Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?

[tbtc]

Remember if we did not have so mny operators, we would not need to keep repainting trains every time a new TOC comes along

Bearing in mind that any paint job is only designed to last for a finite* period anyway (regardless of whether you paint it a new livery or keep the old one), the cost of repainting trains is trivially small in the overall costs of the railway.

Its a bit like the "Gordon Brown sold our gold" argument - it sounds like a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things its more of a symbolic cost.

IIRC Stagecoach repaint their buses every three years (I may well be wrong, of course) - even if train painting lasts twice as long that still means that a new TOC painting trains isn't costing *that* much more than it'd cost anyway.

 

[CosherB]

yorksrob, I have to disagree with each of your points. I well remember the unreliable 87s and Mk3s on WCML well into Virgin days, until the beardy one replaced them with Pendelolinos; and all that old slam door stuff on the Southern. And WCML improvements that, together with the new trains, cut the journey time Manchester to London to about 2 hours.

Oh, and 4-tracking the Trent Valley.

Crikey, BR was hell bent on even closing the Settle Carlisle by lieing about the repair costs to Ribblehead viaduct; S&C is now a vital route! They took out signal blocks (Shrewsbury yo Wrexham being a particularly bad example) vastly reducing line capacity to save a pennies.

Not only would none of the many recent improvements have happened under BR (there wouldn't have been the money to do it for one thing) but the decline (taking out junctions, single-lining, and wholesale closing of lines) would have continued (what on earth would have stopped it?).

I think you need to take of your BR-issue rose tinted specs! The fact is a state -owned BR WOULD GET INSUFFICIENT MONEY FROM GOV! It never did get sufficient, and it never would if BR still existed! That's why it made all those ludicrous cuts - to SAVE MONEY! Never mind it was wrecking the network, BR really had no choice with the financial restraints they were under. What makes you think that would have been different if privatisation hadn't happened?

I think we'd be lucky still to have a railway at all if that had gone on for several more years!

 

[warriorwarlord]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be living in some sort of a fantasy world.

I totally agree. I find it difficult to see how there are even a minority of people who think privatisation has been a success (apart from shareholders maybe). Take a look around, how many regular commuters are actually happy with our current rail network? All I see is rising fares, a mish mash of liveries and a faux facade of private companies trying in vain to convince "customers" that they are "customer focused" while they pocket tasty profits out of people's hard earned salary's for just getting into work.

We now have a rather large uprising against it and even a publicly lead movement to bring back a nationalised railway, perhaps to all those fans of privatisation, its time to start actually listening to the majority who are sick and tired of paying for this utter crap?

The best way I can describe the situation today is that John Major had a joke he wanted to crack with everyone in the early 90's and it got out of hand...

 

[Eagle]

We now have a rather large uprising against it and even a publicly lead movement to bring back a nationalised railway, perhaps to all those fans of privatisation, its time to start actually listening to the majority who are sick and tired of paying for this utter crap?

The estimate is that it would take £30bn to renationalize the railways. That's not £30bn over decades, like HS2, that's £30bn pretty much all at once.

We can't afford to renationalize.

 

[ainsworth74]

We now have a rather large uprising against it and even a publicly lead movement to bring back a nationalised railway

We do? This is news to me.

 

[warriorwarlord]

http://www.facebook.com/bringbackbritishrail

 

[Zoe]

yorksrob, I have to disagree with each of your points. I well remember the unreliable 87s and Mk3s on WCML well into Virgin days, until the beardy one replaced them with Pendelolinos; and all that old slam door stuff on the Southern. And WCML improvements that, together with the new trains, cut the journey time Manchester to London to about 2 hours.

BR planned the Intercity 250 project which would have resulted in faster journey times on the WCML. Yes there are fast trains from London to Manchester at turn up and go frequencies now but this is not as useful as it could be when the fares are so expensive you have to book in advance and so can't just turn up and go.

 

[CosherB]

I totally agree. I find it difficult to see how there are even a minority of people who think privatisation has been a success (apart from shareholders maybe).

Oh, for heaven's sake, read my post above. No-one excpet a few BR die-hards and some rail enthusiasts who beleive the rose-tinted tosh fed tom them, and of course those who somehow think BR would magically have got more gov money! Dream on!

Take a look around, how many regular commuters are actually happy with our current rail network?

And you think they were happy with the service in BR days? THEY WERE NOT!

All I see is rising fares, a mish mash of liveries and a faux facade of private companies trying in vain to convince "customers" that they are "customer focused" while they pocket tasty profits out of people's hard earned salary's for just getting into work.

Your views are so unrealistic I have to ask if you are old enough to remember how awful the railway was under BR? And can you please address my main point - where would the money have come from to provide all the post-privatisation improvements and reversing of short-sighted BR cost cutting if privatisation hadn't happened?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

BR planned the Intercity 250 project which would have resulted in faster journey times on the WCML.

And what happened to that? THE GOVERNMENT PULLED THE FINANCIAL PLUG!

Precisely my point! BR were starved of cash and that showed in the declining railway!

On ECML they even had to electrification on the cheap, and we pay for that today every time the wires come down!

 

[Zoe]

And what happened to that? THE GOVERNMENT PULLED THE FINANCIAL PLUG!

Precisely my point! BR were starved of cash and that showed in the declining railway!

Privatization was impending at that time.

 

[CosherB]

Privatization was impending at that time.

What! Privatisation was 20 years in the future at that time. It had absolutely nothing whatever to do with it!

 

[Zoe]

What! Privatisation was 20 years in the future at that time. It had absolutely nothing whatever to do with it!

The Intercity 250 project was cancelled in 1992, not in the 1970s.

 

[CosherB]

The Intercity 250 project was cancelled in 1992, not in the 1970s.

Oh, those proposed WCML improvements you mean? I thought you were talking about someting with far more promise - APT. But, same thing applies. No gov money so it didn't happen. With privatisation came the funds the railway needed. Simple!

 

[Zoe]

No gov money so it didn't happen. With privatisation came the funds the railway needed. Simple!

It's not as simple as that, with privatization impending there would have been little point in proceeding with the plans when the private sector was about to take over. The private sector also failed to deliver the promissed 140 mph line speed.

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh, those proposed WCML improvements you mean? I thought you were talking about someting with far more promise - APT.

Even APT wasn't cancelled until the mid-1980s.

But, same thing applies. No gov money so it didn't happen.

True, but IC250 has always been a bit of a dodgy example to use. If privatisation hadn't taken place we cannot know for sure that the money would have been pulled.

 

[CosherB]

It's not as simple as that, with privatization impending there would have been little point in proceeding with the plans when the private sector was about to take over.

It is as simple as that. If the 'impending privatisation' argument was valid, how do you explain that for decades before, in fact ever since BR was formed (from a privatised railway!) it has been starved of the funds needed to run a competant railway?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If privatisation hadn't taken place we cannot know for sure that the money would have been pulled.

Well, we could dream on that it wouldn't have been. But the gov record on these things indicates it would have been. And of course, it was!

 

[Zoe]

It is as simple as that. If the 'impending privatisation' argument was valid, how do you explain that for decades before, in fact ever since BR was formed (from a privatised railway!) it has been starved of the funds needed to run a competant railway?

No it is not that simple. In the 1980s and early 1990s for example there were electrifcation schemes including the East Coast Main Line and various first generation units were replaced by sprinters and networkers. You can't say that there would not have been any more investment had it not been for privatization.

 

[AlanFry1]

yorksrob, I have to disagree with each of your points. I well remember the unreliable 87s and Mk3s on WCML well into Virgin days, until the beardy one replaced them with Pendelolinos; and all that old slam door stuff on the Southern. And WCML improvements that, together with the new trains, cut the journey time Manchester to London to about 2 hours.

Oh, and 4-tracking the Trent Valley.

Crikey, BR was hell bent on even closing the Settle Carlisle by lieing about the repair costs to Ribblehead viaduct; S&C is now a vital route! They took out signal blocks (Shrewsbury yo Wrexham being a particularly bad example) vastly reducing line capacity to save a pennies.

Not only would none of the many recent improvements have happened under BR (there wouldn't have been the money to do it for one thing) but the decline (taking out junctions, single-lining, and wholesale closing of lines) would have continued (what on earth would have stopped it?).

I think you need to take of your BR-issue rose tinted specs! The fact is a state -owned BR WOULD GET INSUFFICIENT MONEY FROM GOV! It never did get sufficient, and it never would if BR still existed! That's why it made all those ludicrous cuts - to SAVE MONEY! Never mind it was wrecking the network, BR really had no choice with the financial restraints they were under. What makes you think that would have been different if privatisation hadn't happened?

I think we'd be lucky still to have a railway at all if that had gone on for several more years!

Which is why is government should make it a policy to invest nugely into the railways well after they take back full control of them, becuase fixing the mess left by BR and Railtrack/Network Rail/TOCs is not going to be cheap

If they are prepaired (for a long time) to invest into the roads for so long at a big loss, then they can do the same to the railway as well

Otherwise set up road charging in the UK and all the money will go to the railways, not only that, it would be 100% under the control of the "new" BR

Its about the UK got railways that were fit for purpose

 

[CosherB]

No it is not that simple, BR was not ran into the ground. In the 1980s for example there were electrifcation schemes including the East Coast Main Line and various first generation units were replaced by sprinters and networkers.

It is that simple. ECML electrification was done on the cheap and we pay for that today every time the wires come down. That they were only just onto replacing first generation units that late is idicative of sweated assetts caused by cash shortages.

 

[warriorwarlord]

Oh, for heaven's sake, read my post above,

My apologies, I only discovered your post after I had posted mine.

And you think they were happy with the service in BR days? THEY WERE NOT!

I don't recall saying they were.

Your views are so unrealistic I have to ask if you are old enough to remember how awful the railway was under BR?

I'm quite happy to tell you I'm not old enough to remember these grim and dark times of BR I am being led to believe. My post was mainly to highlight that there must be some sort of alternative to what we are lumbered with currently. Not necessarily a return to "British Rail" as it was, but perhaps a new better devised system similar to that of Europe. My views are unrealistic? Never mind me using the railways for leisure and sharing the same concerns as a lot of the country. When I see a system built on the ultimate goal of profit rather than a service run for the sole purpose of running a service for the public it isn't very encouraging to start with. I hope you can appreciate that.

When you talk about Mr. Branson replacing "unreliable" class 87's haven't you considered the running down of maintenance towards the end of their lives? And the shortening of HST formations to five coaches in the early 2000's, perhaps to prepare passengers for the impending overcrowding on voyager services. Their HST sets were suffering severe mechanical problems in the period of 1998/2002 that other TOC’s weren’t

Replacing slammers? NSE had just kicked off the networker project before privatisation cut it off that could have continued and been completed way before 2005.

"And what happened to that? THE GOVERNMENT PULLED THE FINANCIAL PLUG!"

Sectorisation particularly in the intercity experiment showed that you could make quite a handsome profit to keep govt. subsidy down while keeping things in the public sector. We never got to see how that progressed because it wasn’t given long enough.

 

[AlanFry1]

The estimate is that it would take £30bn to renationalize the railways. That's not £30bn over decades, like HS2, that's £30bn pretty much all at once.

We can't afford to renationalize.

Why will it cost £30 billion?

 

[LE Greys]

No it is not that simple. In the 1980s and early 1990s for example there were electrifcation schemes including the East Coast Main Line and various first generation units were replaced by sprinters and networkers. You can't say that there would not have been any more investment had it not been for privatization.

That's perfectly true, I've linked to this before:

Future Rail:The Next Decade

 

[Zoe]

It is that simple. ECML electrification was done on the cheap and we pay for that today every time the wires come down. That they were only just onto replacing first generation units that late is idicative of sweated assetts caused by cash shortages.

No it is not that simple. You are trying to say there would not have been investment in the railways had it not been for privatization. The fact is that in the 1980s and early 1990s there was investment in the railways and there is no evidence that this investment would have ended had it not been for privatization.

 

[AlanFry1]

I totally agree. I find it difficult to see how there are even a minority of people who think privatisation has been a success (apart from shareholders maybe). Take a look around, how many regular commuters are actually happy with our current rail network? All I see is rising fares, a mish mash of liveries and a faux facade of private companies trying in vain to convince "customers" that they are "customer focused" while they pocket tasty profits out of people's hard earned salary's for just getting into work.

We now have a rather large uprising against it and even a publicly lead movement to bring back a nationalised railway, perhaps to all those fans of privatisation, its time to start actually listening to the majority who are sick and tired of paying for this utter crap?

The best way I can describe the situation today is that John Major had a joke he wanted to crack with everyone in the early 90's and it got out of hand...

If BR got the same level of investment as the TOCs did over 1997-2012 then we would have a better railway
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh, for heaven's sake, read my post above. No-one excpet a few BR die-hards and some rail enthusiasts who beleive the rose-tinted tosh fed tom them, and of course those who somehow think BR would magically have got more gov money! Dream on!



And you think they were happy with the service in BR days? THEY WERE NOT!

Your views are so unrealistic I have to ask if you are old enough to remember how awful the railway was under BR? And can you please address my main point - where would the money have come from to provide all the post-privatisation improvements and reversing of short-sighted BR cost cutting if privatisation hadn't happened?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



And what happened to that? THE GOVERNMENT PULLED THE FINANCIAL PLUG!

Precisely my point! BR were starved of cash and that showed in the declining railway!

On ECML they even had to electrification on the cheap, and we pay for that today every time the wires come down!

If BR was given far more money and let be, then BR was have been far better than it was over 1947-1997

 

[LE Greys]

If BR got the same level of investment as the TOCs did over 1997-2012 then we would have a better railway

Better than before, certainly. Better than now

Would IC250 have been a success?

Would the full Networker Programme in NSE be better or worse than Electrostars/Desiros?

Would we prefer our Networker-derived units to the 170s/185s?

Can we ever know

 

[Eagle]

Why will it cost £30 billion?

Do you understand the concept of nationalization?

The government will have to buy everything. All Network Rail's assets, all the ROSCOs' trains, all the TOCs... everything. And that isn't cheap.

 

[AlanFry1]

Better than before, certainly. Better than now

Would IC250 have been a success?

Would the full Networker Programme in NSE be better or worse than Electrostars/Desiros?

Would we prefer our Networker-derived units to the 170s/185s?

Can we ever know

Well cetainly less lines would have been shut and we would have a better railway and earlier then we do now, then again you are right, we will never know

On the other hand, we do have to sort out the mess that is the UK Rail network
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you understand the concept of nationalization?

The government will have to buy everything. All Network Rail's assets, all the ROSCOs' trains, all the TOCs... everything. And that isn't cheap.

What will happen (under my plan) is that "Network Rail" will take over all the ROSCOs, TOCs and FOCs

As for the expence, blaime this and previous governments for this mess, it not going to be cheap to fix it, but it is worth it

 

[Eagle]

Well cetainly less lines would have been shut...

What are you on about? There's been hardly any lines that have shut since about 1980. And pretty much nothing has shut since privatization.

 

[LE Greys]

Do you understand the concept of nationalization?

The government will have to buy everything. All Network Rail's assets, all the ROSCOs' trains, all the TOCs... everything. And that isn't cheap.

Last time, they did it by converting the shares in all four companies into government bonds, thus adding it to the national debt. Currently, we're in a period where the government is trying to make the debt smaller rather than bigger. Northern Rock, HBoS and the rest are currently part of it.

 

[Eagle]

What will happen (under my plan) is that "Network Rail" will take over all the ROSCOs, TOCs and FOCs

That's not nationalization. Network Rail is a private company. That would be monopolization.

Also these "takeovers" will require money. Buying out.

it not going to be cheap to fix it, but it is worth it

How many times...

 

[jon0844]

So we take the TOCs out, so that means given a TOC makes 3-4% profit from every pound I spend, I can realistically expect to take 3-4% off my ticket price? That'll make a lot of difference.

That's because even when you take out the profit element, BR would still need to employ the same staff at stations, to drive trains and so on. But, if they knew they'd be bailed out by the tax payer (there's an element of that now) then why would they bother to keep costs under control?

As an ordinary punter that travels on the railway, would I be paying more, less or the same as I do today?

I look at the industry and see the increased costs of doing things, and the new demands for health and safety and making everything accessible (which costs millions, like one bridge at Elsenham costing almost £1m) and wonder how BR could suddenly save loads of money overnight. These new costs would exist regardless, as nobody would expect BR to ignore all the new legislation and rules.