HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 6, 10:44*am, Paul Corfield wrote:
I know some will say "I told you so" but it seems the peak runs on the
South Eastern preview service are proving popular.

http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk...items/view/101

"Following the successful launch of the ‘preview’ High Speed services on
Monday 29 June, passenger numbers using the service have required
Southeastern to double the length of the train on some services.

The service has proven so popular with passengers that Southeastern
today were required to double the length of the 0748 from Ashford
International to St Pancras and the 1737 from St Pancras International
to Ashford International from six to 12 cars." *[more in press release]

It'll be interesting to see if the "preview service" expands before
December.

--
Paul C

Do fares for these services carry a premium? If so it may indicate
that some passengers are prepared to pay more for a markedly improved
service. That certainly used to be the case. Think Pullman cars on
the Metropolitan.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

1506 wrote in news:a52f7c74-0f0e-4166-92a7-
:

Do fares for these services carry a premium?

Yes.

Ashford to London single £26.60 on HS1 (£17.50 regular).

http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk...pages/view/325

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"James Farrar" wrote in message
. 1.4...
1506 wrote in news:a52f7c74-0f0e-4166-92a7-
:

Do fares for these services carry a premium?

Yes.

Ashford to London single £26.60 on HS1 (£17.50 regular).

http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk...pages/view/325

Wrong James.

You have compared the Anytime single fare with supplement to the Offpeak
single without.

The correct comparison is £26.60 (£22.20 regular). The Ashford supplement
being £4.40 peak single. There are no offpeak single fares or supplements
shown for Ashford yet, as the preview service is peak only (so far).

However there are off peak versions of the supplements for Ebbsfleet where
there are already all day HS1 services.

Paul S

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"Paul Scott" wrote in
:


"James Farrar" wrote in message
. 1.4...
1506 wrote in
news:a52f7c74-0f0e-4166-92a7-
:

Do fares for these services carry a premium?

Yes.

Ashford to London single £26.60 on HS1 (£17.50 regular).

http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk...pages/view/325

Wrong James.

You have compared the Anytime single fare with supplement to the
Offpeak single without.

OK, oops. But there's still a premium, even if I overstated its amount.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 7, 1:09*pm, James Farrar wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote :





"James Farrar" wrote in message
.1.4...
1506 wrote in
news:a52f7c74-0f0e-4166-92a7-
:

Do fares for these services carry a premium?

Yes.

Ashford to London single £26.60 on HS1 (£17.50 regular).

http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk...pages/view/325

Wrong James.

You have compared the Anytime single fare with supplement to the
Offpeak single without.

OK, oops. But there's still a premium, even if I overstated its amount.

None-the-less, I think this may indicate a way forward for suburban
rail development. It seems that the market will pay more for a
superior product.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On 8 July, 20:57, 1506 wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:09*pm, James Farrar wrote:



"Paul Scott" wrote :

"James Farrar" wrote in message
.1.4...
1506 wrote in
news:a52f7c74-0f0e-4166-92a7-
:

Do fares for these services carry a premium?

Yes.

Ashford to London single £26.60 on HS1 (£17.50 regular).

http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk...pages/view/325

Wrong James.

You have compared the Anytime single fare with supplement to the
Offpeak single without.

OK, oops. But there's still a premium, even if I overstated its amount.

None-the-less, I think this may indicate a way forward for suburban
rail development. *It seems that the market will pay more for a
superior product.

Remember, if you live in Ashford and work in London, chances a

a) you have kids
b) you have a fairly decent job

If someone offered you an extra 2 hours (approx?) every day to spend
with your kids or playing 5-a-side or lying in bed in the morning (or
whatever the hell you do with your spare time....), and all it cost
you was £8 (approx?) a day, you'd do it, right? Who wouldn't?

Just £4.40 for an extra hour in bed every day? Priceless.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 9, 9:14*pm, Martin Petrov wrote:

On 8 July, 20:57, 1506 wrote:

[snip]

None-the-less, I think this may indicate a way forward for suburban
rail development. *It seems that the market will pay more for a
superior product.

Remember, if you live in Ashford and work in London, chances a

a) you have kids
b) you have a fairly decent job

If someone offered you an extra 2 hours (approx?) every day to spend
with your kids or playing 5-a-side or lying in bed in the morning (or
whatever the hell you do with your spare time....), and all it cost
you was £8 (approx?) a day, you'd do it, right? Who wouldn't?

Just £4.40 for an extra hour in bed every day? Priceless.

Agreed - but it's worth bearing in mind that the HS1 line cost
something like £5 billion, which was basically covered by government
loan guarantees to the company that built it, L&CR - loans that the
government eventually decided to write off recently (and by 'write
off' I basically mean 'pay off', by providing state aid to L&CR to
enable them to do so, before then taking ownership of the company with
a view to splitting it up and selling it off later).

I don't quite think the market is prepared to pay the true costs of
such a development - and I don't think the country (in the form of
taxpayers) is willing to pay for it either (at least not again!),
especially if the end result is basically subsidising the lifestyle
choices of the more affluent! Those commuters in and around Ashford
and on the route of SE HS services have got something of a bargain...
especially as their house prices will likely go up as well (as it will
for non-commuters too).

£5 billion can buy a lot of light rail systems, improvements in
suburban rail services and bus services, cycle and walking route
improvements and other more general improvements to towns and cities
that boost the quality of life for all.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

1506 wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:09 pm, James Farrar wrote:

OK, oops. But there's still a premium, even if I overstated its
amount.

None-the-less, I think this may indicate a way forward for suburban
rail development. It seems that the market will pay more for a
superior product.

You may have missed it in one of the other threads on the HS1 and its fares,
but even with the supplement Ashford to London via HS1 is still comparably
priced to other similar length journeys on a pence/mile basis. In the final
analysis current 'Southeastern' fares may just have been generally low
compared to other parts of the London commuter area.

Paul

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Willms wrote:
Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:39:37 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
auf uk.railway :

If someone offered you an extra 2 hours (approx?) every day to spend
with your kids or playing 5-a-side or lying in bed in the morning (or
whatever the hell you do with your spare time....), and all it cost
you was £8 (approx?) a day, you'd do it, right? Who wouldn't?

Just £4.40 for an extra hour in bed every day? Priceless.
Agreed - but it's worth bearing in mind that the HS1 line cost
something like £5 billion, which was basically covered by government
loan guarantees to the company that built it, L&CR

I don't quite think the market is prepared to pay the true costs of
such a development

hey, man! Do you really suggest that 2 hours extra time for a family
man should be subject to "market forces"?

Depends how many hours extra work the workers-n-peasants have to put in
to subsidise the railway which gives the capitalist extra time with his
family.

And what, if the "market forces" decide that the re-introduction of
slavery would help to increase the profits of the big banks, what
then?

There is a theory that abolition was about perceived inefficiencies and
redeploying the ships on more profitable ventures.


Should "the market" prevail over human beings?

Is this the dragon which ruled over the town and who asked a virgin
sacrified to it every year in order not to destroy town and castle?

But the Virgin was replaced by a bus at weekends.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 9, 10:09*pm, "Willms" wrote:

Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:39:37 UTC, *schrieb Mizter T
*auf uk.railway :

If someone offered you an extra 2 hours (approx?) every day to spend
with your kids or playing 5-a-side or lying in bed in the morning (or
whatever the hell you do with your spare time....), and all it cost
you was £8 (approx?) a day, you'd do it, right? Who wouldn't?

Just £4.40 for an extra hour in bed every day? Priceless.

Agreed - but it's worth bearing in mind that the HS1 line cost
something like £5 billion, which was basically covered by government
loan guarantees to the company that built it, L&CR
I don't quite think the market is prepared to pay the true costs of
such a development

* hey, man! Do you really suggest that 2 hours extra time for a family
man should be subject to "market forces"?

* And what, if the "market forces" decide that the re-introduction of
slavery would help to increase the profits of the big banks, what
then?

* Should "the market" prevail over human beings?

* Is this the dragon which ruled over the town and who asked a virgin
sacrified to it every year in order not to destroy town and castle?

Luko, did you even read my whole post? I was suggesting that I don't
think people are really going to be willing to subsidise the
construction of very expensive new high-speed lines which benefit
already affluent commuters so as to enable them to make 100 mile plus
daily journeys. Of course, inevitably any new high-speed line would
increase the incidence of long-distance commuting , it's an inevitable
by-product - but specifically designing and constructing such lines
for commuting purposes isn't on (and of course is never going to
happen). Instead I'd be in favour of spending some of that money to
help all the family men and women who already live in towns and
cities, and to encourage families to live in the towns and cities in
which members of that family work, etc etc etc.

Before blundering in and criticising my comments, I suggest you
acquaint yourself with some of the basics with regards to the
Southeastern Highspeed service (which I've abbreviated as SE HS, and
also is/ has been called "CTRL-DS", "Kent domestics" and other
permutations thereof - and is sometimes erroneously called "Javelin")
- there's some information on the Southeastern website he
http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk....php/highspeed

Some of the people using SE HS could indeed have 2 or more extra hours
of family time if they (a) lived in London or (b) worked nearer where
they live and earnt less. That's simplifying things dramatically of
course, and there's an awful lot of different factors at play here
with regards to careers, lifestyles, quality of life (or at least
perceived quality of life), schooling etc etc - but people already
make these decisions, and one of the things on their calculus is
family time and to what extent they are prepared to play that off
against other factors such as career building or earning potential.

I'm not making massive definitive judgements on all these various
factors one way or the other, though I do have some thoughts on them -
but if someone was to propose an expensive new high-speed line from
Brighton to London (again a distance of about 50 miles) just to make
life easier for commuters, I'm not going to be there at the front of
the line campaigning in favour of it!

(Come to think of it, didn't the Brighton mainline RUS recently
pondered on some fairly radical/ 'way-out' ideas about tunnels to take
fast trains from Croydon under built up south London into central
London... not quite the same thing as a new high-speed line, but not
totally disconnected either.)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 9, 10:31*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:

Willms wrote:

Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:39:37 UTC, *schrieb Mizter T
*auf uk.railway :

If someone offered you an extra 2 hours (approx?) every day to spend
with your kids or playing 5-a-side or lying in bed in the morning (or
whatever the hell you do with your spare time....), and all it cost
you was £8 (approx?) a day, you'd do it, right? Who wouldn't?

Just £4.40 for an extra hour in bed every day? Priceless.
Agreed - but it's worth bearing in mind that the HS1 line cost
something like £5 billion, which was basically covered by government
loan guarantees to the company that built it, L&CR

I don't quite think the market is prepared to pay the true costs of
such a development

* hey, man! Do you really suggest that 2 hours extra time for a family
man should be subject to "market forces"?

Depends how many hours extra work the workers-n-peasants have to put in
to subsidise the railway which gives the capitalist extra time with his
family.

* And what, if the "market forces" decide that the re-introduction of
slavery would help to increase the profits of the big banks, what
then?

There is a theory that abolition was about perceived inefficiencies and
redeploying the ships on more profitable ventures.

* Should "the market" prevail over human beings?

* Is this the dragon which ruled over the town and who asked a virgin
sacrified to it every year in order not to destroy town and castle?

But the Virgin was replaced by a bus at weekends.

Arthur... sorry - hey,man!... why can't I just construct a high-speed
pithy response like you!

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 9, 10:06*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

1506 wrote:

On Jul 7, 1:09 pm, James Farrar wrote:
OK, oops. But there's still a premium, even if I overstated its
amount.

None-the-less, I think this may indicate a way forward for suburban
rail development. *It seems that the market will pay more for a
superior product.

You may have missed it in one of the other threads on the HS1 and its fares,
but even with the supplement Ashford to London via HS1 is still comparably
priced to other similar length journeys on a pence/mile basis. *In the final
analysis current 'Southeastern' fares may just have been generally low
compared to other parts of the London commuter area.

Certainly in the London zonal fares area, the gradual process of
equalising all rail-only season ticket fares across all TOCs in London
over three years (process will be complete come January 2010) has
meant that the season ticket prices from Southeastern stations have
had to rise.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Mizter T wrote:

I was suggesting that I don't
think people are really going to be willing to subsidise the
construction of very expensive new high-speed lines which benefit
already affluent commuters so as to enable them to make 100 mile plus
daily journeys. Of course, inevitably any new high-speed line would
increase the incidence of long-distance commuting , it's an inevitable
by-product - but specifically designing and constructing such lines
for commuting purposes isn't on (and of course is never going to
happen). Instead I'd be in favour of spending some of that money to
help all the family men and women who already live in towns and
cities, and to encourage families to live in the towns and cities in
which members of that family work, etc etc etc.


There's a problem here. There will be a lot of opposition to the
construction of high speed lines that cause a lot of noise and
disruption during construction and a lot of noise in operation, if
people along the route don't benefit in some tangible way from the
services that run on those lines.

I think, if they go ahead at all, we'll have to end up with four track
routes that carry freight and more "local" services as well as up to 350
km/h long distance services. And that will only encourage long distance
commuting.

You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability of
using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums than the
already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise professional people's
long distance daily commute. I agree that this makes no sense at all,
and that long distance commuting should be discouraged.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Tony Polson wrote:


and a lot of noise in operation,

In that case, copy foreign lines. Problem solved.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at
07:54:39 on Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
Tony Polson wrote:

and a lot of noise in operation,

In that case, copy foreign lines. Problem solved.

How do they reduce the operating noise? Is it by running mainly through
open countryside, tunnelling under towns, or what?
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
07:54:39 on Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
Tony Polson wrote:

and a lot of noise in operation,

In that case, copy foreign lines. Problem solved.

How do they reduce the operating noise? Is it by running mainly through
open countryside, tunnelling under towns, or what?

The Stuttgart-Ulm project in Germany contains a staggering amount of
tunnel - it's virtually a long-distance Tube line. The bits that aren't
in tunnel are alongside an autobahn.

Tom

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 10, 12:57*am, Tony Polson wrote:
You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability of
using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums than the
already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise professional people's
long distance daily commute. *I agree that this makes no sense at all,
and that long distance commuting should be discouraged.

....although there's an entirely plausible argument that the large
amounts of money earned by, and hence taxed from, professional people
working in London on long commutes easily offset the subsidy that
their commute is given (compared to a scenario where they live in
countrysideyness and take the kind of lower-paying job that's
generally available outside global financial centres).


--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 10, 12:57*am, Tony Polson wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

I was suggesting that I don't
think people are really going to be willing to subsidise the
construction of very expensive new high-speed lines which benefit
already affluent commuters so as to enable them to make 100 mile plus
daily journeys. Of course, inevitably any new high-speed line would
increase the incidence of long-distance commuting , it's an inevitable
by-product - but specifically designing and constructing such lines
for commuting purposes isn't on (and of course is never going to
happen). Instead I'd be in favour of spending some of that money to
help all the family men and women who already live in towns and
cities, and to encourage families to live in the towns and cities in
which members of that family work, etc etc etc.

There's a problem here. *There will be a lot of opposition to the
construction of high speed lines that cause a lot of noise and
disruption during construction and a lot of noise in operation, if
people along the route don't benefit in some tangible way from the
services that run on those lines.

I think, if they go ahead at all, we'll have to end up with four track
routes that carry freight and more "local" services as well as up to 350
km/h long distance services. *And that will only encourage long distance
commuting.

Interesting point. The land take would obviously be that much greater,
as would the cost, but nonetheless I can see your point - if a right-
of-way is being constructed, one might as well put in the extra work
and get four tracks out of it rather than two.


You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability of
using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums than the
already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise professional people's
long distance daily commute. *I agree that this makes no sense at all,
and that long distance commuting should be discouraged.

That said, I am in favour (I think!) of the massively expensive
Crossrail project... for a long time I didn't really have any properly
considered thoughts on it because I thought it was unlikely to ever
happen, but it seems it is now happening (as ever there's some
uncertainty of course). Though Crossrail won't facilitate long-
distance commuting per-se directly, but inevitably that will be a side-
effect.

I should just add that I'm not anti-professional people (whatever that
means!), nor anti-commuting as such. I certainly appreciate the
complex and multi-layered reasoning at play behind the decision of
people to do more lengthy commutes. Though I (obviously) do take some
issue with long-distance daily commuting (FSVO "long-distance", which
is of course debatable!).

And sometimes I think I might implode under the mass of my own
internal contradictions... and then just propose that everyone should
go off and live off the land, being crofters and woodsmen, where the
big journey is into the next town but one! But the genie of travel is
of course out of the bottle.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 09:29:53 on Fri, 10
Jul 2009, Tom Barry remarked:
Tony Polson wrote:

and a lot of noise in operation,

In that case, copy foreign lines. Problem solved.
How do they reduce the operating noise? Is it by running mainly
through open countryside, tunnelling under towns, or what?

The Stuttgart-Ulm project in Germany contains a staggering amount of
tunnel - it's virtually a long-distance Tube line.

Weren't we also trying to work out why the UK spent twice as much as any
foreigners on new lines. Are we spending twice as much as that line?

The bits that aren't in tunnel are alongside an autobahn.

--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Tom Barry writes:
How do they reduce the operating noise? Is it by running mainly
through open countryside, tunnelling under towns, or what?

The Stuttgart-Ulm project in Germany contains a staggering amount of
tunnel - it's virtually a long-distance Tube line. The bits that aren't
in tunnel are alongside an autobahn.

The Chuo (maglev) Shinkansen (now in planning stage) is supposedly going
to be 60% underground. The chosen route is 286km long, and very
mountainous.

...
The primary reason for the project's huge expense is that it is
planned to run in a tunnel for more than 60% of the entire line, and
40 m underground (deep underground) for a total of 100 km in the
Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka areas.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chū�_Shinkansen)

From what I understand, one big reason for constructing the new line,
instead of trying to increase speeds on the existing tokaido line, is
aerodynamic noise in populated areas. I guess building 40m underground
through sparsely populated areas should give them a bit of relief from
that problem; sure it costs 50 billion dollars, but... :)

-Miles

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without
individual responsibility.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 10, 9:44*am, John B wrote:

On Jul 10, 12:57*am, Tony Polson wrote:

You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability of
using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums than the
already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise professional people's
long distance daily commute. *I agree that this makes no sense at all,
and that long distance commuting should be discouraged.

...although there's an entirely plausible argument that the large
amounts of money earned by, and hence taxed from, professional people
working in London on long commutes easily offset the subsidy that
their commute is given (compared to a scenario where they live in
countrysideyness and take the kind of lower-paying job that's
generally available outside global financial centres).

That's a fair point, at least for some such commuters. In which case
one could argue that they should simply directly pay more for their
journeys instead of having their commute subsidised (and one could
argue that London might benefit from their presence... one could also
argue it might not as well - higher house prices etc!). Though the
notion that these folk should pay more of the full cost of their
commute might conflict to a certain extent with the notion that
subsidising shorter distance commutes is a legitimate thing to do,
because it means people have access to more reasonably priced property
- or the flip-side of the coin, employers in the centre have access to
a larger pool of potential employees.

I do comprehend it's a rather complex overall picture to say the
least, with a great number of arguments that can be made in favour of
taking all manner of various stances.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Mizter T wrote:

That said, I am in favour (I think!) of the massively expensive
Crossrail project... for a long time I didn't really have any properly
considered thoughts on it because I thought it was unlikely to ever
happen, but it seems it is now happening (as ever there's some
uncertainty of course). Though Crossrail won't facilitate long-
distance commuting per-se directly, but inevitably that will be a side-
effect.


An article I read a few years ago suggested that Crossrail would enable
the affluent professionals who are living to the west of London to get
to their highly paid jobs in the City with ease, and the poorer people
from the East End to get to their (not much more than) minimum wage jobs
in the West End in less time than now. :-(


I should just add that I'm not anti-professional people (whatever that
means!), nor anti-commuting as such. I certainly appreciate the
complex and multi-layered reasoning at play behind the decision of
people to do more lengthy commutes. Though I (obviously) do take some
issue with long-distance daily commuting (FSVO "long-distance", which
is of course debatable!).


Yes, I suppose I opened up a can of worms. ;-)


And sometimes I think I might implode under the mass of my own
internal contradictions... and then just propose that everyone should
go off and live off the land, being crofters and woodsmen, where the
big journey is into the next town but one! But the genie of travel is
of course out of the bottle.


We cannot hope to address climate change without taking a good hard look
at transport.

But I am pleased to report that sales of videoconferencing systems are
holding up well in spite of the recession. Companies are at last
beginning to see it as a genuine alternative to expensive and time
consuming travelling to meetings.

I have no doubt academia will lag years behind commerce, with the usual
underworked scientists insisting (to the few who listen) that the
scientific value of face to face networking far exceeds the economic and
environmental cost of their time and travel to and from the meetings. Of
course these are the same guys who will be lecturing us on changing our
travel habits, indeed our whole way of life, in the papers they present
at their far-flung and highly repetitive conferences. ;-)

I used to be lectured by a scientific colleague who strongly criticised
my use of a car for leisure trips because of the CO2 it emitted. The
same guy was a regular visitor to the Galapagos Islands, often more than
once in a year, and drove over 30,000 business miles a year in a car
with a 2.7 litre V6 that drank petrol like it was going out of fashion.
If he had used a more economical car, such as mine, he would have saved
far more CO2 than all my annual car use emitted, leisure *and* business.

Aren't scientists wonderful.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"Willms" wrote in message

Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:57:05 UTC, schrieb Tony Polson
auf uk.railway :

You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability
of using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums
than the already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise
professional people's long distance daily commute.

You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work?

In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 12, 11:51*am, "Recliner" wrote:

"Willms" wrote:

Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:57:05 UTC, *schrieb Tony Polson
*auf uk.railway :

You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability
of using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums
than the already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise
professional people's long distance daily commute.

*You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work?

In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.

Which is pretty stupid usage, as my plumber is genuinely a
professional (unlike many!). It's perhaps something of a foil for
talking about class, which we're still to obsessed by.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 12, 1:07*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 12, 11:51*am, "Recliner" wrote:

"Willms" wrote:

Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:57:05 UTC, *schrieb Tony Polson
*auf uk.railway :

You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability
of using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums
than the already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise
professional people's long distance daily commute.

*You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work?

In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.

Which is pretty stupid usage, as my plumber is genuinely a
professional (unlike many!). It's perhaps something of a foil for
talking about class, which we're still to obsessed by.

And I managed to write that sentence without thinking about how Luko
might pick up on it!

(For those not in the know, I think it's broadly fair to say that Luko
is a committed socialist, albeit a subscriber to a particular brand of
socialism that others might take issue with. Oh dear, what kind of can
of worms am I opening here...!)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 12, 1:18*pm, "Willms" wrote:

Am Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:51:04 UTC, *schrieb "Recliner"
*auf uk.railway :

In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.

* I am sure that many carpenters, engineers, and other not so well
paid workers perform their work in a much more professional way than
those named above. *

* I was confronted with this socially motivated perversion of language
for the first time in the US-american computer company which at one of
the frequent re-organisations decided to split the service department
into to: the "professional service" and the other service. What an
insulting disgrace!

I tend to agree with you on that broad point.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message
, at
14:18:39 on Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Willms remarked:
In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.

I am sure that many carpenters, engineers, and other not so well
paid workers perform their work in a much more professional way than
those named above.

Both descriptions above are a little off the mark.

"Professional" implies that the person has passed an academic
qualification, and is a member of some "body/association" where the
public can go to check up upon their qualification if necessary.

To that extent, whatever a CORGI engineer is called this week may well
qualify.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In uk.railway Mizter T twisted the electrons to say:
Which is pretty stupid usage, as my plumber is genuinely a
professional (unlike many!). It's perhaps something of a foil for
talking about class, which we're still to obsessed by.

nods Another way to look at it, which doesn't suffer from this problem
is when professional means "gets paid to to do it". Thus you can have
professional $X and amateur $X, without implying that one is of higher
quality than the other ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 12, 3:10*pm, Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway Mizter T twisted the electrons to say:

Which is pretty stupid usage, as my plumber is genuinely a
professional (unlike many!). It's perhaps something of a foil for
talking about class, which we're still to obsessed by.

nods *Another way to look at it, which doesn't suffer from this problem
is when professional means "gets paid to to do it". *Thus you can have
professional $X and amateur $X, without implying that one is of higher
quality than the other ...

This is professional in the 'old' sense of the word, being someone who
can counter-sign your passport application. Helpfully the Government
has a list of professional people here

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...ort/Passports/
Applicationinformation/DG_174151 which is a wonderful mix of
professions!! So the landlord at your local can countersign, but not
your plumber (unless he is a director of his self-employed PLC!)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 12, 3:10*pm, Alistair Gunn wrote:

In uk.railway Mizter T twisted the electrons to say:

Which is pretty stupid usage, as my plumber is genuinely a
professional (unlike many!). It's perhaps something of a foil for
talking about class, which we're still to obsessed by.

nods *Another way to look at it, which doesn't suffer from this problem
is when professional means "gets paid to to do it". *Thus you can have
professional $X and amateur $X, without implying that one is of higher
quality than the other ...

I'm not sure how much I spoiled by argument with the typo "to" instead
of "too" - the grammar snobs will have me! (Actually, I am keen on
good grammar, despite copious evidence to the contrary in past posts -
plus, it was a typo, I do know the difference... really, I do!)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Roland Perry wrote:

In message ,
at 14:18:39 on Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Willms remarked:
In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.

I am sure that many carpenters, engineers, and other not so well
paid workers perform their work in a much more professional way than
those named above.

Both descriptions above are a little off the mark.

"Professional" implies that the person has passed an academic qualification,
and is a member of some "body/association" where the public can go to check
up upon their qualification if necessary.

To that extent, whatever a CORGI engineer is called this week may well
qualify.

That's not the traditional meaning, though, is it? The traditional meaning
is basically a group of upper-middle-class jobs which have come to be
called 'the professions' through custom - law, medicine, architecture,
accountancy, the priesthood.

They were once the only jobs that required qualifications, and i think
there was also a meaning that they involved being a freelance contractor
rather than a salaried employee, but i don't think you can carry that old
definition forward and include plumbers and gas fitters - or indeed
consulting software architects such as myself. No disrespect intended to
plumbers or gas fitters, but that's just what common usage of the word
means.

The complaint i'd make against the use of the word in this context is that
i don't think it includes bankers or managers, who i imagine make up a
larger share of the Ashford commuter market than lawyers, architects, etc.

tom

--
these are my testing supplies

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 12, 5:05*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Roland Perry wrote:

In message ,
at 14:18:39 on Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Willms remarked:
In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.

*I am sure that many carpenters, engineers, and other not so well
paid workers perform their work in a much more professional way than
those named above.

Both descriptions above are a little off the mark.

"Professional" implies that the person has passed an academic qualification,
and is a member of some "body/association" where the public can go to check
up upon their qualification if necessary.

To that extent, whatever a CORGI engineer is called this week may well
qualify.

That's not the traditional meaning, though, is it? The traditional meaning
is basically a group of upper-middle-class jobs which have come to be
called 'the professions' through custom - law, medicine, architecture,
accountancy, the priesthood.

They were once the only jobs that required qualifications, and i think
there was also a meaning that they involved being a freelance contractor
rather than a salaried employee, but i don't think you can carry that old
definition forward and include plumbers and gas fitters - or indeed
consulting software architects such as myself. No disrespect intended to
plumbers or gas fitters, but that's just what common usage of the word
means.

The complaint i'd make against the use of the word in this context is that
i don't think it includes bankers or managers, who i imagine make up a
larger share of the Ashford commuter market than lawyers, architects, etc..

Common usage changes over time. These bankers and managers would
commonly be called "professional people", even if they aren't
"professionals" in the old school sense. And anyway, one doesn't have
to subscribe to any of this "professional" versus 'other' (by
implication "non-professional") malarkey anyway - I don't. And if
enough people disregard it, the commonly understood meaning will
change. (It comes across to me as somewhat pompous and status seeking,
at least if one places an emphasis on it.)

Viva the (plumbers) revolution.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message . li, at
17:05:36 on Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Tom Anderson
remarked:
"Professional" implies that the person has passed an academic
qualification, and is a member of some "body/association" where the
public can go to check up upon their qualification if necessary.

To that extent, whatever a CORGI engineer is called this week may
well qualify.

That's not the traditional meaning, though, is it? The traditional
meaning is basically a group of upper-middle-class jobs which have come
to be called 'the professions' through custom - law, medicine,
architecture, accountancy, the priesthood.

But you've just listed jobs that fit my definition.

i don't think you can carry that old definition forward and include
plumbers and gas fitters - or indeed consulting software architects
such as myself.

Is your qualification registered centrally? Maybe not, but CORGI
engineers are.

The complaint i'd make against the use of the word in this context is
that i don't think it includes bankers or managers, who i imagine make
up a larger share of the Ashford commuter market than lawyers,
architects, etc.

And then you have the property programmes' "young professionals" whoever
they are.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Recliner wrote:
"Willms" wrote in message

Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:57:05 UTC, schrieb Tony Polson
auf uk.railway :

You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability
of using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums
than the already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise
professional people's long distance daily commute.
You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work?

In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.


Not necessarily. It sometimes refers to moderately paid people like
teachers and quite low paid people like nurses.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:51 am, "Recliner" wrote:

"Willms" wrote:

Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:57:05 UTC, schrieb Tony Polson
auf uk.railway :
You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability
of using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums
than the already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise
professional people's long distance daily commute.
You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work?
In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.

Which is pretty stupid usage, as my plumber is genuinely a
professional (unlike many!). It's perhaps something of a foil for
talking about class, which we're still to obsessed by.

In teaching it used to be a scam to fool non-graduates, but it is still
in use, for some reason.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message

Recliner wrote:
"Willms" wrote in message

Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:57:05 UTC, schrieb Tony Polson
auf uk.railway :

You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability
of using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums
than the already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise
professional people's long distance daily commute.
You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work?

In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.


Not necessarily. It sometimes refers to moderately paid people like
teachers and quite low paid people like nurses.

No, I don't think so -- maybe headteachers, but not your average junior
teacher, and certainly not nurses. I'm not saying they aren't dedicated,
hard-working professionals, just that the colloquial British use does
have a status/class/wealth implication. I was just trying to correct
Luko, who seemed to think that anyone not in this vaguely defined this
category is therefore being insulted in some way. I also made the point
that this was UK usage; it's different in the US.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 12, 8:39 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message . li, at
17:05:36 on Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Tom Anderson
remarked:

"Professional" implies that the person has passed an academic
qualification, and is a member of some "body/association" where the
public can go to check up upon their qualification if necessary.

To that extent, whatever a CORGI engineer is called this week may
well qualify.

That's not the traditional meaning, though, is it? The traditional
meaning is basically a group of upper-middle-class jobs which have come
to be called 'the professions' through custom - law, medicine,
architecture, accountancy, the priesthood.

But you've just listed jobs that fit my definition.

i don't think you can carry that old definition forward and include
plumbers and gas fitters - or indeed consulting software architects
such as myself.

Is your qualification registered centrally? Maybe not, but CORGI
engineers are.

The complaint i'd make against the use of the word in this context is
that i don't think it includes bankers or managers, who i imagine make
up a larger share of the Ashford commuter market than lawyers,
architects, etc.

And then you have the property programmes' "young professionals" whoever
they are.
--
Roland Perry

There's also the distinction between those on a salary (annual) and a
wage (by the hour). Somewhat diluted by the growth in self-employment
and freelancing, but still a common mindset, I think.
Tim

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message
, at
09:30:54 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, TimB remarked:
There's also the distinction between those on a salary (annual) and a
wage (by the hour). Somewhat diluted by the growth in self-employment
and freelancing, but still a common mindset, I think.

I'm not sure how well that maps onto real life. Last week I was
discussing an issue with someone with a manual job on not much more than
minimum wage, but they were paid a salary, not by the hour.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"Willms" wrote in message

Am Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:05:36 UTC, schrieb Tom Anderson
auf uk.railway :

That's not the traditional meaning, though, is it? The traditional
meaning is basically a group of upper-middle-class jobs which have
come to be called 'the professions' through custom - law, medicine,
architecture, accountancy, the priesthood.

Originally they were called "the liberal professions", i.e.
professions which were exercised by people with a higher education
hanging out shingle and working on their own, not as part of a larger
organisation.

Freelance, self-employed, private practice are other words
applicable in this field.

The German word is "Freie Berufe", the adjetive or adverb
"freiberuflich". This is of relevance for VAT -- those who are working
"freiberuflich" don't pay VAT. In some professions, one can chose if
one works "freiberuflich" or as commercially as a business. In the
latter case, one has to pay VAT, or rather, charge VAT to one's
customers.

In Britain, you don't get the choice if "taxable supplies" (revenue)
exceed £67k.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 18:05:57 on
Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
The German word is "Freie Berufe", the adjetive or adverb
"freiberuflich". This is of relevance for VAT -- those who are working
"freiberuflich" don't pay VAT. In some professions, one can chose if
one works "freiberuflich" or as commercially as a business. In the
latter case, one has to pay VAT, or rather, charge VAT to one's
customers.

In Britain, you don't get the choice if "taxable supplies" (revenue)
exceed £67k.

I wonder if an MP has to take account of the monies paid to him to run
his office, as a "taxable supply", or whether they are entirely exempt
from the VAT system.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'll assume all the "expenses" are valid
ones.

Looking down the list and picking the first person as my random example:
Ms Diane Abbott claimed around £131k, *none* of which was for a second
home. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm
--
Roland Perry