DS Forums

 
 

Tory Privatisation Of Network Rail Track


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-12-2016, 17:54
TelevisionUser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Storbritannia
Posts: 28,916
The Telegraph are reporting that the Tories are going to re privatise network rail tracks so the train operating companies can do the repairs, advantages are that they will repair more quickly and fares will "possibly be cheaper".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-train-tracks/

Personally I think its a terrible idea, imagine Southern Rail and Virgin Trains looking after their lines tracks. They can't even deal with what they have now! SWTrains is the only line I've used on a semi regular basis which seems to run ok. Southern and East Coast should be nationalised.
I don't approve of the way Grayling is going about things but a delegation by agreement way instead to allow the rail franchisees to upkeep the rail network so that there is a unitary management structure does make sense with Network Rail performing a checking to sufficient standard role.
TelevisionUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-12-2016, 18:43
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
Having looked elsewhere for more detail and opinions from those in the industry, it does seem that this is far from a clear and well thought out plan - and it's certainly not clear that it would ever happen or be proposed as the paper has suggested.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 18:53
tiggertiny
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,160
Privatising NR would of course mean the taxpayer merely funding a profit making entity and of course still owning the £30 odd billions of debt NR carries. And presumably large pension costs.
tiggertiny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 23:31
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,735

Personally I think its a terrible idea, imagine Southern Rail and Virgin Trains looking after their lines tracks. They can't even deal with what they have now! SWTrains is the only line I've used on a semi regular basis which seems to run ok. Southern and East Coast should be nationalised.
Personally I think it is an excellent idea, something that should have happened when the railways were first privatised. Network Rail (the nationalised bit) has shown it is incapable of looking after the lines - and putting them under the same company as the rolling stock would stop the buck passing over who is responsible when there are delays.
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 23:47
Vast_Girth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,262
Is it? How come?

Let's hope Brexiteers don't blame the EU and immigrants when their trains don't turn up.
He is talking bollocks. It is absolutely not illegal under EU law. This was pointed out to him in another thread and he just ignores it. He is either a troll or so bloody minded in his opinion he cannot even begin to comprehend he could be wrong, even when presented with hard evidence.
Vast_Girth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 23:50
Vast_Girth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,262
Not legal while we remain in the single market, train and track must be separate.
This also bollocks. The actual law is they must be managed seperately, but its lots of countries keep the whole thing in state ownership using holdiing companies.


Here is a link to the actual situation regarding the EU and railways if anyone is interested.

https://www.tssa.org.uk/en/whats-new...public-control
Vast_Girth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 07:35
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
Personally I think it is an excellent idea, something that should have happened when the railways were first privatised. Network Rail (the nationalised bit) has shown it is incapable of looking after the lines - and putting them under the same company as the rolling stock would stop the buck passing over who is responsible when there are delays.
Looks like the proposal now isn't to privatise NR but to make them jointly responsible with the operating companies for track maintenance and upgrades. The idea is that the train companies won't be able to say "nothing to do with us guv" when there are delays as they will have a commercial interest in getting them done on time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38212467
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 07:45
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
This sounds more like the partnership that was set up between SWT and Network Rail (I think it was SWT) and saw staff from both working alongside each other to minimise delays and share information - vital to deal with incidents.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 08:08
Annsyre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,113
Disgraceful Tories. When will they learn that selling off the family silver is a bad idea? They should be nationalising them not selling them off.
How much would that cost and who would pay for it?
Annsyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 08:46
clinch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,622
Whatever could go wrong. In the Sunday papers we had reports of private home operators fleecing the public purse, we had the private 'security' company charging for tagging prisoners it had never tagged. And we have Branson taking over a railway that was doing very well under public control and now planing to push up fares by five per cent. He's also been taking over parts of the NHS, which takes its money from tax, whilst living on a tax-free island. Even Mark Carney can see that something is badly wrong with the way society is run.
clinch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 08:56
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
Unless ownership of the track changes which it doesn't appear to be I don't see how it is nationalisation and if it improves the situation it can't be a bad thing and you can hardly say NR is doing a sterling job.
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 09:06
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,735
Looks like the proposal now isn't to privatise NR but to make them jointly responsible with the operating companies for track maintenance and upgrades. The idea is that the train companies won't be able to say "nothing to do with us guv" when there are delays as they will have a commercial interest in getting them done on time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38212467
Sounds like a typical Whitehall fudge to stop people moaning about selling the family silver. Well if Network Rail is the silver it is in dire need of some polishing. Network Rail is where the bulk of the subsidy goes when it comes to the Railways and is the only part that is nationalised. It has shown it is incapable of managing the railways, and the major projects that requires.
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 09:34
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
There's a difference between selling something off and outsourcing the running of something.

For one, Richard Branson doesn't own anything more than a contract for a limited period. I'm pretty sure that's the same for the NHS stuff.

I would need to see the finer details and think others do too. Rather than just mentioning Thatcher (especially when she was against privatising the railway).
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 12:59
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,418
Has Grayling done enough damage to public services? Why do they let this idiot continue?
CLL Dodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 13:30
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,269
Sounds like a typical Whitehall fudge to stop people moaning about selling the family silver. Well if Network Rail is the silver it is in dire need of some polishing. Network Rail is where the bulk of the subsidy goes when it comes to the Railways and is the only part that is nationalised. It has shown it is incapable of managing the railways, and the major projects that requires.
Of course, the privatised Railtrack was so good it ran out of money and had to be nationalised.
smudges dad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 13:37
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
Of course, the privatised Railtrack was so good it ran out of money and had to be nationalised.
BR, Railtrack, Network Rail and whatever comes later will never make money.

The big problem we have now is that we are at capacity, or exceeding capacity, and so we need HUGE amounts of money to keep services going in the peaks - when a lot of that work is unnecessary for the rest of the day.

The problem then is that season ticket holders, despite spending a lot of money every year, get pretty good discounts over those who walk-up on the day. Yet everything is geared around moving them around.

If we could stagger working hours, maybe we'd find that we could cope a little better and not need to spend so much money. Clearly the money raised from ticket sales doesn't cover the costs.

GTR, which as we all know is struggling on Southern and elsewhere is set to make a profit of around 1.5%. The rest of the money is going to run services and fund Network Rail.

Frankly, I don't know why Govia bothers - and I'm sure that as the strikes hurt today, many others will be wondering the same. After all, it's the train operator that bears the brunt of what is more often than not infrastructure related, or in the case of the Southern 'franchise' a management contract, where the DfT has set the rules and forced the introduction of DOO services throughout the region.

In other words, it's the Government that does more harm in running things than anyone else. And yet people STILL want ministers and civil servants running everything.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 13:45
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,735
Of course, the privatised Railtrack was so good it ran out of money and had to be nationalised.
That is debatable.

Their were subsidies that were promised to cover the years of underinvestment while it was nationalised - but the Labour government reneged on the last payment forcing it into administration.

Not that Network Rail has been any better (and indeed has been worse). With it requiring for more money than was ever asked by RailTrack.

Ignoring of course their is a fundamental difference between a national rail company and the franchisees who cover a smaller area.
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 13:55
Mr Oleo Strut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,311
Yet another fine mess Thatcher's privatisation has got us into!
Mr Oleo Strut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 13:57
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,269
That is debatable.

Their were subsidies that were promised to cover the years of underinvestment while it was nationalised - but the Labour government reneged on the last payment forcing it into administration.

Not that Network Rail has been any better (and indeed has been worse). With it requiring for more money than was ever asked by RailTrack.

Ignoring of course their is a fundamental difference between a national rail company and the franchisees who cover a smaller area.
You have a selective memory. Railtrack went to the government for more money, which was granted. Railtrack then declared a dividend to shareholders, using the money the government had agreed to give them for maintenance. Any sane government would have then withdrawn the offer. Bad management lost the shareholders a lot of money, and the government had to take it over again.
smudges dad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:31
tiggertiny
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,160
Yet another fine mess Thatcher's privatisation has got us into!
Thatcher didn't privatise the railways Major did.
tiggertiny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:43
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
On day of ladbroke grove crash, several uk newspapers were reporting ''700 people killed, world's worst train crash''. It finally turned out to be ''about 30'', mainly due to ''random good luck''.
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:45
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
You have a selective memory. Railtrack went to the government for more money, which was granted. Railtrack then declared a dividend to shareholders, using the money the government had agreed to give them for maintenance. Any sane government would have then withdrawn the offer. Bad management lost the shareholders a lot of money, and the government had to take it over again.
Not just shareholders. A lot of engineering firms and subcontractors who had work scheduled with Railtrack lost a lot of money when they went bust. I know of one civil engineering consultancy who almost went out of business because of cancelled contracts.

Remember National Rail may be nationalised but much of their work is actually done by private subcontractors. They are responsible for the work being done and paying for it but they don't have the resources to do all of it themselves. Just like the NHS, really. A public-private partnership in action. When there is expertise in the private sector it makes sense to use it.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:50
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,269
Not just shareholders. A lot of engineering firms and subcontractors who had work scheduled with Railtrack lost a lot of money when they went bust. I know of one civil engineering consultancy who almost went out of business because of cancelled contracts.

Remember National Rail may be nationalised but much of their work is actually done by private subcontractors. They are responsible for the work being done and paying for it but they don't have the resources to do all of it themselves. Just like the NHS, really. A public-private partnership in action. When there is expertise in the private sector it makes sense to use it.
OK, not bad management, but atrocious management. Terrible structure for privatising the railways, implemented by idiots. Everyone lost apart from the banks that got paid as advisors. Will the present government learn from the mistakes of the past?
smudges dad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:58
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
Thatcher didn't privatise the railways Major did.
I think the poster was joking, having read my comment about 'why not blame Thatcher'. Clearly nobody would say it seriously!
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:00
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
When there is expertise in the private sector it makes sense to use it.
Indeed, as there is a lot of equipment and personnel that you might not be able to afford to pay to sit around.

The problem now is that there isn't the equipment or specialist personnel to do the electrification work, but when there wasn't any electrification work at all, what would Network Rail have done with those people and equipment?

Some things need to be done in-house (and a lot of stuff is done in house and not with subcontractors) and some things are better done in the private sector.

I think even BR would have done this.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:06.