Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:18 pm  

AFAIK, the bids for this particular franchise involve the winner paying the gov for the opportunity to run it. Virgin's bid was £13b.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:13 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

the railways will never make a profit in government hands

The whole point is that a nationalised rail network doesn't need to make profits as such. All it has to do is generate a sufficient amount of income to maintain and upgrade the network as necessary.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:05 am  

dr_feelgood wrote:

The whole point is that a nationalised rail network doesn't need to make profits as such. All it has to do is generate a sufficient amount of income to maintain and upgrade the network as necessary.

Erm, that would be a profit then?

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:34 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

You read it exactly right, that is what I meant.
Cheaper results actually, as BR wouldn't have had to pay dividends.

Just interest on the bonds they would have to issue!! Interest unlike dividends cannot be avoided if performance doesn't meet expectations. So could actually end up being more expensive.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:42 am  

dr_feelgood wrote:

Public transport should never have been privatised. It should be run by the state on a not for profit basis in order to provide the infrastucture for business (private and public sector) to operate smoothly for the benefit of the country as a whole. How on earth can you expect the government to provide an integrated green transport and energy policy if the transport system is run to provide dividends for the shares holder rather than to meet the country's needs. As stated previously, how can a company that needs to pay a dividend to shareholders run a comparable service that is cheaper to operate than a business that runs on a not for profit basis where all excess funds are reinvested in the system ?

By running it more efficiently?

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:57 am  

I think they should do away with trains and install those tubes that they have in Futurama.

Fat people might have to walk though.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:35 am  

jonny the leyther wrote: Virgin Trains rival Japan and Germany on punctuation Because they factor delays into the timetable to allow for this. They once had the last train for Wigan to Preston scheduled to take 45 minutes. It takes 10. Strangely enough their performance results showed them arriving early 90% of the time. I wonder why? jonny the leyther wrote: run at a profit Yes. You've seen ticket prices, haven't you? jonny the leyther wrote: and have 98% customer satisfaction. No one's ever asked me to fill in a customer satisfaction survey. I like the Co-operative Party's idea, as a start at least. http://peoplesrail.org.uk/

jonny the leyther wrote: Virgin Trains rival Japan and Germany on punctuation Because they factor delays into the timetable to allow for this. They once had the last train for Wigan to Preston scheduled to take 45 minutes. It takes 10. Strangely enough their performance results showed them arriving early 90% of the time. I wonder why? jonny the leyther wrote: run at a profit Yes. You've seen ticket prices, haven't you? jonny the leyther wrote: and have 98% customer satisfaction. No one's ever asked me to fill in a customer satisfaction survey. I like the Co-operative Party's idea, as a start at least. http://peoplesrail.org.uk/

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:56 am  

GT wrote: Because they factor delays into the timetable to allow for this. Isn't "on-time" considered to be anything 9 minutes late or less? You can't measure improvement by constantly changing the definition of what you are measuring. We have a similar scenario about overcrowding on trains: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ition.html They had overcrowded trains and so, to combat that, they changed the definition of overcrowding. Hey presto - fewer overcrowded trains!

GT wrote: Because they factor delays into the timetable to allow for this. Isn't "on-time" considered to be anything 9 minutes late or less? You can't measure improvement by constantly changing the definition of what you are measuring. We have a similar scenario about overcrowding on trains: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ition.html They had overcrowded trains and so, to combat that, they changed the definition of overcrowding. Hey presto - fewer overcrowded trains!

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:58 am  

Big Graeme wrote:

Erm, that would be a profit then?

Any state-run enterprise doesn't make profit, they may have surpluses but not profits, similar to local governments. If a council collects more than it pays out, would you call that "making a profit"?

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:15 am  

cod'ead wrote:

If a council collects more than it pays out, would you call that "making a profit"?

it would be referred to as a miracle!