From Newsgroup: uk.railway

From The Times

MPs have registered their dismay and disappointment at the lack of pace and clarity concerning the governmentrCOs plans for a state-owned railway.

Key questions remain unanswered about the progression of the railways bill
and the creation of Great British Railways (GBR) merging trains operators
with Network Rail.

After a hearing of the Commons transport select committee last week, its
chair Ruth Cadbury said there were a number of rCLoutstanding pieces of the puzzlerCY.

Rebecca Smith, another member of the committee, said MPs were rCLgobsmackedrCY that ministers and officials have yet to move on from the rCLbig conceptrCY of renationalisation and explain how GBR is going to work 18 months after
Labour took power.

At the hearing, MPs from all parties became visibly frustrated at the
responses to questions by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, the rail minister
and a former chairman of Network Rail, and Jeremy Westlake, the current
chief executive of Network Rail, the operator of the national
infrastructure.

The hearing was given no news on the size and shape of a new national headquarters for GBR in Derby. The plan was hatched by Sir Grant Shapps,
the former Conservative transport secretary, to the private derision of
several senior rail professionals who do most of their work in London or at Network RailrCOs major operational centre in Milton Keynes.

There was also little explanation of the future corporate structure of GBR
and how regionally devolved executives will be accountable to the public,
or how the secretary of state for transport will be accountable for any
future failings.

In addition, Hendy and two senior Department for Transport officials,
Richard Goodman and Lucy Ryan, were unable to give clarity on performance
and passenger growth targets, or on the funding of and spending by GBR.

The trio spoke of the railways bill putting forward a rCLlong-term strategyrCY for the industry but under questioning failed to define what rCLlong-termrCY meant, or whether such a document would survive changes in ministers,
policies or governments.

MPs were also unable to uncover the extent to which the existing Office of
Rail and Road would retain independent regulatory powers and rCLhave teethrCY to tackle GBR or the secretary of state.

Cadbury, the Labour MP for Brentford & Isleworth, said: rCLHaving questioned the rail minister at some length last week, the transport committee is
clear that we are still some way off seeing the full picture on the governmentrCOs plans to reform the rail sector.rCY

She said MPs were still awaiting publication of a list of documents, not
least a new licence setting out GBRrCOs parameters. rCLWhen will we see this?rCY
she asked.

Smith, the Conservative MP for South West Devon who led much of the interrogation of Hendy and the transport officials during the committee hearing, said: rCLGBR is going to be one of BritainrCOs largest employers and the transition [to state control] is going to be incredibly difficult for
many people.

rCLYet there remains confusion as we are left with many questions as to how this national body, which at the same is to be regionally devolved, will operate.rCY


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

From The Times

MPs have registered their dismay and disappointment at the lack of pace and clarity concerning the governmentrCOs plans for a state-owned railway.

Key questions remain unanswered about the progression of the railways bill and the creation of Great British Railways (GBR) merging trains operators with Network Rail.

After a hearing of the Commons transport select committee last week, its chair Ruth Cadbury said there were a number of rCLoutstanding pieces of the puzzlerCY.

Rebecca Smith, another member of the committee, said MPs were rCLgobsmackedrCY
that ministers and officials have yet to move on from the rCLbig conceptrCY of
renationalisation and explain how GBR is going to work 18 months after
Labour took power.

At the hearing, MPs from all parties became visibly frustrated at the responses to questions by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, the rail minister
and a former chairman of Network Rail, and Jeremy Westlake, the current
chief executive of Network Rail, the operator of the national
infrastructure.

The hearing was given no news on the size and shape of a new national headquarters for GBR in Derby. The plan was hatched by Sir Grant Shapps,
the former Conservative transport secretary, to the private derision of several senior rail professionals who do most of their work in London or at Network RailrCOs major operational centre in Milton Keynes.

There was also little explanation of the future corporate structure of GBR and how regionally devolved executives will be accountable to the public,
or how the secretary of state for transport will be accountable for any future failings.

In addition, Hendy and two senior Department for Transport officials,
Richard Goodman and Lucy Ryan, were unable to give clarity on performance
and passenger growth targets, or on the funding of and spending by GBR.

The trio spoke of the railways bill putting forward a rCLlong-term strategyrCY
for the industry but under questioning failed to define what rCLlong-termrCY meant, or whether such a document would survive changes in ministers, policies or governments.

MPs were also unable to uncover the extent to which the existing Office of Rail and Road would retain independent regulatory powers and rCLhave teethrCY to tackle GBR or the secretary of state.

Cadbury, the Labour MP for Brentford & Isleworth, said: rCLHaving questioned the rail minister at some length last week, the transport committee is
clear that we are still some way off seeing the full picture on the governmentrCOs plans to reform the rail sector.rCY

She said MPs were still awaiting publication of a list of documents, not least a new licence setting out GBRrCOs parameters. rCLWhen will we see this?rCY
she asked.

Smith, the Conservative MP for South West Devon who led much of the interrogation of Hendy and the transport officials during the committee hearing, said: rCLGBR is going to be one of BritainrCOs largest employers and the transition [to state control] is going to be incredibly difficult for many people.

rCLYet there remains confusion as we are left with many questions as to how this national body, which at the same is to be regionally devolved, will operate.rCY

Yes, it looks like LabourrCOs vision for GBR doesnrCOt extend beyond not extending the private sector concessions beyond their contractual
breakpoints. The vague rCyplanrCO seems to be to return to a watered-down version of the pre-1923 Grouping structure. So, modern equivalents of the
LSWR, LBSCR, GER, MR, GNR, GCR, etc will be created by merging the NR
Routes with the TOCs that run on them. Of course, what they wonrCOt have is
the ability to build and own their own trains, freight, etc.

ItrCOs completely unclear what the roles and responsibilities of the centre
vs the devolved regions will be. ItrCOs also unclear how they can tempt a
heavy hitter from industry to come and lead it, in the way that happened
with BR.

Furthermore, GBR wonrCOt be in operation in any meaningful way before late
2028 or 2029, so the key decisions will be taken by the next government,
which is likely to be ideologically very different from this one. So,
whatever half-baked structure Labour leaves behind is likely to be rapidly demolished and rebuilt by people with very different priorities, and even
less knowledge of the railways.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

In message <10k2cvb$27f9v$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:56:11 on Mon, 12 Jan
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

From The Times

MPs have registered their dismay and disappointment at the lack of pace and >clarity concerning the governmentrCOs plans for a state-owned railway.

Key questions remain unanswered about the progression of the railways bill >and the creation of Great British Railways (GBR) merging trains operators >with Network Rail.

After a hearing of the Commons transport select committee last week, its >chair Ruth Cadbury said there were a number of rCLoutstanding pieces of the >puzzlerCY.

Rebecca Smith, another member of the committee, said MPs were rCLgobsmackedrCY >that ministers and officials have yet to move on from the rCLbig conceptrCY of >renationalisation and explain how GBR is going to work 18 months after
Labour took power.

At the hearing, MPs from all parties became visibly frustrated at the >responses to questions by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, the rail minister
and a former chairman of Network Rail, and Jeremy Westlake, the current
chief executive of Network Rail, the operator of the national
infrastructure.

The hearing was given no news on the size and shape of a new national >headquarters for GBR in Derby. The plan was hatched by Sir Grant Shapps,
the former Conservative transport secretary, to the private derision of >several senior rail professionals who do most of their work in London or at >Network RailrCOs major operational centre in Milton Keynes.

There was also little explanation of the future corporate structure of GBR >and how regionally devolved executives will be accountable to the public,
or how the secretary of state for transport will be accountable for any >future failings.

In addition, Hendy and two senior Department for Transport officials,
Richard Goodman and Lucy Ryan, were unable to give clarity on performance
and passenger growth targets, or on the funding of and spending by GBR.

The trio spoke of the railways bill putting forward a rCLlong-term strategyrCY >for the industry but under questioning failed to define what rCLlong-termrCY >meant, or whether such a document would survive changes in ministers, >policies or governments.

MPs were also unable to uncover the extent to which the existing Office of >Rail and Road would retain independent regulatory powers and rCLhave teethrCY >to tackle GBR or the secretary of state.

Cadbury, the Labour MP for Brentford & Isleworth, said: rCLHaving questioned >the rail minister at some length last week, the transport committee is
clear that we are still some way off seeing the full picture on the >governmentrCOs plans to reform the rail sector.rCY

She said MPs were still awaiting publication of a list of documents, not >least a new licence setting out GBRrCOs parameters. rCLWhen will we see >this?rCY
she asked.

Smith, the Conservative MP for South West Devon who led much of the >interrogation of Hendy and the transport officials during the committee >hearing, said: rCLGBR is going to be one of BritainrCOs largest employers and >the transition [to state control] is going to be incredibly difficult for >many people.

rCLYet there remains confusion as we are left with many questions as to how >this national body, which at the same is to be regionally devolved, will >operate.rCY

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail
operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

On 12/01/2026 11:54, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10k2cvb$27f9v$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:56:11 on Mon, 12 Jan
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

From The Times

MPs have registered their dismay and disappointment at the lack of
pace and
clarity concerning the governmentrCOs plans for a state-owned railway.

Key questions remain unanswered about the progression of the railways
bill
and the creation of Great British Railways (GBR) merging trains operators
with Network Rail.

After a hearing of the Commons transport select committee last week, its
chair Ruth Cadbury said there were a number of rCLoutstanding pieces of the >> puzzlerCY.

Rebecca Smith, another member of the committee, said MPs were
rCLgobsmackedrCY
that ministers and officials have yet to move on from the rCLbig
conceptrCY of
renationalisation and explain how GBR is going to work 18 months after
Labour took power.

At the hearing, MPs from all parties became visibly frustrated at the
responses to questions by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, the rail minister
and a former chairman of Network Rail, and Jeremy Westlake, the current
chief executive of Network Rail, the operator of the national
infrastructure.

The hearing was given no news on the size and shape of a new national
headquarters for GBR in Derby. The plan was hatched by Sir Grant Shapps,
the former Conservative transport secretary, to the private derision of
several senior rail professionals who do most of their work in London
or at
Network RailrCOs major operational centre in Milton Keynes.

There was also little explanation of the future corporate structure of
GBR
and how regionally devolved executives will be accountable to the public,
or how the secretary of state for transport will be accountable for any
future failings.

In addition, Hendy and two senior Department for Transport officials,
Richard Goodman and Lucy Ryan, were unable to give clarity on performance
and passenger growth targets, or on the funding of and spending by GBR.

The trio spoke of the railways bill putting forward a rCLlong-term
strategyrCY
for the industry but under questioning failed to define what rCLlong-termrCY >> meant, or whether such a document would survive changes in ministers,
policies or governments.

MPs were also unable to uncover the extent to which the existing
Office of
Rail and Road would retain independent regulatory powers and rCLhave teethrCY
to tackle GBR or the secretary of state.

Cadbury, the Labour MP for Brentford & Isleworth, said: rCLHaving
questioned
the rail minister at some length last week, the transport committee is
clear that we are still some way off seeing the full picture on the
governmentrCOs plans to reform the rail sector.rCY

She said MPs were still awaiting publication of a list of documents, not
least a new licence setting out GBRrCOs parameters. rCLWhen will we see
this?rCY
she asked.

Smith, the Conservative MP for South West Devon who led much of the
interrogation of Hendy and the transport officials during the committee
hearing, said: rCLGBR is going to be one of BritainrCOs largest employers and
the transition [to state control] is going to be incredibly difficult for
many people.

rCLYet there remains confusion as we are left with many questions as to how >> this national body, which at the same is to be regionally devolved, will
operate.rCY

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

On 12/01/2026 11:54, Roland Perry wrote:

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail
operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

Yes, just about nobody thinks that the way that privatisation was
implemented was a good idea. Perhaps there was some form of privatisation
that could have succeeded, but that wasnrCOt the one the Major government implemented (in fact, they didnrCOt actually implement their own plan,
either).

All that changed under the subsequent Labour government was that the
failing Railtrack was nationalised, and the DfT then decided to design and
buy intercity trains itself (another bad decision). Along the way, Labour created, then abolished, the SRA.

Then the Tories got back in, and eventually decided to re-nationalise the
TOCs, a policy which Labour has continued. So LabourrCOs GBR project is essentially the Grant Shapps plan, which it doesnrCOt seem to properly understand. In some ways, the proposed GBR HQ in Derby looks like the SRA
Mk 2.

By the time it creates GBR, there will certainly be a different Transport
SoS, probably from a different party, so the railway random walk can
continue.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan
2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail >>operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan
2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail
operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We
move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it
will be betterrCa..

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan
2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail
operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it will be betterrCa..

The tragedy is (or is recounted to be) that we had a half-way working plan, sectorisation, and that was then snatched away.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan
2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail >>>>> operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the
structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We
move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it >> will be betterrCa..

The tragedy is (or is recounted to be) that we had a half-way working plan, sectorisation, and that was then snatched away.

Sam

What is forgotten about privatisation is that in the early few years the government found itself locked into long term subsidy at a much higher
level than previously by virtue of the contracts that had to be signed.
Those early years brought in a lot more money to the railway than BR had
been getting. The Treasury has been trying to reverse out of this ever
since. All rCLreformrCY of the railways since privatisation should be viewed with this in mind. Improving the service/cost to the travelling public is a byproduct (should that ever occur).

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

On 12/01/2026 13:48, Sam Wilson wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan
2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail
operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the
structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We
move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it >> will be betterrCa..

The tragedy is (or is recounted to be) that we had a half-way working plan, sectorisation, and that was then snatched away.

Sam

OR - Is it that the Treasury doesn't really like railways, and is
encouraging senior civil service to delay things as much as possible,
when it will persuade the next government to reverse the changes.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:05:49 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan >>>> 2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail >>>>>> operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the
structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We >>> move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it >>> will be betterrCa..

The tragedy is (or is recounted to be) that we had a half-way working plan, >> sectorisation, and that was then snatched away.

Sam

What is forgotten about privatisation is that in the early few years the >government found itself locked into long term subsidy at a much higher
level than previously by virtue of the contracts that had to be signed.

One unexpected effect of privatisation was that the private TOCs succeeded in growing ridership, rather than cutting
costs, as had been expected. This was good news at first, as it used up previous spare capacity. But once that ran out,
heavy investment in the infrastructure and new trains was needed. Yes, ROSCOs provided the capital, but the railways
were locked into higher rolling stock lease costs long-term.

Those early years brought in a lot more money to the railway than BR had
been getting. The Treasury has been trying to reverse out of this ever
since. All rCLreformrCY of the railways since privatisation should be viewed >with this in mind. Improving the service/cost to the travelling public is a >byproduct (should that ever occur).

Yes, definitely.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:13:34 +0000, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/01/2026 13:48, Sam Wilson wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan >>>> 2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail >>>>>> operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the
structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We >>> move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it >>> will be betterrCa..

The tragedy is (or is recounted to be) that we had a half-way working plan, >> sectorisation, and that was then snatched away.

Sam

OR - Is it that the Treasury doesn't really like railways, and is >encouraging senior civil service to delay things as much as possible,
when it will persuade the next government to reverse the changes.

Yes, I think there's some truth in that. HMT is probably very suspicious that GBR will demand more money for little
benefit, and probably raises objections to any spending connected with it.

For example, if GBR decides that the Derby HQ should be a full-fledged head office, in a large building, with many
senior staff moved there, HMT will undoubtedly take a very dim view. It would probably prefer that the Derby HQ be
either completely forgotten, or just be a paper registered office, located in a corner of some existing NR building.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan
2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail
operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it will be betterrCa..

It looks like werCOre moving back towards a half-baked version of the railway structure from 1922.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan
2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail >>>>> operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the
structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We
move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it >> will be betterrCa..

It looks like werCOre moving back towards a half-baked version of the railway structure from 1922.

Maybe not such a bad arrangement. However the structure is probably
incidental. HS2 and EW rail have sucked all the capital funding out of the system, HS2 in particular. Then thererCOs the vast sums going yearly to the
IEP rental for the foreseeable future. The lack of money is already
beginning to show via the number of signal/points/track failures. ItrCOs the rail equivalent of potholes.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:31:18 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan >>>> 2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail >>>>>> operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the
structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We >>> move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it >>> will be betterrCa..

It looks like werCOre moving back towards a half-baked version of the railway

structure from 1922.

Maybe not such a bad arrangement. However the structure is probably >incidental. HS2 and EW rail have sucked all the capital funding out of the >system, HS2 in particular. Then thererCOs the vast sums going yearly to the

Don't forget the elizabeth line in london too. That was another 18 billion.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:31:18 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan >>>>> 2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail >>>>>>> operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the >>>> structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We >>>> move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it >>>> will be betterrCa..

It looks like werCOre moving back towards a half-baked version of the railway

structure from 1922.

Maybe not such a bad arrangement. However the structure is probably
incidental. HS2 and EW rail have sucked all the capital funding out of the >> system, HS2 in particular. Then thererCOs the vast sums going yearly to the

Don't forget the elizabeth line in london too. That was another 18 billion.

Central government only funded around a third of CrossrailrCOs construction. Passenger numbers for the Elizabeth Line are well ahead of expectations so
I expect it will pay for itself. Unlike others here, IrCOm not against London getting well targeted investment. The area generates most of the UKrCOs
profit. IrCOm just relieved that I donrCOt have to live or work there.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:31:18 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan >>>>> 2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail >>>>>>> operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the >>>> structure and financing of the railways ever since they were invented. We >>>> move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This time it >>>> will be betterrCa..

It looks like werCOre moving back towards a half-baked version of the railway

structure from 1922.

Maybe not such a bad arrangement. However the structure is probably
incidental. HS2 and EW rail have sucked all the capital funding out of the >> system, HS2 in particular. Then thererCOs the vast sums going yearly to the

Don't forget the elizabeth line in london too. That was another 18 billion.

Almost -u19bn, but it was 70% self-funded by London, not central government. Funding came from TfL and the Greater London Authority. London's businesses also paid a Crossrail levy. Heathrow and Canary Wharf contributed too. And
that spending stopped three years ago. The EL is now a roaring success, bringing significant fare revenues into the railway.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:01:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:

<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:

Don't forget the elizabeth line in london too. That was another 18 billion.

Almost -u19bn, but it was 70% self-funded by London, not central government. >Funding came from TfL and the Greater London Authority. London's businesses

And where do TfL and the GLA get most of their money from? The fare box
and council tax certainly won't have covered it.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:57:33 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:

<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:

Don't forget the elizabeth line in london too. That was another 18 billion. >>

Central government only funded around a third of CrossrailrCOs construction. >Passenger numbers for the Elizabeth Line are well ahead of expectations so
I expect it will pay for itself. Unlike others here, IrCOm not against London >getting well targeted investment. The area generates most of the UKrCOs >profit. IrCOm just relieved that I donrCOt have to live or work there.

If other cities in the UK had half decent public transport both to-from and within some companies might set up shop there. Its no coincidence manchester has overtaken birmingham as the UK's 2nd city both in population and economy despite being further from London. Thats what investment, a lot of it in the tram system gets you.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:01:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:

<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:

Don't forget the elizabeth line in london too. That was another 18 billion. >>

Almost -u19bn, but it was 70% self-funded by London, not central government. >> Funding came from TfL and the Greater London Authority. London's businesses

And where do TfL and the GLA get most of their money from?

Local sources, not central government.

The fare box and council tax certainly won't have covered it.

What makes you think that? Please present your sources.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.railway

On 12/01/2026 14:13, Bevan Price wrote:

On 12/01/2026 13:48, Sam Wilson wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10k2qac$2b4av$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:56 on Mon, 12 Jan >>>> 2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

[GBR woes]

Eventually people may realise that "devolving" the non-Network_rail >>>>>> operations to multiple TOCs wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Everyone already realises is was a dreadful decision!

The decision to re-nationalise, you mean?

The thing is, society/public/politicians have never been happy with the
structure and financing of the railways ever since they were
invented. We
move onto the next cunning plan roughly every 40 years or so. This
time it
will be betterrCa..

The tragedy is (or is recounted to be) that we had a half-way working
plan,
sectorisation, and that was then snatched away.

Sam

OR - Is it that the Treasury doesn't really like railways, and is encouraging senior civil service to delay things as much as possible,
when it will persuade the next government to reverse the changes.

The Treasury would prefer everyone to become petrol heads to increase
their duty and VAT income.

I bet they have a spreadsheet with sums saved from closing the railways
and additional income as a result.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2