Network Rail too big says Richard Branson

[Bodiddly]

As you say it was not from been all extra nice and sweet all the time, but it also helps if you can have a good legal team behind you, as in the case of the West Coast Franchise mess where the legal team was wheeled out to put the Virgin case.

Cheap publicity for his brand of Virgin, but just how much of it does he actually own? and I often wonder what the partners who trade under the Virgin brand think about what he says.

Its the usual make a comment and retreat, if he,s so good then he should offer his services ( free of charge) to assist and help solve the problems.

I don't think anyone but SRB knows what his percentage stakes are in the various Virgin group companies. Like him or loathe him he is a very shrewd businessman who absolutely thrives on good PR. He has been playing the blame game for years to advance his cause. I remember the spat he had with British Airways over the 'dirty tricks' campaign and the way he tried to distance himself over the Virgin Galactic crash.
These are the attributes that make him the Marmite person he is and for the record, I can't stand Marmite.

 

[infobleep]

Could we have a toll-booth like system where the driver of a pendolino has to pay up before he can use the crossover to the slow lines [emoji38]

You could do that at a station in advance of the cross over. You could also then include time for passengers to stop and use a restaurant or other refreshments. After all back in the Victorian era their were compulsory stops for passengers to be able to purchase food at certain stations. Wasn't Swindon one such station? There was definitely one north of Euston.

 

[HH]

One can only make a trend by picking the right start and end years?

No, not one. YOU. You could only make your upward trend by picking the right years, because there isn't one. The trend under BR was downwards until around 1970 and then flat. It only goes up if you start in the 80s recession. 1995 is pretty much the same as 1987. There's no upwards trend.

They haven't been recovering since the early 80s, because they went down from 1989 to 1995. You're just inventing a trend that wasn't there.

 

[Clip]

I don't think anyone but SRB knows what his percentage stakes are in the various Virgin group companies. Like him or loathe him he is a very shrewd businessman who absolutely thrives on good PR. He has been playing the blame game for years to advance his cause. I remember the spat he had with British Airways over the 'dirty tricks' campaign and the way he tried to distance himself over the Virgin Galactic crash.
These are the attributes that make him the Marmite person he is and for the record, I can't stand Marmite.

Whilst wiki may not be fully up to date the list shows a rough idea about his ownership or licensing of the Virgin brand

Company

Ownership %

Sector


AirAsia X 16% Travel
V Festival 100% Entertainment
Virgin Active 20% Health
Virgin America 25% Travel
Virgin Atlantic 51% Travel
Virgin Australia Holdings 10% Travel
Virgin Balloon Flights 100% Travel
Virgin Books 10% Publishing
Virgin Care 100% Health
Virgin Cruises 100% Travel
Virgin Connect ? Media
Virgin Earth Challenge 100% Competition
Virgin Experience Days 100% Entertainment
Virgin Galactic 100% Travel
Virgin Green Fund 100% Energy
Virgin Health Bank 100% Health
Virgin HealthMiles 100% Business Services
Virgin Holidays 100% Travel
Virgin Hotels 100% Hospitality
Virgin Limited Edition 100% Hospitality
Limobike 100% Travel
Virgin Megastores 100% Retail
Virgin Mobile 100% Communications
Virgin Money 34%[7] Banking
Virgin Money Giving 100% On-line Services
Virgin Oceanic 100% Entertainment
Virgin Racing (Formula E team) 100% Entertainment
Virgin Radio 100% Entertainment
Virgin Rail Group 51% Travel
Virgin Trains East Coast 10% Travel
Virgin Unite 100% Charity
Virgin Vacations 100% Travel
Virgin Voucher 100% Retail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Richard_Branson's_business_ventures

(sorry for the poor formatting there.

 

[yorksrob]

No, not one. YOU. You could only make your upward trend by picking the rigpointrs, because there isn't one. The trend under BR was downwards until around 1970 and then flat. It only goes up if you start in the 80s recession. 1995 is pretty much the same as 1987. There's no upwards trend.

They haven't been recovering since the early 80s, because they went down from 1989 to 1995. You're just inventing a trend that wasn't there.

That's the difference be short term cyclical variation and a longer term trend. Had those passenger figures gone down to the same level as 1983 or below, you would have a point. But they didn't and you don't.

 

[jon0844]

As you say it was not from been all extra nice and sweet all the time, but it also helps if you can have a good legal team behind you, as in the case of the West Coast Franchise mess where the legal team was wheeled out to put the Virgin case.

Cheap publicity for his brand of Virgin, but just how much of it does he actually own? and I often wonder what the partners who trade under the Virgin brand think about what he says.

Its the usual make a comment and retreat, if he,s so good then he should offer his services ( free of charge) to assist and help solve the problems.

I assume his advice is part of how he promotes himself (and the brand) by effectively doing consultancy for others (not just companies that have licenced the Virgin name). He does a lot of speeches, seminars and TV appearances/interviews giving business advice doesn't he - and this is all part of keeping up the reputation as someone who knows how to get things done, and is therefore taken as a guru on whatever business/industry he cares to talk about or get involved in.

I guess Sir Alan Sugar is much the same, although now he doesn't really do that much does he*? He just plays on his reputation.

* Relatively speaking, as he still does a lot more than I do!

 

[HH]

That's the difference be short term cyclical variation and a longer term trend. Had those passenger figures gone down to the same level as 1983 or below, you would have a point. But they didn't and you don't.

Hardly. I realise I'm trying to beat sense into a stone here, but the nature of cyclical variation is that it's cyclical, meaning you can have troughs and peaks that are not indicative of a trend. 1983 was such a trough.

I have quite a lot of experience in trend analysis and drawing trend lines; that's why I can see that there's no real trend here. You can only show an upwards trend if you start in the mid 80s. Start any other time and the trend is either flat or downwards; i.e. it's a false trend

 

[yorksrob]

Hardly. I realise I'm trying to beat sense into a stone here, but the nature of cyclical variation is that it's cyclical, meaning you can have troughs and peaks that are not indicative of a trend. 1983 was such a trough.

I have quite a lot of experience in trend analysis and drawing trend lines; that's why I can see that there's no real trend here. You can only show an upwards trend if you start in the mid 80s. Start any other time and the trend is either flat or downwards; i.e. it's a false trend

No, that's not true.

If you begin your analysis at anytime after 1983, the trend will always be upwards because the peaks and troughs associated with the economic cycle are all progressively upwards.

Even if we were to accept your flawed assertion that the upward trend doesn't exist, the graph at the very least shows that long term rail use had stabilised and that no policy maker looking at the figures objectively could conclude that the railway was in long term decline.

I

 

[HH]

No, that's not true.

If you begin your analysis at anytime after 1983, the trend will always be upwards because the peaks and troughs associated with the economic cycle are all progressively upwards.

Even if we were to accept your flawed assertion that the upward trend doesn't exist, the graph at the very least shows that long term rail use had stabilised and that no policy maker looking at the figures objectively could conclude that the railway was in long term decline.

I have to laugh again. Start in 1989. Or 1988. Or even 1987. Or 1980, 1981, 1982 (or earlier). None of those produce an upward trend. IOW you have to start in the period 1983-1986, the recessionary dip, before you can make an "upward trend". That's why it's false.

The best measure is 1975-1995. Essentially rail stood still. Why then would people think it was in decline? Because they'd compare it with road over the same period. Duh!

 

[yorksrob]

I have to laugh again. Start in 1989. Or 1988. Or even 1987. Or 1980, 1981, 1982 (or earlier). None of those produce an upward trend. IOW you have to start in the period 1983-1986, the recessionary dip, before you can make an "upward trend". That's why it's false.

The best measure is 1975-1995. Essentially rail stood still. Why then would people think it was in decline? Because they'd compare it with road over the same period. Duh!

Duh indeed. That would be a stupid conclusion to reach, given that transport overall was increasing, rail transport certainly wasn't in decline over this period and other public transport such as bus usage was in decline. That you seem so desperate to defend policy which was clearly unjustifiable with reference to the evidence, is laughable.

 

[Carlisle]

After all back in the Victorian era their were compulsory stops for passengers to be able to purchase food at certain stations. Wasn't Swindon one such station? There was definitely one north of Euston.

Wolverton station

 

[HH]

That you seem so desperate to defend policy which was clearly unjustifiable with reference to the evidence, is laughable.

1. I'm not desperate. Who's the one that sees an upward trend that isn't there?

2. I'm not defending any policy. I'm just saying that TPTB thought rail was a declining industry. It may no longer have been in decline (merely stagnation), but that was the perception.

That's why it was underfunded; and that is partly why so much money has had to be spent since. That and the large increase in vehicle miles. And NR's problems with cost control OFC.

 

[yorksrob]

1. I'm not desperate. Who's the one that sees an upward trend that isn't there?

2. I'm not defending any policy. I'm just saying that TPTB thought rail was a declining industry. It may no longer have been in decline (merely stagnation), but that was the perception.

That's why it was underfunded; and that is partly why so much money has had to be spent since. That and the large increase in vehicle miles. And NR's problems with cost control OFC.

And I'm not saying that there wasn't a perception that people in high places felt that rail was a declining industry. Merely that the passenger numbers didn't in anyway justify that perception by the late 1980's early 90's.

Even ignoring the fact that the railway was gradually recovering from it's nadir in 1983, even you admit that railway travel was at worst static for the period 1975 - 1995. I'm pointing out that it was stupid and unjustifiable to pursue a policy of managed decline on that basis, particularly when the railway obviously did enjoy periods of passenger growth when out of recession - unless policy makers of the time were expecting the country to be in recession for longer than it would be in growth.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Of course - some of us were there and managing the growth - passenger and freight in the mid to late 1980's.

I seem to recall a good number of meetings where - apart from reducing costs - we were actually increasing services.

In the old saying "there are those who do - and those who comment"

 

[yorksrob]

Of course - some of us were there and managing the growth - passenger and freight in the mid to late 1980's.

I seem to recall a good number of meetings where - apart from reducing costs - we were actually increasing services.

In the old saying "there are those who do - and those who comment"

That's a fair point.

Although in my defence, I am old enough to have been a bit of that growth

 

[Bodiddly]

One other point about privatisation was the labour situation that arose after the private companies started to come about. Ken Loach's film The Navigators was a brilliantly true reflection of what happened post privatisation and is a must to watch. I began my railway career as a contract labourer with an agency. Prior to that, I was at the time on a wage of £99 a week with an engineering firm and had heard from my ex railway mate how I could earn serious money on the railways. He had been made redundant from the old Scotrail engineering track renewals division and was immediately snapped up by an agency. His wages trebled overnight. I left my job, got a PTS, which you could do then without any sponsorship or experience (just turn up and pay) and also went to work for this agency. I was on £10 an hour for a minimum of 50 hours a week Monday to Friday. All I was doing was shovelling ballast, filling beds, building ballast shoulders etc. My wages quadrupled overnight.
Cue the need for Lookouts, Picow's (now COSS) Engineering Supervisors, Picop's, handsignalmen etc etc, they were desperate. I was put through every course I could imagine in the space of a very short time. Before long I was taking possessions on a rate of £23 per hour. I was 24 at the time and clearing at least £600 a week in the late nineties which was a huge sum for a young guy.
Of course, sanity came back after a while and most agency staff had to go on the books with the new infrastructure companies or lose out.
The point is, if I was on that money, so were a damn sight more people. Personally, I think privatisation was initially a disaster only made better by the fact it could not continue in it's early form.