Jump to content


Rugby League World
League Express
Garry Schofield Testimonial Brochure (Signed)


Photo
- - - - -

Why Private is Always Better Than Public.


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#81 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 07:32 AM

I was on a site last week in Wetherby.  They're knocking the former government forensic science laboratories down.  More dogmatism from the Tories.

http://www.nature.co...inquiry-1.13444


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


#82 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 869 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 12:52 PM

That is hardly a trustworthy source is it? Rather like taking a report from Ronald Reagan's governement on the effects of communism, or asking Ken Livingstone to describe the achievements of Boris Johnson as Mayor of London.  

 

Under privatisation there has been a significant increase in safety, timeliness, km of railway track in use,  an exponential increase in the amount of active tracklines and equipment being properly maintained, quality of rolling stock, improved customer service and availability of information. All beyond levels witnessed in most people's lifetimes and some of those aspects have never been experienced in the history of railways in the UK.

 

It is interesting that safety often gets introduced into the argument, but what is ignored is that during privatisation the rail system in the UK is the safest in Europe and noticeably safer than it was before the privitisation experiment began.



#83 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 07:05 PM

That is hardly a trustworthy source is it? Rather like taking a report from Ronald Reagan's governement on the effects of communism, or asking Ken Livingstone to describe the achievements of Boris Johnson as Mayor of London.  

 

Under privatisation there has been a significant increase in safety, timeliness, km of railway track in use,  an exponential increase in the amount of active tracklines and equipment being properly maintained, quality of rolling stock, improved customer service and availability of information. All beyond levels witnessed in most people's lifetimes and some of those aspects have never been experienced in the history of railways in the UK.

 

It is interesting that safety often gets introduced into the argument, but what is ignored is that during privatisation the rail system in the UK is the safest in Europe and noticeably safer than it was before the privitisation experiment began.

But only since Network Rail took over from the privatised Railtrack.


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


#84 Saint Toppy

Saint Toppy
  • Coach
  • 3,176 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 08:05 AM

Under privatisation there has been a significant increase in safety, timeliness, km of railway track in use,  an exponential increase in the amount of active tracklines and equipment being properly maintained, quality of rolling stock, improved customer service and availability of information. All beyond levels witnessed in most people's lifetimes and some of those aspects have never been experienced in the history of railways in the UK.

 

It is interesting that safety often gets introduced into the argument, but what is ignored is that during privatisation the rail system in the UK is the safest in Europe and noticeably safer than it was before the privitisation experiment began.

Can't comment on the infrastructure element of it but if you read Richard Bransons autobiography he talks about his approach to rail safety when he took over the WCML. When ordering the new rolling stock he ordered his team to introduce additional safety measures into every carriage that were over and above what was required even though it made them vastly more expensive and reduce his profits. 

He said at the time that you can't put a price on a human life and his philosophy is one of the main reasons why there wasn't a huge loss of life when one of his trains crashed in Cumbria



#85 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 869 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 12:35 PM

But only since Network Rail took over from the privatised Railtrack.

That is not true. At the point where NetworkRail took over the responsibilities of RailTrack the Rail Network and Infrastructure was already on of the safest in Europe and had been improved on what had gone before significantly. Under RailTrack the infrastructure was updated to levels not seen for decades hence the safety increasing.NetworkRail took over that work with largely the same work force they even had the same CEO for their first five years.

 

When I arrived in the UK the standard of safety seen from BritishRail was very poor and there were several major incidents oin the rail most years.  British Rail was responsible for closing down many stations and even complete sections of railway  lines. Many of those Raileay stations and lines were re-opened successfully through private initiatives and public pressure on the government. Under privatisation post BR this has rarely happened and the railway network has increased.



#86 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 29 July 2015 - 09:11 PM

That is not true. At the point where NetworkRail took over the responsibilities of RailTrack the Rail Network and Infrastructure was already on of the safest in Europe and had been improved on what had gone before significantly. Under RailTrack the infrastructure was updated to levels not seen for decades hence the safety increasing.NetworkRail took over that work with largely the same work force they even had the same CEO for their first five years.

 

When I arrived in the UK the standard of safety seen from BritishRail was very poor and there were several major incidents oin the rail most years.  British Rail was responsible for closing down many stations and even complete sections of railway  lines. Many of those Raileay stations and lines were re-opened successfully through private initiatives and public pressure on the government. Under privatisation post BR this has rarely happened and the railway network has increased.

Why do you think the government disposed of Railtrack and replaced it with Network Rail?  It was because of the succession of disasters and near disasters that had occurred under their watch. Plus of course contractors were taking short-cuts to save money and not checking their work correctly.  


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


#87 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 869 posts

Posted 30 July 2015 - 10:08 AM

Why do you think the government disposed of Railtrack and replaced it with Network Rail?  It was because of the succession of disasters and near disasters that had occurred under their watch. Plus of course contractors were taking short-cuts to save money and not checking their work correctly.  

More lies and untruths from Trojan.

 

The government did not dispose of railtrack. After they went into administration (THe reason RailTrack were replaced) NetworkRail were the only bidder, so the government had no choice. Safety record of RailTrack had nothing whatsover to do with themn being replaced by railtrack, stating otherwise shows ignorance of what actually happened. Under railTrack there were several incidents with regards to safety some of that can be attributed to to the quality of the infrastructure they took over. During that period Railtrack had one of the best safety records in Europe for railway infrastructure, which at the time of taking over the safety record was nowhere near as good. The record left behind by BritishRail as truly appalling.

 

By the way are you aware of the similar amount of safety incidents (what you call disasters) under the watch of NetworkRail more than one of which was due to cutting corners in safety to save money.



#88 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 31 July 2015 - 11:01 PM

More lies and untruths from Trojan.

 

The government did not dispose of railtrack. After they went into administration (THe reason RailTrack were replaced) NetworkRail were the only bidder, so the government had no choice. Safety record of RailTrack had nothing whatsover to do with themn being replaced by railtrack, stating otherwise shows ignorance of what actually happened. Under railTrack there were several incidents with regards to safety some of that can be attributed to to the quality of the infrastructure they took over. During that period Railtrack had one of the best safety records in Europe for railway infrastructure, which at the time of taking over the safety record was nowhere near as good. The record left behind by BritishRail as truly appalling.

 

By the way are you aware of the similar amount of safety incidents (what you call disasters) under the watch of NetworkRail more than one of which was due to cutting corners in safety to save money.

If the record left behind by British Rail is as bad as you say, perhaps it was because the Thatcher government wouldn't invest in the railways.  They were "19th century" technology.   All I know is that around 2000 there were several accidents which proved to be down to negligence by either Railtrack or their contractors.


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


#89 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 869 posts

Posted 03 August 2015 - 06:47 AM

If the record left behind by British Rail is as bad as you say, perhaps it was because the Thatcher government wouldn't invest in the railways.  They were "19th century" technology.   All I know is that around 2000 there were several accidents which proved to be down to negligence by either Railtrack or their contractors.

Safety record under British Rail was appalling, and there was little accountability for the incidents under british rail. That at least did change under RailTrack. Whilst you might have a point about the "Thatcher" government (sic)  the condition if the railways in the late 70s and early 80s was due to successive governments not investing in the railways. It was not proven that they negligent, they were accountable which is not the same thing. What did happen after those incidents was that the infrastructure was and safety was inproved quickly and efficiently to a level not seen before. ###### all when even worse and more regular incidents occurred under british rail.

 

You seem to want to turn every dicsussion into a left/right political statementwhereby the world is seperated out into good people and bad people purely based on their political allegiance. The political and social landscape ius alot more complex than your cartoon bufoonery view of the world. You ignore the available that contradicts your own viewpoints, then twist beyond recognition to support your argument. This goes to the extent that you described Russian communists actions in the 20th century as a social experiment when it was the second most murderous regime in existence (the first being the Mao's regime) and one of the cruelest.



#90 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 03 August 2015 - 07:28 AM

Safety record under British Rail was appalling, and there was little accountability for the incidents under british rail. That at least did change under RailTrack. Whilst you might have a point about the "Thatcher" government (sic)  the condition if the railways in the late 70s and early 80s was due to successive governments not investing in the railways. It was not proven that they negligent, they were accountable which is not the same thing. What did happen after those incidents was that the infrastructure was and safety was inproved quickly and efficiently to a level not seen before. ###### all when even worse and more regular incidents occurred under british rail.

 

You seem to want to turn every dicsussion into a left/right political statementwhereby the world is seperated out into good people and bad people purely based on their political allegiance. The political and social landscape ius alot more complex than your cartoon bufoonery view of the world. You ignore the available that contradicts your own viewpoints, then twist beyond recognition to support your argument. This goes to the extent that you described Russian communists actions in the 20th century as a social experiment when it was the second most murderous regime in existence (the first being the Mao's regime) and one of the cruelest.

There was absolutely no need to privatise the railway.  And there certainly wasn't a need to privatise it in the way it was done, with the maintenance of the track and signalling being divorced from the operation of the trains.  Railtrack was proven to be a slack organisation whose only purpose seemed to be to make money for its investors.  Various rail contractors have gone bust rather than meet their obligations when things went wrong.  If ever there was an operation begging to be taking back into public ownership it is the railways. East Coast proved that the state could run a profitable, safe, efficient railway.  This government sold off the franchise to its mates and the first thing they've done is to effectively double fares.  Should there ever be another Labour government the first thing they should do is to terminate the franchises when they come up for renewal and resume responsibility for the railway.


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


#91 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 22,248 posts

Posted 03 August 2015 - 08:00 AM

No. Just no. 


Life is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.


#92 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 7,362 posts

Posted 03 August 2015 - 08:53 AM

No. Just no. 

 

So you're happy to squander millions of pounds a year purely in pursuit of Tory ideology?


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

#93 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 30,264 posts

Posted 03 August 2015 - 09:09 AM

So you're happy to squander millions of pounds a year purely in pursuit of Tory ideology?

 

You're going to get called a lefty and have something posted in italics in the minute.

 

I'm of the rather radical opinion that as transport is essential to the country (like, say, utilities, health and education) that it should be under the direct control of the elected government.  Whether that is full nationalisation or not I'm ambivalent on but it's my opinion that, right now, we have pretty much the worst of all worlds with a fragmented system that doesn't benefit anyone and is inconsistent across the network.


  • ckn likes this
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#94 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 7,362 posts

Posted 03 August 2015 - 09:36 AM

You're going to get called a lefty and have something posted in italics in the minute.

 

I'm of the rather radical opinion that as transport is essential to the country (like, say, utilities, health and education) that it should be under the direct control of the elected government.  Whether that is full nationalisation or not I'm ambivalent on but it's my opinion that, right now, we have pretty much the worst of all worlds with a fragmented system that doesn't benefit anyone and is inconsistent across the network.

 

Indeed. My opposition is not actually based on a political outlook, but a practical one regarding the fragmentation that leads to a waste of money, high prices and reduced service for passengers. 


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

#95 tomdooley

tomdooley
  • Coach
  • 234 posts

Posted 04 August 2015 - 12:44 PM

I recognise Griff but can't quite put names to the rest. Maybe the TRL Keir Hardy Club can help one they regain consciousness.    :biggrin:  :biggrin:  :biggrin:  :biggrin:  :biggrin:

 

old-men-drinking-in-pub-B4TE60.jpg

It is a sketch by ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett?



#96 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 22,248 posts

Posted 04 August 2015 - 03:14 PM

 it should be under the direct control of the elected government. 

 

  Yes, but you are a Liberal Democrat, and used to promoting minority opinions and fantasy policies based on false premises.


Life is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.


#97 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 04 August 2015 - 03:51 PM

  Yes, but you are a Liberal Democrat, and used to promoting minority opinions and fantasy policies based on false premises.

As opposed to the real policies of the Tories based on false premises you mean?


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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users