Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
t1234

East Coast Mainline Pays Taxpayers £1Bn Sparking Fresh Reprivatisation Fury

Recommended Posts

Anger is growing over the return of the east coast mainline to private hands after it emerged that it had generated £1bn for UK taxpayers since 2009.

The east coast mainline paid a record £235m back to the government in its final full year as a state-owned company, a 12% increase on the previous year. That means the franchise, run by Directly Operated Railways (DOR), has returned more than £1bn to the public purse over the past five years, sparking renewed calls for it to remain in public ownership.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/04/east-coast-mainline-fury-reprivatisation-plan

Some privitisation defied common sense like the trains and the utilities. I wonder how long before any party willing to have the courage to re-nationalise ? Can't see either Tory or Labour for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a comparison with the incoming contracts this is meaningless

I believe the previous private contract was costing the company 1.4 billion over 7 years.

A 1 billion profit in 5 years would suggest the state has returned exactly the same profit as the private company (200M a year).

To be honest it's probably way more than that considering the mess/debts the folding private company left behind though. The fact was they didn't actually pay very much of the 200M per annum they were supposed to (hence why East Coast is now state run).

Profitability of the line has been steadily increasing, and I can personally testify it's probably the best network I've been on recently (good wifi, good prices, clean, quick, etc etc).

There's a national pride in the staff as well. I'd forgotten what that was like! They seem very proud it's both British owned and the best network currently operating. Good on them I say.

Does seem ideologically demented to push through a sale simply because it's showing the other private monopolies up. But then this current bunch of Tories do ideologically demented brilliantly.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

East Coast is the only train journey I've actually enjoyed in recent years (finding a decent priced first class ticket helped, although that included connections with other companies with rather lower standards in the same journey). Quality older rolling stock instead of the modern rubbish other long distant routes I've used are stuck with and a good service. Wasn't fast (Edinburgh to Inverness) but that's not East Coast's fault and I don't really care that it's not when the journey is pleasant, a welcome change from the fast and unpleasant everything is hell-bent on moving to.

I see no good case for re-privatisation. As for privatisation as a whole it's hard to know how good or bad it could be, since what we got wasn't a privatised railway but a horrific product of Satan's nightmares for combining the worst parts of both public and private ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah c'mon, British Rail was one of the most craptastic companies in the UK

It was crap.

But not really comparable as it cost us about 75% less.

Was underfunded. And showed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

ah c'mon, British Rail was one of the most craptastic companies in the UK

Yeah, it was so crap that the boomers are now falling over themselves to pay through the nose for the "luxury" of being transported round some obscure bit of the network in a train of Mk. II's hauled by a couple of class 47's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah c'mon, British Rail was one of the most craptastic companies in the UK

That was a long time ago now, the world has moved on. If you want to look and a re-nationalised railway, look at the East Coast mainline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the previous private contract was costing the company 1.4 billion over 7 years.

A 1 billion profit in 5 years would suggest the state has returned exactly the same profit as the private company (200M a year).

**To be honest it's probably way more than that considering the mess/debts the folding private company left behind though. The fact was they didn't actually pay very much of the 200M per annum they were supposed to (hence why East Coast is now state run).**

Profitability of the line has been steadily increasing, and I can personally testify it's probably the best network I've been on recently (good wifi, good prices, clean, quick, etc etc).

There's a national pride in the staff as well. I'd forgotten what that was like! They seem very proud it's both British owned and the best network currently operating. Good on them I say.

Does seem ideologically demented to push through a sale simply because it's showing the other private monopolies up. But then this current bunch of Tories do ideologically demented brilliantly.

Linkys please, especially for the bit you seemed to fabricate in the middle

No one's arguing the previous private operator was a mess, instead you're trying to make a very general point with a limited anecdote

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.

How about we let not-for-profits (like East Coast) bid against private companies on an equal footing to run the franchise?

Oh no, that would never do, where would the politicians get their non-exec directorships from once they fall foul of democracy?

They'd have to fight it out in our greatest subsidised 'private' industry, the banking sector.

The great thing about ideolical dogma is that it doesn't need to worry about inconvenient evidence. Life is so much simpler with ideology.

Remind me again how much we taxpayers lost when Stagecoach decided East Coast was unprofitable and walked away.

Edited by Bear Goggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linkys please, especially for the bit you seemed to fabricate in the middle

No one's arguing the previous private operator was a mess, instead you're trying to make a very general point with a limited anecdote

Links to what? The figures are out there and well known.

Anyone whose uses East Coast regularly will tell you how good it is. Why do we have to pretend otherwise just because it's UK state owned, and not French or German state owned like some of our other train providers?

I use East Coast all the time lad. I doubt you get north of London all too often do you?

As they say oop north: "jog on you trolling Tory tw@t."

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.

How about we let not-for-profits (like East Coast) bid against private companies on an equal footing to run the franchise?

Oh no, that would never do, where would the politicians get their non-exec directorships from once they fall foul of democracy?

They'd have to fight it out in our greatest subsidised 'private' industry, the banking sector.

The great thing about ideolical dogma is that it doesn't need to worry about inconvenient evidence. Life is so much simpler with ideology.

Remind me again how much we taxpayers lost when Stagecoach decided East Coast was unprofitable and walked away.

I think it was National Express not Stagecoach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Express_East_Coast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

East coast is excellent. Cross country is horrendous.

What that adds to this debate - I have no idea !! :)

Edited by ccc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the previous private contract was costing the company 1.4 billion over 7 years.

A 1 billion profit in 5 years would suggest the state has returned exactly the same profit as the private company (200M a year).

To be honest it's probably way more than that considering the mess/debts the folding private company left behind though. The fact was they didn't actually pay very much of the 200M per annum they were supposed to (hence why East Coast is now state run).

Profitability of the line has been steadily increasing, and I can personally testify it's probably the best network I've been on recently (good wifi, good prices, clean, quick, etc etc).

There's a national pride in the staff as well. I'd forgotten what that was like! They seem very proud it's both British owned and the best network currently operating. Good on them I say.

Does seem ideologically demented to push through a sale simply because it's showing the other private monopolies up. But then this current bunch of Tories do ideologically demented brilliantly.

I'd agree with you on this. It is definitely the best service of any rail company, I've used the service up to Leeds a few times and the breakfast in 1st class is excellent - I even got the ticket for a good rate as an advanced booking, so felt like even better value.

Compare this with my normal journey on South West trains - no contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Rail was starved of money. Since 1995, like everywhere, credit has been easy and the card has been worn down. Network Rail now has a debt pile of over £30bn, underwritten by us and until recently 'off the books'.

The main difference between East Coast and the others, is it is today run not unlike the flagship route of British Rail (which it was) in contrast the attitude of the privateers. The fundamental difference between utilities and railways is railways generally lose money - even East Coast isn't fantastically profitable when you have paid for the infrastructure. So most franchises are profit maximising by service minimising - delivering the basic franchise commitments without spending any more than it has to on frills like cleaning things or cutting queues.

East Coast have long, busy trains with big payloads. Cross Country, West Coast and others have gone for lots more new, very expensive trains and high frequency. There aren't many more trains from Kings Cross to the North as from St Pancras to Sheffield and Nottingham.

Not being a 7 year franchise going from mobilisation to marking time in 2-3 years, is definitely an advantage. Contrary to public belief, the public sector is also far more risk tolerant than the private sector and it was a bold step to introduce a full meal service on all of their trains when no doubt the bean counters were telling them the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

But don't underestimate the capacity for government screw ups. The new Japanese Intercity Express trains (which come with their own UK factory for purely political reasons) will cost twice as much to lease as even the tilting trains Virgin bought for the West Coast line, so don't expect the dividends to last once Whitehall really gets stuck in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Links to what? The figures are out there and well known.

Anyone whose uses East Coast regularly will tell you how good it is. Why do we have to pretend otherwise just because it's UK state owned, and not French or German state owned like some of our other train providers?

I use East Coast all the time lad. I doubt you get north of London all too often do you?

As they say oop north: "jog on you trolling Tory tw@t."

I live in Leeds you d1ck and watched the east coast national express fiasco unfurl

The figures will have qualifying details, inflation adjustments, additional costs/contractual issues. You even stated that the previous national express operator underpaid the government. As far as I know (and I don't have a link right now but neither do you) they paid up the contract until they broke solvency rules and the franchise was taken off then. My guess is that this reasoning is beyond your tiny brain. Furthermore, if your figures are not inflation adjusted, then the nationalised organisation paid much less in real terms to the government than the previous private one. But then you won't backup your figures so I was trying to give you the chance to do that before I leapt in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know (and I don't have a link right now but neither do you) they paid up the contract until they broke solvency rules and the franchise was taken off then..

National Express paid 72M to walk away. That was all they paid. In fact they proudly championed the fact they got away with paying so little to their share holders when they folded the rail portion of the company.

It's actually on their company wiki and all sorts of other links. The fact they were able to underpay the government so heavily was big news for weeks at the time so surprised you missed it. Possibly didn't filter down through the Daily Mail and the Express. Decent Q and A here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8128430.stm

You're lucky to live in Leeds btw.

You have the best rail network right on your doorstep.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National Express paid 72M to walk away. That was all they paid. In fact they proudly championed the fact they got away with paying so little to their share holders when they folded the rail portion of the company.

It's actually on their company wiki and all sorts of other links. The fact they were able to underpay the government so heavily was big news for weeks at the time so surprised you missed it. Possibly didn't filter down through the Daily Mail and the Express. Decent Q and A here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8128430.stm

You're lucky to live in Leeds btw.

You have the best rail network right on your doorstep.

You actually can't even read your own articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You actually can't even read your own articles

That's incredibly illuminating thank you.

Other than being a trolling bellend what's your problem here?

The figure was 72M for National Express to squirm out of their private contract. It was well reported. I believe National Express actually offered more initially but that was rejected.

Please find me some links showing that National Express paid their contract properly because you won't find any. Mainly because they didn't.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   218 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.