NotWork Rail's Financial results
Discussion
A couple of days ago Network Rail revealed that its debts will reach £21Bn in four years time.
This is despite the fact that Network Rail receives TWICE the subsidy Railtrack did upon privatisation in 1996.
Punctuality is also worse than that achieved by Railtrack.
I regard Notwork Rail as a case study that no matter how badly run a company is, public ownership will make it worse.
This is despite the fact that Network Rail receives TWICE the subsidy Railtrack did upon privatisation in 1996.
Punctuality is also worse than that achieved by Railtrack.
I regard Notwork Rail as a case study that no matter how badly run a company is, public ownership will make it worse.
expensive as it is. 
UK Railways as a whole in the modern age will never make money, unless perhaps we use them more intensively for freight.
Ultimately we have to accept that. We then need to decide if we wish to sustain them or not. If we want railways, we have to pay for them, if we don't we won't.
If one pays for the true cost of ones journey. It's cheaper to go by car. Roads would however be conjested to locking point.
Railways are a key solution for long distance heavy haulage. I don't understand why we don't use them for that.
Ultimately we have to accept that. We then need to decide if we wish to sustain them or not. If we want railways, we have to pay for them, if we don't we won't.
If one pays for the true cost of ones journey. It's cheaper to go by car. Roads would however be conjested to locking point.
Railways are a key solution for long distance heavy haulage. I don't understand why we don't use them for that.
dilbert said:
UK Railways as a whole in the modern age will never make money, unless perhaps we use them more intensively for freight.
Ultimately we have to accept that. We then need to decide if we wish to sustain them or not. If we want railways, we have to pay for them, if we don't we won't.
If one pays for the true cost of ones journey. It's cheaper to go by car. Roads would however be conjested to locking point.
Railways are a key solution for long distance heavy haulage. I don't understand why we don't use them for that.
Perhaps-but they could be run a h*ll of alot more efficiently than they are now.
Unfortunately, privatisation doesn't work either. I think that it's impossible for a company offering a service to the public such as transport to be run properly by a private company as their objectives are conflicting. The company cuts back on services and raises fares to increase their profit and the customer loses out. Which is what's happened with many of the rail companies since the demise of BR.
Yugguy said:
The 21Bn figure is taken completely out of context. It is a paper figure only and is to do with NR taking over in name some of the debts that the Govt has incurred during the upgrading the infrastructure
It is an amount they will owe at the end of 4 years-whats paper about that?.
They are also royally shafted by their suppliers who tend to name their price & get it as meeting contract requirements has lots of hoops to jump through.
One of my mates is involved in this area (for Network Rail) and says it beggars belief how such an organisation can let iself get so stitched up. He's also never worked anywhere with as many layers of management and poor organisation.
One of my mates is involved in this area (for Network Rail) and says it beggars belief how such an organisation can let iself get so stitched up. He's also never worked anywhere with as many layers of management and poor organisation.
birdbrain said:
Unfortunately, privatisation doesn't work either. I think that it's impossible for a company offering a service to the public such as transport to be run properly by a private company as their objectives are conflicting. The company cuts back on services and raises fares to increase their profit and the customer loses out. Which is what's happened with many of the rail companies since the demise of BR.
Core of the issue is that the business of transporting people from one place to another is but a tiny fraction of the amount of contract signing, red tape and procedure that comes part and parcel of any national requirement.
Look at Government IT projects. There is NO way that these can possibly cost what they do for the provision that they make, its the HUGE number of compliance officers and bean counters in the middle that are all charged at ludicrous rates.
Yes there has to be control but not at the cost of making something viable, which the rail could easily be, if it was allowed to get on with it.
birdbrain said:
Unfortunately, privatisation doesn't work either. I think that it's impossible for a company offering a service to the public such as transport to be run properly by a private company as their objectives are conflicting. The company cuts back on services and raises fares to increase their profit and the customer loses out. Which is what's happened with many of the rail companies since the demise of BR.
Not necessarily for any natural monopoly (Such as Gas, Water, Rail Travel etc) if you are going to privatise it, you have to be very careful how it is structured and what regulation is put in place-if you can get it right you can unleash substantial growth in productivity. The Rail privatisation was flawed because of the separation of Track and Trains.
>> Edited by JagLover on Monday 4th April 13:12
Plotloss said:
Unfortunately, privatisation doesn't work either. I think that it's impossible for a company offering a service to the public such as transport to be run properly by a private company as their objectives are conflicting. The company cuts back on services and raises fares to increase their profit and the customer loses out. Which is what's happened with many of the rail companies since the demise of BR.
Core of the issue is that the business of transporting people from one place to another is but a tiny fraction of the amount of contract signing, red tape and procedure that comes part and parcel of any national requirement.
Look at Government IT projects. There is NO way that these can possibly cost what they do for the provision that they make, its the HUGE number of compliance officers and bean counters in the middle that are all charged at ludicrous rates.
Yes there has to be control but not at the cost of making something viable, which the rail could easily be, if it was allowed to get on with it.
I know someone who drives for EWS, they do RailFreight, he says business has never been so good. They are trying, but I'm sure that, they do it despite their political masters.
JagLover said:
The Rail privatisation was flawed because of the separation of Track and Trains.
>> Edited by JagLover on Monday 4th April 13:12
Good point, basically allows each one to pass the buck to the other at the expense of the service provided.
I don't disagree with all privatisation, but I do think that, as you say, it needs to be done properly and for the right reasons and it rarely is.
Does any country in the world run a rail system at a profit or even at breakeven point? Certainly in Europe they don’t. Rail travel works well in Europe and is cheap. But, only because the governments subsidise it on a massive scale. I honestly believe that rail transport as a profit making industry is not a viable proposition*. So, as someone else has said, we have to decide whether we want it or not and if yes then the government will have to pay for it. ATM we have the daft halfway house where the government wants to control it but not pay for it (properly) which leaves everyone in limbo.
* air travel for that matter only is because it’s supported by the inflated prices paid by corporate travelers – air travel for the masses at current fares and with profit would collapse if the corporate customers pulled out of the market.
Not sure what the economies regarding sea transport are but the car has to be one of the most cost effective means of automated transport on the planet.
* air travel for that matter only is because it’s supported by the inflated prices paid by corporate travelers – air travel for the masses at current fares and with profit would collapse if the corporate customers pulled out of the market.
Not sure what the economies regarding sea transport are but the car has to be one of the most cost effective means of automated transport on the planet.
t1grm said:
Does any country in the world run a rail system at a profit or even at breakeven point? Certainly in Europe they don’t. Rail travel works well in Europe and is cheap. But, only because the governments subsidise it on a massive scale. I honestly believe that rail transport as a profit making industry is not a viable proposition*. So, as someone else has said, we have to decide whether we want it or not and if yes then the government will have to pay for it. ATM we have the daft halfway house where the government wants to control it but not pay for it (properly) which leaves everyone in limbo.
* air travel for that matter only is because it’s supported by the inflated prices paid by corporate travelers – air travel for the masses at current fares and with profit would collapse if the corporate customers pulled out of the market.
Not sure what the economies regarding sea transport are but the car has to be one of the most cost effective means of automated transport on the planet.
Commuter rail traffic is financially viable if run correctly. For all other journeys rail is not only less cost effective than the car it is less environmentally friendly.
Railways have failed to make profits in the UK since about 1919 (read "Broken Rails" by Christian Wolmar).
By separating train operators from infrastructure support, the Conservatives hoped to hive off the "profitable" element of running a railway i.e. running the trains themselves, to make that side of the business attractive to commercial investors. The actual management and maintenance of the infrastucture was never going to be profitable. Unfortunately, they did try to do it on the cheap, with the disastrous situation which is only being rectified now.
By separating train operators from infrastructure support, the Conservatives hoped to hive off the "profitable" element of running a railway i.e. running the trains themselves, to make that side of the business attractive to commercial investors. The actual management and maintenance of the infrastucture was never going to be profitable. Unfortunately, they did try to do it on the cheap, with the disastrous situation which is only being rectified now.
JagLover said:
The 21Bn figure is taken completely out of context. It is a paper figure only and is to do with NR taking over in name some of the debts that the Govt has incurred during the upgrading the infrastructure
It is an amount they will owe at the end of 4 years-whats paper about that?.
I was half asleep during the employee briefings, (I work for NR) so I can't remember exactly what the chairman said, but it was definitely to do with if they alloted some figures one way, Gordon Brown would be 21Bn down, and if the other way it would be logged against NR, but it's not actually 'real' money, it's just figures on paper.
You mightn't believe it, but the amount of train delay attributable to NR is going down steadily each year.
Well, part of that 21Bn was to do with us bringing a lot of the contractors back house.
And it isn't marketing speak, we have systems that log delay time against who is responsible for it.
There is room for improvement, I'm not sayting there isn't, but the problem is good news about NR is never reported so the public only ever gets to see the bads news.
And it isn't marketing speak, we have systems that log delay time against who is responsible for it.
There is room for improvement, I'm not sayting there isn't, but the problem is good news about NR is never reported so the public only ever gets to see the bads news.
JagLover said:
A couple of days ago Network Rail revealed that its debts will reach £21Bn in four years time.
This is despite the fact that Network Rail receives TWICE the subsidy Railtrack did upon privatisation in 1996.
Punctuality is also worse than that achieved by Railtrack.
I regard Notwork Rail as a case study that no matter how badly run a company is, public ownership will make it worse.
ANOTHER LABOUR SUCCESS!?!? Another reason to vote TORY!?!?!
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff