http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...-25091502.html

Somethi9ng is definitely going on at the hidden end of politics.

Has Osborne et al finally realised that greenspin is OK for votes, but a
country with no electricity doesn't wash so well?

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

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

as Osborne et al finally realised that greenspin is OK for votes, but a
country with no electricity doesn't wash so well?

Yes.

Now they're in power for another five years, someone has suddenly
realised that having the lights go off this winter is not exactly going
to endear govt to the populace.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

as Osborne et al finally realised that greenspin is OK for votes, but a
country with no electricity doesn't wash so well?

Yes.

Now they're in power for another five years, someone has suddenly
realised that having the lights go off this winter is not exactly going
to endear govt to the populace.


I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

The politicians have listened to the tree huggers for far too long, it is
time to totally ignore them. We need a proper energy policy, not some
stupid plan based on windmills which need to be taken off line when the
wind blows.

En el artículo , Brian Reay
escribió:

I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

+1. I wish our "esteemed" politicians would look beyond the short-term
gains (and the backhanders) for once and plan further ahead.

We need to start investigating and prosecuting some of the Sepp Blatter-
a-likes in politics. The ****s that privatised the railways and ruined
them would do for a start. Follow the money, where it ends up, that's
who to throw the book at.

The politicians have listened to the tree huggers for far too long, it is
time to totally ignore them. We need a proper energy policy

+1, in spades.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On Friday, 2 October 2015 21:46:06 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Brian Reay
escribió:

I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

+1. I wish our "esteemed" politicians would look beyond the short-term
gains (and the backhanders) for once and plan further ahead.

We need to start investigating and prosecuting some of the Sepp Blatter-
a-likes in politics. The ****s that privatised the railways and ruined
them would do for a start. Follow the money, where it ends up, that's
who to throw the book at.


The railways were built by capitalists.
Socialists ruined them.
They were ****e under British Rail.
Like all socialists, you got a selective memory.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 2 October 2015 21:46:06 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Brian Reay
escribió:

I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

+1. I wish our "esteemed" politicians would look beyond the short-term
gains (and the backhanders) for once and plan further ahead.

We need to start investigating and prosecuting some of the Sepp Blatter-
a-likes in politics. The ****s that privatised the railways and ruined
them would do for a start. Follow the money, where it ends up, that's
who to throw the book at.


The railways were built by capitalists.
Socialists ruined them.
They were ****e under British Rail.
Like all socialists, you got a selective memory.

The operation that was stupid enough to employ
you wasn't built by capitalists, hypocrite.

En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

In article , Brian Reay wrote:

I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

Which we are not, in fact, doing.

Which of those are we not doing? All three statements are true as far
as I'm aware.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On 02/10/15 21:45, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The ****s that privatised the railways and ruined
them would do for a start.

Do you actually remember the railways when they were nationalised?


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

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

On 02/10/15 21:45, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The ****s that privatised the railways and ruined
them would do for a start.

Do you actually remember the railways when they were nationalised?

Yes. And they desperately needed improving. But privatisation isn't the
answer. It's putting profits into the pockets of shareholders when they
should be reinvested in the infrastructure and rolling stock. The
railways are part of the national infrastructure and they should be run
for the benefit of the country as a whole, not shareholders. Note I say
country, not people. I'm not a Corbynist leftie.

I'm not against privatisation per se, but it's not the answer to
everything. I'd be very happy to see a private/public partnership
working well - one example partnership working successfully is
Merseyrail.

However, the current model for the railways is totally dysfunctional.
Huge amounts have been wasted on "consultants", "experts", the banks,
privatisation itself and on the middle management and bureaucracy to
deal with the fragmentation that is a result of privatisation, and the
result is a rotten service with passengers crammed like sardines onto
filthy, ancient trains that are the laughing stock of the continent,
running on crumbling track, paying sky-high fares which go up by more
than the rate of inflation every year.

Where's the money being spent? On prettifying stations like Birmingham
New Street, ffs. The upper levels have been rebuilt and look very
impressive, but down below on the platforms it's the same old, same old.
All fur coat and no knickers.

It may not have escaped you, the irony of East Coast being successfully
state-run by Directly Operated Railways, showing good quality of
service, high levels of customer satisfaction and returning dividends to
the DoT following the failure of not one, but two, private entities.
And yet these idiots in govt, in the name of Tory dogma, want to
privatise it AGAIN.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results" -- Albert Einstein.

On a related tangent - look at all those NHS foundation trusts in
serious financial difficulties following PFI, the latest being
Addenbrooke's, which has just been placed into special measures.

We're just starting to see the cracks in the façade appearing. There's
more, much more, to come. Private Eye is a good source of reliable
background information.

Phew. That came out longer than expected. Sorry for the tl;dr.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

The politicians have listened to the tree huggers for far too long, it is
time to totally ignore them. We need a proper energy policy, not some
stupid plan based on windmills which need to be taken off line when the
wind blows.

Which fuel would you use which is totally under our control?

--
*ATHEISM IS A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION.

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

In article ,
harry wrote:
The railways were built by capitalists.
Socialists ruined them.

Which socialists would that be? They were in a poor state before WW2 and
that didn't do them any favours...

They were ****e under British Rail.
Like all socialists, you got a selective memory.

Do you ever use railways?

--
*WHOSE CRUEL IDEA WAS IT FOR THE WORD 'LISP' TO HAVE 'S' IN IT?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

The politicians have listened to the tree huggers for far too long, it is
time to totally ignore them. We need a proper energy policy, not some
stupid plan based on windmills which need to be taken off line when the
wind blows.

Which fuel would you use which is totally under our control?

Its not about which fuel is totally under your control.

Its about fuel is available from places that
will never be a problem with getting it from.

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 10:07:42 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

On 02/10/15 21:45, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The ****s that privatised the railways and ruined
them would do for a start.

Do you actually remember the railways when they were nationalised?

Yes. And they desperately needed improving. But privatisation isn't the
answer. It's putting profits into the pockets of shareholders when they
should be reinvested in the infrastructure and rolling stock. The
railways are part of the national infrastructure and they should be run
for the benefit of the country as a whole, not shareholders. Note I say
country, not people. I'm not a Corbynist leftie.

I'm not against privatisation per se, but it's not the answer to
everything. I'd be very happy to see a private/public partnership
working well - one example partnership working successfully is
Merseyrail.

However, the current model for the railways is totally dysfunctional.
Huge amounts have been wasted on "consultants", "experts", the banks,
privatisation itself and on the middle management and bureaucracy to
deal with the fragmentation that is a result of privatisation, and the
result is a rotten service with passengers crammed like sardines onto
filthy, ancient trains that are the laughing stock of the continent,
running on crumbling track, paying sky-high fares which go up by more
than the rate of inflation every year.

Where's the money being spent? On prettifying stations like Birmingham
New Street, ffs. The upper levels have been rebuilt and look very
impressive, but down below on the platforms it's the same old, same old.
All fur coat and no knickers.

It may not have escaped you, the irony of East Coast being successfully
state-run by Directly Operated Railways, showing good quality of
service, high levels of customer satisfaction and returning dividends to
the DoT following the failure of not one, but two, private entities.
And yet these idiots in govt, in the name of Tory dogma, want to
privatise it AGAIN.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results" -- Albert Einstein.

On a related tangent - look at all those NHS foundation trusts in
serious financial difficulties following PFI, the latest being
Addenbrooke's, which has just been placed into special measures.

PFI
Hmm that was Bliar Brown was it not?
And they renegotiated GPs contracts too.
You seem to have the usual socialist selective/convenient memory.

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 07:37:57 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

In article , Brian Reay wrote:

I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

Which we are not, in fact, doing.

Which of those are we not doing? All three statements are true as far
as I'm aware.

Most of our foreign gas comes from the ME by tanker.
Landed at Milford Haven
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Hook_LNG_terminal
Home produced gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...om#Natural_gas

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

The politicians have listened to the tree huggers for far too long, it
is
time to totally ignore them. We need a proper energy policy, not some
stupid plan based on windmills which need to be taken off line when the
wind blows.

Which fuel would you use which is totally under our control?

Its not about which fuel is totally under your control.

Its about fuel is available from places that
will never be a problem with getting it from.

Which, you stupid ****, means that it is totally under your control.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Which fuel would you use which is totally under our control?

Its not about which fuel is totally under your control.

Its about fuel is available from places that
will never be a problem with getting it from.

Perhaps you need to lend the UK government your crystal ball?

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Are they? Why? Railways are a mode of transport, like roads, air,
walking, and bicycles, and canals. No mode of transport has an inherent
right to exist. The canals, f'rinstance, were the greatest thing since
sliced bread in the early 1800s - until the railways came along. The
railways were then the bees knees until the internal combustion engine
got going, and cars/buses/lorries took over

Cars etc took over until congestion in many places made them just an
alternative. Railways generally offer a more predictable journey time -
and without the problem of parking.

May be obvious - but it's why they've had somewhat of a renaissance in
recent years.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

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

In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

The politicians have listened to the tree huggers for far too long, it
is
time to totally ignore them. We need a proper energy policy, not some
stupid plan based on windmills which need to be taken off line when the
wind blows.

Which fuel would you use which is totally under our control?

Its not about which fuel is totally under your control.

Its about fuel is available from places that
will never be a problem with getting it from.

Which, you stupid ****, means that it is totally under your control.

Even if obtained from a friendly country, there's nothing to stop them
putting the price up. Hence the need to use a variety of fuels - and not
put all the eggs in one basket.

--
*I stayed up all night to see where the sun went. Then it dawned on me.*

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

On 03/10/2015 11:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
The railways were built by capitalists.
Socialists ruined them.

Which socialists would that be? They were in a poor state before WW2 and
that didn't do them any favours...

wasn't that because they were under government control during WW1?

On 03/10/2015 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Are they? Why? Railways are a mode of transport, like roads, air,
walking, and bicycles, and canals. No mode of transport has an inherent
right to exist. The canals, f'rinstance, were the greatest thing since
sliced bread in the early 1800s - until the railways came along. The
railways were then the bees knees until the internal combustion engine
got going, and cars/buses/lorries took over

Cars etc took over until congestion in many places made them just an
alternative. Railways generally offer a more predictable journey time -
and without the problem of parking.

May be obvious - but it's why they've had somewhat of a renaissance in
recent years.


Yes, lack of investment in roads, causing a lot of pollution too.

En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

Hence the overcrowding on trains that Mike T was whinging about.

Sorry you think I was whinging. You're probably a Southerner, and the
south east gets proportionally far more investment than the rest of the
country combined. The SE also gets the newest rail carriages while the
rest of the ancient rolling stock is given a lick of paint and shunted
off to operators in less deserving parts of the country.

Laying new lines (or adding any infrastructure to this country) is also
hard because the UK is overcrowded and every bit of land is used for
something or other.

No, actually, it's because we are still trying to cope with the
Victorian legacy of railways (we invented, them remember, the first
passenger railway in the world being the Liverpool-Manchester line).

We have a heritage of low bridges, narrow-bore tunnels, etc. which have
made upgrading to modern standards prohibitively expensive. Other
countries have been able to build modern systems from the word go.

FUs set.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

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

In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming
from
Russia.

The politicians have listened to the tree huggers for far too long,
it
is
time to totally ignore them. We need a proper energy policy, not some
stupid plan based on windmills which need to be taken off line when
the
wind blows.

Which fuel would you use which is totally under our control?

Its not about which fuel is totally under your control.

Its about fuel is available from places that
will never be a problem with getting it from.

Which, you stupid ****, means that it is totally under your control.

Even if obtained from a friendly country, there's nothing to stop them
putting the price up. Hence the need to use a variety of fuels - and not
put all the eggs in one basket.

I was merely correcting the antipodean imbecile.
There is no certainty with anything.

En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

Are they? Why? Railways are a mode of transport, like roads, air,
walking, and bicycles, and canals.

They're also an essential utility, like electricity and water. They
provide (some of) the pipelines which get food to your table, plastic
crap from Chinese factories into your local branch of Poundland, and
workers into your offices and factories.

No mode of transport has an inherent
right to exist. The canals, f'rinstance, were the greatest thing since
sliced bread in the early 1800s - until the railways came along. The
railways were then the bees knees until the internal combustion engine
got going, and cars/buses/lorries took over

A modern economy has to get its energy from diverse sources so that it
is not reliant on one particular source, e.g. for electricity there's
gas, nuclear, hydro, oil etc. The same principle applies to transport
- we should not be reliant on the road system alone. That's already
struggling to cope as it is.

I don't suppose anyone on the Continent wastes as much as a second a
year considering the state of the railways here, any more than this
"The NHS is the envy of the world" bull**** has any truth to it.

Doesn't it embarrass you when you travel in other countries how much
cleaner and efficient their rail systems are?

I've travelled to Berlin, Munich, Barcelona, Madrid, Amsterdam,
Copenhagen, Prague, and other European cities in the last couple of
years. Their rail and underground systems put ours to shame.

And perhaps some of the trains are old but there are plenty that aren't
and they're usually quite clean.

That's because the south gets all the investment (DLR, Crossrail) and
the newest rolling stock. Infrastructural investment in the North which
has been desperately needed for years (the Ordsall Chord,
electrification of the Trans-Pennine line, etc. etc.) gets relegated in
favour of a shiny! new! look! for New Street station.

Like I said, all fur coat and no knickers.

Perhaps you should actually travel in
them rather than in the trucks with the livestock.

Ah, a smug Tory ****. Figured as much.

They may be higher on the Continong but that's because they subsidise
the **** out of the fares there.

It's called an "integrated transport policy", something that went out of
the window when the Tories privatised the railways, making millions for
their mates in the financial industry as a side benefit. Now it's every
operator out for himself to make as much money as possible and bugger
the notion of actually running an integrated, co-ordinated service.

I'm still waiting for a response to your earlier assertion (copied
below). Not looking to pick a fight, just curious which of these you
think we are not doing. We are using a French company (EdF), Chinese
money (the Chinese are putting £2bn in), and we buy gas from Russia. If
I'm mistaken, please educate me.

En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

In article , Brian Reay wrote:

I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming from
Russia.

Which we are not, in fact, doing.


--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Cars etc took over until congestion in many places made them just an
alternative. Railways generally offer a more predictable journey time -
and without the problem of parking.

May be obvious - but it's why they've had somewhat of a renaissance in
recent years.

Hence the overcrowding on trains that Mike T was whinging about. And
you can't fix that in five minutes by lengthening platforms, adding
coaches to trains, running more trains, or adding new lines. And you
couldn't do it out of the profits of the railway companies either.

Extending the platforms to take longer trains did help here. Of course it
can be a hole in the bucket thing - the better the service the more that
use it.

Pretty no major railway investment in recent years has come from company
profits.

Laying new lines (or adding any infrastructure to this country) is also
hard because the UK is overcrowded and every bit of land is used for
something or other. And that same overcrowding brings us back to the
congestion you refer to above.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

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

En el artículo ,
harry escribió:

Like all socialists, you got a selective memory.

Still a ****wit, I see, Harry. I'm not a socialist, I'm a realist. But
don't let that deter you from your paranoid fantasies.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming
from
Russia.

The politicians have listened to the tree huggers for far too long, it
is
time to totally ignore them. We need a proper energy policy, not some
stupid plan based on windmills which need to be taken off line when the
wind blows.

Which fuel would you use which is totally under our control?

Its not about which fuel is totally under your control.

Its about fuel is available from places that
will never be a problem with getting it from.

Which, you stupid ****, means that it is totally under your control.

Nope, just means that they will always be happy to sell you more.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Which fuel would you use which is totally under our control?

Its not about which fuel is totally under your control.

Its about fuel is available from places that
will never be a problem with getting it from.

Perhaps you need to lend the UK government your crystal ball?

Don’t need any crystal ball, just use a fuel that is
available from a wide variety of countrys some
of which will be happy to sell that soggy little
frigid island as much of the fuel as it wants at
prices that will never spike because there is so
much of it available like uranium or thorium.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Are they? Why? Railways are a mode of transport, like roads, air,
walking, and bicycles, and canals. No mode of transport has an inherent
right to exist. The canals, f'rinstance, were the greatest thing since
sliced bread in the early 1800s - until the railways came along. The
railways were then the bees knees until the internal combustion engine
got going, and cars/buses/lorries took over

Cars etc took over until congestion in many places made them just an
alternative. Railways generally offer a more predictable journey time -
and without the problem of parking.

May be obvious - but it's why they've had
somewhat of a renaissance in recent years.

Only in places too stupid to organise their cars properly.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming
from
Russia.

The politicians have listened to the tree huggers for far too long,
it
is
time to totally ignore them. We need a proper energy policy, not some
stupid plan based on windmills which need to be taken off line when
the
wind blows.

Which fuel would you use which is totally under our control?

Its not about which fuel is totally under your control.

Its about fuel is available from places that
will never be a problem with getting it from.

Which, you stupid ****, means that it is totally under your control.

Even if obtained from a friendly country, there's nothing to stop them
putting the price up.

There is when you use a fuel like uranium or thorium that is
so widely available that they wont be able to do that and
which wont be getting scarce for hundreds of years, if ever.

Hence the need to use a variety of fuels -
and not put all the eggs in one basket.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 03/10/2015 11:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
The railways were built by capitalists.
Socialists ruined them.

Which socialists would that be? They were in a poor state before WW2 and
that didn't do them any favours...

wasn't that because they were under government control during WW1?

It was mostly because of the Great Depression.

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

In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
I've no issue with building nuclear power stations but using French
companies and Chinese money seems as daft was relying on gas coming
from
Russia.

The politicians have listened to the tree huggers for far too long,
it
is
time to totally ignore them. We need a proper energy policy, not
some
stupid plan based on windmills which need to be taken off line when
the
wind blows.

Which fuel would you use which is totally under our control?

Its not about which fuel is totally under your control.

Its about fuel is available from places that
will never be a problem with getting it from.

Which, you stupid ****, means that it is totally under your control.

Even if obtained from a friendly country, there's nothing to stop them
putting the price up. Hence the need to use a variety of fuels - and not
put all the eggs in one basket.

There is no certainty with anything.

There is plenty of certainty in the fact that both uranium and thorium
are very widely available and from countrys that will be happy to keep
selling what that soggy frigid little island needs for hundreds of years
and which wont be scarce any time soon and which can be bred from
what has been bought if the past if that becomes necessary anyway.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Cars etc took over until congestion in many places made them just an
alternative. Railways generally offer a more predictable journey time -
and without the problem of parking.

May be obvious - but it's why they've had somewhat of a renaissance in
recent years.

Hence the overcrowding on trains that Mike T was whinging about. And
you can't fix that in five minutes by lengthening platforms, adding
coaches to trains, running more trains, or adding new lines. And you
couldn't do it out of the profits of the railway companies either.

Extending the platforms to take longer trains did help here. Of course it
can be a hole in the bucket thing - the better the service the more that
use it.

There will always be a level of expansion
where you don’t get any more using it.

Pretty no major railway investment in recent
years has come from company profits.

Because it isn't even possible because the costs are so high, stupid.

Laying new lines (or adding any infrastructure to this country) is also
hard because the UK is overcrowded and every bit of land is used for
something or other. And that same overcrowding brings us back to the
congestion you refer to above.

In article , Mike Tomlinson
scribeth thus
En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

On 02/10/15 21:45, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The ****s that privatised the railways and ruined
them would do for a start.

Do you actually remember the railways when they were nationalised?

Yes. And they desperately needed improving. But privatisation isn't the
answer. It's putting profits into the pockets of shareholders when they
should be reinvested in the infrastructure and rolling stock. The
railways are part of the national infrastructure and they should be run
for the benefit of the country as a whole, not shareholders. Note I say
country, not people. I'm not a Corbynist leftie.

I'm not against privatisation per se, but it's not the answer to
everything. I'd be very happy to see a private/public partnership
working well - one example partnership working successfully is
Merseyrail.

However, the current model for the railways is totally dysfunctional.
Huge amounts have been wasted on "consultants", "experts", the banks,
privatisation itself and on the middle management and bureaucracy to
deal with the fragmentation that is a result of privatisation, and the
result is a rotten service with passengers crammed like sardines onto
filthy, ancient trains that are the laughing stock of the continent,
running on crumbling track, paying sky-high fares which go up by more
than the rate of inflation every year.

Where's the money being spent? On prettifying stations like Birmingham
New Street, ffs. The upper levels have been rebuilt and look very
impressive, but down below on the platforms it's the same old, same old.
All fur coat and no knickers.

It may not have escaped you, the irony of East Coast being successfully
state-run by Directly Operated Railways, showing good quality of
service, high levels of customer satisfaction and returning dividends to
the DoT following the failure of not one, but two, private entities.
And yet these idiots in govt, in the name of Tory dogma, want to
privatise it AGAIN.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results" -- Albert Einstein.

On a related tangent - look at all those NHS foundation trusts in
serious financial difficulties following PFI, the latest being
Addenbrooke's, which has just been placed into special measures.

Which is an excellent hospital being in our backyard. The main problem
there is its asked to do too much with insufficient funding but its not
all of its own making they cannot get enough nurses, ones who can afford
to live here were a 3 person house share is around 1300 odd a month for
a simple 3 bed house.

Yes there have been some management failings but it isn't medical care
thats poor thats first rate been there and experienced it.

Why some think it does need is a hybrid management, ones that are public
service oriented but can run it as a commercial enterprise.


As to the railways well they also have their moment's too, there was an
accident report out this week where a signal post fell arse overhead it
had corroded at the base seemed that it was to cost £45,000 to paint 9
of them!


We're just starting to see the cracks in the façade appearing. There's
more, much more, to come. Private Eye is a good source of reliable
background information.


Yes GPO to BT was that a good move or not?. Gas and Leccy too?.

Phew. That came out longer than expected. Sorry for the tl;dr.


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Are they? Why? Railways are a mode of transport, like roads, air,
walking, and bicycles, and canals. No mode of transport has an inherent
right to exist. The canals, f'rinstance, were the greatest thing since
sliced bread in the early 1800s - until the railways came along. The
railways were then the bees knees until the internal combustion engine
got going, and cars/buses/lorries took over

Cars etc took over until congestion in many places made them just an
alternative. Railways generally offer a more predictable journey time -
and without the problem of parking.


May be obvious - but it's why they've had somewhat of a renaissance in
recent years.


Yes, even more so since I Got my Senior Railcard:-)

--
Tony Sayer

En el artículo , tony sayer
escribió:

Yes GPO to BT was that a good move or not?

I say yes. Despite what you think of BT, they have brought the UK's
antiquated phone system into the 21st century. They need to be prodded
from time to time to meet their obligations, though (like rural
broadband) but generally that does seem to happen.

. Gas and Leccy too?

I'm a bit more ambivalent about that. Price competition sort-of works
but at the cost of huge bureaucracy and the consumer having to deal with
all this switching ********.

The privatised power companies are also reluctant to reinvest into the
infrastructure, with the result that the taxpayer is going to have to
guarantee the building of Hinkley Point C to the tune of £20 billion,
and the consumer is going to have to fit the bill for the contract
agreed with EdF where the wholesale price of power coming out of HPC is
twice the current wholesale price.

And there's all the silly shenanigans with solar and the FIT tariff,
which means those without solar are subdidising those that have it, and
the green subsidies. These seem to be coming to an end, though.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:15:31 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

The privatised power companies are also reluctant to reinvest into the
infrastructure, with the result that the taxpayer is going to have to
guarantee the building of Hinkley Point C to the tune of £20 billion,
and the consumer is going to have to fit the bill for the contract
agreed with EdF where the wholesale price of power coming out of HPC is
twice the current wholesale price.

Hinkley C will be small potatoes compared to the cost of more than
doubling the amount of power generated in the UK and upgrading the
transmission grid accordingly, when electric vehicles become popular
and widely used by the green believers.

I don't believe that will actually happen, essentially because
they will always be much more expensive than normal cars.
The most we will likely see is many more cars using LPG or
CNG as the price of petrol gets much higher as it runs out.

En el artículo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

Hinkley C will be small potatoes compared to the cost of more than
doubling the amount of power generated in the UK and upgrading the
transmission grid accordingly, when electric vehicles become popular
and widely used by the green believers.

Indeed. Tell the greenies that their so-called "clean" vehicles merely
transfer the source of pollution from the petrol tank to the power
stations that have to generate the electricity to fuel their Piouses and
Leafs and watch them fall silent.

Then tell them we will have to build several more new power stations at
huge expense to the taxpayer to charge all those electric vehicles when
they become popular, in order to avoid the lights going out and watch
the reaction.

And what about the cost (finanical and environmental) of making and
recycling all those batteries, which contain some pretty nasty
chemicals, and cost serious money and need significant amounts of
energy, to reprocess?

These hypocritical greenies make me sick. They criticise anything and
everything from the comfort of their organic Tibetan yak-wool-stuffed
armchairs and yet when challenged come up with no practical solutions
other than a few million more frigging wind turbines which isn't gonna
charge their crappy little electro-cars when the wind ain't blowing.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On 05/10/15 09:08, Chris Hogg wrote:
So UK power generation would have to be increased by a factor of 2.5,
(465200+306600/306600) i.e. we would need two and a half times more
power stations than we have now.


That is broadly where I got to years ago. about a 3 times uptick in
electrical grid to replace all fossil fuels with leccy.

The calculation is very difficult to do reliably, because there is the
matter of fossil conversion efficiency to 'desired outcome' versus
electrical efficiency to do the same. i.e. you probably need half as
much electricity in energy terms to move a vehicle, as diesel.

And when we are talking about energy input to such things as fertiliser
manufacturing or smelting, all bets are off. I simply don't know.

(Yes, you probably could smelt iron with pure hydrogen for example)


But I agree with Rod Speed; it'll never happen, at least not to any
degree. If people want to use electric cars, they should be compelled
to provide the means for recharging them, much like Harry does but
independent of the national grid.

I think it will happen slowly to as much of a degree as the technology
permits.

Right now electric cars survive on subsidy, but electric trains are
cheaper than diesel ones once the overhead wires are in place (or the
third rail).

In between the lines of DECC's reports is the tacit assumption that we
will be using a LOT of nuclear electricity in the future.

Electric cars are perfectly viable for inner city driverless taxis,
operating out of a charger base, and or low mileage shopping and school
run second cars in the 'burbs.

It wont happen overnight, but behind the scenes plans to beef up the
grid and add nukes to it seem to be being made.

And the ruthless drive for energy efficiency goes on - we now have LED
bulbs. The new processor on my PC is 5 times as fast as the old and uses
half the power. House insulation is about maxed out on new builds.

I would say that fracking is not rendering massive deployment of
electrical vehicles and electrical alternatives out, but merely buying
us the time to do it in a measured and steady way.

Green crap is on the way out, renewable energy is too expensive and
dysfunctional - TPTB don't want their London mansions to have power
cuts, so that means more nukes, lots more nukes, in the next 30 years.
And a much bigger grid.

Unless of course we get a massive population die back....

....I am dreaming of a fatal disease transmitted by tattoo parlours.


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

In message , at 12:15:17 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

On a related tangent - look at all those NHS foundation trusts in
serious financial difficulties following PFI, the latest being
Addenbrooke's, which has just been placed into special measures.

Which is an excellent hospital being in our backyard. The main problem
there is its asked to do too much with insufficient funding but its not
all of its own making they cannot get enough nurses, ones who can afford
to live here were a 3 person house share is around 1300 odd a month for
a simple 3 bed house.

How do nurses manage in Central London where a 4-person flat-share is a
minimum of £3000 a month anywhere within half an hour's commute?

Do what the rest of us did. Shabby bedsits more than an hours commute
away, and crashing on other peoples floors

And nurses working in Cambridge aren't inclined to rough it?

A couple of years ago I rented my 4-bed house in Ely (5-bed if you do
the usual London trick of turning the dining room into another bedroom)
which isn't roughing it at all, to a pair of Hospital Doctors - one from
Peterborough and one from Addenbrookes, for the princely sum of £850 a
month (for the pair). Some similar houses here try to get as much as
£1100, but they seem to stay empty for months.
--
Roland Perry

On 05/10/15 12:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 05/10/15 12:07, Roland Perry wrote:

How do nurses manage in Central London where a 4-person flat-share is a
minimum of £3000 a month anywhere within half an hour's commute?

Do what the rest of us did. Shabby bedsits more than an hours commute
away, and crashing on other peoples floors

Girls I used to know 50 years ago lived in hostels. I was never quite
sure what the arrangements were then, it was pickup/dropoff at the
door. Whatever happened to them?

Still around for many nurses


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