Talk:Network Rail
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport in Scotland.
|
"They are maintained by its daughter company Railtrack" -- not so; they subcontract to all & sundry. (heard on R4 news). -- Tarquin
Contents |
[edit] Management & NPOV Question
1.For the first time in Netowrk Rail's history a profit was made this year- allowing money to be reinvested into the network. 2.Train punctuality is at a seven year high. 3.Passenger numbers are at an all time high.
I'm having a hard time trying to decide whether it's relevant for a comparison with Adam Crozier of Royal Mail to be made within this article. Simply stating he is the highest paid is surely enough? Aladowellin 04:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I guess that the paragraph introduced about the financial viability of Network Rail should probably not appear here. It's not really very factual, and nor is it sourced - I tried to find some media critics that say network rail is not viable but I have not been able to yet. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place! The debt increased from 15.7b to 18.2[1] this year BTW. Number of passengers that travel on the trains doesn't have much to do with Network Rail as I understand it - isn't that for the TOCs?
Underinvestment by British Rail? Well, Network Rail is receiving 4 times as much public subsidy right now as British Rail received (as per the times [2]) so wouldn't that be underinvestment by the government of the day? I'm not altogether sure how much of this should even appear in an encylopedia article, opinions? :) Aladowellin 04:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're getting there - yes it shouldn't perhaps appear here as its not relevant, but as the successor company to railtrack its very interesting how it can owe almost £20bn yet not have the means to pay this back (as the state sets the structure of the rail industry) and more importantly this £20bn is kept of the national accounts - a very interesting economic conundrum. the critique about the long term financial viability of the current financial/economic model/structure of the GB rail industry is perhaps more appropriate over on the "rail transport in GB" page. Pickle 17:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Network Rail does not own all UK railway stations
The article used to say:
- Network Rail owns all UK railway stations. Management of these is carried out by the train operating companies except for seventeen of the largest and busiest which Network Rail manages itself. ...
This is obviously incorrect, as there are many UK railway stations owned by London Underground, other metro operators, preserved railways, etc, etc.
I don't believe that it is even true that Network Rail owns all railway stations served by National Rail services. At least some of the London stations shared by National Rail and London Underground are owned by London Underground. And I believe St Pancras is owned by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link people. The two Heathrow Express stations at Heathrow are owned by BAA, although it is debatable as to whether they are on the National Rail network, at least until the Heathrow Connect service starts up. So I have replaced the text with:
- Network Rail owns almost all railway stations on the National Rail network. Management of most Network Rail owned stations is carried out by the principal train operating company serving that station. However seventeen of the largest and busiest stations are directly managed by Network Rail itself. ...
-- Chris j wood 20:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think you will find there is also a station in the south east that is owned by the Church of England!
Jatos 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Criticisms and Conflicts of Interest addressing.
I think this article could benefit from a criticisms section that addresses the neutrality issues in the Talk page. I would also argue that the ownership, financial responsibility for, or direct control of stations (excluding transportation infrastructure, safety, and security features) represents a direct conflict of interest; which should have been evident from the days of railtrack. Taking engineering in-house puts responsibility directly on network rail, but it is also a dictated response to the criticisms in most judgements involving railtrack. As such, the arguments of re-nationalization become skewed by the fact that, short of maintenance/measuring, network rail has very limited rolling stock.
Completely separating any station and station revenues from network rail as an entity, now that it is arguably re-nationalized, is not only feasible; but rational. Due to the shared ownership of domestic stations, the ability to acquire this control is complex; but not impossible. Allowing open bids for station control would be one method of dispensing with the situation; however allowing train operators to participate in this would be akin to the conflict that arises from the original railtrack situation.
If money could be made by One, Virgin, GNE-soon-to-be-gone-R, etc. at the station level, and there is the obvious pressure by shareholders to maximize profits, then the opportunity to increase spending on station enhancements over maintenance to and upgrade cycles of rolling stock must surely be debated. Increasing the funding to the former at the detriment of the latter inevitable puts the British public in a dangerous situation. The CTRL upgrades alone make this situation slightly more complex as the political focus on the entities increasing the influx of euros to the UK is likely to be scrutinized w/ extreme myopia.
While it will be argued over the course of the next few years that private companies could enhance convenience, grow their revenues through station branding, and utilize the existing funds to improve the safety of both the stations and the rolling stock; I find little evidence to indicate that safety would improve over financial gain.
In short, ownership of stations by carriers or track maintenance groups should be eliminated entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.195.181.245 (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] profit
- 1.For the first time in Network Rail's history a profit was made this year- allowing money to be reinvested into the network.
- 2.Train punctuality is at a seven year high.
- 3.Passenger numbers are at an all time high.
User:62.6.149.17 12:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, be "bold" and edit the article with this info -- Pickle 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Grayrigg derailment
I'm not certain that this section is in the correct place. Chronologically at least it should be after 2006 Business Plan, but does it need to be in this article at all and if so, does it need such extensive coverage? Clearly there is a link, but repeating facts wholesale does not seem sensible or necessary and creates a maintenance overhead. Surely a brief para. referenced to the main article and acknowledging NRs accountability would be sufficient? leaky_caldron 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Having added the section my objective and wholly unbiased view is, yes :-) This incident most certainly needs to be here since it will have huge implications for Network Rail who have had billions of public money thrown at it and the highest paid public sector CEO. I have tightened up the structure - in addition to the intro para (needed so folks know what it is about) the second para is specifically on the most important NR events -the points check and admission of responsibility.
- Sorry, but I think you have moved it to the wrong place - I put it where it was because it followed on from the maintenance section to which it is obviously related. TerriersFan 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
