If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Funny though how today's railway companies receive more subsidy than BR did - in order to line private pockets.
Or perhaps they have travelled abroad and realised that just about every other country in the industrialised world has a rail network that pisses all over Britains, and at a fraction of the cost to passengers as well.
The railways were at their peak in this country in the 1920s and 1930s- you could argue that the worst thing was nationalising them.
The Labour underfunding of the 1960s and the 1970s destroyed the railway network in this country. That was the time to be investing in the top trains- as in France, Japan and Germany- and instead lines were closed.
It isn't about privatisation or nationalisation, its about having the right people running the network and having the right finance in place. That hasn't been the case in this country since the 1920s. Things are improving, but not quickly enough IMHO, and much of the blame for that is Governmental interference.
Many of the problems the privatised network face stem directly from Governmental interference. FGW are suffering from overcrowding because the DfT took trains off them.
The problem is that we have neither private nor public trains. Either would be preferable, but we basically have a system where private companies are paid to run trains for the Government without giving them long enough contracts to take commercial risks. If the Government took full control things may be slightly cheaper but no better.
It depends how you look at it, though.
European railways are cheaper for passengers, and are more reliable, and there's no overcrowding on intercity trains. But at the same time most TGV routes operate hourly at most- to compare GNER run a train every 15-20 mins between Yorkshire and London- and TGV has mandatory reservations- if you don't have a seat booked you don't get on. If you run fewer trains less often, and don't let more people get on than there are seats, then you will have a more reliable network. Is it better, though?
Interestingly, though, TGV is suffering from overcrowding as more people want to travel than there are seats, because the French won't build new trains- they've had to borrow ours.
Safety records are about the same throughout Europe.
It's never quite so cut and dried when you look closely.
Private companies are obliged to return the maximum amount of profits possible to its shareholders.
For that reason alone private companies are incompatible with running a public service where investment might have to be made without a profit being returned. Such as comfort, regularity, reliability or safety issues to name but a few.
Does that apply to airlines as well?
A passenger flying from Britain to any of thousands of main and secondary destinations has a choice of several airlines. A long suffering rail passenger is in the immense majority of cases stuck with the rail operator that runs his route. He has to put up with whichever fare hikes and shit service the train operator comes up with, for he has no alternative.
Rail operating companies in this country are effecitively running monopolies. A licence to print money, with a safety net in the form of subsidies from the government to boot. Nice deal all around!
That is a fair point, but you can see why I raised it, its not them being private that is the issue per say, its the management of them which is the problem.
Well, firstly, no they're not, and secondly, no they're not.
And thirdly, even if they were, that is not incompatible with safety or speed or comfort. If it were every single business in the whole world would do the bare minimum and nothing more, which isn't exactly accurate, is it?
The Government that you clearly favour has had fifty years to invest and didn't invest anything. It let every idea BR had wither and die (go and look up Beeching and APT if you don't believe me).
To blame the private companies who've been going seven years for half a century of prolonged underinvestment seems a trifle bizarre, and then to claim that the Government responsible for the underinvestment will be saviour is even more ludicrous.
Personally I think the best thing would be to give these companies a minimum framework and 20-year contracts, and let them get on with it. The Government have had long enough and failed every time.
But every other business in the world is governed by the rules of competition. Railways aren't.
Oh I do believe you. And just to clarify, I don't favour this or other British governments running the railways. I favour the concept of a State-owned railways with proper investment and support. Just like every other state-owned railways throughout the industrialised world is run.
The rail companies have made the situation worse, not better. Privatisation was never the answer, can never be the answer to lack of investment. How could be so? These are people who have even less interest in investing in the railways than the Labour and Conservative governments of the past.
I think you could give them 100 years and see that they'd be still raising fares yearly on the promises of 'improvements' and yet trains would be shorter and with fewer seats than ever.
Why can't that happen here?
The M25 project starting next year won't be finished by 2013 when the Olympic games will be finished, so they are actually gonna make it worse for transport during the games, before and after.
Carrilion and BB have been given a joint contract to build an extension to the east london line for the games, I bet you they won't finish it in time.
The Government is involved far too much in these things....this needs to stop!
Richard Rogers Partnership tendered for T5 some 25 years ago and to this day it's still not finished, something is wrong there!!!
They may well do, but how many workers will they kill in the process? How many people will they turn out of their homes with no compensation? How much pollution will they produce?
Grand schemes are easier in a totalitarian regime, but that doesnt mean we want one.
Having said that Crossrail should have been completed at least 5 years ago.
Remember Japan and Korea, the World Cup 5 years ago, how fast were those new football grounds built. And I can tell you that the Japanese Construction companies are fast and efficient and work at high H&S standards.
It can be done.
There is too much bureacracy here...
I mean, like I'm With Stupid said, most of the british engineers are brilliant but they can't work here because of the unreasonable rules and bureacracy.
Health and Safety has improved a lot in the UK over the last 8 years since the Egan Report, and the speed of construction, being rail, roads, property, high rise has gone up by 20% or something yet still there is room for improvement.
Well the Muse are supposed to perform at the Stadium late June, and I've got the tickets so they fucken better be finished by then!
To be honest I think all those working on it see it as a gravy train, so I doubt it will finish any time soon. Its been great for Wembly, all those construction jobs going on and on for ages.
Yeah but all the lawsuits....
It can be done. But its not as simple as that.
In this country everyone is a NIMBY, first of all. Nobody wants the new high speed line past their house, or the new motorway, or the new football stadium. Then there are property prices- its cheap to slap a compulsory purchase on a bit of French farmland, nobody cares except the farmer who makes a bit of cash; over here there isn't the widespread rural landscape anymore, land costs more, people are more averse to compulsory purchasing. Even with housing regeneration everyone is up for it until its their house that's to be demolished, then they'd rather keep everything the same. Then there are the environmentalists- every plan for every project goes past some protected species or other.
It's not an exaggeration to say a London-Scotland TGV-style line would cost £80billion- that's a lot of money just so businessmen can get home 20 minutes quicker.
The lawsuits wont effect the workers, and it wont make any difference to the area of Wembly. I think its great, a big construction company is funding the re-generation of an area.
Surely you are not saying this country stiffles progress? :shocking: :thumb:
But in any case it does not matter- studies have shown that for every Pound spend in quality public transport improvements the country will get back around 1.80 in return thanks to increased tourism and business.
Britain is not so special or bloody unique that it cannot have a proper, fast, functioning and reasonably priced rail network when every other country that wants to just does it- some of them considerably less wealthy than the UK. We seem to be going out of our way to come up with improbable excuses when the bare reality is that we have a deficient rail network due to lack of investment and greed.
What's the RPRPRT principle?
Right People, Right Place, Right time
Not really.
The government wouldn't pay for them, Northern (the operator) couldn't afford to pay for them. The extra carriages are not being purchased to attract extra passengers, they are being provided to provide accommodation for the passengers already on overstretched services. For example - most services from Harrogate to Leeds and Bradford to Leeds will now run with 4 carriages rather than 3 - it won't entice more passengers, but will cater for those who spend journeys jammed in vestibules and doorways.
On a separate tangent these 1700 seats are costing £20 MILLION a year - which is just for SIX additional trains - which are in a crap condition as well. Which shows just how much profit these ROSCO's are making.
If you put the details of the journey into the National Rail site (www.nationalrail.co.uk) it will show the new fares - it'll be probably about 10p extra.
So not only did the government cut the number of services FGW were allowed to run, they cut the amount of stock they had left to run the remaining services they had.
So who wants to make sense out of that little gem? :rolleyes:
My feelings exactally.
The right government can usually do a better job of most things. Publ;ic Transport is one of the best for this... however, we have the exact opposite of the right government at the minute.
Fairs rise. Director needs a new car, guess.
The cheapest train ticket from London to Edinburgh in 1996 was about £35, and its now about £13. That's hardly fat cat profiteering.