DS Forums

 
 

Tory Privatisation Of Network Rail Track


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2016, 16:02
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
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?
Indeed. I have no problem in principle with private sector involvement in the railways but the original privatisation model was (literally) a recipe for disaster.

However, despite the current problems the UK rail network is in a much better shape than it was 20 years ago after decades of chronic underinvestment for all governments. Stations such as Kings Cross, St Pancras and Birmingham New Street are unrecognisable from the hell holes they were back then (Euston is still a dump though). Trains are more modern and passenger numbers are up year on year despite rising fares.

Much more investment is still needed on Crossrail 2, HS2, HS3, East West Rail and many other schemes.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 06-12-2016, 16:05
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
U wanna hand track maintenance to richard branson, a man currently spending his virgin trains ''profits'' on fantasy spaceships for very rich people ?
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:16
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Indeed. I have no problem in principle with private sector involvement in the railways but the original privatisation model was (literally) a recipe for disaster.

However, despite the current problems the UK rail network is in a much better shape than it was 20 years ago after decades of chronic underinvestment for all governments. Stations such as Kings Cross, St Pancras and Birmingham New Street are unrecognisable from the hell holes they were back then (Euston is still a dump though). Trains are more modern and passenger numbers are up year on year despite rising fares.

Much more investment is still needed on Crossrail 2, HS2, HS3, East West Rail and many other schemes.
people travel increasing distances, from ''commuter towns'', to work in london, on the world's most expensive railaway system ..........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:19
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
U wanna hand track maintenance to richard branson, a man currently spending his virgin trains ''profits'' on fantasy spaceships for very rich people ?
Branson wouldn't be building his spaceships unless he thought that there were big profits to be made from taking very rich people into space for a few minutes (I'd happily pay if I had the spare cash). The way businesses grow is by using the profits from one successful venture to invest in a one with potential for the future.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:22
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Despite over 20 years of public money spending, network rail still hasn't reached the so called ''pug 2''(passenger upgrade) target for west coast mainline, which was supposed to happen before year 2000 .........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:25
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Branson wouldn't be building his spaceships unless he thought that there were big profits to be made from taking very rich people into space for a few minutes (I'd happily pay if I had the spare cash). The way businesses grow is by using the profits from one successful venture to invest in a one with potential for the future.
he's effectively been funded by uk government, at no risk to himself, and will simply collect ''huge profits'', with nothing returned to uk taxpayers .......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:29
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
In fact, business grow by borrowing money for investment. Not been a lot of that since banking crash of 2007 .......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:36
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Before the ladbroke grove crash, there were frequent track closures due to derailments, with buses between ealing broadway and paddington. 2 weeks before it happened, train destination indicators on platforms all stopped working, and displayed a single message ''railway congestion'' ......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:39
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
After the crash, railtrack director gerald corbett said ''it's got nothing to do with me'', and left to run woolworths, which then went bankrupt and closed down ..,......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:42
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
There was frequent talk of ''corporate murder'', and possible prosecutions, but nothing ever happened .......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:49
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Retired head of bbc world service, austin kark, was subsequently killed in the potters bar rail crash, due to incompetent maintenance .......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:52
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
John prescott improved things as well as he could, by acting on professional engineering advice, and making emps track control installation mandatory ......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:54
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Stephen byers did exactly the right thing, in removing railtrack from private ownership .......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:56
JackKlugman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 4,894
The problem with network rail is that investors, hedge funds and multinational corporations can't make money out of it. Hence the new calls for at least partial privatisation

So a few trains may crash, so what if we head back to the bad old days or rail track at least tory party donors can fill their boots with piles of public cash. Maintenance will be a lower priority to shareholder dividends
JackKlugman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:57
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
I find the idea of re privatising railtrack, for private profit, utterly disgusting and quite sick and evil .......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:02
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
The problem with network rail is that investors, hedge funds and multinational corporations can't make money out of it. Hence the new calls for at least partial privatisation

So a few trains may crash, so what if we head back to the bad old days or rail track at least tory party donors can fill their boots with piles of public cash. Maintenance will be a lower priority to shareholder dividends
duh, obviously. The railways are one of very few ''guaranteed cash cows'' left. Just imagine branson risking his own money, not taxpayers'. But next time, let's at least have a few murder convictions ......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:23
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
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.
not debatable, just untrue. After de privatisation, it was revealed that railtrack spent ''very little'' on maintenance. And lots on dividends.
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:47
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
In fact, business grow by borrowing money for investment. Not been a lot of that since banking crash of 2007 .......
And so do governments. Labour is proposing borrowing an extra £500bn for investment to grow the economy.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 18:02
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
And so do governments. Labour is proposing borrowing an extra £500bn for investment to grow the economy.
I'm proposing to invest £1000bn. And I've got as much chance of getting in as Corbyn.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 18:07
annemarie1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 956
I have the misfortune to use Southern twice a day. They do not have a franchise but are a management company directed by the DFT. The idea that the tracks will be managed by the DFT as well fills me with horror.
annemarie1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 18:08
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
and it makes sense if the people who use the trains pay - not those who don't..
Okay. So let's ramp up VED so that motorists pay their way (especially the road haulage industry), introduce other taxes for cyclists and pedestrians so that they fund the roads and pavements that they use, and axe any and all aviation subsidies.

Or, we could understand that all forms of transport need and receive some level of subsidy.
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 18:19
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
Okay. So let's ramp up VED so that motorists pay their way (especially the road haulage industry), introduce other taxes for cyclists and pedestrians so that they fund the roads and pavements that they use, and axe any and all aviation subsidies.

Or, we could understand that all forms of transport need and receive some level of subsidy.
I think you'll find motorists more than pay their way. Taxes on driving are far more than is spent on the roads. As a driver I have no problem with that.

In terms of the railways, some subsidies will always be required especially on rural routes but the question is where the balance should be between the passenger paying everything and public transport being totally free. If you think that the taxpayer should pay more to reduce fares then you need to work out where the money is coming from and whether you think it's fair on people who never use trains to subsidise season tickets for commuters.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 18:31
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
I think you'll find motorists more than pay their way. Taxes on driving are far more than is spent on the roads. As a driver I have no problem with that.
There is of course far more to it than direct spending on roads, such as the costs of injury or death through accidents, air pollution, etc. The full TCO.

I
In terms of the railways, some subsidies will always be required especially on rural routes but the question is where the balance should be between the passenger paying everything and public transport being totally free. If you think that the taxpayer should pay more to reduce fares then you need to work out where the money is coming from and whether you think it's fair on people who never use trains to subsidise season tickets for commuters.
You could just as easily say the same for any mode of transport. Should the rail commuter be expected to fund some little-used rural road just so you can have a nice Sunday drive? Should the motorist and pedestrian subsidise aviation so the more well off can jet off to Tuscany or Monaco?

The fact that the person "never uses a train" doesn't mean they shouldn't help pay for it. The point of public transport, after all, is to get people out of the car. You need an effective and affordable system to do that. Having an expensive/infrequent/unreliable rail network isn't a way to achieve that goal.
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 18:41
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,224
I think you'll find motorists more than pay their way. Taxes on driving are far more than is spent on the roads. As a driver I have no problem with that.

In terms of the railways, some subsidies will always be required especially on rural routes but the question is where the balance should be between the passenger paying everything and public transport being totally free. If you think that the taxpayer should pay more to reduce fares then you need to work out where the money is coming from and whether you think it's fair on people who never use trains to subsidise season tickets for commuters.
Or put another way. they want a new railway line. The government has no money to build it - with even less money thanks to brexit, and competing demands from health and almost everything else.

A private company will raise private finance for the line - so it will be built, and eventually paid for by those using it. Its the only adult political option open.

The only alternatives are build nothing , or the childish Corbyn one - which is to tax , borrow and print whatever number you last came up with - and hang the consequences in inflation, unemployment, interest rates and future borrowing costs.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 18:44
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
The fact that the person "never uses a train" doesn't mean they shouldn't help pay for it. The point of public transport, after all, is to get people out of the car. You need an effective and affordable system to do that. Having an expensive/infrequent/unreliable rail network isn't a way to achieve that goal.
I agree and that's why I'm not against a public subsidy of the railways. The question is whether the current funding model move more towards the taxpayer or the passenger and which parts of the network should be subsidised the most.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:25.