Network Rail
 

Robin May wrote...

Jonathan Marten ... wrote...

"Tim" writes:

As long as NPOs are properly regulated with strict employment
rules (i.e. prevent the workers going on strike every six
seconds), contractual arrangements and performance monitoring
then public services can be run cheaply and effectively in this
manner. The problem here is the

This has never been the case for any "public service" or
nationalised industry at any time in the past or at present. Do
you have any credible evidence that it would be possible (out in
the real world, not in your imagination)?

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?







[x-p NGs trimmed; Freeserve will not permit more than a handful]

Network Rail
 

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

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

--
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
...
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?



There's a difference between a business and a service though. Laying and
maintaining electricity lines to some remote locations must be a loss-making
business, if there are only three men and a dog living at the end of the
line; but the lines are there because in this day and age it would be pretty
ridiculous to expect them to get by without electricity.

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...)

Jonn

Network Rail
 

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

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

Network Rail
 

Network Rail
 

Network Rail
 

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:00:57 +0000 (UTC), "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...)
You don't need public transport to live at all do you have two feet or
a bike etc and from the looks of all the buses traveling through my
part of the UK at all hours of the day full of emptiness its only mine
and others council tax that is keeping the bus drivers in
employment !!!!. It certanly isn't the amount of fares they are
collecting in a shift that is paying for fuel and wages .
Grant .

Network Rail
 

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:00:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jonn Elledge"
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?

There's a difference between a business and a service though.

There is. But they are not mutually exclusive

Laying and
maintaining electricity lines to some remote locations must be a loss-making
business, if there are only three men and a dog living at the end of the
line; but the lines are there because in this day and age it would be pretty
ridiculous to expect them to get by without electricity.

Well, maybe. Of course, you could simply say that it's their choice to
live there, and nobody else should have to subsidise that

But even if not, you can still have a business running an inherently
loss-making service. The govt simply proves the a form of subsidy,
just as it does in the public sector

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...)

The same does apply to public transport indeed...

cheers

matt

Network Rail
 

In message m, Grant
Crozier writes
You don't need public transport to live at all do you have two feet or
a bike etc and from the looks of all the buses traveling through my
part of the UK at all hours of the day full of emptiness its only mine
and others council tax that is keeping the bus drivers in employment
!!!!. It certanly isn't the amount of fares they are collecting in a
shift that is paying for fuel and wages . Grant .
You must live in the south east.
--
Clive

Network Rail
 

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:01:20 +0000, Clive
wrote:

In message m, Grant
Crozier writes
You don't need public transport to live at all do you have two feet or
a bike etc and from the looks of all the buses traveling through my
part of the UK at all hours of the day full of emptiness its only mine
and others council tax that is keeping the bus drivers in employment
!!!!. It certanly isn't the amount of fares they are collecting in a
shift that is paying for fuel and wages . Grant .
You must live in the south east.
No the Northwest .
Grant .

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?

Network Rail
 

In message , Robin May
writes
Has privatisation turned any railway into a profit making business?

I thought at least one ToC was profitable (and had no subsidy). Anglia,
perhaps?
--
Roland Perry

Network Rail
 

Grant Crozier wrote:

You don't need public transport to live at all do you have two feet
or a bike etc and from the looks of all the buses traveling through
my part of the UK at all hours of the day full of emptiness its
only mine and others council tax that is keeping the bus drivers in
employment !!!!. It certanly isn't the amount of fares they are
collecting in a shift that is paying for fuel and wages . Grant .
You must live in the south east.
No the Northwest .

The Northwest? Then you'll be familiar with the situation of the lighthouse
at Cape Wrath. The staff and those that visit them would have trouble
relying on "two feet or a bike" to get them there

--
The presence of this sig indicates that I'm under the influence of
excess alcohol. Until I'm sober enough to remember to switch this sig
file off, please treat the above as merely drunken ranting.

I apologise in advance for any offence caused :-)

Network Rail
 

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

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.

Ah yes, they're doing really well aren't they?

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

Or any taxi operator.

For God's sake, how pedantic do I have to be. I really don't have the
time in usenet posts to spend 5 hours (is that figure specific enough
for you? Too inaccurate maybe? Should I have measured it with a timer?)
drafting a legal document to describe what I'm talking about.

I was referring to those parts of public transport which are inherently
loss making like railways (and not necessarily all railways, just some
of them).

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'm sorry you didn't make that assumption then. But now you know what
I'm talking about so it's stupid to keep bringing up other things...

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?

....but of course, you're going to keep bring up other things anyway.

Anyway, if privatisation is so good, what good has it done for the
railways? Did they all offer higher quality service? Do they all now
make a profit?

--
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
 

Stimpy wrote:

Grant Crozier wrote:

You don't need public transport to live at all do you have two feet
or a bike etc and from the looks of all the buses traveling through
my part of the UK at all hours of the day full of emptiness its
only mine and others council tax that is keeping the bus drivers in
employment !!!!. It certanly isn't the amount of fares they are
collecting in a shift that is paying for fuel and wages . Grant .
You must live in the south east.
No the Northwest .

The Northwest? Then you'll be familiar with the situation of the lighthouse
at Cape Wrath. The staff and those that visit them would have trouble
relying on "two feet or a bike" to get them there

Nah. it's a doddle.
From Blairwood head for Sandwood Bay before reaching the lighthouse - about
12-13 miles. You'll need a tent or bivvy bag as it will take most of the day.
http://www.rsf.org.uk/routes/capewrath.htm

And there is an easier way for wimps. Call the Ferry at Durness to reach the
rutted 11 mile road to the lighthouse. Allow a day for the return journey.

Lots of people do it both by bike and walking.

However, I think you are wrong about the staff as I believe it is no longer
manned and the only visits are those for occasional maintenance.

John B

Network Rail
 

JohnB wrote:

The Northwest? Then you'll be familiar with the situation of the
lighthouse at Cape Wrath. The staff and those that visit them would
have trouble relying on "two feet or a bike" to get them there

Nah. it's a doddle.
From Blairwood head for Sandwood Bay before reaching the lighthouse -
about 12-13 miles. You'll need a tent or bivvy bag as it will take
most of the day. http://www.rsf.org.uk/routes/capewrath.htm

And there is an easier way for wimps. Call the Ferry at Durness to
reach the rutted 11 mile road to the lighthouse. Allow a day for the
return journey.

That's the route I was thinking about



However, I think you are wrong about the staff as I believe it is no
longer manned and the only visits are those for occasional
maintenance.

Fair point... It's been around 15 years since I was last there