|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 19, 2017 21:32:07 GMT
I take it she wasnt alive when British rail were running the railways I thought the unions were running the railways. Running, more like a gentle stroll. I worked in finance first as a temp for 6 months and then took a full time job for the extra 50p per hour, on about the third day I got the internal vacancy list and was told I could claim overtime for applying for these vacancies...... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 21:34:50 GMT
Osborn speaks out against Immigration saying conservatives haven't a clue Head of Scotland conservatives speak out against fuel payments Boris speaks out against Heathrow pledge 3 senior Tories speak out against there own manifesto that is short on ideas and costing's Chicken may the so called strong leadership that her own party speak out against!! And people still see her as a leader what a joke!!
You cant trust a tory!!
the conservatives putting the con in politics!christ you are like a stuck record, people were taking the piss out of May constantly saying 'strong and stable It's got quite boring hasn't it the Nick and Essex double act ? ...Nothing but insults and insults and insults ....with such a marvellous manifesto available for all to see you think they could do a little better . |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 19, 2017 21:35:34 GMT
Have you got any other news from September 2016 zzzzzzzzzz Votes win prizes Memes win nothing It's not about winning, it's about the principles well for the posh public schoolboys running Corbyn's team and they know whAt poor people want as there was one or two at the schools they went too. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on May 19, 2017 21:38:27 GMT
I take it she wasnt alive when British rail were running the railways I thought the unions were running the railways. my elder brother went to crewe for an apprenticeship with BR, he left after a few months as he wasnt being taught anything, his job on nights was to tidy up, make tea and blow a bugle at 6am to wake everybody up so they could wash and get fresh before going off to do other jobs as electricians. All their materials for their day jobs was taken from BR stocks |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 21:39:31 GMT
Honestly like I care about you view of me, although ironic you call me facisistic when you are so tolerant of anyone else's view. I took exception to you putting Tory scum at the end of a post that included comments about members of my family but you've now confirmed its general ignorance and vileness rather than specific ignorance and vileness. Stay classy Nicholas. For someone who's attacked the disabled! Defended the bent Cameron family! Defended the buying of the last general election! And so much more! Stay corrupt 'followyoudown'. Totally out of order to call a fellow poster corrupt .....you should be ashamed of yourself ....bang out of order . |
|
|
|
Post by lommack on May 19, 2017 21:40:38 GMT
Come on now Nicholas. That's too harsh. FYD was just adding some personal experience to the debate. Nowt to do with politics. Inheritance tax/house planning arrangements are available to all voters. Apology perhaps? It was too harsh - but it is a fact - i know of three instances where the parent's property / assets have been transferred to the child/ren & so, after seven years, it can't be touched by social services - some may call it being financially astute but some may call it something else? If/when a member of our "hard working" royal family (or any of the other hangers on) go a bit loco can we sell one of their gold plated houses to pay for their care? Or are they not included? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 21:44:50 GMT
Votes win prizes Memes win nothing It's not about winning, it's about the principles well for the posh public schoolboys running Corbyn's team and they know whAt poor people want as there was one or two at the schools they went too. Surely not ?  |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 19, 2017 21:47:41 GMT
Not just the Sentinel....
|
|
|
|
Post by robstokie on May 19, 2017 21:47:53 GMT
Rachel, Stoke: "I believe that they should be re-nationalised following the end of the franchise deal with private railway companies. This would allow the government to control the rising prices of rail tickets and may make the railway service more reliable. It would also allow the government to reap in the profit currently being made by private companies, such as Virgin." Bear in mind that buying out the privatised companies who own the contract will cost a bomb and maintaining it will cost a wad as well will not only mean that ticket prices, if anything, will continue to or exceed the rate that it is increasing now but will also mean taxes going up for everyone as ticket prices alone won't make up the money needed for maintenance/renovation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 21:59:16 GMT
Rachel, Stoke: "I believe that they should be re-nationalised following the end of the franchise deal with private railway companies. This would allow the government to control the rising prices of rail tickets and may make the railway service more reliable. It would also allow the government to reap in the profit currently being made by private companies, such as Virgin." Bear in mind that buying out the privatised companies who own the contract will cost a bomb and maintaining it will cost a wad as well will not only mean that ticket prices, if anything, will continue to or exceed the rate that it is increasing now but will also mean taxes going up for everyone as ticket prices alone won't make up the money needed for maintenance/renovation. Ooh ....they never thought of that . |
|
|
|
Post by Frogger Theft Auto on May 19, 2017 22:08:55 GMT
Bear in mind that buying out the privatised companies who own the contract will cost a bomb and maintaining it will cost a wad as well will not only mean that ticket prices, if anything, will continue to or exceed the rate that it is increasing now but will also mean taxes going up for everyone as ticket prices alone won't make up the money needed for maintenance/renovation. Ooh ....they never thought of that . They're talking about letting the private contracts run down and not renewing them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 22:10:46 GMT
Ooh ....they never thought of that . They're talking about letting the private contracts run down and not renewing them. Really ?  |
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on May 19, 2017 22:59:34 GMT
For someone who's attacked the disabled! Defended the bent Cameron family! Defended the buying of the last general election! And so much more! Stay corrupt 'followyoudown'. Totally out of order to call a fellow poster corrupt .....you should be ashamed of yourself ....bang out of order . It's hardly the worst accusation that's been bandied about on here is it, mate. Calm down  Carps for one has said far worse to people, yet I note you never sanction him. Odd. At least try to apply the same rules to everyone  |
|
josh
Academy Starlet
Posts: 102 
|
Post by josh on May 19, 2017 23:30:20 GMT
Rachel, Stoke: "I believe that they should be re-nationalised following the end of the franchise deal with private railway companies. This would allow the government to control the rising prices of rail tickets and may make the railway service more reliable. It would also allow the government to reap in the profit currently being made by private companies, such as Virgin." Bear in mind that buying out the privatised companies who own the contract will cost a bomb and maintaining it will cost a wad as well will not only mean that ticket prices, if anything, will continue to or exceed the rate that it is increasing now but will also mean taxes going up for everyone as ticket prices alone won't make up the money needed for maintenance/renovation. That's all false. Not renewing a franchise costs nothing. If you research this, you will realise we already pay for all that. We have to pay train operators massive subsidies for them to even run the trains. From this and train tickets they take out a large amount of profit for their share holders. East coast returned £225m+ back to the government while under public ownership and rated at its highest for customer satisfaction. Imagine that over all the franchises. Its not loose change we will be getting back. The worst thing about this, is the likes of southern. When they are not running trains because of strikes they still get paid millions by us. While also saving millions by not having to pay for staff, fuel, track access charges etc. How fucked up is that. Why would they even bother trying to settle disputes when they actually make more money doing that, than when running trains? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 1:34:18 GMT
Totally out of order to call a fellow poster corrupt .....you should be ashamed of yourself ....bang out of order . It's hardly the worst accusation that's been bandied about on here is it, mate. Calm down Carps for one has said far worse to people, yet I note you never sanction him. Odd. At least try to apply the same rules to everyone Ho hum  |
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on May 20, 2017 9:49:41 GMT
They're talking about letting the private contracts run down and not renewing them. Really ? Yes, really. It's not rocket science, quite easy to understand... |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 20, 2017 10:17:57 GMT
Bear in mind that buying out the privatised companies who own the contract will cost a bomb and maintaining it will cost a wad as well will not only mean that ticket prices, if anything, will continue to or exceed the rate that it is increasing now but will also mean taxes going up for everyone as ticket prices alone won't make up the money needed for maintenance/renovation. That's all false. Not renewing a franchise costs nothing. If you research this, you will realise we already pay for all that. We have to pay train operators massive subsidies for them to even run the trains. From this and train tickets they take out a large amount of profit for their share holders. East coast returned £225m+ back to the government while under public ownership and rated at its highest for customer satisfaction. Imagine that over all the franchises. Its not loose change we will be getting back. The worst thing about this, is the likes of southern. When they are not running trains because of strikes they still get paid millions by us. While also saving millions by not having to pay for staff, fuel, track access charges etc. How fucked up is that. Why would they even bother trying to settle disputes when they actually make more money doing that, than when running trains? Actually I think its you who might need to research this a little more, train operators pay the UK government to run their trains, this idea we pay them subsidies is just wrong, the government owns network rail which maintains the track so it pays for this, the rail franchises pay track access fees to Network rail to use the track which pays part of the cost of maintaining the track. The rail companies pay franchise fees to the UK government for the East Coast it was due to be £1.3 billion over 10 years, National express overbid which is why they returned the franchise otherwise why would they return a franchise, Virgin for example have paid £350 million to the UK government in the last 3 years for the west coast and taken 100 odd million as profit. Even if Corbyn was to renationalise in the way he says, these subsidies (maintaining the track) would still be for the taxpayer to settle, most of these franchises run on a profit figure of 3% and the unions will soon start demanding their share of that. Nevermind previously working for BR, I'm old enough to remember the trains and the way it was run, price rises were the favourite method of controlling demand and the rolling stock was old. If you want prices to go down the main way is for the government to stop "taxing" the companies so much to run the trains but then why should people who don't use rail subsidise those of us who use it every day ? |
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on May 20, 2017 10:29:06 GMT
Rachel, Stoke: "I believe that they should be re-nationalised following the end of the franchise deal with private railway companies. This would allow the government to control the rising prices of rail tickets and may make the railway service more reliable. It would also allow the government to reap in the profit currently being made by private companies, such as Virgin." Bear in mind that buying out the privatised companies who own the contract will cost a bomb and maintaining it will cost a wad as well will not only mean that ticket prices, if anything, will continue to or exceed the rate that it is increasing now but will also mean taxes going up for everyone as ticket prices alone won't make up the money needed for maintenance/renovation. Factually incorrect. Letting the franchises run out costs nothing. Maintenance: we're paying for that now! The track and infrastructure is already effectively publicly owned. Network rail is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer (£3.8 billion last year), so the privately owned franchises are not paying the true cost of using the rail tracks. They also get billions of direct subsidy from the taxpayer, and that money goes to fund dividends for foreign owners, in many cases the state-owned railways of France, Germany and the Netherlands. Almost all the rolling stock is owned by 3 companies which effectively act as monopolies. Franchises lease the trains from these companies, which are also highly profitable. The profits largely go to foreign owners and investors. Buying back the rolling stock is the only capital outlay required to re-nationalise the railways. Since privatisation ticket prices have gone up in real terms, subsidies have doubled in real terms and passenger satisfaction has gone down. I'd rather our subsidies went to fund British railways, not foreign ones. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 20, 2017 10:29:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 20, 2017 10:37:17 GMT
If ever you needed further confirmation that we live in a corrupt establishment run nation this week has proved it. The Tories manifesto is vile but that's not the point. It is entirely uncosted and says nothing on future tax rises. The media say nothing.
I wonder if Jeremy would have been given the same license?
|
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 20, 2017 12:01:48 GMT
Bear in mind that buying out the privatised companies who own the contract will cost a bomb and maintaining it will cost a wad as well will not only mean that ticket prices, if anything, will continue to or exceed the rate that it is increasing now but will also mean taxes going up for everyone as ticket prices alone won't make up the money needed for maintenance/renovation. Factually incorrect. Letting the franchises run out costs nothing. Maintenance: we're paying for that now! The track and infrastructure is already effectively publicly owned. Network rail is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer (£3.8 billion last year), so the privately owned franchises are not paying the true cost of using the rail tracks. They also get billions of direct subsidy from the taxpayer, and that money goes to fund dividends for foreign owners, in many cases the state-owned railways of France, Germany and the Netherlands. Almost all the rolling stock is owned by 3 companies which effectively act as monopolies. Franchises lease the trains from these companies, which are also highly profitable. The profits largely go to foreign owners and investors. Buying back the rolling stock is the only capital outlay required to re-nationalise the railways. Since privatisation ticket prices have gone up in real terms, subsidies have doubled in real terms and passenger satisfaction has gone down. I'd rather our subsidies went to fund British railways, not foreign ones. Sorry but that's just not true as well as buying back the rolling stock it has to be maintained for locomotives every 7 years or a set number of miles it's something called heavy maintenance where major parts are swapped / replaced at significant cost which can run into the hundereds of thousands per loco then there is the cost of buying new rolling stock....... Network rail fix, replace and maintain track which should last for 10-20 years so it's incredibly naive to expect this to be recovered each year, the more you charge franchises the more they charge the customer via ticket prices if you want prices to go down the government should stop taxing the franchises so much, but then why should non rail users subsidise regular rail users like me ? |
|
josh
Academy Starlet
Posts: 102
|
Post by josh on May 20, 2017 12:34:38 GMT
Actually I think its you who might need to research this a little more, train operators pay the UK government to run their trains, this idea we pay them subsidies is just wrong, the government owns network rail which maintains the track so it pays for this, the rail franchises pay track access fees to Network rail to use the track which pays part of the cost of maintaining the track. The rail companies pay franchise fees to the UK government for the East Coast it was due to be £1.3 billion over 10 years, National express overbid which is why they returned the franchise otherwise why would they return a franchise, Virgin for example have paid £350 million to the UK government in the last 3 years for the west coast and taken 100 odd million as profit. Even if Corbyn was to renationalise in the way he says, these subsidies (maintaining the track) would still be for the taxpayer to settle, most of these franchises run on a profit figure of 3% and the unions will soon start demanding their share of that. Nevermind previously working for BR, I'm old enough to remember the trains and the way it was run, price rises were the favourite method of controlling demand and the rolling stock was old. If you want prices to go down the main way is for the government to stop "taxing" the companies so much to run the trains but then why should people who don't use rail subsidise those of us who use it every day ? That's not correct. My use of subsidies may have confused. We pay operators a massive 'grant' (£100s of millions) to run our trains. Without this they would not be able to afford to run the railway. Subsidies and premiums are separate to this. Subsidies and premiums are paid to and from the operators and government as you said. They set an agreed level of revenue and anything below we make up the difference by 50% - so a very low commercial risk to the operator. Anything above the level they are meant to pay back, at 50%. For example: £10bn over limit, they pay us £5bn and pocket the extra £5bn as pure profit. Its like a tax break of 50% on your earnings. This is why Southern are still making money while not running trains - through the massive grant, running cost savings and still having their costs topped up by the tax payer. As for track access, part of having a terrible split up 1,000 company railway means you will always have this 'tax' as the operators would just claim it as profit otherwise. A fully government owned railway would not have this charge as it would just be billing itself. Don't want to go back to old school BR, there's just a better way than this half arsed arrangement. |
|
josh
Academy Starlet
Posts: 102
|
Post by josh on May 20, 2017 12:49:00 GMT
Factually incorrect. Letting the franchises run out costs nothing. Maintenance: we're paying for that now! The track and infrastructure is already effectively publicly owned. Network rail is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer (£3.8 billion last year), so the privately owned franchises are not paying the true cost of using the rail tracks. They also get billions of direct subsidy from the taxpayer, and that money goes to fund dividends for foreign owners, in many cases the state-owned railways of France, Germany and the Netherlands. Almost all the rolling stock is owned by 3 companies which effectively act as monopolies. Franchises lease the trains from these companies, which are also highly profitable. The profits largely go to foreign owners and investors. Buying back the rolling stock is the only capital outlay required to re-nationalise the railways. Since privatisation ticket prices have gone up in real terms, subsidies have doubled in real terms and passenger satisfaction has gone down. I'd rather our subsidies went to fund British railways, not foreign ones. Sorry but that's just not true as well as buying back the rolling stock it has to be maintained for locomotives every 7 years or a set number of miles it's something called heavy maintenance where major parts are swapped / replaced at significant cost which can run into the hundereds of thousands per loco then there is the cost of buying new rolling stock....... Network rail fix, replace and maintain track which should last for 10-20 years so it's incredibly naive to expect this to be recovered each year, the more you charge franchises the more they charge the customer via ticket prices if you want prices to go down the government should stop taxing the franchises so much, but then why should non rail users subsidise regular rail users like me ? Train leasing companies pay for heavy overhaul, not operators. Only exception would be if the operator actually owned the stock, which they don't. New trains on the whole are bought by government. If not they are bought by investment companies/banks. Either way the leasing company own them and leases them out. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 20, 2017 13:26:37 GMT
Sorry but that's just not true as well as buying back the rolling stock it has to be maintained for locomotives every 7 years or a set number of miles it's something called heavy maintenance where major parts are swapped / replaced at significant cost which can run into the hundereds of thousands per loco then there is the cost of buying new rolling stock....... Network rail fix, replace and maintain track which should last for 10-20 years so it's incredibly naive to expect this to be recovered each year, the more you charge franchises the more they charge the customer via ticket prices if you want prices to go down the government should stop taxing the franchises so much, but then why should non rail users subsidise regular rail users like me ? Train leasing companies pay for heavy overhaul, not operators. Only exception would be if the operator actually owned the stock, which they don't. New trains on the whole are bought by government. If not they are bought by investment companies/banks. Either way the leasing company own them and leases them out. Yes that's the current situation but the poster was talking about buying back the rolling stock in a nationalisation being the only capital cost and it wouldn't be. As for governments buying trains there is another reason to not have them involved, the last government bought / produced locomotives were the Class 92s to use in the Eurotunnel (at this point I should say i'm not a spotter I only know this as I worked on the completion accounts team for the company that acquired RFD) and the actual cost of production and bring into use against the value of them was staggering. |
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on May 20, 2017 13:34:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on May 20, 2017 13:43:14 GMT
To be fair, if I looked as fucking bosted as she does, I'd hate nature too |
|
josh
Academy Starlet
Posts: 102
|
Post by josh on May 20, 2017 13:47:43 GMT
Train leasing companies pay for heavy overhaul, not operators. Only exception would be if the operator actually owned the stock, which they don't. New trains on the whole are bought by government. If not they are bought by investment companies/banks. Either way the leasing company own them and leases them out. Yes that's the current situation but the poster was talking about buying back the rolling stock in a nationalisation being the only capital cost and it wouldn't be. As for governments buying trains there is another reason to not have them involved, the last government bought / produced locomotives were the Class 92s to use in the Eurotunnel (at this point I should say i'm not a spotter I only know this as I worked on the completion accounts team for the company that acquired RFD) and the actual cost of production and bring into use against the value of them was staggering. You can't really say that. Class 92s were totally different to normal rolling stock. They had to meet much more stringent regulations as they were going through the tunnel. Fire regulations meant they had to hold a fire within the loco for 20-30mins to allow for safe evacuation. Redundancy of systems; so they basically had two of every system so they could still carry on out of the tunnel if something broke. They also had to be fitted with European railway safety equipment. All this adds a lot of extra cost to a project which standard locos would not incur. Very unfair to say that it was overpriced when it was required to have a lot of extra costs because of regulation. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 20, 2017 13:55:54 GMT
Actually I think its you who might need to research this a little more, train operators pay the UK government to run their trains, this idea we pay them subsidies is just wrong, the government owns network rail which maintains the track so it pays for this, the rail franchises pay track access fees to Network rail to use the track which pays part of the cost of maintaining the track. The rail companies pay franchise fees to the UK government for the East Coast it was due to be £1.3 billion over 10 years, National express overbid which is why they returned the franchise otherwise why would they return a franchise, Virgin for example have paid £350 million to the UK government in the last 3 years for the west coast and taken 100 odd million as profit. Even if Corbyn was to renationalise in the way he says, these subsidies (maintaining the track) would still be for the taxpayer to settle, most of these franchises run on a profit figure of 3% and the unions will soon start demanding their share of that. Nevermind previously working for BR, I'm old enough to remember the trains and the way it was run, price rises were the favourite method of controlling demand and the rolling stock was old. If you want prices to go down the main way is for the government to stop "taxing" the companies so much to run the trains but then why should people who don't use rail subsidise those of us who use it every day ? That's not correct. My use of subsidies may have confused. We pay operators a massive 'grant' (£100s of millions) to run our trains. Without this they would not be able to afford to run the railway. Subsidies and premiums are separate to this. Subsidies and premiums are paid to and from the operators and government as you said. They set an agreed level of revenue and anything below we make up the difference by 50% - so a very low commercial risk to the operator. Anything above the level they are meant to pay back, at 50%. For example: £10bn over limit, they pay us £5bn and pocket the extra £5bn as pure profit. Its like a tax break of 50% on your earnings. This is why Southern are still making money while not running trains - through the massive grant, running cost savings and still having their costs topped up by the tax payer. As for track access, part of having a terrible split up 1,000 company railway means you will always have this 'tax' as the operators would just claim it as profit otherwise. A fully government owned railway would not have this charge as it would just be billing itself. Don't want to go back to old school BR, there's just a better way than this half arsed arrangement. Isn't the grant also to help maintain parts of the network (stations, sidings, facilities etc) the TOC's own or manage ? There's a document called Rail Finance 2015-16 annual statistical review by the ORR which you can download and read if interested that shows the figures but the overall picture is that the TOC's are net contributors of money in total, a few of the regional operators scotrail, merseyrail etc. Southern are probably lucky that it was never envisaged such a concerted and unneccesary series of strikes was envisaged and generally the trend of rail usage is always upwards so it was never expected passenger numbers could ever fall by so much. My point on track access is that the government charges it to the franchise who effectively charge it to the customer plus Mark up via ticket prices and the franchise then gives back some back to the government as profit. Easiest way to lower prices stop the circular charging and then lower ticket prices and adjust revenue / profit sharing accordingly. The problem with governments trying to run things at a profit is it very quickly stops being profitable or it starts to be for the profit of the people working there. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 20, 2017 14:04:40 GMT
Yes that's the current situation but the poster was talking about buying back the rolling stock in a nationalisation being the only capital cost and it wouldn't be. As for governments buying trains there is another reason to not have them involved, the last government bought / produced locomotives were the Class 92s to use in the Eurotunnel (at this point I should say i'm not a spotter I only know this as I worked on the completion accounts team for the company that acquired RFD) and the actual cost of production and bring into use against the value of them was staggering. You can't really say that. Class 92s were totally different to normal rolling stock. They had to meet much more stringent regulations as they were going through the tunnel. Fire regulations meant they had to hold a fire within the loco for 20-30mins to allow for safe evacuation. Redundancy of systems; so they basically had two of every system so they could still carry on out of the tunnel if something broke. They also had to be fitted with European railway safety equipment. All this adds a lot of extra cost to a project which standard locos would not incur. Very unfair to say that it was overpriced when it was required to have a lot of extra costs because of regulation. This is all true but the project management and implementation left a lot to be desired and a significant overrun in project costs. |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 20, 2017 14:04:46 GMT
So lets sum this up
Conservatives against the environment!
Against Pensioners!
Against debating the election!
Against Kids getting free school meals!
Against normal schools!
Against anyone on benefits!
Against themselves!
Against the human rights act!
Against being open and transparent!
So why the F*** are people thinking of voting these idiots in!!
You cant trust the Tories!
|
|
