"Paul Weaver" wrote in message om...
Why? You and everyone are now paying the price for the privatisation of the
electricity supply industry, as well as the railways, and everything else
that previous governments refused to invest in properly. The ESI was built
up with a tremendous amount of fat in the system, but all of that was taken
out in the quest for profit and fat dividend payouts.

So eevn though investment in the grid has increased to unprecedented
levels since privitisation, even though the main problem with the tube
(more then a 30 minute delay - hardly unknown) seems to be the lack of
co-ordination between local area staff and the de-training of people,
your uninformed hyperleft views instantly blame "fat cats" and
"profits".

As for "there should be tripple redundancy" - I have a line from
Futurama I feel is appropiate

"It's pieced all 6000 hulls and we're leaking dark matter everywhere"

"The fools! If only they built it with 6001!"

They'll always be a situation where a failure could have been averted
with X+1 redundancy layers. The chance of 2 failures at the same time
by accident is pretty romte, or so the experts have said. To add
another layer (if thats possible), would

1) not protect against a cascade failure
2) cost a lot more to the country then a 40 minute power cut

Do you want to pay twice the price for your electricity (and increase
in prices for every industry that relys on electricity) to prevent a
40 minute blackout to a small area of the country every 15 years?

Given the apparent "chaos" (pubs were full), the major problem was
lack of organisation and planning, where were the extra coaches, where
was the co-ordination across the network and between train, tube and
grid, where was the emergency response plan?

Now you bring up coaches I've got to ask did the London bus service shut down
the way the one in NY did?