Printable View
How do you qualify this?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
My recollection may be wrong but huge amounts of cash were pumped into BR but the service was shocking. I remember trains going late, early, just about any time apart from when they were supposed to.
Now, ocassionally we have delayed trains but I know it's 4 minutes walk from my house to the train station so if I leave 5 mins before it's supposed to depart, I can pretty much guarentee to walk on the train.
I think the key phrase is "is its latter days". BR was a national joke at one point, that's for sure, with clapped-out rolling stock and ruled by unions who would call a strike if someone was 30 seconds late getting a tea break. But towards the end of its existence it started to become punctual, well managed, and benefited from decent investment. A cynic might say it was being fattened up for privatisation, but I couldn't possibly comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
I think since privatisation, the Rail Network has improved significantly but it is still hugely subsidised. Pre-privatisation, there was some investment but due to some significant factors, (Hatfield, Network Rail) that investment has increased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Interesting read:
Factcheck: Does the taxpayer subsidise the rail network more now than it did when it was nationalised? | Full Fact
A common recollection, but I think collective memory has caused a false impression. By the end of its days BR was actually a hugely efficient operation, much more punctual and requiring increasingly less subsidy. Indeed, had it been given a few more years it would, if memory serves, most likely have turned a profit. This it managed by adopting a more commercially-driven approach. I am in no doubt that the positive trend would have continued.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Dr Richard Beeching went from making zippers at ICI to running British Rail. He was a time-and-motion man who knew nothing of the business he was set to run and his first and second reports suggested closing almost 2500 stations and destroying more than 5000 miles of railway line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Dr Richard Beeching at the stroke of a pen single-handedly destroyed one of the greatest legacies that Victorian Britain could have left the 21st Century. He was a short-sighted nitwit who after wholescale destruction of British Rail returned to his pathetic role at ICI making zippers. He was then made a life peer for his efforts.
Incidentally, he almost ran Lloyds Bank into the dirt not less than three years after leaving British Rail.
Really? My impression was not formed by 'collective memory' but personal recollection. The Unions held the service to ransome and the service was a disgrace. The restructuring onto vertical business streams was a huge improvement but overall it was an appalling example of a privately held White Elephant.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Again, I am drawing on personal recollection but as I understood it, there was a huge amount of investment needed after privatisation, in track and stock, because of gradual neglect.Quote:
By the end of its days BR was actually a hugely efficient operation, much more punctual and requiring increasingly less subsidy. Indeed, had it been given a few more years it would, if memory serves, most likely have turned a profit. This it managed by adopting a more commercially-driven approach. I am in no doubt that the positive trend would have continued.
Again I ask, can you provide referencable information on the punctiality pre and post Privatisation and that BR would have become self funding in public hands?
I use the term 'collective memory' because I think, in this instance, it's highly relevant — not just to your views but those of others. People remember BR as being crap because, for a long time, it was. That was its image, and that's what sticks in the mind. The fact that, by the end of its life, it had changed hugely goes almost entirely forgotten.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Neglect that, had BR remained in public hands, would have been reversed as a result of its increasingly good financial performance. As it was, it took an awfully long time for that investment to happen post-privatisation, and even then it has always been funded to a significant extent out of the public purse as a result of the subsidies the private operators receive from the Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Not immediately, but the detail on the financial position is in rail expert Christian Wolmar's book 'Broken Rails', which I would recommend (though it's a few years out of date now). If I remember rightly, he describes BR as, at the end of the 1980s, 'the world's most efficient railway' in terms of the percentage of GDP it required in government subsidy. Then, this was all thrown away for partly ideological reasons, and partly because of John Major's absurd personal nostalgia for the inter-war years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
You can hardly claim Christian Wolmar as independant and objective. He's as Left Wing as they come and famous for opposing privatisation. I knew his nme would pop up and dealt with it in post 122.
Next we will be asking Nigel Farage for a balanced opinion on Europe!!
I would suggest, respectfully, that he knows more about the railways than do you or I. Have you ever considered that he might have opposed, and opposes, privatisation on the basis of a quite deep-seated knowledge of the subject?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
You often go on about the need to 'attack the post, not the poster'. In that case, maybe you should practice what you preach with regard to Wolmar, and criticise the basis of what he says rather than coming to a view based solely on his political views (which are not that left-wing).
Perhaps other, smaller countries can make a go of it, but in the U.S. it would be run inefficiently:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
generally:
1) people would receive worse health-care
2) students wouldn't receive as effective of an education
Quote:
[quote:u830zwch]generally:Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
1) people would receive worse health-care
You are basing this opinion on what? Wow, the health care in Switzerland, France, Italy, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Ireland,Germany and many more is atrocious. Why,they even pay in most of those countries and have the opinion that the US (right wing) is not even educated pertaining health care or Obamacare. It is sad for me to hear all these complaints that have no merit especially since this is my country.
[/quote:u830zwch]Quote:
2) students wouldn't receive as effective of an education
Why not? Has it to do with your belief that you graduated all these students and now are four year college graduates. Hmmmm, I wonder if they took geography? Was that one of your subjects because if it is you should see the results of a sample questionnaire regarding geographic locations not just all over the world but including the US. It was sad. It is sad.
Know where these students were taking the quiz? Harvard, Yale, Princeton.
I was going to say, 'as effective an education' as what? As they do already?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
When a source is famous for his biased view, it can hardly be considered objective. He does have indepth knowledge but that doesn't mean he is necessary correct or that we must take his opinion as sacrosanct.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
:confused: WTF?? Where in that post was there an attack on you???Quote:
You often go on about the need to 'attack the post, not the poster'. In that case, maybe you should practice what you preach with regard to Wolmar, and criticise the basis of what he says rather than coming to a view based solely on his political views (which are not that left-wing).
I questioned a source that you quoted and asked you to check out a more independant analysis of some of his claims I had supplied.
Nor does it mean it can be dismissed out of hand by a layman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
I meant an attack on Wolmar. Your entire critique of him is based on what you perceive to be his political views, not the specifics of his opinions on rail privatisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
I did not dismiss it out of hand but gave a reason why I don't consider him objective. We are all Laymen so must make a decision based on the evidence at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
He's left wing, pro-public ownership and has asperations of being Londons next Labour Mayor. These are facts. If he becomes Mayor, watch out if you're a car driver :laugh:Quote:
I meant an attack on Wolmar. Your entire critique of him is based on what you perceive to be his political views, not the specifics of his opinions on rail privatisation.
With his views on the Railways, we are getting a bit off topic with all the talk about Privatisation. Perhaps a new thread rather than derail this one (do you like what I did there. Do yer :D )
Yes, but no reasons as to why you don't consider him factually accurate, which is more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Ummm, I did in post 122. Have you checked the link?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
http://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.o...%20of%20TR.PNG
As you can see, rather than BR being self funding prior to privatisation, it was pretty static about 40% and only started going down after privatisation. There was a fake dip in 95/96 but a more sustained decrease until the massive problems in the early 2000's with Railtrack and Hatfield. Massive investment was necessary at levels that approached (and even just exceeded) pre-privatisation costs but once achieved, have been steadily declining since 2006/7 to the low of 35% of Rail Revenue last year (not shown).
Wolmar claimed that funding (adjusted for inflation) was about £1 to £1.5bn pre privatisation and is now nearly £4bn but he hasn't taken into account the massive increase in passenger numbers (and therefore revenue) which shows that investment per customer is coming down because it doesn't suit his views.
So, when Wolmar publishes where his figures come from, rather than deal in educated opinion, then we can discuss it further but until then, have to deal with the facts. You no have them and an explanation of why I don't take him too seriously.
So, in conclusion, we now have a cleaner, safer and more reliable rail service which has grown customer numbers year on year since privitasion for an decreasing subsidy level. Hmmm, privatisation really sucks.
As an aside, he has some good ideas and is someone that adds value to the transport discussion but in my opinion, has his own agenda too much in his findings and lacks objectivity.
You are being very selective here. In the interests of balance, here is the entire web page from which you took that graph:Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Factcheck: Does the taxpayer subsidise the rail network more now than it did when it was nationalised? | Full Fact
A slightly different picture overall from that presented by your take on the matter.
You've just reposted the link I posted in #122 and claimed it shows something different :laugh: I give up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Just what are you trying to say? You're making no sense :confused:
What I'm saying quite clearly is that the bit you picked out of that page for further comment does not tell the full story. Not hard to grasp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
I'm basing it on 20+ years of being in the field. I've taught in both, and attended a public high school. Among a litany of reason, the student-teacher ratio is key. In my school, it's 10:1. In a public junior high or high school, it's 25:1 and worse. It's hard to compete with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
I frankly don't know what your first paragraph means. Are you saying that those European countries have poor health care? What is your country?
I base my comments on health care in the U.S. on many things, among them second-hand knowledge. Every member of my family is in the medical profession(except me). I've gotten a heaping helping of discussions on the matter over the years.
I'm getting effing fed up with the snide personal comments.
Have you read the article. HAVE YOU READ IT??????Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Wolmar made a misleading claim that was designed to reflect positivly on his opinion and the article took his claim and factored in the 300%+ increase in passenger numbers resulting in the adjusted graph I posted. The bit I picked IS the full story. End of story.
If you had bothered to read my post with the link before reposting it, you would have seen that but I guess that doesn't suit your view. Hardly objective???
Anyway, I'm not going to get dragged into this stupidity again and contribute to throwing this thread further off course. It's all yours. :rolleyes:
Er... yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Shout and flounce off if you want to. However, just posting that graph did not tell the full story. This was explained in the accompanying text. Given that this thread is about political inclinations, I thought it very relevant to point out that in no way can the influence of privatisation on the British railways be described as entirely positive. This fact remains.