Britain's Privatised Rail Network Makes Millions For Foreign State-Owned Train Companies

[Heathccfc]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/18/foreign-state-own ed-railway-british-train-companies-revenue_n_8003970.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/18/foreign-state-owned-railway-british-train-companies-revenue_n_8003970.html)

[Eric the Half a Bee]

I wonder how many foreign utilities etc are owned by the UK Government that brings income into Britain? I suspect very few.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

****ing Tory ****s

[Jimmy Jimmy]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif

[Kiffa]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif Sorry, do Labour have the power to renationalise the welsh railways then?

[Observer]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Sorry, do Labour have the power to renationalise the welsh railways then?Answer it mun.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif In fairness, you couldn't have got that more wrong.

[Mick the Miller]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif Time after time.

[Feedback]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Bollocks.lets discuss your comment though. SRA award a contract and review in 2008, 2013 and 2018 when the WG will review and potentially award the franchise to another operator. However, since the SRA have allowed DB to carry on operating the franchise, DB must be running this according to plan, which would include financial performance. Now since WG contribute towards loss making ATWs profits with its annual subsidy, indirectly WG is ensuring DB retain ownership.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Bollocks.
ATW were awarded a 15-year franchise back in 2003 by the Strategic Rail Authority with performance reviews every 5. In 2010 Arriva was bought out by Deutsche Bahn. Basically, the Welsh Government have little choice but to work with ATW. Rumour has it that ATW won't gain the next franchise and no-one would be sorry.

[TH63]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Bollocks.The SRA was set up in the year 2000. Could someone please remind us which government was in charge at the time?

[Feedback]

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/wave.gif[/IMG] Eric the Half a Bee wrote on Mon, 24 August 2015 12:37] Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Bollocks.
ATW were awarded a 15-year franchise back in 2003 by the Strategic Rail Authority with performance reviews every 5. In 2010 Arriva was bought out by Deutsche Bahn.
So, the Welsh Government didn't award them the contract (though they are responsible for the next one) and at the time ATW were awarded the franchise they weren't German owned. the fact is without the WG grant ATW/DB would be running at a loss meaning that the company would be in breach of its franchise. We are not discussing the legal consequences here, just that indirectly the WG prop up the company and its continuation of the franchise.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/wave.gif[/IMG] Eric the Half a Bee wrote on Mon, 24 August 2015 12:37] Bollocks.
ATW were awarded a 15-year franchise back in 2003 by the Strategic Rail Authority with performance reviews every 5. In 2010 Arriva was bought out by Deutsche Bahn.
So, the Welsh Government didn't award them the contract (though they are responsible for the next one) and at the time ATW were awarded the franchise they weren't German owned.
In fairness, you couldn't have got that more wrong.You appear to be suggesting that the Welsh Government should stop giving grants to ATW in order to make the company in breach of its franchise. The Welsh Government would not be able to do so or it would end up being sued. Rather than being taken to court, the Welsh Government have no other alternative but comply with propping up ATW. That's why the legal consequences are ultimately important in this issue. It's like blaming someone for the sun rising.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Bollocks.
ATW were awarded a 15-year franchise back in 2003 by the Strategic Rail Authority with performance reviews every 5. In 2010 Arriva was bought out by Deutsche Bahn. Arriva were a British company in the year 2003 when the Welsh franchise was awarded, therefore the post blaming Labour for awarding a 15 year franchise to a German owned company is utter bollocks.

[Jimmy Jimmy]

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif

[Eric the Half a Bee]

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif Take pity. It was Mick who posted it.

[Feedback]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Bollocks.
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/wave.gif[/IMG] Eric the Half a Bee wrote on Mon, 24 August 2015 12:37] ATW were awarded a 15-year franchise back in 2003 by the Strategic Rail Authority with performance reviews every 5. In 2010 Arriva was bought out by Deutsche Bahn.
So, the Welsh Government didn't award them the contract (though they are responsible for the next one) and at the time ATW were awarded the franchise they weren't German owned.
In fairness, you couldn't have got that more wrong.
the Welsh government are happy to give DB £170m subsidy per annum taking Welsh taxpayers money out of Wales and to Germany.why were such provisions included in the franchise? in other words, without WG signing up to making these payments, DB would not have touched ATW with the proverbial bargepole. so whichever way you look at it, the sale of ATW to DB was driven, in part at least, by WG.

[Feedback]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Bollocks.
ATW were awarded a 15-year franchise back in 2003 by the Strategic Rail Authority with performance reviews every 5. In 2010 Arriva was bought out by Deutsche Bahn.
So, the Welsh Government didn't award them the contract (though they are responsible for the next one) and at the time ATW were awarded the franchise they weren't German owned. why is it? the franchise was given in 2003. Labour were in power in Westminster and in Cardiff Bay.

[Barry Dragon]

They make millions? Hmm, well the government made billions in selling off the franchises. Think its a good idea then.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Sludge - Arriva Trains is German owned - and the WAG awarded them the contract - Labour fecking it up again http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Bollocks.
ATW were awarded a 15-year franchise back in 2003 by the Strategic Rail Authority with performance reviews every 5. In 2010 Arriva was bought out by Deutsche Bahn.
So, the Welsh Government didn't award them the contract (though they are responsible for the next one) and at the time ATW were awarded the franchise they weren't German owned.
In fairness, you couldn't have got that more wrong.Because you numbskull the franchise was awarded when ATW were a British owned company. The idea that Labour awarded a 15 year contract to a German owned company is bollocks. Suppose you award me a 12 month contract to destroy your sensitive waste, then after 3 months I sell my company to a, say, Polish outfit. Would you accept that you had awarded a 12 month ccontract to a Polish compan? Of ccourse not.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

They make millions? Hmm, well the government made billions in selling off the franchises. Think its a good idea then.And the government spent billions subsidising the franchises. In fact the taxpayer has spent around 3 times more on the railways since privatisation than it did before.

[ragbone]

Lets re open the mines as well

[Feedback]

this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34276868) will make some happy. I imagine others will be spluttering in to their morning coffee.

In either case people should wait for the details before making a judgement call.

[Feedback]

Whereas Corbyn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34306333) is diametrically opposed and has stated his policy intention regarding nationalisation. It seems a cost effective method of bringing control back to the state.

If the government treated this as a business and ensured civil servants stayed away from running the business side then it could work. The reality is a nationalised rail network would be run by civil servants and any cost saving from acquisition would probably be lost due to the lack of commercial nous in the civil service

[blue sky]

this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34276868) will make some happy. I imagine others will be spluttering in to their morning coffee.Top-end scrunt.

[archibald leitch]

Whereas Corbyn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34306333) is diametrically opposed and has stated his policy intention regarding nationalisation. It seems a cost effective method of bringing control back to the state.Can you please explain why you think civil servants will be any worse than anyone else at running the railways (or any other company for that matter)

[Feedback]

I've worked with civil servants. They generally haven't a clue on how to run a business effectively. That is not their raison d'etre and you shouldn't pretend it is.

[blue sky]

this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34276868) will make some happy. I imagine others will be spluttering in to their morning coffee.
In either case people should wait for the details before making a judgement call.http://www.ccmb.co.uk/legacy.php?t=getfile&id=8284&private=0

[Feedback]

Shrooms, that's the only explanation

[archibald leitch]

I've worked with civil servants. They generally haven't a clue on how to run a business effectively. That is not their raison d'etre and you shouldn't pretend it is.On the other hand, you seem happy for clueless muppets in the private sector to run anything without criticism.

[Feedback]

Not quite archie. Civil servants are there to run the bureaucratic state. That is not the same as running a business. Unless you think that running a business and administering the state bureaucracy can be done by the same people - in which case why are you against the private sector delivering public services?

That's rhetorical so you don't need to answer. The fact is you big up the state at every time (despite once claiming to be an anarcho syndicalist). It's ludicrous for you to suggest the civil service can run business better than business leaders. All you are doing is making yourself look more foolish and dogmatic than usual

[archibald leitch]

Not quite archie. Civil servants are there to run the bureaucratic state. That is not the same as running a business. Unless you think that running a business and administering the state bureaucracy can be done by the same people - in which case why are you against the private sector delivering public services?Please try to respond to the post rather than the poster.

[Feedback]

Not quite archie. Civil servants are there to run the bureaucratic state. That is not the same as running a business. Unless you think that running a business and administering the state bureaucracy can be done by the same people - in which case why are you against the private sector delivering public services?
That's rhetorical so you don't need to answer. The fact is you big up the state at every time (despite once claiming to be an anarcho syndicalist). It's ludicrous for you to suggest the civil service can run business better than business leaders. All you are doing is making yourself look more foolish and dogmatic than usual with respect to delivering rail services, you need the efficiency brought by the private sector coupled with the efficacy brought by the public sector. There needs to be a half way house that meets the aims of the customers whilst ensuring costs are managed in line with best practice.

[archibald leitch]

Not quite archie. Civil servants are there to run the bureaucratic state. That is not the same as running a business. Unless you think that running a business and administering the state bureaucracy can be done by the same people - in which case why are you against the private sector delivering public services?
That's rhetorical so you don't need to answer. The fact is you big up the state at every time (despite once claiming to be an anarcho syndicalist). It's ludicrous for you to suggest the civil service can run business better than business leaders. All you are doing is making yourself look more foolish and dogmatic than usual
Yes yes. We know you don't understand anarcho syndicalism but we were not talking about that . Rather than personal digs would you like to explain why you think it logical to dismiss half a million people as being in capable of doing something without knowledge of their qualifications or experience. Ok. One final try. How do you know that there is no one in the civil service present or future that cannot run the train system in the UK?

[Feedback]

Not quite archie. Civil servants are there to run the bureaucratic state. That is not the same as running a business. Unless you think that running a business and administering the state bureaucracy can be done by the same people - in which case why are you against the private sector delivering public services?
That's rhetorical so you don't need to answer. The fact is you big up the state at every time (despite once claiming to be an anarcho syndicalist). It's ludicrous for you to suggest the civil service can run business better than business leaders. All you are doing is making yourself look more foolish and dogmatic than usual
Yes yes. We know you don't understand anarcho syndicalism but we were not talking about that . Rather than personal digs would you like to explain why you think it logical to dismiss half a million people as being in capable of doing something without knowledge of their qualifications or experience.
Please try to respond to the post rather than the poster. Whilst this may not be the case for all, generally civil servants have a civil servant mindset rather than any sort of acumen regarding business.

[archibald leitch]

Not quite archie. Civil servants are there to run the bureaucratic state. That is not the same as running a business. Unless you think that running a business and administering the state bureaucracy can be done by the same people - in which case why are you against the private sector delivering public services?
That's rhetorical so you don't need to answer. The fact is you big up the state at every time (despite once claiming to be an anarcho syndicalist). It's ludicrous for you to suggest the civil service can run business better than business leaders. All you are doing is making yourself look more foolish and dogmatic than usual
Yes yes. We know you don't understand anarcho syndicalism but we were not talking about that . Rather than personal digs would you like to explain why you think it logical to dismiss half a million people as being in capable of doing something without knowledge of their qualifications or experience.
Please try to respond to the post rather than the poster.
I am well aware of what anarcho-syndicalism is archie, it seems with your constant wishing to increase the size of the state that you do not.So you accept that there may be people in the civil service that could do it but font want them doing it on ideological grounds. Fair enough it is clear now.

[Feedback]

Not quite archie. Civil servants are there to run the bureaucratic state. That is not the same as running a business. Unless you think that running a business and administering the state bureaucracy can be done by the same people - in which case why are you against the private sector delivering public services?
That's rhetorical so you don't need to answer. The fact is you big up the state at every time (despite once claiming to be an anarcho syndicalist). It's ludicrous for you to suggest the civil service can run business better than business leaders. All you are doing is making yourself look more foolish and dogmatic than usual
Yes yes. We know you don't understand anarcho syndicalism but we were not talking about that . Rather than personal digs would you like to explain why you think it logical to dismiss half a million people as being in capable of doing something without knowledge of their qualifications or experience.
Please try to respond to the post rather than the poster.
I am well aware of what anarcho-syndicalism is archie, it seems with your constant wishing to increase the size of the state that you do not.
I am not dismissing the civil service Archie, I am saying they don't have the necessary skills to run business. Running business is very different to running the bureaucracy of the state. This is no different from saying that generally business leaders don't make good civil servants. I think only the dogmatic, blinkered, one eyed would try and say that civil servants can run business as well as business leaders.I'm not sure how you can level the ideological argument at me here. I have said I'd like to see a halfway house where business leaders run the business side of things and the civil servants run the public service delivery side of things. I'm looking to get the private sector efficiency and public sector efficacy to come together. I have no idea what it is you are arguing other than the civil service is the best at running everything that has ever existed or that will ever exist.

[archibald leitch]

I never once said I don't want them doing it.
REALLY?
If the government treated this as a business and ensured civil servants stayed away from running the business side then it could work. The reality is a nationalised rail network would be run by civil servants and any cost saving from acquisition would probably be lost due to the lack of commercial nous in the civil service
I never said they couldn't run it. I said they shouldn't run the business side of it. It helps if you read what I wrote rather than making lots of assumptions.
Whilst this may not be the case for all, generally civil servants have a civil servant mindset rather than any sort of acumen regarding business.
Assumptions? More a case of me being silly enough to think you meant what you said when you actually meant something different.Can you quote me saying the civil service is the best at running anything? I merely asked why you have decided that out of half a million civil servants there is no one capable of running a business. At no point have I said they should run the business, I was just challenging your sweeping generalisation and dismissal of the skills and talents of hundreds of thousands of people you know nothing about.

[Feedback]

Archie

I said I don't think the civil service shouldn't run the business side of things. That is totally different from saying the civil service shouldn't be involved in the business.

If you don't understand what I mean by that then perhaps you should ask for further clarification as it's clear, to me at least, you've not really understood what that comments actually means.

[archibald leitch]

Archie http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif

[Feedback]

So you don't understand what that means. Fine. I will explain.

The business side of things relates to all commercial activities whereas the non commercial activities, such as setting the strategic political agenda, would be within the remit of the civil service.

An organisation can have business and non business activities. The fact you need this explained makes me think you don't really appreciate what is required in a commercial environment.

[archibald leitch]

So you don't understand what that means. Fine. I will explain. Clearly i ant going to get it.

[Feedback]

It wasn't patronising. I clearly stated at the outset that civil servants should stay away from the business side of things and your responses demonstrated you didn't fully understand the point that was made.

The fact that no civil servants currently run the top UK businesses indicate, to me at least, that civil servants don't have the necessary skills required to run a business of the magnitude of a nationalised rail industry. I can only form an opinion based on the facts available to us.

If you have facts that demonstrate civil servants running national billion pound businesses successfully then please share it with us.

[archibald leitch]

It wasn't patronising. I clearly stated at the outset that civil servants should stay away from the business side of things and your responses demonstrated you didn't fully understand the point that was made.I could earn much more than i do in the private sector - but i dont want to work in the private sector. I am happy providing a service to the public. I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, but it is a fact none the less.

[Feedback]

The fact that few if any of the ceo's and fd's of the ftse 100 are civil servants or have never been civil servants indicates that civil servants don't have the necessary business acumen. I find it amusing you are trying to argue that they do.

Just because you don't want a job in the private sector doesn't mean the half a million civil servants wouldn't want a top ftse job.

I also think you demonstrate your aloof nature by claiming you wish to serve the public, as if no one in the private sector serves the public or the public interest.

[archibald leitch]

The fact that few if any of the ceo's and fd's of the ftse 100 are civil servants or have never been civil servants indicates that civil servants don't have the necessary business acumen. this is beyond tedious now.

[Feedback]

It sure is. You're arguing that the best people to run business are not business leaders but civil servants.

[Feedback]

Your thoughts on this (http://bit.ly/13EL2kF) article archie?

[archibald leitch]

It sure is. You're arguing that the best people to run business are not business leaders but civil servants.Am I? Care to quote where I have said anything remotely close to that?

[archibald leitch]

Your thoughts on this (http://bit.ly/13EL2kF) article archie? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif

[Feedback]

Archie

The mail took direct quotes from the UKs top civil servant. The fact it's the daily mail therefore is irrelevant. It's also refreshing to see that you now accept that business leaders are better at running the business side of things and civil servants are best at running other aspects.

[archibald leitch]

ArchieYour ability to twist my words into something I have not said is on par with the daily mail, and just as pathetic.

[Feedback]

Archie
The mail took direct quotes from the UKs top civil servant. The fact it's the daily mail therefore is irrelevant. It's also refreshing to see that you now accept that business leaders are better at running the business side of things and civil servants are best at running other aspects.I've not twisted anything, certainly not intentionally. You cannot deny the facts just because you don't like the source. The head of the civil service has definitely said the civil service lacks business acumen. That is undeniable.

[archibald leitch]

I've not twisted anything, certainly not intentionally.
Presumably you can provide a quote from me that backs the following up thendont waste too much time looking, cos you wont find one.

[Feedback]

Archie

I can't quote for some reason but in this (http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.php?t=msg&th=409212&goto=4531264&rid=20253#msg_4531264) post you respond stating you haven't ever said civil servants make better business leaders than business leaders. If you've never said it then that implies you must think business leaders are better at running business than civil servants.

Maybe we can avoid all this obfuscation if you can just say outright who you think are better at running business, it's either:

Business leaders; or

Civil servants

Who do you think are best suited for running business?

[archibald leitch]

ArchieIt implies no such thing. I said what i meant, i meant what i said. Why do you always think i am implying something different from what i am actually saying? If you dont understand what i am saying, ask.

[archibald leitch]

ArchieI take each and every individual on her or his own merits.

[Feedback]

So you don't think one group may be on average better suited to the task than the other group?

[Feedback]

Archie
I can't quote for some reason but in this (http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.php?t=msg&th=409212&goto=4531264&rid=20253#msg_4531264) post you respond stating you haven't ever said civil servants make better business leaders than business leaders. If you've never said it then that implies you must think business leaders are better at running business than civil servants.Maybe it's because your writing style often answers a different question to the one that was asked.

[archibald leitch]

Archie
I can't quote for some reason but in this (http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.php?t=msg&th=409212&goto=4531264&rid=20253#msg_4531264) post you respond stating you haven't ever said civil servants make better business leaders than business leaders. If you've never said it then that implies you must think business leaders are better at running business than civil servants.
It implies no such thing. I said what i meant, i meant what i said. Why do you always think i am implying something different from what i am actually saying? If you dont understand what i am saying, ask.im off out. ta ta http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/wave.gif

[Feedback]

Nothing g wrong with my reading style, enjoy your night

[Heathccfc]

Shrooms, that's the only explanationUnder private ownership, the journey time from Cardiff to London has not improved since the 70's, disgraceful.