Stagecoach calls for vertical integration

[Helvellyn]

The record of the Conservatives as far as BR stands by itself far and above anything Labour have ever done.

Problem is that whilst we had 18 years of Conservative government from 1979-97, it can be said that the 1992-97 government was very different from the 1979-83, 1983-87 and 1987-92 governments. It was John Major's adminstration that pushed through privatisation of British Rail and British Coal, with both broken up. That administration also first mooted the Privatisation of the Post Office/Royal Mail.

Margaret Thatcher's administrations did a lot to get BR to look hard at it's costs and to make InterCity survive without subsidy. There were big improvements in the 1980s compared to what went before. Sprinterisation upset many, but in terms of an economic reality they brought cheaper operating costs and a generally improved train for the average passenger. Yet there was no suggestion as privatisation as policy under her Premiership.

It's already clear that under the Labour administrations from 1997 the Treasury (under Gordon Brown) had a huge influence across other Government departments, and that Gordon Brown in many areas tried to scupper the plans of Tony Blair. It'll be many years before a lot of this comes out, but to get to a situation where several franchises needed a commitment to pay over a £1 billion over the franchise life in premium payments to be won by an owning group says something about what view the Treasury has of the rail industry. Given that at the same time it became Government policy to reduce public subsidy from 50% to 25% of rail's costs says a lot too.

After 13 years of Labour we have a "privately" operated railway but with the DfT exercising much more control than it ever did under BR. Yet in the eyes of the general public the Government doesn't have a role in the railways, so political collateral damage is limited.

 

[tbtc]

Labour treat the Railways as a convenient cash cow

I don't have the time or energy to go through and argue each point; this isn't the kind of argument where either side tends to change its views after all, so debate tends to be a waste of time.

However, I had to quote this nugget - we've never had a government that has thrown as much money at the railways as now (much of it wasted and a lot of it that could be better spent, true) - yes they've tried to get TOCs to pay a premium (which a number of TOCs have defaulted on/ moved the goalposts), but that's a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of our money the government has spent over the last decade.

Most of it could have been better spent, sure, but the railways have been anything but a "cash cow" for HM Government in recent years

 

[Mojo]

However, I had to quote this nugget - we've never had a government that has thrown as much money at the railways as now (much of it wasted and a lot of it that could be better spent, true) - yes they've tried to get TOCs to pay a premium (which a number of TOCs have defaulted on/ moved the goalposts), but that's a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of our money the government has spent over the last decade.

Most of it could have been better spent, sure, but the railways have been anything but a "cash cow" for HM Government in recent years

I think now if you look at many of the light & heavy rail works carried out or started in the 70s, 80s and early 90s (particularly in the North) it's clear what the money bought; electrification, new units for local services, second generation tramways; and that it was money well spent. We have seen the improvements of recent years, brighter stations, more modern trains but the cost has been far higher.

 

[yorksrob]

The record of the Conservatives as far as BR stands by itself far and above anything Labour have ever done. It is a shame that you have taken the decision to listen to tired old Political lies and disingenuity spouted off by the Left and sadly the Trade Unions who actually benefitted from Railway investment under the Conservatives. It saddens me that there are still people who are not prepared to reach a decision based upon facts rather than following blindly a totally discredited and disingenuous mantra preached by those with a distorted Political agenda.:

You make it sound as if I approve of the way the Labour Government runs the railway. I don’t. I have no political agenda to try and defend their record.

Remember most of the Beeching Closure were carried out under Labour administrations, and the Labour Governments of the 70s were no friend of the Railways at all. Various Ministers lied and deceived Parliament about their plans for closure, and it was the Conservative Government under Mrs Thatcher that actually saw the first new station openings, electrification extended, new traction and rolling stock ordered, and the various financial inducements to transfer freight onto rail.

I don’t dispute that. As I believe I’ve made perfectly clear, I’m not here to defend Labour. It still has to be said, that it was the Conservative Government (1951 - 1964) which originally appointed Beeching and whilst we can never be sure about such things, barring some sort of road to Damascus moment, I’m fairly certain that had they not have been removed, Marples and Beeching would have happily carried on closing routes all through the 60’s. As far as I’m aware, Barbra Castle introduced the concept of a “social railway” taxpayer funded to serve a social need, so I’ll tentatively give Labour some credit for that but who knows - maybe the Tories would have come round to the same thing had they got the chance.

Incidentally one of the early acts of Labour after 1997 was to withdraw the Section 8 grant which was given to encourage the creation of new freight facilities, and they have been responsible for introduction of excise duty of diesel for trains. They have allowed the true cost of motoring to fall, whilst at the same time allowing rail travel costs to increase, and they have continually favoured road freight over rail.

The costs of new rail projects are assessed using out of date and much lower petrol costs so as to demonstrate that rail does not provide an adequate return when in fact, properly costed the figures are dramtically altered.

Labour treat the Railways as a convenient cash cow and had they been interested in changing the Privatisation that they objected whole-heartedly to in Opposition (even as late as stating they would renationalise in the week of the 1997 General Election), they could have taken a number of opportunities. Instead they continued to sell off parts of BR that even the Conservatives felt should be left in state hands

There are whole new metro systems that have been stopped, and expansions schemes for others stopped under Labour, yet amazingly people seem to be unable to comprehend this, which I find quite depressing. It is clear that whatever harm Labour do, there will always be those with the rose tinted spectacles who will never see this by choice or even accept the facts when presented, choosing instead to continually repeat the old "Conservatives close our Railways" matra that seems to be implanted in their brains.

Agreed. Labour have been a waste of space for the railway, particularly under Blair. I have consistently argued on this very website against the botched privatisation which has been perpetuated by Labour just as I have argued against the failure of Labour to open new lines, so I’ll presume that you’re not including me with the rose tinted specs brigade.

Even when I have previously laid out for comparison the records of Labour cuts against Conservative investmnent, those on the Left always contest them even though they are factual and easily checkable. :roll:

The fact is they’re both not very good. You know as well as I do that during the 1980’s BR was adept at delivering a lot at a relatively little cost. This was due to the management and skill of the professional railway itself rather than a government which by the standards of our European partners (whom we should look to at least partly for inspiration) grossly under-invested in the railway. So, through the 80’s, the closures continued (Woodhead, March-Spalding, Tunbridge Wells West - to it‘s credit I can‘t think of any major closures under New Labour other than the Oldham Loop for conversion to the tram), Mrs T flirted with the idea of Serpell and things carried on - In some cases they even got better, afterall, the neglect did at least allow the railway to run itself without too much interference.

If things had stayed there, then yes - I’d happily agree that they weren’t that bad - although they should have at least gotten a little closer to the sort of funding provided by the Europeans - it would have been like Macmillan’s famous Rolls Royce of state, whirring into action. As it was, we still got the Winsor Link, Snow Hill reopened, numerous electrification schemes and total route modernisations etc - you know the list, and mainly because whilst by no means perfect, BR was better run than it had been at any time in it’s history and could deliver these projects at a reasonable cost.

Then they decided to split up and flog the railway off in a completely untried and uncosted privatisation devised on the hoof which has allowed costs to spiral, killed off our own train manufacturing, hindered r&d, and all for ideology.

Old Timer, I agree wholeheartedly with your determination to expose Labour’s many shortcomings. I just cannot comprehend why you defend a Government which at the very least didn’t support the railway very much, and as far as I can see was downright malevolent towards it.

 

[tbtc]

I think now if you look at many of the light & heavy rail works carried out or started in the 70s, 80s and early 90s (particularly in the North) it's clear what the money bought; electrification, new units for local services, second generation tramways; and that it was money well spent. We have seen the improvements of recent years, brighter stations, more modern trains but the cost has been far higher.

I agree with you there.

We spent a lot of money in the past, but bought a lot with it. Now we're spending even more money and have little to show for it apart from some very happy Accountants.

Certainly not what I'd call a "cash cow"

 

[jon0844]

The Government must actually love the current rail system, as most people don't understand the complexities and simply blame their TOC.

Take this morning; FCC was affected by overrunning engineering work at Hitchin. Twitter and blog sites are full of 'FCC can't run a train service' messages. As it happened, they did - but with delays. How many people will care that it must have been down to Network Rail? How many people realise that the DfT tells each TOC what rolling stock it will use - so there's no point blaming the TOC for running old trains.

In many respects, the railway is state run - but the people on the ground are employed by a third party that the Government is really only sub-contracting to - and must take all of the flak whether deserved or not. The Government can of course get the headlines when it occasionally decides to build new trains - or moves stock around and claims it as new (as in new for that service).

Councils nationwide are doing the same with outsourcing all of its services, except when you have a private company that isn't collecting your rubbish - you blame the council!

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with you there.

We spent a lot of money in the past, but bought a lot with it. Now we're spending even more money and have little to show for it apart from some very happy Accountants.

Certainly not what I'd call a "cash cow"

Absolutely. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[jopsuk]

Take this morning; FCC was affected by overrunning engineering work at Hitchin. Twitter and blog sites are full of 'FCC can't run a train service' messages. As it happened, they did - but with delays.

The Cambridge (and Kings Lynn) branch was completely out. I'd dread to think what the the Liverpool Street trains will have been like this morning. But that's beside the point- you're right that most will be blaming the TOC, not NR, but then it would be a bloody brave member of frontline staff to stand in front of the entire trainload of the 7:45 Cambridge-Kings Cross and tell them it was someone else's fault!

 

[Old Timer]

Certainly not what I'd call a "cash cow"

If that was the case why give each Franchise to the highest bidder ?

Some of the lower bids were technically better and were more attuned to realistic returns. They were turned down in favour of either higher bids, or those made by "friends" of Labour - make your own judgement on what that means and how you interpret it

Take ECML. When GNER wanted to adjust the valuie of the bid to reflect the chnaging financial climate and the effect of the introduction of Open Access operators (something Labour absolutely denied would happen when GNER were pricing their bid - hence the higher price) Labour was not prepared to negotiate.

Instead it went out to re-bid and then accepted a figure much higher than GNERs ORIGINAL bid.

Everyone with a brain knew that if GNER could not reach its own expected revenue stream then there was no chance that NatEx would.

So what did Labour do ? They accepted an inflated bid that even one of the best run TOCs (who had also been misled in a number of ways) tendered. Of course the NatEx bid was always expected to fail.

Now if THAT is not a perfect example of treating the Railway as a cash cow then I don't know that there is a better example.

If the Railways was NOT a cash cow then why did Labour not re-negotiate the GNER franchise ? This would have been a much better option, not only to NatEx who destroyed many years of what GNER had created, and demoralized the workforce in addition, but also to the situation we are now in where Civil Servants and University lecturers and academics run around trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear it has become

Political chicanery and petty revenge is the answer.

 

[tbtc]

If that was the case why give each Franchise to the highest bidder ?

Some of the lower bids were technically better and were more attuned to realistic returns. They were turned down in favour of either higher bids, or those made by "friends" of Labour - make your own judgement on what that means and how you interpret it

Take ECML. When GNER wanted to adjust the valuie of the bid to reflect the chnaging financial climate and the effect of the introduction of Open Access operators (something Labour absolutely denied would happen when GNER were pricing their bid - hence the higher price) Labour was not prepared to negotiate.

Instead it went out to re-bid and then accepted a figure much higher than GNERs ORIGINAL bid.

Everyone with a brain knew that if GNER could not reach its own expected revenue stream then there was no chance that NatEx would.

So what did Labour do ? They accepted an inflated bid that even one of the best run TOCs (who had also been misled in a number of ways) tendered. Of course the NatEx bid was always expected to fail.

Now if THAT is not a perfect example of treating the Railway as a cash cow then I don't know that there is a better example.

If the Railways was NOT a cash cow then why did Labour not re-negotiate the GNER franchise ? This would have been a much better option, not only to NatEx who destroyed many years of what GNER had created, and demoralized the workforce in addition, but also to the situation we are now in where Civil Servants and University lecturers and academics run around trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear it has become

Political chicanery and petty revenge is the answer.

If you want to play conspiracy theories about "friends of Labour" and all that, then fair enough.

If you want to tell the sob story of GNER (a franchise that promised great things, but didn't deliver) then fair enough.

However, if you can show me how a government that is spending (and wasting) more money than previous governments on the railways is using it as a "cash cow" then I'm listening...

PS. Do you think that TOCs should be allowed to renegotiate franchises due to the "changing financial climate"?

 

[Old Timer]

If you want to play conspiracy theories about "friends of Labour" and all that, then fair enough.

If you want to tell the sob story of GNER (a franchise that promised great things, but didn't deliver) then fair enough.

However, if you can show me how a government that is spending (and wasting) more money than previous governments on the railways is using it as a "cash cow" then I'm listening...

PS. Do you think that TOCs should be allowed to renegotiate franchises due to the "changing financial climate"?

Would this be the Government whose input to the Infrastructure is to allow Network Rail to borrow money in its own right ?

This money does not come from Treasury.

Is Government funding the smartcard trials on SWT ?

Is this Government giving the ROSCOs money to build new trains ?

As for conspiracy theories, have you bothered to look at who has benefitted ? No, thought not.

You have been listening to the hype again.

 

[tbtc]

Would this be the Government whose input to the Infrastructure is to allow Network Rail to borrow money in its own right ?

This money does not come from Treasury.

Is Government funding the smartcard trials on SWT ?

Is this Government giving the ROSCOs money to build new trains ?

As for conspiracy theories, have you bothered to look at who has benefitted ? No, thought not.

You have been listening to the hype again.

I thought not

 

[yorksrob]

If that was the case why give each Franchise to the highest bidder ?.

To try and recreate the cross-subsidy between the profitable and non- profitable parts of the railway.

 

[Old Timer]

To try and recreate the cross-subsidy between the profitable and non- profitable parts of the railway.

Oh do come on ! You surely don't believe that ?

 

[yorksrob]

Oh do come on ! You surely don't believe that ?

So for those TOC's receiving a subsidy, where's that coming from ?

 

[Old Timer]

I thought not

None so deaf as they who will not hear, eh ?

Tell you what head of somewhere quiet and do a little research

By the way please do tell the rest of us the various promises that GNER made which were broken ? And assuming that to be the case, why did Labour let them keep the Franchise, surely it could not have been the money ?

We would all love to know.

And whilst you are at it, could you list Virgin's broken promises as well ? Just for balance


Just found this which might help.
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2009/12/adonis_commissions_private_con.html

So for those TOC's receiving a subsidy, where's that coming from ?

A cross-subsidy does not operate under this Franchise system.

Each Franchise is awarded on the basis of the lowest costs to Government, or the highest return.

 

[yorksrob]

A cross-subsidy does not operate under this Franchise system.

Each Franchise is awarded on the basis of the lowest costs to Government, or the highest return.

Right, so you've got some franchises awarded on the basis of the highest return - which presumably will pay that return into the Government, and other franchises awarded on the basis of the lowest cost to the Government which will presumably receive their subsidy from the Government. Doesn't that represent a net flow of funds from the premium franchises to the subsidised ones?

 

[Old Timer]

Right, so you've got some franchises awarded on the basis of the highest return - which presumably will pay that return into the Government, and other franchises awarded on the basis of the lowest cost to the Government which will presumably receive their subsidy from the Government. Doesn't that represent a net flow of funds from the premium franchises to the subsidised ones?

No all it demonstrates is what I have shown. True Cross-Subsidisation would be the merging of all revenue, and its allocation out BEFORE the Treasury got its dirty little mits on it.

 

[yorksrob]

No all it demonstrates is what I have shown. True Cross-Subsidisation would be the merging of all revenue, and its allocation out BEFORE the Treasury got its dirty little mits on it.

I doubt the majority of taxpayers would appreciate the distinction.

However, this is precisely why I disagree with the privatised/franchised system alltogether. Revenue and allocation should be determined by the railway rather than the Treasury. This requires vertical and lateral integration.

 

[Old Timer]

I doubt the majority of taxpayers would appreciate the distinction.

However, this is precisely why I disagree with the privatised/franchised system alltogether. Revenue and allocation should be determined by the railway rather than the Treasury. This requires vertical and lateral integration.

In that I would agree to a large extent.

There are innumerable benefits (I believe) in the cessation of the current system and the transfer of control of infrastructure and signalling to the modern equivalent of the "Big Four", however that number may be achieved.

I believe that this could be achieved very easily and would work in the same way that South America for example has decided to franchise out its railway systems.

Exactly the same problems are becoming evident in Europe in respect of the EU model of separating infrastructure from train operations, and in many cases the rail services have deteriorated. The airline type of model is inappropriate for railways however how does one tell the various civil servants and unelected members who actually run the EU Commission who cannot see beyond their lack of commercial ability ?

Taking the Netherlands for example, a previously very well run and maintained system has now become less efficient, and there are regular service bulletins concerning points and signal failures which now seem to result in a complete stoppage of trains, or a reduced service, whereas previously this would not ordinarily have been the case.

At least however ProRail are much easier to work with

 

[moggie]

Come off it OT are you really suggesting the Tories will happily maintain the level of Rail Investment seen over the last few years?

[at this point OT you may pass if you wish - I don't agree with you]

By any measure the improvements to infrastructure are there to be seen and measurable (signalling / pway S&C / expanded lines (re-instatements) / communication infrastructure. Yes we can have an argument as to what budget it comes from and who pays - i'm not interested. Being as the *ankers who have plunged the West into finanical turmoil while the politicians weren't looking, i'll pass on stressing where the money comes from. All I know that it has kept me and many more like me in a more than steady stream of work for a number of years - public and private. It may not be true for all but nor was it under the Tories was it? We now have better sevices in many places than in the 80's in many parts of the country - more frequent and better used (something to do with an economic boom at the time??) - judged by the overcrowding on those sevices. But don't tell me that the Tories will solve all this. Was it not them or their cronies that dictated a 2 for 3 replacement policy for the clapped out DMU's leading to much of the overcrowding we have now. We can all follow the politicians at selective snippets from the political past to 'create history'. But I recall the constant fight to get a level playing field on Rail investment cost benefit analysis against road schemes during the Thatcher years - never happened did it? But what really grates is the way her government set about dismantling what was one a fantastic, well structured and by and large loyal workforce that was BR. Fortunately Railwayman were not ENEMY No.1 at the time (that I recall was the Miners - in her own words. She probably had us in at No.3 after the europeans). If she had not been knifed in the back by her own, how long would it have been before they had set about us? Well her chosen one soon let us know didn't he. I'll leave you to judge if that was a good thing for the public. I just wish BR had been given a creative funding mechanism that delivered the investment into the industry that we have enjoyed since Railtrack was put out of it's misery rather then let it whither and die from the nerve endings that the Tories gave us (in common with all other state run industries). Why didn't the Tories come up with that?

Don't start me off on the energy sector!

PS if the Tories really had Rail at the centre of their Transport policies why did St Teresa V so wonderfully flunk her starring role last week?

PPS you must have some pretty good informed sources if you have the hot line to the the full range of financial details contained in all the tenders for East Coast.

 

[Lampshade]

There are innumerable benefits (I believe) in the cessation of the current system and the transfer of control of infrastructure and signalling to the modern equivalent of the "Big Four", however that number may be achieved.

We're very nearly there now; First, Stagecoach, Arriva and GoVia

 

[Pumbaa]

If that was the case why give each Franchise to the highest bidder ?

Some of the lower bids were technically better and were more attuned to realistic returns. They were turned down in favour of either higher bids, or those made by "friends" of Labour - make your own judgement on what that means and how you interpret it

Take ECML. When GNER wanted to adjust the valuie of the bid to reflect the chnaging financial climate and the effect of the introduction of Open Access operators (something Labour absolutely denied would happen when GNER were pricing their bid - hence the higher price) Labour was not prepared to negotiate.

Instead it went out to re-bid and then accepted a figure much higher than GNERs ORIGINAL bid.

Just to throw the cat in among this pigeon, three franchises operating today had bids offered over the odds, and they were turned down. That includes the EC franchise. LM, AXC and NXEC were all lower bidders than the higher ones.

 

[Old Timer]

Moggie
A quick check on history will prove that Privatisation was introduced under the Major Government and continued at breakneck speed by Labour.

Both Mrs Thatcher and Norman Ridley, as Transport Minister and later as a man with great influence over policy, were clear in their view that to quote "Privatisation of the Railways would be a Privatisation too far".

You talk of the WECML and that it kept you in money....Hmmmmm

For the amount of money spent it kept an awful lot of people in work, much of which was not needed, and much of it of poor quality. That is even before we start to look at the massive inefficiencies brought about by Network Rail's incompetent management, and the inept and thuggish management syle brought in by Bechtel.

For all the money spent on signalling on the WCML it still cannot operate in any effective or efficient way, and key junction remodelling has been cancelled due to incompetence and a lack of money.

I would be very loathe to have admitted much involvement with WCML had I been in your shoes old chap, it tends to sour the old CV you know as time goes on

It is interesting how you feel able to second-guess what the Conservatives will do and rather disappointing at the approach you appear to be adopting which seems to me to be akin to suggesting they are going to slaughter the railway network.

If you have not already felt the bow waves of mass unemployment that is developing in the infrastrcture area of the Industry then you are lucky, however the teams that delivered Rugby have, for the most part, gone to Australia (and I mean everyone from senior managers down), are now out of the Industry on Job Seekers Allowance, or in the case of at least one senior supervisor acting as CoSSes. Presumably THAT is the fault of Mrs Thatcher as well ?

The bottom line with Railways as am disappointd you cannot see, is that as long as they have to fight for investment against the health service and social services, they will always come in at No. 2.

Also disappointingly you fail to consider that the UK, as now, was being rescued from the destruction of its economy by the previous Labour Government.

I would counsel you to read the biographies and autobiographies of those then in power as well as in Opposition as it would help remove the bias in your argument and layout a much more informed field.

Just to throw the cat in among this pigeon, three franchises operating today had bids offered over the odds, and they were turned down. That includes the EC franchise. LM, AXC and NXEC were all lower bidders than the higher ones.

Even the Treasury had an inkling of what was going to happen to the economy, and money in some cases was not the oveririding factor...look deeper and you will see.

 

[moggie]

OT = as you know I don't disagree with much that you write - but yes I'm biased against the Tories (just as you are against labour it seems) - it's cultural you see. I started in the mid 70's on BR and put up with the grinding depression of seeing scheme come and go without a spade ever breaking the ground - or worse still seeing the job pulled part way through. I recall learning the delights of interlocking by unpicking redundant circuitry from that left working. Compared to more recently (last 10 years) quite depressing. Yes there were some good times (Boat Train Route 1 for instance) but didn't the French make Thatchers mind up on that for her. She wanted a road tunnel didn't she?

I don't think I mentioned WCML in my post - but you're right it's where most of the work has come from and actually I'm quite proud of what my company acheived on this - it stands up to scrutiny. So my CV as far as I'm concerned is just fine - thanks for your concern though. Despite (this is where we we pretty much agree) some questionable NR representation - though not all bad, and Bechtel .......who appointed them? Fortunately my slate is clean with regards to some of the pie in the sky engineering choices that were made leading up to and the abandoning of the abortive (or should that be abortion of) TCS. I can't deny that money was 'wasted' in the unhealthy rush to get the work done. However, that I recall was to avoid the crippling penalty payments that would have been due to VWC if NR had failed to honour the December 2008 'completion'.

The point is - in the late 80's, early 90's BR grew it's signalling division with a view to getting the West Coast resignalled. Perhaps other depts as well. Only for many of these people to be 'let go' due to the constant re-appraisal of the work and failure to let contracts or place the work as it was in those days. This was prevarication on a grand scale (Grand old duke of York comes to mind) and is in marked contrast to the situation existing at the end of not one but two major enginnering projects (West Coast and HS1). The really sad thing is they then eventually specced the same technology as they could have used some 5 years or so earlier - lol - axle counters excepted which was a Railtrack bright idea.

Let's face it, it was always going to be difficult to keep every body on West Coast design and construction employed after 'completion' wasn't it? So hardly suprising that many of the guys formerly employed are looking for their next contract to come along - Crossrail maybe, or Great Western.

You see this is the challenge isn't it? Whoever gets in will have to prioritise spending. If rail is in at No'3 behind NHS and Education then I'd say that's another measure of success - rail formery only got a mention under the tories when there was a strike brewing - and was always behind (new) road spending. But are you confident that the major schemes and renewals programme will go ahead / continue under the Tories? I'm not. And not just because of the dire financial situation but because in my estimation the WILL to make do it is just not there. I evidence this by looking at the statement last week. The Tories are so more concerned (if you believe their protestations) with the interests of a few well healed folk in leafy Bucks and the proximity of HS2 to their back gardens that they can't bring themselves to agree to cross party support in principle to the new route which is arguably of national importance. Why! Well I'd suggest it's because actually they don't want to build it a it all - although no doubt they'll prevaricate for four years by commissioning more reports etc etc and dust off the plans in 2014 in time for the next election if they get in this time:roll:.

Now I'm no great fan of the present government for many reasons (not for this place) but I like to give credit where I think it is due, and when it comes to putting food in ones mouth I like to think that the Rail industry has done pretty well in the past 10 years when compared with the previous 20. Of course it is your perogative to think otherwise. No doubt those reading will draw ther own opinions but a degree of balance was called for.

Good night all.

 

[Old Timer]

Moggie, I too was about in the 70s and I remember the various cuts imposed by the then Labour Governments.

I remember the almost constant bans on recruitement, the way that our wages were held down whilst every other industry seemed to be able to surge ahead.

I also remember the lies and disingenuous statememnts that were made in the House of Commons by various Labour Transport Ministers stating black was white, only to then find out later is was a very nasty colour of black.

Do you not remember the closures that were planned yet denied in Parliament ?

The Treasury rules that treated the installation of CWR as "investment" rather than as maintenance ?

I remember how we staggered from one financial crisis to another and how each year our budget allocation was reduced either by actual cuts or by a policy of no year on year inflationary increases, when inflation was bouncing along at double figures. I also remember how Labour dressed this up as "no reduction in subsidy" when everyone with a brain knew that it was in effect a cut by at least the rate of inflation.

The first "real" investment money started with the Thatcher Government and it was the Thatcher goverment which saw new trains, the first station openings since the Big Four, resignalling and electrification. You yourself benefitted from this in your job, yet appear loathe to give the credit.

Bearing in mind the fact that the County was actually economically bankrupt in 1979, and fiscal policy was under the control of the IMF who in fact were responsible for shaping much of Mrs Thatcher's first few budgets and the levels of spending cuts, I think it is to her credit that she over-ruled the Treasury to give what money was given to the Railways.

Unfortunately the Left have done a very good job of re-writing history and tainting the mind of at least one generation. It is however both gratifying and interesting that the generation now coming out of school and university are in many cases very much better informed on history and the truth rather than being hostage to the twisted beliefs and factual distortions of some 1980s/90s biased teacher or Leftist loudmouth
.
One would be a fool to argue that everything which happened between 1979 and 1997 was positive but my argument is that on balance when the records are examined investment in the Railways was actually much greater under the Conservatives than under the Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010.

Labour have done much to damage our Railways, including for example withdrawing the Section 8 grants and allowing increases in lorry weights. They have also been complicit in favouring roads over rail by distorting the rate of return and the petrol prices against which railway investment is judged so as to "prove" the case for road over rail.

How anyone can defend these last Labour Governments and argue they have been pro-rail when the facts prove otherwise is beyond me

 

[tbtc]

Even the Treasury had an inkling of what was going to happen to the economy, and money in some cases was not the oveririding factor...look deeper and you will see.

I love the way you don't allow the facts to get in the way of your conspiracy theories

 

[thefab444]

Moggie, I too was about in the 70s

The 1870s?

 

[Old Timer]

I love the way you don't allow the facts to get in the way of your conspiracy theories

Not at all. So much of what many people who were derided for having so called "conspiracy theories" said is now starting to unravel.

Not been following the Iraq Inquiry ?

Looked at who benefitted from the massive Privatisation under Labour ?

Looked at how many senior Civil Servants and ex Ministers have suddenly ended up working for Companies the approved to take over services ?

Looked at the interests of certain Minsiters in Companies which have benefitted from their decisions subsequently ?

If you are one of those who does not accept we are in a recession or that our economy is anything but in dire straits then fine, there are none so deaf as will not hear and none so blind as they will not see.

In any case I don't sell Conspiracy Theories, a little judicious checking of how things panned out over time will perhaps surprise you, but as long as you are happy not see, then that is fine as far as I am concerned.

 

[gordonthemoron]

labour, conservatives? they're all the same, only looking after number 1