I understood the question perfectly. The answer to the above is 'it doesn't matter. What matters is that more money was available to the railway'
I don't think you understand that.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?
- Thread starter PaxVobiscum
- Start date
- Status
I understood the question perfectly. The answer to the above is 'it doesn't matter. What matters is that more money was available to the railway'
I don't think you understand that.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
No, I quoted the relevant part, you claim that the privatized railways delivered a 2 hour journey time, reliably and safely. You then said BR did not deliver that of anything like it basically no 2 hour journey time, no reliability and no safety.
*Sigh*
I can see where you're coming from. Not only do you not understand the political reasons why the government couldn't just have upped the rail subsidy, but you cast business as the very devil.
Business, my friend, is what makes the world work. Are you ex-BR?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,386
So I should be happy with the massive waste of taxpayers money?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
No, the only memory related to BR I have is my "Dependant of Retired" 1st Class Staff Travel pass and memories of watching brand new Cl91s charge through the station in InterCity Swallow.
So if Business is "not the very devil" then who is?
Who is wasting vast sums of taxpayer's money if not the private sector to which we have rather foolishly entrusted the railway network?
No, I said Virgin produced a faster more more reliable more frequent service at no cost to safety. In fact, the reverse is true as 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!
But I think you knew that was my meaning and were being a tad mischievous with your partial-quoting.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,386
So you randomly choose a period of the privatised era that has had no major accidents to prove it is safer?
So why can't I choose a period of BR history with no significant accidents in it as a counterargument?
And why hasnt the magical privatised railway delivered normal service times Glasgow-London that the APT obtained in 1980/81 despite the ludicrous amoutns of money it has had for network improvements?
No, that was not the intention. I actually used one quote first and later edited the post to quote the two relevant parts separately. Sorry for the misunderstanding but there's no need for these accusations.
On what evidence do you base that? Stricter health and safety would have been required regardless of who owned the railway.
What is this waste of which you speak? Do you think the private companies providing today's superior rail service should do it for no profit? At cost? Would you expect whoever manufactured your car to sell it to you at cost?
Why do people have to profit from it when it could be run for the people as a public service? The service levels we see today did not require privatization.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,386
It doesn't matter if there would be no political possibility of providing the similar amount of money that the private sector does to a BR type organisation, it could physically be done if the government wished.
This means that any and all additional costs incurred by the private sector (such as profits) must be considered wastage. Under BR that money would be being spent on the railway.
Can you find one that's comparable?
I'm not aware APT ever provided a normal passenger service on WCML. Or are you comparing a one-off specially staged special rules stunt, to day in day out in-service working?
Last edited by a moderator:
But that is not what you are really arguing, is it? What has been actually achieved is that technology has moved on and some TOCs have taken advantage of it. You are arguing that BR would not, or could not, have taken advantage in the same way or to the same extent. As it happens, the evidence from the years immediately preceding the pre-privatisation freeze suggests quite cogently you are wrong.
For instance, I used to travel regularly on the East Coast, before and after electrification, and throughout the GNER era. I would say that comfort, reliability and customer service were all improved during the late BR era, and set the benchmark that GNER maintained (to their credit). It is widely acknowledged that other TOCs, including especially Virgin, took a lot longer to reach that benchmark level, which had been set by BR.
Though, as has been written before, to guess how a state-owned BR would have operated over the intervening years is ultimately futile, IMHO it is damaging to maintain, as you consistently do, that all improvements and investments are attributable to the TOCs and privatisation. That is grossly overstating the benefits of privatisation. and gets in the way of more rational assessment of what is right and what is wrong with the current system.
That's not how it read to me at all. It said to me that a privatised railway managed a regular two hour journey, and that it did so without compromising reliability or safety. It is a factual statement and doesn't accuse BR of not being safe and reliable, simply because they hadn't done it.
The post did say though that BR did not do any of that. If it is indeed just a statement of facts then it makes no difference to the privatization argument as BR could easily have done the same.
Zoe, if you think there's some sort of free lunch available here, think again. No-one does stuff for no charge in the real world; call it profit, call it overhead, it's money provided in return for a service.
Generally speaking, private companies are pretty efficient in that regard. Which is why we have no state-run car manufacturers or airlines (we used to have both, and they were rubbish!).
Or maybe even call it greed. Private companies are very efficient at making as much money for their shareholders as possible, not providing a service for the public.
Oh dear. Where did I say ALL improvements are due to privatisation? What may or may not have happened if BR had carried on instead of privatisation is and always will be an unknown.
What we CAN do is look at pre and the post privatisation railway, and draw conclusions. That what any rational person would do as it's the only option. Anything else is dreaming.
Why do you live in a capitalist country then? Do you work? If so, you get paid because your employer is making money somehow. Is that greed?
How dare someone make money?! If you work for a company that I've dealt with, please accept a pay cut so I can pay less!
We've always had a problem in this country where we shoot down the successful, either through envy or just outright malice, and it's ridiculous that now anyone earning a bit more than us is looked upon as being greedy and not doing their bit. It started with the bankers and now it seems to spread to everyone, except perhaps nurses or teachers. They deserve to get loads of money!
Businesses are there to make money. They then employ staff to help them do it, and possibly pay for new staff or pay rises and better facilities. That's the way it works. It's not perfect, but neither is communism.
There will always be someone that is doing better than you, so rather than get jealous just accept it and move on.
I am not jealous. Not everyone wants to be rich.
It's very sad that you believe that. It was a typical 1970s view among many in UK which anyone can see is deeply flawed just by comparing that era to today. The world learned that lesson, and as a result is more enlightened today.
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.
It's not about me, it's about how unfair the system is in general. Services that people need to use like public transport and utilities could be provided on a not for profit basis as a public service. Why should greedy companies be allowed to make as much money as possible out of people that have no real alternative but to use these services?
Profit that is made at the expense of others.
Last edited:
Exactly. But you seem to be denying the evidence of what BR was, instead implying that only the TOCs were capable of producing the railway we have today (eg by "thinking outside the box"). You still haven't provided us with any concrete examples of TOC-generated improvements. Perhaps there actually aren't any.
Perhaps I'm imagining all those new trains, including those Pendelinos that whisk me to London in under 2 hours, with 3 trains an hour? I think I mentioned them a few times in this thread, and loads more besides. I'm not going to repeat it all here - you can go back and read the thread.
What evidence do yu have that a BR railway today would be even a fraction as good as what we have now? Their track record (pardon the pun) and the absence of privatisation-induced funding indicates it would in fact be a lot lot worse.
With the current capitalist system there isn't much choice in that. Doesn't mean that's how it should be though.
BR had been providing a rolling programme of rolling stock construction throughout it's existance. Expecting this to continue is not groundless hope or unrealistic optimism by any stretch of the imagination.
Oh come on! At BR's rate of rolling stock renewal we could expect Pendelinos on WCML in, oh, about 2030? Except we couldn't because BR woundn't have had the funding for them.
Do pay attention! We've been though this on the thread; insufficient money means fewer, later, or even no new trains! We saw that in BR days!
- Status