British Rail should it be brought back?

[unbeliever]

You tell me. You seem to know.

 

None. Unlike private operators who are required to invest.

That's at least 3 times this has been pointed out now. You picked a bad example of "successful" state operators. If state operation works so well you should be able to find another example rather than trying to cling onto this one.

Edited September 11, 2016 by unbeliever

[Robin-H]

The East Coast Line actually made a £41million loss in the last year of operation..

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3402884/East-Coast-profits-derailed-franchise-costs-accounts-company-pre-tax-loss-41m.html

[I1L2T3]

The East Coast Line actually made a £41million loss in the last year of operation..

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3402884/East-Coast-profits-derailed-franchise-costs-accounts-company-pre-tax-loss-41m.html

 

The link explains why: the costs associated with having to convert back to a franchise.

 

So explain just how this supports your argument. I'm intrigued but give it a try.

 

---------- Post added 11-09-2016 at 11:20 ----------

 

None. Unlike private operators who are required to invest.

That's at least 3 times this has been pointed out now. You picked a bad example of "successful" state operators. If state operation works so well you should be able to find another example rather than trying to cling onto this one.

 

I'm not clinging to anything, and you can't prove that having to replace rolling stock at some future point in time would have caused the company to become excessively unprofitable.

 

Rail privatisation is a mess. Everybody knows it.

[Robin-H]

The link explains why: the costs associated with having to convert back to a franchise.

 

So explain just how this supports your argument. I'm intrigued but give it a try.

 

---------- Post added 11-09-2016 at 11:20 ----------

 

 

I'm not clinging to anything, and you can't prove that having to replace rolling stock at some future point in time would have caused the company to become excessively unprofitable.

 

Rail privatisation is a mess. Everybody knows it.

 

Please pray tell, what argument is that? I have expressed only fact in this thread, not opinion.

[unbeliever]

 

I'm not clinging to anything, and you can't prove that having to replace rolling stock at some future point in time would have caused the company to become excessively unprofitable.

 

Rail privatisation is a mess. Everybody knows it.

 

I'm not claiming to have proven anything. I'm only claiming that the comparison is invalid. Your example of a successful state operator is nothing of the kind because they were not treated equally.

[I1L2T3]

Please pray tell, what argument is that? I have expressed only fact in this thread, not opinion.

 

You seemed to be inferring that the loss made in the last year of the company was somehow related to it being a public sector company, evidence of it failing in the public sector.

 

The fact is that the losses were caused by the costs of having to convert back to a private franchise. Your link states that clearly.

[Robin-H]

You seemed to be inferring that the loss made in the last year of the company was somehow related to it being a public sector company, evidence of it failing in the public sector.

 

The fact is that the losses were caused by the costs of having to convert back to a private franchise. Your link states that clearly.

 

You may think what you like about what I was inferring. I wasn't actually inferring anything - I was merely providing a link. As I will repeat, I have expressed no opinion on the matter, only provided the facts.

 

If you feel those facts back up your side of the argument then you should be pleased no?

[I1L2T3]

I'm not claiming to have proven anything. I'm only claiming that the comparison is invalid. Your example of a successful state operator is nothing of the kind because they were not treated equally.

 

Really?

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3491976/MARKET-REPORT-Wheels-come-Stagecoach-worries-East-Coast-rail-franchise-send-shares-tumbling-5-4.html

 

This suggests that things aren't going well......again. At the rate that the publicly owned ECT was returning money to the Treasury the cost of the new rolling stock could have been entirely covered by 2025 without further ongoing debt. The interim costs of borrowing would have been minimal as borrowing costs for government are extremely low at present, much lower than commercial loans available to private companies.

 

The return to a franchise is a rotten deal for taxpayers.

 

And you need to understand economics a bit better.

 

---------- Post added 11-09-2016 at 12:07 ----------

 

You may think what you like about what I was inferring. I wasn't actually inferring anything - I was merely providing a link. As I will repeat, I have expressed no opinion on the matter, only provided the facts.

 

If you feel those facts back up your side of the argument then you should be pleased no?

 

Forum rules are that when you provide a link you should provide some context or opinion that explains why you are posting it.

 

That would stop others having to guess. I'll report it to mods next time becsuse that kind of posting strategy adds nothing.

[Robin-H]

Really?

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3491976/MARKET-REPORT-Wheels-come-Stagecoach-worries-East-Coast-rail-franchise-send-shares-tumbling-5-4.html

 

This suggests that things aren't going well......again. At the rate that the publicly owned ECT was returning money to the Treasury the cost of the new rolling stock could have been entirely covered by 2025 without further ongoing debt. The interim costs of borrowing would have been minimal as borrowing costs for government are extremely low at present, much lower than commercial loans available to private companies.

 

The return to a franchise is a rotten deal for taxpayers.

 

And you need to understand economics a bit better.

 

---------- Post added 11-09-2016 at 12:07 ----------

 

 

Forum rules are that when you provide a link you should provide some context or opinion that explains why you are posting it.

 

That would stop others having to guess. I'll report it to mods next time becsuse that kind of posting strategy adds nothing.

 

The context was already stated.

 

I said that 'The East Coast Line actually made a £41million loss in the last year of operation..' and then provided a link to the article where that was. What is your problem with that exactly?

 

EDIT: I have just refreshed my memory of the rules and read through them again. I cannot find anything about saying one has to provide context or an opinion when providing a link.

 

I agree that providing context is important (which is why I did), but I can't actually see that anywhere in the rules. Perhaps you would care to point it out for me..

Edited September 11, 2016 by Robin-H

[mancmart]

Unbeliever, you talk utter nonsense.

let's not get all political or philosophical, simple math;

if money made from customers is re-invested , then there is better scope for improvement.

Services can then be aimed at the needs of the public.

 

You are using this argument to stamp your right wing views on this forum, which is your right, but there is an air of superiority to your tone.

 

I think that you are in a minority because people on this forum understand the needs of the people.

Edited September 11, 2016 by mancmart
too extreme