On 19/03/2023 08:41, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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?

There isn't enough of the yoof-of-today to go round.

>
>> 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.

I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in its
operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations it's quoting.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>> 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.
>>>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.
>
>I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in its
>operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations it's
>quoting.

There will have been many external "interferences" in its *operations*
over the years, most recently the reinstatement of the bridge at
Loughborough linking the north and south sections. Also internal
politics very much evident on the northern section not so long ago.
--
Roland Perry

On 19.03.23 09:41, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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?

2023 - 65 = 1958. 2023 - 18 = 2005. Birth rates in 1958 were far higher
than in 2005 all across western Europe and north America. In general the
labour pool is contracting (or, due to immigratin, still growing but at
a lower rate). People seeking work can therefore be a bit more
selective, meaning unattractive jobs are getting hard to recruit for.

Robin

On 19/03/2023 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in its
>> operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations it's
>> quoting.
>
> There will have been many external "interferences" in its *operations*
> over the years, most recently the reinstatement of the bridge at
> Loughborough linking the north and south sections.

That is not political.

> Also internal
> politics very much evident on the northern section not so long ago.

All organisations have internal politics as I recall you boasting about
manipulating in the past.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19.03.23 09:17, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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:

>>>>> 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.

There is an important distinction between internal profit centres within
a single company is that if the particular interfaces between the
various profit centres is found to cause problems to the business, the
business can reorganise things. Where there are conflicts between the
profit centres, they can be resolved internally without getting lawyers
involved.

For key business activities, companies have to make the choice of do or
buy for various activities, and getting the decision wrong can break a
business. In the context of the railway, the decision of how to make the
do/buy split was imposed for political rather than business reasons, and
that it was done wrongly is a major contributor to the failue of Railtrack.

>> 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).

That's a good example of how getting the organisation wrong can harm a
business, but if the different profit centres are part of the same
business, they can shuffle numbers around on a spreadsheet by creating
nominal internal charges to rectify the problem. If the division had
been actually split off as a separate company, all of those interfaces
would be tied up with contracts and teams of lawyers.

Robin

In message <tv6o12$2v8or$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:42 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 19/03/2023 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19 Mar
>>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>> 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. 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.
>>>
>>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in its
>>>operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations it's
>>>quoting.

>> There will have been many external "interferences" in its
>>*operations* over the years, most recently the reinstatement of the
>>bridge at Loughborough linking the north and south sections.
>
>That is not political.

I expect there's politics involved in being able to reinstate major
structures like that.

>> Also internal politics very much evident on the northern section not
>>so long ago.
>
>All organisations have internal politics

Some have much more than others.

>as I recall you boasting about manipulating in the past.

I don't normally get involved in that. Public policy was my field.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/03/2023 11:17, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tv6o12$2v8or$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:42 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 19/03/2023 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19 Mar
>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> 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.  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.
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in its
>>>> operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations it's
>>>> quoting.
>
>>>  There will have been many external "interferences" in its
>>> *operations*  over the years, most recently the reinstatement of the
>>> bridge at  Loughborough linking the north and south sections.
>>
>> That is not political.
>
> I expect there's politics involved in being able to reinstate major
> structures like that.

That's not interference.

>
>>> Also internal  politics very much evident on the northern section not
>>> so long ago.
>>
>> All organisations have internal politics
>
> Some have much more than others.
>
>> as I recall you boasting about manipulating in the past.
>
> I don't normally get involved in that. Public policy was my field.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in its
>> operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations it's
>> quoting.
>
> There will have been many external "interferences" in its *operations*
> over the years, most recently the reinstatement of the bridge at
> Loughborough linking the north and south sections.

No, no politics, just a shortage of funds. And the replacement bridges
probably won't be in use for years, so there's been no effect yet on the
operations of either GCR.

> Also internal politics very much evident on the northern section not so long ago.

Different company, but it's not uncommon for volunteer societies to have
disagreements.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> 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.

FTAOD I wasn’t confused.

Sam

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

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> 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.

An analogy, dear boy! Of course there is very little storage in the
national electricity grid but AIUI there are voltage and phase changes as
demand and supply are matched to each other, and they do have to match.

>> 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.

Perhaps claiming 100% wind is exaggeration, but 100% renewables is
possible.

Sam

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

In message <tv6oho$2uvl8$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:33 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 19.03.23 09:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>> 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:
>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>There is an important distinction between internal profit centres
>within a single company is that if the particular interfaces between
>the various profit centres is found to cause problems to the business,
>the business can reorganise things. Where there are conflicts between
>the profit centres, they can be resolved internally without getting
>lawyers involved.

Only by getting senior managers involved, and they are often less
good at it, or less inclined to, than lawyers (especially if they
come from an accountancy background).

>For key business activities, companies have to make the choice of do or
>buy for various activities, and getting the decision wrong can break a
>business. In the context of the railway, the decision of how to make
>the do/buy split was imposed for political rather than business
>reasons, and that it was done wrongly is a major contributor to the
>failue of Railtrack.

I'm not completely convinced that the way Railtrack divided its
operations ("splitting the engineers up", wasn't it) was imposed
by the decision to separate the TOCs from the infrastructure.

>>> 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).
>
>That's a good example of how getting the organisation wrong can harm a
>business, but if the different profit centres are part of the same
>business, they can shuffle numbers around on a spreadsheet by creating
>nominal internal charges to rectify the problem.

Only if they are inclined to do it, and not just because someone in an
engineering lab was indulging in what they would probably characterise
as unwelcome 'special pleading'.

>If the division had been actually split off as a separate company, all
>of those interfaces would be tied up with contracts and teams of
>lawyers.

And those lawyers would probably have had enough experience to specify
that the electronics lab would have a free licence to continuing using
the software (with perhaps a small maintenance fee for future updates).
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv6rfa$2vqtd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:25:30 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 19/03/2023 11:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tv6o12$2v8or$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:42 on Sun, 19 Mar
>>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 19/03/2023 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19
>>>>Mar 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.  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
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>  The railway might be celebrating 50yrs, but the corporate
>>>>>>structure  has  been re-jigged during that time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in
>>>>>its operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations
>>>>>it's quoting.
>>
>>>>  There will have been many external "interferences" in its
>>>>*operations*  over the years, most recently the reinstatement of
>>>>the bridge at  Loughborough linking the north and south sections.
>>>
>>> That is not political.

>> I expect there's politics involved in being able to reinstate major
>>structures like that.
>
>That's not interference.

Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tv6oho$2uvl8$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:33 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 19.03.23 09:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> 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:
>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> There is an important distinction between internal profit centres
>> within a single company is that if the particular interfaces between
>> the various profit centres is found to cause problems to the business,
>> the business can reorganise things. Where there are conflicts between
>> the profit centres, they can be resolved internally without getting
>> lawyers involved.
>
> Only by getting senior managers involved, and they are often less
> good at it, or less inclined to, than lawyers (especially if they
> come from an accountancy background).
>
>> For key business activities, companies have to make the choice of do or
>> buy for various activities, and getting the decision wrong can break a
>> business. In the context of the railway, the decision of how to make
>> the do/buy split was imposed for political rather than business
>> reasons, and that it was done wrongly is a major contributor to the
>> failue of Railtrack.
>
> I'm not completely convinced that the way Railtrack divided its
> operations ("splitting the engineers up", wasn't it) was imposed
> by the decision to separate the TOCs from the infrastructure.

You obviously still have absolutely no idea how Railtrack was privatised.
You'd know much more than you clearly do if you'd simply been educated by
the posts this thread.

I suggest you stop your inane arguments, and just get your carer to explain
the posts to you.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tv6rfa$2vqtd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:25:30 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 19/03/2023 11:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tv6o12$2v8or$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:42 on Sun, 19 Mar
>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 19/03/2023 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19
>>>>> Mar 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.  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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  The railway might be celebrating 50yrs, but the corporate
>>>>>>> structure  has  been re-jigged during that time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in
>>>>>> its operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations
>>>>>> it's quoting.
>>>
>>>>>  There will have been many external "interferences" in its
>>>>> *operations*  over the years, most recently the reinstatement of
>>>>> the bridge at  Loughborough linking the north and south sections.
>>>>
>>>> That is not political.
>
>>> I expect there's politics involved in being able to reinstate major
>>> structures like that.
>>
>> That's not interference.
>
> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>

Most has yet to be built, but there's no argument about what needs
building. The where is obvious, and the when depends on raising enough
funds. There's still a long way to go.

In message <tv6rnk$2vta0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:29:56 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19 Mar
>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in its
>>> operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations it's
>>> quoting.
>>
>> There will have been many external "interferences" in its *operations*
>> over the years, most recently the reinstatement of the bridge at
>> Loughborough linking the north and south sections.
>
>No, no politics, just a shortage of funds.

No planning committee to convince it's a good idea? That's a novelty.

>And the replacement bridges probably won't be in use for years,

Delayed by planning/regulatory issues perhaps.

>so there's been no effect yet on the operations of either GCR.
>
>> Also internal politics very much evident on the northern section not
>>so long ago.
>
>Different company, but it's not uncommon for volunteer societies to have
>disagreements.

The disagreements were I think about the arrangements for leasing the
line, which might belong to the GCR not the volunteer society running
the limited heritage operation out of Rushcliffe.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv6ruc$2vuo4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:33:32 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <turva5$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.
>
>FTAOD I wasn’t confused.

I wasn't "confused". I was seeking clarification before making my mind
up what the question meant.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tv6rnk$2vta0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:29:56 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19 Mar
>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in its
>>>> operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations it's
>>>> quoting.
>>>
>>> There will have been many external "interferences" in its *operations*
>>> over the years, most recently the reinstatement of the bridge at
>>> Loughborough linking the north and south sections.
>>
>> No, no politics, just a shortage of funds.
>
> No planning committee to convince it's a good idea? That's a novelty.
>
>> And the replacement bridges probably won't be in use for years,
>
> Delayed by planning/regulatory issues perhaps.

No, just a shortage of funds to build them.

>
>> so there's been no effect yet on the operations of either GCR.
>>
>>> Also internal politics very much evident on the northern section not
>>> so long ago.
>>
>> Different company, but it's not uncommon for volunteer societies to have
>> disagreements.
>
> The disagreements were I think about the arrangements for leasing the
> line, which might belong to the GCR not the volunteer society running
> the limited heritage operation out of Rushcliffe.

I don't think the GCR(N) is playing much part in the reconstruction. It's
the GCR that needs the mainline connection.

In message <tv6s7o$3009l$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:32 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>An analogy, dear boy! Of course there is very little storage in the
>national electricity grid

It was the word "reservoir", that I was doubtful about.

>but AIUI there are voltage and phase changes as
>demand and supply are matched to each other, and they do have to match.
>
>>> 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.
>
>Perhaps claiming 100% wind is exaggeration, but 100% renewables is
>possible.

It is now, but back then (unless you call Nuclear a renewable, but I'm
sure the CoOp wouldn't have opened that can of worms) there'd be the
night-times with no wind to cope with.

Wind was quite trendy, even woke, and the school I was a governor at had
significant pressure to install a small/medium-sized wind turbine, and I
looked at the sums. My conclusion (which people didn't want to hear) was
that it would be fine to spend £20k, or whatever, on what would
undoubtedly be a useful teaching aid, but if they expected the long term
energy contribution to be more than a couple light bulbs, they'd been
mis-sold.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/03/2023 11:56, Recliner wrote:
>> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>>
> Most has yet to be built, but there's no argument about what needs
> building. The where is obvious, and the when depends on raising enough
> funds. There's still a long way to go.
>

Around half finished on the new structures. I was there yesterday. They
are currently replacing 2 bridges around Mountsorrel,on the current
running lines, half way down the line,so the new bridges havent been
touched for 3 months.
3 bridges are now finished, and ready for track laying, 2 more need to
be started, one over the factory car park, and one over the road next to
it, Railway Terrace. They are £2.8m projected cost, £1.8m has been
raised, and work is expected to start around September, with a finish
around January 24. Then track laying and signalling will start, which is
another fund raiser.
--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
> On 19/03/2023 11:56, Recliner wrote:
>>> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>>>
>> Most has yet to be built, but there's no argument about what needs
>> building. The where is obvious, and the when depends on raising enough
>> funds. There's still a long way to go.
>>
>
> Around half finished on the new structures. I was there yesterday. They
> are currently replacing 2 bridges around Mountsorrel,on the current
> running lines, half way down the line,so the new bridges havent been
> touched for 3 months.
> 3 bridges are now finished, and ready for track laying, 2 more need to
> be started, one over the factory car park, and one over the road next to
> it, Railway Terrace. They are £2.8m projected cost, £1.8m has been
> raised, and work is expected to start around September, with a finish
> around January 24. Then track laying and signalling will start, which is
> another fund raiser.

Thanks for the update. When do you think trains might first run through?
As early as 2025?

On 19/03/2023 11:42, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tv6rfa$2vqtd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:25:30 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 19/03/2023 11:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tv6o12$2v8or$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:42 on Sun, 19 Mar
>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 19/03/2023 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19
>>>>> Mar  2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.  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
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  The railway might be celebrating 50yrs, but the corporate
>>>>>>> structure  has  been re-jigged during that time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in
>>>>>> its  operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations
>>>>>> it's  quoting.
>>>
>>>>>  There will have been many external "interferences" in its
>>>>> *operations*  over the years, most recently the reinstatement of
>>>>> the bridge at  Loughborough linking the north and south sections.
>>>>
>>>> That is not political.
>
>>>  I expect there's politics involved in being able to reinstate major
>>> structures like that.
>>
>> That's not interference.
>
> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>

Which politicians would be involved?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/03/2023 12:42, Recliner wrote:
> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2023 11:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>>>>
>>> Most has yet to be built, but there's no argument about what needs
>>> building. The where is obvious, and the when depends on raising enough
>>> funds. There's still a long way to go.
>>>
>>
>> Around half finished on the new structures. I was there yesterday. They
>> are currently replacing 2 bridges around Mountsorrel,on the current
>> running lines, half way down the line,so the new bridges havent been
>> touched for 3 months.
>> 3 bridges are now finished, and ready for track laying, 2 more need to
>> be started, one over the factory car park, and one over the road next to
>> it, Railway Terrace. They are £2.8m projected cost, £1.8m has been
>> raised, and work is expected to start around September, with a finish
>> around January 24. Then track laying and signalling will start, which is
>> another fund raiser.
>
> Thanks for the update. When do you think trains might first run through?
> As early as 2025?
>

No idea, as the Northern section still isnt usable due to no maintenance
for the last 3 years. There was a stoppage as the (northern, ex NR)
bridge over the A60 was in poor condition, I dont think this is the same
one as the GCR have recently built, I didnt go that way.
As in my other post, the GCR(N) et al, have now resolved their
differences, and are starting to sort out their end, but they have a
long way to go to get it as well run, and maintained as the GCR
infrastructure.
They are not bringing a great deal to the re-unification party, their
rolling stock isnt great, their infrastructure is creaking, and it seems
they have few donors to help them out.

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 07:25:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>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.

Isn't it strange how every single argument in the group involves you?

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:01:14 +0000, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:

>On 19/03/2023 12:42, Recliner wrote:
>> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2023 11:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>>>>>
>>>> Most has yet to be built, but there's no argument about what needs
>>>> building. The where is obvious, and the when depends on raising enough
>>>> funds. There's still a long way to go.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Around half finished on the new structures. I was there yesterday. They
>>> are currently replacing 2 bridges around Mountsorrel,on the current
>>> running lines, half way down the line,so the new bridges havent been
>>> touched for 3 months.
>>> 3 bridges are now finished, and ready for track laying, 2 more need to
>>> be started, one over the factory car park, and one over the road next to
>>> it, Railway Terrace. They are £2.8m projected cost, £1.8m has been
>>> raised, and work is expected to start around September, with a finish
>>> around January 24. Then track laying and signalling will start, which is
>>> another fund raiser.
>>
>> Thanks for the update. When do you think trains might first run through?
>> As early as 2025?
>>
>
>No idea, as the Northern section still isnt usable due to no maintenance
>for the last 3 years. There was a stoppage as the (northern, ex NR)
>bridge over the A60 was in poor condition, I dont think this is the same
>one as the GCR have recently built, I didnt go that way.
>As in my other post, the GCR(N) et al, have now resolved their
>differences, and are starting to sort out their end, but they have a
>long way to go to get it as well run, and maintained as the GCR
>infrastructure.
>They are not bringing a great deal to the re-unification party, their
>rolling stock isnt great, their infrastructure is creaking, and it seems
>they have few donors to help them out.

At some future stage, might the GCR absorb the GCR(N)?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tv6ruc$2vuo4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:33:32 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <turva5$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.
>>
>> FTAOD I wasn’t confused.
>
> I wasn't "confused". I was seeking clarification before making my mind
> up what the question meant.

OK then; I knew exactly which trains Recliner meant - I didn’t need any
clarification about which ones were capable of running at which top speed.

And which question are you referring to? In this subthread the only
question is from you (which you’ve snipped; paraphrase: can Voyagers run at
140 mph?) andI’m not seeing anything obvious if I go somewhat further back.

So perhaps I am confused, but not by Recliner.

Sam

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