Poll: Should rail be re-nationalised? This poll is closed. |
|||
Yes | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
10 | 58.82% |
No | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
7 | 41.18% |
Total | 17 votes | 100% |
* You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
Rail Franchising - The Future
|
|
||||||
RE: Rail Franchising - The Future
Where are you getting this information about London Midland from? I've searched well and have found no evidence these cancellations have been exactly the same for two months, though happy to be corrected. In fact, the BBC News article is from just two days ago, which suggests this recent raft of cancellations is just that - recent. So, he didn't directly say privatisation was 'perverse, inefficient and wasteful' as you directly, and erroneously, quoted him as saying? Admitting "some aspects" were wrong is totally different, and I don't think many people in general would disagree with that sentiment. Privatisation had its flaws, indeed I wasn't in favour of the idea like the majority at the time. However, to suggest that the errors of civil servants in calculating figures is the catalyst we need to renationalise the railways is deeply flawed logic. So in other words, you don't have a better option but MAA/PMM is no good to you because it shows East Coast (nationalised franchise) in a bad light. It might have its drawbacks, but it's the same for every operator. Virgin run a lot more trains per hour than East Coast and have a larger network, but still manage better reliability figures. East Coast is worse than NXEC, which simply does not provide evidence that renationalisation would be a good thing.
3101(i) | 3305 | 3616 | 4012 | 4159 | 4100 | 4102 | 4118 | 4127 | 4475
313044 | 313064 | 313220 | 314206 | 314210 | 315809 | 315839 | 315857 | 507001 | 507002 | 507006 | 507008 | 507009 | 508114 | 508138 | 508208 |
||||||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 13 Guest(s)