Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?

[Railsigns]

Railsigns - what utter simplistic rot.

Was I too simplistic for you? Maybe instead of taking the time to respond to each of Captain Speaking's points in turn, I should have just written "what utter rot". Is that the level of detail you're after?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pity really, some of it made sense until it descended into the usual political rant. :roll:

And how do you expect me to comment on a political matter without being political?

 

[table38]

And how do you expect me to comment on a political matter without being political?

Simply by not personalising it with childish rants, hyperbole and cliches, more suitable for a sixth form debating society.

You make it too easy to just dismiss the whole piece as a typical obsessive dig at the Tories, which as I said is a pity because the underlying tone overwhelms some of the good points you made.

 

[CosherB]

Except Captain Speaking with his dynamic, 'blue sky thinking' private sector silliness.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that open minded original thinking that is at the root of all success in any field is so frowned upon by the "we've always done it this way, so we always will" blinkered, stick-in-the-mud, unimaginative, institutionalised, dull, inward-looking, self serving, and unsuccessful approach so beloved of livng-in-the-rose-tinted-past BR aficionados.

 

[Railsigns]

Privatisation brough extra money for the railway, and it brought fresh business ideas with thinking outside of the traditional institutional BR 'box'.

Such as Branson's brilliant idea to get Virgin's trains running on time by motivating his drivers. Keep those great ideas coming, beardy!

 

[jon0844]

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that open minded original thinking that is at the root of all success in any field is so frowned upon by the "we've always done it this way, so we always will" blinkered, stick-in-the-mud, unimaginative, institutionalised, dull, inward-looking, self serving, and unsuccessful approach so beloved of livng-in-the-rose-tinted-past BR aficionados.

I'd give up mate. Clearly privatisation has been a disaster and everything would have been cheaper if it had remained under Government control (they're good with money!).

 

[Oswyntail]

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that open minded original thinking that is at the root of all success in any field is so frowned upon ....

OK, please give us some concrete examples of this from a TOC since privatisation.

"we've always done it this way, so we always will" blinkered, stick-in-the-mud, unimaginative, institutionalised, dull, inward-looking, self serving, and unsuccessful approach so beloved of livng-in-the-rose-tinted-past BR aficionados.

I have seen little or no evidence of that kind of thinking here either. Just a willingness to question the assumption that privatisation has been the success claimed. It seems you are unable to give any examples, or offer any proof other than repeating the myth of massive underinvestment, which, IMHO, many here have successfully challenged, with concrete examples.

 

[CosherB]

I'd give up mate. Clearly privatisation has been a disaster and everything would have been cheaper if it had remained under Government control (they're good with money!).

Yup, I think you're right. Leave the dinosaurs in peace!

 

[Railsigns]

Crikey, let me put it simply:

Was more money spent on UK rail per year, year on year:

a) Before privatisation?

b) After privatisation?

The answer is (b), by some margin.

Well of course the answer is (b), by some margin.

But the industry isn't getting any benefit from all that extra money, because privatisation has made running the railway several times more expensive than under BR.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What may or may not have happened if BR had carried on instead of privatisation is and always will be an unknown.

Blimey, that's quite a climb-down from:

BR was in a death spiral headed for extinction.

 

[SWTCommuter]

'it doesn't matter. What matters is that more money was available to the railway'

It matters because the aim of privatisation was to reduce the dependence of the railway on government subsidy and to keep investment in the railway off the government books. Instead the subsidy has increased to an unsustainable level and Network Rail's borrowing is underwritten by the state.

By maintaining the fiction that Network Rail is in the private sector, the government has been able to pretend that the loans it underwrites don't count as government borrowing and allowed it to run up massive debts. That no longer fools anybody and the Public Accounts Committee is calling for Network Rail to be subject to the same scrutiny as any other public sector organisation, which will mean cuts and more government interference.

To go back to the original topic: how can the railway be restructured to reduce the subsidy by £3.5Bn without massive cuts in the service? Closing ticket offices and sacking guards isn't going to do it.

Which TOCs will still be interested in running services when the subsidies are slashed and which will walk away and leave the state to pick up the pieces? Is it possible to create a private-sector railway that can provide decent service at the same level of subsidy that BR received?

 

[Oswyntail]

I'd give up mate. Clearly privatisation has been a disaster and everything would have been cheaper if it had remained under Government control (they're good with money!).

I don't think many are maintaining that at all (and few think that returning to a nationalised railway is feasible or necessarily better). However, the unquestioning view that privatisation has been a fantastic success in all areas can only be supported if, as Captain seems to, you maintain the fiction that BR was universally appalling. Captain has resolutely refused to give any examples of improvements solely attributable to privatisation, as opposed to "natural" developments (new technology, service levels matching passenger requirements) or processes that BR were committed to (stock replacement, customer service improvements). I would be more than happy to rejoice at evidence of "thinking out of the box" - i just can't see any.

 

[tbtc]

'No private investement', eh? Actually, it's about £3,000,000,000 per year

I think everyone accepts that more money is being spent on the railways today than there was fifteen years ago.

The question is, is that money more efficient than the money that BR was spending?

On some measures Privatisation has been brilliant (more trains than at any other time in my life, more passengers carried than at any other time in my life)...

...but you'd think that these record breaking numbers would mean a reduction in Government subsidy and/or a reduction in ticket prices.

In reality we have ticket prices going up well above inflation, whilst the Government is spending significantly more money too. That doesn't strike me as much of an argument for the private sector...

 

[jon0844]

A lot of extra rolling stock, and upgrade work to create new paths, is simply due to the huge demand in the peaks, and possibly at certain times on weekends.

If we could encourage flexible working times (working from home would be even better, but for many reasons this isn't likely to become the norm anytime soon) then the industry might not need to do as much upgrade work, or as quickly.

 

[Railsigns]

Simply by not personalising it with childish rants, hyperbole and cliches, more suitable for a sixth form debating society.

You make it too easy to just dismiss the whole piece as a typical obsessive dig at the Tories, which as I said is a pity because the underlying tone overwhelms some of the good points you made.

To be frank, I've had you down as a Tory for some time, so I'm not at all concerned about gaining your approval. Best leave it at that.

 

[table38]

To be frank, I've had you down as a Tory for some time, so I'm not at all concerned about gaining your approval. Best leave it at that.

Wrong again :roll:

Why do you insist on personalising everything? It does nothing for your argument, and just makes you sound like some embittered obsessive.

 

[HSTEd]

Additionally electrification would seem to be an indicator of the total failure of the privatised railways.... I do believe that by route mileage British Rail electrified more per year in its 48 year lifespan than in the nigh on 20 years after privatisation.

And the Office of Rail Regulation puts private investment in the railways at roughly £400m last year, which is about ten percent of state support.

 

[WestCoast]

I am not so concerned about privatisation, but it's the actual franchising system employed in the current rail industry that I feel is lacking. More recently, it seems that the TOCs are really just brands that put their name to services, with much of the control still in the government's hands. The Greater Anglia franchise is a salient example of where I think the system is going wrong. A short-term franchise where all the TOC really can do is install new signs with the new branding, put their corporate message and promises across and that's it.

 

[Railsigns]

Additionally electrification would seem to be an indicator of the total failure of the privatised railways.... I do believe that by route mileage British Rail electrified more per year in its 48 year lifespan than in the nigh on 20 years after privatisation.

Not only that, but the cost of electrifying a typical mile of railway doubled practically overnight at the time of privatisation (I was once shown a graph that illustrated this quite clearly).

Captain Speaking uses the example of ECML electrification being done 'on the cheap' to criticise BR. It's funny how every other electrification undertaken by BR never gets mentioned. No-one ever complains that the WCML (for example) was electrified on the cheap, but that work was done in BR's time as well.

 

[LE Greys]

Not only that, but the cost of electrifying a typical mile of railway doubled practically overnight at the time of privatisation (I was once shown a graph that illustrated this quite clearly).

Captain Speaking uses the example of ECML electrification being done 'on the cheap' to criticise BR. It's funny how every other electrification undertaken by BR never gets mentioned. No-one ever complains that the WCML (for example) was electrified on the cheap, but that work was done in BR's time as well.

The difference between the WCML and ECML electrification plans was simple, the first was signed off under the Modernisation Plan by the Atlee Government, the second by the Thatcher Government. Times had changed somewhat. It is interesting to compare the northern half of the WCML, though. I haven't heard of all that many incidents there even though the design is very similar.

On another subject, whatever we say about passenger numbers, I reckon the real success has been freight. I don't have figures, but I remember spending hours linesiding in the past without seeing a single goods train of any kind. Now, you can hardly move without tripping over one. That was a disaster for the British loco-building industry with all those Class 66s coming over, but they've certainly transformed the freight business.

 

[jon0844]

Overhead line problems on the ECML seem to be quite rare now, as quite a lot of work has been done over the last 4-5 years.

I accept that I've now ensured weeks of problems ahead.

 

[Railsigns]

The dinosaur view of commerce and business that you exhibit was prevalent in BR days, and is a major reason why things on the railway are far better today than they were then. In every respect.

Including value for money?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the privatised railway post-Hatfield is actually safer than it ever was in BR days.

So while BR was not unsafe, the private railway is safer!

Today's railway is safer, yes, but that has come about despite privatisation, not because of it. The fragmentation that privatisation brought to the rail industry made safety inherently more difficult to manage (Railtrack's Railway Safety Case contained a section on the risks to the safety of the railway system associated with splitting up BR). That is still true today and will continue to be true as long as the industry remains in a fragmented state.

Since privatisation, the introduction of TPWS has made the railway safer. Railtrack and the various TOCs and FOCs didn't implement TPWS on their own initiatives or fund it themselves. The government funded this work and, since the privatised companies couldn't be trusted to press on and get the work done, legislation was needed to force them to complete it before a set deadline. TPWS would have been implemented regardless of whether privatisation had happened or not (the state-owned railways in Northern Ireland have been fitted with TPWS as well). Comparable safety advances were made during BR's tenure, perhaps most importantly the introduction of AWS, but also great improvements in coaching stock construction.

 

[AlanFry1]

Here is my suggestion on what should be done on Britians Railways

I think what should happen is that all the TOCs, FOCs and ROSCOs should be taken over by Network Rail, then they will be renamed ti let say "Brit Rail"

What should then happen is that taxpayer support should (legaly) consist of 60-75% of the DFT budget, this company should take cntrol of the roads and introduce road charging (fully under their control), the road tax revenue would be used as a government subsidy for the roads. Lastly, the government should make it legally binding for this company to maintain a high quality rail and road network (both) covering the whole of the Great Britain
On that point, the "new" BR should only allow Mainland National European Rail Companies (DB, DNCF etc) can operate services from Europe to the UK and only the "new" BR can operate train services in the UK

I would also look at taking control of Preserved lines linked to the NR Rail Network and even Metro and Tram networks

 

[WatcherZero]

That would be illegal on several fronts.

 

[AlanFry1]

That would be illegal on several fronts.

Currently yes, but as part of those plans new laws will have to be created

 

[ainsworth74]

Currently yes, but as part of those plans new laws will have to be created

And for the EU legislation that this would fall foul of?

 

[WatcherZero]

Look what happened when Argentina nationalised its oil company.

 

[PR1Berske]

Currently yes, but as part of those plans new laws will have to be created

And we'd have to leave the EU

[opens can of worms]

 

[Railcar B]

The difference between the WCML and ECML electrification plans was simple, the first was signed off under the Modernisation Plan by the Atlee Government, the second by the Thatcher Government.

The WCML electrification was part of the British Railways Modernisation Plan published in December 1954. The Attlee government was in Power from July 1945 to October 1951. So whatever point you are making here it was not the Attlee government which authorised the WCML electrification!
In December 1954 the Churchill government was in power.

 

[LE Greys]

The WCML electrification was part of the British Railways Modernisation Plan published in December 1954. The Attlee government was in Power from July 1945 to October 1951. So whatever point you are making here it was not the Attlee government which authorised the WCML electrification!
In December 1954 the Churchill government was in power.

I was under the impression that the Modernisation Plan was a Labour policy. Still, the point stands that the Thatcherite government was hardly known for its 'spare no expense attitude'.

 

[HSTEd]

I was under the impression that the Modernisation Plan was a Labour policy. Still, the point stands that the Thatcherite government was hardly known for its 'spare no expense attitude'.

I don't see how it matters.

I would argue that ECML electrification has been more succesful, it is probably far better value for money than the Mark 1 equipment was.
Why are people these days so obsessed with gold plating everything?

 

[LE Greys]

I don't see how it matters.

I would argue that ECML electrification has been more succesful, it is probably far better value for money than the Mark 1 equipment was.
Why are people these days so obsessed with gold plating everything?

While I'd agree that a balance needs to be struck, there are many reasons why you should avoid cost-cutting. Partly, it's a false economy, unless you are absolutely certain you can make it work, first time and every time. Otherwise, fixing the problems will wipe out all the savings. You can go too far either way (decorating the bridge abutments on the Invergarry and Fort Augustus being thoroughly gold-plated, the ECML wire problems being penny-pinched).

Also, the earlier equipment is earlier. It was cutting-edge in its day, high-voltage a.c. was rare back then, so they may well have over-engineered some parts just to make sure that they worked. Work they did, although there were plenty of problems including the notorious transformer explosions and rectifier failures. Still, it was new and experimental then. The newer equipment was put up at a time when people knew it would work. However, they were probably a bit over-confident that their cost-savings would not make too much difference, plus pressure from the top. Hopefully, a compromise will be found.