|
|
Post by owainsutton on Sept 30, 2019 17:46:15 GMT
IIRC Chiltern was the only franchise other than the Heathrow Express which was 'profit-making' from the start of nationalisation.
Because British Rail had invested heavily in upgrading the line and the services in the preceding years.
The Class 165s which make up the bulk of the fleet were BR-build in the early 1990s, and the 168s and 170s are derived from that design by the privatised successors to BREL.
Oh, and those BR-built Mark 3 carriages, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 30, 2019 17:51:53 GMT
IIRC Chiltern was the only franchise other than the Heathrow Express which was 'profit-making' from the start of nationalisation. Because British Rail had invested heavily in upgrading the line and the services in the preceding years. The Class 165s which make up the bulk of the fleet were BR-build in the early 1990s, and the 168s and 170s are derived from that design by the privatised successors to BREL. Oh, and those BR-built Mark 3 carriages, too. Many, many years ago it was known in (part of) the train planning office as Gwyn's Private Railway. I did the unit and traincrew diagrams for it. It is a very, very different beast these days. And, in many ways, very different from other franchises. Would it have happened without privatisation? |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Sept 30, 2019 17:54:32 GMT
IIRC Chiltern was the only franchise other than the Heathrow Express which was 'profit-making' from the start of nationalisation. Because British Rail had invested heavily in upgrading the line and the services in the preceding years. The Class 165s which make up the bulk of the fleet were BR-build in the early 1990s, and the 168s and 170s are derived from that design by the privatised successors to BREL. Oh, and those BR-built Mark 3 carriages, too. Many, many years ago it was known in (part of) the train planning office as Gwyn's Private Railway. I did the unit and traincrew diagrams for it. It is a very, very different beast these days. And, in many ways, very different from other franchises. Would it have happened without privatisation? Was the BR investment to create a sort of "jewel in the crown" franchise that was really attractive for bidders? |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Sept 30, 2019 21:49:07 GMT
There are lots of places where the taxi services are mainly or significantly provided by owners drivers from the local Asian community. There are some where they supply vehicles and drivers for a particular candidate/party at an election. My understanding was that it was illegal for candidates to supply paid for taxis to ferry voters to the polling station. Private cars driven by volunteers is another matter. However, if the volunteer taxi driver expected any future reward for taking a voter to the polling station that might get interesting. I'm on my phone at the moment so can't find the exact statutory reference for this. David/Tony may know off the top of their heads! Used to be the case. I think the law was changed at some stage. There were complaints in Pendle last year that one or more taxi operators were phoning people up from their taxi office to tell people they were about to send a car out to take them to vote. I don't know what came of it if anything and it wasn't a ward where we were involved. (The complaints were against a Conservative candidate in that case). |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,672 
|
Post by pl on Oct 1, 2019 8:22:22 GMT
My understanding was that it was illegal for candidates to supply paid for taxis to ferry voters to the polling station. Private cars driven by volunteers is another matter. However, if the volunteer taxi driver expected any future reward for taking a voter to the polling station that might get interesting. I'm on my phone at the moment so can't find the exact statutory reference for this. David/Tony may know off the top of their heads! Used to be the case. I think the law was changed at some stage. There were complaints in Pendle last year that one or more taxi operators were phoning people up from their taxi office to tell people they were about to send a car out to take them to vote. I don't know what came of it if anything and it wasn't a ward where we were involved. (The complaints were against a Conservative candidate in that case). This is a great example of why we need a consolidated act for election law. There have been too many changes for any reasonable person to keep track! |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 1, 2019 8:25:44 GMT
Used to be the case. I think the law was changed at some stage. There were complaints in Pendle last year that one or more taxi operators were phoning people up from their taxi office to tell people they were about to send a car out to take them to vote. I don't know what came of it if anything and it wasn't a ward where we were involved. (The complaints were against a Conservative candidate in that case). This is a great example of why we need a consolidated act for election law. There have been too many changes for any reasonable person to keep track! The Law Commission is working on it and hopes to report by the end of the year: www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/electoral-law/Really it needs entirely new legislation. The essentials of electoral law have remained unaltered since the ballot was introduced in the 1870s. Campaign spending regulation is a mess. |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,672
|
Post by pl on Oct 1, 2019 8:28:49 GMT
This is a great example of why we need a consolidated act for election law. There have been too many changes for any reasonable person to keep track! The Law Commission is working on it and hopes to report by the end of the year: www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/electoral-law/Really it needs entirely new legislation. The essentials of electoral law have remained unaltered since the ballot was introduced in the 1870s. Campaign spending regulation is a mess. Yes, I’m very much in favour. I can see a couple of partisan issues surrounding third party spending and voter ID... |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 1, 2019 9:35:37 GMT
My understanding was that it was illegal for candidates to supply paid for taxis to ferry voters to the polling station. Private cars driven by volunteers is another matter. However, if the volunteer taxi driver expected any future reward for taking a voter to the polling station that might get interesting. I'm on my phone at the moment so can't find the exact statutory reference for this. David/Tony may know off the top of their heads! Used to be the case. I think the law was changed at some stage. There were complaints in Pendle last year that one or more taxi operators were phoning people up from their taxi office to tell people they were about to send a car out to take them to vote. I don't know what came of it if anything and it wasn't a ward where we were involved. (The complaints were against a Conservative candidate in that case). I have masses of anecdotes of voters delighting in getting one party (usually Tories) to drive them to the polling station and then telling them , when safely returned home, just how they had voted.Sadly, though, not all voters are so independently minded. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Oct 1, 2019 10:10:42 GMT
How would nationalisation reduce fares to a sufficient degree to allow "more working class people ... to commute" ? Or at all ... I seem to remember fares going up every year under BR by more than the rate of inflation. I seem to remember state-owned LNER having the highest price rise off all companies in 2019. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Oct 1, 2019 10:41:42 GMT
My understanding was that it was illegal for candidates to supply paid for taxis to ferry voters to the polling station. Private cars driven by volunteers is another matter. However, if the volunteer taxi driver expected any future reward for taking a voter to the polling station that might get interesting. I'm on my phone at the moment so can't find the exact statutory reference for this. David/Tony may know off the top of their heads! Used to be the case. I think the law was changed at some stage. There were complaints in Pendle last year that one or more taxi operators were phoning people up from their taxi office to tell people they were about to send a car out to take them to vote. I don't know what came of it if anything and it wasn't a ward where we were involved. (The complaints were against a Conservative candidate in that case). I've heard similar rumours/allegations about sitting councillors in another borough. Definitely not of a party affiliation that is associated with any "Asian vote". |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by iang on Oct 1, 2019 12:13:31 GMT
Used to be the case. I think the law was changed at some stage. There were complaints in Pendle last year that one or more taxi operators were phoning people up from their taxi office to tell people they were about to send a car out to take them to vote. I don't know what came of it if anything and it wasn't a ward where we were involved. (The complaints were against a Conservative candidate in that case). I have masses of anecdotes of voters delighting in getting one party (usually Tories) to drive them to the polling station and then telling them , when safely returned home, just how they had voted.Sadly, though, not all voters are so independently minded. I can remember in 92 in Yardley doing a car call and it was an old lady who took 5 minutes to get into the car, and then said "Can my friend come too?". Which took another 5 minutes, and I'm sure the friend voted Tory, so the whole round trip took at least half an hour for precisely no advantage in votes! |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Oct 13, 2019 16:47:27 GMT
I generally agree with your assessment. Chiltern's trains are fast,frequent and usually quite cheap,especially their local trains. I did High Wycombe to Aylesbury,which is roughly 15 miles for only £5.00,which seems very cheap to other operators. The reason Chiltern has done is that I think they were forced to compete. My point is nationalisation would allow the government to access latent demand for train services by nationalising franchises one by one, establishing a national stock manufacturer with a consistent stock investment plan. That would enable the government-owned franchise to gradually increase capacity and they could make a long-term investment plan in electrification and trackwork (instead of the current silly 5 year Network Rail investment plan) that means modal shift would occur and masses more people would be attracted to the railways by cheap fares, modern fleets,fast services and a better chance of a seat coupled with a wider transport strategy including an integrated feeder bus network, reasonable central government rolling investment in cycle lanes/highways and SOV(Single Occupancy Vehicle) tolls on motorways and trunk roads (the tolls would pay for the transport investment.) My idea for the network would be a basic frequency of 1tph on all lines for each franchise plus a number of services added per hour based on popularity. I would anticipate most existing timetables would not change based on the new formula but regional lines that currently receive a poor services would receive a decent service,paid for by profits on the more popular lines. A lot of the ideas have been tried and tested by DB,which is very successful. Would this be by nationalising an existing supplier or by establishing a new entity? Would it have a monopoly of supply? No monopoly- I would pour money into R and D and then focus the SOE mainly on the export market,but ensure that there always was capacity for a continuous programme of rolling stock replacement/cascade for each state-owned TOC. Given Bombardier's performance at the moment, I'd buy the UK rail business off them. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Oct 13, 2019 16:51:33 GMT
I generally agree with your assessment. Chiltern's trains are fast,frequent and usually quite cheap,especially their local trains. I did High Wycombe to Aylesbury,which is roughly 15 miles for only £5.00,which seems very cheap to other operators. The reason Chiltern has done is that I think they were forced to compete. My point is nationalisation would allow the government to access latent demand for train services by nationalising franchises one by one, establishing a national stock manufacturer with a consistent stock investment plan. That would enable the government-owned franchise to gradually increase capacity and they could make a long-term investment plan in electrification and trackwork (instead of the current silly 5 year Network Rail investment plan) that means modal shift would occur and masses more people would be attracted to the railways by cheap fares, modern fleets,fast services and a better chance of a seat coupled with a wider transport strategy including an integrated feeder bus network, reasonable central government rolling investment in cycle lanes/highways and SOV(Single Occupancy Vehicle) tolls on motorways and trunk roads (the tolls would pay for the transport investment.) My idea for the network would be a basic frequency of 1tph on all lines for each franchise plus a number of services added per hour based on popularity. I would anticipate most existing timetables would not change based on the new formula but regional lines that currently receive a poor services would receive a decent service,paid for by profits on the more popular lines. A lot of the ideas have been tried and tested by DB,which is very successful. Which other rail operator competes with Chiltern between High Wycombe and Aylesbury? If you think the Tube would be any sort of competition on that particular route, then think again. You'd have to get a bus in the wrong direction to get on the Tube and LU doesn't serve Aylesbury. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 13, 2019 18:29:04 GMT
I have masses of anecdotes of voters delighting in getting one party (usually Tories) to drive them to the polling station and then telling them , when safely returned home, just how they had voted.Sadly, though, not all voters are so independently minded. I can remember in 92 in Yardley doing a car call and it was an old lady who took 5 minutes to get into the car, and then said "Can my friend come too?". Which took another 5 minutes, and I'm sure the friend voted Tory, so the whole round trip took at least half an hour for precisely no advantage in votes! Half an hour? I once spent an hour taking a lady named Mrs Tansey to vote. That evening, at the count, we were called over to see the spoilt papers. "And I've rejected this one as the voter can be identified..."A ballot paper signed by Mrs Tansey. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 13, 2019 18:35:17 GMT
Would this be by nationalising an existing supplier or by establishing a new entity? Would it have a monopoly of supply? No monopoly- I would pour money into R and D and then focus the SOE mainly on the export market,but ensure that there always was capacity for a continuous programme of rolling stock replacement/cascade for each state-owned TOC. Given Bombardier's performance at the moment, I'd buy the UK rail business off them. SOE = state-owned enterprise? Whose money do you intend pouring in, and why? Why would overseas markets buy from the UK rather than their own providers? |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Oct 13, 2019 18:37:46 GMT
I can remember in 92 in Yardley doing a car call and it was an old lady who took 5 minutes to get into the car, and then said "Can my friend come too?". Which took another 5 minutes, and I'm sure the friend voted Tory, so the whole round trip took at least half an hour for precisely no advantage in votes! Half an hour? I once spent an hour taking a lady named Mrs Tansey to vote. That evening, at the count, we were called over to see the spoilt papers. "And I've rejected this one as the voter can be identified..."A ballot paper signed by Mrs Tansey. Had she voted for your party? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 13, 2019 18:37:49 GMT
Which other rail operator competes with Chiltern between High Wycombe and Aylesbury? If you think the Tube would be any sort of competition on that particular route, then think again. You'd have to get a bus in the wrong direction to get on the Tube and LU doesn't serve Aylesbury. Your "reply" bears no relation to my question. You suggested that High Wycombe to Aylesbury fares were held down by competition. What competition? I never mentioned the Tube, which doesn't go anywhere near the area in question. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 13, 2019 18:38:29 GMT
Half an hour? I once spent an hour taking a lady named Mrs Tansey to vote. That evening, at the count, we were called over to see the spoilt papers. "And I've rejected this one as the voter can be identified..."A ballot paper signed by Mrs Tansey. Had she voted for your party? Of course ! |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Oct 13, 2019 19:05:02 GMT
No monopoly- I would pour money into R and D and then focus the SOE mainly on the export market,but ensure that there always was capacity for a continuous programme of rolling stock replacement/cascade for each state-owned TOC. Given Bombardier's performance at the moment, I'd buy the UK rail business off them. SOE = state-owned enterprise? Whose money do you intend pouring in, and why? Why would overseas markets buy from the UK rather than their own providers? 1)Yes,SOE=State-owned enterprise. 2)I would reinvest the rail premiums the government gets paid by the TOC because the new rolling stock manufacturer would be able to sell subsidised stock once the company was set up to the state TOC's to reduce the fare rises needed to pay for the new stock. At least rail users could see new stock (and cascades to other,less economically sound franchises to enable a frequency increase at a reasonable price) to justify their fare increases. 3) Assuming Brexit is cancelled here,overseas providers would buy from the UK because we could offer hydrogen and battery stock with the help of cooperation of the new stock manufacturer with companies like Vivarail and the people behind the Class 769 Flex's. I know some other manufacturers offer some hydrogen stock but we could get a slice of the market if we're quick. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Oct 13, 2019 19:24:47 GMT
If you think the Tube would be any sort of competition on that particular route, then think again. You'd have to get a bus in the wrong direction to get on the Tube and LU doesn't serve Aylesbury. Your "reply" bears no relation to my question. You suggested that High Wycombe to Aylesbury fares were held down by competition. What competition? I never mentioned the Tube, which doesn't go anywhere near the area in question. Sorry, I haven't been on the forum for so long, I've forgotten what I'd said in my original post:D .I meant to say the 300(?) bus between Aylesbury and High Wycombe operated by Arriva,which is slower but priced competitively and the bus station is in a much better place than the train station is for High Wycombe residents. The bus ticket also gives you use of the Arriva network all the way from Maidenhead and Reading to Amersham/Chesham/Aylesbury,which is useful if you're coming from further afield |
|
