Network Rail to sell major stations?

[Jordeh]

Yes, they enable the core function, as I said.

Correct. They don't.
But once again, why do you feel that Westfield can operate a railway station, but Network Rail can't operate a 'shopping centre' (which they don't anyway)?
The article talks of selling off the entire major station portfolio, not just the retail bits. That means that a private company, possibly with absolutely no railway experience at all, could be in charge of Waterloo and Victoria. That means things like information provision, security, disabled passenger assistance and so on.

Network Rail does operate these significant retail developments, my argument is they shouldn't not that they can't. Retail is such a significant part of these major railway stations nowaday, I don't think it's beyond the likes of Westfield to get the rest right (waiting areas, PIS, security etc), as evidenced by St Pancras.

 

[DarloRich]

It most certainly will take up resources such as IT, finance etc and it will also take up the time of senior members of Network Rail. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a business downsizing so it can focus on its core operations.

There will be a very small use of shared functions, none of which impacts directly on the running of an operational railway.

As for top level time property will take up no more or less time than all the other issues dealt with at board level. You might free up 5 minutes of that time. Compared to he time focused on delivering an operational railway it is minuscule.

What do you think happens? please explain why you think that the property function takes up such a large amount of precious time that could otherwise be used to fix the railway.

I have little doubt they do recruit people to run the retail empire, it doesn't mean it is appropriate to their main purpose though. They could quite easily purchase more trains and become an highly profitable FOC, or maybe even a TOC, but it doesn't mean it is the right decision for their business.

What are you talking about? Surely it is a "right decision for the business" to maximise revenue opportunists from property. It is money, beyond that allocated by the government, that can be added to the pot for fixing the railway. How can that not be a good thing?

How do you know Network Rail are any good at running shopping centres? Are you an expert in retail? Just because it brings in revenue doesn't mean they are doing it well, that is merely your simplistic observation.

Are you such an expert in the performance of NR property? I base my view on the publicly available performance figures. On what do you base yours?

Like I have already said, it would be very difficult for it not to be highly profitable considering the high footfall and low costs. However, it can still become a lot more profitable and better ran. It is all very well bringing in experts, anyone can do that, but a business like Westfield from top to bottom is more cut out to run shopping centres.

You would prefer that the profits on public investment went to private bodies. I would rather we as the public had the benefit of all of that money by reinvesting it into the railway.

Where will the funding come form to replace that money?

Some other similar examples in the railways, why do you think Northern Rail uses G4S to run security? Why does East Midlands Trains uses Rail Gourmet for catering? They're capable of doing both, but it doesn't mean they're best to.

I don't think they are examples worthy of comparison. The benefits to the company in outsourcing those jobs ( think T&Cs, rates of pay, pensions, collective agreements etc) substantially outweigh the income they would generate.

You also seem to be avoiding my point they are also £50bn in debt and unless they find ways to pay it down then it is inevitable there will be significant changes to the way they are run. This is a somewhat easy solution.

I am not avoiding it at all :roll: You assume, perhaps wrongly, that all of the money raised by this sale will make its way to NR. It may just disappear into the government pot.

These sales wont be used to pay down that debt in any event. They will go to delivering the CP5 work bank. The debt issue is entirely a consequence of governmental decisions about how to fund the work NR is required to do and will still need to be addressed even after this one time fire sale has taken place.

I would prefer the government didn't sell off, no doubt cheaply and undervalue, an income source for the future which was built up at public expense. Instead NR should be seeking to maximize revenue across the entire portfolio whilst looking to dispose of sites not required for best value.

However that doesn't make Dave and his mates any money so isn't an option. Can we at least sell for value and maximise the money we do get from these sales, which despite being woolly headed, will go ahead regardless.

Businesses regularly sell off highly profitable areas of their business simply because they're not relevant to their main operation and/or they need a large cash injection.

Thanks for telling us about divesting your business. Triples all round eh? :roll: Large successful operations don't, cheaply, sell off assets which will generate them a decent long term income.

I don't see your point. Network Rail owns and operates some trains but they are not a FOC and do very little in the way of commercial work (HS1 comes to mind). I realise they use DBS drivers and rely on FOCs for much of their work (because after all, FOCs are the experts in that). They could quite easily use their trains to successfully operate container trains or even begin running passenger services for a profit but it is not relevant to their business.

Want are which trains are these then? What trains do NR own and run? I also assume you have missed the contracts won overseas by NR consulting.

Claire's Accessories in Euston or Champagne Bars? By all means have them but they are not necessary and do not need to be let by Network Rail.

I would suggest they do. You would rather that the private sector took all that money. I wouldn't.

 

[EM2]

Network Rail does operate these significant retail developments, my argument is they shouldn't not that they can't. Retail is such a significant part of these major railway stations nowaday, I don't think it's beyond the likes of Westfield to get the rest right, as evidenced by St Pancras.

It operates retail developments as part of its management of stations, as British Rail did, and as the Big Four did before them (many stations had at least a WH Smith bookstall).
You seem to be advocating a mixed-management model, where a retail 'specialist' manages the retail units and NR manages the rest. And if you go with that, any retail management company would still have to report to, and abide by, NR, so all you're doing is adding in another level of bureaucracy.
And what does Westfield have to do with St Pancras?

 

[The Ham]

it depends on what nature this "sell off" takes, if it is a long term lease (akin to HS1) of the retail areas for an upfront fee or an annual profit share then it could bring NR more money over the years than they currently get.

If it were a long term lease then the operators would have to apply to NR to approve any changes to the layout of the station/retail areas so as to stop the stations from becoming unusable for rail passengers.

Further up the thread someone said that commercial companies would only run them for a 10% return, however how do we know what it is costing NR? if they are currently running it and it is costing them 15% then NR could end up with more money.

 

[Llanigraham]

I don't see your point. Network Rail owns and operates some trains but they are not a FOC and do very little in the way of commercial work (HS1 comes to mind). I realise they use DBS drivers and rely on FOCs for much of their work (because after all, FOCs are the experts in that). They could quite easily use their trains to successfully operate container trains or even begin running passenger services for a profit but it is not relevant to their business.

[/url]

What?
The only trains that Network Rail runs are maintenance based.
They are the "track operator" and cannot be a TOC/FOC.:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In some respects Network Rail is very much in crisis, it is always missing targets, vilified by the press and is significantly in debt. Paying down that debt and downsizing will be necessary for the long-term future of Network Rail. Otherwise there is a very real risk of the likes of Railtrack coming back and safety being put at risk (an area they are currently world leaders).

Is it in crisis?
I suggest that your view of NR is based on biased anti-rail Press reporting more than actual FACTS.

 

[Bantamzen]

The first thing that springs to mind for me is the airport experience, where every effort is made to divert the passenger from the primary function of getting from A to B and instead spending a little bit more dough (well usually a lot more). At some departure gates this can mean being passed through retail units on your way to the gates. Fine if you’ve got 2 – 3 hours to pass, not so great if you are late for a boarding.

Selling off stations means that the new owners might seek to maximise the floor space and cram in ever growing numbers of retail units, at the expense of waiting areas, ticket office or flows to ticket barriers / platforms. And whilst it is understandable that companies would want to make as much profit as possible, I fear that it will be passengers that would be inconvenienced. Many stations still have large areas that might be viewed as under utilised by new owners, but are vital for passengers waiting for confirmation of platforms, waiting for a disembarking passenger, or simply to allow flows of passengers move through the station.

 

[Jordeh]

There will be a very small use of shared functions, none of which impacts directly on the running of an operational railway.

Indirectly it can quite easily affect their operational effectiveness.

What are you talking about? Surely it is a "right decision for the business" to maximise revenue opportunists from property. It is money, beyond that allocated by the government, that can be added to the pot for fixing the railway. How can that not be a good thing?

Their purpose is to safely and efficiently run the railways. The money raised can be added to the pot for fixing the railway, something they're experts in doing.

Are you such an expert in the performance of NR property? I base my view on the publicly available performance figures. On what do you base yours?

Business knowledge. I don't believe for a second that a railway operator could operate retail units better than a business specialising in retail. It's simply not relevant or natural to them.

You would prefer that the profits on public investment went to private bodies. I would rather we as the public had the benefit of all of that money by reinvesting it into the railway.

Where will the funding come form to replace that money?

The significant money raised from the sell-off.

I am not avoiding it at all :roll: You assume, perhaps wrongly, that all of the money raised by this sale will make its way to NR. It may just disappear into the government pot.

These sales wont be used to pay down that debt in any event. They will go to delivering the CP5 work bank. The debt issue is entirely a consequence of governmental decisions about how to fund the work NR is required to do and will still need to be addressed even after this one time fire sale has taken place.

I would prefer the government didn't sell off, no doubt cheaply and undervalue, an income source for the future which was built up at public expense. Instead NR should be seeking to maximize revenue across the entire portfolio whilst looking to dispose of sites not required for best value.

However that doesn't make Dave and his mates any money so isn't an option. Can we at least sell for value and maximise the money we do get from these sales, which despite being woolly headed, will go ahead regardless.

That's incredibly speculative and just guess work. You cannot accuse me of not knowing what is going on and they just make all those assumptions. The details are very thin on the ground as it is merely a proposal at this stage.

It operates retail developments as part of its management of stations, as British Rail did, and as the Big Four did before them (many stations had at least a WH Smith bookstall).
You seem to be advocating a mixed-management model, where a retail 'specialist' manages the retail units and NR manages the rest. And if you go with that, any retail management company would still have to report to, and abide by, NR, so all you're doing is adding in another level of bureaucracy.
And what does Westfield have to do with St Pancras?

I am quite open to either a mixed-management model or the entire station, it could well be a worthwhile experiment. I explicitly referred to the likes of Westfield, not specifically Westfield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What?
The only trains that Network Rail runs are maintenance based.
They are the "track operator" and cannot be a TOC/FOC.:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Is it in crisis?
I suggest that your view of NR is based on biased anti-rail Press reporting more than actual FACTS.

I've not suggested otherwise. Network Rail is increasingly not fit for purpose. In many parts of the country punctuality is appalling, their finances are equally appalling and they are over-budget and behind schedule for much of the electrification.

Personally I blame the Labour government 1997-2010 for that as the very very low investment in rail infrastructure in this country over that period led to a loss of talent which is very difficult to replace. But regardless of who is to blame, there is much room for improvement and it needs to downsize and focus on its core operations, otherwise the likes of Railtrack coming back is a realistic prospect under a Conservative government. I am infact a big fan of Network Rail and much of the good work it does, that's why I want it to be sustainable.

 

[EM2]

I am quite open to either a mixed-management model or the entire station, it could well be a worthwhile experiment. I explicitly referred to the likes of Westfield, not specifically Westfield.

You said 'I don't think it's beyond the likes of Westfield to get the rest right (waiting areas, PIS, security etc), as evidenced by St Pancras.' and again I asked how St Pancras comes into it? The redevelopment of St Pancras was carried out by London & Continental Railways (the clue is in the name), the LCR subsidiary HS1 was then transferred to Government ownership in 2009, and an operating concession was then sold to a Canadian consortium. However, all of the route and stations are managed by Network Rail.
There are no retail specialists or even non-railway specialists separate from NR managing any aspects of St Pancras or the rest of HS1.

 

[petersi]

one of the problems on a lot of long term contracts seams to be lack of flexibility

For example Leeds station if growth continues and in say 2040 a major rebuild is required to cope with increase demand. Can the owner say no as they will not want to loose revenue during redevelopment.

The problem for these contract is understanding the future to ensure future needs are met the history of long term contracts meeting these needs is not 100% successful

 

[nidave]

If they have sell the station would NR have to pay access rights to use the infrastructure to the property owner? If they own the whole building what's to stop them demolishing it and building flats (especially in London)

 

[Llanigraham]

I've not suggested otherwise. Network Rail is increasingly not fit for purpose. In many parts of the country punctuality is appalling, their finances are equally appalling and they are over-budget and behind schedule for much of the electrification.

No, again you are spouting Press based opinion not based on FACTS.
I suggest that you do a LOT more research.

And I do wonder whether you actually know what NR does.:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If they have sell the station would NR have to pay access rights to use the infrastructure to the property owner? If they own the whole building what's to stop them demolishing it and building flats (especially in London)

Read the report!!
They are NOT selling the bricks and mortar, just the retail franchising side of the business.

 

[nidave]

No, again you are spouting Press based opinion not based on FACTS.
I suggest that you do a LOT more research.

And I do wonder whether you actually know what NR does.:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Read the report!!
They are NOT selling the bricks and mortar, just the retail franchising side of the business.

My bad! - thanks for the correction.

 

[Jordeh]

No, again you are spouting Press based opinion not based on FACTS.
I suggest that you do a LOT more research.

Show me facts proving...

- Their punctuality is good and meeting targets
- They are not £50bn in debt
- Their profits are in line with projections
- Electrification is on time and on budget

 

[DarloRich]

Show me facts proving...

- Their punctuality is good and meeting targets
- They are not £50bn in debt
- Their profits are in line with projections
- Electrification is on time and on budget

None of that will be fixed, directly, by selling property assets.

 

[LTJ87]

Some other similar examples in the railways, why do you think Northern Rail uses G4S to run security? Why does East Midlands Trains uses Rail Gourmet for catering? They're capable of doing both, but it doesn't mean they're best to.

My experience of RailGourmet on EMT is that they are very unreliable and when RailGourmet fail to provide a staff member and/or a full trolley EMT simply pass the buck and shrug their shoulders.

I'm not sure St Pancras is model of a hybrid station operation either.

Whilst the new station is aesthetically pleasing it's clear it has adopted the Heathrow airport model of putting shop and restaurant footfall first and the business of moving passengers efficiently in comfort is very much secondary.

Public toilet provision is inadequate, there is very limited public seating outside of the cafes and bars and there are major bottlenecks with on the EMT platforms at busy times at the ticket gates and escalators.

 

[Yew]

The fact that George Osborne thinks China can spend its way out of shrinking economic growth is also laughable when this country and many others are having to do the total opposite to support economic growth

I feel a large number of trained macroeconomic experts would disagree with that statement.


This just seems to me like the conservatives are upset that lots of the retail outlets on these stations subsidise network rail, rather than their party donors...

 

[LowLevel]

My experience of RailGourmet on EMT is that they are very unreliable and when RailGourmet fail to provide a staff member and/or a full trolley EMT simply pass the buck and shrug their shoulders.

I'm not sure St Pancras is model of a hybrid station operation either.

Whilst the new station is aesthetically pleasing it's clear it has adopted the Heathrow airport model of putting shop and restaurant footfall first and the business of moving passengers efficiently in comfort is very much secondary.

Public toilet provision is inadequate, there is very limited public seating outside of the cafes and bars and there are major bottlenecks with on the EMT platforms at busy times at the ticket gates and escalators.

The answer is because they can get away with paying their staff peanuts with no railway pension or travel facilities despite doing railway work. The service provision as a result is at times atrocious with the staff in many cases being paid minimum wage for 12 hour plus days lugging trolleys up and down trains with no decent rostered breaks and thus having little to no incentive to turn up for work with very high turnover.

Capita and Serco also seem fine models for institutional incompetence but again it gets rid of the responsibility for treating staff well.

The above purely my opinion of course.

 

[DarloRich]

Indirectly it can quite easily affect their operational effectiveness.

Agreed but very indirectly.

Their purpose is to safely and efficiently run the railways. The money raised can be added to the pot for fixing the railway, something they're experts in doing.

added to the pot once. If it is added to the pot at all.

Business knowledge. I don't believe for a second that a railway operator could operate retail units better than a business specialising in retail. It's simply not relevant or natural to them.

You still miss the point: The people running the property estate are not traditional "railway people". They are property professionals employed solely for their skills and experience in running a varied property portfolio.

The significant money raised from the sell-off.

A one off sale against years of guaranteed income. You may be convinced that the best possible deal will be struck, i am not. I feel the deal will be favorable to the guys in the city. If someone could assure me that the portfolio would be sold off for the best possible value that represents the income to be achieved over the lifetime of the asset i would be less doubting. I just don't think anyone in government can do that. Consider the Royal Mail sell off

That's incredibly speculative and just guess work. You cannot accuse me of not knowing what is going on and they just make all those assumptions. The details are very thin on the ground as it is merely a proposal at this stage.

Much as your views are? You keep stating that "Westfield" could do a better job yet can present no evidence to support that view. I will base my views on my business experience and the publicly available information.

I've not suggested otherwise. Network Rail is increasingly not fit for purpose. In many parts of the country punctuality is appalling, their finances are equally appalling and they are over-budget and behind schedule for much of the electrification.

Personally I blame the Labour government 1997-2010 for that as the very very low investment in rail infrastructure in this country over that period led to a loss of talent which is very difficult to replace. But regardless of who is to blame, there is much room for improvement and it needs to downsize and focus on its core operations, otherwise the likes of Railtrack coming back is a realistic prospect under a Conservative government. I am infact a big fan of Network Rail and much of the good work it does, that's why I want it to be sustainable.

More speculation based upon media reports that bear little relation to the real world of project delivery. What will people like you blame when the juiciest plums are sold off so NR can "focus on its core operations" and nothing, in the eyes of the media, changes?

BTW - which trains do NR operate?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This just seems to me like the conservatives are upset that lots of the retail outlets on these stations subsidise network rail, rather than their party donors...

My word, that is terribly cynical

 

[Deepgreen]

Finally, I don't appreciate your tone, it's rude and you should know better after 9k+ posts.

You will often find that the two are inversely proportional on this forum!

 

[Jordeh]

You still miss the point: The people running the property estate are not traditional "railway people". They are property professionals employed solely for their skills and experience in running a varied property portfolio.

As you keep saying and I have also agreed with. Network Rail is unnecessarily large and this brings with it problems, downsizing by getting rid of irrelevant operations is a good thing.

A one off sale against years of guaranteed income. You may be convinced that the best possible deal will be struck, i am not. I feel the deal will be favorable to the guys in the city. If someone could assure me that the portfolio would be sold off for the best possible value that represents the income to be achieved over the lifetime of the asset i would be less doubting. I just don't think anyone in government can do that. Consider the Royal Mail sell off

The Royal Mail sell off is further evidence of the media getting it wrong and not a good example of privatisation not working. Look at the price Royal Mail was sold off at and look at the price it is today. They're about the same. Whilst it initially rose, all it has ever done is fall since as the market has determined it's true value.

I suspect in 5 years time when Royal Mail goes even further downhill, people will look back and wonder how the government managed to get so much for it (Highly speculative of me!).

Naturally I am against the privatisation of the stations if the government does not get a very good deal.

Much as your views are? You keep stating that "Westfield" could do a better job yet can present no evidence to support that view. I will base my views on my business experience and the publicly available information.

There is no evidence to provide of Westfield running a railway station yet, that doesn't mean they cannot though.

More speculation based upon media reports that bear little relation to the real world of project delivery. What will people like you blame when the juiciest plums are sold off so NR can "focus on its core operations" and nothing, in the eyes of the media, changes?

BTW - which trains do NR operate?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only group I have blamed so far is the Labour government for chronic under investment in railway infrastructure which in my opinion has led to many of the problems we have currently, particularly in regards to electrification.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong (and I've little doubt that you will), they own and operate the likes of the New Measurement Train and hire in DBS drivers (and frequently use FOCs for engineering trains).

 

[DarloRich]

I agree that outsourcing can be a sensible option for large companies, and if we were talking about CBRE selling to Westfield I would be happy to support that move.

To me this is different as the asset is a public asset earning money for the public purse and developed over a long period of time in the majority from that public purse. I want to see that continue or at least return the best possible value from a sale that i feel is inevitable.

I honestly do not feel the argument that time or resource is deflected from running the railway is accurate.

As for the trains NR own several types of rolling stock associated with either monitoring or repair the infrastructure but are prohibited by license conditions from running a train in the sense of railway operations. They have to contract out for haulage traction and driver services.

I think they might be the biggest customer of the FOC's!

 

[EM2]

Read the report!!
They are NOT selling the bricks and mortar, just the retail franchising side of the business.

Er, not exactly:

Bankers at Citigroup have been hired to look at options for 18 major stations, such as London Waterloo, Reading, Leeds and Edinburgh Waverley, which most eye-catchingly include either outright sales or the handing of concessions to big firms that would last decades.

and

Options will also include asking firms to run just the shops in the stations

So it looks like all options are being explored.

 

[Llanigraham]

Show me facts proving...

- Their punctuality is good and meeting targets
- They are not £50bn in debt
- Their profits are in line with projections
- Electrification is on time and on budget

- Punctuality in some areas is good and is within targets.
- Did I say they weren't?
- And?
- Electrification is just a small element of what they are doing.

I suggest that you remember that there is a lot more to the country than London, since you seem to have a totally London-centric attitude to this!

 

[Jordeh]

- Punctuality in some areas is good and is within targets.
- Did I say they weren't?
- And?
- Electrification is just a small element of what they are doing.

I suggest that you remember that there is a lot more to the country than London, since you seem to have a totally London-centric attitude to this!

They are the four claims I have been making and you have been disputing them, I'd like to see facts showing otherwise. Network Rail faces some serious issues which could threaten its very existence, I don't feel that's an exaggeration.

Your comment about my London-centric attitude is merely based on my location and is unfair. I have lived in the East Midlands almost all my life and only moved to London in recent months (see my previous posts for evidence of this). Regardless of this, almost half of these Network Rail managed stations are in London.

 

[carriageline]

Show me facts proving...



- Their punctuality is good and meeting targets

- They are not £50bn in debt

- Their profits are in line with projections

- Electrification is on time and on budget

So you have chosen 4 things you know they are doing bad at, but ignore the other things and projects delivered on time and well?

As usual, someone who doesn't really know what they are talking about ignoring the posts he has no answer to!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The point you are failing to grasp is who cares if it's making the MAXIMUM profit? If it's sold off, then it will be making them no profit, and going into shareholders pockets.
It doesn't solve any deeper issues, once that debt is paid off it will surely just build again.

Do you want electrification?
NR has (or will) break its funding limit for CP5.
HMG has given them some limited extra funding but the rest has to be realised by selling assets - as in any business in trouble.
The alternative is to slash the CP5 project list until NR can afford it.
That, by the way, is the new rule now NR is designated as a public body.
The old ("private") NR borrowed way beyond its limit, all guaranteed by HMG.
As Peter Hendy has put it: "The alcohol store in the brewery has been locked, so we'd better sober up".

 

[andyb2706]

The only group I have blamed so far is the Labour government for chronic under investment in railway infrastructure which in my opinion has led to many of the problems we have currently, particularly in regards to electrification

You keep blaming the Labour government of the 1997-2010 for the lack of investment in the infrastructure for the mess it is in, I have to the you to task with that claim. Because although you are right about the lack of investment between 1997-2010 what about the time from 1980-1997. For the last 3 decades there has been a total lack of investment in the railways by whichever political party has been in power, it has only been the last 6+ years that the railways have been trying to catch up with major required investment and that was when Network Rail were not being interfered with by the political machinery, never thought I would say that about a privatised railway.

I have to say that on the whole Network Rail have done a good job, with the obvious few exceptions. But when you are trying to catch up with 30+ years of neglect as quickly as possible it is going to cost a heck of a lot of money.

 

[Llanigraham]

They are the four claims I have been making and you have been disputing them, I'd like to see facts showing otherwise. Network Rail faces some serious issues which could threaten its very existence, I don't feel that's an exaggeration.

Your comment about my London-centric attitude is merely based on my location and is unfair. I have lived in the East Midlands almost all my life and only moved to London in recent months (see my previous posts for evidence of this). Regardless of this, almost half of these Network Rail managed stations are in London.

Your 4 claims were not supported by any hard facts either, but based on poor Press reporting. Until recently I worked for NR so I see it from the inside.

And your final paragraph proves how London-centric you are!!

NR may not be perfect but they are far better than your biased opinion. More and more I suspect you work for one of these "developers".

 

[Jordeh]

So you have chosen 4 things you know they are doing bad at, but ignore the other things and projects delivered on time and well?

As usual, someone who doesn't really know what they are talking about ignoring the posts he has no answer to!

Would you rather I chose to talk about things I didn't know they were bad at? I thought I didn't know what I was talking about anyway?

If you had the decency to read my remarks in full (although apparently I am ignoring everything?), you will have seen I have praised Network Rail for their world leading safety record and the reason I am for this proposal is because I want Network Rail to continue to exist in its current form, as on the whole I like it.

I made those four points to illustrate Network Rail is far from perfect and that is why some change is necessary. Those are four very important points and I am yet to see them successfully disputed. If you think I am just here to lay into Network Rail you couldn't be more wrong.

I have replied to this thread on numerous occasions to numerous different points, you have been incredibly unfair to me with that remark to suggest I am ignoring things.

You keep blaming the Labour government of the 1997-2010 for the lack of investment in the infrastructure for the mess it is in, I have to the you to task with that claim. Because although you are right about the lack of investment between 1997-2010 what about the time from 1980-1997. For the last 3 decades there has been a total lack of investment in the railways by whichever political party has been in power, it has only been the last 6+ years that the railways have been trying to catch up with major required investment and that was when Network Rail were not being interfered with by the political machinery, never thought I would say that about a privatised railway.

I have to say that on the whole Network Rail have done a good job, with the obvious few exceptions. But when you are trying to catch up with 30+ years of neglect as quickly as possible it is going to cost a heck of a lot of money.

I am afraid pre-privatisation I don't know much about and have never prefessed to or made any points regarding British Rail.

I don't dispute the neglect has gone on longer. Completely agree there has been a lot of promising catch-up since 2010 and Network Rail do a good job on the whole.

 

[yorksrob]

Their purpose is to safely and efficiently run the railways. The money raised can be added to the pot for fixing the railway, something they're experts in doing.

And developing an income stream helps them to do that effectively. Far more so than a quick sell off which is more likely to go back to the Government.

Business knowledge. I don't believe for a second that a railway operator could operate retail units better than a business specialising in retail. It's simply not relevant or natural to them.

Does this business knowledge of which you speak amount to successfully running a multi-million pound retail portfolio ? If not, then I would suggest that you are significantly less qualified on the issue than Network Rail itself.[/QUOTE]