Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Correlation does not prove causation. It's likely that much of that increase would have happened anyway. The change in work patterns means that a lot of people commute to work by train. Furthermore, a lot of the rolling stock upgrades would have happened anyway, partly because of EU regulations on slam door stock. So, while I don't pine for the days of British Rail, I don't think the growth in usage can be entirely attributed to privatization.
I disagree. Rail usage fell for decades and then started rising at the precise point of privatisation. I doubt that's coincidence, particularly given the increased focus on the customer (BR didn't even understand the concept of a 'customer'; we were 'passenger's). Sure, there may be some other factors involved but I think an increase in commuting by train was an effect rather than a cause. People have a choice over where to live and work and how to travel.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Thank you David for introducing reality into this discussion.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Correlation does not prove causation. It's likely that much of that increase would have happened anyway. The change in work patterns means that a lot of people commute to work by train. Furthermore, a lot of the rolling stock upgrades would have happened anyway, partly because of EU regulations on slam door stock. So, while I don't pine for the days of British Rail, I don't think the growth in usage can be entirely attributed to privatization.
I disagree. Rail usage fell for decades and then started rising at the precise point of privatisation. I doubt that's coincidence, particularly given the increased focus on the customer (BR didn't even understand the concept of a 'customer'; we were 'passenger's). Sure, there may be some other factors involved but I think an increase in commuting by train was an effect rather than a cause. People have a choice over where to live and work and how to travel.
I thought the congestion of the road network basically forced people onto the railways.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Is that because most rail users started using the railways after mid 90s?
Some, but mostly I suspect it's partly down to some prices being too high and some services still being poor - ignoring that previously, nearly all services were poor.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
I get the feeling, from what I've read, that things were OK in London and on long distance intercity lines in the time of the Bob Reids. Which is all most journalists, e.g. Wolmar and even Wragg, would know much about.
For 90% of us who didn't use these services and had to contend with Sprinters, rail buses, random cancellations, damaged and dirty seats, mouldy sandwiches and cold coffee and tea, privatised railways are a great improvement.
I seem to remember that London commuter trains crashed a lot in the 1980s.
The privatised services are a bit of a mixed bag but customer service is generally hugely better, as are the physical trains (though too many pre-1990 units still exist), as are the stations. By contrast, on-the-day ticket prices for any distance are much higher than they were and ticketing in general is too complex unless you don't care about cost.
There was Clapham, and a couple of less serious ones, but I don't think that their record was worse than the privatised system (Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield).
I much prefer the privatised railways, but I also think that this London bias is part of it. For instance, in London mainline stations they pioneered vacuum packed sandwiches designed and prepared by top chefs. In Gloucester you were lucky if the bread was merely stale.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Correlation does not prove causation. It's likely that much of that increase would have happened anyway. The change in work patterns means that a lot of people commute to work by train. Furthermore, a lot of the rolling stock upgrades would have happened anyway, partly because of EU regulations on slam door stock. So, while I don't pine for the days of British Rail, I don't think the growth in usage can be entirely attributed to privatization.
I disagree. Rail usage fell for decades and then started rising at the precise point of privatisation. I doubt that's coincidence, particularly given the increased focus on the customer (BR didn't even understand the concept of a 'customer'; we were 'passenger's). Sure, there may be some other factors involved but I think an increase in commuting by train was an effect rather than a cause. People have a choice over where to live and work and how to travel.
This is a difficult one to prove one way or the other. I would point out that at around the same time that the railways were privatized the Tories introduced the fuel duty escalator. I read recently that some train operators are a bit worried about oil prices staying low for an extended period. So clearly they think the two could be connected.
Driest part of the day at Headingly fixed by the arrival of another pint.
All pb'ers at headingley today? !
Well where else would you be? Canvassing for Remain? Watching the consolation cup?
At Hampden Park?! Seriously its been a good day here despite the weather.
Seems in fairness to have been a great game. I was thinking of LVGs embarrassing comments about the FA cup being consolation for not getting into the top 4.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Correlation does not prove causation. It's likely that much of that increase would have happened anyway. The change in work patterns means that a lot of people commute to work by train. Furthermore, a lot of the rolling stock upgrades would have happened anyway, partly because of EU regulations on slam door stock. So, while I don't pine for the days of British Rail, I don't think the growth in usage can be entirely attributed to privatization.
I disagree. Rail usage fell for decades and then started rising at the precise point of privatisation. I doubt that's coincidence, particularly given the increased focus on the customer (BR didn't even understand the concept of a 'customer'; we were 'passenger's). Sure, there may be some other factors involved but I think an increase in commuting by train was an effect rather than a cause. People have a choice over where to live and work and how to travel.
I thought the congestion of the road network basically forced people onto the railways.
That may have played a part but doesn't explain the huge scale of the increase. I'd be interested to see comparable rush hour congestion rates for 1990 and 2015, say. My impression is that they're not much worse (if any) now than then, though that might be either false memory or local circumstances.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Correlation does not prove causation. It's likely that much of that increase would have happened anyway. The change in work patterns means that a lot of people commute to work by train. Furthermore, a lot of the rolling stock upgrades would have happened anyway, partly because of EU regulations on slam door stock. So, while I don't pine for the days of British Rail, I don't think the growth in usage can be entirely attributed to privatization.
I disagree. Rail usage fell for decades and then started rising at the precise point of privatisation. I doubt that's coincidence, particularly given the increased focus on the customer (BR didn't even understand the concept of a 'customer'; we were 'passenger's). Sure, there may be some other factors involved but I think an increase in commuting by train was an effect rather than a cause. People have a choice over where to live and work and how to travel.
Calling us customers instead of passengers really gets my goat, to be honest.
That may have played a part but doesn't explain the huge scale of the increase. I'd be interested to see comparable rush hour congestion rates for 1990 and 2015, say. My impression is that they're not much worse (if any) now than then, though that might be either false memory or local circumstances.
It's worse in Birmingham largely due to the shocking stupidity of those accountants ruining the M6 Toll. Bristol is better since they built the new Severn Bridge, Gloucester is considerably worse due to changes in the road network designed to accommodate a new park and ride that was never built.
Moeen Ali must be thinking this is a nice soft Test for him. He plays eight balls, bowls one over (taking a wicket) and chases a few balls.
So of course the media will be calling for his dropping again in favour of some random Middlesex seamer who can roll his fingers...
Anderson must be cursing- no chance of 11 wickets now.
Ali's batting is the problem...he is picked because despite not being world.class spinner he is a bit of a golden arm & supposedly a top order batsman coming in down the order...he has only 1 x 50 in past 10 test matches now.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
I get the feeling, from what I've read, that things were OK in London and on long distance intercity lines in the time of the Bob Reids. Which is all most journalists, e.g. Wolmar and even Wragg, would know much about.
For 90% of us who didn't use these services and had to contend with Sprinters, rail buses, random cancellations, damaged and dirty seats, mouldy sandwiches and cold coffee and tea, privatised railways are a great improvement.
I seem to remember that London commuter trains crashed a lot in the 1980s.
The privatised services are a bit of a mixed bag but customer service is generally hugely better, as are the physical trains (though too many pre-1990 units still exist), as are the stations. By contrast, on-the-day ticket prices for any distance are much higher than they were and ticketing in general is too complex unless you don't care about cost.
There was Clapham, and a couple of less serious ones, but I don't think that their record was worse than the privatised system (Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield).
I much prefer the privatised railways, but I also think that this London bias is part of it. For instance, in London mainline stations they pioneered vacuum packed sandwiches designed and prepared by top chefs. In Gloucester you were lucky if the bread was merely stale.
Moeen Ali must be thinking this is a nice soft Test for him. He plays eight balls, bowls one over (taking a wicket) and chases a few balls.
So of course the media will be calling for his dropping again in favour of some random Middlesex seamer who can roll his fingers...
Anderson must be cursing- no chance of 11 wickets now.
Ali's batting is the problem...he is picked because despite not being world.class spinner he is a bit of a golden arm & supposedly a top order batsman coming in down the order...he has only 1 x 50 in past 10 test matches now.
Hardly surprising given where he bats most of the time!
My own view is to have a long term future he has to be a number 5. But England don't appear to agree.
And that is that. 10 for Anderson, good bowling by him.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Correlation does not prove causation. It's likely that much of that increase would have happened anyway. The change in work patterns means that a lot of people commute to work by train. Furthermore, a lot of the rolling stock upgrades would have happened anyway, partly because of EU regulations on slam door stock. So, while I don't pine for the days of British Rail, I don't think the growth in usage can be entirely attributed to privatization.
I disagree. Rail usage fell for decades and then started rising at the precise point of privatisation. I doubt that's coincidence, particularly given the increased focus on the customer (BR didn't even understand the concept of a 'customer'; we were 'passenger's). Sure, there may be some other factors involved but I think an increase in commuting by train was an effect rather than a cause. People have a choice over where to live and work and how to travel.
It is the fact that its the precise year of privatisation that makes me confidently rule out the What About ... ? on this one.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Correlation does not prove causation. It's likely that much of that increase would have happened anyway. The change in work patterns means that a lot of people commute to work by train. Furthermore, a lot of the rolling stock upgrades would have happened anyway, partly because of EU regulations on slam door stock. So, while I don't pine for the days of British Rail, I don't think the growth in usage can be entirely attributed to privatization.
I disagree. Rail usage fell for decades and then started rising at the precise point of privatisation. I doubt that's coincidence, particularly given the increased focus on the customer (BR didn't even understand the concept of a 'customer'; we were 'passenger's). Sure, there may be some other factors involved but I think an increase in commuting by train was an effect rather than a cause. People have a choice over where to live and work and how to travel.
Calling us customers instead of passengers really gets my goat, to be honest.
You suspect that BR would have used 'inconveniences', given the chance. People really get in the way of running an efficient railway.
Moeen Ali must be thinking this is a nice soft Test for him. He plays eight balls, bowls one over (taking a wicket) and chases a few balls.
So of course the media will be calling for his dropping again in favour of some random Middlesex seamer who can roll his fingers...
Anderson must be cursing- no chance of 11 wickets now.
Ali's batting is the problem...he is picked because despite not being world.class spinner he is a bit of a golden arm & supposedly a top order batsman coming in down the order...he has only 1 x 50 in past 10 test matches now.
Hardly surprising given where he bats most of the time!
My own view is to have a long term future he has to be a number 5. But England don't appear to agree.
And that is that. 10 for Anderson, good bowling by him.
Isnt just where he bats. He has yet to show he can dig in & bat for long periods in test cricket. Only averages around 27 & too often it is a nice 20 then loose shot & out.
England bigger problem is still opener & a different type of seamer, be it left arm and/ or express pace...
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
I get the feeling, from what I've read, that things were OK in London and on long distance intercity lines in the time of the Bob Reids. Which is all most journalists, e.g. Wolmar and even Wragg, would know much about.
For 90% of us who didn't use these services and had to contend with Sprinters, rail buses, random cancellations, damaged and dirty seats, mouldy sandwiches and cold coffee and tea, privatised railways are a great improvement.
I seem to remember that London commuter trains crashed a lot in the 1980s.
The privatised services are a bit of a mixed bag but customer service is generally hugely better, as are the physical trains (though too many pre-1990 units still exist), as are the stations. By contrast, on-the-day ticket prices for any distance are much higher than they were and ticketing in general is too complex unless you don't care about cost.
There was Clapham, and a couple of less serious ones, but I don't think that their record was worse than the privatised system (Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield).
I much prefer the privatised railways, but I also think that this London bias is part of it. For instance, in London mainline stations they pioneered vacuum packed sandwiches designed and prepared by top chefs. In Gloucester you were lucky if the bread was merely stale.
Potters Bar happened after privatisation too.
And Southall. The nationalised network, ironically, had many more failures by overworked and undertrained staff though (Clapham, Wembley, Severn Tunnel). Their years of underinvestment was also at least partly responsible for Hatfield and Southall too.
Moeen Ali must be thinking this is a nice soft Test for him. He plays eight balls, bowls one over (taking a wicket) and chases a few balls.
So of course the media will be calling for his dropping again in favour of some random Middlesex seamer who can roll his fingers...
Anderson must be cursing- no chance of 11 wickets now.
Ali's batting is the problem...he is picked because despite not being world.class spinner he is a bit of a golden arm & supposedly a top order batsman coming in down the order...he has only 1 x 50 in past 10 test matches now.
Hardly surprising given where he bats most of the time!
My own view is to have a long term future he has to be a number 5. But England don't appear to agree.
And that is that. 10 for Anderson, good bowling by him.
Isnt just where he bats. He has yet to show he can dig in & bat for long periods in test cricket. Only averages around 27 & too often it is a nice 20 then loose shot & out.
I think he has spent a lot of time playing unselfishly because that is what he's told to do. I agree that he failed as an opener, but he should never have been tried in that role. I would play him at 5 and tell him to use his own judgement, a bit like Ian Bell in his all too few good years.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Correlation does not prove causation. It's likely that much of that increase would have happened anyway. The change in work patterns means that a lot of people commute to work by train. Furthermore, a lot of the rolling stock upgrades would have happened anyway, partly because of EU regulations on slam door stock. So, while I don't pine for the days of British Rail, I don't think the growth in usage can be entirely attributed to privatization.
I disagree. Rail usage fell for decades and then started rising at the precise point of privatisation. I doubt that's coincidence, particularly given the increased focus on the customer (BR didn't even understand the concept of a 'customer'; we were 'passenger's). Sure, there may be some other factors involved but I think an increase in commuting by train was an effect rather than a cause. People have a choice over where to live and work and how to travel.
Calling us customers instead of passengers really gets my goat, to be honest.
You suspect that BR would have used 'inconveniences', given the chance. People really get in the way of running an efficient railway.
Well, yes. But at least the didn't pretend they cared.
I always thought during his tenure as London Mayor Boris Johnson would try to break the RMT union by getting them to strike over a trivial issue about which no body cared or for which no one would have any sympathy. He would break Bob Crow just as Margaret Thatcher had broken Scargill in the mid 80s,
But it never happened.
The RMT picked their fights carefully over issues such as safety and the closing of ticket offices for which the public had a modicum of support (or perhaps a lot more) and made sure they had ASLEF and TSSA with them so it looked more like an industrial dispute and less like a political dispute.
The strikes were short but disruptive to ensure the union members would stay on side and not be tempted by economic circumstances to defy the strike. More often then not, this won the Unions considerable concessions for their members though it didn't save the ticket offices (the former ticket office staff did well out of redundancy bonuses and the like).
More on topic, the polling cards arrived today at Stodge Towers.
I've been stocking up on Fray Bentos pies instead.
I remember the panics over the millenium bug. Propagated by tech companies wanting to sell more stuff.
Iirc the BBC flew someone out to Australia to report any early millennium bug problems. A nice little holiday for them as bugger all happened,
The problem for the IT people were that because they corrected virtually all code, then no real problems arose. Unless you were in the industry you don't know how much effort was put into ensuring the problem didn't arise. (I still have a 'millennium bug', mug.)
I've been stocking up on Fray Bentos pies instead.
I remember the panics over the millenium bug. Propagated by tech companies wanting to sell more stuff.
Iirc the BBC flew someone out to Australia to report any early millennium bug problems. A nice little holiday for them as bugger all happened,
The problem for the IT people were that because they corrected virtually all code, then no real problems arose. Unless you were in the industry you don't know how much effort was put into ensuring the problem didn't arise. (I still have a 'millennium bug', mug.)
I remember some pundit saying that Russia had spent virtually nothing on fixing the millenium bug, and hadn't had any problems, so therefore it was all a big con.
Which neatly ignored that Russia had only gotten a meaningful number of computers in the previous seven or eight years.
Selfishly, of course, I would love United to win, so West Ham qualify for Europe, but having said that would also be great if Palace get revenge for 1990
Oddly, I was reading an article today describing how Venezuela has run out of sugar and oil, despite once being the world's largest producer of both, due to price controls that makes extraction/production unprofitable.
If Corbyn had any sense he would be suggesting increasing the supply of housing by a major new social housing programme. Now that really might be popular, although it wouldn't solve the awkward question of inadequate utilities and services provision in the south east.
@stodge, keep an eye on the dispute at Southern. The guards have been issued redundancy notices for their current roles and given new contracts to sign by July or that's it.
My polling card has come through too. I will walk round to the polling station when I get home from work on the 23rd and vote LEAVE. Then I will start digging an air raid shelter in case Brexit wins.
You'll your tin hat, gas/radiation mask and flak jacket of kevlar first.
Mr. Doethur, Ammianus Marcellinus criticised Julian the Apostate (of whom he was generally approving) for price fixing commodities, citing shortages and even famine as consequences.
Mr. Doethur, Ammianus Marcellinus criticised Julian the Apostate (of whom he was generally approving) for price fixing commodities, citing shortages and even famine as consequences.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
I get the feeling, from what I've read, that things were OK in London and on long distance intercity lines in the time of the Bob Reids. Which is all most journalists, e.g. Wolmar and even Wragg, would know much about.
For 90% of us who didn't use these services and had to contend with Sprinters, rail buses, random cancellations, damaged and dirty seats, mouldy sandwiches and cold coffee and tea, privatised railways are a great improvement.
On Northern we've still got Sprinters and rail buses! After how many years of privatisation?
And the 125s introduced by BR in the 70s are still operating plenty of intercity services.
Every time they get a new colour scheme mug passengers think they are on a brand new train.
I travelled on some of that old stock from Inverness to Newcastle last year. Quite funny to see how few people knew how to operate slam doors.
I didn't realise anywhere still used Sprinters. I though they'd been replaced by 158s. Do the Isle of Wight still use those 1930s underground stock?
I also thought railbuses had been condemned. If not, that's pretty poor given their known dangers.
Nothing wrong with Sprinters (Class 150, 156, 155, 153). The Class 150s are basically diesel mechanical versions of the AC electric 317s and 318s, and DC electric 455s.
The Isle of Wight still used 1938 Underground stock, converted for 3rd rail (Class 483). They were introduced in 1989, when the 1920s vintage Class 485/486 stock (ex-Underground) were replaced.
I've been stocking up on Fray Bentos pies instead.
I remember the panics over the millenium bug. Propagated by tech companies wanting to sell more stuff.
Iirc the BBC flew someone out to Australia to report any early millennium bug problems. A nice little holiday for them as bugger all happened,
The problem for the IT people were that because they corrected virtually all code, then no real problems arose. Unless you were in the industry you don't know how much effort was put into ensuring the problem didn't arise. (I still have a 'millennium bug', mug.)
I was managing the computer systems department of a FTSE company in the early 1980s.
We started introducing four digit years in the date instead of just two digits so that when we ticked over into 2000s the date comparisons (greater/lesser) still worked. We also allowed for the fact that the year 2000 was not a leap year because it is divisible by 100. This meant that programmes should still have worked fine in the new millennium.
I had moved on to other things by 1987 so was not there to witness the success or otherwise of this long term planning.
@stodge, keep an eye on the dispute at Southern. The guards have been issued redundancy notices for their current roles and given new contracts to sign by July or that's it.
Warwickshire County Council did that once. It backfired spectacularly when all the staff claimed maximum redundancy pay, vastly inflating costs instead of reducing them.
David Cameron’s campaign to keep the UK in the EU appears to be working as Conservative voters switch to the remain camp, the latest Opinium/Observer referendum poll suggests.
With a month to go before voters decide whether Britain should stay in or leave the EU, Opinium puts remain four points ahead on 44%, with leave on 40% and 14% undecided. At the beginning of April, leave had a four-point lead.
Remain now has a substantial lead among Conservative voters with 48% of Tory backers saying they want to stay in the EU, compared with 41% who want to leave.
This is a considerable turnaround since the first Opinium/Observer referendum poll in early April, which showed 44% of Conservative voters in favour of leaving against 39% who backed staying in.
Adam Drummond, of Opinium Research, which carried out an online poll of 2,008 adults between 17 and 19 May, said: “There does seem to have been some move towards staying in the EU, particularly given that ours is an online methodology which typically shows a closer race than polls conducted on the phone. The change comes mainly from Conservative voters who have moved from narrowly backing Brexit at the end of April to a large lead for remain.”
@stodge, keep an eye on the dispute at Southern. The guards have been issued redundancy notices for their current roles and given new contracts to sign by July or that's it.
Yes, some organisations have a knack for throwing petrol on a perfectly good fire. The dispute this week was horrendous for travellers from Sussex and parts of Surrey though the inner suburban services looked to be running reasonably well.
Selfishly, of course, I would love United to win, so West Ham qualify for Europe, but having said that would also be great if Palace get revenge for 1990
Selfishly, of course, I would love United to win, so West Ham qualify for Europe, but having said that would also be great if Palace get revenge for 1990
I've been stocking up on Fray Bentos pies instead.
I remember the panics over the millenium bug. Propagated by tech companies wanting to sell more stuff.
Iirc the BBC flew someone out to Australia to report any early millennium bug problems. A nice little holiday for them as bugger all happened,
The problem for the IT people were that because they corrected virtually all code, then no real problems arose. Unless you were in the industry you don't know how much effort was put into ensuring the problem didn't arise. (I still have a 'millennium bug', mug.)
I was managing the computer systems department of a FTSE company in the early 1980s.
We started introducing four digit years in the date instead of just two digits so that when we ticked over into 2000s the date comparisons (greater/lesser) still worked. We also allowed for the fact that the year 2000 was not a leap year because it is divisible by 100. This meant that programmes should still have worked fine in the new millennium.
I had moved on to other things by 1987 so was not there to witness the success or otherwise of this long term planning.
Erm, 2000 WAS a leap year as it is divisible by 400.
David Cameron’s campaign to keep the UK in the EU appears to be working as Conservative voters switch to the remain camp, the latest Opinium/Observer referendum poll suggests.
With a month to go before voters decide whether Britain should stay in or leave the EU, Opinium puts remain four points ahead on 44%, with leave on 40% and 14% undecided. At the beginning of April, leave had a four-point lead.
Remain now has a substantial lead among Conservative voters with 48% of Tory backers saying they want to stay in the EU, compared with 41% who want to leave.
This is a considerable turnaround since the first Opinium/Observer referendum poll in early April, which showed 44% of Conservative voters in favour of leaving against 39% who backed staying in.
Adam Drummond, of Opinium Research, which carried out an online poll of 2,008 adults between 17 and 19 May, said: “There does seem to have been some move towards staying in the EU, particularly given that ours is an online methodology which typically shows a closer race than polls conducted on the phone. The change comes mainly from Conservative voters who have moved from narrowly backing Brexit at the end of April to a large lead for remain.”
I love the name pollbludger - can you imagine the Aussie equivalents of OGH and TSE having a barbie and a tinny chewing over the latest polling data ?
The Screaming Emus?
"Oi, Emus, you drongo, I want a piece on differential turnout in Western Australia and a thread on marginal polling in Queensland for tomorrow or you'll be staring at the contents of Jack's ARSE on Monday"
That is of course horribly improper and racist but Mrs Stodge, who is of the Kiwi persuasion, tells me that's what Australians are like
O/T ISIS appealed to Indian Muslims to join its ranks in a video threatening vengeance for violence perpetrated against Indian Muslims. In the video, a militant says that ISIS will come to India to avenge the deaths of Indian Muslims involved in riots in 2002 and a mosque razing in 1992.
I love the name pollbludger - can you imagine the Aussie equivalents of OGH and TSE having a barbie and a tinny chewing over the latest polling data ?
The Screaming Emus?
"Oi, Emus, you drongo, I want a piece on differential turnout in Western Australia and a thread on marginal polling in Queensland for tomorrow or you'll be staring at the contents of Jack's ARSE on Monday"
That is of course horribly improper and racist but Mrs Stodge, who is of the Kiwi persuasion, tells me that's what Australians are like
The down under version of Jacks ARSE would be a real dunny breaker.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Correlation does not prove causation. It's likely that much of that increase would have happened anyway. The change in work patterns means that a lot of people commute to work by train. Furthermore, a lot of the rolling stock upgrades would have happened anyway, partly because of EU regulations on slam door stock. So, while I don't pine for the days of British Rail, I don't think the growth in usage can be entirely attributed to privatization.
I disagree. Rail usage fell for decades and then started rising at the precise point of privatisation. I doubt that's coincidence, particularly given the increased focus on the customer (BR didn't even understand the concept of a 'customer'; we were 'passenger's). Sure, there may be some other factors involved but I think an increase in commuting by train was an effect rather than a cause. People have a choice over where to live and work and how to travel.
Calling us customers instead of passengers really gets my goat, to be honest.
I'm not too fussed by "customer" - they are after my custom after all.
Oddly, I was reading an article today describing how Venezuela has run out of sugar and oil, despite once being the world's largest producer of both, due to price controls that makes extraction/production unprofitable.
If Corbyn had any sense he would be suggesting increasing the supply of housing by a major new social housing programme. Now that really might be popular, although it wouldn't solve the awkward question of inadequate utilities and services provision in the south east.
Thatcher won, nobody wants to live in social housing, they want appreciating assets, i.e. a get-rich-by-sitting-still scheme.
I think it might be a good policy, but it's not a good message. You can see Michael Fallon warning about small towns blighted by Soviet concrete gulags.
It's like the chat here last night about how a property price collapse would be an argument for LEAVE among young people. But of course it isn't, because anyone who tries can get somewhere to live; what they want is a high-yield investment.
This is a difficult one to prove one way or the other. I would point out that at around the same time that the railways were privatized the Tories introduced the fuel duty escalator. I read recently that some train operators are a bit worried about oil prices staying low for an extended period. So clearly they think the two could be connected.
People always miss the most obvious way in which the EU helped screw up rail nationalisation.
Undoubtedly nationalisation has been good for the railways but it could have been so much better. Each region could have been returned to private hands in the same way they had been run prior to nationalisation with a company responsible for everything including track and infrastructure. That would have removed the idiotic ability of a rail company to blame the infrastructure for their own mistakes.
But the EU rules on vertical separation prevented that from happening and so led to the daft situation we now have of different companies jointly responsible for services on the same piece of line and blaming each other for failings.
Do you think the trains will run better if we left the EU ?
EU rules prevent us re-nationalising.
That's not strictly true: what they prevent is us nationalising under the old BR model.
At the moment we have euro-nationalisation, with our trains operated by the Dutch and French national railways.
Presumably that would still be the case post-Brexit.
Yes, until a future Labour government chooses to renationalise the network. Leave would give us the option.
It's surprising how many people forget just how awful British Rail was. Only half as many passenger-miles were travelled under the Age of the Train as are today, and with good reason.
Correlation does not prove causation. It's likely that much of that increase would have happened anyway. The change in work patterns means that a lot of people commute to work by train. Furthermore, a lot of the rolling stock upgrades would have happened anyway, partly because of EU regulations on slam door stock. So, while I don't pine for the days of British Rail, I don't think the growth in usage can be entirely attributed to privatization.
I disagree. Rail usage fell for decades and then started rising at the precise point of privatisation. I doubt that's coincidence, particularly given the increased focus on the customer (BR didn't even understand the concept of a 'customer'; we were 'passenger's). Sure, there may be some other factors involved but I think an increase in commuting by train was an effect rather than a cause. People have a choice over where to live and work and how to travel.
Calling us customers instead of passengers really gets my goat, to be honest.
I'm not too fussed by "customer" - they are after my custom after all.
This is a difficult one to prove one way or the other. I would point out that at around the same time that the railways were privatized the Tories introduced the fuel duty escalator. I read recently that some train operators are a bit worried about oil prices staying low for an extended period. So clearly they think the two could be connected.
People always miss the most obvious way in which the EU helped screw up rail nationalisation.
Undoubtedly nationalisation has been good for the railways but it could have been so much better. Each region could have been returned to private hands in the same way they had been run prior to nationalisation with a company responsible for everything including track and infrastructure. That would have removed the idiotic ability of a rail company to blame the infrastructure for their own mistakes.
But the EU rules on vertical separation prevented that from happening and so led to the daft situation we now have of different companies jointly responsible for services on the same piece of line and blaming each other for failings.
The money merry-go-round of delay attribution is mind boggling. There's talk that the government wants to devolve power from the centre of Network Rail to the routes which could be interesting. There is also the possibility that they will eventually franchise out the maintenance contract for the routes in a way similar to that done with the TOCs.
I had moved on to other things by 1987 so was not there to witness the success or otherwise of this long term planning.
One of the wackier constituent letters I had at the time complained that the government, although attempting to address the 2000 millennium bug, was failing to anticipate the recurrence of the issue in 10,000 AD - "you're just kicking the can down the road". I replied solemnly that I beleived that with computer software debugging, the first 8000 years were the hardest.
I had moved on to other things by 1987 so was not there to witness the success or otherwise of this long term planning.
One of the wackier constituent letters I had at the time complained that the government, although attempting to address the 2000 millennium bug, was failing to anticipate the recurrence of the issue in 10,000 AD - "you're just kicking the can down the road". I replied solemnly that I beleived that with computer software debugging, the first 8000 years were the hardest.
Technical question: I am registered for a postal vote. But I'd like to vote in person for LEAVE. To make my tiny mark, to register my protest against the TRAITORS who seem destined to win (even if they will lose the aftermath, horribly)
Is it too late for me to ask for an on-the-day vote? Grateful for advice.
Iirc You can take your postal vote and put it in the ballot box on the day.
This is a difficult one to prove one way or the other. I would point out that at around the same time that the railways were privatized the Tories introduced the fuel duty escalator. I read recently that some train operators are a bit worried about oil prices staying low for an extended period. So clearly they think the two could be connected.
People always miss the most obvious way in which the EU helped screw up rail nationalisation.
Undoubtedly nationalisation has been good for the railways but it could have been so much better. Each region could have been returned to private hands in the same way they had been run prior to nationalisation with a company responsible for everything including track and infrastructure. That would have removed the idiotic ability of a rail company to blame the infrastructure for their own mistakes.
But the EU rules on vertical separation prevented that from happening and so led to the daft situation we now have of different companies jointly responsible for services on the same piece of line and blaming each other for failings.
Just two hours to go before Mourinho is appointed as Man Utd manager, supposedly.
Hello top four finish, probably top two. Goodbye attacking, entertaining football.
I give him two years maximum in the job, assuming the rumours are correct and he gets it.
Peter,
Do you think Man Utd are value for the Premiership at 15/2?
PS Thanks for asking the question .... you've spurred me on to back them myself at 15/2 with SkyBET.
Not one for me.
ManU are more than a one season project.
Chelsea or Man City in my opinion. I think Leicester (25/1) and West Ham (66/1) are both worth an ew on Skybet.
Some might have said the same about Leicester. I think Chelsea will struggle to make the top three. Both Leicester and West Ham to finish between 6th and 10th imo.
Comments
Some people will be EVEN more miserable tomorrow
I much prefer the privatised railways, but I also think that this London bias is part of it. For instance, in London mainline stations they pioneered vacuum packed sandwiches designed and prepared by top chefs. In Gloucester you were lucky if the bread was merely stale.
Last year I managed to have tickets for 3 tests of the ashes & got to see 0 overs...
Remain: 44% (+2)
Leave: 40% (-1)
(via Opinium, online)
So of course the media will be calling for his dropping again in favour of some random Middlesex seamer who can roll his fingers...
Anderson must be cursing- no chance of 11 wickets now.
My own view is to have a long term future he has to be a number 5. But England don't appear to agree.
And that is that. 10 for Anderson, good bowling by him.
England bigger problem is still opener & a different type of seamer, be it left arm and/ or express pace...
@britainelects: EU referendum poll:
Remain: 44% (+2)
Leave: 40% (-1)
(via Opinium, online)
http://m.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/667901.html
I think he has spent a lot of time playing unselfishly because that is what he's told to do. I agree that he failed as an opener, but he should never have been tried in that role. I would play him at 5 and tell him to use his own judgement, a bit like Ian Bell in his all too few good years.
I always thought during his tenure as London Mayor Boris Johnson would try to break the RMT union by getting them to strike over a trivial issue about which no body cared or for which no one would have any sympathy. He would break Bob Crow just as Margaret Thatcher had broken Scargill in the mid 80s,
But it never happened.
The RMT picked their fights carefully over issues such as safety and the closing of ticket offices for which the public had a modicum of support (or perhaps a lot more) and made sure they had ASLEF and TSSA with them so it looked more like an industrial dispute and less like a political dispute.
The strikes were short but disruptive to ensure the union members would stay on side and not be tempted by economic circumstances to defy the strike. More often then not, this won the Unions considerable concessions for their members though it didn't save the ticket offices (the former ticket office staff did well out of redundancy bonuses and the like).
More on topic, the polling cards arrived today at Stodge Towers.
Which neatly ignored that Russia had only gotten a meaningful number of computers in the previous seven or eight years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VomkssQel8g
Hello top four finish, probably top two. Goodbye attacking, entertaining football.
I give him two years maximum in the job, assuming the rumours are correct and he gets it.
Oddly, I was reading an article today describing how Venezuela has run out of sugar and oil, despite once being the world's largest producer of both, due to price controls that makes extraction/production unprofitable.
If Corbyn had any sense he would be suggesting increasing the supply of housing by a major new social housing programme. Now that really might be popular, although it wouldn't solve the awkward question of inadequate utilities and services provision in the south east.
The Isle of Wight still used 1938 Underground stock, converted for 3rd rail (Class 483). They were introduced in 1989, when the 1920s vintage Class 485/486 stock (ex-Underground) were replaced.
Do you think Man Utd are value for the Premiership at 15/2?
We started introducing four digit years in the date instead of just two digits so that when we ticked over into 2000s the date comparisons (greater/lesser) still worked. We also allowed for the fact that the year 2000 was not a leap year because it is divisible by 100. This meant that programmes should still have worked fine in the new millennium.
I had moved on to other things by 1987 so was not there to witness the success or otherwise of this long term planning.
With a month to go before voters decide whether Britain should stay in or leave the EU, Opinium puts remain four points ahead on 44%, with leave on 40% and 14% undecided. At the beginning of April, leave had a four-point lead.
Remain now has a substantial lead among Conservative voters with 48% of Tory backers saying they want to stay in the EU, compared with 41% who want to leave.
This is a considerable turnaround since the first Opinium/Observer referendum poll in early April, which showed 44% of Conservative voters in favour of leaving against 39% who backed staying in.
Adam Drummond, of Opinium Research, which carried out an online poll of 2,008 adults between 17 and 19 May, said: “There does seem to have been some move towards staying in the EU, particularly given that ours is an online methodology which typically shows a closer race than polls conducted on the phone. The change comes mainly from Conservative voters who have moved from narrowly backing Brexit at the end of April to a large lead for remain.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/21/tory-eu-referendum-voters-switching-remain-opinium-observer-poll
ManU are more than a one season project.
Chelsea or Man City in my opinion. I think Leicester (25/1) and West Ham (66/1) are both worth an ew on Skybet.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2016/05/20/reachtel-50-50-4/
I love the name pollbludger - can you imagine the Aussie equivalents of OGH and TSE having a barbie and a tinny chewing over the latest polling data ?
That is of course horribly improper and racist but Mrs Stodge, who is of the Kiwi persuasion, tells me that's what Australians are like
https://twitter.com/TheReal_JT26/status/734076373652910080
ISIS appealed to Indian Muslims to join its ranks in a video threatening vengeance for violence perpetrated against Indian Muslims. In the video, a militant says that ISIS will come to India to avenge the deaths of Indian Muslims involved in riots in 2002 and a mosque razing in 1992.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/05/21/isis-video-calls-upon-indian-muslims.html?via=twitter_page
"Guest" on the other hand.....
I think it might be a good policy, but it's not a good message. You can see Michael Fallon warning about small towns blighted by Soviet concrete gulags.
It's like the chat here last night about how a property price collapse would be an argument for LEAVE among young people. But of course it isn't, because anyone who tries can get somewhere to live; what they want is a high-yield investment.
Undoubtedly nationalisation has been good for the railways but it could have been so much better. Each region could have been returned to private hands in the same way they had been run prior to nationalisation with a company responsible for everything including track and infrastructure. That would have removed the idiotic ability of a rail company to blame the infrastructure for their own mistakes.
But the EU rules on vertical separation prevented that from happening and so led to the daft situation we now have of different companies jointly responsible for services on the same piece of line and blaming each other for failings.
describes the background to building another new steam train.
https://twitter.com/donteuleave/status/734065883354660864
https://twitter.com/DanHannanMEP/status/734052156957962241
https://twitter.com/DanHannanMEP/status/734092702854307841
https://twitter.com/pleasedontgouk/status/734001166670024705
Doesn't mean either me or her feel obliged to vote for the legal and constitutional framework of the European Union.