-
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
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
table38
Established Member
Zoe said:
Wrong again. You just cannot equate FOI with public sector in the simplistic way you are.
blacknight
Member
Good reason for the reintroduction BREL Ltd
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I was thinking more of the creative accounting involved when it comes to Network Rail debt don't show on Public Finances but is underwritten by tax payer, rather than actual ownership.
Last edited:
No I am not wrong. The FOI Act applies to public sector information although exemptions can be claimed. It does not apply to the private sector information. Network Rail is in the private sector and will refuse any request regardless of if they could claim an exemption for that request.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---Earl Attlee said:
It wouldn't simply be a case though of going to BREL and asking them to build a train though these days. It would have to go to tender throughout the EU and there's a good chance one of the other companies would win.
Last edited:
blacknight
Member
Maybe in that aspect we need to take a more continental approach when awarding contracts ala France & Germany, look after our own as at times we seem to be the only one in Europe playing by rules. When we used to build things in this country they were built to last take the Pacer nearly 30 years old & still going not bad for stop gap british design. With a total of 147 sets built this is more in total than new builds class 172,175, & 180 trains that have been built post privitisation.
If you add 556 Sprinter class DMU's also introduced in same period thats not bad for a run down British Rail, another bonus being that they were British built by British workers paying taxes into treasury.
If you add 556 Sprinter class DMU's also introduced in same period thats not bad for a run down British Rail, another bonus being that they were British built by British workers paying taxes into treasury.
Last edited:
table38
Established Member
Wrong again I'm afraid. FOI can apply to private companies too under some circumstances.
No I am not wrong, the FOI Act does not apply to private sector information. There are cases where the private sector holds information for a public authority and in these cases the FOI Act would apply. However as stated by Earl Attlee the FOI Act does not apply to Network Rail. The request would be refused as they are a private sector company, they don't need to claim exemptions.
Last edited:
I think the point is that one of the main justifications put forward for privatisation was the argument that BR was supposedly in a "death spiral" which meant that there was no money and all the stock was old and "clapped out" etc, when in reality this was plainly not the case.
I don't think anyones denying that there has been a lot of stock built since privatisation, but it has been fifteen years - I would have expected a lot of stock to have been built within that time regardless of who ran the railway.
wilsontown
Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 144
I generally agree with you, yorksrob, except that it looks like some ARE denying that there has been new stock since privatisation. My post was replying to blacknight, who wrote:
Of course, it's impossible to know what would have happened if BR was still in charge. Would all that new stock have been funded?
Of course, it's impossible to know what would have happened if BR was still in charge. Would all that new stock have been funded?
Expectation is one thing.... or perhaps groundless hope or unrealistic optimism would be better descriptions. No doubt some new stock would have been provided had BR continued, but without the extra money privatisation brought with it nothing like as much could have been provided by a cash-strapped BR compared to what we enjoy today.
Privatisation brough extra money for the railway, and it brought fresh business ideas with thinking outside of the traditional institutional BR 'box'. Both have turned the railways around, and without both the railway would be dead in the water today.
blacknight
Member
Touble with most Class trains built privitisation is they are basically a DMU with body kit added, lacking in both capacity & comfort unsuited to long distance intercity services. What is needed is a 21 century version of Class 47 work horse locomotive & coaching stock.
I doubt you would have seen that even with BR still around. Loco hauled stock simply can't offer the benefits an MU can.
blacknight
Member
Hence reason for the state we're in today apart from money spent on paint & new uniforms where as the tax payers money gone?Paying ROSCO for leasing trains majority that taxer payer funded througr BREL Ltd would you be wanting to lease a 30 year old Ford Sierra to drive
Last edited:
The argument here (not my opinion though) is that the tax payer shouldn't be funding the railway and privatizaiton allowed private investment to fund the improvements rather than tax payers money that some believe would not have been made available to BR.
Absolute nonsense. The one TOC that just about everybody acknowledges has achieved great things is Chiltern and that was run by an ex-BR manager until his recent retirement.
An opinion, totally unprovable, but inherently flawed given the level of investment BR was carrying out (until the pre-privatisation scorched earth).
An oft-stated opinion. Please give concrete examples.
blacknight
Member
Each new TOC is like washing powder new improved & better than the last one, if you see company propoganda. Then you see ingredients same staff same trains & infrastructure. Emperor New Clothes
New uniforms would have to be made for staff anyway, and trains would need repainting to stop them corroding away to nothing.
Ironically, many people moan about the state of the trains when they're not actually referring to the interiors (which are usually kept clean, despite the abuse from some passengers) but the exterior - and that's because a TOC hasn't wasted loads of money repainting it!
NXEA spent peanuts on refurbishing its Mk3s, but I wonder if BR would have been more like NXEA or more like GNER with what it did with its Mk4s and HSTs?
Of course, nobody can know. Those who support nationalisation will say BR would have done it, those against will say they wouldn't!
Ironically, many people moan about the state of the trains when they're not actually referring to the interiors (which are usually kept clean, despite the abuse from some passengers) but the exterior - and that's because a TOC hasn't wasted loads of money repainting it!
NXEA spent peanuts on refurbishing its Mk3s, but I wonder if BR would have been more like NXEA or more like GNER with what it did with its Mk4s and HSTs?
Of course, nobody can know. Those who support nationalisation will say BR would have done it, those against will say they wouldn't!
SWTCommuter
Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 353
How much extra money has the private sector brought into the industry, if you don't include all the additional public subsidy or borrowing underwritten by the taxpayer?
---
It seems that MPs of varying persuasions are wearying of the pretence that Network Rail is a private company:
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/03/14-network-rail-faces-new-accountability.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a4da0656-8abd-11df-8e17-00144feab49a.html#axzz1pBilSzG5
Crikey, let me put it simply:
Was more money spent on UK rail per year, year on year:
a) Before privatisation?
b) After privatisation?
The answer is (b), by some margin.
With more money available to the railway is it:
a) Easier
b) More difficult
To provide new rolling stock and improve the infrastructure?
The answer is (a).
My local TOC is not Chiltern, it's Virgin. The WCML service between the North West and Euston is streets ahead of what it was in BR days. New, faster, much faster accellerating and more reliable trains, and an updated infrastucture are the improvements that allowed that.
Oh, and the staff (with the exception of some 'revenue protectors' at Euston who can be uneccessarily aggressive to law abiding pax) are a lot more customer-oriented these days than many BR ones, some of whom seemed to think it would be so much easier to run the railway if it wasn't for these pesky pax.
Was more money spent on UK rail per year, year on year:
a) Before privatisation?
b) After privatisation?
The answer is (b), by some margin.
With more money available to the railway is it:
a) Easier
b) More difficult
To provide new rolling stock and improve the infrastructure?
The answer is (a).
My local TOC is not Chiltern, it's Virgin. The WCML service between the North West and Euston is streets ahead of what it was in BR days. New, faster, much faster accellerating and more reliable trains, and an updated infrastucture are the improvements that allowed that.
Oh, and the staff (with the exception of some 'revenue protectors' at Euston who can be uneccessarily aggressive to law abiding pax) are a lot more customer-oriented these days than many BR ones, some of whom seemed to think it would be so much easier to run the railway if it wasn't for these pesky pax.
Which BR were planning just before privatization. Don't forget that the private sector failed to deliver what it promissed, a 140 mph railway.
Labour burdened the NHS with impossible PPP/PFI deals.
Labour dumbed down the education system in the name of 'equality'
Labour introduced 3000 new criminal offences, including the DNA database, arrest without charge, expanded stop and search and ID cards
The bankers who helped get us into this mess were encouraged under Thatcher, Mahor Blair and Brown.
Labour got us into Afghanistan
Labour got us into Iraq under a false prospectus , and Afghanistan and oversaw the deaths and injuries to hundreds of troops sending them in there underequipped.
Labour let the Top Brass continue with their shiny expensive purchases - Carriers, Cold War Interceptors etc
The idea that such a bunch of numpties would have eagerly taken on the cost of running a state-owned railway system is absurd.
Labour dumbed down the education system in the name of 'equality'
Labour introduced 3000 new criminal offences, including the DNA database, arrest without charge, expanded stop and search and ID cards
The bankers who helped get us into this mess were encouraged under Thatcher, Mahor Blair and Brown.
Labour got us into Afghanistan
Labour got us into Iraq under a false prospectus , and Afghanistan and oversaw the deaths and injuries to hundreds of troops sending them in there underequipped.
Labour let the Top Brass continue with their shiny expensive purchases - Carriers, Cold War Interceptors etc
The idea that such a bunch of numpties would have eagerly taken on the cost of running a state-owned railway system is absurd.
And what makes you think BR could have provided 140mph on WCML?
The privatised railway has delivered a Man - LON service of 3 trains per hour, with about a 2 hour journey time. Reliably. Safely. BR did not deliver that, or anything like it.
As a user of that service, I know which I prefer - pre or post privatisation. Give me Virgin every time!
I prefer to make my judgments on what has been actually achieved, not on what's in anyone's manifesto.
Yes there is a train from London to Manchester every 20 minutes but this is a bit pointless when the fares are so expensive that you have to book in advance and so are restricted to one train each day.
Are you saying that it was not safe to travel with BR?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,380
Three trains per hour is useless if you can only travel on the one train due to having an advanced fare.
And give BR ten billion pounds and I think they could probably achieve 2hr8m journey times London-Manchester. (Even adjusted for inflation thats about the size of the entire subsidy BR recieved during the 1980s).
SWTCommuter
Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 353
You seem to have misunderstood the question.
How much of that extra money was raised by the private sector and how much was public subsidy?
I really do believe that with all the new regulations in place now, running the railway would have become more expensive regardless of how it was funded or run. You can look back at old B&W photos and see how people just jumped off a train to clear snow to keep trains running 'in the old days' and how workers were fixing things as trains went by, and talk of the 'golden era' but as every year passes, things get more and more regulated and controlled. Go abroad and you can see how many countries (including those in the EU), especially places like some Greek islands, have a far more laid back approach to safety - or the French that ignore certain rules and just look out for their own interests (complete with plenty of corruption that is usually covered up by the media).
Even if Labour got in next time and decided to finally re-nationalise the railway, they'd HAVE to find a way to lower costs. That's possibly why they commissioned the report into the railway, which the current Government had to deliver to much protest.
The tax payer is saying rail travel is too expensive, not that we should be paying more (perhaps in income tax) to get a more affordable railway for all. They want lower fares and I bet they want to stop having the Government pay for it.
It doesn't work out that if you took away the profits made by the TOCs that you'd achieve that. So, how would a nationalised railway save the money to cut taxes AND fares?
If someone genuinely works that out, I'm happy to give it a try. But it would have to be a dead cert, and not work by having a Government finding new and clever ways to offset the spending for the next Government to deal with.
Even if Labour got in next time and decided to finally re-nationalise the railway, they'd HAVE to find a way to lower costs. That's possibly why they commissioned the report into the railway, which the current Government had to deliver to much protest.
The tax payer is saying rail travel is too expensive, not that we should be paying more (perhaps in income tax) to get a more affordable railway for all. They want lower fares and I bet they want to stop having the Government pay for it.
It doesn't work out that if you took away the profits made by the TOCs that you'd achieve that. So, how would a nationalised railway save the money to cut taxes AND fares?
If someone genuinely works that out, I'm happy to give it a try. But it would have to be a dead cert, and not work by having a Government finding new and clever ways to offset the spending for the next Government to deal with.
Captain Speaking said:
Zoe, I didn't post what you quoted - you have been naughty and selected only part of what I said therfore changing the meaning. Here's what I said:
The privatised railway has delivered a Man - LON service of 3 trains per hour, with about a 2 hour journey time. Reliably. Safely. BR did not deliver that, or anything like it.
What I posted is not what your question implied I posted, is it?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,380
Why not?
Other than the entrenched desire to stuff the money into pockets of rich businessmen like Richard Branson?
- Status