Jorden (in reference to the collapse of parts of UK rail): "So, let me get this straight." "The government doesn't want it:" "Private investors don't want it:" "Europe doesn't want it:" "No one thinks there's a balance to be made between revenue/expenses:"
"Why do you have trains at all?"
Because it is the most efficient form of mass land transport available (cost , environmentally, speed and carrying capacity wise).
Provided, of course, it is a running and useful system to begin with (a little snip here and a little snip there and the efficient network collapses - just as spider's, very efficient, web does - perhaps spiders should restrict themselves to jumping off branches in the hope of landing on prey).
Funny the contradictions of capital when the power of production comes into conflict with the relations of production. Cutting off your nose to spite your face suddenly becomes a very rational impoprovement.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) * Powerful filters. * Create you own headers. * Have email types launch scripts. * Use emails to automat your work. * Add comments on recieve. * Use scripts to extract and check emails. * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. * A REXX interpreter is freely available. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
--- Message Received --- From: Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:55:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Britain's rail meltdown
So, let me get this straight.
The government doesn't want it:
> But the government's apparent commitment to rail was never that
> serious.
Private investors don't want it:
> City investors were not remotely interested in getting people from A
> to B, but in raiding British Rail's assets, whether its valuable real
> estate, or its large pension fund.
Europe doesn't want it:
> The government's announced bias towards rail flies in the face of the
> European trend to reduce rail-track (down from 170000km in 1970 to
> just over 150000km in 1998) and increase motorways (up from 2000km to
> 5000 km over the same period).
No one thinks there's a balance to be made between revenue/expenses:
> In fact the railway companies have demonstrated that providing a
> rail-service is unlikely to be a profitable industry.
Why do you have trains at all?
/jordan