Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

this must stick in the craw.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 95921.html

Possible privatisation...... who d have thought eh!

I think you mean nationalisation?

Please explain how a loss making franchise can magically become viable and successful by taking it into government ownership

:oops: yes i did!

well, it turned a profit from 2009 to 2013? and it failed to do earlier hence why it was nationalized and its failed again, according to Grayling.
Explain why privatisation magically makes a service profitable esp as it will have to pay dividends and award its directors eye watering but "competitive" salaries and bonuses.......

Look, somethings can be better run by private companies, others are better run by the state, the prob with both lab and tory is they both cant see that.

So, one rail franchise out of 23 is having problems and that's meant to be a valid argument that we need to change the lot is it?

As i said, it should nt be either or but i d say the current way we do rails isnt working.

https://www.ft.com/content/db6a433c-f15 ... 7e26d1aca4

Cant read the link. Does it say anything about the 100% publically owned Network Rail?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

No, but it does raise the question of what Virgin and Stagecoach are doing wrong.

Essentially they overbid but as it is run by a separate (to Virgin and Stagecoach) they will run out of money.problem is that there seems to be grey areas on 3rd party upgrades that have not been completed in time which have hit their revenue earning ability.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

this must stick in the craw.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 95921.html

Possible privatisation...... who d have thought eh!

I think you mean nationalisation?

Please explain how a loss making franchise can magically become viable and successful by taking it into government ownership

:oops: yes i did!

well, it turned a profit from 2009 to 2013? and it failed to do earlier hence why it was nationalized and its failed again, according to Grayling.
Explain why privatisation magically makes a service profitable esp as it will have to pay dividends and award its directors eye watering but "competitive" salaries and bonuses.......

Look, somethings can be better run by private companies, others are better run by the state, the prob with both lab and tory is they both cant see that.

So, one rail franchise out of 23 is having problems and that's meant to be a valid argument that we need to change the lot is it?

So you don't think that Thameslink/Southern are having problems? (Though I do have sympathy for them)

In the case of East Coast the problem is that Virgin bid too much money which always seems to result in everyone losing out in the end - I think that it was a similar issue for Stagecoach, Nat Express and GNERs attempt to run East Coast; get rid of the franchise overheads and it makes money. Apparently though the real money is in stock leasing - an industry entirely contrived by the rail privatisation which seemingly adds nothing whatsoever to the process.

I'd say that there is a serious malaise in the franchises. Travel on Cross Country is a miserable experience (largely because of the woefully unsuitable rolling stock). Northern Rail don't even bother to attempt to justify lateness anymore - I think they just assume that everyone knows the timetable is a joke. I used to love rail travel - can't stand it now most of the time!

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

this must stick in the craw.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 95921.html

Possible privatisation...... who d have thought eh!

I think you mean nationalisation?

Please explain how a loss making franchise can magically become viable and successful by taking it into government ownership

:oops: yes i did!

well, it turned a profit from 2009 to 2013? and it failed to do earlier hence why it was nationalized and its failed again, according to Grayling.
Explain why privatisation magically makes a service profitable esp as it will have to pay dividends and award its directors eye watering but "competitive" salaries and bonuses.......

Look, somethings can be better run by private companies, others are better run by the state, the prob with both lab and tory is they both cant see that.

So, one rail franchise out of 23 is having problems and that's meant to be a valid argument that we need to change the lot is it?

So you don't think that Thameslink/Southern are having problems? (Though I do have sympathy for them)

In the case of East Coast the problem is that Virgin bid too much money which always seems to result in everyone losing out in the end - I think that it was a similar issue for Stagecoach, Nat Express and GNERs attempt to run East Coast; get rid of the franchise overheads and it makes money. Apparently though the real money is in stock leasing - an industry entirely contrived by the rail privatisation which seemingly adds nothing whatsoever to the process.

I'd say that there is a serious malaise in the franchises. Travel on Cross Country is a miserable experience (largely because of the woefully unsuitable rolling stock). Northern Rail don't even bother to attempt to justify lateness anymore - I think they just assume that everyone knows the timetable is a joke. I used to love rail travel - can't stand it now most of the time!

I've not checked the finances but I use Thameslink and Southern more than normal while I'm temporarily off the bike and no problems - generally good timing and I always get a seat.

that said, I still see no over-riding argument to nationalise.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've not checked the finances but I use Thameslink and Southern more than normal while I'm temporarily off the bike and no problems - generally good timing and I always get a seat.

You'll probably find you are unusual in your enthusiasm. I've been on one Southern train in the last 10 years or so that I think arrived on time and not much better with Thameslink (and even they need best part of an hour and 20 minutes to travel 40 miles from St Pancras to Haywards Heath!) . And they are often rammed with people. But to some extent, the problem there is expectation management and the obvious solution to the punctuality problems is fewer trains and that won't go down well.

I don't think this is the reason to re-nationalise. More is that excessive cost of the privatised services; if a private service can't make money without a subsidy why have it private in the first place? East Coast just stands out because it can't make a profit with the subsidy. Maybe better to renationalise and then at least you are subsidising a public service rather than a private one.

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've not checked the finances but I use Thameslink and Southern more than normal while I'm temporarily off the bike and no problems - generally good timing and I always get a seat.

You'll probably find you are unusual in your enthusiasm. I've been on one Southern train in the last 10 years or so that I think arrived on time and not much better with Thameslink (and even they need best part of an hour and 20 minutes to travel 40 miles from St Pancras to Haywards Heath!) . And they are often rammed with people. But to some extent, the problem there is expectation management and the obvious solution to the punctuality problems is fewer trains and that won't go down well.

I don't think this is the reason to re-nationalise. More is that excessive cost of the privatised services; if a private service can't make money without a subsidy why have it private in the first place? East Coast just stands out because it can't make a profit with the subsidy. Maybe better to renationalise and then at least you are subsidising a public service rather than a private one.

Sorry, meant South Eastern rather than Southern btw.

In the end the costs are not going to be vastly different whichever one you subsidise - the idea that massive amounts are getting creamed off into fat cats pockets is the sort of populism put about by Corbyn et al. In the end if you want cheap tickets you need to put taxes up.

At least there is some form of competition in the current structure - i.e. competition for the franchise (and some industries like this are not easy to have competition because of the nature of the industry). Whereas fully a nationlised rail service has no competition and most people other than socialists wearing rosy tinted specs would claim that the old BR was any good.

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've not checked the finances but I use Thameslink and Southern more than normal while I'm temporarily off the bike and no problems - generally good timing and I always get a seat.

You'll probably find you are unusual in your enthusiasm. I've been on one Southern train in the last 10 years or so that I think arrived on time and not much better with Thameslink (and even they need best part of an hour and 20 minutes to travel 40 miles from St Pancras to Haywards Heath!) . And they are often rammed with people. But to some extent, the problem there is expectation management and the obvious solution to the punctuality problems is fewer trains and that won't go down well.

I don't think this is the reason to re-nationalise. More is that excessive cost of the privatised services; if a private service can't make money without a subsidy why have it private in the first place? East Coast just stands out because it can't make a profit with the subsidy. Maybe better to renationalise and then at least you are subsidising a public service rather than a private one.

Because the entire supply chain is a mess of public and private ownership.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

In the end the costs are not going to be vastly different whichever one you subsidise - the idea that massive amounts are getting creamed off into fat cats pockets is the sort of populism put about by Corbyn et al. In the end if you want cheap tickets you need to put taxes up.

It was a bit strange your pleasure at Southern Rail! But as for the costs - I think the East Coast disagrees with you. The whole point is that the franchise costs are the difference between profit and loss. East Coast works in public, not in private. The fact that the numbers are superficially less alarming for the other franchises doesn't make them truthfully viable as private business; they are contrivances.

Stevo 666 wrote:

At least there is some form of competition in the current structure - i.e. competition for the franchise (and some industries like this are not easy to have competition because of the nature of the industry). Whereas fully a nationlised rail service has no competition and most people other than socialists wearing rosy tinted specs would claim that the old BR was any good.

But the franchise competition just means companies overpay for something they then can't afford to run. It's hardly an intelligent solution and it is a process that stuffs up all sorts of public sector procurement of private sector services. There is not much realistic competition for the customer and, as for BR, the last time that model was changed extensively was in the 60s. It hardly seems rational to say that public sector railways don't work based on experience of a woefully underfunded over several decades BR. People might look through rose tinted specs at BR but that's no worse than the sh1t tinted specs that you seem to be wearing! There are more modern state operated railway systems you can choose to look to than BR.

pblakeney

Having used good train services in France and Italy, not to mention the superb service in Austria, I wonder why we do not use their model?

rick_chasey

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Having used good train services in France and Italy, not to mention the superb service in Austria, I wonder why we do not use their model?

They don’t have to deal with the sheer volume of U.K. rail usage nor the decrepit Victorian lines.

U.K. rail is the embodiment of the disadvantage of being a technological first mover.

U.K. model is a mess because of the bizarre patchwork of different firms, bodies, mixed between public and private.,

briantrumpet

PBlakeney wrote:

Having used good train services in France and Italy, not to mention the superb service in Austria, I wonder why we do not use their model?

SNCF has debts of 42bn euros, and rising. It's a headache that the French government doesn't know how to fix.

tangled_metal

French railways introduced new rolling stock a few years back on some of their lines. Huge fanfares and bigwigs opening the line up. Forgot to mention they had to put old rolling stock on to cater for the stations where the new trains couldn't stop. It was something about a different body width of the trains meant they needed to modify a lot of the old stations to make it safe to stop at them. No money in the budget for it.

It made the news at the time but I can't remember the exact details.

Nothing is perfect. Easy to look at our mistakes and others successes in isolation to come up with a narrative. Doesn't make things in b the whole black and white. There's good and bad in all rail networks. I doubt French rail is perfect or Austrian or German. British rail network isn't great neither.

pblakeney

Not just us then. My small sample experience tells me that we are worse but that is obviously a long way off conclusive. Maybe everyone should just get on their bike.

Stevo_666

Especially in this thread, the grass always appears greener on the other side of the channel...

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

Especially in this thread, the grass always appears greener on the other side of the channel...

The grass always looks paler in my view, due to the excessive sunshine.
The trains on the other hand always appear better, but I am not party to their business models.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Especially in this thread, the grass always appears greener on the other side of the channel...

Looks lush to me...

https://www.theguardian.com/money/datab ... ed-in-data

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Especially in this thread, the grass always appears greener on the other side of the channel...

Looks lush to me...

https://www.theguardian.com/money/datab ... ed-in-data

Unless you're a taxpayer in those countries who doesn't use the trains a lot

The rail networks have to get paid for one way or another and all they are doing in these countries where fares are cheap is (generally) loading it onto the taxpayer.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Especially in this thread, the grass always appears greener on the other side of the channel...

Looks lush to me...

https://www.theguardian.com/money/datab ... ed-in-data

Unless you're a taxpayer in those countries who doesn't use the trains a lot

The rail networks have to get paid for one way or another and all they are doing in these countries where fares are cheap is (generally) loading it onto the taxpayer.

You must agree the illogical patchwork of public and private ownership is highly inefficient.

Although the rail industry regularly self congratulates itself on growing the number of people it ferries one feels it’s despite of the quality of the trains rather than because of.


British lines have a much higher usage than other European countries, but it is also highly inefficient.

It’s not like there isn’t huge public money going into the rail network in the U.K. either. There’s a lot there.

Huge numbers of people have to stand every day. Delays are common occurrences. Many trains don’t have heating.

Half of the north doesn’t even have electrified lines.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Especially in this thread, the grass always appears greener on the other side of the channel...

Looks lush to me...

https://www.theguardian.com/money/datab ... ed-in-data

Unless you're a taxpayer in those countries who doesn't use the trains a lot

The rail networks have to get paid for one way or another and all they are doing in these countries where fares are cheap is (generally) loading it onto the taxpayer.

Which is perfect when the taxpayers use it resulting in reduced congestion and pollution.
But then if you spend a lot of money on a moving metal box you want to use it, and show it off.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Especially in this thread, the grass always appears greener on the other side of the channel...

Looks lush to me...

https://www.theguardian.com/money/datab ... ed-in-data

Unless you're a taxpayer in those countries who doesn't use the trains a lot

The rail networks have to get paid for one way or another and all they are doing in these countries where fares are cheap is (generally) loading it onto the taxpayer.

You must agree the illogical patchwork of public and private ownership is highly inefficient.

Although the rail industry regularly self congratulates itself on growing the number of people it ferries one feels it’s despite of the quality of the trains rather than because of.


British lines have a much higher usage than other European countries, but it is also highly inefficient.

It’s not like there isn’t huge public money going into the rail network in the U.K. either. There’s a lot there.

Huge numbers of people have to stand every day. Delays are common occurrences. Many trains don’t have heating.

Half of the north doesn’t even have electrified lines.

So what's your proposed solution?

rick_chasey

Restructure the entire ownership structure, top to bottom.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Restructure the entire ownership structure, top to bottom.

Any specifics?

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

But then if you spend a lot of money on a moving metal box you want to use it, and show it off.

True.
https://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13034673&hilit=choose+car&start=120

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

But then if you spend a lot of money on a moving metal box you want to use it, and show it off.

True.
https://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13034673&hilit=choose+car&start=120

True. But I use public transport too. And always when on the continent.
I would use it more in this country if it were like the continent.

The continent - Make it cheap and frequent. They will use it.
Here - We will make it cheap but only if enough use it first. No incentive.

surrey_commuter

So we are split between people who think rail passengers should pay and those who think somebody else should pay more tax.

That is ideology and we should agree to disagree

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So we are split between people who think rail passengers should pay and those who think somebody else should pay more tax.

That is ideology and we should agree to disagree

Not really. I have lived in a few places where a car was unnecessary, or an expensive luxury option at best. A car is necessary here and now. That is not ideology, that is practical.

A public transport analogy. Paris = London? Near enough, fair enough.
Nice = Torquay or Scarborough? I don't think so.

mamba80

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So we are split between people who think rail passengers should pay and those who think somebody else should pay more tax.

That is ideology and we should agree to disagree

Not really. I have lived in a few places where a car was unnecessary, or an expensive luxury option at best. A car is necessary here and now. That is not ideology, that is practical.

A public transport analogy. Paris = London? Near enough, fair enough.
Nice = Torquay or Scarborough? I don't think so.

We all have to pay taxes for things we dont use/have access too or dont agree with, so, what would the SE road network look like if there were no trains?

Same goes for other major conurbations

Maybe train users dont want their taxes spent on the road network, which is funded out of general taxation.

apparently our sub standard transport system is one reason we ve low productivity, so improving it might benefit us all?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So we are split between people who think rail passengers should pay and those who think somebody else should pay more tax.

That is ideology and we should agree to disagree

Yeah but the point with U.K. rail is that it’s actually currently both and the quality, regardless of how it’s funded, is total sh!t and not VFM.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So we are split between people who think rail passengers should pay and those who think somebody else should pay more tax.

That is ideology and we should agree to disagree

Not really. I have lived in a few places where a car was unnecessary, or an expensive luxury option at best. A car is necessary here and now. That is not ideology, that is practical.

A public transport analogy. Paris = London? Near enough, fair enough.
Nice = Torquay or Scarborough? I don't think so.

We all have to pay taxes for things we dont use/have access too or dont agree with, so, what would the SE road network look like if there were no trains?

Same goes for other major conurbations

Maybe train users dont want their taxes spent on the road network, which is funded out of general taxation.

apparently our sub standard transport system is one reason we ve low productivity, so improving it might benefit us all?

No, we pay train fares so we can have trains.

Why should I subsidise somebody else's train journeys any more than they should subsidise my car journeys? (I use both btw).