Jump to content


League Express
Rugby League World


Photo
- - - - -

Why Private is Always Better Than Public.


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#61 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,093 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 08:37 PM

Network Rail, a primarily tax payer funded organisation seems to be doing a decent, not great, service.

Operators, by and large heavily criticised, providing a poor to decent service, with ever increasing charges.

Seems the tax payer is getting the raw end of the deal.

My own experiences; West Coast main line with Virgin has been pretty good, expensive, but pretty good. Liverpool to Manchester; chronic lack of carriage provision, certainly pre-8am, to the point of being dangerous. Pretty blood dear too, nine quid for a twenty five minutes journey.

And now the electrification has been shelved not likely to get much better between Manchester. Leeds and points east.


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#62 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 7,070 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 08:40 PM

And now the electrification has been shelved not likely to get much better between Manchester. Leeds and points east.


Yup, and votes at the election bought on the back of the promised electrification and other infrastructure upgrades. Basically election fraud.
"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#63 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 5,887 posts

Posted 05 July 2015 - 12:14 PM

Yup, and votes at the election bought on the back of the promised electrification and other infrastructure upgrades. Basically election fraud.

Yeah.  We all voted our respective ways on the sole basis of future electrification of the railways!  Election fraud indeed.  OTT comment to say the least.

 

What you miss out in your post is reference to the incompetence of Network Rail, that publically funded organisation, which has been in charge of the electrification project from day one.  Spiralling costs and planned work overshooting its deadlines have caused the electrification programme to be paused (accordingto the government, and not abandoned) because, at the end of the day, it is public money that is going into this programme.  It is absolutely right and proper that the government should question the spending of public money by a publically funded organisation.



#64 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,093 posts

Posted 05 July 2015 - 12:41 PM

Yeah.  We all voted our respective ways on the sole basis of future electrification of the railways!  Election fraud indeed.  OTT comment to say the least.

 

What you miss out in your post is reference to the incompetence of Network Rail, that publically funded organisation, which has been in charge of the electrification project from day one.  Spiralling costs and planned work overshooting its deadlines have caused the electrification programme to be paused (accordingto the government, and not abandoned) because, at the end of the day, it is public money that is going into this programme.  It is absolutely right and proper that the government should question the spending of public money by a publically funded organisation.

No what you're missing is that the Tories are using Network Rail as whipping boys to cover the fact that they had no intention of proceeding with the electrification of Manchester - Leeds or Sheffield - St Pancras. But they are proceeding with Paddington - Bristol which runs through some very marginal Tory seats - funny that.  Network Rail are a million times better than Railtrack the legacy of the Major government whose incompetence was responsible for several major accidents. 


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#65 tomdooley

tomdooley
  • Coach
  • 220 posts

Posted 05 July 2015 - 02:44 PM

Conspiracies everywhere .

Infamy Infamy the tories have got it in for us who may have voted labour!!



#66 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 8,426 posts

Posted 05 July 2015 - 03:29 PM

A friend has just moved house, she informed Barclay's Bank that she had changed her address.

 

They sent a thank you letter stating "Thank you for informing of us of your change of address" to her old address.

 

More efficient my arris.

Just to come back on the original post...

 

 

 

They do this as a precaution to guard against deliberate or accidental incorrect address changes. I have recently moved house and all my credit card, bank, pension etc confirmations were sent to both old and new addresses. 


God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#67 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 19,192 posts

Posted 05 July 2015 - 07:44 PM

Just to come back on the original post...

 

 

 

They do this as a precaution to guard against deliberate or accidental incorrect address changes. I have recently moved house and all my credit card, bank, pension etc confirmations were sent to both old and new addresses. 

 

Why not just send a text message, they have the mobile number?



Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#68 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 8,426 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:35 AM

Why not just send a text message, they have the mobile number?

Belt & braces?
God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#69 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 7,070 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:43 AM

Yeah.  We all voted our respective ways on the sole basis of future electrification of the railways!  Election fraud indeed.  OTT comment to say the least.
 
What you miss out in your post is reference to the incompetence of Network Rail, that publically funded organisation, which has been in charge of the electrification project from day one.  Spiralling costs and planned work overshooting its deadlines have caused the electrification programme to be paused (accordingto the government, and not abandoned) because, at the end of the day, it is public money that is going into this programme.  It is absolutely right and proper that the government should question the spending of public money by a publically funded organisation.

 
I was being deliberately facetious. However Gideon was being somewhat disingenuous if he knew about the financial situation before the election but held back the decision to shelve the upgrade plans until after the election.
 
Network rail’s problems date back to its predecessor, Railtrack. When it took over the running of the rail infrastructure it made a large number of very experienced managers redundant in the drive for “efficiency” (or penny pinching, depending on your point of view, that eventually lead to the likes of the Hatfield, Potters Bar, Ladbroke Grove etc. disasters), the sort of people they are now struggling to find to run the various upgrade programmes.
 
As I have said many times before I am not against the private sector; I've worked in it all my life, I just don’t think some privatisations are in the best interest of the British public, the railways being one of them. It is far too fragmented and inefficient. For example, every time there is a delay that can be attributed to Network Rail the TOCS involved are entitled to claim financial compensation. What happens however is that Network Rail more often than not will dispute the claim. The result of this is that the TOCS and Network Rail all employ an army of lawyers and accountants to chase and challenge these claims. The whole process takes months to resolve and adds millions to the overall cost of running the railway. On top of all that there is no accountability to the consumers of the service, the passengers, and a major supplier of that service, Network Rail. Likewise, there is no accountability to the passengers from the owners of the rolling stock as this is all owned by a small number of leasing companies. And, as demonstrated by the recent events with Trans Pennine Express, this lack of accountability really doesn't act in the interest of the passenger. Those who seek to defend the rail privatisation shambles often point to the low operating margins posted by the TOCS as some sort of justification. And yes, at 5-10% they are pitifully low. However, their returns are a reflection of the negligible risk these companies are taking. The franchise models are back loaded, meaning that the TOC only pays any appreciable return to the government in the final year or so of a franchise period, therefore, the taxpayer bears the brunt of the financial risk for the majority of the franchise period. They also don't have to take ownership of any assets, the rolling stock being owned by just three UK leasing companies, whose profit margin never comes up in these discussions. The only thing most TOCS "own" is the workforce it employs, and they are shipped from franchise to franchise. The current system really does "socialise the risk and privatise the profit". All this at the same time gobbling up far more in government subsidy than in BR's day while charging the passenger an extortionate amount (an eye watering £309 std return Liverpool - London :O).
 
Then there is the RSP (if you don’t know what the RSP is then I suggest you do some research before continuing this debate, as you obviously really don't know much about the railways or how they work), which again costs the railway system millions of pounds extra each year to administer.
 
And then there’s the "improvement" in service. In the "bad old days" of BR I could catch a direct train from Liverpool to: Southampton, Winchester, Cardiff, Holyhead, Glasgow, Edinburgh, York, Newcastle (off the top of my head, there are probably others) which you can no longer do. Progress hey?

 

So there you have it, less service for more money to both the passenger and taxpayer.


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#70 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 839 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:11 AM

Just to come back on the original post...

 

 

 

They do this as a precaution to guard against deliberate or accidental incorrect address changes. I have recently moved house and all my credit card, bank, pension etc confirmations were sent to both old and new addresses. 

 

Why not just send a text message, they have the mobile number?

1/ The phone number may not be valid anymore.  There is no compulsion to let your bank know about changes in phone number, although you obviously should.

2/ If a fraudster has accessed the account the could just as easily change the phone number, as the address.  It's a bit more difficult to access the post






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users