british rail ...someone please explain!

Former Member · October 2003

to me ...what was the logic behind privatisation when everyone knew it couldn't make money.
what are the arguments against renationilising the thing ...please!
the private sector don't seem to be putting the quids in ...the public are. the private sector and it's shareholders are though taking money out of it ...does this actualy make any sense to anyone? i'm buggered if i can see any reason or excuse for it to stay in private ownership ...pleeeease ...someone with free market ideals ...defend the current situation and the original purpose of privatising the fucking thing!

Former Member · October 2003

It cannot be defended.

It cannot be justified.

And anyone who complains that the trains are a shambles and yet votes Conservative is, in my opinion, a clueless idiot.

Former Member · October 2003

Originally posted by Aladdin
It cannot be defended.

It cannot be justified.

And anyone who complains that the trains are a shambles and yet votes Conservative is, in my opinion, a clueless idiot.

thanks laddin ...not much of an answer but ...i can stop going round and round in circles then? co's thats part of the conclusion i keep coming to.
did i hear right on the radio ...that share holders are taking one and a half billion pound a year out of the system in proffit? that can't be right surely. if it is, it sounds like a deliberate plan to destroy britains railways.
a friend has just come back from a couple of months in india ...was very impressed with the trains ...

Former Member · October 2003

The logic behind privatisation was to drive costs down by creating competition. It hasnt really worked- the only direct competition is with Gatwick Express- but its not all bad. GNER, for instance, pays a PREMIUM of £20million a year ot the Treasury for running the trains- that cant be seen as taking taxapayers money to fund the companies.

The trouble with re-privatisation is that it would be far too costly. The train operating companies could easily be re-integrated, Network rail the same; the trouble is that the trains themselves are owned by such luminaries as the HSBC, who bought them way below market value and charge horrific rental costs. For instance, a Class 142 "pacer" unit cost about £250,000 to buy new at todays prices, yet to rent one for a year from HSBC costs the TOCs £150,000. major sold it to HSBC for about £50,000.

And Aladdin, I dont think its strictly a Tory thing. My Blair seems to liek privatisation too, he just gievs it a snazzy name and makes it so convoluted no bugegr can understand it.

Former Member · October 2003

Originally posted by Kermit
The logic behind privatisation was to drive costs down by creating competition. It hasnt really worked- the only direct competition is with Gatwick Express- but its not all bad. GNER, for instance, pays a PREMIUM of £20million a year ot the Treasury for running the trains- that cant be seen as taking taxapayers money to fund the companies.

The trouble with re-privatisation is that it would be far too costly. The train operating companies could easily be re-integrated, Network rail the same; the trouble is that the trains themselves are owned by such luminaries as the HSBC, who bought them way below market value and charge horrific rental costs. For instance, a Class 142 "pacer" unit cost about £250,000 to buy new at todays prices, yet to rent one for a year from HSBC costs the TOCs £150,000. major sold it to HSBC for about £50,000.

And Aladdin, I dont think its strictly a Tory thing. My Blair seems to liek privatisation too, he just gievs it a snazzy name and makes it so convoluted no bugegr can understand it.

kermit thats the first time i've seen your spelling even worse than mine! ...you drunk?

Former Member · October 2003

I agree with privatisation in principle (lets not forget that the railways were run well enough before nationalisation), but the ham-fisted structure created by the privatisation of the '90s has done nothing to help the efficient running of the railways. In particular, seperating the ownership and running of the track and the trains was a big mistake.

Many privately owned tourist railways are run very successfully and some even make a profit and can afford paid staff. However, they are run by people who want to run trains, not by people who want to make a profit. Perhaps the idea of a not-for-profit Network Rail isn't a bad one, but at the same time they must try to not make a loss either.

Former Member · October 2003

Right... apologising in advance for any ranting, as I've come through the door at 4:00 am a little worse for wear...

There is one fundamental principle that must be taken into account when talking about public services: the main (and in most cases only) aim of a private company is to make the maximum amount of profit possible for its CEOs and shareholders.

This is really the only thing we need to know. A private company will always put the interests of shareholders first. Therefore compromising safety, investment, comfort, etc etc. And therefore making private companies totally unfit to run any sort of public services.

In the case of the railways there have been too many cases too narrate: suffice to say that people have died as a direct result of the greed mentality of private companies, and it's only too much of a shame that those responsible are not rotting in jail, like they would be in most other countries in Europe.

New Labour should be ashamed of themselves, after all their promises of re-nationalising the railways if they came to power.

But the main blame must no doubt fall on the Tories, guilty not only of depriving the railways of vital funding through decades (though Labour does not come out smelling of roses either) but also of the disgusting death sentence that privatisation was.

I should not go into detail about how incredibly damaging privatisation has been. I'm sure everyone can work it out for themselves.

Former Member · October 2003

Originally posted by Kermit
[B but its not all bad. GNER, for instance, pays a PREMIUM of £20million a year ot the Treasury for running the trains- that cant be seen as taking taxapayers money to fund the companies.

[/B]

surely 20million quid is buttons to the billions they are now asking us to cough up!

JsT · October 2003

Originally posted by Kermit
For instance, a Class 142 "pacer" unit cost about £250,000 to buy new at todays prices, yet to rent one for a year from HSBC costs the TOCs £150,000. major sold it to HSBC for about £50,000.

£150,000 for a Class 142! One of the oldest train units in operations, arguably in the worst condition. I hate to think how much these newer units are costing them!

Former Member · October 2003

Originally posted by morrocan roll
surely 20million quid is buttons to the billions they are now asking us to cough up!

As far as I am aware Gatwick Express and WAGN also pay premiums to the Treasury for the privilege of running trains. Virgin should be paying £60million to the Treasury each year, yet somehow theyre getting £100million subsidy due to a re-negotiation.

With GNER in particular it shows have privatisation SHOULD have worked. GNER have refurbished their fleet, started running more trains and more often, with some new (well, cascaded Eurostar stock) trains, AND they pay £20million a year to the Government. I find it amusing though that GNER are paying their competitor Virgin money to cpmpete against them- just one of lifes little ironies.

Random tangent: Virgin Rail is 49% owned by Stagecoach. Stagecoach has made a £400million loss last year. The head of the SRA's father-in-law is a significant shareholder in Stagecoach. The SRA agreed to Virgin's bollocksy new trains, and to giving them £100million a year to pay for them. Conflict of interest...where?

Former Member · October 2003

Originally posted by JsT
£150,000 for a Class 142! One of the oldest train units in operations, arguably in the worst condition. I hate to think how much these newer units are costing them!

I know, a train based on a bus body that was scrapped five years ago, and it costs £150k to rent one ofr a year.

And people wonder why the privatised railway industry sucks cock...

Former Member · October 2003

Originally posted by Aladdin
But the main blame must no doubt fall on the Tories, guilty not only of depriving the railways of vital funding through decades (though Labour does not come out smelling of roses either) but also of the disgusting death sentence that privatisation was.

Both parties are as bad as each other. The cuts in the 1960s by Dr Beeching were made by, and under, a Labour government- those cuts cut the railway network by about 50%. Although the SRA again would now want to cut everything except Virgin Trains, to say its a death knell, in comparison to Beeching, is a bit silly.

Labour have done the most damage to the railway network if youre to take it all in comparison, though people dont remember any of this.

Former Member · October 2003

Originally posted by Aladdin
There is one fundamental principle that must be taken into account when talking about public services: the main (and in most cases only) aim of a private company is to make the maximum amount of profit possible for its CEOs and shareholders.

This is really the only thing we need to know. A private company will always put the interests of shareholders first. Therefore compromising safety, investment, comfort, etc etc. And therefore making private companies totally unfit to run any sort of public services.

That is my main argument as well - you've saved the the trouble of typing it all out, thanks!

JsT · October 2003

I've gotta agree with Aladdin on this one, private companies operating public transport rarely works. Its all money and shareholders, rather than public interests. Buses (tried getting a bus in Leeds recently), trains, Air traffic control (potentially). At the moment its too many fingers in one pie, all working against each other for profit, when perhaps they should be working together for customers.

Sadly, I suspect if they were all nationalised again, we'd still have the same problems.

JsT · October 2003

Originally posted by Kermit
I know, a train based on a bus body that was scrapped five years ago, and it costs £150k to rent one ofr a year.

And people wonder why the privatised railway industry sucks cock...

Certainly makes you wonder, and certain proves its all about the money not the customers.

I was suprised that they were still going, since its ages since the 141's went, but one was in Leeds on a Carlisle t'other day.

Former Member · October 2003

Originally posted by JsT
I was suprised that they were still going, since its ages since the 141's went, but one was in Leeds on a Carlisle t'other day.

Some 141s have been sold to Iran, and I believe some will be going to the North Norfolk railway. However the 142s are still alive and kicking (unfortunately). I have travelled on 142s and they really are horrible. Slow, uncomfortable, and noisy, I would rather travel on a 101!

Both parties are as bad as each other. The cuts in the 1960s by Dr Beeching were made by, and under, a Labour government- those cuts cut the railway network by about 50%. Although the SRA again would now want to cut everything except Virgin Trains, to say its a death knell, in comparison to Beeching, is a bit silly.

True. The structure that existed before 1948 worked fine, then Labour nationalised the system. It was all downhill from there.

Former Member · October 2003

british rail ...someone please explain!

Comments