25-05-2018, 05:19 PM
31
Re: Rail re-nationalisation
Originally Posted by Bruce
->
Joe, me old pal, me old beautyThat is just not true. I was in the UK in either 1989 or 1988 (year of Lockerbie crash and London train crash) before the railways were privatised. For the journey from London to Folkestone I paid about 4 times the cost of the equivalent journey here (though it was quicker). Charing Cross station was filthy, the train was filthy with cans rolling along the aisle. A few years ago I travelled on a Virgin train from Macclesfield to London, it was still very expensive but the train was fast, clean and modern and even had reserved seating (my seat was not reserved).
It is a bit of a stretch blaming the government of what ever ilk for the high prices, it is endemic in your system.
Yes, Nationaiisation led to way too many staff and no consideration, at all, for the users of the service.
Privatisation led to a lot less staff - but was run purely for profit - without any consideration for the users of the service.
It's a heads I lose, Tails I lose, situation for the passenger!
25-05-2018, 05:53 PM
32
Re: Rail re-nationalisation
Originally Posted by Tedc
->
Yes, Nationaiisation led to way too many staff and no consideration, at all, for the users of the service.Privatisation led to a lot less staff - but was run purely for profit - without any consideration for the users of the service.
It's a heads I lose, Tails I lose, situation for the passenger!
So I'll pose the same question, if a (nationalised) LNER can profitably run the East Coast lines usung the same tracks, the same rolling stock, the same signals, etc, etc how come Virgin and National express Buses in a consortium were unable to run the same (privatised) service profitably???
25-05-2018, 07:39 PM
33
Re: Rail re-nationalisation
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
So I'll pose the same question, if a (nationalised) LNER can profitably run the East Coast lines usung the same tracks, the same rolling stock, the same signals, etc, etc how come Virgin and National express Buses in a consortium were unable to run the same (privatised) service profitably???
Nationalised Companies usually fail.
I suspect that large funds may have to be pushed in to keep it going.
As I said before, the passenger satisfaction is not a factor.
25-05-2018, 08:01 PM
35
Re: Rail re-nationalisation
Originally Posted by Purwell
->
Drivers made a fortune out of the privatisation, wages went through the roof.
What is wrong with that?
They deserve every penny they get.
We do not need Guards that is just Unions not accepting reality.
25-05-2018, 11:43 PM
36
Re: Rail re-nationalisation
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
I will excuse you of your ignorance, because you don't live here, but when the scumbag 'nasty party' privatised the railways, they insisted on the train companies paying a premium for that franchise, notwithstanding most franchises are losing money in any event. Strange to say, when LNER was nationalised a few years ago, it was actually making a profit again. However, the scumbag 'nasty party' then de-nationalised it and flogged it to Virgin and national express buses. They very recently handed back the franchise to the government because they were losing too much money. Strange isn't it, that under a 'nationalised' system, they make money, whereas the moment they privatise it again it manages to lose squillions!!!
What has anything you said to do with what I wrote?
In summary I said that British Rail was expensive to travel on and that has continued under the privatised rail service, however the privatised trains (and stations?) were much cleaner than the British Rail trains.
Your waffle addresses neither of these issues.
26-05-2018, 12:48 AM
37
Re: Rail re-nationalisation
Originally Posted by Tedc
->
I have no confidence that the LNER will now be run profitably. where's the evidence that it can be done?Nationalised Companies usually fail.
I suspect that large funds may have to be pushed in to keep it going.
As I said before, the passenger satisfaction is not a factor.
From being re-nationalised, when the Government had to step in as Operator of Last Resort, after the failed NXEC franchise in 2009 until the government re-franchised it in 2015, East Coast Trains became very successful - it just didn't make any sense to put it back into private hands.
Compared to all the other franchised train lines, East Coast was paying more money back to the government and receiving much less in subsidy, so it was the most profitable line for the taxpayer.
Ticket sales increased, year on year, fares were cheaper than comparative journeys on other train lines, they achieved greater consistent punctuality and, not surprisingly, this increased passenger satisfaction. Customer satisfaction increased to the highest levels ever achieved on that train line.
It also achieved lots of industry awards, including Best Employer.
This is a train line I've used quite a lot over many years, so can compare the service during its different periods of ownership, and I can vouch for the increased passenger satisfaction for the 5 years it was in public ownership. It became a joy to travel on and their great cheap fare offers and points reward schemes enabled me to travel to London more often than I would otherwise have done. The drop in service and frequent delays since Virgin took the service over was very noticeable.
When the Government announced they were re-franchising it, none of the passengers I talked to could understand why. There was lots of opposition - while it was running so well, why not keep ploughing the profits back into it, instead of handing it to a private company.
The Govt response was that it was always meant to be a temporary measure until they had had got it back on its feet to re-privatise. I can only assume that their decision was based on mis-placed ideology, rather than common sense.
They should have listened to common sense because here we are again in the same situation - another failed franchise and the Government have had to step in again as Operator of Last Resort.
26-05-2018, 07:01 AM
38
Re: Rail re-nationalisation
Originally Posted by tedc
->
i have no confidence that the lner will now be run profitably. where's the evidence that it can be done?nationalised companies usually fail.
I suspect that large funds may have to be pushed in to keep it going.
As i said before, the passenger satisfaction is not a factor.
Originally Posted by boot
->
the evidence is already there - check out the financial and operating performance of east coast trains while it was in public ownership. From being re-nationalised, when the government had to step in as operator of last resort, after the failed nxec franchise in 2009 until the government re-franchised it in 2015, east coast trains became very successful - it just didn't make any sense to put it back into private hands.
Compared to all the other franchised train lines, east coast was paying more money back to the government and receiving much less in subsidy, so it was the most profitable line for the taxpayer.
Ticket sales increased, year on year, fares were cheaper than comparative journeys on other train lines, they achieved greater consistent punctuality and, not surprisingly, this increased passenger satisfaction. Customer satisfaction increased to the highest levels ever achieved on that train line.
It also achieved lots of industry awards, including best employer.
This is a train line i've used quite a lot over many years, so can compare the service during its different periods of ownership, and i can vouch for the increased passenger satisfaction for the 5 years it was in public ownership. It became a joy to travel on and their great cheap fare offers and points reward schemes enabled me to travel to london more often than i would otherwise have done. The drop in service and frequent delays since virgin took the service over was very noticeable.
When the government announced they were re-franchising it, none of the passengers i talked to could understand why. There was lots of opposition - while it was running so well, why not keep ploughing the profits back into it, instead of handing it to a private company.
The govt response was that it was always meant to be a temporary measure until they had had got it back on its feet to re-privatise. I can only assume that their decision was based on mis-placed ideology, rather than common sense.
They should have listened to common sense because here we are again in the same situation - another failed franchise and the government have had to step in again as operator of last resort.
|
|
