Some very interesting points there OT! The question raised for me in your second paragraph is how the transportation of the goods and passengers should be organised. How much of the way that the railway is run at the moment is in the national interest? Is the structure of the industry one that provides value for money?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
New transport secretary
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
- Status
Some very interesting points there OT! The question raised for me in your second paragraph is how the transportation of the goods and passengers should be organised. How much of the way that the railway is run at the moment is in the national interest? Is the structure of the industry one that provides value for money?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Dont know if I missed it on the first two pages, however the tendering process for the design of lines from Birmingham to Manchester and Birmingham to Leeds was put out on the 11th of May with a note that the process was being accelerated due to incoming government.
Very interesting the contracts still to design two lines and not the tory plan of the reverse S.
Very interesting the contracts still to design two lines and not the tory plan of the reverse S.
thegrich37423
Member
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 55
Hear hear, but make no mistake, its not our fault that the railways have become an 'emotional argument'. That fault lies solely at the door of number 10.
Interestingly this new guy does most of his commuting to parliament by Car (which can be expected as his constituency is right on the edge of London), however he has the 24th highest rail expense claims for non-commuting business. Makes you wonder where he was going so much when he was previously Shadow Treasury?
*kicks himself* Probably visiting the Scottish Banks HQ
Now I wonder if that was down to a large amount of travel or if he just needed a little lesson on splitting
So the price of tickets for the old and infirm is not political is it?
The four remaining daily services to otherwise isolated towns where people have clung on for years against the odds is not an emotional issue?
Efficient goods transportation that can keep down manufacturing costs, thus helping retain the last of our industry and prevent further deskilling in manufacturing towns is neither political/emotional?
Good public transport connections matter to people. They provide employment, identity, a sense of security, a connection to the outer world for many people who do not otherwise have private transport. Well served bus and train stations can be the difference between a faceless suburb of car-based commuters, and a local hub with pubs, restaurants and shops. They can make the difference between rural village emptied of all life and a connected, attractive countryside spot.
Of course we shouldn't romanticise about some hypothetical political party who is going to provide dozens of lines and cheap fares; or a magical time where rail was the centre point of British society. But it is an emotional and a political issue before the politicians get their hands on it.
I would say that the price of tickets for everyone is a matter of concern!
There are two views on this. Either you let 'the market' decide, which means you have huge differences in fares or the government decides to regulate all fares in the national interest. At present I would argue that we have a mixture of the two, which is not of itself bad news, it just happens that we seem to have the worst of both worlds which results in the over complicated system we have for ticketing.
asylumxl
Established Member
Overpriced too...
The war on the motorist which has raged for 13 years under Labour is now over, new Transport Secretary Philip Hammond pledged during his first day in the job today.
He promised to end the persecution of the UK's 33 million drivers - from speed cameras to cowboy clampers - but also to 'sweat the assets' of the UK's transport road, rail and aviation infrastructure to get value for money for taxpayers.
The Tory secretary of state in the coalition Government pledged:
* Scrapping taxpayer funding for controversial speed-cameras
* No controversial pay as you drive road user charging for existing roads
* Consulting on a 'fair fuel stabiliser' to reduce duty and keep pump prices down when
* Cracking down on 'cowboy' clamping and parking companies
* Incentives to encourage use of 'greener' cars
Did back road-tolls to pay for brand new additional roads - such as has already happened with the successful M6 Toll: 'New road capacity is a different issue' he said.
He was also exploring electronic pay-as-you drive charges for lorries - to ensure that foreign lorries have to pay to use UK roads as well as domestic juggernauts - and make more of a level playing field for road use.
Mr Hammond also vowed to scrap Labour's controversial Air Passenger Duty (APD) - dubbed 'the poll tax of the skies' - in favour of a 'green' tax which charges by the plane rather than by the passenger - encouraging airlines not to fly half empty.
He stressed:"Over the coming years we are going to have to learn to do things differently. As far as transport in concerned we are going to have to sweat the assets that we have much better.
'We are going to have to look at new and innovative ways of funding capital expenditure. The era of easy public money is over.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-new-Transport-Secretary.html#ixzz0npgLeEj5
Hammond’s first announcement has been to confirm George Osborne’s pledge that the £16bn Crossrail project will not be cut.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6000468/hammond-crossrail-will-stay.thtml
He promised to end the persecution of the UK's 33 million drivers - from speed cameras to cowboy clampers - but also to 'sweat the assets' of the UK's transport road, rail and aviation infrastructure to get value for money for taxpayers.
The Tory secretary of state in the coalition Government pledged:
* Scrapping taxpayer funding for controversial speed-cameras
* No controversial pay as you drive road user charging for existing roads
* Consulting on a 'fair fuel stabiliser' to reduce duty and keep pump prices down when
* Cracking down on 'cowboy' clamping and parking companies
* Incentives to encourage use of 'greener' cars
Did back road-tolls to pay for brand new additional roads - such as has already happened with the successful M6 Toll: 'New road capacity is a different issue' he said.
He was also exploring electronic pay-as-you drive charges for lorries - to ensure that foreign lorries have to pay to use UK roads as well as domestic juggernauts - and make more of a level playing field for road use.
Mr Hammond also vowed to scrap Labour's controversial Air Passenger Duty (APD) - dubbed 'the poll tax of the skies' - in favour of a 'green' tax which charges by the plane rather than by the passenger - encouraging airlines not to fly half empty.
He stressed:"Over the coming years we are going to have to learn to do things differently. As far as transport in concerned we are going to have to sweat the assets that we have much better.
'We are going to have to look at new and innovative ways of funding capital expenditure. The era of easy public money is over.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-new-Transport-Secretary.html#ixzz0npgLeEj5
Hammond’s first announcement has been to confirm George Osborne’s pledge that the £16bn Crossrail project will not be cut.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6000468/hammond-crossrail-will-stay.thtml
It was the Tory minister for transport, Michael Portillo, who wanted and secured the future of the S&C as he explains on the TV program Great British Railways which itself shows he had and still has a great interest in the railways and puts them as a high priority, although he retired as a MP in 2005.
I, although too young to vote, wanted the Conservatives to come to power the coalition is not perfect from a Tory point of view obviously a majority would have been better but David Cameron is still PM and they have the majority of seats in the commons. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats seems to be in favour more of rail investment rather than road and air investments so hopefully this parliamentary coalition will see the best policies of both sides brought forward.
Finally although HS2 is a good idea and it is great that High-speed rail will be focused on i feel that the Inter-city Express program to replace the ageing HST's should be a higher priority as in around the decade the UK's best, most versatile and most heavily used (on inter-city routes) train will finally need replacing after around 40 years in service. Now i feel that IEP should be a higher priority as the WCML already provides a relatively fast and reliable service between London, Birmingham, the North and Scotland whereas the HST's sadly won't last forever even with new MTU engines.
EM2
Established Member
Er, hang on a minute!
From Friends Of The Earth:
'APD was introduced by the Conservative government in November 1993 and introduced on 1st
November 1994. According to the then Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke air travel is under-taxed compared
to other sectors of the economy. It benefits not only from a zero rate of VAT; in addition, the fuel used in
international air travel, and nearly all domestic flights, is entirely free of tax [1]. The rate was set at £5 for
flights to most European countries [2] and £10 for other flights.
In his November 1996 Budget statement, Kenneth Clarke stated that air travel has also been
undertaxed, because it has proved difficult--still proves difficult--to get international agreement to tax its
fuel [3] and announced a doubling of APD
If they genuinely want to save money then they should plan to not extend franchises, roll them back into Network Rail and - once they are all back inside under the same roof - ditch the ORR, get rid of the franchise teams and set up NR as a not-for-profit version of BR.
Then we should buy some random German line off DB, just to remind them who is boss.
:P
Then we should buy some random German line off DB, just to remind them who is boss.
:P
Old Timer
Established Member
That is absolutely the very LAST thing that should ever be contemplated, let alone done. Indeed were it to be even capable of contemplation I would wring every organ in my body in despair at such unbelievable folly and foolishness.
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,502
Right, so let's get this straight: It's all right for you to blurt out your right wing views in this thread. It's all right for others to do likewise as long as they share your viewpoint - "an excellent post" you say. But as soon as an opposing view is posted you call in the moderators because you're tired of going "down this path"?
As for repeatedly calling Tony Blair "Bliar", is that really the level of your debate?
Go on posting your right wing dogma if you must, but don't expect it to go unchallenged.
Old Timer
Established Member
If you wish to post and enter into a proper debate then make your points based upon fact not some inaccurate Political diatribe.
Tell me were you around in the 70s and the 80s which you talk about ?
This is the sort of rubbish that I mean, that others on here have debunked already as being completely untrue and unfactual.
As an example of FACTUAL information let us look at the period 1964 to 1980
A Labour Government was elected on 15th October 1964, (re-elected on 31st March 1966) and remained in power until 18th June 1970.
The Conservative Government had authorised the closure of 600 miles of track following acceptance of the Beeching Report.
On 24th May 1966, Barbara Castle announced that the Labour Government would be closing 3,000 miles of track.
The 1968 Transport Act which was to be so disastrous for the future of the nationalised railway system was developed and implemented by Barbara Castle as Transport Minister.
The most savage and greatest number of cuts in the Railway network were thus undertaken under a Labour Government.
Turning now to the 1970's.
The Conservative Government took power in June 1970.
When the railway union leaders met Richard Marsh (Chairman of the BRB) on 18th June 1973 they were told that the Minister for Transport had asked the Board to undertake a further review, as financial trends showed that the railways had little prospect of meeting their statutory requirements.
The Board eventually presented two options to the Minister for Transport, John Peyton - a cutback of the railway system by 1,000 miles, or maintenance of the system at the present rate, by doubling its subsidy to £170 million a year. The Conservative Government concluded that the existing network should be retained, but 40,000 posts should be lost over a 9 year period and that a reduction in marshalling yards, parcels depots and locomotives was required.
John Peyton met railway Trade Union leaders three times in November 1973 and confirmed that according to the BRB's studies there was no prospect that the railway industry, based on its existing size, could make a profit in the foreseeable future.
He told the Unions, in confidence, that the Government was to provide the BRB with £891 million for a five year investment programme. Of this, £531 million would be allocated to the commercial railway, £300 million to the commuter network, £41 million for the Channel Tunnel and £19 million would go towards the Advanced Passenger Train.
The British Railways Board was satisfied that it would be just sufficient to retain the network at its present size.
The Minister announced the details of BR's investment programme to the House of Commons on 28th November 1973 and added that unremunerative passenger services would be kept open, as long as they were justified on social and environmental grounds.
In 1974 a Labour Government was elected to power.
The Government introduced the Railway Act (1974), which provided a general subsidy to passenger services, grants for the provision of new private sidings and freight facilities, and Government support for railway workers' pensions.
The Channel Tunnel project was cancelled.
On 21st February 1975, after a vigorous campaign to retain the Sealink Heysham-Belfast service, Fred Mulley announced that he would not be seeking statutory powers to ensure its survival, and the service was discontinued on 6th April.
This was followed by a leak to the press that a study by the Department of the Environment was giving consideration to converting railway lines into express bus lanes.
The Chancellor, in his 1975 budget, decided to slash £100 million from the nationalised industries' investment programme for the next financial year, and in August the BRB was told that their investment programme would be reduced by £25 million - 25 per cent of the total cuts.
On 30th October 1975 both the BRB and the railway Trade Unions approached the Minister for Transport, Dr. John Gilbert. Both management and unions emphasised the importance of clear Government policies, with adequate investment to ensure that the BRB could fulfil its role. Dr. Gilbert defended the Government's actions and said that the fears expressed by both the BRB and the trade unions were not totally justified.
On the 16th December 1975 Anthony Crosland told the House of Commons that rumours of a massive cut in the rail network were "a load of codswallop"
On 22nd December 1975, Anthony Crosland announced that railway investment up to 1981 would be restricted to the 1975 figure of £238 million for each year, based on average 1975 price levels. This was in effect a cutback in support bearing in mind the inflation rate at the time.
The railway Trade Unions estimated that there was a real possibility of the railway network being cut to 4,000 miles, with jobs falling to 95,000 by 1981.
The BRB when asked believed it would become a reality by 1985
On 13th April 1976 a Green Paper - "Transport Policy: A Consultation Document" was issued by the Government. Neither the railway Trade Unions nor the BRB were consulted during its preparation.
The main thrust of the Green Paper was to cut subsidies and investment and to eliminate some passenger and freight traffic. It ignored many Labour Party policies and paid lip service to others.
The Green Paper also indicated that 6 per cent of the railway's business was carried on lines that were little used and running at a loss. These lines would be closed, with buses introduced as the alternative.
The full extent of the Government's closure programme only became clear following a Parliamentary question by an NUR sponsored MP, Gordon Bagier, on 24th May 1976.
He was told that the 6 per cent of the mileage referred to actually covered 199 services, which shared approximately 45 per cent of the railway route network with other lines. This meant that Wales, with the exception of the main lines to Swansea and Holyhead, and Scotland, north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, would be dependent on buses and private cars. Cornwall would face similar problems and there would be drastic reductions in East Anglia, the Midlands, the North East and North West of England. In all it was believed that 2,452 miles of lines in England, 1,117 in Scotland and 641 in Wales would be affected.
In June 1977 the Government issued a White Paper which set the BRB two objectives - to contain and then reduce the subsidy to the revenue account for the operation of passenger services, and to eliminate any support to the other railway businesses beyond 1977.
On 27th March 1979, BR announced that it was considering closing 700 miles of track and replacing it with buses, as it could not continue to run loss-making services within the cash limits set by Whitehall.
On 3rd May 1979 the Labour Government was voted out of power.
Your signature tells the rest of us all we need to know about the level of debate to be expected.
Last edited:
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,502
Yup. Can't argue with any of that.
One reason the conservatives tend to be fairly interested in the railways, at least over Labour, is rail travel tends to be far higher (on the whole) in Tory areas. Whereas I expect them to look for value for money, I'm not 100% convinced it is politically expedient for them to exercise a major cut back programme, considering that so many 'commuterbelt' constituencies depend on rail.
I think generally speaking; the era of a simplistic profit/loss justification for retention of services went out with the ark, and we have far more sophisticated ways of measuring value of money.
If you look at the history of Labour, perhaps the only successful thing they introduced were PTA areas and the idea of the social railway. I'd agree the way the Tory privatisation was done was wrong, but Labour had 13 years to sort out the cost problems within the industry, mostly the result of structure and myopic investment.
I fully expect some restructuring to take place, and indeed possibly a cut back in fund as efficiency savings are made, if its done right it will actually be a good thing and in the longer term end up with more being spent on the ground.
I remain open minded, and for the record, on the whole unbiased toward any political party, but we shall have to see.
I think generally speaking; the era of a simplistic profit/loss justification for retention of services went out with the ark, and we have far more sophisticated ways of measuring value of money.
If you look at the history of Labour, perhaps the only successful thing they introduced were PTA areas and the idea of the social railway. I'd agree the way the Tory privatisation was done was wrong, but Labour had 13 years to sort out the cost problems within the industry, mostly the result of structure and myopic investment.
I fully expect some restructuring to take place, and indeed possibly a cut back in fund as efficiency savings are made, if its done right it will actually be a good thing and in the longer term end up with more being spent on the ground.
I remain open minded, and for the record, on the whole unbiased toward any political party, but we shall have to see.
Says the person who has spent quite some time calling OT "tory boy" :roll:
Old Timer said:
Thanks for that OT, fascinating reading, good to have you back around!
What an immature response! Network Rail in it's current state with is micro managment structure cannot cope with what it's let along run the whole show, without the ORR or a similar body the railways would collapse, privatisation is here, the labour government had plenty of time to re nationalise the railways,why did they not do it as the Labour policies err to nationalisation (mild communism) they didn't because the private industry is doing a pretty good job with the railways currently and it would have cost the government a hell of a lot more money to nationalise it.
As for the last part of your post that is a pathetic comment. We are not the boss of europe and never will be and it's down to folks like you, we should have joined the european union in its fullest when we had the opportunity and not do the "patriotic lets keep the pound" we are British and won the war
is history and the past, we need to look to the future and openly work with the European countries like Germany.
thegrich37423
Member
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 55
I agree again with Railsigns. If the sound of truth is too painful to hear, then leave the room. The truth is that it was Thatcher alone who made a secret pact to destroy the once proud heritage of British Rail. Her idea for privatisation, along with her colleagues, was this fundamental principle of running the railways as a business. She did not see the railways as a hub for transporting goods or passengers. That may be its core reason to be in life, but alas, Thatcher and the Tories did not see it that way. Some on here may debunk this as rubbish but I'm afraid it's only subjective. One man's rubbish, easy to debunk easy to throw away is another man's truism. Once again, this isn't my opinion but citing what has been told to me in newspapers of that time.
There are some on this forum that will choose to dispute this. We can only but hope that in time, the coalition's demise will be the the proof of the eaten pudding.
There are some on this forum that will choose to dispute this. We can only but hope that in time, the coalition's demise will be the the proof of the eaten pudding.
Last edited:
Old Timer
Established Member
Oh dear, Mother's obviously gone to the shops.
Thatcher was against privatisation of the railways and post office, she viewed it as a step too far. It was John Major that was keen on it, although he preferred a vertically integrated (big four) set-up.
None of this stopped the Labour party trying to privatise the post office, and they succeeded in privitisating National Air Traffic services (NATS).
Why did the Labour party lose the election?
In my view:
-To much authoritarian law making and micro management
-Too much money was generally wasted on middle management and quangos. Where they did spend more money, for example the NHS, it was administrators and huge increases of pay for doctors that ate up much of the money.
- Not enough attention to their core voters, exacerbated by swaths of immigration that especially affected the unskilled, semi-skilled and trades, with no remedy for retraining.
- Poor housing policy, which has shut a lot of the worse off, and young out of home ownership. And failure to reform private renting and social housing.
- Failure to appropriately regulate the banks, meaning ordinary people are now paying for the mistakes of the commercial elite.
- Failure of trust: Spin doctors, expenses scandal.
None of this stopped the Labour party trying to privatise the post office, and they succeeded in privitisating National Air Traffic services (NATS).
Why did the Labour party lose the election?
In my view:
-To much authoritarian law making and micro management
-Too much money was generally wasted on middle management and quangos. Where they did spend more money, for example the NHS, it was administrators and huge increases of pay for doctors that ate up much of the money.
- Not enough attention to their core voters, exacerbated by swaths of immigration that especially affected the unskilled, semi-skilled and trades, with no remedy for retraining.
- Poor housing policy, which has shut a lot of the worse off, and young out of home ownership. And failure to reform private renting and social housing.
- Failure to appropriately regulate the banks, meaning ordinary people are now paying for the mistakes of the commercial elite.
- Failure of trust: Spin doctors, expenses scandal.
thegrich37423
Member
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 55
Thatcher was most certainly not against privatisation. The fact that you also said that John Major was keen for this is most odd. It then begs the question, so who was for/against the privatisation of our railways? As I said, it's all subjective.
And if some people have to resort to being quite pathetic, it only seeks to weaken their views.
And if some people have to resort to being quite pathetic, it only seeks to weaken their views.
Geezertronic
Established Member
You would do well to check your facts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/982037.stm
I would say, one of the lessons of de-regulation and privatisation, is where things are either too important or big to fail, there seems to be a tendency for private companies to exercise no moral hazard, and we either end up bailing them out or paying beyond normal market prices.
Last edited:
What the hell does that mean? Something is true or it isn't.
I got out of bed at 0800 today. Is that true or not? If you say it isn't, despite the fact that I did, then you can't argue that you're right either today or 20 years from now. Well, you can - but you'd be an idiot!
bluebottle
Member
- Joined
- 9 May 2009
- Messages
- 191
Next thing he'll be proving that black is white and will come to a sticky end on a zebra crossing.
There has been no response to this, I see, apart from the removal of a signature?
Do you really think that Thatcher was the sort of person or politician to make SECRET pacts? If she had wanted to privatise the railway system she would have gone ahead and done it!
Superb. Post of the year!
Nobody said Thatcher was against privatisation. Metroland pointed out that she was against privatisation of the railways! A look back at Hansard, and the various publications of the time, will show clearly who spoke in favour of and against the privatisation. Unfortunately, it wa spushed through albeit with some concessions to backbenchers on fares and service level safeguards, as the Conservatives had a workable majority in Parliament. I was against it, by the way, and I still am!
Railsigns and thegrich37423 are the same person
It's perfectly possible - they sound similar!
No, no, any sticky end will be down to MI5, as Richard revealing all these secrets, pacts, climate change, Bob Crow being the new Messiah, surely can't be tolerated for much longer by the ruling elite?
- Status