ChatterBank1 min ago
Rains And Track Come Together In Rail Management Revamp
http://
Trains and track both having the same management ! What an extraordinary idea !
Is it just me that me that is having a distinct feeling of Deja Vu here ?
Trains and track both having the same management ! What an extraordinary idea !
Is it just me that me that is having a distinct feeling of Deja Vu here ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As the Rail privatisation experiment began to fail, safety was compromised and high profile crashes such as Hatfield and Ladbrooke Grove were the result. RailTrack went bankrupt, and the network suffered.
There is no profit in maintaining infra-structure, so profit making companies should not be undertaking the work. There will be an incentive to do work when it suits the operators (when it least affects their profits and shareholders), rather than being done as an urgency and priority.
It all ended in tears last time, nothing has changed so it will again.
There is no profit in maintaining infra-structure, so profit making companies should not be undertaking the work. There will be an incentive to do work when it suits the operators (when it least affects their profits and shareholders), rather than being done as an urgency and priority.
It all ended in tears last time, nothing has changed so it will again.
naomi24
By the time Labour took power in 1997, the privatisation was in a mess. Labour were actually very quick to sort it out, but that was largely due to their anti privatisation agenda. The solution, which we currently have, as a not for profit quasi governmental entity which works with private train operators, is a good solution.
The networks present strains are largely due to them being over successful in attracting passengers, and inheriting a network that had been under invested for decades and taking longer than expected to modernise.
Having used the old Nationalised British Rail, and the Privatised version during my working life, the present set up is the best in terms of product and delivery.
By the time Labour took power in 1997, the privatisation was in a mess. Labour were actually very quick to sort it out, but that was largely due to their anti privatisation agenda. The solution, which we currently have, as a not for profit quasi governmental entity which works with private train operators, is a good solution.
The networks present strains are largely due to them being over successful in attracting passengers, and inheriting a network that had been under invested for decades and taking longer than expected to modernise.
Having used the old Nationalised British Rail, and the Privatised version during my working life, the present set up is the best in terms of product and delivery.
The problem is you have one Tax payer funded company with no interest in keeping the trains running and a bunch of other companies trying to make a profit.
The idea here will be that the train operators will maintain the track to enhance profits and theoretically improve the service. I think monitoring here will be the key especially on safety and inspections.
Will it work? I be holding my breath.
The idea here will be that the train operators will maintain the track to enhance profits and theoretically improve the service. I think monitoring here will be the key especially on safety and inspections.
Will it work? I be holding my breath.
The trains are nicer Gromit but in many cases much slower.
For me the fastest to London is 1 hour 50 mins. And it is only 100 miles with 3 stops! That is simply not acceptable in this day and age. The infrastructure needs to be funded by tax payers, it is the only way. All this is going to do it hopefully make the operators keep the current creaking system just going.
And I doubt it will.
For me the fastest to London is 1 hour 50 mins. And it is only 100 miles with 3 stops! That is simply not acceptable in this day and age. The infrastructure needs to be funded by tax payers, it is the only way. All this is going to do it hopefully make the operators keep the current creaking system just going.
And I doubt it will.
naomi24,
Just like Labour didn't want rail privatisation to work, and gleefully reversed it, the Tories are the opposite. This latest move is a step back towards privatisation, and it is largely being done for political dogma reasons rather than to solve anything.
// I fail to see how they sorted it out if it now needs sorting out. //
I would dispute that there is a great problem. Maintenance and safety work HAS to be carried out and sometimes that will affect the train operators. There is a great deal of coordination between network rail and the train operators, but sometimes the inconvenience is unavoidable.
I am guessing that giving the train operators the function of repairs and maintenence of the track, will slow down progress rather than speed it up.
Just like Labour didn't want rail privatisation to work, and gleefully reversed it, the Tories are the opposite. This latest move is a step back towards privatisation, and it is largely being done for political dogma reasons rather than to solve anything.
// I fail to see how they sorted it out if it now needs sorting out. //
I would dispute that there is a great problem. Maintenance and safety work HAS to be carried out and sometimes that will affect the train operators. There is a great deal of coordination between network rail and the train operators, but sometimes the inconvenience is unavoidable.
I am guessing that giving the train operators the function of repairs and maintenence of the track, will slow down progress rather than speed it up.
Mikey,
Transport infrastructure (not just rail) is vital to our economy and our ability to function. So we should subsidise it.
Private train operators are much better at providing a service than the nationalised British Rail ever were, but the rail network is a state asset, and the state should maintain it.
Transport infrastructure (not just rail) is vital to our economy and our ability to function. So we should subsidise it.
Private train operators are much better at providing a service than the nationalised British Rail ever were, but the rail network is a state asset, and the state should maintain it.
This it what happens when Rains and track come together:
https:/
https:/
YMB....( 08:46 ).....thanks...we should do this more often !
Gromit....I agree that vital services, like transport should be subsidised.
However :::::"Private train operators are much better at providing a service than the nationalised British Rail ever were"
Not so sure about that. I can't see that the private operators are doing such a marvellous job at the moment, if peoples experience on here is anything to go by.
I only travel by rail when I have no other choice and my employer normally coughs up when I do. I can't see that Great Western can justify paying nearly £200 for a day return to Town, just because I need too get there before 09:00.
When I get on the train at Swansea, it is empty, but when the sane train gets to Bristol Parkway, hundreds, if not thousands of people try to get on for the trip to Paddington.
Gromit....I agree that vital services, like transport should be subsidised.
However :::::"Private train operators are much better at providing a service than the nationalised British Rail ever were"
Not so sure about that. I can't see that the private operators are doing such a marvellous job at the moment, if peoples experience on here is anything to go by.
I only travel by rail when I have no other choice and my employer normally coughs up when I do. I can't see that Great Western can justify paying nearly £200 for a day return to Town, just because I need too get there before 09:00.
When I get on the train at Swansea, it is empty, but when the sane train gets to Bristol Parkway, hundreds, if not thousands of people try to get on for the trip to Paddington.
The only rational way to bring track and rail back together is to nationalise the lot. If one must have private companies play a part for reasons of political ideology then keeping the track provision/maintenance away was the better choice of a set of questionable options. And we can see how well that turned out. A nationalised railway system with a ring fenced budget adequate for its needs, is the way to go.
both the current South West (Wessex) and ScotRail franchises are being run on the model suggested in the OP's link, ie the train company and infrastructure controller operating in "alliance" mode, working together but maintaining their separate identities. on Wessex it works quite well; in Scotland not so, there are major issues arising from the arrangement that'll need sorting before the concept is rolled out any further.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.