The UK Rail Network

M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#21
So, We can sell of our rail infrastructure so other governments can buy it up and inflate our prices to make sure their publicly owned rail networks can operate at cost effectiveness and higher standard for their people while ours is in turmoil and buckling under pressure.

Seems to me that is a one way street, no?
Surely it would be better to nationalise to get it back and then privatise to UK firms who have a vested interest in making a profit, due to a cost effective transport system and higher standard of living for the workers, ie more money in workers pockets is more money to spend on products supplied by said infrastructure and disposable incomes
Are you sure you fully understand the distinction between the infrastructure and the numerous rail operating companies who operate on their tracks? Other posters have pointed this out but the infrastructure is publicly owned. See below the relevant Wikipedia extract.


Network Rail is the owner (via its subsidiary Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd which was known as Railtrack plc before 2002)[5] and infrastructure manager of most of the rail network in England, Scotland and Wales.[6] Network Rail is an arms length public body of the Department for Transport with no shareholders, which reinvests its income in the railways.

Network Rail's main customers are the private train operating companies (TOCs), responsible for passenger transport, and freight operating companies (FOCs), who provide train services on the infrastructure that the company owns and maintains. Since 1 September 2014, Network Rail has been classified as a "public sector body".[7]
 
#22
Surely it would be better to nationalise to get it back and then privatise to UK firms who have a vested interest in making a profit
What happens if the UK firm running the trains makes a profit by running it for a few years then selling their franchise on to a foreign company? Another renationalisation/privatisation?
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#23
The whole thing is a racket! It's motivated by the totally discredited Capitalist, neo-liberal notion that private companies can deliver better, more efficient and cheaper services. It's still a mystery to many, how private companies bent on maximum profit can outperform not-for-profit publicly run organisations. This here is very enlightening:
The Four Big Myths of UK Rail Privatisation – Action For Rail

MsG
 
#25
It's almost beyond redemption. The trains were in large part shagged at the time of privatisation, and many of them were even deathtraps. The Mk1 carriage formed a large part of the passenger stock and enquiry after enquiry showed that they were unsafe. They're illegal now. All those lovely diesels introduced in the 60s are all shagged. The early electrics are all shagged. The HSTs are on their last legs. Even the "relatively" modern Emus are sometimes 30 or 40 years old.

The lines wend their way through towns and cities in the manner befitting a train that did 30 mph when they were built. Now they want to do 150mph and oddly enough the line design won't hack it. No-one wants to spend 400 trillion billion beer tokens to take 20 minutes off a journey time, but the government are going ahead and doing it anyway.

The ridership is greater than it's ever been since the railways began, and the infrastructure just isn't there to support it.

"Take the train from London". Well, which station? Off the top of my head, there's Euston, King's Cross, St Pancras, Victoria, Waterloo, Charing Cross, London Bridge, Liverpool Street. Oh, forgot Paddington, one of the biggest. All a legacy of competing private companies and unwillingness of nationalized industry to take difficult decisions. i.e. close half of them and extend the lines into other stations.

You know, it takes a full hour on the Underground to get from LHR to King's Cross. What a bag of shit. Why doesn't LHR have its own mainline station? Or at least a feeder service that doesn't stop every two or three minutes.

Needs investment. A shit ton of it. But people would rather have their Costa coffees and 146" TVs than pay for it.
 
#26
Do you work on the railway robbo?
No I don't.

I like to think about the future that involves finite land and real estate, increasing population, changes in technology and the effects on human jobs.

I believe Brexit is a chance to reshape the country for that future, Railways are part of that future if we like it or not.
A healthy rail infrastucture, Properly managed, means a healthy private sector whose workforce will have timely access to work (productivity) and more time to privately venture (small business) with more money in their pockets, lower congestion, lower energy consumption, lower taxes, win win.

The future of a cost effective railway is homegrown engineering, automation, lower costs and energy efficiency.
In my opinion, The transistion to automation is to not encourage new staffing in the sector but to steer exisiting ones into other jobs where their knowledge can help the transistion, not ******* them off so they take their skills abroad and once again, benefit another country.

We can't have foreign investment having an infuential stake in the tools that will help us compete against them in other sectors. It won't work IMO.

It would nice to have an upcoming generation who can unselfishly plan beyond their own pension age, Like generations have done before us.
Thing is, It's too easy for our kids to be on faceache and such, assuming your kids listen to you, It will be the 40/50 somethings that will pass on advice to their kids who will se it to make Brexit work.
 
#27
It's almost beyond redemption. The trains were in large part shagged at the time of privatisation, and many of them were even deathtraps. The Mk1 carriage formed a large part of the passenger stock and enquiry after enquiry showed that they were unsafe. They're illegal now. All those lovely diesels introduced in the 60s are all shagged. The early electrics are all shagged. The HSTs are on their last legs. Even the "relatively" modern Emus are sometimes 30 or 40 years old.

The lines wend their way through towns and cities in the manner befitting a train that did 30 mph when they were built. Now they want to do 150mph and oddly enough the line design won't hack it. No-one wants to spend 400 trillion billion beer tokens to take 20 minutes off a journey time, but the government are going ahead and doing it anyway.

The ridership is greater than it's ever been since the railways began, and the infrastructure just isn't there to support it.

"Take the train from London". Well, which station? Off the top of my head, there's Euston, King's Cross, St Pancras, Victoria, Waterloo, Charing Cross, London Bridge, Liverpool Street. Oh, forgot Paddington, one of the biggest. All a legacy of competing private companies and unwillingness of nationalized industry to take difficult decisions. i.e. close half of them and extend the lines into other stations.

You know, it takes a full hour on the Underground to get from LHR to King's Cross. What a bag of shit. Why doesn't LHR have its own mainline station? Or at least a feeder service that doesn't stop every two or three minutes.

Needs investment. A shit ton of it. But people would rather have their Costa coffees and 146" TVs than pay for it.
HS2 is about capacity rather than speed. Given the enormous investment that would be needed to upgrade our existing rail infrastrucutre (rebuilding thousands of bridges and tunnels, demolishing thousands of homes and businesses, etc.) I can't see another option.
 
#28
Why doesn't LHR have its own mainline station? Or at least a feeder service that doesn't stop every two or three minutes.
Like the Heathrow Express, you mean?
 
#29
The whole thing is a racket! It's motivated by the totally discredited Capitalist, neo-liberal notion that private companies can deliver better, more efficient and cheaper services. It's still a mystery to many, how private companies bent on maximum profit can outperform not-for-profit publicly run organisations. This here is very enlightening:
The Four Big Myths of UK Rail Privatisation – Action For Rail

MsG
You could always piss off back to your own country if you don't like the way this one is being ran.
 
#30
<selective crop>
The future of a cost effective railway is homegrown engineering, automation, lower costs and energy efficiency.
</selective crop>
Lovely idea, but self-contradictory in part. Homegrown engineering has been the folly of British industry and public works since the Industrial Revolution. In fact, the Industrial Revolution starting in the UK was probably the seed of it. The UK seems to have a view that it can do it all better and cheaper. It can't.

Do you a) buy a locomotive off a production line that makes 1000s of the same model or b) engineer one that is not quite as good in most respects, but has a really super innovative braking system, but will cost 3x as much to make, only need 50 of them and can never export because the braking system is too complicated. or c) go with a) only to find the loading gauge in the UK is too small for them :)

See:

RR engines in Phantom jets
RR RB211 bankrupting RR
1500V DC overhead electrification
VC-10 being destroyed by B707 in sales.
Utter failure of Concorde to export.
Chinook Mk3
Upholder submarines.
Astute submarines.
In fact, submarines.
SA80
Ferranti
Marconi
ICL
British Leyland and its multitude of components
British Shipbuilders
British Steel
British Coal

Almost forgot, that absolute pearler, Nimrod AEW, followed by "fcuk it doesn't work, have some Boeings instead", with a sequel of Nimrod MRA4 and "fcuk it doesn't work, have some Boeings instead". Lessons will be learned :)
 
Last edited:
#31
Like the Heathrow Express, you mean?
I suppose that's quite useful if you're going to Paddington. As much use as tits on a fish if you want any of the other 9 or so mainline stations.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#32
You could always piss off back to your own country if you don't like the way this one is being ran.
Sure I could, spackerman. And what would that achieve? Would all the eminently justifiable complaints about the Brit rail service magically disappear, you dullard?

Oh, by the way, spackerinski, it's "run" not "ran".:p:p:p:p:p

MsG
 
#33
Sure I could, spackerman. And what would that achieve? Would all the eminently justifiable complaints about the Brit rail service magically disappear, you dullard?

Oh, by the way, spackerinski, it's "run" not "ran".:p:p:p:p:p

MsG
How fast did you run Trouser O'Flame?
It would achieve you not whining about things in the UK.
 
#34
Are you sure you fully understand the distinction between the infrastructure and the numerous rail operating companies who operate on their tracks? Other posters have pointed this out but the infrastructure is publicly owned.
So the tax payer funds Network Rail.
The foreign investors own the rolling stock, ticket machines and timetables which turns the profit. Understood.
So how can a foreign firm turn the profits made abroad into maintaining their own publicly owned rail networks.
Our own cannot do the same? Doesn't appear to be the case does it.

Network Rail have every excuse on why our network is shambles, They blame public funding yet EU publically owned networks dont seem to have that problem.
Does Network Rail run the trains and ticketing on the DB network in Germany to turn a profit so they can complete infrastructure jobs here?
Beacause DB Regio cerrtainly operate that way over here. I use Nexus as an example.


What happens if the UK firm running the trains makes a profit by running it for a few years then selling their franchise on to a foreign company? Another renationalisation/privatisation?
If a UK company benefits hugely from infrastructure that turns their end product into healthy profits would not want another UK company making a mess of it would they.
The infrastructure should not be easy pickings to turn a profit alone, Rather a tool in which to turn a higher profit after services and products have been been laboured, nationally.
Better infrastructure>better products> better profits
A contract of responsibility, tender on non-renewal, managed by a publically elected person of merit.
 
#35
So the tax payer funds Network Rail.
The foreign investors own the rolling stock, ticket machines and timetables which turns the profit. Understood.
So how can a foreign firm turn the profits made abroad into maintaining their own publically owned rail networks.
Our own cannot do the same? Doesn't appear to be the case does it.

Network Rail have every excuse on why our network is shambles, They blame public funding yet EU publically owned networks dont seem to have that problem.
Does Network Rail run the trains and ticketing on the DB network in Germany to turn a profit so they can complete infrastructure jobs here?
Beacause DB Regio cerrtainly operate that way over here. I use Nexus as an example.




If a UK company benefits hugely from infrastructure that turns their end product into healthy profits would not want another UK company making a mess of it would they.
The infrastructure should not be easy pickings to turn a profit alone, Rather a tool in which to turn a higher profit after services and products have been been laboured, nationally.
Better infrastructure>better products> better profits
A contract of responsibility, tender on non-renewal, managed by a publically elected person of merit.
Try bullet points, perhaps.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#36
It would achieve you not whining about things in the UK.
Reads pretty much like English, spackerman, but what does it actually mean? Ever heard of the concept of "gerund-possessive, spackerinski? Or was that just the errant use of a participle on your part? Whining? Is English really your, erm, native language, fella? Just asking, like.

If it's not (your native language) then my apologies, although considering that you've spent over 25 years in Germany and not managed to learn even the basics of the language, I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

MsG
 
#37
Reads pretty much like English, spackerman, but what does it actually mean? Ever heard of the concept of "gerund-possessive, spackerinski? Or was that just the errant use of a participle on your part? Whining? Is English really your, erm, native language, fella? Just asking, like.

If it's not (your native language) then my apologies, although considering that you've spent over 25 years in Germany and not managed to learn even the basics of the language, I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

MsG
More fibs again Bugsy? Have you ever thought about getting medical help for your attention seeking? The doctors wont laugh at the horrific sexual abuse your father inflicted on you which causes you to constantly want people to notice you.
 
#38
Lovely idea, but self-contradictory in part. Homegrown engineering has been the folly of British industry and public works since the Industrial Revolution. In fact, the Industrial Revolution starting in the UK was probably the seed of it. The UK seems to have a view that it can do it all better and cheaper. It can't.

Do you a) buy a locomotive off a production line that makes 1000s of the same model or b) engineer one that is not quite as good in most respects, but has a really super innovative braking system, but will cost 3x as much to make, only need 50 of them and can never export because the braking system is too complicated. or c) go with a) only to find the loading gauge in the UK is too small for them :)

See:

RR engines in Phantom jets
RR RB211 bankrupting RR
1500V DC overhead electrification
VC-10 being destroyed by B707 in sales.
Utter failure of Concorde to export.
Chinook Mk3
Upholder submarines.
Astute submarines.
In fact, submarines.
SA80
Ferranti
Marconi
ICL
British Leyland and its multitude of components
British Shipbuilders
British Steel
British Coal

Almost forgot, that absolute pearler, Nimrod AEW, followed by "fcuk it doesn't work, have some Boeings instead", with a sequel of Nimrod MRA4 and "fcuk it doesn't work, have some Boeings instead". Lessons will be learned :)
Are costs in infrastructure and it's marraige to production not a factor in high costs?
Costs of workers going to and from work, products travelling from site to site, factory to port.
You have to start somewhere, otherwise costs just keeps going up until it breaks.
I think infrastructure is the lynch pin to get the ball rolling. Railways being a big part of that.
We pay enough in taxes already to get that ball rolling.
The new age in technology is not going to mean a return to heavy industry and its mis-management, Rather smaller firms with lower overheads and energy requirements that will benefit anbd profit greatly from a streamlined infrastructure, which in turn could support the maintenance of it.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#39
More fibs again Bugsy? Have you ever thought about getting medical help for your attention seeking? The doctors wont laugh at the horrific sexual abuse your father inflicted on you which causes you to constantly want people to notice you.
Certainly they "wont" ("wont"?) laugh, spackermann. However, if you, on the other hand, turn up and try to convince them you're English with your abominable spelling and lamentable command of English, they might very well deport you on the spot. Tell me, spackerinski, do you actually talk like that? I mean, do folks actually understand what you're saying? The bind moggles!:-(:-(:-(

MsG
 
#40
Banks generally "own" trains and planes etc. because they are expensive and when companies want to buy them they use corporate finance to do so. In much the same way that banks and building societies own a large percentage of the property in the UK.
I thought the Treasury had to authorise new rolling stock?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top