Maintaining existing roads
>>>Operation Stack
>>>Department for roads in all four counties
>>>Local authority costs (road closures etc)
>>>Plus whatever I've forgotten
>>
>>Is your solution to make all roads toll-roads? After all, railways are
>>overwhelmingly toll-railways, with almost everyone paying a fare.
>
>The "fare" for the roads is road tax

I think you mean VED, but that's an annual subscription, not a
pay-per-trip.

>and fuel duty.

Although some electric cars pay little or none of either.

>>What toll would you charge ambulances? More, I expect, because they want
>>other people to get out of their way.
>
>You do know that emergency vehicles on a call don't need to worry about
>speed cameras, ULEZ etc? Why would they need to pay tolls?

Because the roads have to be maintained to higher standards to allow
them to whizz around the way they do. Polluter pays, and all that.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 06:51:18 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tc6brk$1r4u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:49:56 on Sun, 31 Jul
>2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>Is your solution to make all roads toll-roads? After all, railways are
>>>overwhelmingly toll-railways, with almost everyone paying a fare.
>>
>>The "fare" for the roads is road tax
>
>I think you mean VED, but that's an annual subscription, not a
>pay-per-trip.

Its a tax whatever you want to call it.

>>and fuel duty.
>
>Although some electric cars pay little or none of either.

As someone else said, road tolling is inevitable to make up for that
though no doubt fuel duty won't be reduced in kind.

>>You do know that emergency vehicles on a call don't need to worry about
>>speed cameras, ULEZ etc? Why would they need to pay tolls?
>
>Because the roads have to be maintained to higher standards to allow
>them to whizz around the way they do.

If only there was a hollow laugh smiley. Local councils don't give a stuff
about emergency vehicles as their endless addition of speed bumps and
blocking off "rat runs" while simultainiously not bothering to fix defects
demonstrates.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 06:48:23 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tc7038$ghh0$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:35:19 on Sun, 31 Jul
>2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>> Plenty of roads in the UK barely see a few dozen vehicles a day.
>>>Perhaps they should be closed and left to rot?
>
>Some are. There's what today we might call today a "Green Lane" on the
>ourskirts of Manchester, that I used to drive every day (a significant
>shortcut from where I was living to where I worked). Today it has
>concrete blocks across the entrance from the main road, I lived at the
>other end.
>
>And near where I live in Cambs there's a road which was one of the more
>prominent thoroughfares in former times, but now has a gate across one
>end. I keep meaning to investigate what caused it to no longer be a
>highway at that end (I assume the gate is legal). The other 95% of it is
>still marked on the County definitive map as a highway, and even the
>Streetcar has driven the first half, although to a townie it probably
>looks like a dirt track through the middle of a field.

Got some google maps links?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tc6crp$emed$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:05 on Sun, 31 Jul
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>
>>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>>
>> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
>> circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which she
>> would bring out and show the grandchildren.
>
> It was compulsory to put a silver 3d bit in the Xmas pudding.

And to make a wish if you found it. My brother and I also got to pull the
wishbone when we had chicken.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:35:58 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tc5ao4$s18$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:24:52 on Sun, 31 Jul
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> Really? So they don't require any maintenance of the surface, drainage,
>>> traffic lights, street lights, signage, miscellanious road furniture? It all
>>> just lasts forever?
>>
>> That's maintenance, and like railways, does happen. I was talking about
>> *operating* costs for each individual passenger mile.
>
> There is no operating cost for the track other than maintenance and
> signalling (which is getting more automated each year). Operating costs for
> vehicles are born by the vehicle operator on both road and rail.
>
>>>> Roads also have a public utility for things like ambulances and bin
>>>> lorries, neither of which applies to the railways.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. Railways were a public utility to many communities. That didn't
>>> stop Beeching.
>>
>> Many of the lines which didn't get closed, and now cost a fortune to
>> operate, survived because they did provide an important and less easily
>> substituted (for example by a new bus service) utility.
>
> And many didn't but there was little logic anyway. Haddenham kept its
> line but the much bigger Thame down the road lost it.
>

Haddenham is on the Chiltern main line to Birmingham; Thame is on the
rather less significant, in the overall scheme of things, branch from
Princes Risborough to Oxford.

In any case, both town lost their passenger service in 1963; the current
Parkway station opened in 1987. Would Haddenham alone have had its station
reopened, without the "and Thame" influence?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 01/08/2022 09:10, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tc6crp$emed$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:05 on Sun, 31 Jul
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>>>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>>
>>>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>>>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>>>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>>>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>>>
>>> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
>>> circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which she
>>> would bring out and show the grandchildren.
>>
>> It was compulsory to put a silver 3d bit in the Xmas pudding.
>
> And to make a wish if you found it. My brother and I also got to pull the
> wishbone when we had chicken.
>

Which you had to pull with your little fingers.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.