Where an operator is running a decent service - surely there shouldn't be a time limit on the contract - merely clauses that can quickly and easily be activated if it fails to meet expectations in key areas. The costs of having to bid must pass on to commuters and the costs of organising the bid goes to taxpayers which is surely crazy economics. The problem is that running a train line doesn't really lend itself to competition - nor do utilities. You can't have two different companies competing on the same tracks as you could with say coach companies, so it is a fake competition.
If you are going to make the argument to have a privatised railway - Virgin are a good advert. They are in it to make money but are also more altruistic in outlook than many competitors. The complaint they had was that the way First Group bid- they could have creamed off all the money then eventually lost the contract and been quids in. This allowed them to make on the face of it a better bid.
I remember when Thatcher started off on her privatisation programme she had a minister called John Moore who announced that the success of privatisation would be measured by the competition it created and the better value such competition created for consumers/voters. Within a couple of years he'd had a nervous breakdown and left politics. Thatcher of course charged on, but even she drew a line at the railways. So through the soaring prices, the tragic consequences of Railtrack, the grand total of 70 miles of high speed track, you get to today's fiasco. The rest of Europe looks on in fascinated bemusement, at the country that invented railways, and wonders WTF is up with us.
The structure of the privatised railway may be a mess, but in terms of passenger numbers, they've shot up, so it's not a complete disaster. On the Virgin lines, trains to Birmingham and Manchester run every 20 minutes during the day, you won't find that frequency elsewhere. More passenger journeys are made in the UK than France, for example.
If they had privatised the railway earlier before land was sold and it was asset stripped in the eighties the privatised railway would have been able to expand more and carry all the people and freight that wants to get carried now.I feel that a lot of these high prices is to dampen demand now.
The structure of the privatised railway may be a mess, but in terms of passenger numbers, they've shot up, so it's not a complete disaster. On the Virgin lines, trains to Birmingham and Manchester run every 20 minutes during the day, you won't find that frequency elsewhere. More passenger journeys are made in the UK than France, for example.
While it's true that passenger numbers have increased that does not automatically mean that it is because of privatisation, far from it. At the ad agency from 1987-92 British Rail was my client and the InterCity division had become profitable and passenger figures were on the up. Had they been allowed to, they would have sorted out the problems with the Advanced Passenger Train, and would have reaped the benefit of the last 20 years of increasing affluence and motorway gridlock, with faster trains and lower fares. Whether there would have been such improvements in the regional and suburban networks is a question, but from what I see when I return to SE London there has been very little overall improvement under privatisation. My sister still stands every day to work from Eltham.
I remember when Thatcher started off on her privatisation programme she had a minister called John Moore who announced that the success of privatisation would be measured by the competition it created and the better value such competition created for consumers/voters. Within a couple of years he'd had a nervous breakdown and left politics. Thatcher of course charged on, but even she drew a line at the railways. So through the soaring prices, the tragic consequences of Railtrack, the grand total of 70 miles of high speed track, you get to today's fiasco. The rest of Europe looks on in fascinated bemusement, at the country that invented railways, and wonders WTF is up with us.
It was always a bizarre model. They looked at the private sector and correctly surmised that it tended to offer higher efficiency and more innovation than the public sector. So far, so good. What they completely missed out of the analysis was the effect of creating monopoly or near monopoly conditions for profit making organisations providing vital services. Through weak regulation and management into the mix and it was always going one way, but a few cats got fat off it, no doubt.
Somebody in Government has got to be held to account for this shambolic business. It is going to cost us, the taxpayers, £40 million in compensation to the companies that took part in the flawed tendering process.
Some things have got better, other got worse since privatisation, it's difficult to say whether the improvements would have happened or not. Taking a Charlton example, the trains from London Bridge on Saturday now run every 10 minutes, that's much better than they used to run. I stand on the 'state run' Underground, that's how it is in big cities.
Back in the 90s, the quality of the political discussion was terrible, hence we ended up with the current complicated and expensive structure, the argument was entirely about whether privatisation was good or bad, not the FORM of privatisation. There were vertically integrated alternatives, e.g. British Rail plc, or sectorisation (NSE, IC, Regional) or regionalisation (Southern etc)
God what a mess....... This would have only come to light if Branson had not challenged this. Greening was wetting herself with anticipation that she could sign this contract. See if Tory Girl has a lot to say now. Probably explains why she got the chop last month? May have to take it back into public ownership, or ask Branson to carry on..... egg on face eitherway......
I remember when Thatcher started off on her privatisation programme she had a minister called John Moore who announced that the success of privatisation would be measured by the competition it created and the better value such competition created for consumers/voters. Within a couple of years he'd had a nervous breakdown and left politics. Thatcher of course charged on, but even she drew a line at the railways. So through the soaring prices, the tragic consequences of Railtrack, the grand total of 70 miles of high speed track, you get to today's fiasco. The rest of Europe looks on in fascinated bemusement, at the country that invented railways, and wonders WTF is up with us.
It was always a bizarre model. They looked at the private sector and correctly surmised that it tended to offer higher efficiency and more innovation than the public sector. So far, so good. What they completely missed out of the analysis was the effect of creating monopoly or near monopoly conditions for profit making organisations providing vital services. Through weak regulation and management into the mix and it was always going one way, but a few cats got fat off it, no doubt.
100% agree, and i could name you some of the fat ex BR cats who got the cream but it's history. To be fair I don't think any country has really solved the puzzle but it sure ain't the UK. Somebody should also take a look at the inexcusable prevarication regarding DB's plan to run their trains through the tunnel to London.
I travel on the west coast line a fair bit and think virgin give a good service. Certainly better than first group who in my experience are much worse.
I always wondered how they thought competition would work with the railways. If I didn't like the service from Chelmsford to London, I wasn't going to go from Birmingham to Glasgow instead
The structure of the privatised railway may be a mess, but in terms of passenger numbers, they've shot up, so it's not a complete disaster. On the Virgin lines, trains to Birmingham and Manchester run every 20 minutes during the day, you won't find that frequency elsewhere. More passenger journeys are made in the UK than France, for example.
While it's true that passenger numbers have increased that does not automatically mean that it is because of privatisation, far from it. At the ad agency from 1987-92 British Rail was my client and the InterCity division had become profitable and passenger figures were on the up. Had they been allowed to, they would have sorted out the problems with the Advanced Passenger Train, and would have reaped the benefit of the last 20 years of increasing affluence and motorway gridlock, with faster trains and lower fares. Whether there would have been such improvements in the regional and suburban networks is a question, but from what I see when I return to SE London there has been very little overall improvement under privatisation. My sister still stands every day to work from Eltham.
How do you know within twenty years that is what would have happened? London has a lot more people living in it then most cities in Europe so can't really see how we can compare the rest of Europe to London.
wonder why in the 13 years of milk and honey under Labour they didnt re-nationalise ? maybe they will if they get in next time-----although with Millwank he dont seem to have any actual policies at all.
wonder why in the 13 years of milk and honey under Labour they didnt re-nationalise ? maybe they will if they get in next time-----although with Millwank he dont seem to have any actual policies at all.
His only policy is the same as Gordon Brown, f**k the country over
Comments
If you are going to make the argument to have a privatised railway - Virgin are a good advert. They are in it to make money but are also more altruistic in outlook than many competitors. The complaint they had was that the way First Group bid- they could have creamed off all the money then eventually lost the contract and been quids in. This allowed them to make on the face of it a better bid.
Back in the 90s, the quality of the political discussion was terrible, hence we ended up with the current complicated and expensive structure, the argument was entirely about whether privatisation was good or bad, not the FORM of privatisation. There were vertically integrated alternatives, e.g. British Rail plc, or sectorisation (NSE, IC, Regional) or regionalisation (Southern etc)
This would have only come to light if Branson had not challenged this.
Greening was wetting herself with anticipation that she could sign this contract.
See if Tory Girl has a lot to say now. Probably explains why she got the chop last month?
May have to take it back into public ownership, or ask Branson to carry on.....
egg on face eitherway......
like 13 years of Labour didnt? who put the f++ked up Procurement rules in place the SHG