So what you're saying is, privatisation worked because it induced investment?

Not really an argument against my point that.

Not really, I read it as the same results could have been achieved if BR had been allowed to raise funds in the same way the privatised rail companies did.

But how would the BR lads get hammered in the Railway clubs if people wanted to make the railways work?

Like Deutche Bahn have been, you mean?


Anyway, you get £20m for failing to win a franchise bid, so I'm off to jots some numbers down on this post-it and submit it when the Great Western franchise comes up

Yes. You're right.

In the olden days, not a single train ever actually ran or ran on time and, if it did, it was driven by a drunk, while the on-board staff were also three sheets to the wind or seriously hung over.

I was.

What? You never ran on time?

Always, pity my colleagues didn't have the same attitude.

You never get that sort of thing in the world of private business etc, do you?

Just coke sniffing in the City, say ...

You read it exactly right, that is what I meant.
Cheaper results actually, as BR wouldn't have had to pay dividends.

Don't know where I said that privatisation "worked".
I said that the same investment could have been got without privatisation.

I deal with DB Schenker Rail on a daily basis ... not a clue how they run a railway and nor it would appear have they.

Call me old fashioned but it's a shame to see EWS trains rebranded as BD Schenker Rail, it's like something else has died

Public transport should never have been privatised. It should be run by the state on a not for profit basis in order to provide the infrastucture for business (private and public sector) to operate smoothly for the benefit of the country as a whole. How on earth can you expect the government to provide an integrated green transport and energy policy if the transport system is run to provide dividends for the shares holder rather than to meet the country's needs. As stated previously, how can a company that needs to pay a dividend to shareholders run a comparable service that is cheaper to operate than a business that runs on a not for profit basis where all excess funds are reinvested in the system ?

Because the state has a bloody terrible history of running services, the railways will never make a profit in government hands, all we can expect is a better service without paying more to subsidise it.

AFAIK, the bids for this particular franchise involve the winner paying the gov for the opportunity to run it. Virgin's bid was £13b.

The whole point is that a nationalised rail network doesn't need to make profits as such. All it has to do is generate a sufficient amount of income to maintain and upgrade the network as necessary.

Erm, that would be a profit then?

Just interest on the bonds they would have to issue!! Interest unlike dividends cannot be avoided if performance doesn't meet expectations. So could actually end up being more expensive.

By running it more efficiently?

I think they should do away with trains and install those tubes that they have in Futurama.

Fat people might have to walk though.

Quote ="jonny the leyther"Virgin Trains rival Japan and Germany on punctuation'" Because they factor delays into the timetable to allow for this. They once had the last train for Wigan to Preston scheduled to take 45 minutes. It takes 10. Strangely enough their performance results showed them arriving early 90% of the time. I wonder why? Quote ="jonny the leyther"run at a profit'" Yes. You've seen ticket prices, haven't you? Quote ="jonny the leyther"and have 98% customer satisfaction.'" No one's ever asked me to fill in a customer satisfaction survey. I like the Co-operative Party's idea, as a start at least. peoplesrail.org.uk/

Quote ="jonny the leyther"Virgin Trains rival Japan and Germany on punctuation'" Because they factor delays into the timetable to allow for this. They once had the last train for Wigan to Preston scheduled to take 45 minutes. It takes 10. Strangely enough their performance results showed them arriving early 90% of the time. I wonder why? Quote ="jonny the leyther"run at a profit'" Yes. You've seen ticket prices, haven't you? Quote ="jonny the leyther"and have 98% customer satisfaction.'" No one's ever asked me to fill in a customer satisfaction survey. I like the Co-operative Party's idea, as a start at least. peoplesrail.org.uk/

Quote ="GT"Because they factor delays into the timetable to allow for this. '" Isn't "on-time" considered to be anything 9 minutes late or less? You can't measure improvement by constantly changing the definition of what you are measuring. We have a similar scenario about overcrowding on trains: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ition.html They had overcrowded trains and so, to combat that, they changed the definition of overcrowding. Hey presto - fewer overcrowded trains!

Quote ="GT"Because they factor delays into the timetable to allow for this. '" Isn't "on-time" considered to be anything 9 minutes late or less? You can't measure improvement by constantly changing the definition of what you are measuring. We have a similar scenario about overcrowding on trains: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ition.html They had overcrowded trains and so, to combat that, they changed the definition of overcrowding. Hey presto - fewer overcrowded trains!

Any state-run enterprise doesn't make profit, they may have surpluses but not profits, similar to local governments. If a council collects more than it pays out, would you call that "making a profit"?

it would be referred to as a miracle!