On Aug 17, 2:51*am, Charlie Hulme
wrote:
On 17/08/2011 10:32, 1506 wrote:

Having been away for many years, one is pleasantly surprised by the
improvements the badly designed privatization has brought about.
South West Trains is on a whole new level of comfort compared to BR.

They came along just at the time when new rolling stock needed to
be ordered. I think we can safely assume that slam-door stock
would not be running today if BR had survived at it was ... or
been allowed to bid for franchises as has happened elsewhere with
the state railway organisations. BR could have been running some
Bavarian branch lines by now!

Charlie

That does not explain the other improvements. SWT stations are in
much better shape. Their staff shows an appropriate level of respect
for the customers. The trains are reasonably timely.

New Southern Railway is pretty good. Except that their services stop
at the sight of a snowflake.

First Great Western is not at all impressive, what with dirty trains
and surly staff.

The worst is TfL; the London Subway is dirty, hot, unreliable, and
staffed, in my experience, by jobsworths.

OTOH, I am impressed by the LUL station dwell times. As soon as the
train has stopped the doors open. The doors remain open just long
enough, close, and the train pulls away. Now if SWT could achieve the
same it would be a great improvement. After their trains stop it
takes several second for the open door LEDs to light. Then the
station dwell times tend to be excessive.

On 17/08/2011 19:01, 1506 wrote:

The worst is TfL; the London Subway is dirty, hot, unreliable, and
staffed, in my experience, by jobsworths.

So, depending on the exact problem to be solved, go to Greggs or use a
pelican crossing.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" wrote:

On 17/08/2011 19:01, 1506 wrote:

The worst is TfL; the London Subway is dirty, hot, unreliable, and
staffed, in my experience, by jobsworths.

So, depending on the exact problem to be solved, go to Greggs or use a
pelican crossing.

:-)

(Is a busker a "jobsworth"? They are capable of being deliberately
obstructive at times...)

why not go the whole way?

http://www.financialreform.info/f_r_...ne_letter.html

http://www.financialreform.info/f_r_free_travel.html

On Aug 17, 7:01*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 17, 2:51*am, Charlie Hulme
wrote:

On 17/08/2011 10:32, 1506 wrote:

Having been away for many years, one is pleasantly surprised by the
improvements the badly designed privatization has brought about.
South West Trains is on a whole new level of comfort compared to BR.

They came along just at the time when new rolling stock needed to
be ordered. I think we can safely assume that slam-door stock
would not be running today if BR had survived at it was ... or
been allowed to bid for franchises as has happened elsewhere with
the state railway organisations. BR could have been running some
Bavarian branch lines by now!

Charlie

That does not explain the other improvements. *SWT stations are in
much better shape. *Their staff shows an appropriate level of respect
for the customers. *The trains are reasonably timely.

Considering that you live in the United States (do correct me if I'm
wrong), I hardly think you're in a position to lecture us on how
wonderful the privatised railway is in Britain. It's very easy to
spout on about recent improvements (real or imaginary) while
pretending that if BR had never been broken up and privatised, the
railway today would be exactly the same as it was in the mid 1990s,
except that the trains and infrastructure would all have aged by
another fifteen years or so. British taxpayers like me are giving five
times as much money to the privatised rail industry as we did to BR.
Are today's passengers experiencing corresponding benefits to justify
this? I don't think so. Rail privatisation was a victory for
capitalist ideology; in all other respects it has been a spectacular
failure of scandalous proportions. The Tories won't admit it has
failed; certainly not as long as there are other public assets left
that they want to see flogged off for short-term gain.


The worst is TfL; the London Subway is dirty, hot, unreliable, and
staffed, in my experience, by jobsworths.

Predictably, the worst of your double-barrelled venom is reserved for
TfL, as a government body. If privatisation of the main GB railways
has been so successful in your view, why are we not hearing constant
calls - from passengers, staff or even backbench Tory MPs - for the
complete privatisation of the London Underground (or, for that matter,
Translink), so that more of us can benefit from the same ever-so-
efficient privately run transport Utopia?

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/630

On 17/08/2011 20:29, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/630

I would sign th e-petition, but so far I have been unable to sign any.
When I got the e-mail to confirm my identity, the link took me back to
the signing page.


--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Does anyone have any real idea of what the railway system would be like today if it had not been privatised?

You are quite right to point out that we taxpayers are paying far more in subsidies than ever we did when the railways were nationalised but you are slightly off target about the privatisation. First, it was not a victory only for capitalist ideology (or Tory dogma). It was also a victory for spivery on a huge scale.

John Major's government knowingly undervalued the railway assets massively and stipulated that a large percentage of the shares were to be reserved for big financial institutions. In other words the Tory's friends in the City were given a vast profit for doing nothing and the British people were defauded of part of the value of their assets. I'm quite sure those institutions were very grateful to John Major and his government and I take it for granted that they expressed their gratitude in a way that John Major and his colleagues found most satisfying. I'm also sure that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown took note of what was going on and decided that they too would help the big financial institutions when it was their turn to ruin the country. That, beyond rational dispute, was why they persisted with PPP even when it had been proved comprehensively to be against the public interest; and that, beyond rational dispute, is why Tony Blair puts it about that he has earned millions since leaving office.

Second, privatisation has not been a total failure. The railways are now doing more business than previously including freight. I doubt if that increase would have occured under public ownership.

"Robin9" wrote in message
[color=blue][i]
Railsigns.co.uk;122015 Wrote:


It's very easy to spout on about recent improvements (real or
imaginary) while pretending that if BR had never been broken up and
privatised, the
railway today would be exactly the same as it was in the mid 1990s,
except that the trains and infrastructure would all have aged by
another fifteen years or so. British taxpayers like me are giving
five times as much money to the privatised rail industry as we did
to BR. Are today's passengers experiencing corresponding benefits to
justify this? I don't think so. Rail privatisation was a victory for
capitalist ideology; in all other respects it has been a spectacular
failure of scandalous proportions. The Tories won't admit it has
failed; certainly not as long as there are other public assets left
that they want to see flogged off for short-term gain.


Does anyone have any real idea of what the railway system would be
like today if it had not been privatised?

You are quite right to point out that we taxpayers are paying far more
in subsidies than ever we did when the railways were nationalised but
you are slightly off target about the privatisation. First, it was
not a victory only for capitalist ideology (or Tory dogma). It was
also a victory for spivery on a huge scale.

John Major's government knowingly undervalued the railway assets
massively and stipulated that a large percentage of the shares were to
be reserved for big financial institutions. In other words the Tory's
friends in the City were given a vast profit for doing nothing and the
British people were defauded of part of the value of their assets.

Could you be more specific on this? After all, the Roscos and Tocs were
not owned by the City institutions at privatisation, and nor was
Railtrack. So, which financial institutions exactly benefited from these
reserved shares?

On the other hand, a lot of lawyers and accountants did very well out of
the complex restructuring. They didn't buy any part of the system, but
were well paid for helping carve it up.

Major's government probably did sell it all off too cheaply, not so much
as to benefit their pals, but to make sure it all got sold off before
they lost power. They also made it as complex as possible for an
incoming Labour government to re-nationalise it. So it was ideology (and
incompetence by a tired, failing government), not spivery, at work.

Quite frankly, after all these years, I don't know which institutions bought which shares. Essentially British Rail was split into various segments and shares in each segment were offered for sale. I think 20% was reserved for financial institutions. This was not the first privatisation where this had happened.

Thatcher's Government started privatising on a small scale and made all the shares available to the public. The shares sold out in advance and Opposition politicians said that proved the price had been set too low. When council houses were sold off for far less than their market value, the Tories' opponents and some irreverent journalists noticed a pattern emerging. I recall on radio programmes like "Today" Government Ministers being given a grilling on their failure to protect tax-payers by maximising revenue.

Later, when the really big privatisations took place, the Tories announced that a chunk of the shares were being reserved for the big institutions. I seem to remember one minister being challenged on this and replying that some stability in the financial market was required for such a large privatisation and that if small shareholders quickly sold for a fast profit, this might unsettle the market! If my memory serves me correctly, at that time there was no suggestion by Opposition politicians or journalists that there was an "over-close relationship" - Harold Wilson's phrase incidentally - between the Tories and some people in the City.

By the time John Major's Government decided to privatise the railways, the mood of the country had changed and cynicism about the Tories' integrity was widespread. No longer was the electorate prepared to give the Govenment the benefit of the doubt and when, once again, the price was set a level which most informed observers felt was way below the real value, accusations of corruption were thrown about gleefully.

It is certainly the case that some people made a huge profit overnight. There was one instance of a company being sold soon after privatisation for 300 million more than the shareholders had paid for it.

There must be plenty of information about all this on the Internet although, of course, some of the posters will have political axes to grind.

"Robin9" wrote in message

'Recliner[_2_ Wrote:
;122031']

Could you be more specific on this? After all, the Roscos and Tocs
were

not owned by the City institutions at privatisation, and nor was
Railtrack. So, which financial institutions exactly benefited from
these

reserved shares?

On the other hand, a lot of lawyers and accountants did very well
out of

the complex restructuring. They didn't buy any part of the system,
but were well paid for helping carve it up.

Major's government probably did sell it all off too cheaply, not so
much

as to benefit their pals, but to make sure it all got sold off before
they lost power. They also made it as complex as possible for an
incoming Labour government to re-nationalise it. So it was ideology
(and incompetence by a tired, failing government), not spivery, at
work.

Quite frankly, after all these years, I don't know which institutions
bought which shares. Essentially British Rail was split into various
segments and shares in each segment were offered for sale. I think 20%
was reserved for financial institutions. This was not the first
privatisation where this had happened.

Thatcher's Government started privatising on a small scale and made
all the shares available to the public. The shares sold out in
advance and Opposition politicians said that proved the price had
been set too low. When council houses were sold off for far less than
their market value, the Tories' opponents and some irreverent
journalists noticed a pattern emerging. I recall on radio programmes
like "Today" Government Ministers being given a grilling on their
failure to protect tax-payers by maximising revenue.

Later, when the really big privatisations took place, the Tories
announced that a chunk of the shares were being reserved for the big
institutions. I seem to remember one minister being challenged on this
and replying that some stability in the financial market was required
for such a large privatisation and that if small shareholders quickly
sold for a fast profit, this might unsettle the market! If my memory
serves me correctly, at that time there was no suggestion by
Opposition politicians or journalists that there was an "over-close
relationship" - Harold Wilson's phrase incidentally - between the
Tories and some people in the City.

By the time John Major's Government decided to privatise the railways,
the mood of the country had changed and cynicism about the Tories'
integrity was widespread. No longer was the electorate prepared to
give the Govenment the benefit of the doubt and when, once again, the
price was set a level which most informed observers felt was way
below the real value, accusations of corruption were thrown about
gleefully.

It is certainly the case that some people made a huge profit
overnight. There was one instance of a company being sold soon after
privatisation for 300 million more than the shareholders had paid for
it.

There must be plenty of information about all this on the Internet
although, of course, some of the posters will have political axes to
grind.

I suspect that you're one of the people with a political axe to grind. I
don't think the privatisation of BR was corrupt, simply incompetent and
ideological. It was rushed, as they were determined to complete it
before the next election, which meant they put speed ahead of anything
else, including getting the best price. Few components were sold as new
PLCs that financial institutions could or would invest in, and it
appears that no thought was put into creating stable, efficient
companies.

The biggest reason for the low prices was Prescott's threats to
nationalise BR for minimal compensation. That scared off bidders with
deep pockets, so MBOs bought many of the fragments of BR for low prices.
Most sold out a few years later, once Labour's pre-election threats were
exposed as hollow, making huge profits in the process (the Roscos being
the prime example). The winners were BR managers, not pals of the
previous government. The other major beneficiaries were the big legal
and accounting firms who provided many millions of pounds of expensive
advice (who gained just as much from Labour's PFI schemes, so they
conscientiously befriend both major political parties). So John Prescott
bears as much blame for the low prices as John Major. Both were useless,
and promoted way beyond their capabilities.

And when you talk about mysterious 'financial institutions', these are
mainly public pension funds and insurance companies investing your and
my savings. we should all be happy if they do well. They tend to own the
majority of stock in UK listed companies, so as you say, even if "Sids"
(members of the public) initially buy privatised company stock, they
tend to sell it on pretty soon (I wish I'd dumped my Railtrack stock a
lot quicker than I did).

Administering large stockholder lists is expensive for public companies,
and those armies of small stockholders rarely bother to use their votes
or even read the thick, glossy annual reports that thud on to their
doormats -- so they are quite relieved when large, professional
financial institutions buy them out (I speak from personal experience as
a smallish shareholder in scores of public companies and funds). The
small shareholders of privatised utility companies made quick, easy but
modest tax-free profits (as they were usually well below the capital
gains tax threshold), so everyone was happy.