|
What went wrong with the new Thameslink timetable
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:24:21 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:24:01 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: A sorry tale with many deserving of blame, and no heroes: https://www.londonreconnections.com/...ink-fails-part -2-the-plan-that-went-wrong/ One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf drivers, because GTR didn't have enough. The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation when its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a long way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation just has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit organisation. You mean like BR, with steadily declining patronage, line closures, poor standards of customer service on old trains and lower safety standards? Lower safety standards? Yes, hardly surprising given privatisaion happened 20 years ago when standards were lower anyway. You think the TOCs would have raised them on their own? Pull the other one. Probably not, but the structure of the privatised industry forces higher standards than if it was one monolithic company. A modern day BR would probably only be about as safe as DB, Renfe or SNCF. Our privatised railway is much better. As for the rest of it, that was all down to the governments of the day not wishing to invest plus the economic situation. Well the government is certainly having to invest now! Keeping it off the treasury books doesn't stop some taxpayers money going straight into shareholder dividends for these companies. You mean like Abellio, FirstGroup, Serco, Stagecoach and Virgin? |
What went wrong with the new Thameslink timetable
In uk.railway Recliner wrote:
Probably not, but the structure of the privatised industry forces higher standards than if it was one monolithic company. A modern day BR would probably only be about as safe as DB, Renfe or SNCF. Our privatised railway is much better. How? I don't see TOCs focusing on safety because it hurts the bottom line if you kill customers. The structure of the privatised industry was actually pretty good at killing people - in the Railtrack era. Then the Government (who had recently changed colour) realised that deregulated privatisation was perhaps not such a great plan and the pendulum swung the other way. There has been a lot of investment in safety and a degree of risk aversion. Some might say that's counterproductive (eg the inability to reopen lines due the cost escalation of replacing level crossings with bridges), but it has had the desired effect. But it seems this focus on safety is precisely because the privatised industry killed enough people that the government had to step in. Theo |
What went wrong with the new Thameslink timetable
On 22/06/2018 15:48, Robin wrote:
What I did find odd was your view that it is self-evident railways are "better run as a single not for profit organisation" when yet just about every EU State[1] no longer does so. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Railway_Package [2] https://www.lvm.fi/en/-/factsheet-74...untries-949736 "With the exception of Finland, Ireland and Luxembourg, and Malta and Cyprus... all other Member States of the European Union have already more than one operator providing passenger rail transport services." -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
What went wrong with the new Thameslink timetable
On 22/06/2018 17:56, Theo wrote:
In uk.railway Recliner wrote: Probably not, but the structure of the privatised industry forces higher standards than if it was one monolithic company. A modern day BR would probably only be about as safe as DB, Renfe or SNCF. Our privatised railway is much better. How? I don't see TOCs focusing on safety because it hurts the bottom line if you kill customers. I've seen it argued that privatisation created a perception that it was Someone Else's Money being spent, so if politicians wanted gold-plated safety they could convince themselves that the private sector was paying for this, while the private sector could think "if that's really what they want, we will just price it in to what we charge them". This combined with the public and media concern/hysteria to reduce cost constraints which might otherwise have been faced by "something must be done, and this is something" approaches to safety. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
What went wrong with the new Thameslink timetable
Theo wrote:
In uk.railway Recliner wrote: Probably not, but the structure of the privatised industry forces higher standards than if it was one monolithic company. A modern day BR would probably only be about as safe as DB, Renfe or SNCF. Our privatised railway is much better. How? I don't see TOCs focusing on safety because it hurts the bottom line if you kill customers. The structure of the privatised industry was actually pretty good at killing people - in the Railtrack era. Then the Government (who had recently changed colour) realised that deregulated privatisation was perhaps not such a great plan and the pendulum swung the other way. There has been a lot of investment in safety and a degree of risk aversion. Some might say that's counterproductive (eg the inability to reopen lines due the cost escalation of replacing level crossings with bridges), but it has had the desired effect. But it seems this focus on safety is precisely because the privatised industry killed enough people that the government had to step in. Yes, so you agree with me. |
What went wrong with the new Thameslink timetable
BevanPrice wrote:
On 22/06/2018 15:32, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:58:46 +0100 Robin wrote: On 22/06/2018 11:01, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:24:01 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: A sorry tale with many deserving of blame, and no heroes: https://www.londonreconnections.com/...ink-fails-part -2-the-plan-that-went-wrong/ One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf drivers, because GTR didn't have enough. The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation when its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a long way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation just has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit organisation. Odd then that competition for operating rail services has been spreading across the EU. Nothing odd about it , its an EU requirement for open access to private operators. Directive 91/440 you'll find. Yes - just one example of EU and its commissioners meddling in things that ought to be none of its concern - examples which probably persuaded some people to vote "Exit". But the EU commissioners are nothing but the appointees of elected governments. Was this a question of the “EU” setting a requirement or national governments wanting to do a thing that they were worried would be unpopular, so laundering the legislation through the EU? Robin |
What went wrong with the new Thameslink timetable
In article , bob writes
Yes - just one example of EU and its commissioners meddling in things that ought to be none of its concern - examples which probably persuaded some people to vote "Exit". But the EU commissioners are nothing but the appointees of elected governments. Was this a question of the “EU” setting a requirement or national governments wanting to do a thing that they were worried would be unpopular, so laundering the legislation through the EU? That's a procedure common enough that we called it "Eurowashing" when I was active in regulatory work. -- Clive D.W. Feather |
What went wrong with the new Thameslink timetable
Certes wrote:
On 22/06/18 11:01, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:24:01 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: A sorry tale with many deserving of blame, and no heroes: https://www.londonreconnections.com/...ink-fails-part -2-the-plan-that-went-wrong/ One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf drivers, because GTR didn't have enough. The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation when its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a long way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation just has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit organisation. If London Reconnections is to be believed, the former franchisee stopped hiring drivers when they discovered that they would be recruiting and training them for the benefit of a rival company. That's certainly due to privatisation. DfT could have instructed them to keep recruiting. Continuing recruitment and training has happened across other franchise changes... Anna Noyd-Dryver |
What went wrong with the new Thameslink timetable
"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... .. Certes wrote: One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf drivers, because GTR didn't have enough. The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation when its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a long way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation just has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit organisation. If London Reconnections is to be believed, the former franchisee stopped hiring drivers when they discovered that they would be recruiting and training them for the benefit of a rival company. That's certainly due to privatisation. .. DfT could have instructed them to keep recruiting. Continuing recruitment and training has happened across other franchise changes... Did the franchisee have to tell the DfT about recruitment and training in a timely fashion or indeed at all? If so and for example "GTR didn't have enough" should have been obvious in say February. -- Mike D |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk