Network Rail
 

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

Robin May wrote...

Do you have any credible evidence that it makes sense to
transfer loss making industries to the private sector, where
businesses must make a profit?

*Apart* from stemming the losses and allowing taxes to be either
reduced or used for productive purposes, you mean?

But that's not what happens is it?

Yes, it is.

What happens is that the business
continues to make losses, possibly together with providing a
lower quality service. The government then has to keep propping
it up with handouts and the taxpayers' money that used to be used
for productive purposes is instead used for the number one
priority of private companies, i.e. lining its shareholders
pockets.

Is that what happened with British Gas? Or the electricity
generating industry? Or RJB Mining?

Unlike public transport, those aren't loss making industries. Public
transport often doesn't make a profit not because it's badly run but
because it's just not a profitable industry. The tube was nationalised
in the first place because it wasn't making enough money.

(And the number one priority is always making profit,
not improving service.)

You say that as though the two were incompatible, whereas a glance
at the improvements in services offered by (say) British Telecom
in the last fifteen years proves you wrong.

But BT operate in an industry where it's possible to make a profit.
Where the industry is going to make a loss it's a lot more likely that
they'll reduce the quality of the service to make savings and increase
their profits.

One can only provide a service if it is paid for - somehow or
other. Free lunches don't exist.

Yes, but surely when an industry is necessary but loss making, it makes
more sense to keep it in the private sector than to hand it over to the
public sector and put government money in the hands of shareholders.

Then and than are different words!

My most common typo, I fear, but not made in the post to which you
are responding.

It's just part of my signature, not directed at anyone in particular.
Not enough people seem to be aware of the difference.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

Network Rail
 

Network Rail
 

"JNugent" wrote the following in:


wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

[ ... ]

What happens is that the business continues to make losses...

Is that what happened with British Gas? Or the electricity
generating industry? Or RJB Mining?

Unlike public transport, those aren't loss making industries.

Of course they aren't.

Not now, anyway.

Has privatisation turned any railway into a profit making business?

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

Network Rail
 

Network Rail
 

On 12 Nov 2003 22:51:54 GMT, Robin May
wrote:

Has privatisation turned any railway into a profit making business?

Thameslink for certain, and (I think) Thames Trains? Maybe GNER as
well, but I'm not sure about that one.

Before privatisation, it is said that the entire BR InterCity
operation made a profit, which it then fed back into subsidising
unprofitable routes. Were this still the case today, the rail subsidy
could be much lower. Is privatisation good value? Hmm...

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

Network Rail
 

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

How about answering in respect of British Gas, the electricity
generating industry and RJB Mining (neé The National Coal Board)?

Why should I? I was talking about public transport.

Your original proposition was that privatisation didn't stem the
losses.

No. My proposition was that in inherently loss making industries like
public transport, privatisation doesn't make sense. I may not have been
explicit about the inherently loss making part or the public transport
part, but given the context (a thread about network rail, posted to
uk.transport and uk.transport.london) it's pretty clearly implied.

I have given you three examples where that is clearly
untrue, haven't I?

No.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

Network Rail
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Jonn Elledge wrote:

The same applies to public transport. People need it to live. Not
every can - or can afford - to drive. (And some of us fall into
both categories...)

People manage to get by in many of the more remote areas of the UK
where there is little or no public transport.

And we are all descended from people who were alive (not so many
generations
back) before there was ever any concept of public transport run by the
state, at a time when the only form of PT was the stagecoach.

It *may* in many circumstances provide a useful service,
but to say that people need it to live is ludicrous.

Well, hyperbole, anyway.


True, I was being a bit over the top for effect, but my point remains. Sure,
two hundred years ago people could and did get by with no other transport
than their own feet. But the way the economy works these days it just
wouldn't be possible for a lot of people - jobs aren't near enough to homes.
Unless that changes, we need PT - and we need it to work.

Jonn

Network Rail
 

In message , JNugent
writes

How about answering in respect of British Gas, the electricity
generating industry and RJB Mining (neé The National Coal Board)?
No. I live in the north and can remember only a year or so ago where
RJB mining closed a deep level mine and the same day requested
permission to open an open cast mine which Tyne and wear council
refused.
--
Clive

Network Rail
 

Robin May wrote...

"JNugent" wrote:

How about answering in respect of British Gas, the electricity
generating industry and RJB Mining (neé The National Coal Board)?

Why should I? I was talking about public transport.

I am not at all sure that you restricted your comments to public transport.

In fact, I'm sure you didn't.

Your original proposition was that privatisation didn't stem the
losses.

No. My proposition was that in inherently loss making industries like
public transport, privatisation doesn't make sense.

But public transport is NOT an " inherently loss making" industry, is it?

If you don't believe me, ask British Airways.

Or any of the many private companies that operate bus services.

Or any taxi operator.

I may not have been
explicit about the inherently loss making part or the public transport
part, but given the context (a thread about network rail, posted to
uk.transport and uk.transport.london) it's pretty clearly implied.

This thread has veered in all directions. It is no longer safe to assume it
is dealing with railways.

I have given you three examples where that is clearly
untrue, haven't I?

No.

You dispute the fact that the gas, electricity and coal industries were
loss-makers when in government hands but profitable in private hands?

Network Rail
 

Clive wrote...

writes

How about answering in respect of British Gas, the electricity
generating industry and RJB Mining (neé The National Coal Board)?

No. I live in the north and can remember only a year or so ago where
RJB mining closed a deep level mine and the same day requested
permission to open an open cast mine which Tyne and wear council
refused.

How does that make a case either way as to whether RJB Mining is profitable?