C2C and NXEA under public ownership

[Andyhsufc]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8127851.stm

After the collapse of NXEC this morning, it appears that the DFT are looking at stripping NX of their other two franchises.

Would people support this??

 

[Mad Cyril]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8127851.stm

After the collapse of NXEC this morning, it appears that the DFT are looking at stripping NX of their other two franchises.

Would people support this??

I support this as long as it does not inconvenience me in the slightest.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

When did they collapse? As far I can see the government is just muting they will take back the Anglian and c2c franchises. Personally I would not like the government getting their hands on c2c, back then it was dubbed the Misery line for very good reasons.

Since Privatisation c2c has flourished and is a good example of how this strategy helped, in the past c2c due to it's location and size, was always overlooked for investment by BR. Rolling stock was always hand me downs from other bigger lines and as such it's performance records where appalling.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I cross fingers that Virgin and all the others go the same way and nationalisation is on the cards. Do you know that NR recieve substantially more money from your taxes that BR ever did, and its supposedly a "private" company.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

I would like to know what the difference is between subsidies to investment across the whole network, between NR and BR days.

Also I guess having workers who flagrantly boast about surfing all day instead of working does not help NR keep their costs down. :p

One final piece, is the amount received due to the fact we have had a Labour government since 96 who are more likely to cave into demands for cash? :unsure:

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8127851.stm

After the collapse of NXEC this morning, it appears that the DFT are looking at stripping NX of their other two franchises.

Would people support this??

Absolutely, and likewise for any franchise that persistently declines to meet its performance targets. The lack of real competition for franchises in this country means that companies feel they can get away with murder.

As MK said, the subsidies currently paid under PFI render any comparison with BR invalid. In fact, you'd be very hard pressed to argue that privatisation has offered VFM in any way, shape or form compared to what could have been achieved with the same money under public ownership, with investment made on the basis of long-term performance rather than that within the period of a single contract.

As long as the rules allow the government to keep PFI commitments off of the balance sheet (whilst wagging fingers at any business that employs a similar wheeze), VFM for you and I has little to do with it, unfortunately.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I would like to know what the difference is between subsidies to investment across the whole network, between NR and BR days.

Also I guess having workers who flagrantly boast about surfing all day instead of working does not help NR keep their costs down. :p

One final piece, is the amount received due to the fact we have had a Labour government since 96 who are more likely to cave into demands for cash? :unsure:

Firm but fair :D

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

I would like to know what the difference is between subsidies to investment across the whole network, between NR and BR days.

In its last year, BR received around £1bn in subsidy. In 2006, subsidy for the whole privatised network stood at £5bn per annum.

Network Rail has also run up debts in the region of £25bn since privatisation.

If that's VFM for the British taxpayer then I'll pass, thanks.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

In its last year, BR received around £1bn in subsidy. In 2006, subsidy for the whole privatised network stood at £5bn per annum.

Network Rail has also run up debts in the region of £25bn since privatisation.

If that's VFM for the British taxpayer then I'll pass, thanks.

You missed my point, I am looking for the ratio between subsidy and investment into infrastructure. During the BR days and now in our privatised network.

it is too easy to just provide figures without any backup information that would put such black and white figures into perspective.

 

[MK Shrimper]

You missed my point, I am looking for the ratio between subsidy and investment into infrastructure. During the BR days and now in our privatised network.

it is too easy to just provide figures without any backup information that would put such black and white figures into perspective.

I have to say in BR days there was very little investment. Granted privatisation (at least on the WCML) has brought in modern equipment but at a cost of £8bn+ and massive profits to the companies who installed it as cheapily as humanly possible and left NR to clear up their messes without any recourse - notably the Rugby debacle Christmas 2007 where the contractors were at fault but NR are the ones that got the kicking.

However the trains you get to work down there are still being powered from the National Grid by equipment that was installed in the mid 1960's and it's held together by sticky tape....

 

[Andyhsufc]

The response has been interesting thus far and I would like to throw in a few points -

1) Would it be better for the Government to pay private companies a fixed fee for "managing" rail services? This would mean all profits going to the government.

2) Has the improvement on C2C, for example, been primarily because of the renewal of rolling stock. If so, is it fair to credit C2C with the improvement in services?

 

[canveyshrimper]

2) Has the improvement on C2C, for example, been primarily because of the renewal of rolling stock. If so, is it fair to credit C2C with the improvement in services?

A lot of the improvement in c2c is indeed down to the provision of the new and greatly improved rolling stock. But it's also the sum of all the parts, improvements & renovation to the overhead lines, a marked improvement in communications, a whole plan of modernising and improving station facilities etc.

There was good reason why the line was called the misery line, inept management and equipment that was state of the art in 1923. It is a credit to c2c management that they have turned one of the worst performers into one of the best.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

2) Has the improvement on C2C, for example, been primarily because of the renewal of rolling stock. If so, is it fair to credit C2C with the improvement in services?

Unless I am mistaken the responsibility for the rolling stock is down to the franchises, whereas the track and the signals are the responsibility of Network Rail or previously Rail Track. Although it was down to the Train companies to get RailTrack/Network Rail to carry out the work necessary. So in this case as Harry said 'Fair Play to the c2c management for actually doing something with this line. Although most of the work was done when the company was Prism and not National Express

 

[Lord Football]

Another example of failed privitisation.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Another example of failed privitisation.

...and Nationalisation was a roaring success?

 

[Lord Football]

Nationalise everything.

South East Rail (I think), the one that runs through Kent. Private company completely messed it up, so it moved to state control and a much better service was provided. However, the Privatise Everything Government, re Privatised it and now its crap again.

Look at the banks. Failed under private ownership, so are now run by the Government.

See, the thing with state control is that the service is a service. With private ownership, the service becomes a business and profits are needed. So when profits falter, service diminishes.

One reason successive Governments are skint is that they have sold off the Crown Jewels. Gas, Electricity, Steel, Oil - you name it. The end result is that WE all end up paying through the nose for this essentials and Gvts have spent the income they raised during these sell offs.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Or alternatively as has been seen in shipbuilding, steel, mining, BL and numerous other industries which were under state control. Over manning to the extreme, making an inferior product which was over priced and could not be sold to international markets. Not to mention abysmal labour relations where unions could hold governments to ransom to get pay deals which the country couldn't afford.

Back to the subject in hand and I never thought I would say this c2c as a stand alone rail company are actually a shining light for rail privatisation, which is definitely more than can be said for the majority of others. I largely supported the privatisation of BR at the time but the Major government made a complete horlicks of it.

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

Or alternatively as has been seen in shipbuilding, steel, mining, BL and numerous other industries which were under state control. Over manning to the extreme, making an inferior product which was over priced and could not be sold to international markets. Not to mention abysmal labour relations where unions could hold governments to ransom to get pay deals which the country couldn't afford.

Back to the subject in hand and I never thought I would say this c2c as a stand alone rail company are actually a shining light for rail privatisation, which is definitely more than can be said for the majority of others. I largely supported the privatisation of BR at the time but the Major government made a complete horlicks of it.

That's because it's a lucrative line, and therefore one that resources have been directed towards. As you say, it's certainly not fair to use that as a sample of the privatised network as a whole...

Rail occupies something of a unique position compared to other privatised industries because under the franchising arrangements the companies are essentially operating monopolies - something they take full advantage of when it comes to raising fares, slashing carriage numbers and so on. You get few of the benefits that privatisation is supposed to bring (the investment could have been made under public ownership), whilst money is lost as numerous companies make payments to executives, shareholders, consultants and the lawyers necessary for the frequent negotiations required in a system with such a ridiculous amount of vertical fragmentation.

Privatisation could work - if there were meaningful competition and standards were insisted upon as in Japan, rather than enforced ineffectually by token fines and the renewal of contracts with companies that fail time after time.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

That's because it's a lucrative line, and therefore one that resources have been directed towards. As you say, it's certainly not fair to use that as a sample of the privatised network as a whole...

So why was it so badly neglected under BR??

I think you will find the main reason for c2c's improvement is that there was competition, at the beginning of the Privatisation. London, Tilbury and Southend line was run by Prism whilst the Southend, Shenfield, and London line was owned by Stagecoach, and the latter was seen as the better line as it had been invested in during the BR days. Jeez they had sliding door trains whilst LTS still had slam doors that sometimes exploded in the guards section.

So it is a good example for privatisation.

Prism needed to ensure that it was competitive or the best line into London from this area, this is something it managed. Prism was then brought out by National Express and only recently did National Express win the franchise off of Stage Coach for the Southend, Shenfield and London. Not sure why the government allowed this as it meant the healthy competition between the two lines was no longer there.

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

So why was it so badly neglected under BR??

BR, as one company running the whole network, had to use surpluses from routes to plug shortfalls on others. The ****poor level of subsidy, when viewed in the context of the network as a whole, left no room for improvements.

I think you will find the main reason for c2c's improvement is that there was competition, at the beginning of the Privatisation. London, Tilbury and Southend line was run by Prism whilst the Southend, Shenfield, and London line was owned by Stagecoach, and the latter was seen as the better line as it had been invested in during the BR days. Jeez they had sliding door trains whilst LTS still had slam doors that sometimes exploded in the guards area.

So it is a good example for privatisation.

Again, a good example of how a lucrative line will inevitably make the private sector sit up and take notice to a far greater extent than a loss making public service. The picture across the network as a whole is very different.

Prism needed to ensure that it was competitive or the best line into London from this area, this is something it managed. Prism was then brought out by National Express and only recently did National Express win the franchise off of Stage Coach for the Southend, Shenfield and London. Not sure why the government allowed this as it meant the healthy competition between the two lines was no longer there.

If the process was anything like that for most of New Labour's privatisations then the Dft's hospitality register might be worth a look...

National Express's problems haven't sprung up overnight. It was issuing profit warnings as far back as 2001, has axed jobs and cut back ticket office hours, all while taking the **** with its fare rises. In terms of the national picture as a whole, I would wager that you'd find a lot more routes on which the average passenger identified with that scenario than with that of the new, improved c2c.