wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:24:21 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
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.

You mean like BR, with steadily declining patronage, line closures, poor
standards of customer service on old trains and lower safety standards?

Lower safety standards? Yes, hardly surprising given privatisaion happened 20
years ago when standards were lower anyway. You think the TOCs would have
raised them on their own? Pull the other one.

Probably not, but the structure of the privatised industry forces higher
standards than if it was one monolithic company. A modern day BR would
probably only be about as safe as DB, Renfe or SNCF. Our privatised railway
is much better.


As for the rest of it, that was all down to the governments of the day not
wishing to invest plus the economic situation. Well the government is
certainly having to invest now! Keeping it off the treasury books doesn't
stop some taxpayers money going straight into shareholder dividends for these
companies.

You mean like Abellio, FirstGroup, Serco, Stagecoach and Virgin?

BevanPrice wrote:
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.


Yes - just one example of EU and its commissioners meddling in things
that ought to be none of its concern - examples which probably persuaded
some people to vote "Exit".

Why? It didn't have any effect in the UK. If anything, the EU is pushing
other countries to at least partially adopt our policies.

In uk.railway Recliner wrote:
Probably not, but the structure of the privatised industry forces higher
standards than if it was one monolithic company. A modern day BR would
probably only be about as safe as DB, Renfe or SNCF. Our privatised railway
is much better.

How? I don't see TOCs focusing on safety because it hurts the bottom line
if you kill customers.

The structure of the privatised industry was actually pretty good at killing
people - in the Railtrack era. Then the Government (who had recently
changed colour) realised that deregulated privatisation was perhaps not such
a great plan and the pendulum swung the other way. There has been a lot of
investment in safety and a degree of risk aversion. Some might say that's
counterproductive (eg the inability to reopen lines due the cost escalation
of replacing level crossings with bridges), but it has had the desired
effect.

But it seems this focus on safety is precisely because the privatised
industry killed enough people that the government had to step in.

Theo

On 22/06/2018 15:48, Robin wrote:

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,


and Malta and Cyprus...

all other Member
States of the European Union have already more than one operator
providing passenger rail transport services."



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 22/06/2018 17:56, Theo wrote:
In uk.railway Recliner wrote:
Probably not, but the structure of the privatised industry forces higher
standards than if it was one monolithic company. A modern day BR would
probably only be about as safe as DB, Renfe or SNCF. Our privatised railway
is much better.

How? I don't see TOCs focusing on safety because it hurts the bottom line
if you kill customers.

I've seen it argued that privatisation created a perception that it was
Someone Else's Money being spent, so if politicians wanted gold-plated
safety they could convince themselves that the private sector was paying
for this, while the private sector could think "if that's really what
they want, we will just price it in to what we charge them".

This combined with the public and media concern/hysteria to reduce cost
constraints which might otherwise have been faced by "something must be
done, and this is something" approaches to safety.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Theo wrote:
In uk.railway Recliner wrote:
Probably not, but the structure of the privatised industry forces higher
standards than if it was one monolithic company. A modern day BR would
probably only be about as safe as DB, Renfe or SNCF. Our privatised railway
is much better.

How? I don't see TOCs focusing on safety because it hurts the bottom line
if you kill customers.

The structure of the privatised industry was actually pretty good at killing
people - in the Railtrack era. Then the Government (who had recently
changed colour) realised that deregulated privatisation was perhaps not such
a great plan and the pendulum swung the other way. There has been a lot of
investment in safety and a degree of risk aversion. Some might say that's
counterproductive (eg the inability to reopen lines due the cost escalation
of replacing level crossings with bridges), but it has had the desired
effect.

But it seems this focus on safety is precisely because the privatised
industry killed enough people that the government had to step in.

Yes, so you agree with me.

BevanPrice wrote:
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.

Yes - just one example of EU and its commissioners meddling in things
that ought to be none of its concern - examples which probably persuaded
some people to vote "Exit".

But the EU commissioners are nothing but the appointees of elected
governments. Was this a question of the “EU� setting a requirement or
national governments wanting to do a thing that they were worried would be
unpopular, so laundering the legislation through the EU?

Robin

In article , bob writes
Yes - just one example of EU and its commissioners meddling in things
that ought to be none of its concern - examples which probably persuaded
some people to vote "Exit".

But the EU commissioners are nothing but the appointees of elected
governments. Was this a question of the “EU� setting a requirement or
national governments wanting to do a thing that they were worried would be
unpopular, so laundering the legislation through the EU?

That's a procedure common enough that we called it "Eurowashing" when I
was active in regulatory work.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

Certes wrote:
On 22/06/18 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.

If London Reconnections is to be believed, the former franchisee stopped
hiring drivers when they discovered that they would be recruiting and
training them for the benefit of a rival company. That's certainly due
to privatisation.

DfT could have instructed them to keep recruiting. Continuing recruitment
and training has happened across other franchise changes...


Anna Noyd-Dryver

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message news
.. Certes wrote:

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.

If London Reconnections is to be believed, the former franchisee stopped
hiring drivers when they discovered that they would be recruiting and
training them for the benefit of a rival company. That's certainly due
to privatisation.

.. DfT could have instructed them to keep recruiting. Continuing recruitment
and training has happened across other franchise changes...

Did the franchisee have to tell the DfT about recruitment and training in a
timely fashion or indeed at all?

If so and for example "GTR didn't have enough" should have been obvious in
say February.

--
Mike D