On 22/06/2018 15:32, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:58:46 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 22/06/2018 11:01, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:24:01 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
A sorry tale with many deserving of blame, and no heroes:


https://www.londonreconnections.com/...ink-fails-part

-2-the-plan-that-went-wrong/

One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf
drivers, because GTR didn't have enough.

The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation when
its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would
creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a long
way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation just
has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit
organisation.


Odd then that competition for operating rail services has been spreading
across the EU.

Nothing odd about it , its an EU requirement for open access to private
operators. Directive 91/440 you'll find.



Indeed. But that's not what I found odd.

What I did find odd was your view that it is self-evident railways are
"better run as a single not for profit organisation" when yet just about
every EU State[1] no longer does so.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Railway_Package

[2]
https://www.lvm.fi/en/-/factsheet-74...untries-949736

"With the exception of Finland, Ireland and Luxembourg, all other Member
States of the European Union have already more than one operator
providing passenger rail transport services."

https://www.citymetric.com/transport...s-britain-3727

"But please let us not labour anymore under romanticised ideas of
‘nationalised’ European rail based on experience from the odd long
weekend away. The debate over the future of Britain’s railways deserves
a better level of understanding – and there is much to learn from the
European experience. "

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid