NationStates Jolt Archive


Rail Privatisation

Philosopy
24-02-2007, 16:35
Could a train rolling down an embankment at 95 mph be the greatest advertisement possible of the improved safety of our railways today? Incredibly, despite travelling at such high speeds, and a derailment of spectacular proportions, there has only been one fatality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6392197.stm

Richard Branson has been praising the safety of these new Pendolino trains, and it is pretty obvious that were it an older train, the casualty rate would have been massively higher. I, for one, believe this is a shining example of how the extra investment of privatisation has led to an improvement on our railways. In fact, the railways are so much better today that the problem is now overcrowding, from all the new people trying to use them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6296387.stm).

It's pretty clear that continuing to invest, and continuing to support our privatised railways, will continue to lead to massive improvements, such as rail safety, compared to the dark days of British Rail.
Ollieland
25-02-2007, 15:00
Could a train rolling down an embankment at 95 mph be the greatest advertisement possible of the improved safety of our railways today? Incredibly, despite travelling at such high speeds, and a derailment of spectacular proportions, there has only been one fatality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6392197.stm

Richard Branson has been praising the safety of these new Pendolino trains, and it is pretty obvious that were it an older train, the casualty rate would have been massively higher. I, for one, believe this is a shining example of how the extra investment of privatisation has led to an improvement on our railways. In fact, the railways are so much better today that the problem is now overcrowding, from all the new people trying to use them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6296387.stm).

It's pretty clear that continuing to invest, and continuing to support our privatised railways, will continue to lead to massive improvements, such as rail safety, compared to the dark days of British Rail.

Ok, where do I start?

Virgin is actually one of the very few responsible train operators. It is one of the few companies that actually owns it's own trains. All the other train operators rent their trains from a company called Bombadier. The reason they will not pay for their own units is that most of them only have a three year franshise, so they refuse to invest. In fact, during the last round of franchise offers, Branson asked the government for a 15 year franchise in return for a promise to build a new high speed rail line from London to Glasgow. They refused and gave him a three year franchise.

There is no private investment in the railways. Government subsidies to the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are aproximately 80% of what it cost them previously to run British Rail, yet we have the highest fares in Europe. If the railway was a non - profit government agency we wouldn't have this problem, as there would be no shareholders demanding their dividend.

Performence wise privatisation is a huge failure as well. Last year nly two TOCs reached their performance targets - Island Line on the Isle of Wight (the smallest of the TOCs) and Southeastern Trains, which funnily enough at the time, was run by the government after Connex lost their franchise. And now, after the South Eastern ranchise was awarded to the Go-Ahead Group, they are now in danger of losing their franchise due to the high incidence of SPADs (signals past at danger), caused by cuts in driver training and safety staff.

In fact, the government have that much faith in the private TOCs, that the South Eastern franchise has a clause in it that during the 2012 olymipics executive control of South Eastern will revert to the government for the duration. Real faith huh?
Chamoi
25-02-2007, 15:59
rent their trains from a company called Bombadier

Not sure about this. Bonbadier makes trains but as I understand it part of the privatisation of this railways was the creation of leasing compainies, owed by banks who do great things like lease a train to a rail company for £500,000 a year when the train costs £2million to buy.

However, there was a government investigation into this and it is looking to be resolved as it adds a massive cost to the running of the rail system.

What I find most bizzar is that a train crashes and kills one person and receives massive media converage, 10 people die on our roads each day and pretty much nothing is reported.

As for the safety of the train this is simply an advert for investment in railways. However, whether or not that is through private or public means is up for dabate.
Arinola
25-02-2007, 16:28
What I find most bizzar is that a train crashes and kills one person and receives massive media converage, 10 people die on our roads each day and pretty much nothing is reported.


What do you expect? A tribute every day to those lost in car crashes?
Philosopy
25-02-2007, 16:29
-snip-

I can't tell you how happy I am that someone actually replied to this. :p

I'll go back and read what you actually said now.
Johnny B Goode
25-02-2007, 16:35
Could a train rolling down an embankment at 95 mph be the greatest advertisement possible of the improved safety of our railways today? Incredibly, despite travelling at such high speeds, and a derailment of spectacular proportions, there has only been one fatality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6392197.stm

Richard Branson has been praising the safety of these new Pendolino trains, and it is pretty obvious that were it an older train, the casualty rate would have been massively higher. I, for one, believe this is a shining example of how the extra investment of privatisation has led to an improvement on our railways. In fact, the railways are so much better today that the problem is now overcrowding, from all the new people trying to use them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6296387.stm).

It's pretty clear that continuing to invest, and continuing to support our privatised railways, will continue to lead to massive improvements, such as rail safety, compared to the dark days of British Rail.

Damn, they need to privatize Amtrak. It's useless, like the Boston Celtics.
Philosopy
25-02-2007, 16:36
Virgin is actually one of the very few responsible train operators. It is one of the few companies that actually owns it's own trains. All the other train operators rent their trains from a company called Bombadier. The reason they will not pay for their own units is that most of them only have a three year franshise, so they refuse to invest. In fact, during the last round of franchise offers, Branson asked the government for a 15 year franchise in return for a promise to build a new high speed rail line from London to Glasgow. They refused and gave him a three year franchise.

I agree that privatisation still requires major changes before it can be fully effective. Giving the train operators control of both the trains and the track that they use would be a good start.

I believe that Bombadier is actually the company that constructs the trains, not the one that rents them out; that job is done by three other companies, each owned by a major bank. The theory was that these three companies would compete with each other to offer the best deals to the TOCs, but instead each TOC tends to have very specific requirements for its trains, which only one of the companies can provide. As such, they have a monopoly, and the price is extortionate. By letting the TOCs own the trains, this cost would be drastically reduced.

There is no private investment in the railways. Government subsidies to the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are aproximately 80% of what it cost them previously to run British Rail, yet we have the highest fares in Europe. If the railway was a non - profit government agency we wouldn't have this problem, as there would be no shareholders demanding their dividend.
We also have the highest demand for train travel in history. By investing, we finally have a train service that people want to use. I know the line you work on, and you surely have to admit that the 375s are a massive improvement over the old slam-door stock. Now, we need more trains (I really do have first hand experience of this, as I have to sit on the floor in rush hour), rather than the old problem of never actually expecting the train to turn up.

And now, after the South Eastern ranchise was awarded to the Go-Ahead Group, they are now in danger of losing their franchise due to the high incidence of SPADs (signals past at danger), caused by cuts in driver training and safety staff.
As a Southeastern commuter, this alarms me immensely. :eek:
Swilatia
25-02-2007, 16:44
Damn, they need to privatize Amtrak. It's useless, like the Boston Celtics.

amtrak is a joke. your country needs to get a real rail system, like in european countries.
Proggresica
25-02-2007, 17:14
What I find most bizzar is that a train crashes and kills one person and receives massive media converage, 10 people die on our roads each day and pretty much nothing is reported.

It is exactly because there aren't 10 train crashes a day that it is covered more heavily than a car crash.
Chamoi
25-02-2007, 17:50
What do you expect? A tribute every day to those lost in car crashes?

Nice trolling, nope just that the reporting in my eyes is disproportionate to the event.

It is exactly because there aren't 10 train crashes a day that it is covered more heavily than a car crash.

I would accept that point if the train crash was exceptional, to give you some idea 2 years ago a guy drove his car onto the tracks, in order to commit suicide, the result of this dickhead and his actions was that 6 people died. The media converage on this crash is no where near what it was for that...perhaps becuase it didn't put the rail ways in a negitive light ?
October3
25-02-2007, 17:55
Nice trolling, nope just that the reporting in my eyes is disproportionate to the event.

Train crashes tend to be more spectacular and therefore appeal to humans darker side - the inherant joy at seing destruction and the suffering of others.

Why else would celebrity big brother get viewing figures.
Ollieland
25-02-2007, 18:01
I agree that privatisation still requires major changes before it can be fully effective. Giving the train operators control of both the trains and the track that they use would be a good start.

I believe that Bombadier is actually the company that constructs the trains, not the one that rents them out; that job is done by three other companies, each owned by a major bank. The theory was that these three companies would compete with each other to offer the best deals to the TOCs, but instead each TOC tends to have very specific requirements for its trains, which only one of the companies can provide. As such, they have a monopoly, and the price is extortionate. By letting the TOCs own the trains, this cost would be drastically reduced.


We also have the highest demand for train travel in history. By investing, we finally have a train service that people want to use. I know the line you work on, and you surely have to admit that the 375s are a massive improvement over the old slam-door stock. Now, we need more trains (I really do have first hand experience of this, as I have to sit on the floor in rush hour), rather than the old problem of never actually expecting the train to turn up.


As a Southeastern commuter, this alarms me immensely. :eek:

I take on board about Bombadier, I may be wrong on that. The problem is with the length of the franchise, as it does not encourage the TOCs to invest heavily, such as buying their own rolling stock.

As for differing needs of the TOCs that is somewhat of a fallacy. Four of the main operators running into London (SET, Southern, SWT and FCC) would be quite capable of running all 375/6/7 stock for the services they operate.

And I must just correct you on the 375s being a massive[B] improvement on the old 400 series slam door stock. Talk unoficially to any driver and they will tell you that is not so. [B]1Their brakes are nowhere near as effective as the slam doors, as they use disc rather than the pad system (thats why the slam doors were always covered in brown dirt, that was the "brake dust" from the pads). 2 The controls are not as afe for the driver as they only need one hand to operate. The 400s required both hands, having an acceleration lever and brake lever, the 375s having one combined lever. 3 Conductors despatching 375s do so from the passenger door panel. This is more dangerous than the 400s as you cannot see outside the train as it is pulling away. Don't be surprised if pretty soon someone gets dragged underneath a 375 as it is pulling away. 4 Pull the emergency lever on a 400 and the train cut out immediately. Pull it on a 375 (and get fined £200!:p ) and you'll get the driver asking what the matter is, the train doesn't cut out. 5 Attaching and detaching the trains is done on the line I work maybe 4 or 5 times a day for each unit. The 375s wre not designed to be attached / detached with this regularity. 6 375s are basically computers on wheels. When your on a train and something goes wring, listen to the staff talk to each other they will say they are "rebooting the train". This takes 20 - 40 minutes. The 400s wre much more reliable, and being entirley mechanical rather than computer driven, wre much easier to repair. I could go on and on......
Ollieland
25-02-2007, 18:05
Nice trolling, nope just that the reporting in my eyes is disproportionate to the event.



I would accept that point if the train crash was exceptional, to give you some idea 2 years ago a guy drove his car onto the tracks, in order to commit suicide, the result of this dickhead and his actions was that 6 people died. The media converage on this crash is no where near what it was for that...perhaps becuase it didn't put the rail ways in a negitive light ?

The negative light is on Network Rail the inheritor of Raltrack, who have been responsible for nearly all the major train crashes of the last 20 years. This is another point of bad privatisation. The same company shoud be running the trains themselves as well as maintaining the tracks they run on.
New Burmesia
25-02-2007, 18:09
I see no reason why a state owned railway would be unable to invest in new rolling stock and safety, as my local railway operator hasn't, and regularly states it won't.
Arinola
25-02-2007, 18:10
Nice trolling, nope just that the reporting in my eyes is disproportionate to the event.


Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm trolling.

I'm just saying that car crashes are so frequent nowadays that it's part of life on the roads - however, train crashes are far more rare, and get more coverage when one does happen.
Ollieland
25-02-2007, 18:11
I see no reason why a state owned railway would be unable to invest in new rolling stock and safety, as my local railway operator hasn't, and regularly states it won't.

Thats the case in a nutshell. Try telling that to the government though.
Arinola
25-02-2007, 18:11
Train crashes tend to be more spectacular and therefore appeal to humans darker side - the inherant joy at seing destruction and the suffering of others.

Why else would celebrity big brother get viewing figures.

Erm...I'm pretty sure people aren't tuning in to watch the news to see "destruction and suffering of others." Humankind isn't THAT messed up. They're catching up on events around the world.
And I'm not sure how you can compare Big Brother...an abomination of television...to a train crash.
Langenbruck
25-02-2007, 18:15
Damn, they need to privatize Amtrak. It's useless, like the Boston Celtics.

The American Rail systems seems to be really much worse than the European ones - I had a course in Paris, hold by a professor teaching in Santa Barbara. And he said, that he had to take a plane from LA to Santa Barbara, because a train would need several hours for 160 km. In Europe, there are trains who need only one hour for such distances.

I mean, in some areas there must be a possibility to make profit, like in California or in the north-east of the USA, where all these big cities are concentrated.
Erastide
25-02-2007, 18:16
amtrak is a joke. your country needs to get a real rail system, like in european countries.
And when entire countries in Europe fit into single states in our country? We have nowhere near the population density necessary to support a massive train system like that in Europe.
Ollieland
25-02-2007, 18:18
The American Rail systems seems to be really much worse than the European ones - I had a course in Paris, hold by a professor teaching in Santa Barbara. And he said, that he had to take a plane from LA to Santa Barbara, because a train would need several hours for 160 km. In Europe, there are trains who need only one hour for such distances.

I mean, in some areas there must be a possibility to make profit, like in California or in the north-east of the USA, where all these big cities are concentrated.

We in Britain also look jealously at Europes rail system. Funnily enough Europe's rail system is nearly entirely state owned. Is AmTrak private or state owned?
October3
25-02-2007, 18:20
Erm...I'm pretty sure people aren't tuning in to watch the news to see "destruction and suffering of others." Humankind isn't THAT messed up. They're catching up on events around the world.
And I'm not sure how you can compare Big Brother...an abomination of television...to a train crash.


If people watched the news to catch up on world events there would not be a disproportionate amount of misery, bombings and debauchery on the news. There's lots of good going on too but it doesn't get the ratings.

Big Brother is train crash T.V - one step up from car crash.
New Burmesia
25-02-2007, 18:30
We in Britain also look jealously at Europes rail system. Funnily enough Europe's rail system is nearly entirely state owned. Is AmTrak private or state owned?
Amtrak is state run, but the physical railways are privately owned.
Johnny B Goode
25-02-2007, 20:54
The American Rail systems seems to be really much worse than the European ones - I had a course in Paris, hold by a professor teaching in Santa Barbara. And he said, that he had to take a plane from LA to Santa Barbara, because a train would need several hours for 160 km. In Europe, there are trains who need only one hour for such distances.

I mean, in some areas there must be a possibility to make profit, like in California or in the north-east of the USA, where all these big cities are concentrated.

In southern California, the Coaster system kicks so much ass. Relatively speaking, of course. America spends only 0.1% of the budget on railways, compared to European countries which spend 20-30% on railways. And Amtrak is very poorly run, so it wouldn't do any good for more funding.

About the American systems being worse: No shit, Sherlock.
Fleckenstein
25-02-2007, 21:00
And when entire countries in Europe fit into single states in our country? We have nowhere near the population density necessary to support a massive train system like that in Europe.

This is the problem. The only truly viable train area is the megalopolis in the Northeast Corridor.

Amtrak is alright. It is recovering, albeit slowly, form year of stagnation.
L-rouge
25-02-2007, 21:01
Rail privatisation has been a complete failure, especially if you live in the South West (f***ing First Group).
As for Virgin, their West Coast franchise isn't too bad but don't touch their Cross Country route with a barge poll. Only Beardie could think it would be a good idea to replace a train with 7 carriages with one with only 5 (sometimes 4). Well done. I was on a Virgin train the other day and the Voyager didn't turn up and they replaced it with a Midland Mainline HST (now 30 years old) and the woman next to me said "isn't it nice they put these new trains on. I can actually get a seat today".
That's Britains privatised rail system for you. The government pumps more money into the private companies than it did BR and the service is no better and we still travel (outside of the West Coast or South East) on the same trains as we did under BR at 3 times the price. Some improvement...:rolleyes:
Philosopy
25-02-2007, 21:04
Rail privatisation has been a complete failure, especially if you live in the South West (f***ing First Group).

First Shite Western is awful, there is no denying that (I was at uni in Bristol until a couple of years ago). I have no idea why they keep being awarded franchises.
Johnny B Goode
25-02-2007, 21:05
amtrak is a joke. your country needs to get a real rail system, like in european countries.

No shit, Sherlock.
Soyut
25-02-2007, 21:07
amtrak is a joke. your country needs to get a real rail system, like in european countries.

Why? we all have cars.
Chumblywumbly
25-02-2007, 21:29
A small indicator of the fucked-upness of the British rail system is the astonishment and wonder at a public transport system that works on time.

Just listen to anyone coming back from a holiday in Europe. They’ll inevitably, once they get the weather chat out their system, say something along the lines of, “and the trains arrived on time!!!!!”, as if this is some superhuman miracle.
New Burmesia
25-02-2007, 22:01
A small indicator of the fucked-upness of the British rail system is the astonishment and wonder at a public transport system that works on time.

Just listen to anyone coming back from a holiday in Europe. They’ll inevitably, once they get the weather chat out their system, say something along the lines of, “and the trains arrived on time!!!!!”, as if this is some superhuman miracle.
I just love it when on match day, Brazil v. Portugal, big stuff, what do they do? Put on smaller trains going to/from Drayton Park. Brilliant idea!
Yootopia
25-02-2007, 22:02
Why? we all have cars.
... so do European citizens. Car ownership here is like 97%.

On the other hand, trains can go a hell of a lot faster and more direct than cars. If you had a choice of going at a shit-tacular 55mp/h or at a quite speed 200mp/h (like most good European trains), which would you honestly choose?
Johnny B Goode
25-02-2007, 22:05
... so do European citizens. Car ownership here is like 97%.

On the other hand, trains can go a hell of a lot faster and more direct than cars. If you had a choice of going at a shit-tacular 55mp/h or at a quite speed 200mp/h (like most good European trains), which would you honestly choose?

In America, the trains actually go slower than the cars.
Yootopia
25-02-2007, 22:05
First Shite Western is awful, there is no denying that (I was at uni in Bristol until a couple of years ago). I have no idea why they keep being awarded franchises.
First is bloody awful everywhere. It's close to £4 for a return on a First bus inside York. Argh.

And I'd assume it's because they run everything as cheaply as possible, with prices as high as people will pay and hence don't require bail-outs like some other operaters, although that's pure conjecture that I have no way of backing up at all.
Yootopia
25-02-2007, 22:09
In America, the trains actually go slower than the cars.
Right... I see... hmm...

*laughs out loud at the crappy rail system of the US*
Chamoi
25-02-2007, 22:17
First is bloody awful everywhere. It's close to £4 for a return on a First bus inside York. Argh.

And I'd assume it's because they run everything as cheaply as possible, with prices as high as people will pay and hence don't require bail-outs like some other operaters, although that's pure conjecture that I have no way of backing up at all.

It's a similar situation up here in Sheffield, but being the clever guy i am I buy a weekly ticket for £9. :D
Yootopia
25-02-2007, 22:34
It's a similar situation up here in Sheffield, but being the clever guy i am I buy a weekly ticket for £9. :D
My own out-of-the-box solution was to buy a bike. It worked.
Chamoi
25-02-2007, 22:42
My own out-of-the-box solution was to buy a bike. It worked.

Pff exercise, that will get you no where. ;)
The blessed Chris
25-02-2007, 22:46
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm trolling.

I'm just saying that car crashes are so frequent nowadays that it's part of life on the roads - however, train crashes are far more rare, and get more coverage when one does happen.

You are, of course, completely correct.
Yootopia
25-02-2007, 22:49
Pff exercise, that will get you no where. ;)
I am at least 9% more buff than I used to be (note : Statistics may or may not be accurate).
Johnny B Goode
26-02-2007, 01:00
Right... I see... hmm...

*laughs out loud at the crappy rail system of the US*

(Joins Yootopia in laughing)
SimNewtonia
26-02-2007, 01:11
(Joins Yootopia in laughing)

*laughs*

*looks at own country's attempts at HSR*

*cries*

At least our urban rail systems are (generally, anyway) more extensive! :cool:
Swilatia
26-02-2007, 01:47
Why? we all have cars.

same thing here in europe. but we do not enjoy being in a tiny box for 5 hours.
Swilatia
26-02-2007, 01:54
In America, the trains actually go slower than the cars.

wow. what's the average speed of an american train then? Can't be more then 60 kph, can it? I don't get why your govt, which runs the service is spending so little on it. seriously. With all that money they are burning in Iraq, they would be able to improve it quite a lot. But that would save your counry's people from the TSA's evil grasp, and I don't think your govt' would allow that.
Johnny B Goode
26-02-2007, 02:00
wow. what's the average speed of an american train then? Can't be more then 60 kph, can it? I don't get why your govt, which runs the service is spending so little on it. seriously. With all that money they are burning in Iraq, they would be able to improve it quite a lot. But that would save your counry's people from the TSA's evil grasp, and I don't think your govt' would allow that.

Heh. In America, people don't really care about railways. They use cars a lot more. The average speed of an American train is about the same as a bus. Besides, Amtrak is poorly managed as well as poorly funded.
Swilatia
26-02-2007, 02:05
Heh. In America, people don't really care about railways. They use cars a lot more. The average speed of an American train is about the same as a bus. Besides, Amtrak is poorly managed as well as poorly funded.

what's the deal with you using cars so much anyway? 5+ hours in a small box? not something that particularily interests me.
Johnny B Goode
26-02-2007, 02:32
what's the deal with you using cars so much anyway? 5+ hours in a small box? not something that particularily interests me.

Well, Americans have had a thing for cars since the introduction of the Ford Model T. When a lot of the rail systems closed after WWII, they succumbed. So now they don't care about the railroads that are there, and use cars a lot more than Europeans.

*laughs*

*looks at own country's attempts at HSR*

*cries*

At least our urban rail systems are (generally, anyway) more extensive! :cool:

There are actually some great urban tram systems in the US. It's the heavy rail that sucks.