Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?

[Eagle]

Northern Rock, HBoS and the rest are currently part of it.

Actually, Northern Rock was reprivatized (read: sold); it's part of Virgin Money now.

 

[LE Greys]

Actually, Northern Rock was reprivatized (read: sold); it's part of Virgin Money now.

Oh yes, I forgot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Taking it a bit more seriously, wouldn't you also clip out the ROSCOs and maintenance companies, along with their 3-4%? Thing is, that would bounce back because of the bond issue. Nobody would want to buy them unless there was a return. That means interest, so more tax or less investment. When the railways need a smaller ammount to keep going, the government is simply going to transfer it to somewhere else. OK, a fleabite off tax maybe, but not much change to fares.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

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.

I can think of one right away - the line from Glasgow to Kilmacolm closed in 1983.
It was partly reopened in 1990.

 

[AlanFry1]

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.

I meant BR would have had less need to shut down railway lines if they had more money
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Or you get 4% more investment into the railway at least

 

[Eagle]

I meant BR would have had less need to shut down railway lines if they had more money

The period of BR's wholesale shutting down of lines ended in about 1972. It's entirely irrelevant to a discussion about privatization.

 

[CosherB]

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.

I say again, it IS that simple. I didn't say there was NO investment (even the gov realises you need to give the rilways some money to keep going!) but that it was cut to the bone. Hence, ECML elctrification cheaply done to poor technical standars, the problems of which we reap today. Very old first generation trains soldiering on well past their design end date until they were evntually replaced decades later than they should have been - sweated assetts due lack of sufficient investment!

Do you think BR would have taken out junctions and singled so many lines to save on maintenance if they'd had sufficient funding?

Do you think they'd have taken out signalling to save money yet vastly decrease line capacity if thyey'd not been kept short of funds?

Do you think they'd have lied about the cost of Ribblehead to try to get the S&C closed if they'd had enough funds not to do that?

The list of BR's financial cloth-cutting at the expense of a worse railway is endless!

 

[AlanFry1]

I say again, it IS that simple. I didn't say there was NO investment (even the gov realises you need to give the rilways some money to keep going!) but that it was cut to the bone. Hence, ECML elctrification cheaply done to poor technical standars, the problems of which we reap today. Very old first generation trains soldiering on well past their design end date until they were evntually replaced decades later than they should have been - sweated assetts due lack of sufficient investment!

Do you think BR would have taken out junctions and singled so many lines to save on maintenance if they'd had sufficient funding?

Do you think they'd have taken out signalling to save money yet vastly decrease line capacity if thyey'd not been kept short of funds?

Do you think they'd have lied about the cost of Ribblehead to try to get the S&C closed if they'd had enough funds not to do that?

The list of BR's financial cloth-cutting at the expense of a worse railway is endless!

That was the government fault, if BR had more money, it would have been better than that

 

[Zoe]

I say again, it IS that simple.

No it is not that simple, you seem to think it's simply the case that there wouldn't have been much investment in the railways had it not been for privatization. This is not the case.

Do you think BR would have taken out junctions and singled so many lines to save on maintenance if they'd had sufficient funding?

Do you think they'd have taken out signalling to save money yet vastly decrease line capacity if thyey'd not been kept short of funds?

Do you think they'd have lied about the cost of Ribblehead to try to get the S&C closed if they'd had enough funds not to do that?

The list of BR's financial cloth-cutting at the expense of a worse railway is endless!

At the time the railways were in decline, the private car was seen as the future and many lines ended up closed and some singled. Even if the railways had never been nationalized many lines would have still ended up closing as they wouldn't have made a profit and if you leave it to the free market then forget about subsidy, if it isn't making money then it will close.

 

[CosherB]

That was the government fault, if BR had more money, it would have been better than that

You seem to share Zoe's dream that somehow a '2012' BR would be getting proper funding from government. What leads you to that conclusion in the face of about half a century of contiuous government underfunding of BR?

Naivety?

Here's how it works: Government has some money from taxation to run the country with. It doesn't have enough, so has to borrow each year. Therefore the government beancounters in the Treasury are not exactly flinging money about. If BR says "we need £10X million to run the railway next year" the beancounters say "do it for £4X million, or lump it". Simple as that.

Except that's how it used to be. Today it would be worse. Because of 13 years of spending like there was no tomorrow by Gordon Brown, first as Chancellor then as PM, this country has the biggest debt and the biggest deficit between income and outgoings that it has ever had. By some margin!

So today the answer would be "do it for £2X million and think yourself very lucky to get that".

Why do you think the government privatised BR? It was because even before the Blair / Brown spendfest that left us deep in the poo, they realised the railways needed investment or they'd go under. And that the gov was in no position financially to provide that money.

So they privatised. To everyone's amazment it worked well and we now have a many-times better railway than under BR. But if it had failed and the railways had gone under, the gov could have blamed the privatised rail companies rather than taking the rap themselves.

 

[Holly]

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.

The government could however find ways to force the owners into bankruptcy and buy the assets at scrap value because no-one else wants them.
Any export of rolling stock or repurposing of real estate could easily be tied up in never-ending red tape as part of the war on terrorism.

Can it be done, and cheaply? Of course it can.
Will it be done? Of course not.

 

[Yew]

You must remember that there are 'green' concerns that could persuade a government to invest in a present day BR, alongside the increase of passanger growth that has been going since before privatisation.


Overall I think we would be in a similar situation, with money wasted (leasing fees for example) roughly accounting for any reduced government spending. The only positive I can think of is that we might have tilting LHCS on the wast coast (be that APT, MK4T's or Intercity 250's)

 

[CosherB]

The government could however find ways to force the owners into bankruptcy and buy the assets at scrap value because no-one else wants them.
Any export of rolling stock or repurposing of real estate could easily be tied up in never-ending red tape as part of the war on terrorism.

Can it be done, and cheaply? Of course it can.
Will it be done? Of course not.

Oh, do wake up! How much do you think the land, alone, is worth on the open market? And it wouldhave to be (legally) an open market.

 

[jon0844]

You seem to share Zoe's dream that somehow a '2012' BR would be getting proper funding from government. What leads you to that conclusion in the face of about half a century of contiuous government underfunding of BR?

In the current climate, I think that most tax payers would demand cuts in rail even if the Government wanted to splash out, favouring spending on the health service, schools, the police etc.

And if that happened, BR would need to get most of its money from fares - which would mean sky high price rises. You'd have no private companies willing to invest, so it would definitely a take-it-or-leave-it approach.

I am not saying the current system is right (in fact, I don't think it is and would prefer the rail network to work more like TfL run buses in London) but I really can't see how it would be better under public ownership.

 

[Zoe]

The only positive I can think of is that we might have tilting LHCS on the wast coast (be that APT, MK4T's or Intercity 250's)

I believe there was a plan to cascade the Mark 3 stock from West Coast to Cross Country. Had that been the case Cross Country services would likely not be running as frequently as they are today.

 

[jon0844]

The government could however find ways to force the owners into bankruptcy and buy the assets at scrap value because no-one else wants them.

That would encourage investment in business for the future wouldn't it? Hey Nissan, please build a factory over here and employ our people? Then let us up business rates and force you out of business so we can take over your factory and set up a public-owned car maker to compete with you (except we're no longer letting you trade in the UK).

 

[Yew]

I believe there was a plan to cascade the Mark 3 stock from West Coast to Cross Country. Had that been the case Cross Country services would likely not be running as frequently as they are today.

Now thats a good point.. however I suppose the long rakes from the WCML could have been broken up to shorter rakes, with new* DVT's and locos

*read new locos, but probably old DVT's.

Do you think there could have been an 'operation princess?' in a modern day BR?

 

[AlanFry1]

You seem to share Zoe's dream that somehow a '2012' BR would be getting proper funding from government. What leads you to that conclusion in the face of about half a century of contiuous government underfunding of BR?

Naivety?

Here's how it works: Government has some money from taxation to run the country with. It doesn't have enough, so has to borrow each year. Therefore the government beancounters in the Treasury are not exactly flinging money about. If BR says "we need £10X million to run the railway next year" the beancounters say "do it for £4X million, or lump it". Simple as that.

Except that's how it used to be. Today it would be worse. Because of 13 years of spending like there was no tomorrow by Gordon Brown, first as Chancellor then as PM, this country has the biggest debt and the biggest deficit between income and outgoings that it has ever had. By some margin!

So today the answer would be "do it for £2X million and think yourself very lucky to get that".

Why do you think the government privatised BR? It was because even before the Blair / Brown spendfest that left us deep in the poo, they realised the railways needed investment or they'd go under. And that the gov was in no position financially to provide that money.

So they privatised. To everyone's amazment it worked well and we now have a many-times better railway than under BR. But if it had failed and the railways had gone under, the gov could have blamed the privatised rail companies rather than taking the rap themselves.

Lets get somethnig straight, even though we privatised it, the government still run it and fund sit as well so don’t tell me that that the railways have nothing to do with the government and are doing better. So all the improvement were funded by the government

Since the railways are now a big political issue, they need to be well funded and yes there is money if there a crackdown on tax evasion past and present
I 100% disagree that the railways is man times better with the messed up system we have got

What we need to do is bring back BR and bring about massive finding to the railways, even if it comes from road charging

 

[Hydro]

What we need to do is bring back BR and bring about massive finding to the railways, even if it comes from road charging

Just. No.

 

[AlanFry1]

In the current climate, I think that most tax payers would demand cuts in rail even if the Government wanted to splash out, favouring spending on the health service, schools, the police etc.

And if that happened, BR would need to get most of its money from fares - which would mean sky high price rises. You'd have no private companies willing to invest, so it would definitely a take-it-or-leave-it approach.

I am not saying the current system is right (in fact, I don't think it is and would prefer the rail network to work more like TfL run buses in London) but I really can't see how it would be better under public ownership.

If we cracked down on tax evasion, then we would not need to make cuts, also the government should set up a road charging sceme and put 100% of money into the railways

 

[CosherB]

What we need to do is bring back BR and bring about massive finding to the railways, even if it comes from road charging

Sad thing is, I think you might be serious!

If so, why not include elimination of all wars and all disease in your vision? Why stop if you're on such a roll!

 

[Nym]

*looks at the disc in the bottom left of his car's windscreen...*

 

[AlanFry1]

Sad thing is, I think you might be serious!

If so, why not include elimination of all wars and all disease in your vision? Why stop if you're on such a roll!

Got any better ideas so that the UK has railways that are fit for purpose?

 

[Zoe]

Sad thing is, I think you might be serious!

I can't see why you'd have any issue with road pricing. You could just privatize the roads and have private companies charge people for using them.

 

[AlanFry1]

I can't see why you'd have any issue with road pricing. You could just privatize the roads and have private companies charge people for using them.

Those private companies would be owned by a "new" BR

 

[Hydro]

Those private companies would be owned by a "new" BR

Good God! Roads owned by the railways to fund the railways. Why the DfT hasn't snapped you up is beyond me.

 

[Zoe]

Those private companies would be owned by a "new" BR

The issue is though that you'd only price the poor off the roads and onto rail and the rick would continue to drive and have nice congestion free roads for themselves. Passing legislation to restrict car use would be a fairer way.

 

[AlanFry1]

Good God! Roads owned by the railways to fund the railways. Why the DfT hasn't snapped you up is beyond me.

It will save the taxpayer and government from funding it
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The issue is though that you'd only price the poor off the roads and onto rail and the rick would continue to drive and have nice congestion free roads for themselves. Passing legislation to restrict car use would be a fairer way.

I am only doing this so that the railways can recive massive investment, nothing to do with pricing people off the road

 

[Hydro]

It will save the taxpayer and government from funding it

The taxpayer will be funding it. If you can't see how, then bow out gracefully as you clearly don't have the bus fare to take this argument to it's terminus.

 

[F Great Eastern]

I shouldn't wade into this debate as I'll get too involved but...

Right now there is a tenancy for the public who want British Rail back, to blame the private operators we have now for things outside their control. When I see people moaning g it is normally related to overcrowding, it would not happen with British Rail, because they were not interested in greed and the TOC's are.

However, if you look at some of the TOC's offering with overcrowding, then you see that a good proportion of it, particularly with the IEP, shortage of DMU's in the North, and the Thameslink route is down to the fact the the Government, and the SRA, whoever are delaying additional capacity and cutting back orders.

I don't think the private running of the railways has been a disaster, it has not been perfect without a doubt, and there has been some franchises who have purely tried to squeeze every money out of a line that they can, such as NXEC, Connex and to a lesser degree NXEA which for sure are not great examples. But there has been some good TOC's as well who have really invested.

I've seen public railways in other countries where because they know at the end of the day they're going to be bailed out by the taxpayer no matter what, there is a somewhat of a laid back approach to the railways, blocking of progress, and a tendency to not want to move forward with the times, waste and no desire to improve things, because after all, what can be done about it? Of course the government can threaten sanctions, but then you have the inevitable ballot, strike, bring country to paralysis and they get their own way anyway. Even better if they can get colleagues in other transport to strike too.

 

[Zoe]

nothing to do with pricing people off the road

That will be the result though.