Timewasting mickeytakers

[RedPutty]

This government is totally corrupt that much is clear.

[nichomach]

Those that want the railways to remain in Gov hands will always blame the Torys for the mess etc.

And those that examine the method of privatisation will conclude that it was done in a way which no other country EVER attempted to privatise their rail network, and for very good reason; there's only one country in Europe that separated the provision of services from the provision of the track on which they ran, and that's because in that case the track remained in public ownership. 126 separate companies? You think that made sense?

I know that there are people who wanted the administration of Railtrack to happen, but there was no New Labour manifesto pledge to re-nationalise the tracks etc in 1997 or 2001 that I know of.

And the tracks have still not been renationalised; they've been placed into the hands of a not-for-profit private entity that'll put profits back into maintenance of the network.

Rail passenger numbers had been rising steadily throughout the privatised period. Yes I know that there was Government subsidy (read your hard earned cash) but there still is today (and a greater amount).

Damn right; after spending their tenure ripping off as much in the way of profits and bonuses as they could, RT left the tracks in such a mess that it'll take years to sort them out.

Nicomanch - the stock holders did not recieve 90% of their investment. iirc and correct me if I'm wrong cos this is rough, but the shareholders received @ £2.15 per share when the shares were listed at @ £9.00. If they got 90% back, they would not be paying ££ to go to court to get 100% ???

I never said they did, but the fact is that in their hands the value of the shares decreased from a high of £17 per share to £2.60 per share. Now that's down to RT management, as voted for by the shareholders. You think it makes sense for them to get all the profits when things go well, but for the taxpayer to hand over however much money they want after they've screwed up? They received 90% of the value of their shares, as I said. And as the ads say "the value of your investment can go down as well as up.

£500 million was not what the stock market valued the company at - see share price.

Actually, the share price was £2.60, not £9, and the City wasn't interested in them at all. £500m was more than fair.

Unfortunately some of those "poor little darlings", were long time BR workers (and their families) who had been encouraged by both colours of government to invest in the railways.

And if RT were competently managed, it would have been a good investment. Unfortunately, the shareholders voted for the management they got.

They thought that they would be able to invest money for a reasonable/modest return and know that they were investing in something worthwhile (and solid) and something they felt passionate about and had beeen involved in.

Or they thought they were on to a no lose proposition because they assumed that however badly the rail network was screwed up, no government would let them go to the wall. And they received hundreds of millions in subsidies, a vast proportion of which went straight into their pockets as dividends or into the pockets of the directors as bonuses.

The Hatfield crash was very unfortunate, as is any innocent loss of life.

[
And more than unfortunate, if better investment in track or safety equipment would have averted it.

I, as an Engineer know the risks. I produce data (through testing) for Engineers to assess that risk and compensate for it in the most highly regualted travel industry of - Aircraft. We try DESPERATELY TO REDUCE RISK. Every forseable (AND WE CAN'T SEE EVERYTHING BUT WE TRY) aspect is catered for, every manual carefully drafted, every individual trained etc, etc but accidents DO happen.

Nice try, but I work for a firm that does major civil engineering jobs, my last firm built software for railways and I have friends who actually work on the kind of track that we're talking about. Moreover, they worked under the old BR inspection and maintenance schemes and under RT, and RT maintenance and inspections were a joke. Moreover, they knew it, because their own employees told them (as they did before Potters Bar). These are not unforeseen risks, iranu, the risks of allowing track to become dilapidated through lack of maintenance were well known and understood. So why did RT take those risks? Because maintenance and inspection costs money, and it also causes delays. RT bonuses were directly dependent upon reducing delays. Without reference to safety criteria.

We now live in such a legislative society where something is ALWAYS someones fault. Was this incident used?

You mean litigious, not legislative. And I would say that watching the nauseating fan dance between RT and Jarvis over whose responsibility the state of the track was in the wake of Potters Bar provided sufficient evidence that we were moving to a corporate culture where no-one was responsible for ANYTHING. In the cases of Paddington, Hatfield and Potters Bar, there was responsibility to attribute. That's not "using" the situation, that's just what the situation was.

After Hatfield the Government imposed such ridiculus safety restrictions on Railtrack that they had no option but to introduce speed restrictions.

And if you knew the state of some of that track then you'd be bloody glad they did.

Railtrack were forced to undergoe an expensive and un-needed restrictions.

Expensive, yes, unneeded? You have GOT to be kidding - there are parts of the track around here that certain people who do rail maintenance that I know refused point blank to travel on.

This left them short of cash and they asked for their £5 billion early. The Gov said no and then rolled it up in admin.

Actually, they refused to state any figure at all with regard to the extent of underwriting that they would receive from the government, and note that one of the things that they demanded that the public pay for was their profits.

[Big RICHARD]

These people should have known the risks of owning shares in a company before they bought them. Also, they should have voted for the right people to manage the company, instead of milking it for themselves.

[starside]

Unfortunately some of those "poor little darlings", were long time BR workers (and their families) who had been encouraged by both colours of government to invest in the railways. They thought that they would be able to invest money for a reasonable/modest return and know that they were investing in something worthwhile (and solid) and something they felt passionate about and had beeen involved in.

Didn't anyone explain that investing in shares is a risky business? I knew of someone who had all their life savings invested in Railtrack - now that is silly.

[Stewart]

Rave stepaway from the bbc news sites before you do yourself a mischief.

I like this boy.

[Rave]

Yeah he's right, on Monday night I was an a bit of a rage bender

[Rave]

Well they lost.

Good. Hope they get hit with costs too, the poncing whining timewasting scum. On my last week of commuting into work (two weeks ago) I got delayed three days out of five, once for an hour- all thanks to the fact that Railtrack screwed up the tracks royally.

So Railtrack shareholders- here's a big **** you from me.

[RVF500]

I'm reminded of the Lloyds names who lost out when Lloyds went down the sh*tter after a spate of shipping disasters. For some reason they figured that by being rich and/or famous then they were entitled to be recompensed out of the public purse for a failed private investment.

Those of us who are home owners, we fail to make the payments we lose our homes. That's because it's an investment and all investment carries risk. There's no difference. Private investment carries risk it doesn't matter what you invest in. If you want a return on your money virtually guaranteed then make a loan to the company in question. At least you can go to a court if you don't get your money back on some kind of legal basis.

Over to you nicho

[nichomach]

*Applauds RVF500*

At least a line has been drawn under the whole sorry affair. Perhaps it'll put a full stop to a period in history where public funds were grossly misused to provide endless "rescue" packages, golden hellos and golden handshakes in a sordid pillaging of the public purse for private profit.

[windog]

The one thing that has allways puzzled me is how a company recieving an enormous publicly funded subsidy were allowed to pay a dividend to begin with, and make the shares so popular in the first place?

[Romanov]

Byers deserves a medal so as usual the political establishment has hung him out to dry for doing the right thing as ooposed to 'Porky Pig' 2 Jags....shame really Byers was good I think...

[badass]

I'm reminded of the Lloyds names who lost out when Lloyds went down the sh*tter after a spate of shipping disasters. For some reason they figured that by being rich and/or famous then they were entitled to be recompensed out of the public purse for a failed private investment.

Those of us who are home owners, we fail to make the payments we lose our homes. That's because it's an investment and all investment carries risk. There's no difference. Private investment carries risk it doesn't matter what you invest in. If you want a return on your money virtually guaranteed then make a loan to the company in question. At least you can go to a court if you don't get your money back on some kind of legal basis.

Over to you nicho

Spot on!
And for the unfortunate workers owned shares - they get paid a fortune anyway for working on the tracks!
Also, they were told its an investment. They were told it could go up as well as down. If they didn't want to take the risk then they could have not bought or sold the shares as soon as they were issued them.
You cant say its not fair because some of the shareholders were gullible.
IMHO its tuff luck for all of the shareholders that lost out!

[jtb2004]

Have to say I'm glad the result went the way it did.

The whole debate re introducing the private sector into public servcie provision should learn from this. Look at the NHS - being shoved headlong into back door privatisation. If you introduce the Provate Sector to any public service it has to make a profit to feed share holders.

Something a non profit making public management team do not have to do.