Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:17 pm  

Scooter Nik wrote:

Is it just me, or does todays fudge on the West Coast Line have 'Bradford Bulls Licence' writ large upon it?

It was the sensible solution though.
I can see Virgin running east and west coast routes at the end of it, it looks like their figures were stacking up properly .

[DaveO]

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:47 am  

Big Graeme wrote:

It was the sensible solution though.
I can see Virgin running east and west coast routes at the end of it, it looks like their figures were stacking up properly .

Compared to what? The DRO running it as they do the East coast route?

They are going to have Virgin run it for now but then must run another franchise bidding session to chose who will run it for about two years or so while they wait for the two reports to come in and a new scheme to be devised.

This doesn't sound very sensible to me as that will cost even more money. Just let DRO run it and avoid a pointless franchise bidding process for an interim contract.

They won't do that and what they will do is try and conclude everything so the bidding for the long term franchise is complete before the next general election. Just as Major rushed through rail privatisation they will do this to ensure the West coast main line continues to be run privately despite evidence that the DRO does it cheaper on the East coast as far as the tax payer goes. Political ideology is in full force here.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:40 am  

Big Graeme wrote:

They are competing because they have to, remove that competition and we'll be back in the '70s within 5 years.

SNCF aren't stuck in the 1970s.

But then again, FS Trenitalia are.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:42 am  

Richie wrote:

Is there ever incentive for a state owned enterprise to increase business though? Would a state owned railway want more passengers? Whilst a private enterprise gains from increasing revenue and efficiency in terms of profits, what does a state owned industry get? In the state days, it felt passengers were considered an inconvenience to running a railway.

In this day and age, you would have thought that the correct mentality would prevail. That is, 'state owned company makes profits - less need to tax us all to death - everyone's lives improve'

I won't hold my breath, though.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:45 am  

DaveO wrote:

That is a pretty glib statement IMO. I don't think anyone in the 50's or 60's objected to nationalised industries based on some ideological stance of about how much of our life should be provided by the state. They may have objected on other grounds but talk of a "small state" was not something I can ever recall being a hot topic.

The big state v small state debate is a manufactured one IMO manufactured by those who want a small state. They make it sound as if there is something inherently wrong with the state running virtually anything at a philosophical or moral level ignoring the practicalities. I think people in the UK are far more pragmatic and a lot less dogmatic over this than our American cousins and I think it is a real shame such dogma has found its way into the debate in this country as it moves it away from the simple economics and practicalities of the situation and turns it into an ideological debate instead.

Spoken like a true red flag waver.

Anyway, in the real world...

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:51 am  

DaveO wrote: Here is an interesting article on the relative costs of state v private ownership of the railways: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/railway-trains-subsidy-state-private Absolutely no point whatsoever reading that. Why not find an article written by someone who isn't going to be massively biased towards the left, and deals only in facts? That's a bit like trying to prove that Hitler was right by pointing to a load of KdF literature.

DaveO wrote: Here is an interesting article on the relative costs of state v private ownership of the railways: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/railway-trains-subsidy-state-private Absolutely no point whatsoever reading that. Why not find an article written by someone who isn't going to be massively biased towards the left, and deals only in facts? That's a bit like trying to prove that Hitler was right by pointing to a load of KdF literature.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:00 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Compared to what? The DRO running it as they do the East coast route?

They are going to have Virgin run it for now but then must run another franchise bidding session to chose who will run it for about two years or so while they wait for the two reports to come in and a new scheme to be devised.

This doesn't sound very sensible to me as that will cost even more money. Just let DRO run it and avoid a pointless franchise bidding process for an interim contract.

They won't do that and what they will do is try and conclude everything so the bidding for the long term franchise is complete before the next general election. Just as Major rushed through rail privatisation they will do this to ensure the West coast main line continues to be run privately despite evidence that the DRO does it cheaper on the East coast as far as the tax payer goes. Political ideology is in full force here.

Jesus H.

There is absolutely NO POINT WHATSOEVER to the DRO running the West Coast line. The simple reason is - DRO took over East Coast because the franchisee went bust, after taking over from Virgin, who ran it well and produced good figures.

Incidentally does anyone have any figures as how DRO are performing on the East Coast? Financially as well as time-wise and service quality wise?

The VITAL difference is that Virgin have a good track record ('scuse the pun). They're largely on time, their trains are great, they've reduced travel times, they've introduced new rolling stock, they're not overly dear, they make a profit, and - this is the biggie - customers LIKE THEM. There is no reason whatsoever to remove them in favour of a government department, and had their East Coast franchise not been transferred, then the state would not NEED to run the East Coast line in the absence of anyone else to do it. Virgin would still be on it, everyone bar the 'Nationalise Everything Brigade' would he happy, and this debate wouldn't be happening.

[DaveO]

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:45 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

Absolutely no point whatsoever reading that.

Why not find an article written by someone who isn't going to be massively biased towards the left, and deals only in facts?

That's a bit like trying to prove that Hitler was right by pointing to a load of KdF literature.

I have seen you do this before. Someone posts a link to an article that you disagree with and it's "biased" with no attempt to argue against the points raised. Haven't you learned that is an epic fail on a forum such as this yet?

Just because you disagree with something or haven't got the brains to be able to construct a reasonable counter argument doesn't mean its biased.

[DaveO]

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:09 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

Jesus H.

There is absolutely NO POINT WHATSOEVER to the DRO running the West Coast line. The simple reason is - DRO took over East Coast because the franchisee went bust, after taking over from Virgin, who ran it well and produced good figures.

Incidentally does anyone have any figures as how DRO are performing on the East Coast? Financially as well as time-wise and service quality wise?

Why the DRO was brought in doesn't matter (other than it points to a flawed franchising processes) . What matters is, it is cheaper to have DRO running it than a private company. The DRO gets 0.5p a mile tax payer funded subsidy per passenger on the east coast, Virgin gets 3.6p on the west coast. Do you want to pay more tax?

The VITAL difference is that Virgin have a good track record ('scuse the pun). They're largely on time, their trains are great, they've reduced travel times, they've introduced new rolling stock, they're not overly dear, they make a profit, and - this is the biggie - customers LIKE THEM. There is no reason whatsoever to remove them in favour of a government department, and had their East Coast franchise not been transferred, then the state would not NEED to run the East Coast line in the absence of anyone else to do it. Virgin would still be on it, everyone bar the 'Nationalise Everything Brigade' would he happy, and this debate wouldn't be happening.

The vital difference is the cost to the tax payer. If the government can save a substantial amount of cash by having DRO run the route it has not got to let ideology get in the way. What you rather happen? Virgin run the line requiring a much higher level of subsidy?

By the way Branson is quoted by his biographer as saying rail franchises are a license to print money and Virgin are at the forefront of tax avoidance like Vodafone and Amazon. You couldn't really make it up. We give him tax payers money to run the railways and his companies avoid paying tax the UK on their profits.

And it IS going to cost a fortune to sort the mess out and have private companies continue to run franchises up for renewal (Great Western is up in 2013 as well) because they can't just let the incumbents run them in the interim while they try and sort it all out because it is illegal to do so!

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:50 am  

DaveO wrote:

I have seen you do this before. Someone posts a link to an article that you disagree with and it's "biased" with no attempt to argue against the points raised. Haven't you learned that is an epic fail on a forum such as this yet?

Just because you disagree with something or haven't got the brains to be able to construct a reasonable counter argument doesn't mean its biased.

But it IS biased! It's in the bloody Guardian!

You would - and have, and so have others on here - been just as incredulous when someone lists - say - Daily Mail article offering a different point of view from what's popular on here.