I'm just reading a biography of Sir Daniel Gooch, the Victorian railway and cabling engineer. He was MP for Cricklade for twenty years, and allegedly never once took part in a debate.
At dissolution in 1885, when he left parliament, he said: "I have taken no part in any of the debates. It would be a great advantage to business if there were a greater number of people who followed my example."
"When the Whigs came into power ... They worked steadily towards curbing the government's coercive power over the individual; and with such effect, as historians testify, that by the middle of the eighteenth century Englishmen had simply forgotten that there was ever a time when the full "liberty of the subject" was not theirs to enjoy.
In this connexion the thing to be remarked is that the Whigs proceeded by the negative method of repealing existing laws, not by the positive method of making new ones.
They combed the Statute-book, and when they found a statute which bore against "the liberty of the subject" they simply repealed it and left the page blank. This purgation ran up into the thousands.
In 1873 the secretary of the Law Society estimated that out of the 18,110 Acts which had been passed since the reign of Henry III, four-fifths had been wholly or partially repealed. "
I'm just reading a biography of Sir Daniel Gooch, the Victorian railway and cabling engineer. He was MP for Cricklade for twenty years, and allegedly never once took part in a debate.
At dissolution in 1885, when he left parliament, he said: "I have taken no part in any of the debates. It would be a great advantage to business if there were a greater number of people who followed my example."
"When the Whigs came into power ... They worked steadily towards curbing the government's coercive power over the individual; and with such effect, as historians testify, that by the middle of the eighteenth century Englishmen had simply forgotten that there was ever a time when the full "liberty of the subject" was not theirs to enjoy.
In this connexion the thing to be remarked is that the Whigs proceeded by the negative method of repealing existing laws, not by the positive method of making new ones.
They combed the Statute-book, and when they found a statute which bore against "the liberty of the subject" they simply repealed it and left the page blank. This purgation ran up into the thousands.
In 1873 the secretary of the Law Society estimated that out of the 18,110 Acts which had been passed since the reign of Henry III, four-fifths had been wholly or partially repealed. "
Wouldn't it be fabulous to have such a purge today.
Yes!
One of the policy papers produced by the Conservatives before the 2010 election (poss the Ken Clarke one) advocated increased use of sunset clauses in new legislation, but don't know if anything came of it.
Evening all. A completely off topic question if there are any PAYE experts here this evening. I changed employer at the end of April. My final pay month was the end of April and had YTD figures for the 2014/15 tax year. My P45 which is dated May 1st has the totals for 2013/14 and I have had no P60 for 2013/14. Is this correct? I would have thought that the P45 should have only 1 months earnings on it.
I an not an expert but your P45 should have a record of 2014-2015 earnings and deductions, i.e month of April.
You should have been issued a P60 for 2013-2014 with your March salary slip - month 12. You should be issued with a P60 for 2014-2015 up to the date of leaving that employment.
Evening all. A completely off topic question if there are any PAYE experts here this evening. I changed employer at the end of April. My final pay month was the end of April and had YTD figures for the 2014/15 tax year. My P45 which is dated May 1st has the totals for 2013/14 and I have had no P60 for 2013/14. Is this correct? I would have thought that the P45 should have only 1 months earnings on it.
I an not an expert but your P45 should have a record of 2014-2015 earnings and deductions, i.e month of April.
You should have been issued a P60 for 2013-2014 with your March salary slip - month 12. You should be issued with a P60 for 2014-2015 up to the date of leaving that employment.
Sorry to butt in but this not strictly correct. 2013-14 finishes on 5th April, so you should receive a P60 for that year regardless as Financier points out. However, for the month of April, since you were paid after the 5th [ i.e. in 2014-15 ], you should only receive a P45 which will show the cumulative earnings and tax paid [ in your case only one month ].
Your new employer with give you the 2014-15 P60 after 5th April next year.
Simon Danczuk said detectives visited his office on Friday to discuss a case involving a senior Labour figure and the alleged "aggressive" and "predatory" abuse of boys.
He told the BBC officers were taking the allegations "extremely seriously".
With just 12 months left until polling day, Labour’s overall lead has fallen to just one point, with the party now on 32 per cent to the Conservatives’ 31 per cent.
It is the narrowest lead ever recorded for Ed Miliband in ICM's Wisdom Index survey since he became Labour leader in 2010.
The poll also showed a fall in support for the Liberal Democrats, on 15 per cent, and another boost for Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party, who gained a point to 13 per cent, since the last Wisdom Index was published in February.
It seems to me that a certain level of regulation which would happen at national level is now happening at European level instead, and there is an accompanying tendency to compare the EU regulation with no regulation at all, whereas in reality the British government would have implemented similar standards.
I got ambushed by UKIP today, whilst visiting Loughborough. The market was swarming with them. I haven't seen anything of other parties. No posters, no leaflets, no activists. I've had 2 UKIP leaflets through my door, and lots of posters in windows. The other parties don't seem bothered.
I've had a UKIP leaflet, no others. Apart from in a union building, only seen UKIP posters around
Evening all. A completely off topic question if there are any PAYE experts here this evening. I changed employer at the end of April. My final pay month was the end of April and had YTD figures for the 2014/15 tax year. My P45 which is dated May 1st has the totals for 2013/14 and I have had no P60 for 2013/14. Is this correct? I would have thought that the P45 should have only 1 months earnings on it.
I an not an expert but your P45 should have a record of 2014-2015 earnings and deductions, i.e month of April.
You should have been issued a P60 for 2013-2014 with your March salary slip - month 12. You should be issued with a P60 for 2014-2015 up to the date of leaving that employment.
Sorry to butt in but this not strictly correct. 2013-14 finishes on 5th April, so you should receive a P60 for that year regardless as Financier points out. However, for the month of April, since you were paid after the 5th [ i.e. in 2014-15 ], you should only receive a P45 which will show the cumulative earnings and tax paid [ in your case only one month ].
Your new employer with give you the 2014-15 P60 after 5th April next year.
It seems to me that a certain level of regulation which would happen at national level is now happening at European level instead, and there is an accompanying tendency to compare the EU regulation with no regulation at all, whereas in reality the British government would have implemented similar standards.
I think that is true. The point is though that at a national level we have far more chance of influencing the decisions on the levels of regulation than we do at the European level. It has often been said - and appears to be the case - that larger companies very much like the EU being the competent authority for regulation because it gives them one centralised point for lobbying and the ability to influence regulation in their interests rather than necessarily for the good of the consumer or small business.
Been out of action since Tuesday. Wife finally popped the new sproglet on Thursday morning, nod got them all home yesterday.
What did I miss?
Brilliant, congratulations DB. To be honest probably didn't miss much. The same discussions going on as have been for the last couple of weeks with the added fun of the Newark by-election. Actually in retrospect it has been pretty vintage PB with a lot of good interesting debate.
Been out of action since Tuesday. Wife finally popped the new sproglet on Thursday morning, nod got them all home yesterday.
What did I miss?
Congratulations to the Barber Family.
You have missed the following
1) Patrick Mercer resigning as an MP 2) The Newark by-election is to be scheduled for the 5th of June 3) Nigel Farage said he he would consider running in Newark 4) Nigel Farage then announced he wouldn't run in Newark 5) Nigel Farage was egged 6) The GDP figures were as expected 7) Some polls are showing a narrowing of the Tory lead 8) The polls in April overall show a Lab down, Con down even more, LDs down a bit, UKIP surging. 9) Some polls showed UKIP with stonking leads for the Euros 10) Other polls show Labour coming first.
Wonder when Ed will announce this? Wait until GE campaign?
Why is rail nationalisation perceived to be popular. BR was awful!
Totally agree BR was c##p, but I bet like freezing energy prices and capping rents, it will score well in polling.
I think Ed is tapping into the "retail offer", which is you can have something for nothing. I can't promise you massive public spending increases etc, but we can squeeze the fat cat companies and get a better deal for you.
If you believe that it really is something for nothing, i.e no long term consequences, is another matter, but a lot of people like the sound of it.
Labour gained 190 seats in May 2010 against the National trend but boosted by the General Election turnout. I will be surprised if they bettered that, at least, in London.
Been out of action since Tuesday. Wife finally popped the new sproglet on Thursday morning, nod got them all home yesterday.
What did I miss?
Brilliant, congratulations DB. To be honest probably didn't miss much. The same discussions going on as have been for the last couple of weeks with the added fun of the Newark by-election. Actually in retrospect it has been pretty vintage PB with a lot of good interesting debate.
Been out of action since Tuesday. Wife finally popped the new sproglet on Thursday morning, nod got them all home yesterday.
What did I miss?
Congratulations to the Barber Family.
You have missed the following
1) Patrick Mercer resigning as an MP 2) The Newark by-election is to be scheduled for the 5th of June 3) Nigel Farage said he he would consider running in Newark 4) Nigel Farage then announced he wouldn't run in Newark 5) Nigel Farage was egged 6) The GDP figures were as expected 7) Some polls are showing a narrowing of the Tory lead 8) The polls in April overall show a Lab down, Con down even more, LDs down a bit, UKIP surging. 9) Some polls showed UKIP with stonking leads for the Euros 10) Other polls show Labour coming first.
Thanks chaps,
I'm knackered but must soldier on. Both sprogs sleeping for the moment so trying to catch up whilst I have a quiet moment.
A better together campaigner pigeonholed me at just the wrong moment earlier. I feel slightly guilty about the shortness of the shrift I gave him...
Evening all. A completely off topic question if there are any PAYE experts here this evening. I changed employer at the end of April. My final pay month was the end of April and had YTD figures for the 2014/15 tax year. My P45 which is dated May 1st has the totals for 2013/14 and I have had no P60 for 2013/14. Is this correct? I would have thought that the P45 should have only 1 months earnings on it.
I an not an expert but your P45 should have a record of 2014-2015 earnings and deductions, i.e month of April.
You should have been issued a P60 for 2013-2014 with your March salary slip - month 12. You should be issued with a P60 for 2014-2015 up to the date of leaving that employment.
Sorry to butt in but this not strictly correct. 2013-14 finishes on 5th April, so you should receive a P60 for that year regardless as Financier points out. However, for the month of April, since you were paid after the 5th [ i.e. in 2014-15 ], you should only receive a P45 which will show the cumulative earnings and tax paid [ in your case only one month ].
Your new employer with give you the 2014-15 P60 after 5th April next year.
Cheers Surbiton, PB has always been a great reservoir of knowledge with my employment travails.
I'm just reading a biography of Sir Daniel Gooch, the Victorian railway and cabling engineer. He was MP for Cricklade for twenty years, and allegedly never once took part in a debate.
At dissolution in 1885, when he left parliament, he said: "I have taken no part in any of the debates. It would be a great advantage to business if there were a greater number of people who followed my example."
"When the Whigs came into power ... They worked steadily towards curbing the government's coercive power over the individual; and with such effect, as historians testify, that by the middle of the eighteenth century Englishmen had simply forgotten that there was ever a time when the full "liberty of the subject" was not theirs to enjoy.
In this connexion the thing to be remarked is that the Whigs proceeded by the negative method of repealing existing laws, not by the positive method of making new ones.
They combed the Statute-book, and when they found a statute which bore against "the liberty of the subject" they simply repealed it and left the page blank. This purgation ran up into the thousands.
In 1873 the secretary of the Law Society estimated that out of the 18,110 Acts which had been passed since the reign of Henry III, four-fifths had been wholly or partially repealed. "
I'm fairly ambivalent about who owns the railways but as a daily commuter (when at work) and occasional traveller (when not), I resent the feeling of being gouged in terms of fares.
The service is better and the trains are better than twenty years ago - no question. I do question the actual ownership of carriages - I don't want leasing arrangements which put the vehicles in the hands of banks.
The problem (especially in the south-east) is one of capacity and having the former Eurostar terminal at Waterloo sitting idle for years is for me a total disgrace.
I am getting increasingly worried at the the Ukraine.
Last Saturday night I attended an excellent lecture about the origins of WW1 by Max Hastings. During questions he was asked whether it could have been avoided. He pointed out that one of the great illusions of history is "commeth the hour, commeth the man". In fact most of history was made by very ordinary leadership muddling through and generally making a mess of it.
This has had me thinking about the great gift of Gordon Brown to the world of diplomacy, Cath Ashton and the man who lost an election to GW Bush of all people, Mr Kerry.
Under Ashton's inspiration the EU seems to have blundered into Ukraine seeking to upset the balance of interests between the EU and the Russian bloc. When they lost the election they saw fit to support a coup overturning some very disappointing leadership. All of this seems to have been done in blissful ignorance of how Russia was likely to react.
We now have a situation where part of the Ukraine is in Russia and something close to a civil war is starting with the threat of Russian intervention. We have a number of NATO countries very, very uncomfortable and token numbers of American soldiers put in the front line to discourage any idea of an attack. We have Putin in something of a corner and an economy in the EU which is uncomfortably dependent on Russian gas threatening sanctions.
There are so many ways this could go wrong there is not time to enumerate them all but Russian intervention looks increasingly likely, with significant western sanctions, retaliatory sanctions by Russia and major disruption to the economies on this continent at the very least.
And we have very, very ordinary leadership trying to muddle through. I think this is being seriously underestimated as a threat.
I'm fairly ambivalent about who owns the railways but as a daily commuter (when at work) and occasional traveller (when not), I resent the feeling of being gouged in terms of fares.
The service is better and the trains are better than twenty years ago - no question. I do question the actual ownership of carriages - I don't want leasing arrangements which put the vehicles in the hands of banks.
The problem (especially in the south-east) is one of capacity and having the former Eurostar terminal at Waterloo sitting idle for years is for me a total disgrace.
I think this is a very good point. If you use the trains occasionally and are flexible, you can get very reasonable prices and the trains aren't that busy. This is the bracket I fit into, and I think trains not too bad (not Europe), but hey I got from x to y for £10-15 and the train are new and better than the BR days.
But if you a commuter, especially into London, the season tickets are incredibly expensive and then the capacity isn't there so you end up crammed in day in day out (been there, done that), somebody telling you can get prices down by state owning it will definitely seem much more attractive.
I'm fairly ambivalent about who owns the railways but as a daily commuter (when at work) and occasional traveller (when not), I resent the feeling of being gouged in terms of fares.
The service is better and the trains are better than twenty years ago - no question. I do question the actual ownership of carriages - I don't want leasing arrangements which put the vehicles in the hands of banks.
The problem (especially in the south-east) is one of capacity and having the former Eurostar terminal at Waterloo sitting idle for years is for me a total disgrace.
The fares system is overly complex, but for most commutes into London (especially with season ticket) the pricing is more than competitive with cars. Run the figures to check.
I agree about Waterloo; ISTR that the platforms are now, eventually, going to start coming back into use, but only one or two faces initially.
As for renationalisation: the latest Rail magazine has a few sections on it. I haven't read them yet, but the 'Industry Insider' section has a section titled "Publicly owned franchises will not deliver taxpayer benefits". Whilst Wolmar has a section outlining the ORR's accounting figures for the industry.
I find it amazing that rail passengers are looking back to the 'good old days' of BR ...
Oh, and for the people who will point at Network Rail and smile when they get warm, fuzzy state-owned feelings, remember that most of the delays passengers suffer are down to them. That's why it looks likely that NR will get a record £70 million fine later in the year for massively missing punctuality targets.
Oh, and for the people who will point at Network Rail and smile when they get warm, fuzzy state-owned feelings, remember that most of the delays passengers suffer are down to them. That's why it looks likely that NR will get a record £70 million fine later in the year for massively missing punctuality targets.
Perhaps infrastructure nationalisation doesn't work so well. Then again, neither did privatisation ...
Sort of a test of how stupid politicians are. Once they get the short term popularity blip of renationalisation then they get the long term blame for everything that goes wrong.
Oh, and for the people who will point at Network Rail and smile when they get warm, fuzzy state-owned feelings, remember that most of the delays passengers suffer are down to them. That's why it looks likely that NR will get a record £70 million fine later in the year for massively missing punctuality targets.
Perhaps infrastructure nationalisation doesn't work so well. Then again, neither did privatisation ...
Sort of a test of how stupid politicians are. Once they get the short term popularity blip of renationalisation then they get the long term blame for everything that goes wrong.
miliband's bet is the infrastructure is well enough invested that it'll be 10 years before it goes wrong. By which time (a) he will be retired and (b) the Tories will be in power so they can be blamed for it anyway
BR disaster under public ownership. Huge numbers of steam engines ordered from 1948 - most with lives of less than 20 years. Botched dieselisation programme - too many unproven designs ordered - scrapped with lives of less than 15 years. fragmented modernisation via electricfication rolling programme might have been better. Strikes, loss of freight. too much political control and too timid managements? progress under privatisation patchy - HSTs and carriages replaced by uncomfortable, cramped Voyagers. as for the bouncy castles...
Simon Danczuk said detectives visited his office on Friday to discuss a case involving a senior Labour figure and the alleged "aggressive" and "predatory" abuse of boys.
He told the BBC officers were taking the allegations "extremely seriously".
Oh, and for the people who will point at Network Rail and smile when they get warm, fuzzy state-owned feelings, remember that most of the delays passengers suffer are down to them. That's why it looks likely that NR will get a record £70 million fine later in the year for massively missing punctuality targets.
Perhaps infrastructure nationalisation doesn't work so well. Then again, neither did privatisation ...
Sort of a test of how stupid politicians are. Once they get the short term popularity blip of renationalisation then they get the long term blame for everything that goes wrong.
miliband's bet is the infrastructure is well enough invested that it'll be 10 years before it goes wrong. By which time (a) he will be retired and (b) the Tories will be in power so they can be blamed for it anyway
maybe Charles but the public is fickle and things go wrong.
Oh, and for the people who will point at Network Rail and smile when they get warm, fuzzy state-owned feelings, remember that most of the delays passengers suffer are down to them. That's why it looks likely that NR will get a record £70 million fine later in the year for massively missing punctuality targets.
Perhaps infrastructure nationalisation doesn't work so well. Then again, neither did privatisation ...
From what I recall, when the rail system was re-privatised, the train operating companies leased rolling stock from third parties, while the track was allocated to an entity, the reimbursment of which meant there was no incentive to increase capacity as the revenue would not increase comensurately. That is an incredible mess, and full of perverse disincentives for growth. Are there still ony two tracks going to Birmingham New Street, for example?
They should have gone back to the original setup whereby the train companies owned their own rolling stock and their own track. It worked for over a century.
In this country the norm is that the freight companies own the track, and the passenger trains (Amtrak etc) pay fees to the freight companies for using it, though there are a few exceptions.
Oh, and for the people who will point at Network Rail and smile when they get warm, fuzzy state-owned feelings, remember that most of the delays passengers suffer are down to them. That's why it looks likely that NR will get a record £70 million fine later in the year for massively missing punctuality targets.
Perhaps infrastructure nationalisation doesn't work so well. Then again, neither did privatisation ...
From what I recall, when the rail system was re-privatised, the train operating companies leased rolling stock from third parties, while the track was allocated to an entity, the reimbursment of which meant there was no incentive to increase capacity as the revenue would not increase comensurately. That is an incredible mess, and full of perverse disincentives for growth. Are there still ony two tracks going to Birmingham New Street, for example?
They should have gone back to the original setup whereby the train companies owned their own rolling stock and their own track. It worked for over a century.
In this country the norm is that the freight companies own the track, and the passenger trains (Amtrak etc) pay fees to the freight companies for using it, though there are a few exceptions.
No-one should look to the States for advice on rail - dire network, slow and infrequent with just a few exceptions. Almost no-one uses it. Only good thing about it is the seats are massive, and you can buy cheese and crackers on board.
The a East Coast Main Line is already nationalised as is the track.
All Labour will do will allow public companies or mutuals to bid for franchises.
No one is talking about recreating BR.
How much profit does the east coast main line make for the tax payer?
I have no idea without looking it up - I suspect it makes a large loss ... As does the network as a whole, which receives a walloping great subsidy despite the other franchises being 'privatised'. The entire model is a complete nonsense.
BR disaster under public ownership. Huge numbers of steam engines ordered from 1948 - most with lives of less than 20 years. Botched dieselisation programme - too many unproven designs ordered - scrapped with lives of less than 15 years. fragmented modernisation via electricfication rolling programme might have been better. Strikes, loss of freight. too much political control and too timid managements? progress under privatisation patchy - HSTs and carriages replaced by uncomfortable, cramped Voyagers. as for the bouncy castles...
It was worse than that: a massive investment program in the 1955 modernisation scheme, much of which was wasted on the wrong things. Steam locos were built up to 1960, when all were withdrawn eight years later. Whole fleets of diesels lasted under ten years - like the Class 17 Claytons. Built 1962-5, withdrawn 1968-71.
The current system has done a rather good job of managing a growing network despite growing pains. To be fair, BR never had that opportunity.
Oh, and we could always annoy Labour supporters by showing them the figures for electrification under Labour and electrification under the Conservatives. ;-)
Headline: Labour lead cut to one point as Telegraph opinion poll exposes UK's North-South divide.
Text: The Conservatives have edged in front of Labour in the South, while Ed Miliband’s Labour Party has extended its advantage in the North of England, according to the latest ICM survey of 2,000 people.
The a East Coast Main Line is already nationalised as is the track.
All Labour will do will allow public companies or mutuals to bid for franchises.
No one is talking about recreating BR.
How much profit does the east coast main line make for the tax payer?
I have no idea without looking it up - I suspect it makes a large loss ... As does the network as a whole, which receives a walloping great subsidy despite the other franchises being 'privatised'. The entire model is a complete nonsense.
The caveats: 1) It has competition from Open Access operators. That rather concentrates minds.
2) Much of the maintenance work that bedevilled the previous franchise holder has ended, improving punctuality.
3) The rolling stock payments are apparently cheaper (due to depreciation, although I'm surprised that's passed on in that way). But the costs of the new stock - due to come on stream in the next few years - will be much greater.
4) And this could be a biggie: they went on a pensions contribution holiday.
5) Other operators are also returning money to the treasury, and in bigger amounts.
The a East Coast Main Line is already nationalised as is the track.
All Labour will do will allow public companies or mutuals to bid for franchises.
No one is talking about recreating BR.
How much profit does the east coast main line make for the tax payer?
I have no idea without looking it up - I suspect it makes a large loss ... As does the network as a whole, which receives a walloping great subsidy despite the other franchises being 'privatised'. The entire model is a complete nonsense.
The caveats: 1) It has competition from Open Access operators. That rather concentrates minds.
2) Much of the maintenance work that bedevilled the previous franchise holder has ended, improving punctuality.
3) The rolling stock payments are apparently cheaper (due to depreciation, although I'm surprised that's passed on in that way). But the costs of the new stock - due to come on stream in the next few years - will be much greater.
4) And this could be a biggie: they went on a pensions contribution holiday.
5) Other operators are also returning money to the treasury, and in bigger amounts.
It seems I was wrong! Nationalised railway turns surplus while privatised railways suck subsidy. Result! ;-)
Oh, and for the people who will point at Network Rail and smile when they get warm, fuzzy state-owned feelings, remember that most of the delays passengers suffer are down to them. That's why it looks likely that NR will get a record £70 million fine later in the year for massively missing punctuality targets.
Perhaps infrastructure nationalisation doesn't work so well. Then again, neither did privatisation ...
From what I recall, when the rail system was re-privatised, the train operating companies leased rolling stock from third parties, while the track was allocated to an entity, the reimbursment of which meant there was no incentive to increase capacity as the revenue would not increase comensurately. That is an incredible mess, and full of perverse disincentives for growth. Are there still ony two tracks going to Birmingham New Street, for example?
They should have gone back to the original setup whereby the train companies owned their own rolling stock and their own track. It worked for over a century.
In this country the norm is that the freight companies own the track, and the passenger trains (Amtrak etc) pay fees to the freight companies for using it, though there are a few exceptions.
Not as simple as that. EU rules (Directive 91/440)meant that it was not permissible for the same company to own track and services. Some countries got round this by setting up separate publicly owned companies for each part of the system but as part of privitisation it was not permissible to sell off track and services as a single entity on a regional basis.
The a East Coast Main Line is already nationalised as is the track.
All Labour will do will allow public companies or mutuals to bid for franchises.
No one is talking about recreating BR.
How much profit does the east coast main line make for the tax payer?
I have no idea without looking it up - I suspect it makes a large loss ... As does the network as a whole, which receives a walloping great subsidy despite the other franchises being 'privatised'. The entire model is a complete nonsense.
One thing you miss is that BR was so big, the model was also arcane and unwieldy. The railway was split into regions, fighting regularly with the operators (i.e. themselves) and each other, with internal accounting and blame-giving. One hand regularly not talking to the other.
This was accentuated by sectorisation in the 1980s (turning from region-split to a business-split), which is perversely when the railways' decline started to slow. Possibly because there was more delineation between sectors, and the sectors were more free to try new things.
Talk to old hands in the operations side of BR, and they'll tell you what a mess it was. Like the NHS, I'm not sure it's possible for something to be so big and not be a complex mess.
BR disaster under public ownership. Huge numbers of steam engines ordered from 1948 - most with lives of less than 20 years. Botched dieselisation programme - too many unproven designs ordered - scrapped with lives of less than 15 years. fragmented modernisation via electricfication rolling programme might have been better. Strikes, loss of freight. too much political control and too timid managements? progress under privatisation patchy - HSTs and carriages replaced by uncomfortable, cramped Voyagers. as for the bouncy castles...
It was worse than that: a massive investment program in the 1955 modernisation scheme, much of which was wasted on the wrong things. Steam locos were built up to 1960, when all were withdrawn eight years later. Whole fleets of diesels lasted under ten years - like the Class 17 Claytons. Built 1962-5, withdrawn 1968-71.
The current system has done a rather good job of managing a growing network despite growing pains. To be fair, BR never had that opportunity.
Oh, and we could always annoy Labour supporters by showing them the figures for electrification under Labour and electrification under the Conservatives. ;-)
Warships - Scottish Region and Western Region Warships, Hymeks, Westerns.
Add on farce with the Class 31 all 263 had to be re-engined. Class 28 Co-Bo. Class 40s, Class 44-45-46. Class 14, 15, 16 as well as 17 unfit for any purpose.
The a East Coast Main Line is already nationalised as is the track.
All Labour will do will allow public companies or mutuals to bid for franchises.
No one is talking about recreating BR.
How much profit does the east coast main line make for the tax payer?
I have no idea without looking it up - I suspect it makes a large loss ... As does the network as a whole, which receives a walloping great subsidy despite the other franchises being 'privatised'. The entire model is a complete nonsense.
The caveats: 1) It has competition from Open Access operators. That rather concentrates minds.
2) Much of the maintenance work that bedevilled the previous franchise holder has ended, improving punctuality.
3) The rolling stock payments are apparently cheaper (due to depreciation, although I'm surprised that's passed on in that way). But the costs of the new stock - due to come on stream in the next few years - will be much greater.
4) And this could be a biggie: they went on a pensions contribution holiday.
5) Other operators are also returning money to the treasury, and in bigger amounts.
It seems I was wrong! Nationalised railway turns surplus while privatised railways suck subsidy. Result! ;-)
BR disaster under public ownership. Huge numbers of steam engines ordered from 1948 - most with lives of less than 20 years. Botched dieselisation programme - too many unproven designs ordered - scrapped with lives of less than 15 years. fragmented modernisation via electricfication rolling programme might have been better. Strikes, loss of freight. too much political control and too timid managements? progress under privatisation patchy - HSTs and carriages replaced by uncomfortable, cramped Voyagers. as for the bouncy castles...
It was worse than that: a massive investment program in the 1955 modernisation scheme, much of which was wasted on the wrong things. Steam locos were built up to 1960, when all were withdrawn eight years later. Whole fleets of diesels lasted under ten years - like the Class 17 Claytons. Built 1962-5, withdrawn 1968-71.
The current system has done a rather good job of managing a growing network despite growing pains. To be fair, BR never had that opportunity.
Oh, and we could always annoy Labour supporters by showing them the figures for electrification under Labour and electrification under the Conservatives. ;-)
Warships - Scottish Region and Western Region Warships, Hymeks, Westerns.
Add on farce with the Class 31 all 263 had to be re-engined. Class 28 Co-Bo. Class 40s, Class 44-45-46. Class 14, 15, 16 as well as 17 unfit for any purpose.
It was a hideous waste of money. Too many classes ordered sometimes just because a region wanted to do something different: the western region's short-lived diesel-hydraulics being a classic case. Not invented here syndrome writ large.
Renationalisation is the wrong word - it's repatriation. Most franchises are already nationalised, being wholly or partially run by SNCF, NS and DB. We allow public ownership of the railways. As long as it's foreign.
Renationalisation is the wrong word - it's repatriation. Most franchises are already nationalised, being wholly or partially run by SNCF, NS and DB. We allow public ownership of the railways. As long as it's foreign.
We allow public other ownership of the railways. As long as it's foreign they deliver results.
Oh, and for the people who will point at Network Rail and smile when they get warm, fuzzy state-owned feelings, remember that most of the delays passengers suffer are down to them. That's why it looks likely that NR will get a record £70 million fine later in the year for massively missing punctuality targets.
Perhaps infrastructure nationalisation doesn't work so well. Then again, neither did privatisation ...
From what I recall, when the rail system was re-privatised, the train operating companies leased rolling stock from third parties, while the track was allocated to an entity, the reimbursment of which meant there was no incentive to increase capacity as the revenue would not increase comensurately. That is an incredible mess, and full of perverse disincentives for growth. Are there still ony two tracks going to Birmingham New Street, for example?
They should have gone back to the original setup whereby the train companies owned their own rolling stock and their own track. It worked for over a century.
In this country the norm is that the freight companies own the track, and the passenger trains (Amtrak etc) pay fees to the freight companies for using it, though there are a few exceptions.
Not as simple as that. EU rules (Directive 91/440)meant that it was not permissible for the same company to own track and services. Some countries got round this by setting up separate publicly owned companies for each part of the system but as part of privitisation it was not permissible to sell off track and services as a single entity on a regional basis.
It is surely possible to have a single private entity owning the track, with revenue paid by the operators, so long as the operators own the rolling stock. The track company and the operators need to plan for expansion and adjustment where neded, with appropriate revenue and incentives to the track company, which should be the client of the operating comanies, as they supply its revenue. In principle it's not hard at all.
Great weekend in sports this weekend - 3 game 7s last night in the NHL playoffs, and 3 game 7s tonight in the NBA playoffs, with a further 2 NBA playoff game 7s tomorrow.
Unfortunately I follow neither the NBA or NHL, so I'm counting the days until Thursday's NFL Draft...
Oh, and for the people who will point at Network Rail and smile when they get warm, fuzzy state-owned feelings, remember that most of the delays passengers suffer are down to them. That's why it looks likely that NR will get a record £70 million fine later in the year for massively missing punctuality targets.
Perhaps infrastructure nationalisation doesn't work so well. Then again, neither did privatisation ...
From what I recall, when the rail system was re-privatised, the train operating companies leased rolling stock from third parties, while the track was allocated to an entity, the reimbursment of which meant there was no incentive to increase capacity as the revenue would not increase comensurately. That is an incredible mess, and full of perverse disincentives for growth. Are there still ony two tracks going to Birmingham New Street, for example?
They should have gone back to the original setup whereby the train companies owned their own rolling stock and their own track. It worked for over a century.
In this country the norm is that the freight companies own the track, and the passenger trains (Amtrak etc) pay fees to the freight companies for using it, though there are a few exceptions.
Not as simple as that. EU rules (Directive 91/440)meant that it was not permissible for the same company to own track and services. Some countries got round this by setting up separate publicly owned companies for each part of the system but as part of privitisation it was not permissible to sell off track and services as a single entity on a regional basis.
It is surely possible to have a single private entity owning the track, with revenue paid by the operators, so long as the operators own the rolling stock. The track company and the operators need to plan for expansion and adjustment where neded, with appropriate revenue and incentives to the track company, which should be the client of the operating comanies, as they supply its revenue. In principle it's not hard at all.
Oh yes that is possible. It is the vertical separation that is important so that you do not have services and track infrastructure owned by the same company. The problem of course is that you then get the situation as we have now where each side blames the other for delays and problems.
"The PM is willing to take part in three leaders debates with his rivals. Under the 2-3-5 proposal drawn up by his aides, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with the Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second which would also include the LD leader Mr Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green Party leader Ms Bennett.
One of the debates would be held during the campaign, and the others beforehand."
"The PM is willing to take part in three leaders debates with his rivals. Under the 2-3-5 proposal drawn up by his aides, Mr Cameron would hold one head-to-head debate with the Labour leader Mr Miliband, a second which would also include the LD leader Mr Clegg, and a third with Mr Farage and the Green Party leader Ms Bennett.
One of the debates would be held during the campaign, and the others beforehand."
This shows that after taking into account the direct grants from DfT to Network Rail only First Capital Connect is a net contributor.
Ah thanks! That was the thing I was looking for. Again, it depends on how you measure things - do you include track infrastructure costs or not?
Looking at those figures it looks like Southern and SWT have moved into profit as well for 2012/13. The figures for 2013/14 are not due to be released until August 2014.
East Coast has only a small total subsidy. But that is mainly due to the lack of infrastructure expenditure on the line compared with the west coast.
What is noticeable from those figures is the subsidy given to the regional lines particularly Northern Rail.
Oh, and for the people who will point at Network Rail and smile when they get warm, fuzzy state-owned feelings, remember that most of the delays passengers suffer are down to them. That's why it looks likely that NR will get a record £70 million fine later in the year for massively missing punctuality targets.
Perhaps infrastructure nationalisation doesn't work so well. Then again, neither did privatisation ...
From what I recall, when the rail system was re-privatised, the train operating companies leased rolling stock from third parties, while the track was allocated to an entity, the reimbursment of which meant there was no incentive to increase capacity as the revenue would not increase comensurately. That is an incredible mess, and full of perverse disincentives for growth. Are there still ony two tracks going to Birmingham New Street, for example?
They should have gone back to the original setup whereby the train companies owned their own rolling stock and their own track. It worked for over a century.
Not as simple as that. EU rules (Directive 91/440)meant that it was not permissible for the same company to own track and services. Some countries got round this by setting up separate publicly owned companies for each part of the system but as part of privitisation it was not permissible to sell off track and services as a single entity on a regional basis.
It is surely possible to have a single private entity owning the track, with revenue paid by the operators, so long as the operators own the rolling stock. The track company and the operators need to plan for expansion and adjustment where neded, with appropriate revenue and incentives to the track company, which should be the client of the operating comanies, as they supply its revenue. In principle it's not hard at all.
Oh yes that is possible. It is the vertical separation that is important so that you do not have services and track infrastructure owned by the same company. The problem of course is that you then get the situation as we have now where each side blames the other for delays and problems.
Not if you set it up correctly - the operators and trackco have a joint agreement such that trackco revenues are driven solely by traffic on their track, so that if they're late with updates etc they lose revenue. You'd have to define traffic - number of trains or number of cars, freight or passenger etc. Also journey times, late departure or arrival would factor in.
The US model is essentially that - the freight companies own the track and the passenger train outfits pay to use them.
Will Labour have the money to nationalise the railways? I thought there was still going to be billions of pounds in cuts during the next Parliament?
I'm hoping the recent rash of good policies announced by Labour means that utter tool Ed Balls is finally being ignored by everyone else in Labour's high command. He was the only one in Labour who wanted yet more unnecessary cuts.
Not as simple as that. EU rules (Directive 91/440)meant that it was not permissible for the same company to own track and services. Some countries got round this by setting up separate publicly owned companies for each part of the system but as part of privitisation it was not permissible to sell off track and services as a single entity on a regional basis.
It is surely possible to have a single private entity owning the track, with revenue paid by the operators, so long as the operators own the rolling stock. The track company and the operators need to plan for expansion and adjustment where neded, with appropriate revenue and incentives to the track company, which should be the client of the operating comanies, as they supply its revenue. In principle it's not hard at all.
That's more or less what happened in the initial privatisation:
*) Infrastructure was owned by a private entity (Railtrack) *) Operators granted franchises to run services, and pay money to Railtrack (track access charges). *) As few services made money, the government paid operators a subsidy to run services. In many cases, this was scheduled to reduce over time. *) ROSCOs (ROlling Stock owning COmpanies) leased trains to the operators.
Railtrack went tits-up, and became nationalised as National Rail (although Brown idiotically kept it's debt off the government's books, despite the government guaranteeing NR's debt).
AIUI (and I might be wrong), the split between ROSCOs and franchises was partially to allow an easy transfer of rolling stock if the franchise owner altered: instead of transferring ownership of the stock between companies, the lease was transferred instead, which is much simpler.
What has failed is franchise holders and Network Rail talking about expansion and adjustment. This is starting to be corrected, with an alliance between South West Trains and NR apparently having dramatic results. Apparently, this did not even happen under BR ...
Not if you set it up correctly - the operators and trackco have a joint agreement such that trackco revenues are driven solely by traffic on their track, so that if they're late with updates etc they lose revenue. You'd have to define traffic - number of trains or number of cars, freight or passenger etc. Also journey times, late departure or arrival would factor in.
The US model is essentially that - the freight companies own the track and the passenger train outfits pay to use them.
It really is smple - honestly!
And that is what is specifically forbidden under 91/440. The problem with your model is that with freight companies owning the track they give priority to the movement of freight and that makes passenger transport a very poor relation. The EU model was specifically designed to ensure that many different operators could run trains across the same track with equal priority given to each.
BR disaster under public ownership. Huge numbers of steam engines ordered from 1948 - most with lives of less than 20 years. Botched dieselisation programme - too many unproven designs ordered - scrapped with lives of less than 15 years. fragmented modernisation via electricfication rolling programme might have been better. Strikes, loss of freight. too much political control and too timid managements? progress under privatisation patchy - HSTs and carriages replaced by uncomfortable, cramped Voyagers. as for the bouncy castles...
Warships - Scottish Region and Western Region Warships, Hymeks, Westerns.
Add on farce with the Class 31 all 263 had to be re-engined. Class 28 Co-Bo. Class 40s, Class 44-45-46. Class 14, 15, 16 as well as 17 unfit for any purpose.
It was a hideous waste of money. Too many classes ordered sometimes just because a region wanted to do something different: the western region's short-lived diesel-hydraulics being a classic case. Not invented here syndrome writ large.
There may have been a case for diesel-hydraulics in the western region because of its hilly terrain.
They were unreliable because the firms that built them were used to steam technology and not the higher tolerances needed for hydraulics.
I think we're being too harsh on BR. Dieselisation was done precipitously to avoid duplicating everything for both diesel and steam. In fact, I wonder how many of farces mentioned here were due to 'diesels' requiring boilers to provide steam to heat old carriages. I notice there's usually a diesel banking so called steam trains to provide heat and light to the modern carriages.
Not if you set it up correctly - the operators and trackco have a joint agreement such that trackco revenues are driven solely by traffic on their track, so that if they're late with updates etc they lose revenue. You'd have to define traffic - number of trains or number of cars, freight or passenger etc. Also journey times, late departure or arrival would factor in.
The US model is essentially that - the freight companies own the track and the passenger train outfits pay to use them.
It really is smple - honestly!
And that is what is specifically forbidden under 91/440. The problem with your model is that with freight companies owning the track they give priority to the movement of freight and that makes passenger transport a very poor relation. The EU model was specifically designed to ensure that many different operators could run trains across the same track with equal priority given to each.
OK, so ignore my "The US model" sentence and it works just fine, right? It was an illustration only as to how it can work.
Not if you set it up correctly - the operators and trackco have a joint agreement such that trackco revenues are driven solely by traffic on their track, so that if they're late with updates etc they lose revenue. You'd have to define traffic - number of trains or number of cars, freight or passenger etc. Also journey times, late departure or arrival would factor in.
The US model is essentially that - the freight companies own the track and the passenger train outfits pay to use them.
It really is smple - honestly!
And that is what is specifically forbidden under 91/440. The problem with your model is that with freight companies owning the track they give priority to the movement of freight and that makes passenger transport a very poor relation. The EU model was specifically designed to ensure that many different operators could run trains across the same track with equal priority given to each.
OK, so ignore my "The US model" sentence and it works just fine, right? It was an illustration only as to how it can work.
Sorry that wasn't meant as a criticism of the US model specifically only an explanation of what is and is not allowed under the EU directive. I am sure that with more controls the US model could work fine in the UK but we are simply not allowed to implement it.
Comments
One of the policy papers produced by the Conservatives before the 2010 election (poss the Ken Clarke one) advocated increased use of sunset clauses in new legislation, but don't know if anything came of it.
Your new employer with give you the 2014-15 P60 after 5th April next year.
He told the BBC officers were taking the allegations "extremely seriously".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27272330
This has the potential to be the plague on all houses for political parties as it has been for 70's celebs.
It is the narrowest lead ever recorded for Ed Miliband in ICM's Wisdom Index survey since he became Labour leader in 2010.
The poll also showed a fall in support for the Liberal Democrats, on 15 per cent, and another boost for Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party, who gained a point to 13 per cent, since the last Wisdom Index was published in February.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10806655/Labour-lead-cut-to-one-point-as-Telegraph-opinion-poll-exposes-UKs-North-South-divide.html
It seems to me that a certain level of regulation which would happen at national level is now happening at European level instead, and there is an accompanying tendency to compare the EU regulation with no regulation at all, whereas in reality the British government would have implemented similar standards.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmvIT72CEAAAZWs.jpg:large
Wonder when Ed will announce this? Wait until GE campaign?
Ukip candidate suspended after calling Muslims 'devil's kids'
Harry Perry, a Ukip candidate, is suspended from the party after describing David Cameron as a "gay-loving nutcase" and calling Muslims "devil's kids"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10806286/Ukip-candidate-suspended-after-calling-Muslims-devils-kids.html
What did I miss?
UKIP are fighting back - and rightly so
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/01/UKIP-Release-Stories-Media-Wont-Cover
You have missed the following
1) Patrick Mercer resigning as an MP
2) The Newark by-election is to be scheduled for the 5th of June
3) Nigel Farage said he he would consider running in Newark
4) Nigel Farage then announced he wouldn't run in Newark
5) Nigel Farage was egged
6) The GDP figures were as expected
7) Some polls are showing a narrowing of the Tory lead
8) The polls in April overall show a Lab down, Con down even more, LDs down a bit, UKIP surging.
9) Some polls showed UKIP with stonking leads for the Euros
10) Other polls show Labour coming first.
1) That UKIP don't hold exclusivity on members, activists and councillors that are loonies, fruitcakes and racists
2) That they haven't done it sooner.
http://www.brentwoodgazette.co.uk/Brentwood-Conservative-candidate-David-Bishop/story-21052924-detail/story.html
I think Ed is tapping into the "retail offer", which is you can have something for nothing. I can't promise you massive public spending increases etc, but we can squeeze the fat cat companies and get a better deal for you.
If you believe that it really is something for nothing, i.e no long term consequences, is another matter, but a lot of people like the sound of it.
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Observer front page - "Bring rail under state’s control to win back power, Miliband is told" #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/HBd546iJbq
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/03/11/todays-railway-renationalisation-poll-that-bob-crowe-1961-2014-never-saw/
Fair to say the mish mash we have now isn't perfect. Romantic revisionism through rose tinted specs isn't useful either.
Out of interest, are there figures as to the percentage of population that uses rail?
I'm knackered but must soldier on. Both sprogs sleeping for the moment so trying to catch up whilst I have a quiet moment.
A better together campaigner pigeonholed me at just the wrong moment earlier. I feel slightly guilty about the shortness of the shrift I gave him...
"We will impose ‘sunset clauses’ on regulations and regulators to ensure that the need for each regulation is regularly reviewed."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-coalition-documentation
I'm fairly ambivalent about who owns the railways but as a daily commuter (when at work) and occasional traveller (when not), I resent the feeling of being gouged in terms of fares.
The service is better and the trains are better than twenty years ago - no question. I do question the actual ownership of carriages - I don't want leasing arrangements which put the vehicles in the hands of banks.
The problem (especially in the south-east) is one of capacity and having the former Eurostar terminal at Waterloo sitting idle for years is for me a total disgrace.
Last Saturday night I attended an excellent lecture about the origins of WW1 by Max Hastings. During questions he was asked whether it could have been avoided. He pointed out that one of the great illusions of history is "commeth the hour, commeth the man". In fact most of history was made by very ordinary leadership muddling through and generally making a mess of it.
This has had me thinking about the great gift of Gordon Brown to the world of diplomacy, Cath Ashton and the man who lost an election to GW Bush of all people, Mr Kerry.
Under Ashton's inspiration the EU seems to have blundered into Ukraine seeking to upset the balance of interests between the EU and the Russian bloc. When they lost the election they saw fit to support a coup overturning some very disappointing leadership. All of this seems to have been done in blissful ignorance of how Russia was likely to react.
We now have a situation where part of the Ukraine is in Russia and something close to a civil war is starting with the threat of Russian intervention. We have a number of NATO countries very, very uncomfortable and token numbers of American soldiers put in the front line to discourage any idea of an attack. We have Putin in something of a corner and an economy in the EU which is uncomfortably dependent on Russian gas threatening sanctions.
There are so many ways this could go wrong there is not time to enumerate them all but Russian intervention looks increasingly likely, with significant western sanctions, retaliatory sanctions by Russia and major disruption to the economies on this continent at the very least.
And we have very, very ordinary leadership trying to muddle through. I think this is being seriously underestimated as a threat.
But if you a commuter, especially into London, the season tickets are incredibly expensive and then the capacity isn't there so you end up crammed in day in day out (been there, done that), somebody telling you can get prices down by state owning it will definitely seem much more attractive.
I agree about Waterloo; ISTR that the platforms are now, eventually, going to start coming back into use, but only one or two faces initially.
As for renationalisation: the latest Rail magazine has a few sections on it. I haven't read them yet, but the 'Industry Insider' section has a section titled "Publicly owned franchises will not deliver taxpayer benefits". Whilst Wolmar has a section outlining the ORR's accounting figures for the industry.
I find it amazing that rail passengers are looking back to the 'good old days' of BR ...
twitter.com/newsundayherald/status/462690750019694592/photo/1
http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/elections/pdf/Rep_Sample_May 2014.pdf
http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/elections/pdf/Dem_Sample_May 2014.pdf
Over the last week I've been averaging 6-7 robocalls per day on my answering machine on my home phone. It'll get worse until the election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26807389
Perhaps infrastructure nationalisation doesn't work so well. Then again, neither did privatisation ...
http://tinyurl.com/lvaxgaa
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10806655/Labour-lead-cut-to-one-point-as-Telegraph-opinion-poll-exposes-UKs-North-South-divide.html
should keep the talk of crossover going :-)
Seriously though, really poor for Labour one year out from the election.
They should have gone back to the original setup whereby the train companies owned their own rolling stock and their own track. It worked for over a century.
In this country the norm is that the freight companies own the track, and the passenger trains (Amtrak etc) pay fees to the freight companies for using it, though there are a few exceptions.
All Labour will do will allow public companies or mutuals to bid for franchises.
No one is talking about recreating BR.
Mail on Sunday front page - "Red Ed: We will FORCE you to get fit"
Next on BBC, Ed Miliband = Esther Rantzen or one of the geeky guys on the That's Life chairs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/image_galleries/thats_life_gallery.shtml?10
They built 117 of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_17
The current system has done a rather good job of managing a growing network despite growing pains. To be fair, BR never had that opportunity.
Oh, and we could always annoy Labour supporters by showing them the figures for electrification under Labour and electrification under the Conservatives. ;-)
Headline: Labour lead cut to one point as Telegraph opinion poll exposes UK's North-South divide.
Text: The Conservatives have edged in front of Labour in the South, while Ed Miliband’s Labour Party has extended its advantage in the North of England, according to the latest ICM survey of 2,000 people.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/26/east-coast-mainline-why-privatise
The caveats:
1) It has competition from Open Access operators. That rather concentrates minds.
2) Much of the maintenance work that bedevilled the previous franchise holder has ended, improving punctuality.
3) The rolling stock payments are apparently cheaper (due to depreciation, although I'm surprised that's passed on in that way). But the costs of the new stock - due to come on stream in the next few years - will be much greater.
4) And this could be a biggie: they went on a pensions contribution holiday.
5) Other operators are also returning money to the treasury, and in bigger amounts.
Lots of people worried about competition from foreign immigrants - and so working harder or smarter, or starting their own businesses?
?
This was accentuated by sectorisation in the 1980s (turning from region-split to a business-split), which is perversely when the railways' decline started to slow. Possibly because there was more delineation between sectors, and the sectors were more free to try new things.
Talk to old hands in the operations side of BR, and they'll tell you what a mess it was. Like the NHS, I'm not sure it's possible for something to be so big and not be a complex mess.
Add on farce with the Class 31 all 263 had to be re-engined. Class 28 Co-Bo. Class 40s, Class 44-45-46. Class 14, 15, 16 as well as 17 unfit for any purpose.
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/5493/gb-financials-2012.pdf
This may also be of use:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/do_train_operating_companies_earn_massive_profits-29273
This shows that after taking into account the direct grants from DfT to Network Rail only First Capital Connect is a net contributor.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/norfolk-southern-railroad-1q-profit-falls-18-pct-23437277
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-15/csx-profit-misses-estimates-on-railroad-coal-shipments.html
http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/performance-summary/pdf/performance_update_1Q_2013.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/fuel-efficient-freight-trains/
YouGov Euros – UKIP 29 LAB 26 CON 23 LIB 10
From Sky News"
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8770#comment-902680
Times are saying #Ukip 29%, #Labour 28%, #Tories 22%, Greens 8%, Lib Dems 7%… So different YouGov polls for two NewsCorp papers?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8770#comment-902683
Oh and Con + UKIP in ICM = 44%. Lovely jubbly (assuming most Kippers come from team blue).
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmvgLTbCcAAM4AV.jpg:large
UKIP 29, Lab 28, Con 22, Greens ahead of LD.
AND
"Cameron ready to debate Farage". They must be getting desperate.
Unfortunately I follow neither the NBA or NHL, so I'm counting the days until Thursday's NFL Draft...
It's good news for everyone, as their share of the national debt will have been reduced "at a stroke" :-)
One of the debates would be held during the campaign, and the others beforehand."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmvgLTbCcAAM4AV.jpg:large
East Coast has only a small total subsidy. But that is mainly due to the lack of infrastructure expenditure on the line compared with the west coast.
What is noticeable from those figures is the subsidy given to the regional lines particularly Northern Rail.
The US model is essentially that - the freight companies own the track and the passenger train outfits pay to use them.
It really is simple - honestly!
twitter.com/seanmatthewryan/status/462707722686062592
That's more or less what happened in the initial privatisation:
*) Infrastructure was owned by a private entity (Railtrack)
*) Operators granted franchises to run services, and pay money to Railtrack (track access charges).
*) As few services made money, the government paid operators a subsidy to run services. In many cases, this was scheduled to reduce over time.
*) ROSCOs (ROlling Stock owning COmpanies) leased trains to the operators.
Railtrack went tits-up, and became nationalised as National Rail (although Brown idiotically kept it's debt off the government's books, despite the government guaranteeing NR's debt).
AIUI (and I might be wrong), the split between ROSCOs and franchises was partially to allow an easy transfer of rolling stock if the franchise owner altered: instead of transferring ownership of the stock between companies, the lease was transferred instead, which is much simpler.
What has failed is franchise holders and Network Rail talking about expansion and adjustment. This is starting to be corrected, with an alliance between South West Trains and NR apparently having dramatic results. Apparently, this did not even happen under BR ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/martin-griffiths/rail-nationalisation_b_3973007.html
They were unreliable because the firms that built them were used to steam technology and not the higher tolerances needed for hydraulics.
I think we're being too harsh on BR. Dieselisation was done precipitously to avoid duplicating everything for both diesel and steam. In fact, I wonder how many of farces mentioned here were due to 'diesels' requiring boilers to provide steam to heat old carriages. I notice there's usually a diesel banking so called steam trains to provide heat and light to the modern carriages.