Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The problem with the UK rail network was (and is) that there were too many companies formed. Railtrack was responsible for maintainence, but had no maintainence department. Hence, it had to contract out for work, with the result that it was overcharged and had variable quality. Also,it was assumed that Railtrack could make money through the stockmarket and other investors. This, obviously, did not happen. The Government has had to step in and bail them out. The number of Train Operating Comapnies is something like 25. This is far too many. There are suggestions that the certain stations in London will have one train company only usingthem. So capacity is increased by reducing conflicting opertating schedules. The government has also given funding to some Regional operators to ensure services that are for the benefit of rural communities continue. In all, had British Rail been given half the money that has been wasted over the passed few years, then things might have been different. BR wanted to do some upgrades to the West Coast mainLine at a cost of around $3-4 billion. The cost now is over $10 billion and it is still not completed. Consider this thought: there are 365.25 days in the year. At a minimum it would cost $1 million a day to run a rail network. $365 million a year. Of course, this would probably mean the number of services were reduced to a very limited number, and only the minimal renewal. As to allow for crashes, lind damage through floods etc, more would be needed. Therefore, to ensure investment and improvement, you are talking 3-4 times this amount at least. Is $1.2 billion per year too much to ask for a national rail system? Jason.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag