Is Network Rail with Private companies a good prospect? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Is Network Rail with Private companies a good prospect?

£0.00 @
Network Rail is to be stripped of its complete control of England's railway tracks under Government plans. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling wants the publicly owned company to share its responsib… Read More
davewave Avatar
6m, 2w agoPosted 6 months, 2 weeks ago
Network Rail is to be stripped of its complete control of England's railway tracks under Government plans.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling wants the publicly owned company to share its responsibility for running the tracks with private train operators.

Could it be worse, which companies could handle the job?
Tags:
davewave Avatar
6m, 2w agoPosted 6 months, 2 weeks ago
Options

All Comments

(24) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#2
We're dead!oO
#3
I don't use trains, so it doesn't matter.
5 Likes #4
he will hand it over to his" friends " and cost taxpayers more money
2 Likes #5
rodders443
I don't use trains, so it doesn't matter.
Rail passenger journeys reached a record high of 1.65 billion between 2014-2015 sooo I guess it does matter to a lot of people.
#6
Most commuting in or to London....:(
1 Like #7
groenleader
Most commuting in or to London....:(


and your point is?
#8
i think this will be good as public run services are very bad so the injection of private investment will improve services in the long run.
1 Like #9
davewave
rodders443
I don't use trains, so it doesn't matter.
Rail passenger journeys reached a record high of 1.65 billion between 2014-2015 sooo I guess it does matter to a lot of people.

Yeah I guess it does, but not to me, like I said.

I liked your comment.
8 Likes #10
mutley1
i think this will be good as public run services are very bad so the injection of private investment will improve services in the long run.

What?

seriously?

Private investment in Prisons has improved services in the long run right?

Private investment in benefit claims has improved services in the long run right?

Private investment in disability assessments has improved services in the long run right?

Private investment in waste collection and recycling has improved services in the long run right?

Private investment in the energy sector has improved services in the long run right?

and obviously private investment in the train operators has been a huge success?

This is nothing but more asset stripping/selling off to hide the budget deficit.
#11
OldManRiver
mutley1
i think this will be good as public run services are very bad so the injection of private investment will improve services in the long run.

What?

seriously?

Private investment in Prisons has improved services in the long run right?

Private investment in benefit claims has improved services in the long run right?

Private investment in disability assessments has improved services in the long run right?

Private investment in waste collection and recycling has improved services in the long run right?

Private investment in the energy sector has improved services in the long run right?

and obviously private investment in the train operators has been a huge success?

This is nothing but more asset stripping/selling off to hide the budget deficit.


what would they have been like without private investment?
2 Likes #12
The only people to benefit from privatisation will be the people who own the private company.
5 Likes #13
davewave
OldManRiver
mutley1
i think this will be good as public run services are very bad so the injection of private investment will improve services in the long run.
What?
seriously?
Private investment in Prisons has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in benefit claims has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in disability assessments has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in waste collection and recycling has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in the energy sector has improved services in the long run right?
and obviously private investment in the train operators has been a huge success?
This is nothing but more asset stripping/selling off to hide the budget deficit.
what would they have been like without private investment?
Better.
1 Like #14
RonChew
davewave
OldManRiver
mutley1
i think this will be good as public run services are very bad so the injection of private investment will improve services in the long run.
What?
seriously?
Private investment in Prisons has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in benefit claims has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in disability assessments has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in waste collection and recycling has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in the energy sector has improved services in the long run right?
and obviously private investment in the train operators has been a huge success?
This is nothing but more asset stripping/selling off to hide the budget deficit.
what would they have been like without private investment?
Better.


why?
1 Like #15
davewave
RonChew
davewave
OldManRiver
mutley1
i think this will be good as public run services are very bad so the injection of private investment will improve services in the long run.
What?
seriously?
Private investment in Prisons has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in benefit claims has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in disability assessments has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in waste collection and recycling has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in the energy sector has improved services in the long run right?
and obviously private investment in the train operators has been a huge success?
This is nothing but more asset stripping/selling off to hide the budget deficit.
what would they have been like without private investment?
Better.
why?
Why not?
5 Likes #16
Na what will happen is, the person who is responsible for procuring will knock up a really badly drawn contract. The private company will have a loophole or two to make millions, the taxpayer and general public will end up paying more. Then the person who signed off the contract will be a director in the private company within 5 years.
#17
RonChew
davewave
RonChew
davewave
OldManRiver
mutley1
i think this will be good as public run services are very bad so the injection of private investment will improve services in the long run.
What?
seriously?
Private investment in Prisons has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in benefit claims has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in disability assessments has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in waste collection and recycling has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in the energy sector has improved services in the long run right?
and obviously private investment in the train operators has been a huge success?
This is nothing but more asset stripping/selling off to hide the budget deficit.
what would they have been like without private investment?
Better.
why?
Why not?


its a maybe not definite. you have no evidence that it would have been better or worse, simply unknown!
5 Likes #18
There's a very good reason why the rail infrastructure contracts were taken out of private hands and put back in the governments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash
It was lack of investment on the private side that meant they didn't want to pay for the talent that could actually identify what and where the problems were on the railways. When Hatfield happened they then put massive speed restrictions on the tracks because they didn't have a clue how to do what they're business was entirely created to do. Then they sued the government because there profits weren't good enough because they had to repair the tracks that they were in charge of.

So no, it's generally not a good idea to privatise vital infrastructure.
The government need to stop acting like the balance sheet of the country is a business balance sheet.
It's not, we pay taxes and expect them to use the taxes with a modicum of wisdom, privatising infrastructure, and no doubt paying a dividend to the company is just not a sensible use of taxes.
1 Like #19
davewave
RonChew
davewave
RonChew
davewave
OldManRiver
mutley1
i think this will be good as public run services are very bad so the injection of private investment will improve services in the long run.
What?
seriously?
Private investment in Prisons has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in benefit claims has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in disability assessments has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in waste collection and recycling has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in the energy sector has improved services in the long run right?
and obviously private investment in the train operators has been a huge success?
This is nothing but more asset stripping/selling off to hide the budget deficit.
what would they have been like without private investment?
Better.
why?
Why not?
its a maybe not definite. you have no evidence that it would have been better or worse, simply unknown!
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the rail infrastructure has improved considerably since being returned to public ownership in 2002. The main reason for the pre-2002 problems was the reluctance of the private owners to spend anything on 'non-essentials' such as maintenance and permanent repairs. But I'm sure that couldn't happen again...
#20
davewave
RonChew
davewave
OldManRiver
mutley1
i think this will be good as public run services are very bad so the injection of private investment will improve services in the long run.
What?
seriously?
Private investment in Prisons has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in benefit claims has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in disability assessments has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in waste collection and recycling has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in the energy sector has improved services in the long run right?
and obviously private investment in the train operators has been a huge success?
This is nothing but more asset stripping/selling off to hide the budget deficit.
what would they have been like without private investment?
Better.
why?
Cheaper (for customers and govt.) due to money not going back to investors.
More reliable, due to profits being paid back into the rail system for maintenance, improvements etc.
I've only worked on 2 rail projects - but it was enough to see that the waste and lack of planning is the worst in any industry I've seen. Especially when subcontracting. Just my experience, but things aren't as joined-up as they should be. And this will make thinks worse IMO.
Dread to think of Southern/Govia in charge of the track as well. They won't even employ enough drivers and rely on current staff taking overtime to maintain their schedule. Which is dangerous.
#21
Network rail has been virtually privatised for the last 20 years.
#22
buddhabelly
davewave
RonChew
davewave
OldManRiver
mutley1
i think this will be good as public run services are very bad so the injection of private investment will improve services in the long run.
What?
seriously?
Private investment in Prisons has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in benefit claims has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in disability assessments has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in waste collection and recycling has improved services in the long run right?
Private investment in the energy sector has improved services in the long run right?
and obviously private investment in the train operators has been a huge success?
This is nothing but more asset stripping/selling off to hide the budget deficit.
what would they have been like without private investment?
Better.
why?
Cheaper (for customers and govt.) due to money not going back to investors.
More reliable, due to profits being paid back into the rail system for maintenance, improvements etc.
I've only worked on 2 rail projects - but it was enough to see that the waste and lack of planning is the worst in any industry I've seen. Especially when subcontracting. Just my experience, but things aren't as joined-up as they should be. And this will make thinks worse IMO.
Dread to think of Southern/Govia in charge of the track as well. They won't even employ enough drivers and rely on current staff taking overtime to maintain their schedule. Which is dangerous.



that argument makes sense.
#23
Train companies only profit off trains that are running so closing the tracks for maintenance is going to be bottom of the list the fat cats and shareholders will want trains moving. VERY BAD MOVE
#24

GB rail industry financial information for 2014-15 presents ORR’s analysis of the latest financial data from train operators, Network Rail and governments.

Key findings include:

In 2014-15, the rail industry had income of £13.5 billion. Most of this was from passengers (71%), with governments providing 26% of funding. Other sources of income, such as property, provided 3%. After adjusting for payments within the industry, the overall cost of running Great Britain’s railways was £13.6 billion, with 54% of these costs incurred on train operations and 46% on rail infrastructure.
Industry income from passenger fares has increased by £0.4 billion (5%), to £8.8 billion. This is primarily because the number of passenger journeys increased by 4% and partly because of fare increases of 1% in real terms. Most of the increase in journeys has been in London and the South East. Of the total fare income, 62% was from unregulated fares and 38% from regulated fares.
Governments’ funding of the rail industry as a whole has reduced by 9%, from £3.9 billion to £3.5 billion. This includes funding from all government sources, including devolved administrations and passenger transport executives. After adjusting for the finance costs paid by Network Rail to the Department for Transport, government funding to the rail industry has reduced by 14%, to £3.1 billion.
At an aggregate level, franchised train operators contributed significantly more to government than in previous years. Based on the methodology used for our analysis, this is the first year that payments to governments exceeded net support funding from governments. Whereas in 2013-14 franchises received net support of £0.1 billion, in 2014-15 they made net payments of £0.7 billion to governments. This was largely due to a change from governments supporting train operators to increased support for Network Rail. There was wide variation in net support or net premium between franchised operators. Open access operators and freight operators received no direct support.



http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/gb-rail-industry-financial-information/gb-rail-industry-financial-information-2014-15

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!