The UK Rail Network

#41
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.
Can only give you one like, alas.
 
#42
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
Did your father whisper English words in your ear when he paid you a late night visit? You never did say why you lie about him? I assume you are ashamed of what he did to you.
 
#43
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.
I've been thinking recently that maybe it's time for a dedicated infrastructure bond to be issued by the Treasury., along the lines of Premium Bonds but with a proper fixed return at the end, something that everyone could buys, starting from a tenner, say.
 
#44
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
Tut tut. You know that there's a perfectly nice, well-behaved and far funnier thread where you can throw gerunds around and where people appreciate it.
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#45
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.
You have taken a little bit of knowledge, mixed it with imperfect memories and bent it all out of shape there.
  • Beyond redemption - in business or engineering terms? Less a few franchises there has been much investment and business interest, network usage is very high.
  • Trains shagged, deathtraps - really? Accidents were caused by p/way or human error, not rolling stock engineering failures.
  • Mk 1 unsafe - do you mean slam-door stock? They were just Darwin's way of allowing numptys to exit the gene-pool. Mk 2 and Mk 3 also had slam doors at the time. All stock is now centrally locked.
  • 1960s diesels all shagged - examples of Class 20, 31, 37 and 47 still in use having been kept in traffic or returned to traffic. As a comparison, how many 1960s equipments or prime movers does the Army still use? How many 1960s air-frames are the RAF still flying? I understand that new rolling stock have 25 year life-span engineering parameters. Why would you expect significant numbers of 50 year old stock to be in use?
  • HSTs on last legs - apart from the ones still in use and including those up-gunned to 16 cylinder engines.
I don't pretend that all has been rosy throughout but demand to travel on British railways is much higher now than in the days before privatisation. This may reflect the wider success of the economy but when weekday off-peak trains on the ECML are maxed out, as they are, this is a thriving business. The railways have very few accidents, very few deaths for the passenger miles traveled and a system operating near capacity. In business and consumer choice terms, this is a successful industry, surely?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#46
I worked on the Rail....Maggie sold all the rail stock off to the banks at a 1% of the true value. All those trains you travel in are owned by the banks (expect Virgin). They are leased to the various franchisees, the rail companies also have to pay the government money....and we wonder why the prices are so high...

Edit Maggies plan but she had gone when introduced
So no different from the airline industry, then.
 
Last edited:

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#47
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.
It does, it's called the Heathrow Express, 15 mins to Heathrow Central, 21 mins to T5.
Heathrow Express - Wikipedia
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#48
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.
The same goes for the Gatwick Express then, it only goes to Victoria or the Stansted Express that only goes between Liverpool St and Stansted, but stops at some strange stations in between.
Stansted Express - Wikipedia
 
#50
You have taken a little bit of knowledge, mixed it with imperfect memories and bent it all out of shape there.
Yes, I know :)
 
#51
The same goes for the Gatwick Express then, it only goes to Victoria or the Stansted Express that only goes between Liverpool St and Stansted, but stops at some strange stations in between.
Stansted Express - Wikipedia
My point is that it's all fragmented. How many other major cities have so many mainline rail stations?
 
#53
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.
If you can work out a way to provide the current total capacity plus reasonable expansion out of one venue and buy up an appropriate location in London together with the routes in and out without bankrupting the next hundred generations, I'm all ears.
 
#54
If you can work out a way to provide the current total capacity plus reasonable expansion out of one venue and buy up an appropriate location in London together with the routes in and out without bankrupting the next hundred generations, I'm all ears.
So it's as good as it's going to get, as-is then?
 
#56
So it's as good as it's going to get, as-is then?
There could very well be upgrades to the current picture but short of levelling whole swathes of central London - a good idea just on general principles, I grant you - we're pretty much stuck with what we've got.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#57
Better solution might be a new Circle line tube, only linking the main line stations.


It would probably cost even more though....
TBF, it only misses out 2 main line stations, London Bridge and Charing Cross, but Charing Cross is easily served by Embankment tube.
 
#59
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
It's an honourable sentiment, but what is a big 'British Company' these days?

Sainsbury's is my best guess. I think it's still family owned by Brits.

Anything listed on the stock exchange can sell shares to anyone. Think of al the 'iconic' British brands you can name; who owns them? Private shareholders and investment groups from anywhere and everywhere.

British ownership would have to mean public ownership, but even then, look at what is being skimmed off by PFI deals. The British Govt. does not really run Britain anymore, at least not in a day-to-day sense.

How many times have the electorate (whatever that means, as we now know that our vote only counts if we vote as we are supposed to) been told that privatising a previously publicly run entity will result in a saving to the taxpayer AND an improved service to the end user.

How often has the reality reflected those promises?

The end result is that the employees work for less, on contractual terms that are poorer, while the end users complain about the new service. Oh, and the directors and shareholders of a facilities management company called *insert bullshit made up name that doesn't really mean anything* make a tidy pile for three years before the contract is awarded to another one.

PAYD anyone?
Capita?
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top