In message <tuvuqh$1imiq$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:39:46 on Thu, 16 Mar
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 15.03.23 23:09, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>>>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>>>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>>>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>>>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>>>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>
>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position
>>>>to answer
>>>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>>>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>
>>> No presales and marketing functions in the divested companies? (Of course
>>> that would be one of the things that could make the whole process more
>>> expensive than having a single body.)
>>
>> The point was the divested companies became the suppliers to Railtrack.
>> The expertise Railtrack needed to manage the process of dealing with
>> outsourced suppliers is the expertise they had oursourced.
>
>But that, plausible though it sounds, is not the same explanation that
>Roger gave - that the spinoffs were not able to answer questions without
>charging for it.

Indeed. Almost no organisation I know of, charges money to put in a
fully argued bid for a project. It's tempting sometimes, having been on
that side of fence and pretty sure it was just a "gather three quotes to
tick a box, but we already know which supplier we'll go for".

I prefer to walk away from such "opportunities", but sometimes salesmen
will clutch at straws and try to pursue the hopeless leads. It's even a
"thing" in their profession: qualifying your leads before spending time
and effort on them.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tuufbv$1aipb$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:09:51 on Thu, 16 Mar
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on Wed, 15
>>>> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3
>>>>>>>>was a real
>>>>>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>>>>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>>>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>>>>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>>>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>>>>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>>>>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>>
>>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position
>>>>>to answer
>>>>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>>>>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and (prospective)
>>>> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility studies
>>>> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
>>>> or some remote working).
>>>>
>>>> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
>>>> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not structural, as
>>>> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
>>>> across many stakeholders.
>>>>
>>>> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different organisations
>>>> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red ink to
>>>> Requests for Tender.
>>>>
>>>> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos post-privatisation,
>>>> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
>>>> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
>>>> villain here.
>>>>
>>>> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
>>>> subcontractors.
>>>
>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence that I know
>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains highly skilled
>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>
>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>
>I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation (that's just
the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but the
manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in structures
which have never swapped from public to private sector.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tuvuq1$1imgr$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:39:29 on Thu, 16 Mar
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>> Worst of all Railtrack didn't have engineers to supervise and inspect
>> the work being undertaken on their behalf so it was contracted out.
>> Network Rail still doesn't. Read the RAIB report on the Stonehouse
>> derailment.
>
>Stonehaven?

Yes, but I knew what he meant.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tuvuqh$1imiq$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:39:46 on Thu, 16 Mar
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 15.03.23 23:09, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>>>>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>>>>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>>>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>>>>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>>>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>>>>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>>>>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>>
>>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position
>>>>> to answer
>>>>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>>>>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>>
>>>> No presales and marketing functions in the divested companies? (Of course
>>>> that would be one of the things that could make the whole process more
>>>> expensive than having a single body.)
>>>
>>> The point was the divested companies became the suppliers to Railtrack.
>>> The expertise Railtrack needed to manage the process of dealing with
>>> outsourced suppliers is the expertise they had oursourced.
>>
>> But that, plausible though it sounds, is not the same explanation that
>> Roger gave - that the spinoffs were not able to answer questions without
>> charging for it.
>
> Indeed. Almost no organisation I know of, charges money to put in a
> fully argued bid for a project. It's tempting sometimes, having been on
> that side of fence and pretty sure it was just a "gather three quotes to
> tick a box, but we already know which supplier we'll go for".
>
> I prefer to walk away from such "opportunities", but sometimes salesmen
> will clutch at straws and try to pursue the hopeless leads. It's even a
> "thing" in their profession: qualifying your leads before spending time
> and effort on them.

In sectors of the space industry contractors will be funded by ESA to come
up with a proper bid. It does ensure you get a properly thought through and
engineered proposal. ESA also retain a high level of internal engineering
competence so that the proposals can be properly evaluated.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tuufbv$1aipb$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:09:51 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on Wed, 15
>>>>> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3
>>>>>>>>> was a real
>>>>>>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>>>>>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>>>>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>>>>>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>>>>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>>>>>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>>>>>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position
>>>>>> to answer
>>>>>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>>>>>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and (prospective)
>>>>> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility studies
>>>>> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
>>>>> or some remote working).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
>>>>> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not structural, as
>>>>> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
>>>>> across many stakeholders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different organisations
>>>>> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red ink to
>>>>> Requests for Tender.
>>>>>
>>>>> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos post-privatisation,
>>>>> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
>>>>> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
>>>>> villain here.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
>>>>> subcontractors.
>>>>
>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence that I know
>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains highly skilled
>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>
>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>
>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>
> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation (that's just
> the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but the
> manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in structures
> which have never swapped from public to private sector.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the concept of privatisation is wrong.
However doing it by setting up the wrong structures is a recipe for
failure, either in the long or short term. For some organisations there may
never be a viable private structure (see water). Railways have never found
a stable workable structure since the day they were invented.

On 17/03/2023 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tuufbv$1aipb$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:09:51 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on
>>>>> Wed, 15
>>>>> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13
>>>>>>> Mar
>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3
>>>>>>>>> was a real
>>>>>>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver,
>>>>>>>>> rather than
>>>>>>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>>>>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even
>>>>>>>>> vaguely viable
>>>>>>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>>>>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of
>>>>>>>>> level 3 on
>>>>>>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the
>>>>>>>> biggest
>>>>>>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position
>>>>>> to answer
>>>>>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is
>>>>>> unlikely
>>>>>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and
>>>>> (prospective)
>>>>> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility
>>>>> studies
>>>>> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
>>>>> or some remote working).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
>>>>> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not
>>>>> structural, as
>>>>> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
>>>>> across many stakeholders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different
>>>>> organisations
>>>>> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red
>>>>> ink to
>>>>> Requests for Tender.
>>>>>
>>>>> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos
>>>>> post-privatisation,
>>>>> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
>>>>> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
>>>>> villain here.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
>>>>> subcontractors.
>>>>
>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence that
>>>> I know
>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains highly
>>>> skilled
>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>
>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>
>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>
> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation (that's just
> the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but the
> manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in structures
> which have never swapped from public to private sector.

There certainly was with the Railtrack version of privatisation.

In message <tv1dqq$1t9vl$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:02:02 on Fri, 17 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tuvuqh$1imiq$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:39:46 on Thu, 16 Mar
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 15.03.23 23:09, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3
>>>>>>>>>was a real product that signalling companies could actually
>>>>>>>>>deliver, rather than recognising it as vapourware. They didn't
>>>>>>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even
>>>>>>>>>vaguely viable before building their plans to depend on it.
>>>>>>>>>From what I can tell, nearly 25 years later there is still no
>>>>>>>>>actual deployment of level 3 on even a simple line, let alone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of
>>>>>>>>the biggest
>>>>>>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a
>>>>>>position to answer questions unless accompanied by purchase
>>>>>>orders, for which it is unlikely there was a budget, unless
>>>>>>preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> No presales and marketing functions in the divested companies? (Of course
>>>>> that would be one of the things that could make the whole process more
>>>>> expensive than having a single body.)
>>>>
>>>> The point was the divested companies became the suppliers to Railtrack.
>>>> The expertise Railtrack needed to manage the process of dealing with
>>>> outsourced suppliers is the expertise they had oursourced.
>>>
>>> But that, plausible though it sounds, is not the same explanation that
>>> Roger gave - that the spinoffs were not able to answer questions without
>>> charging for it.
>>
>> Indeed. Almost no organisation I know of, charges money to put in a
>> fully argued bid for a project. It's tempting sometimes, having been on
>> that side of fence and pretty sure it was just a "gather three quotes to
>> tick a box, but we already know which supplier we'll go for".
>>
>> I prefer to walk away from such "opportunities", but sometimes salesmen
>> will clutch at straws and try to pursue the hopeless leads. It's even a
>> "thing" in their profession: qualifying your leads before spending time
>> and effort on them.
>
>In sectors of the space industry contractors will be funded by ESA to come
>up with a proper bid. It does ensure you get a properly thought through and
>engineered proposal. ESA also retain a high level of internal engineering
>competence so that the proposals can be properly evaluated.

For big projects, such a bid is actually a feasibility study, and those
can and do get paid for separately. It's up to the sponsor to decide how
many competing bids to fund, of course.

Sometimes it'll be just the one. I doubt though that the mayor has spent
his £9m (so far) on developing a 'bid' that will result in £500m worth
of spades in the ground to deliver the Ely North improvements, envisages
more than one organisation involved in the final works. [Yes, they in
turn will have subcontractors].

Remember that Cambridge North station was originally going to be a
County Council project, and one of the many delays was a change of mind
which handed it over to Network Rail to implement.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv1uol$20gak$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:01 on Fri, 17 Mar
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 17/03/2023 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>that I know
>>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains
>>>>>highly skilled
>>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>
>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>
>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

>> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation (that's
>>just the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but
>>the manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in
>>structures which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>
>There certainly was with the Railtrack version of privatisation.

Ah, so someone here *is* arguing that Railway Privatisation was wrong.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv1e48$1tbqi$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:07:04 on Fri, 17 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tuufbv$1aipb$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:09:51 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on Wed, 15
>>>>>> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3
>>>>>>>>>>was a real product that signalling companies could actually
>>>>>>>>>>deliver, rather than recognising it as vapourware. They
>>>>>>>>>>didn't even try for a test installation somewhere to see if
>>>>>>>>>>the technology was even vaguely viable before building their
>>>>>>>>>>plans to depend on it. From what I can tell, nearly 25 years
>>>>>>>>>>later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on even
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company
>>>>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of
>>>>>>>>>the biggest mistakes of privatisation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a
>>>>>>>position to answer questions unless accompanied by purchase
>>>>>>>orders, for which it is unlikely there was a budget, unless
>>>>>>>preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and (prospective)
>>>>>> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility studies
>>>>>> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
>>>>>> or some remote working).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
>>>>>> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not structural, as
>>>>>> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
>>>>>> across many stakeholders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different organisations
>>>>>> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red ink to
>>>>>> Requests for Tender.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos post-privatisation,
>>>>>> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
>>>>>> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
>>>>>> villain here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
>>>>>> subcontractors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>that I know about, be it the space industry or the oil industry,
>>>>>retains highly skilled engineers in the upper part of the chain
>>>>>that issues the contracts. Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>
>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>
>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>>
>> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation (that's just
>> the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but the
>> manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in structures
>> which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>
>I don’t think anyone is arguing that the concept of privatisation is wrong.

The RMT is still arguing it, and still claiming that if only all the
profits [what profits?] weren't being siphoned off by greedy foreign
shareholders, their members could get a pay rise.

Ironically, for the drivers at least, the result of the somewhat chaotic
recruitment landscape is higher pay than if it had remained
nationalised. Probably a lot more jobs too, as the reversal of the
managed decline has to be in some part due to the involvement of "new
management".

>However doing it by setting up the wrong structures is a recipe for
>failure, either in the long or short term. For some organisations there may
>never be a viable private structure (see water).

If I can get electrons which are apparently exclusively from renewable
sources hundreds of miles away, why can't I buy water from the Thames
rather than the Great Ouse? That's not such a daft idea as it sounds
although the Greenwash energy *is* pretty daft (although firms like
Eurostar seem to think it boosts their reputation) because water is
piped/pumped from Norfolk to Essex via the Ouse/Stour scheme.

>Railways have never found a stable workable structure since the day
>they were invented.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tv1uol$20gak$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:01 on Fri, 17 Mar
> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>> On 17/03/2023 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains
>>>>>> highly skilled
>>>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>
>>> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation (that's
>>> just the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but
>>> the manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in
>>> structures which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>>
>> There certainly was with the Railtrack version of privatisation.
>
> Ah, so someone here *is* arguing that Railway Privatisation was wrong.

No. His argument, and that of many, is the implemented form was wrong.

In message <tv3s0j$2dj8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:19 on Sat, 18 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tv1uol$20gak$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:01 on Fri, 17 Mar
>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>> On 17/03/2023 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains
>>>>>>> highly skilled
>>>>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>>
>>>> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong

***** statement*****

>>>>with privatisation (that's
>>>> just the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but
>>>> the manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in
>>>> structures which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>>>
>>> There certainly was

***** rebuttal *****

>>>with the Railtrack version of privatisation.

>> Ah, so someone here *is* arguing that Railway Privatisation was wrong.
>
>No. His argument, and that of many, is the implemented form was wrong.

Can we meet in the middle and propose that it wasn't fundamentally
wrong, but the implementation went awry?

The same could happen with re-nationalisation, of course.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tv3s0j$2dj8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:19 on Sat, 18 Mar
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tv1uol$20gak$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:01 on Fri, 17 Mar
>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 17/03/2023 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains
>>>>>>>> highly skilled
>>>>>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>>>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>
>>>>> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong
>
> ***** statement*****
>
>>>>> with privatisation (that's
>>>>> just the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but
>>>>> the manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in
>>>>> structures which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>>>>
>>>> There certainly was
>
> ***** rebuttal *****
>
>>>> with the Railtrack version of privatisation.
>
>>> Ah, so someone here *is* arguing that Railway Privatisation was wrong.
>>
>> No. His argument, and that of many, is the implemented form was wrong.
>
> Can we meet in the middle and propose that it wasn't fundamentally
> wrong, but the implementation went awry?
>
> The same could happen with re-nationalisation, of course.

I think we have to first examine if a privatised UK railway is a practical
possibility.

On 17.03.23 08:19, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tuufbv$1aipb$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:09:51 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on
>>>>> Wed, 15
>>>>> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13
>>>>>>> Mar
>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3
>>>>>>>>> was a real
>>>>>>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver,
>>>>>>>>> rather than
>>>>>>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>>>>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even
>>>>>>>>> vaguely viable
>>>>>>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>>>>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of
>>>>>>>>> level 3 on
>>>>>>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the
>>>>>>>> biggest
>>>>>>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position
>>>>>> to answer
>>>>>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is
>>>>>> unlikely
>>>>>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and
>>>>> (prospective)
>>>>> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility
>>>>> studies
>>>>> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
>>>>> or some remote working).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
>>>>> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not
>>>>> structural, as
>>>>> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
>>>>> across many stakeholders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different
>>>>> organisations
>>>>> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red
>>>>> ink to
>>>>> Requests for Tender.
>>>>>
>>>>> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos
>>>>> post-privatisation,
>>>>> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
>>>>> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
>>>>> villain here.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
>>>>> subcontractors.
>>>>
>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence that
>>>> I know
>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains highly
>>>> skilled
>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>
>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>
>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>
> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation (that's just
> the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but the
> manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in structures
> which have never swapped from public to private sector.

What was wrong was the beleif that creating dvisions between different
functions of running the railway would create a market for those
services that would bring down costs. What it did was create artificial
divisions within the overall organisation delivering the servce that
created infefficiencies, and the competition that did arise was not able
to create savings sufficient to offset those increased costs. The
government of the day was fixated upon creating internal markes within
organisations based on a flawed belief that commercial competition would
always create efficiency.

Robin

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tv1e48$1tbqi$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:07:04 on Fri, 17 Mar
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tuufbv$1aipb$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:09:51 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on Wed, 15
>>>>>>> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3
>>>>>>>>>>> was a real product that signalling companies could actually
>>>>>>>>>>> deliver, rather than recognising it as vapourware. They
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't even try for a test installation somewhere to see if
>>>>>>>>>>> the technology was even vaguely viable before building their
>>>>>>>>>>> plans to depend on it. From what I can tell, nearly 25 years
>>>>>>>>>>> later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on even
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company
>>>>>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of
>>>>>>>>>> the biggest mistakes of privatisation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a
>>>>>>>> position to answer questions unless accompanied by purchase
>>>>>>>> orders, for which it is unlikely there was a budget, unless
>>>>>>>> preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and (prospective)
>>>>>>> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility studies
>>>>>>> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
>>>>>>> or some remote working).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
>>>>>>> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not structural, as
>>>>>>> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
>>>>>>> across many stakeholders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different organisations
>>>>>>> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red ink to
>>>>>>> Requests for Tender.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos post-privatisation,
>>>>>>> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
>>>>>>> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
>>>>>>> villain here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
>>>>>>> subcontractors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>> that I know about, be it the space industry or the oil industry,
>>>>>> retains highly skilled engineers in the upper part of the chain
>>>>>> that issues the contracts. Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>
>>> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation (that's just
>>> the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but the
>>> manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in structures
>>> which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>>
>> I don’t think anyone is arguing that the concept of privatisation is wrong.
>
> The RMT is still arguing it, and still claiming that if only all the
> profits [what profits?] weren't being siphoned off by greedy foreign
> shareholders, their members could get a pay rise.
>
> Ironically, for the drivers at least, the result of the somewhat chaotic
> recruitment landscape is higher pay than if it had remained
> nationalised. Probably a lot more jobs too, as the reversal of the
> managed decline has to be in some part due to the involvement of "new
> management".
>
>> However doing it by setting up the wrong structures is a recipe for
>> failure, either in the long or short term. For some organisations there may
>> never be a viable private structure (see water).
>
> If I can get electrons which are apparently exclusively from renewable
> sources hundreds of miles away, why can't I buy water from the Thames
> rather than the Great Ouse? That's not such a daft idea as it sounds
> although the Greenwash energy *is* pretty daft (although firms like
> Eurostar seem to think it boosts their reputation) because water is
> piped/pumped from Norfolk to Essex via the Ouse/Stour scheme.

I don’t know about the connectivity in your area, but in general the reason
you can’t just get water from any random supplier is because there’s no
national water grid. The national electrical grid acts as a reservoir into
which electrons are pumped (and then pumped out again because it’s AC) and
so long as the accounting matches up the suppliers and customers then it
All Just Works.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 18/03/2023 07:24, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tv1uol$20gak$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:01 on Fri, 17 Mar
> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>> On 17/03/2023 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>> that  I know
>>>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains
>>>>>> highly  skilled
>>>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>
>>>  That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation (that's
>>> just  the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but
>>> the  manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in
>>> structures  which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>>
>> There certainly was with the Railtrack version of privatisation.
>
> Ah, so someone here *is* arguing that Railway Privatisation was wrong.

My statement only stated that Railtrack version was wrong.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 07:11:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tuuvfu$1d72n$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:45:02 on Thu, 16 Mar
>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <turva5$q35j$6@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:33 on Wed, 15 Mar
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tuqbct$e9df$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:31 on Tue, 14 Mar
>>>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 14.03.23 14:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase, not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voyagers were later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "tilt-profile" due to the cramped cabin space. Not just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Voyagers, but Meridians (which never did have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from
>>>>>>>>>>>> Edinburgh to Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a
>>>>>>>>>>>> The tilting was quite evident on the run up the Clyde
>>>>>>>>>>>> valley and down Beattock.  They have a top speed of 125 mph,
>>>>>>>>>>>> not 140 mph, and I believe the Pendolini still tilt even
>>>>>>>>>>>> though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without
>>>>>>>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving
>>>>>>>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and
>>> failing) to deliver it.  So the trains and the line are capable of
>>>>>>>>>> 140mph, but the signalling still isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>>>>>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3
>>>>>>>>>was a real product that signalling companies could actually
>>>>>>>>>deliver, rather than recognising it as vapourware. They didn't
>>>>>>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even
>>>>>>>>>vaguely viable before building their plans to depend on it.
>>>>>>>>>From what I can tell, nearly 25 years later there is still no
>>>>>>>>>actual deployment of level 3 on even a simple line, let alone
>>>>>>>>>something as complex as the WCML.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>>>>>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>>
>>>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>>>> Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out
>>>>>>> off fashion which is a bit of a shame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A phone, email or fax machine system are only useful if you have
>>>>>> someone at your end who has the willingness to pick up the phone to
>>>>>> call someone who knows what they were talking about to get an informed
>>>>>> opinion, and to ask the right questions. The problem was the decision
>>>>>> makers within Railtrack had the unfortunate combination of arrogance
>>>>>> and ignorance. They arrogantly believed they had all the information
>>>>>> they needed to make the decisions without asking for expert input, and
>>>>>> the ignorance to not question the marketing guff the singalling system
>>>>>> suppliers told them about the readiness of this new technology for
>>>>>> deployment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, you are going a bit against the flow if that process is to be
>>>>> described as "splitting the engineers".
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely not. Did you have no interest in the railways in the 1990s? Of
>>>> course, even back then you probably didn't read any of the railway
>>>> magazines.
>>>
>>> There are ways to know about the railways without paying for a
>>> subscription to "Liar", you know.
>>
>>Says the man who knows nothing of the contents of that or other magazines.
>
>Oh dear (again). You have no idea what I know about the content such
>magazines.

Yes, of course I know how much you know about them. It's a big, fat, zero.

>
>>> Where it matters, I always try
>>> to be at least one rung higher up the food chain.
>>
>>You bask in ignorance. It's so much easier than actually knowing things.
>
>Whereas you bask in the ignorance of what others know. Time to give up
>this hopelessly lame line of debate.
>
>>> But seeing as you bring up the concept, I pay nothing to read your
>>> contributions here; am I to conclude that's what they are worth?
>>
>>You argue with all of the facts I cite, so you obviously regard them as
>>worthless.
>
>Not all of them. More so the opinions you express, having failed to
>comprehend the subject sufficiently. I don't expect that degree of
>perfection, but from time to time it might be nice to see you admit you
>got the wrong end of the stick.
>
>>Maybe you'd value them properly if you had to pay to read them?
>
>Again, that completely bogus proposition that the more you pay for
>something the better it is. I have this bridge for sale.
>
>>Not, of course, that could could afford to.
>
>Don't be ridiculous. I could afford to, but recognise that better
>information is available elsewhere as well. My scare resource is time,
>not the money to pay others to do half-baked journalism on my behalf.

Now you're being utterly absurd! Anyone who can waste as much time as you do in endless, Really Pointless arguments
clearly has nothing useful to do with their time.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:45:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tv3s0j$2dj8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:19 on Sat, 18 Mar
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tv1uol$20gak$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:01 on Fri, 17 Mar
>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 17/03/2023 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains
>>>>>>>>> highly skilled
>>>>>>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>>>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>>
>>>>>> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong
>>
>> ***** statement*****
>>
>>>>>> with privatisation (that's
>>>>>> just the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but
>>>>>> the manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in
>>>>>> structures which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>>>>>
>>>>> There certainly was
>>
>> ***** rebuttal *****
>>
>>>>> with the Railtrack version of privatisation.
>>
>>>> Ah, so someone here *is* arguing that Railway Privatisation was wrong.
>>>
>>> No. His argument, and that of many, is the implemented form was wrong.
>>
>> Can we meet in the middle and propose that it wasn't fundamentally
>> wrong, but the implementation went awry?
>>
>> The same could happen with re-nationalisation, of course.
>
>I think we have to first examine if a privatised UK railway is a practical
>possibility.

That was the major problem that first deferred rail privatisation, and then led to the inability to agree on a workable
method. Thatcher wouldn't touch it, and the exhausted Major government only did it because they'd run out of other
things to privatise. Unlike the more obvious earlier ones, it wasn't going to raise significant funds, wouldn't excite
the public, and had no real solution to the problem that, overall, it was a long-term shrinking, loss-making business.
There was no chance of simply floating BR plc, or finding a single, foolish buyer.

So the idea was to try and pick out some parts of the business that could be profitable, because the losses were hidden
elsewhere.

In message <turva5$q35j$7@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:33 on Wed, 15 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>
>>> Nobody but you was confused.
>>
>> You mistyped "the trains" instead of "some trains". I expected I knew
>> what you meant, but it was necessary to check.
>
>Only for you. Everyone else knew.

Ah, the infamous "the lurkers agree with me" ploy.

>But I'm genuinely curious: does the fault lie in your fading memory, or
>were you always this ignorant about the railways? I'm guessing it's the
>former.

It's not clear to me how either of those (lies) causes you to express
yourself badly. Mindful that I enquiring (just to avoid another of your
tedious arguments) what exactly you had meant.
--
Roland Perry

In message <kjgb1ipppv6b3p36vuep1u5l3se81bs5r1@4ax.com>, at 13:56:09 on
Sat, 18 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> There are ways to know about the railways without paying for a
>>>> subscription to "Liar", you know.
>>>
>>>Says the man who knows nothing of the contents of that or other magazines.
>>
>>Oh dear (again). You have no idea what I know about the content such
>>magazines.
>
>Yes, of course I know how much you know about them. It's a big, fat, zero.

Having a bad day are you?

>>My scare resource is time,
>>not the money to pay others to do half-baked journalism on my behalf.
>
>Now you're being utterly absurd! Anyone who can waste as much time as
>you do in endless, Really Pointless arguments clearly has nothing
>useful to do with their time.

Perhaps if you started fewer such arguments, we could all get on with
matters in hand.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv45e9$2f4dh$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:14 on Sat, 18 Mar
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>>For some organisations there may
>>> never be a viable private structure (see water).
>>
>> If I can get electrons which are apparently exclusively from renewable
>> sources hundreds of miles away, why can't I buy water from the Thames
>> rather than the Great Ouse? That's not such a daft idea as it sounds
>> although the Greenwash energy *is* pretty daft (although firms like
>> Eurostar seem to think it boosts their reputation) because water is
>> piped/pumped from Norfolk to Essex via the Ouse/Stour scheme.
>
>I don’t know about the connectivity in your area, but in general the reason
>you can’t just get water from any random supplier is because there’s no
>national water grid.

Not a national one, but there are local grids. See people in Colchester
drinking water which once flowed past my window and through Norfolk
almost up to The Wash, before being re-routed via Suffolk and down to
Essex.

>The national electrical grid acts as a reservoir into which electrons
>are pumped (and then pumped out again because it’s AC)

The only pumping going on is at locations like Dinorwig (and that's
water again!). The wires don't bulge with extra electrons when the wind
blows hard, to be consumed later when the sun sets. Although that *is*
how the gas grid works.

>and so long as the accounting matches up the suppliers and customers
>then it All Just Works.

The CoOp once boasted that all its shops were supplied by wind power (a
typical bit of greenwash). I don't see the lights going out on very calm
days.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv417h$2ed74$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:45:21 on Sat, 18 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tv3s0j$2dj8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:19 on Sat, 18 Mar
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tv1uol$20gak$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:01 on Fri, 17 Mar
>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 17/03/2023 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains
>>>>>>>>> highly skilled
>>>>>>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>>>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>>
>>>>>> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong
>>
>> ***** statement*****
>>
>>>>>> with privatisation (that's
>>>>>> just the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but
>>>>>> the manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in
>>>>>> structures which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>>>>>
>>>>> There certainly was
>>
>> ***** rebuttal *****
>>
>>>>> with the Railtrack version of privatisation.
>>
>>>> Ah, so someone here *is* arguing that Railway Privatisation was wrong.
>>>
>>> No. His argument, and that of many, is the implemented form was wrong.
>>
>> Can we meet in the middle and propose that it wasn't fundamentally
>> wrong, but the implementation went awry?
>>
>> The same could happen with re-nationalisation, of course.
>
>I think we have to first examine if a privatised UK railway is a practical
>possibility.

In a sense it *was* practical, because it happened. Although it's been
gradually reversed by stealth, as time wore on.

So perhaps a *totally* privatised railway isn't in practice a
sustainable concept. But then neither is a *totally* nationalised
one. You'd need a nationalised steel works to manufacture the rails,
for example.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv49vj$2ft4c$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:43 on Sat, 18 Mar
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 18/03/2023 07:24, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tv1uol$20gak$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:01 on Fri, 17 Mar
>>2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>> On 17/03/2023 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16
>>>>Mar 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>>>that  I know about, be it the space industry or the oil
>>>>>>>industry, retains highly  skilled engineers in the upper part
>>>>>>>of the chain that issues the contracts. Otherwise you don’t
>>>>>>>even know what you don’t know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>>
>>>>  That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation
>>>>(that's just  the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure
>>>>groups), but the  manner in which it's done can be as poorly
>>>>executed as in structures  which have never swapped from public to
>>>>
>>>
>>> There certainly was with the Railtrack version of privatisation.
>> Ah, so someone here *is* arguing that Railway Privatisation was
>>wrong.
>
>My statement only stated that Railtrack version was wrong.

Who got it wrong, though? Was that John Major, or the people who ran
Railtrack.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tv417h$2ed74$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:45:21 on Sat, 18 Mar
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tv3s0j$2dj8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:19 on Sat, 18 Mar
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tv1uol$20gak$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:01 on Fri, 17 Mar
>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 17/03/2023 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains
>>>>>>>>>> highly skilled
>>>>>>>>>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>>>>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong
>>>
>>> ***** statement*****
>>>
>>>>>>> with privatisation (that's
>>>>>>> just the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but
>>>>>>> the manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in
>>>>>>> structures which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There certainly was
>>>
>>> ***** rebuttal *****
>>>
>>>>>> with the Railtrack version of privatisation.
>>>
>>>>> Ah, so someone here *is* arguing that Railway Privatisation was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No. His argument, and that of many, is the implemented form was wrong.
>>>
>>> Can we meet in the middle and propose that it wasn't fundamentally
>>> wrong, but the implementation went awry?
>>>
>>> The same could happen with re-nationalisation, of course.
>>
>> I think we have to first examine if a privatised UK railway is a practical
>> possibility.
>
> In a sense it *was* practical, because it happened. Although it's been
> gradually reversed by stealth, as time wore on.
>
> So perhaps a *totally* privatised railway isn't in practice a
> sustainable concept. But then neither is a *totally* nationalised
> one. You'd need a nationalised steel works to manufacture the rails,
> for example.

A nationalised industry isn’t precluded from purchasing from private
sources and never has been.

German Railways, which are mostly public sector, aren’t doing too well
these days according to a friend I’m visiting. He puts it down to long term
underinvestment. Mind you, he says Germany isn’t the place it was with the
much vaunted efficiency crumbling. They are also suffering labour shortages
especially in the construction trades. (An Austrian electronics firm I know
about is also struggling to recruit production staff).

Back to the original point, I don’t think we’ve ever found a stable long
term structure for UK railways since they were invented. The preserved
Great Central Railway is now celebrating 50 years of operation. They point
out they have lasted longer than the original GCR, LNER and BR. (For the
avoidance of doubt I’m not advocating the preserved railway as the best
model of railway structure)

In message <tv4481$2ep86$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:47 on Sat, 18 Mar
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 17.03.23 08:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tuufbv$1aipb$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:09:51 on Thu, 16 Mar
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on
>>>>>>Wed, 15
>>>>>> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3
>>>>>>>>>>was a real product that signalling companies could actually
>>>>>>>>>>deliver, rather than recognising it as vapourware. They
>>>>>>>>>>didn't even try for a test installation somewhere to see if
>>>>>>>>>>the technology was even vaguely viable before building their
>>>>>>>>>>plans to depend on it. From what I can tell, nearly 25 years
>>>>>>>>>>later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on even
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company
>>>>>>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of
>>>>>>>>>the biggest mistakes of privatisation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a
>>>>>>>position to answer questions unless accompanied by purchase
>>>>>>>orders, for which it is unlikely there was a budget, unless
>>>>>>>preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and
>>>>>>(prospective) suppliers for various projects should be engaged on
>>>>>>feasibility studies where both sides are around the table.
>>>>>>(Whether that's a lump of wood, or some remote working).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in
>>>>>> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not
>>>>>>structural, as has been claimed, but a failure to apply
>>>>>>commonplace working practices across many stakeholders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different
>>>>>>organisations have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply
>>>>>>applying red ink to Requests for Tender.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos
>>>>>>post-privatisation, isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a
>>>>>>mentality from pre-privatisation? In which case the act of
>>>>>>privatisation isn't the villain here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
>>>>>> subcontractors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence
>>>>>that I know about, be it the space industry or the oil industry,
>>>>>retains highly skilled engineers in the upper part of the chain
>>>>>that issues the contracts. Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>>>>
>>>> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
>>>> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
>>>
>>> I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

>> That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation (that's
>>just the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure groups), but
>>the manner in which it's done can be as poorly executed as in
>>structures which have never swapped from public to private sector.
>
>What was wrong was the beleif that creating dvisions between different
>functions of running the railway would create a market for those
>services that would bring down costs. What it did was create artificial
>divisions within the overall organisation delivering the servce that
>created infefficiencies, and the competition that did arise was not
>able to create savings sufficient to offset those increased costs.

Creating those internal divisions (often characterised as "profit
centres") is just as prevalent in the always-been-private sector. So I
don't think this is unique to a privat*ised* landscape.

>The government of the day was fixated upon creating internal markes
>within organisations based on a flawed belief that commercial
>competition would always create efficiency.

The linkage between competition and efficiency is a complex economic
model. See also the old joke "why is there only one Monopolies
Commission".

Many years ago a friend was working as an electronics engineer in a big
private company, and developed some software tools. They were so good
the company decide to turn them into a free-standing product, and market
it widely. The only problem was his electronics-lab division didn't have
the budget to licence those tools back for his own use (the software
division arguing that they needed paying in order to offer ongoing
support and develop the product further).
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv6gff$2u0h2$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:51 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>> Ah, so someone here *is* arguing that Railway Privatisation was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. His argument, and that of many, is the implemented form was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Can we meet in the middle and propose that it wasn't fundamentally
>>>> wrong, but the implementation went awry?
>>>>
>>>> The same could happen with re-nationalisation, of course.
>>>
>>> I think we have to first examine if a privatised UK railway is a practical
>>> possibility.
>>
>> In a sense it *was* practical, because it happened. Although it's been
>> gradually reversed by stealth, as time wore on.
>>
>> So perhaps a *totally* privatised railway isn't in practice a
>> sustainable concept. But then neither is a *totally* nationalised
>> one. You'd need a nationalised steel works to manufacture the rails,
>> for example.
>
>A nationalised industry isn’t precluded from purchasing from private
>sources and never has been.

It can, however, botch the procurement process just as easily as private
industry does.

>German Railways, which are mostly public sector, aren’t doing too well
>these days according to a friend I’m visiting. He puts it down to long term
>underinvestment. Mind you, he says Germany isn’t the place it was with the
>much vaunted efficiency crumbling. They are also suffering labour shortages
>especially in the construction trades. (An Austrian electronics firm I know
>about is also struggling to recruit production staff).

Are such jobs simply no longer attractive to the yoof-of-today?

>Back to the original point, I don’t think we’ve ever found a stable long
>term structure for UK railways since they were invented. The preserved
>Great Central Railway is now celebrating 50 years of operation. They point
>out they have lasted longer than the original GCR, LNER and BR. (For the
>avoidance of doubt I’m not advocating the preserved railway as the best
>model of railway structure)

The railway might be celebrating 50yrs, but the corporate structure has
been re-jigged during that time.
--
Roland Perry