ChatterBank0 min ago
Rail Upgrade Costs "staggering And Unacceptable"
http://
http://
How on earth has this been allowed to happen ?
When the NHS is collapsing around our ears, how can we spend £2.8b upgrading a railway that seems to work perfectly OK as it is, at least according to my journey to Paddington and back last Monday ?
http://
How on earth has this been allowed to happen ?
When the NHS is collapsing around our ears, how can we spend £2.8b upgrading a railway that seems to work perfectly OK as it is, at least according to my journey to Paddington and back last Monday ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mikey, you probably just got lucky on your trip, and I bet you didn’t travel in the peak times; google “worst late western” and you’ll be taken to any number of websites that explain that the great western main line does not run OK for a lot of the time; the websites will regale you of passenger tales of woe as they contend with delays arising from signal and points failures, train breakdowns and a host of other problems that come as “the cost of doing business” when the infrastructure dates from the 1960s and 1970s. and in the peaks, the trains are regularly crush loaded as far west as Bristol/stoke Gifford. It’s no fun being wedged in a corner with a sweaty armpit in your face, while the train stands for everal hours while network rail tries to fix yet another track circuit failure. (I know, I’ve been there.).
Nope, the great western main line is at best creaking, at worst on the verge of falling over most of the time. Doing nothing (as you appear to be suggesting?) is definitely not an option.
Nope, the great western main line is at best creaking, at worst on the verge of falling over most of the time. Doing nothing (as you appear to be suggesting?) is definitely not an option.
mikey - The rail network totally encapsulates everything that is wrong with privatising a public utility.
The whole concept has been dividied up into such a mass of competing companies that it's impossible to run a coherent service.
If you take something run for service, and turn it into something run for profit you have instant problems.
Because the 'service' aspect goes out of the window, as all focus is entirely on cost-saving and profit generation.
This leads to a virtual absence of proper investment in infrastructure, and a constant eye on cutting and minimising anything and everything - anything to save money, and simultaneously avoid spending it because that is now share-holders are pleased, and the public is shafted.
The conservative ethos behind this nonsense - that 'competition improves efficiency' has been proven to be a reckless costly nonsense.
The cncept works fine if you are Tesco, slugging it out with Aldi and Aafeway, less so if you are the rail network, or the health service.
'Market forces' have absolutely no place in public services. The rail network should be re-nationalised and run as a not-for-profit organisation staffed by people with no financial incentive whatsoever in saving money - merely doing their jobs properly, for an appropriate salary and no bonus, with appropriate accountability when dreaming up fantasies like HS3.
The whole concept has been dividied up into such a mass of competing companies that it's impossible to run a coherent service.
If you take something run for service, and turn it into something run for profit you have instant problems.
Because the 'service' aspect goes out of the window, as all focus is entirely on cost-saving and profit generation.
This leads to a virtual absence of proper investment in infrastructure, and a constant eye on cutting and minimising anything and everything - anything to save money, and simultaneously avoid spending it because that is now share-holders are pleased, and the public is shafted.
The conservative ethos behind this nonsense - that 'competition improves efficiency' has been proven to be a reckless costly nonsense.
The cncept works fine if you are Tesco, slugging it out with Aldi and Aafeway, less so if you are the rail network, or the health service.
'Market forces' have absolutely no place in public services. The rail network should be re-nationalised and run as a not-for-profit organisation staffed by people with no financial incentive whatsoever in saving money - merely doing their jobs properly, for an appropriate salary and no bonus, with appropriate accountability when dreaming up fantasies like HS3.
//dreaming up fantasies like HS3. //
andy, if you were (like me) stuck at huddersfield yesterday afternoon while the line westwards to manchester was closed for many hours because of yet another failure of the victorian infrastructure at standedge tunnel, you'll know that HS3 is neither fantasy nor unnecessary. and no, the M62 is not an option, it's choked solid most of the day.
andy, if you were (like me) stuck at huddersfield yesterday afternoon while the line westwards to manchester was closed for many hours because of yet another failure of the victorian infrastructure at standedge tunnel, you'll know that HS3 is neither fantasy nor unnecessary. and no, the M62 is not an option, it's choked solid most of the day.
//If the cost of electrifying about 125 miles of railway track has almost doubled in one year, what will the final cost of HS2 be?//
Dodger, such a comparison would not be comparing like with like and would doubtless be highly inaccurate. HS2 would be new build and project managed by the constructors. As a nation of builders we’re quite good at that, HS1 was built on time, and to budget, and HS2 can be too. On the great western, network rail are (at the same time as doing their day job) attempting to overlay a completely new railway on a system that must continue to operate whilst they do it. This has included a great deal of peripheral works such as re-doubling sections of line “rationalized” by Dr Beeching in the 1960s, to provide credible diversion routes while construction takes place. Not to mention extensive impact and environmental studies when considering working at Sydney gardens in bath, or box tunnel in Wiltshire, together with mitigations to protect heritage. all this costs, and a lot of the extra costs have arisen because the peripherals were underestimated.
Dodger, such a comparison would not be comparing like with like and would doubtless be highly inaccurate. HS2 would be new build and project managed by the constructors. As a nation of builders we’re quite good at that, HS1 was built on time, and to budget, and HS2 can be too. On the great western, network rail are (at the same time as doing their day job) attempting to overlay a completely new railway on a system that must continue to operate whilst they do it. This has included a great deal of peripheral works such as re-doubling sections of line “rationalized” by Dr Beeching in the 1960s, to provide credible diversion routes while construction takes place. Not to mention extensive impact and environmental studies when considering working at Sydney gardens in bath, or box tunnel in Wiltshire, together with mitigations to protect heritage. all this costs, and a lot of the extra costs have arisen because the peripherals were underestimated.
mushroom - 'peripherals' are never considered because HS2 is a vanity project.
centuries ago, politicians would have financed a cathedral to be built as a memorial to their greatness - now they conceive nonsenses like the Millennium Dome, and now HS2.
It's the idea they are in love with - anything else is just meaningless 'detail' for someone else to deal with, and that way lies the escalating costs.
centuries ago, politicians would have financed a cathedral to be built as a memorial to their greatness - now they conceive nonsenses like the Millennium Dome, and now HS2.
It's the idea they are in love with - anything else is just meaningless 'detail' for someone else to deal with, and that way lies the escalating costs.
//HS2 is a vanity project.//
Possibly. But I’m not entirely sure what the alternative might be. Despite the WCML being subject to a huge regeneration project involving years and years of disruption (that is still on-going at Stafford, Watford and several other places), not to mention cost overruns comparable with those now being seen on GWML, the extra line capacity for more trains this was to have provided has been used up before the project is even finished.
So what would you propose?
More trains? Nope, the infrastructure is full.
Longer trains? Nope, there’s no room to extend platforms; just go to Liverpool lime street and see how difficult even a 50foot extension would be. Virgin are doing their best, they have declassified one coach on their trains from 1st to standard. But that’s very much a measure with a finite effectiveness.
Another 30 years of disruption to the WCML, even assuming the constraints of the existing infrastructure would allow further upgrades? That’s been ruled politically unacceptable, particularly since there’s no guarantee it would actually work.
Eliminate rail freight? A possibility but it would require authority for hauliers to use 80T trucks. Do you believe such a move would be environmentally acceptable.
Call HS2 a vanity project if you like, but something will have to be done. And soon.
Possibly. But I’m not entirely sure what the alternative might be. Despite the WCML being subject to a huge regeneration project involving years and years of disruption (that is still on-going at Stafford, Watford and several other places), not to mention cost overruns comparable with those now being seen on GWML, the extra line capacity for more trains this was to have provided has been used up before the project is even finished.
So what would you propose?
More trains? Nope, the infrastructure is full.
Longer trains? Nope, there’s no room to extend platforms; just go to Liverpool lime street and see how difficult even a 50foot extension would be. Virgin are doing their best, they have declassified one coach on their trains from 1st to standard. But that’s very much a measure with a finite effectiveness.
Another 30 years of disruption to the WCML, even assuming the constraints of the existing infrastructure would allow further upgrades? That’s been ruled politically unacceptable, particularly since there’s no guarantee it would actually work.
Eliminate rail freight? A possibility but it would require authority for hauliers to use 80T trucks. Do you believe such a move would be environmentally acceptable.
Call HS2 a vanity project if you like, but something will have to be done. And soon.
"The rail network should be re-nationalised and run as a not-for-profit organisation staffed by people with no financial incentive whatsoever in saving money - merely doing their jobs properly, for an appropriate salary and no bonus,"
Been there, done that, Andy (and the T-Shirt wasn't much to write home about). Arguably the UK railways’ finest period was between the “grouping” of 1923 (when dozens of small railway companies were grouped into the “Big Four”) and WW2. That period of excellence would probably have continued but for the war. In 1945 the railways were in a terrible state having taken a severe pasting during the hostilities and during which maintenance was reduced to the bare minimum and improvements were necessarily curtailed to almost nil. The government saw the only way out of that mess as nationalisation.
The nationalised system seemed to work OK up to around the early 1960s. By then the 1955 Modernisation Plan was in full swing and steam power was being rapidly replaced by diesel and electric. Then it all seemed to fall apart. In my view the main reason for that was that there was indeed an abundance of staff “with no financial incentive whatsoever in saving money.” Alas many of them also had no incentive whatsoever to do their jobs properly by putting their customers first. Anybody who remembers the railways from the 1970s will know what I mean.
The Big Four were autonomous companies that ran their own railways lock, stock and barrel. They provided and maintained the permanent way, signalling, rolling stock and motive power. I will agree that, whilst vast improvements have been made, rail privatisation has been less than satisfactory. The principle reason for that was the ridiculous model used which separated train operators, infrastructure providers and rolling stock/motive power provision. It’s a dog’s breakfast with almost limitless opportunities to shift blame for failure between those providers (lubricated, naturally, by vast sums lost in administration and legal fees).
The current model provides virtually no competition (which was said to be the principle aim of privatisation) on the vast majority of routes and it is doubtful if that can ever be achieved. The answer is to re-engineer the service into autonomous groupings similar to the Big Four (without short term franchises). The thought of returning the service to its state in the 1970s where staff cared not whether passengers lived or died is just too horrendous to contemplate.
Been there, done that, Andy (and the T-Shirt wasn't much to write home about). Arguably the UK railways’ finest period was between the “grouping” of 1923 (when dozens of small railway companies were grouped into the “Big Four”) and WW2. That period of excellence would probably have continued but for the war. In 1945 the railways were in a terrible state having taken a severe pasting during the hostilities and during which maintenance was reduced to the bare minimum and improvements were necessarily curtailed to almost nil. The government saw the only way out of that mess as nationalisation.
The nationalised system seemed to work OK up to around the early 1960s. By then the 1955 Modernisation Plan was in full swing and steam power was being rapidly replaced by diesel and electric. Then it all seemed to fall apart. In my view the main reason for that was that there was indeed an abundance of staff “with no financial incentive whatsoever in saving money.” Alas many of them also had no incentive whatsoever to do their jobs properly by putting their customers first. Anybody who remembers the railways from the 1970s will know what I mean.
The Big Four were autonomous companies that ran their own railways lock, stock and barrel. They provided and maintained the permanent way, signalling, rolling stock and motive power. I will agree that, whilst vast improvements have been made, rail privatisation has been less than satisfactory. The principle reason for that was the ridiculous model used which separated train operators, infrastructure providers and rolling stock/motive power provision. It’s a dog’s breakfast with almost limitless opportunities to shift blame for failure between those providers (lubricated, naturally, by vast sums lost in administration and legal fees).
The current model provides virtually no competition (which was said to be the principle aim of privatisation) on the vast majority of routes and it is doubtful if that can ever be achieved. The answer is to re-engineer the service into autonomous groupings similar to the Big Four (without short term franchises). The thought of returning the service to its state in the 1970s where staff cared not whether passengers lived or died is just too horrendous to contemplate.
//Why are multiple train operators not allowed to operate on the same line at the same time (e.g. using a "slot" system similar to airports and airlines)? That would allow proper competition ... //
mainly because the infrastructure limits the number of train paths available. at Euston, there are literally no paths available for competing train companies, unless the ORR were to relieve Virgin or LondonMidland of some of theirs. this would not be popular, and would also make the services of all operators more patchy and less attractive overall to the passenger, unless tickets were to be made 100% interavailable, which would kinda dilute the competition angle.
mainly because the infrastructure limits the number of train paths available. at Euston, there are literally no paths available for competing train companies, unless the ORR were to relieve Virgin or LondonMidland of some of theirs. this would not be popular, and would also make the services of all operators more patchy and less attractive overall to the passenger, unless tickets were to be made 100% interavailable, which would kinda dilute the competition angle.
http://
http://
http://
Plenty of evidence thatthe NHS is collapsing around our ears.
But few have attempted to answer my question. How has this huge upsurge in costs been allowed to happen ? Where is all this money going to go to ? Boost the bank balances of already wealthy companies ?
As regards HS2...if all these billions of £'s are to be spent making Birmingham 15 mins quicker to reach from London, would't it be cheaper to move Birmingham closer to London ?
Use all these eye wateringly huge sums of money to build more council houses, and give us the health service that we so desperately need.
http://
http://
Plenty of evidence thatthe NHS is collapsing around our ears.
But few have attempted to answer my question. How has this huge upsurge in costs been allowed to happen ? Where is all this money going to go to ? Boost the bank balances of already wealthy companies ?
As regards HS2...if all these billions of £'s are to be spent making Birmingham 15 mins quicker to reach from London, would't it be cheaper to move Birmingham closer to London ?
Use all these eye wateringly huge sums of money to build more council houses, and give us the health service that we so desperately need.
Orderlimit....no I meant the Health Service as a whole, especially the English NHS :::
http://
http://
//give us the health service that we so desperately need. //
hospitals and schools. it's like a mantra from anyone who show their credentials when making demands on public money. percentage wise, though, few of the population actually make use of these services. for public money to make the biggest difference to as many people as possible, transport is where it needs to be spent. transport affects everybody, even if you're housebound, because your loaf of bread wouldn't arrive if there was no transport infrastructure.
hospitals and schools. it's like a mantra from anyone who show their credentials when making demands on public money. percentage wise, though, few of the population actually make use of these services. for public money to make the biggest difference to as many people as possible, transport is where it needs to be spent. transport affects everybody, even if you're housebound, because your loaf of bread wouldn't arrive if there was no transport infrastructure.
//The rail network totally encapsulates everything that is wrong with privatising a public utility.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought Newtwork Rail is state-owned.
Mikey- I thought you would approve of infrastructure spending but perhaps you are moving well to the right as in your other thread you are not happy with Osborne's inadequate efforts at reducing public debt
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought Newtwork Rail is state-owned.
Mikey- I thought you would approve of infrastructure spending but perhaps you are moving well to the right as in your other thread you are not happy with Osborne's inadequate efforts at reducing public debt
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Society & Culture9 mins ago
Other Sports11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.