Infrastructure without NR input?

[Old Timer]

As long as the passenger is a stakeholder any company public or private would have to publicise what it does on their behalf or risk their ire.

PR is not the issue, spin is however.

R/worker Angli tells you how it is.

So do the RAIB Reports. So do the recurring Recommendations they contain, as do the same organisational and managerial failings that appear consistently as underlying factors.

It is only a matter of time before a rather large wheel comes off the whole machine.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

As long as the passenger is a stakeholder any company public or private would have to publicise what it does on their behalf or risk their ire.

I completely agree with you!
What I said was

What we deserve is transparency, accountability and clarity of ownership.
What we get is Press Releases, spin, "announcements" and obfuscation.

the point being, that we want the "publicity" to be transparent, accountable and clear (in terms of ownership). Stakeholders do not benefit from "spin" and specious claims of achieving targets.

It is only a matter of time before a rather large wheel comes off the whole machine.

I think you might be right and I hope you might be wrong.

 

[Old Timer]

We all hope I will be wrong.

The outcome for the Industry would be as disasterous as the Clapham Collision was, and this brought about massive disbenefits and wholly unecessary financial cost to the Industry.

An analysis of railway accidents since then will reveal that the pandering to the cheap Political shot, and sensationalist reporting by the media, has contributed nothing but long term damage to the Railways in the UK.

Emotive denunciations by relatives and survivors, mostly based upon an unwillingness to balance all the factors rationally, and supported by soundbite journalism, coupled with the agendas of self serving lawyers and Politicians only serve to introduce unecessary costs by demanding systems, procedures or equipment that are rarely appropriate or capable of resolving the underlying causes of an accident.

 

[boing_uk]

As long as the passenger is a stakeholder any company public or private would have to publicise what it does on their behalf or risk their ire.

This is something that has come about in the last 15 years or so; everyone being a "stakeholder" in some form or other. Why is it that evey man and his dog has to be involved in the decision-making process?

I can see many parallels with my own industry. Residents, local councillors, taxi associations, haulage associations, road users, bus companies, utilities, anyone who may use a road in the next 20 years are classed as stakeholders, which makes our job not only more time consuming but makes the whole damn process that much slower as everyones needs have to be pandered to.

Gone are the days when we close a road, do the work, open the road. Now we have to put up diversion routes, "businesses open as usual" signs, maintain access for Joe Public's back garden, not work on certain days etc etc all becuase there is a fear of criticism in the press or someone will complain. The fact is that road works and rail works are disruptive, but they are also necessary.

I am a regular rail passenger. I dont consider myself a stakeholder. I accept that sometimes my journey could/should be disrupted to allow maintenance work to be carried out.

But until, as orgnaisations, we actually stand up and defend our actions with the media, there will always be this fear of (as nicely stated above)) soundbite journalism, because as organisations we have almost allowed it to become the defacto reaction in the press.