 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19]
|
|
271
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Would full privatisation work?
|
on: September 21, 2016, 18:33:48
|
There is a long, long way to go when it comes to acceptable levels of customer service - more unusual in a privatised service industry but not uncommon in a virtual monopoly - much of that is down to an organisational culture and attitude to customers which is still trapped in the mid 1970s.
Myself I find GWR▸ 's customer service to be very good, you do get the occasional rude member of staff, but since I also know people who work at GWR with customers, normally its actually the fault of a moody customer who upsets the member of staff! However, I do find that First Class on board many TOC▸ 's is very poor, take GWR, you get a free cup of tea in a plastic/cardboard cup, and then either a biscuit or a slice of cake if available, which is fine for short journeys, yet if you want a proper meal for example Plymouth to Paddington with a journey time of 3 hours, you have to for the Pullman service, which should really be either half price to FC‡ passengers, or complementary, after all its nearly £200 just to be on the train in First Class in the first place! I doubt if the original GWR was around this sort of thing would be happening! |
|
|
|
|
272
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Would full privatisation work?
|
on: September 20, 2016, 16:21:51
|
I am no fan of privatisation. In fact I would prefer the railways to be renationalised. BR▸ wasn't great but it did provide MUCH better value than the current set up.
BUT the current set up is the worse of all worlds. The problem is that the likes of First have no "skin in the game". They own very little because they are no more than thinly capitalised spivs. That means that when the revenue predictions or performance go wrong (as they will eventually) they can walk away (see NX and SeaCo) or demand fresh subsidies (see Southern). I'd be happy with NR» staying more or less as it is now but with the TOCs▸ moving to be much more like the FOCs▸ or else just being contractors rather than franchisees.
It is instructive, I think, to note that whilst the FOCs have doubled their productivity since privatisation due to investment in equipment (which BR would never have ordered), the productivity of TOCs (ie the real cost of moving a passenger a mile) is virtually unchanged since the days of BR despite record levels of investment, advances in technology and a year on year increase in customers of the kind that most businesses would kill for.
You might not be a fan of privatisation but it works, you only have to look at British Airways to see how well it has done since it was taken off the public books, this is why I firmly believe the railways could flourish as well. It might be a bit expensive short term, but long term costs would likely come down. Most of the problems we have had with the Great Western in the past 20 years since it was franchised has actually been down to infrastructure or the trains being too old. I wonder if anyone has the numbers on how much it is going to cost GWR▸ to lease trains, staff/management costs, operating costs, and income for the 2015 -2019 franchise. As all I know is that they are paying £68 million to the government to operate it. It would be interesting to work out how much income is made by passenger and freight traffic and what is going out. |
|
|
|
|
273
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Would full privatisation work?
|
on: September 19, 2016, 19:58:36
|
How about getting the roads off the public purse before looking at the much smaller impact of railways?
How about you work on your public skills before launching a personal attack which has nothing to do with the main question  This site provides a forum for discussion of various views - but explicitly requires members not to resort to personal attacks. From our introduction: Opinions are welcome, whether or not the operators of the board share them, but information which you know to be incorrect (or is misleading) is not. Personal attacks on people / individuals are unacceptable and the moderators of the board will take appropriate action against anyone who violates these rules ... however, we have a gentle moderation approach and you're likely to get no more than a gentle warning and a request to change your post if you go "beyond the mark" after a stressful commute from Pangbourne to Paddington one morning. Neither I nor my fellow administrators can see anything what so ever in Richard's posts that make them personal attacks - in fact I can't think of anyone less likely to indulge in such behaviour. I do, however, see a personal attack against Richards by Devonexpress - "How about you work on your public skills" looks to me really nasty. At initial reading, it looks like at attempt to divert attention from a good question to which devonexpress has no easy answer. Devonexpress - please explain (your choice of here, or by personal message to any of the admin or moderator team) how you have been personally attacked, and why we should not treat your follow up exactly as such a personal attack. I and other members would probably much appreciate further background to your line of discussion, including more about the background as to why you're asking, and with further technical comment and thought on matters raised upthread. A confirmation (here in public, at the same level as your original post) that you did not intend a personal attack on Richard would also be appreciated, and an apology should you decide (with hindsight) that your post was out of order. edit to correct typoConsidering I was reading it a very late at night, and have just read it again I was going to admit to being mistaken. However since the moderator/admin team have now decided to gang up, then NO, I shall not apologise. And as for the question I started off with, nobody has actually answered it at all, its all been a very long word response implying "shut up, we like how it works at the minute" Therefore stick the forum up your arse! |
|
|
|
|
275
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Would full privatisation work?
|
on: September 18, 2016, 18:45:23
|
Most other European governments manage to give their nationalised industries much more freedom to get on with the job without micromanagement from the government.
This is exactly what I've been trying to convey. Take the Great Western ,its had problems since 1995 of running on time, delayed trains mainly due to the infrastructure, and its taken over 20 years to do anything about it! If that was private company, I believe thing's would have moved on and progressed a long time ago. |
|
|
|
|
278
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Would full privatisation work?
|
on: September 18, 2016, 11:19:18
|
|
Since it only seem to be two members commenting, and seem to be very opposed to the idea, lets just have a little think...
Heathrow Airport - private, infrastructure, day to day running all managed by a private firm, yet it can still afford to improve things.
British Airways - Has a brand new fleet of 787's, A380s & A350's mostly funded by bank loans which BA» pay off over the lifetime of the aircraft.
So lets customise this for the railways...
For example GWR▸ - (franchises GWR, Arriva Trains Wales, Parts of London Midland & Chiltern)
Somebody put that First Group would buy it, but did I ever mention that?? No.
I clearly stated that a new company would be formed, 60% company owned, 40% shareholder owned.
Since the current franchise GW▸ franchise has to pay £68 million to government from 2015 - 2019, what if that was directly pumped back into the railways (i.e it never leaves) instead of going to the Government who then give it to Network Rail. Any surplus could be either government loaned or bank loaned and paid off over 30 to 40 years.
The current model has to much bureaucracy, for example, the franchise TOC▸ can paint a station, only up to the stairwell height, anything above the stairwell (canopies, buildings etc) have to be painted by Network Rail, at another date, and a different time.
If full privatisation was to happen the RC(Railway Company) could do it all in one go.
|
|
|
|
|
279
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Would full privatisation work?
|
on: September 17, 2016, 23:29:00
|
To Reply I think if it were done it would not be right to assume that the 1923 geographical split would be right for today as there was duplication of routes within companies and it might be better to change the boundaries to promote competition.
So what your saying is that brining back the New North Mainline and having a faster Paddington to Birmingham to connect with CrossRail & Heathrow Express would be a bad thing??? Regarding your specific statements: It is not clear to me how this proposal reduces costs to the industry as a whole. It might reduce the money passsed between a TOC▸ and NR» , but that does not reduce the industry's costs.
I did not say reduce cost to the industry, I said the taxpayer meaning that train companies would recoup investment from fares, as well as other sources such a freight etc. The costs of the railway come from government of the fare box. As I understand it at present the fare box pays to operate the current railway and the government pays for improvements. Unless fares are to go up therefore, government will still be involved in decisions on improvements. We're not on about the present system, I am talking about an old 1930s model, which is used abroad and works well! If the railway company manages the railway, it is removed from government control, unless planning permission is needed. Please also remember that most of the improvements in the 1930's were financed by low interest government loans to promote employment. Yes it could, but the same could be said of longer franchises. Chiltern has demonstrated the benefit of long franchises.
Yes but think how much more could be done if the company owned all the tracks and stations. In GWR▸ the franchise boundary and the proposed company would be the same so there would be no change.
Once again, I am talking old railway boundaries, so the franchise companies would include Chiltern, Arriva Trains Wales, GWR, London Midland so actually that includes class 172s, 168's and the DVT‡ sets. 5) With the train company running the infrastructure as well as the train service, decisions could be made easier than the current model which sees the Dft telling Network Rail who manage the timetables, and hand them over to the franchise.
There might be some improvement here, but I am not sure there would be as much benefit as people claim. Other questions to be answered are:
What would happen to cross country routes? Most of these routes would go across several companies. Look at a pre-war timetable and many of these services were not as good as they are now.
Would there be damage to the freight sector where many of the flows would be across company?
Would open access still be allowed? Arguably this has stimulated companies to introduce new services to areas that were previously poorly served.
Considering that the original GWR had an agreement with LMS▸ to run summer services from Manchester to Plymouth, im sure that Crosscountry could continue under an agreement, possibly imposed on companies by the government. Considering that the freight sector would be exactly the same as XC▸ nothing would probably change, but possible the railway companies could take over their own section. Bare in mind that in 1930s, competition to be the best, actually improved services, these days their is budget airlines, cars all to be competed with, so I can't see the need for open access. |
|
|
|
|
280
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Would full privatisation work?
|
on: September 17, 2016, 23:16:38
|
No ........ not in the old big four companies, most if not all of the competing routes have gone, BR▸ were driven down that path by Government to cut costs and become efficient. If the national network as it stands to day were to be vertically integrated  ie a TOC▸ became the infrastructure operator they would always give preference to their trains over other TOC and FOCs▸ irrespective of what legislation was put in place there would always be loop holes. Certainly the franchise system is not working very well, Government departments are just not very good at efficient contracts and procurement The tax payer is paying less and less this has been successive Government policy for the last 20 odd years that's why the fares are so high, however there is still a large input of public money hence the Government will have a say in how it is used so pile on layers of bureaucracy because the railways have to justify what it does to you and me the tax payer or at least that's what the suits in the ministry say. MPs▸ have never forgiven or trusted the railways ever since since William Huskisson MP was run over on the 15 September 1830 You seem to miss understand what I said about a train company becoming the infrastructure manager. It would only be for the routes they operate i.E GWR▸ would managed GWR territory. The competing routes could easily be introduced, and what is to stop the government giving loans as and where needed, instead of buying a brand new fleet of Japanese bullet trains, or proposing a very expensive high speed train line to Birmingham, it could have let the train company buy the trains and reopened the Paddington to Birmingham Snow Hill line, which would only need redoubling on the New North Mainline and a few other places such as High Wycombe, along with some speed improvements, to match that of the West Coast! |
|
|
|
|
281
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Tabbard colours
|
on: September 17, 2016, 23:11:39
|
I didn't realise that GWR▸ staff are now bright green in colour. This must make recruitment very difficult. I assume they are now placing recruitment adverts only on mars, where as we all know little green men (and presumably women) are know to originate. Haha, I meant the uniforms |
|
|
|
|
282
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Would full privatisation work?
|
on: September 17, 2016, 22:46:19
|
|
The current franchise model is to say the least poor, franchise operators try to keep cost low by refurbishing stock instead of buying new(mainly due to the short amount of time to recoup the costs).
So my question is, would a full privatisation model(pre:1947) work in the current time?
If each area's where to be returned to their original form, GWR▸ , LNER» , SR‡, LMS▸ , with each franchise merging into the specific company once the contract had expired. Network Rail being split between all four companies, and then merging into each, with a small section left a outsourcer for the measurement trains and other equipment etc. And the leasing companies being axed and each train company taking ownership of their stock. And the company shares could be 60:40 (40% shareholders/stock market), (60% - 10% staff shares, with the remaining 50% being owned by the company, and managed by a board of directors employed by the company)
Myself, I believe this would work, here's why:
1) It would take all cost off the taxpayer funding the railway
2) Where as currently the Dft makes decisions on infrastructure, the individual train company could, and work it around the best time possible, meaning that overcrowding, delays etc would be more short term than long term issues.
3) More investment could be made, as it could be recouped over the full working life of the train by that train company.
4) It would also allow the swapping of trains during the change over from franchising, meaning a more concise fleet could be achieved.
5) With the train company running the infrastructure as well as the train service, decisions could be made easier than the current model which sees the Dft telling Network Rail who manage the timetables, and hand them over to the franchise.
I would love to know your thought on this, could it ever work? Would it reduce cost long term? Or is it to impractical and expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
283
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Tabbard colours
|
on: September 17, 2016, 22:31:54
|
|
Out of interest, is it really necessary for dispatch staff on platforms to have tabard's on in the first place?? If they where to use the little dispatch lamps full time instead of the table tennis bats, then surely it would be visible on a long platform?
I.E a bright green GWR▸ staff member should be very visible in crowd of passengers anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
