DS Forums

 
 

Tory Privatisation Of Network Rail Track


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2016, 18:53
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
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.



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.
No the point of trains is to get people where they couldn't otherwise work, or visit, without spending more of their time doing it.

Everyone uses roads - they deliver the food, the post, the school children to school,and the train user to the station and the shopper to the local shop, they allow the police to arrive, and they take the rubbish away. No one ould now exist without roads . Trains are used mostly by people who choose to live miles away from work, go away to university hundreds of miles away, or decide to have a day out somewhere, or prefer them to the bus. Many people never use a train.

An expensive/infrequent/unreliable service is almost a definition of nationalised BR. Government pretended to finance the nationalised rail service properly , the unions pretended to work , and managers pretended to manage. Thats why it was provatised - to get the necessary investment in, to get customers to pay the going rate - without government taking the blame, and to improve woeful productivity.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 06-12-2016, 19:41
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
Our railway is for the most part pretty decent. Not always cheap, but there are plenty of ways to get cheap tickets - especially if you split tickets and know what you're doing (just as you would when flying).

I use trains regularly and in 16 years have maybe not been able to board a train due to crush loading just a few times.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 21:49
annemarie1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 955
Our railway is for the most part pretty decent. Not always cheap, but there are plenty of ways to get cheap tickets - especially if you split tickets and know what you're doing (just as you would when flying).

I use trains regularly and in 16 years have maybe not been able to board a train due to crush loading just a few times.
You clearly do not use Southern. It is truly appalling and was so for years before the strike started. There are no options if you work standard hours and they have removed the majority of the differential in pricing between peak and off peak travel. I regularly have to stand with my nose pressed uncomfortably close to someone else's armpit
annemarie1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 21:55
annemarie1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 955
No the point of trains is to get people where they couldn't otherwise work, or visit, without spending more of their time doing it.

Everyone uses roads - they deliver the food, the post, the school children to school,and the train user to the station and the shopper to the local shop, they allow the police to arrive, and they take the rubbish away. No one ould now exist without roads . Trains are used mostly by people who choose to live miles away from work, go away to university hundreds of miles away, or decide to have a day out somewhere, or prefer them to the bus. Many people never use a train.

An expensive/infrequent/unreliable service is almost a definition of nationalised BR. Government pretended to finance the nationalised rail service properly , the unions pretended to work , and managers pretended to manage. Thats why it was provatised - to get the necessary investment in, to get customers to pay the going rate - without government taking the blame, and to improve woeful productivity.
Trains also carry children to school and people to shops. Freight is also transported this way. I don't choose to work miles from where I live I live where I can afford and work where I can earn the money to pay my way.
annemarie1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 22:40
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
You clearly do not use Southern. It is truly appalling and was so for years before the strike started. There are no options if you work standard hours and they have removed the majority of the differential in pricing between peak and off peak travel. I regularly have to stand with my nose pressed uncomfortably close to someone else's armpit
No, but I do use another GTR route. Things are bad right now, but that's because the DfT wants to impose something the unions are going to fight hard to resist.

Driver shortages, ridiculous Sunday working arrangements and the like are problems - but I still say that for the most part, UK wise, we don't do that badly.

Services in Europe aren't perfect. Many lines don't have anywhere near the same service levels (so less chance of delays) but despite that, they do have delays. Fares aren't always rock bottom. They can have higher crime rates and use rolling stock that is ancient.

We do of course like to look at things with rose tinted specs.

Ironically, many other countries look to us to see how we manage to cope with moving loads of people in a rather cramped island, with people traveling many miles each day because so many people moved out of towns and cities to afford to buy a property.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 23:16
annemarie1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 955
No, but I do use another GTR route. Things are bad right now, but that's because the DfT wants to impose something the unions are going to fight hard to resist.

Driver shortages, ridiculous Sunday working arrangements and the like are problems - but I still say that for the most part, UK wise, we don't do that badly.

Services in Europe aren't perfect. Many lines don't have anywhere near the same service levels (so less chance of delays) but despite that, they do have delays. Fares aren't always rock bottom. They can have higher crime rates and use rolling stock that is ancient.

We do of course like to look at things with rose tinted specs.

Ironically, many other countries look to us to see how we manage to cope with moving loads of people in a rather cramped island, with people traveling many miles each day because so many people moved out of towns and cities to afford to buy a property.
The last time we had decent Southern service was during the 2012 Olympics, it has declined steadily since and the London Bridge works finished them off even though SouthEastern cope well with the same conditions. I have not had a single week in the last 2 years where I have not been entitled to delay repay. Frustratingly Southern do not fund delay repay, you an I do. On Monday, a non strike day, it took me over 2 hours for a 45 minute journey. Southern have the worst on time reckon in the UK, receive the most in fines from Network Rail and keep the highest
annemarie1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 23:23
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
No the point of trains is to get people where they couldn't otherwise work, or visit, without spending more of their time doing it.

Everyone uses roads - they deliver the food, the post, the school children to school,and the train user to the station and the shopper to the local shop, they allow the police to arrive, and they take the rubbish away. No one ould now exist without roads . Trains are used mostly by people who choose to live miles away from work, go away to university hundreds of miles away, or decide to have a day out somewhere, or prefer them to the bus. Many people never use a train.

An expensive/infrequent/unreliable service is almost a definition of nationalised BR. Government pretended to finance the nationalised rail service properly , the unions pretended to work , and managers pretended to manage. Thats why it was provatised - to get the necessary investment in, to get customers to pay the going rate - without government taking the blame, and to improve woeful productivity.
our state owned railways were pretty damn good, despite being starved of cash. It's only post privatisation that things have got really, really, bad.
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 23:35
Hacker Harrier
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 807
I find the idea of re privatising railtrack, for private profit, utterly disgusting and quite sick and evil .......
That's not what is being proposed today. It's just the 'Deep Alliance' way of working with state owned Network Rail will be written into some future passenger train operator franchise agreements. So greater co-operation between the two parties.

I should add, until 1948 the railways were run to make a profit, same as any other business.
Hacker Harrier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 23:53
theid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,469
There is always talk of investment and improvement but any business which is run for profit, pays its board members huge salaries and worries about shareholders is not putting investment and improvement at the top of the list of priorities. In addition, the more sub-contractors involved in operating a system the less funding is available. Far too many cuts being made from the funding pots.
theid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 03:06
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
Bor franchise agreements. So greater co-operation between the two parties.

I should add, until 1948 the railways were run to make a profit, same as any other business.[/quote]

in fact, the railways made very small profits from the 1930s onwards, but not the obscene profits of today's corporate culture. The game changer was car ownership, which ''took off'' only during the early 60s, and made profitable railways impossible.

The railways were only nationalised in 1948 because they were essential part of the uk's national defence. But we started building motorways ......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 07:41
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
our state owned railways were pretty damn good, despite being starved of cash. It's only post privatisation that things have got really, really, bad.
That's not true though. BR wasn't great.

It did manage to do good things, and Intercity and NSE even began to make money near the end, but otherwise there was a distinct lack of investment for years.

Being under state control meant it bore the brunt of cuts when the economy suffered, and also saw loads of closures and cost cutting (like removing lines and points, and other stuff that cost a lot of money to maintain) which is now being reversed - at great expense and often causing disruption.

Rail usage has grown massively since the mid 1990s, and while private operators are trying to make money, it always amazes me when people can't see that to make money, you need to provide a service people want.

Yes there are bad operators, and we can see that in GTR but at the same time, GTR is running a management contract. The vast majority of what it does is contracted and wasn't negotiable at the bidding stage. The trains were imposed on it, the timetable having very little flexibility, and all ticket revenue going to the state.

I happen to think management contracts are the right idea, but they're flawed because they actually remove the inventive to provide a good service. This is the same problem we had under BR.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 08:09
NilSatisOptimum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 577
It won’t be privately financed will it; it will survive and turn a profit on PAYE funded subsidies. For its private shareholder owners, normally a majority foreign state run company, to finance their public pensions.
I’m actually going to start asking people if I can empty my body waste in their mouths and then expect to be thanked and given some silver, Turkeys sure do like carnivorous Christmas, gobble gobble free market gobble gobble...
Beeching report was greatest act of state vandalism bestowed upon the UK and we still live under its dark shadow.
NilSatisOptimum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 08:13
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307
I notice Grayling has turned down TfLs request to be given control over all rail services running purely in London despite support from Tory councils. Nothing to do with the mayor not being a Tory by any chance.
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 08:19
Slarti Bartfast
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,793
advantages are that they will repair more quickly and fares will "possibly be cheaper".
Can't believe I've just spent money on Micky Flanagan tickets when I could have just logged on to DS for a laugh!
Slarti Bartfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 08:25
NilSatisOptimum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 577
Can't believe I've just spent money on Micky Flanagan tickets when I could have just logged on to DS for a laugh!

That will be the "gobble gobble free market gobble gobble" waffle I call it.
NilSatisOptimum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:11
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
I notice Grayling has turned down TfLs request to be given control over all rail services running purely in London despite support from Tory councils. Nothing to do with the mayor not being a Tory by any chance.
There was a lot of concern about changes made to Southeastern services if/when TfL took over, as TfL could have seen many commuters get a worse service (TfL obviously only caring for its own route).

There are/were better services that TfL could have taken over, and I'm disappointed about that, but it hasn't been ruled out completely. What the DfT wants is assurances that rail users further out aren't going to lose services.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:14
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,670
our state owned railways were pretty damn good, despite being starved of cash. It's only post privatisation that things have got really, really, bad.
There are some selective memories of the 70s and 80s at play here. While there are some notable exceptions (such as Southern), in general I would say train travel is a much better experience than it was 20 or 30 years ago. The main problem at the moment is capacity due to massively increased passenger numbers.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:17
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
Beeching report was greatest act of state vandalism bestowed upon the UK and we still live under its dark shadow.
To be fair to Beeching and those who actually went on to make the cuts, there was a belief at the time that the car, as well as lorries and coaches/buses, would make railways redundant.

And as people clamoured to get freedom, you can easily see where they were coming from.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I am certain people really did think that buses would provide better local services, and the car would enable people travel options that the railway could never match.

Railways are extremely expensive, and by far the majority of our fares goes on running network - not lining pockets. As usage goes up, the running costs sky rocket because of the need for more complex signalling, points, rolling stock (much of which sits empty off-peak and weekends) and so on.

I think we should continue to grow the railway, building new lines (like HS2 and HS3) but many people who don't use trains would disagree and probably don't even want 50% of funding to come from the state.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26.