On 21/09/2015 07:46, Rod Speed wrote:

And yet France continues to have a state owned rail system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF


State owned does not necessarily mean state controlled.
Only 7 out of 18 board members are state representatives, although TBF
the site does not state the percentage of votes or influence these have.

And if you bothered to read the article you referenced and SNCF's own
site, you would see that they are also opening up the network to
competition in order to meet the directive.

Though, of course, no private company has so far chosen to participate

Lee wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet France continues to have a state owned rail system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF

State owned does not necessarily mean state controlled.

The EU directive says nothing about control, just access to infrastructure.

Only 7 out of 18 board members are state representatives, although TBF the
site does not state the percentage of votes or influence these have.

And if you bothered to read the article you referenced and SNCF's own
site, you would see that they are also opening up the network to
competition in order to meet the directive.

And it would be perfectly possible for a nationalised British
rail system to do the same and still comply with the directive.

Though, of course, no private company has so far chosen to participate

And that would likely happen with a nationalised
British rail system too, for the same reasons except
at the level of say allowing old steam stuff to be
run on the lines on occasion etc. That would still
be directive compliant. Farage is just plain wrong.

On 23/09/2015 19:40, Rod Speed wrote:
Lee wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet France continues to have a state owned rail system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF

State owned does not necessarily mean state controlled.

The EU directive says nothing about control, just access to infrastructure.

Only 7 out of 18 board members are state representatives, although TBF
the site does not state the percentage of votes or influence these have.

And if you bothered to read the article you referenced and SNCF's own
site, you would see that they are also opening up the network to
competition in order to meet the directive.

And it would be perfectly possible for a nationalised British
rail system to do the same and still comply with the directive.

Though, of course, no private company has so far chosen to participate

And that would likely happen with a nationalised
British rail system too, for the same reasons except
at the level of say allowing old steam stuff to be
run on the lines on occasion etc. That would still
be directive compliant. Farage is just plain wrong

Obviously I have no insight into how Corbyn or the Labour party would
implement this.
As long as they jump through the EU hoops then I don't see a problem either.
Whether I think it's a good idea or not is another matter entirely.

"Lee" wrote in message
...
On 23/09/2015 19:40, Rod Speed wrote:
Lee wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet France continues to have a state owned rail system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF

State owned does not necessarily mean state controlled.

The EU directive says nothing about control, just access to
infrastructure.

Only 7 out of 18 board members are state representatives, although TBF
the site does not state the percentage of votes or influence these have.

And if you bothered to read the article you referenced and SNCF's own
site, you would see that they are also opening up the network to
competition in order to meet the directive.

And it would be perfectly possible for a nationalised British
rail system to do the same and still comply with the directive.

Though, of course, no private company has so far chosen to participate


And that would likely happen with a nationalised
British rail system too, for the same reasons except
at the level of say allowing old steam stuff to be
run on the lines on occasion etc. That would still
be directive compliant. Farage is just plain wrong

Obviously I have no insight into how Corbyn or the Labour party would
implement this.
As long as they jump through the EU hoops then I don't see a problem
either.
Whether I think it's a good idea or not is another matter entirely.

I was just commenting on the stupid pig ignorant claim
that Farage made that it isn't actually legally possible.

Of course it is.

On 23/09/2015 12:55, Tim Streater wrote:


They'd be unlikely to make any money unless subsidised, most likely. So
where's their motivation?


Hence the smiley, they are obeying the rules but they don't expect
anything to actually change. Imo, of course

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Though, of course, no private company has so far chosen to participate

They'd be unlikely to make any money unless subsidised, most likely. So
where's their motivation?

Well, yes. What is the point in having competition if the service needs a
subsidy for whatever reason?

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

Though, of course, no private company has so far chosen to participate


They'd be unlikely to make any money unless
subsidised, most likely. So where's their motivation?

Well, yes. What is the point in having competition
if the service needs a subsidy for whatever reason?

For the same reason there is competition in the health care sector,
even tho it is always subsidised at least for low income earners.

Same with the postal service too.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Well, yes. What is the point in having competition if the service needs a
subsidy for whatever reason?

Ultimately, trains are big toys. On the continent, they've decided
they'll have them anyway whatever the cost, and subsidise the ticket
price [1]. Which fact cannot then be subsequently discovered because
it's a "state secret". That the tickets are "cheaper" is then just the
usual tactic of bribing people with their own money.

So what's different? Lots of PT is subsidised in the UK too. Even with
nominal competition.

Remember the farce when some bus services were deregulated? Vast over
supply on the most popular routes and poorer on the less popular. Just
what you'd expect when private enterprise is allowed to run a service.

Trouble is too many are fixated on the idea that privatization cures all
ills. If so, why not privatize the army, police and courts, etc? After all
companies like G4 have made such a superb job of running the prison
service.

I'm not against the principle of competition providing better value and
service for the customer. But in so many cases it's impossible to provide
true competition where things have to be shared and regulated.

--
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

Ultimately, trains are big toys.

????? Unbelievable. (except, admittedly, in the context of "HS2")

On the continent, they've decided
they'll have them anyway whatever the cost, and subsidise the ticket
price. Which fact cannot then be subsequently discovered because
it's a "state secret". That the tickets are "cheaper" is then just the
usual tactic of bribing people with their own money.

It's not "bribing people with their own money"[1]. It's using taxpayers'
money to provide the whole nation (taxpayers and non-taxpayers) with an
efficient[2] public service, at a subsidised rate, which benefits not
only the people, but *also the common-wealth of which they are a part*.

John

[1] A stupid, right-ist, cliche, which sounds snappy, and oh-so clever,
but never stands up to examination.

[2] Or rather, that is the goal. My own argument, back in the 80s when
the privatisation scam started to kick off, was that national
infrastructure should be run by and for the nation, but subject to the
natural constraints and demands found in private companies. Much easier,
however, just to flog it all off firstly to your mates, and thence to
foreign investors, only too happy to fill their boots at this
unbelievable all-you-can-eat buffet. ***That*** was at British
taxpayers' expense, and ***continues to be so***.

On 23/09/15 16:33, Another John wrote:
It's not "bribing people with their own money"[1]. It's using taxpayers'
money to provide the whole nation (taxpayers and non-taxpayers) with an
efficient[2] public service, at a subsidised rate, which benefits not
only the people, but*also the common-wealth of which they are a part*.

If only...one might then even be tempted to vote socialist.

The reality of state run transport is however very different.

When Deutsche Bahn 'bought' Arriva - a UK railway and bus operator, it
was in part to gain access to some efficiency they had managed to
develop...Then the sacked all the people who had done those good things
and installed their own stodgy public sector chums instead.

Never confuse lo(^he)fty ideals with the reality of their implementation.



--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Except it's true. The railways appear to be run by people who are
interested in railways, nit in providing a service to the customer. That
was true when they were nationalised and is still true now.

What do you base that on Huge?

I use the railways a lot - although mainly the local London ones, since I
live in South London where the overground has far more routes than the
tube. And in general, it's very very good. Although a recent trip to the
North of London showed extremely tired rolling stock. Like we had round
here 20 years ago.

Of course it's not 100% perfect. But then neither is trying to get
anywhere by car. It's just taken me 2 hours to pick up some stuff from
TLC. I'd expected to be out for well under an hour.

--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Then you have the Underground train drivers. £50k my arse.

So what, in your opinion, would be a fair salary for a tube driver?

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Then you have the Underground train drivers. £50k my arse.

So what, in your opinion, would be a fair salary for a tube driver?

Oooh, about the same as a nurse.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Then you have the Underground train drivers. £50k my arse.

So what, in your opinion, would be a fair salary for a tube driver?

£0 given that there should be any driver at
all, just a completely automated system.

They shouldn't be paid any more than a bus driver
is, its much easier to drive a train than a bus.

The minimum wage, whatever that is.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2015-09-23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
Except it's true. The railways appear to be run by people who are
interested in railways, nit in providing a service to the customer.
That was true when they were nationalised and is still true now.

What do you base that on Huge?

20 years of commuting to work by train, combined with the publications
from (principally) Thameslink & East Coast Mainline.

Well Thameslink should improve drastically with the new trains. Not before
time, either.

Rather shows that privatization isn't a guarantee of suitable investment
quickly.

--
*A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2015-09-23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
Except it's true. The railways appear to be run by people who are
interested in railways, nit in providing a service to the customer.
That was true when they were nationalised and is still true now.

What do you base that on Huge?

20 years of commuting to work by train, combined with the publications
from (principally) Thameslink & East Coast Mainline.

Well Thameslink should improve drastically with the new trains. Not before
time, either.

Rather shows that privatization isn't a guarantee of suitable investment
quickly.

No one ever said that would happen with somewhere where
a massive investment is required with **** all in the way of return.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
(iii) I think it reasonable to assume that rail travel is a distress
purchase for most, and that muddies the waters considerably.

There are buses. You can drive yourself. Or fly, on longer distances. How
many alternatives to you want?

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:

Huge, old chap:

Ultimately, trains are big toys. [from TS]

????? Unbelievable. (except, admittedly, in the context of "HS2") [from me]

Except it's true. The railways appear to be run by people who are
interested in railways, nit in providing a service to the customer. That
was true when they were nationalised and is still true now.

Can I remind you that the railways are now run by private companies?
(But **still heavily subsidised** by the taxpayer!) And thank god that
there *are* still people in that industry who are enthusiasts, as well
as being professionals.

Have you ever watched a goods train (any goods train) roll by, and
reflected on what a load it's taking off the roads? Have you ever been
to (say) the Rhine valley and seen the trains going up and down the
lines there (500 trains a day, all loaded with _stuff_). Railways are
NOT toys!

It's not "bribing people with their own money"[1]. It's using taxpayers'
money to provide the whole nation (taxpayers and non-taxpayers) with an
efficient[2] public service, at a subsidised rate, which benefits not
only the people, but *also the common-wealth of which they are a part*.

IOW, "bribing people with their own money".

I don't see how my description of the ideal nationalised industry
equates with that phrase at all. If I pay Mine Host £2.70 [Wetherspoons]
to give me a pint, am I bribing him?

[1] A stupid, right-ist, cliche,

As opposed to the stupid leftist drool you've just gobbed over Usenet?

Well, another facet of right-ism is to describe (or snarl at) anyone who
disagrees with you, as "Left-ist". I am not a "Leftie", just to put you
right on that one. (And by the way I'm not a train-spotter either: I
just admire the railways as a wonderful manifestation of industry.)


[2] Or rather, that is the goal.

Yeah. Right. Efficiency was dead last on every nationalised industry's list
of priorities.

Your regurgitating The Press again, but: did you read what I said after
that, in Footnote 2? I said:

"My own argument, back in the 80s when the privatisation scam started to
kick off, was that national infrastructure should be run by and for the
nation, but subject to the natural constraints and demands found in
private companies."

I was as ****ed off as anyone in the 70s/80s with the way (a) public
services often (but not always) made themselves comfy in their
public-funded roles and (b) with the way the unions abandoned (or never
even discovered) their responsibilities to the nation.

John

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Another John
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:

Huge, old chap:

Ultimately, trains are big toys. [from TS]

????? Unbelievable. (except, admittedly, in the context of "HS2")
[from
me]

Except it's true. The railways appear to be run by people who are
interested in railways, nit in providing a service to the customer. That
was true when they were nationalised and is still true now.

Can I remind you that the railways are now run by private companies? (But
**still heavily subsidised** by the taxpayer!) And thank god that there
*are* still people in that industry who are enthusiasts, as well as being
professionals.

We are all enthusiasts for our profession, otherwise we'd be in some
*other* profession.

Not necessarily, quite a few just work in what provided
them with a job.

No mode of transport has an inherent right to exist. The canals opened
up distance transport in the early 1800s but fell into disuse once
trains came along. And so on.

Have you ever watched a goods train (any goods train) roll by, and
reflected on what a load it's taking off the roads? Have you ever been to
(say) the Rhine valley and seen the trains going up and down the lines
there (500 trains a day, all loaded with _stuff_). Railways are NOT toys!

You ever see the M20 when it's loaded with trucks, each able to go to a
different destination without needing a mode change?

I used to look out of my office window in Cambridge and see the same
goods train parked up all day waiting for a long enough slot to be able
to carry on south at 25mph. They're only useful for aggregates these
days. Or are you suggesting that Tesco et al should put their delivery
trucks onto a train?

On 23/09/15 22:18, Sam Thatch wrote:
We are all enthusiasts for our profession, otherwise we'd be in some
*other* profession.

Not necessarily, quite a few just work in what provided
them with a job.

That was a great eye opener to me back when I was an idealistic young man.

I hated being kept in the dark and fed on bull****. I wanted to be proud
of what I did, and enjoy it.

I used tp explain what the people assembling my designs were doing, to
them, and why they did things in a certain way. Large numbers of them
looked at me in amazement and more or less said 'why are you telling me
that, tell me what I have to do to get the money, because that's all I
am here for'.

To them work consist on being paid to spend 8 hours a day 5 days a week
doing what they were told, and that was their sole reason fir being
there, apart from a bit of social chitchat whilst they did it, to help
pass the time.


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 23/09/15 18:41, Tim Streater wrote:
I used to look out of my office window in Cambridge and see the same
goods train parked up all day waiting for a long enough slot to be able
to carry on south at 25mph. They're only useful for aggregates these
days.

Actually with proper automated 'container switching' technology they
could be so much better.

However the reality is that roads are - because they are also highly
subsidised - a cheaper alternative that requires far less investment to
make it all work.




--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 23/09/15 21:54, Huge wrote:
On 2015-09-23, Another John wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:

Huge, old chap:

Ultimately, trains are big toys. [from TS]

????? Unbelievable. (except, admittedly, in the context of "HS2") [from me]

Except it's true. The railways appear to be run by people who are
interested in railways, nit in providing a service to the customer. That
was true when they were nationalised and is still true now.

Can I remind you that the railways are now run by private companies?
(But **still heavily subsidised** by the taxpayer!) And thank god that
there *are* still people in that industry who are enthusiasts,

Not to put too fine a point on this, but **** that noise. The last people
who should be operating the railways are people whose attitude is essentially
that it is an honour and a privilege to ride on their trains. They're
operating a *service*, not a bloody experience.

+1


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 23/09/15 16:42, Huge wrote:
On 2015-09-23, Another John wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

Ultimately, trains are big toys.

????? Unbelievable. (except, admittedly, in the context of "HS2")

Except it's true. The railways appear to be run by people who are
interested in railways, nit in providing a service to the customer. That
was true when they were nationalised and is still true now.


It is certainly true of many operators ad confirmed by someone who was a
director of one such company.


On the continent, they've decided
they'll have them anyway whatever the cost, and subsidise the ticket
price. Which fact cannot then be subsequently discovered because
it's a "state secret". That the tickets are "cheaper" is then just the
usual tactic of bribing people with their own money.

It's not "bribing people with their own money"[1]. It's using taxpayers'
money to provide the whole nation (taxpayers and non-taxpayers) with an
efficient[2] public service, at a subsidised rate, which benefits not
only the people, but *also the common-wealth of which they are a part*.

IOW, "bribing people with their own money".

[1] A stupid, right-ist, cliche,

As opposed to the stupid leftist drool you've just gobbed over Usenet?

[2] Or rather, that is the goal.

Yeah. Right. Efficiency was dead last on every nationalised industry's list
of priorities.




--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.