Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built
between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all
entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport
system of its day.

Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Thanks to
centralisation, lack of competition and general socialist policy.

It makes me sick.

On a similar note, what geological problems are there preventing massive
tube expansion? Why is no one investing in PRT (http://www.atsltd.co.uk/)?
I'm guessing the red tape involved in creating a private mass transit
system is prohibitive. How I long for a return to the days of the twopenny
tube.

P.S. Buses are crap

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built
between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all
entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport
system of its day.

Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Thanks to
centralisation, lack of competition and general socialist policy.

It makes me sick.

On a similar note, what geological problems are there preventing massive
tube expansion? Why is no one investing in PRT (http://www.atsltd.co.uk/)?
I'm guessing the red tape involved in creating a private mass transit
system is prohibitive. How I long for a return to the days of the twopenny
tube.

P.S. Buses are crap

Ummm - The Victoria Line & the Jubilee Line (both bits). Hardly nothing.

Croydon Tramlink was an example of PFI - and is in dire straights finance
wise.

Why aren't those fine capitalists rushing to invest their money without any
centralised meddling (you'd call it subsidy rather than investment no
doubt)? Perhaps because they know they'll never get a worthwhile return.

Colin

Paul Weaver wrote the following in:
news
Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was
built between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all
entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public
transport system of its day.

Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing.
Thanks to centralisation, lack of competition and general
socialist policy.

********. There's been the Victoria line, the Jubilee line, the DLR,
new stations and interchanges (e.g. c2c stop at West Ham) and I'm sure
there are other things I haven't heard of.

There's also the point that the first tubes were built at a time when
there was almost nothing. I saw a post earlier today where someone made
the point that there was more railway building in the early years of
the 20th century than in the past 50 years. What a silly thing to point
out. 50 years ago there was already quite a large tube network whereas
a hundred years ago there was practically nothing. Of course more was
built then when there was nothing in existence.

It makes me sick.

Perhaps your one of those people who desperately looks for things to be
sick about, and if nothing reasonable is available then makes something
up.

--
message by Robin May, consumer of liquids
"A very large head, a head like a bear's"

Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort.

Robin May wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote the following in:
news
Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was
built between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all
entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public
transport system of its day.

There's also the point that the first tubes were built at a time when
there was almost nothing. I saw a post earlier today where someone made
the point that there was more railway building in the early years of
the 20th century than in the past 50 years. What a silly thing to point
out. 50 years ago there was already quite a large tube network whereas
a hundred years ago there was practically nothing. Of course more was
built then when there was nothing in existence.

There's also the point that, having built the lines, the entrepreneurs,
on the whole, failed to make money from them, and were eventually bailed
out by nationalisation in the '30s.

Presumably potential modern tube entrepreneurs know this, even if most
people don't.

Colin McKeznie

On 29 Sep 2003 19:43:57 GMT, Robin May
wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote the following in:
news
Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was
built between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all
entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public
transport system of its day.

Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing.
Thanks to centralisation, lack of competition and general
socialist policy.

********. There's been the Victoria line, the Jubilee line, the DLR,
new stations and interchanges (e.g. c2c stop at West Ham) and I'm sure
there are other things I haven't heard of.


The original poster also conveniently ignores anything between the
first and second world wars. In fact great chunks of the network
outside the centre - particularly stretches of the Northern,
Piccadilly, and Central lines - were built in the 1930s when the
system was already in public ownership, and its management was very
centralised. Those magnificent Holden stations weren't funded by
venture capitalists :-)

Of course that was in a very different economic and political climate
from today, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions about the relative
merits of public and private funding from any of this

Martin

Paul Weaver wrote:
Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built
between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all
entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport
system of its day.

Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Thanks
to centralisation, lack of competition and general socialist policy.

It makes me sick.

On a similar note, what geological problems are there preventing
massive tube expansion? Why is no one investing in PRT
(http://www.atsltd.co.uk/)? I'm guessing the red tape involved in
creating a private mass transit system is prohibitive. How I long for
a return to the days of the twopenny tube.

P.S. Buses are crap

For a return to the twopenny tube you're probably out of place in the
21st Century, as you must be at least ... how old?

In article , Paul Weaver
wrote:
Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built
between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all
entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport
system of its day.

Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Thanks to
centralisation, lack of competition and general socialist policy.

It makes me sick.

What is this "centralisation" you complain of?

If you read Croom & Jackson's wonderful book "Rails through
the clay", at least in it's earlier editions before it become just
another publicity handout for LT, it is plain that the tube has never
ever made a commercial return on capital.

An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys") started the
tube in the early 1890s as a string of separate railways, one of the
reasons why they still don't interconnect very well. They were going
to be cable-hauled in the manner of San Francisco cable cars, this
accounts for the small crosssection of the tube, but while the tunnels
were being dug, electric traction was developed, so the system was
finished as an electric railway. But technical progress had also
reached street transport, there were now electric trams and petrol
buses, and the tube never pulled in the passengers that had been hoped
for.

It was still a city-centre system, in the 1920s and 30s, the
tube was extended into the suburbs, as unemployment relief.

Post-war, it was recognised from the start that lines like the
Victoria line would never make money, but they were built as a public
service.

This is of course quite separate from the argument about
whether public transport in cities OUGHT to at least break even. But
the foreknowledge that no return on capital will be made, and there
might even be an operating loss, inevitably reduces enthusiasm.

By the way, I was struck to read over the weekend that the
government now spends MORE money on railways than on roads. When you
consider that much smaller amount of total traffic that is carried on
the railways, I can feel for Alistair Darling's refusal to spend more
money on them and his comment "The railways have to live within their
means, like everybody else". Bring back British Railways!

--

Michael Bell

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:08:08 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:
An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys")

Is that true? I'd always assumed it was Yerkes, rhymes with Turks. But
then again I've never heard anyone speak it; only read the name.

Sam
--
Sam Holloway, Cambridge

In article , Sam Holloway
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:08:08 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:
An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys")

Is that true? I'd always assumed it was Yerkes, rhymes with Turks. But
then again I've never heard anyone speak it; only read the name.

Sam
It is authoritatively stated so in "Rails through the clay" By
Croom & Jackson (actually, I am not quite certain of the spelling of
Croom. Might be Croom, Croome, Croomb, Croombe etc)

--

Michael Bell

Michael Bell wrote in message ...
In article , Sam Holloway
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:08:08 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:
An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys")

Is that true? I'd always assumed it was Yerkes, rhymes with Turks. But
then again I've never heard anyone speak it; only read the name.

Sam
It is authoritatively stated so in "Rails through the clay" By
Croom & Jackson (actually, I am not quite certain of the spelling of
Croom. Might be Croom, Croome, Croomb, Croombe etc)

Actually, the other name should be pronounced Yaksown! :-)