observer Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Does anyone understand the mysteries of the current Rail franchise arrangements? It appears, that "private" companies bid for contracts, that receive a Government (tax-payer) subsidy, but can still make a profit for shareholders? Now if "the private sector" is so good and efficient - why do they require subsidies from tax-payers that earn no return for said tax-payers, whilst stoking up profits for shareholders that don't seem to be taking any risks - just creaming off the top? And when times prove hard, they (the private companies) just renage on their contracts and hope for a Government bail out. As with the Banks, it seems that the "private sector" take all the profit in good times, then rely on the public (tax-payer) to take all the risks in bad times. Now that this Government has had to "nationalise" the East Coast Rail (temporarily), why not just nationalise the whole lot, and allow the subsidies to fund cheaper fares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 In part yes. The government subsidy is however dropping year on year hence the RPI +1% annual increases on fares every year. However this will mean a 1% reduction as the rate is set in July for the increase in the following January. Bluntly rail cannot survive solely on the income it brings in alone mainly due to under investment post beeching and that is now comign home to roost. Renaationalisation is not the answer as this will cost far to much and bring us back to the inefficent days of BR (people have very short memories on this) I think we should rationalise and go to say 5/6 superfranchises and paid to run with the giovernment taking th eincome and off settign the same against ther subsidary , 1 leasing company, Network rail run and mainatain the whole of the network and get a proper regulator on board with powers akin to the other "OFF" regulators. Warrington is a prime case of where it doesnt work. 2 stations and 5 different operators all allegedly competing against each other, yet a fixed price to anywhere. Chronic overcrwoding on peak services. Simply not working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 As a modern form of passenger transport railways are fundamentally flawed by their inflexibility, trains can only go from point A to point B at rigidly predetermined times - and only then when both A and B happen to be grubby noisy smelly railway stations nowhere near where anyone wants to actually get to. The system might make sense if the trains were split down into individual transport modules which could run at different speeds, overtake eachother, and actually get directly to the passengers preferred destination. But then they'd be cars, and the users would probably be expected to cross subsidise horse drawn stagecoaches or some other equally anachronistic form of transport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I blame Maggie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Railways can move a maximum number of people from A to B, and unlike cars, can be centrally controlled to maximise efficiency. The problem with BR was under-investment, the fact is. some services are exactly that - a service, and don't need to "make a profit". I'd sooner see my taxes going into modernising our rail system and subsidising fares, than the current idiotic system where my taxes are going towards the profits of rail shareholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I blame Maggie Thats right Kije, stick with what you're comfortable with. Means you don't have to face reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Railways can move a maximum number of people from A to B Problem is Obs people don't start out from A, they start out from home. And they certainly don't finish their journey at B - unless they're station employees or itinerant train spotters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Hence the "dream" of a seemless, integrated Transport Policy, using multi-modes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Lets have a reality check Asperity, Which political party privatized the railways after under investing in them for years If you need a clue I will help you out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Reality check? The reality is that the railways were privatised under a Tory administration (a huge mistake in my opinion, but spilt milk now), but the government for the last 12+ years has not been a Tory government however much Obs may claim it. And what have they done to improve things? In any event saying "I blame Maggie" says more about your ignorance of current affairs than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I blame Maggie" says more about your ignorance of current affairs than anything else It says nothing asperity its you trying to read between the lines and failing miserably At least we have some common ground it was a mistake to privatize the railways. have you come to this conclusion with the benefit of hindsight or were you against from the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 From the beginning actually, but that doesn't make me any sort of expert. I'm sure the railways could have been privatised but not in the way they were. But don't ask me for details because, as I say, I'm not any sort of expert. However I'm sure there will be someone on this forum who is an expert who will be able to shed light on how it should have been done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I believe it was a mistake to privatise the railways. But, lets be honest, do we think the government( any government ) could do better? It would be in a right state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I think your partially right Rifles, I think NO government was prepared to spend the money the railways needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 A fully integrated transport system, would cost an arm and a leg - and NO British Government has ever been prepared to allocate the necessary investment to create a state of the art transport system in this country - for a start: they should be laying new track for a fast inter-city service like the French. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I completely agree Obs, If it is left to the private sector it will never happen If we had a good rail system it might help take traffic off the roads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Certain provisions are beyond the interests of the private sector: EG: even "tories" on here were accepting that a national telecommunications infrastructure had to be provided by the state. Likewise, any system of "national" provision has to be provided by the state, thus ensuring that profitable and non-profitable areas are covered. The problem is of course, paying for it, by taxation, on a sustainable basis - sadly most folk want public services but arn't prepared to accept a high tax system to pay for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Sorry Obs I agree again, everyone wants the best rail system in the World as long as they are not paying for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 The French don't seem to have a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 True It does seem to be an Anglo Saxon problem wanting something for nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 The cult of self first, and if there's any left over, first again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 If we had a good rail system it might help take traffic off the roads If we tarmac'd over the East and West Coast main lines and created high speed roads in their place, the passenger carrying capacity of those routes would increase ENORMOUSLY. A train may well be able to carry a couple of hundred people, but they have to be spaced out along the tracks because they can't overtake eachother or stop in a hurry. So any particular stretch of a mainline route can probably only carry a maximum of a thousand or two people per hour. Stand on a bridge over any busy dual carriageway and you'll see well over that number off individual vehicles per hour. Trains are pretty well obsolete as passenger transporters. The railways CANNOT run without massive subsidy from the motorist, there isn't a single country in Europe which has managed to make them financially viable - never mind profitable. Time to let them die a natural death and free up the money, as well as most of the best and straightest cross country routes, for more modern forms of transport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Completly disagree Inky We need more rail and more investment in it A high speed train runs alot faster than a car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 If we tarmac'd over the East and West Coast main lines and created high speed roads in their place, the passenger carrying capacity of those routes would increase ENORMOUSLY. And if we turned the motorways into railtracks - 3 or even 4 in both directions there would be no difference in the passenger carrying capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Quite amusing to see someone advocating road over rail; when one only needs to drive to the nearest main road these days, to get stuck in a line of traffic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.