Talk:Network Rail/Archives/2014

R4 Comment
"They are maintained by its daughter company Railtrack" -- not so; they subcontract to all & sundry. (heard on R4 news). -- Tarquin 15:27, 20 January 2003

Management & NPOV Question
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.

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 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 ) 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)

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).


 * The last comment here was written in February 2007. Why has a change not occured on the public page?  Network Rail website states "Network Rail owns and manages 17 of the biggest and busiest railway stations in the UK. Over 800 million visitors use these stations each year.  Network Rail owns 2500 other railways stations, but these are managed by the various train operating companies" http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=1829&NewsAreaID=22&SearchCategoryID=-1, so I have ammended it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.253.59 (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Network Rail Fleet
Should something be added refering to the fleet of locomotives that Network Rail operate along with test trains and possibly a mention of the NMT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.149 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added asection on the network rail fleet but I haven't been able to find full details of the whole fleet ie coaching stock and engineering rolling stock Chris sized packages (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Separate Telecoms assets?
Should most of this not be in a separate article? Ivanberti (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is too much detail for the main article. I have put it all into the new 'infrastructure' section but it dominates the section and the article would work better with a much shorter summary. PeterEastern (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely. I've added a 'split' tag to the section. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  10:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * if you put it as a seperate article where would you put it? What is wrong with it where it is? Ess1uk (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the telecoms section, it seems none of it is referenced. The priority therefore should be to try to find references and trim out any content which isn't verifiable. At that point the section may be significantly smaller and splitting may not be appropriate. Adambro (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Following another comment about the section (see below) I have now reduced it to a summary and moved the main content out into a separate article. I will now tag it appropriately given that it is still unreferenced and is now also considerably out-of-date.PeterEastern (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-ordering sections
I have reordered the sections and tried to get them into a more logical hierarchy. I think there is still more work to be done to bed this in which I will contribute to, and it might also be worth moving some of the history content into a separate section called 'history' to free up the remaining sections to provide clear information about the current situation. PeterEastern (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Telecoms section is out of place; this is about the company not Telecoms assets - in any case why is telecoms given such prominence instead of the permanent way or signalling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.93.12 (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. See above. PeterEastern (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Private versus public sector status controversy
This section reads like a bitter complaint from a railtrack shareholder. The first paragraph especially needs a rewrite (if not removal). --81.132.92.119 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - this does seem a bit of a rant and would benefit from a clean-up and re-phrasing but the dispute itself is certainly notable. I have moved it down the end of the article partly because it is not well written and partly because that seems to be a good place for the dissenting voice.PeterEastern (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now moderated the language of the section, made other generally improvements and added some context of the collapse of Railtrack into the history section.PeterEastern (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Include company logo?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.193.7 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 25 February 2010

Strategic route re-organisation
Network rail has redefined all routes as A to Q, at least it looks that way:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4451.aspx

Quite substantial changes may be required...

Squidnchips (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct - the Strategic Routes are defined as you say, with subdivisions into 305 strategic route sections (SRSs). The route asset management plans are now published by operational route, however, rather than strategic route - so they are defined by Anglia, LNE, LNW North & South, Wales, and so on. Substantial amendment is certainly needed, not just to this article but to many of the descriptions of the lines as well. The old SRS names mentioned on those articles have been out of use now for at least two and a half years. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also to add - I'm happy to help (I don't know whether there are ethical considerations, though, given that I work for NR), but I hardly ever have any time to edit any more, so that's a bit tricky. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Island Line Links
I can't see any reason why the Island_Line,_Isle_of_Wight deserves a special mention in the "See Also" section. I've removed the links.

--143.167.224.59 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that's because you're obviously uneducated or can't be arsed to follow the link. It's worthy of mention as it's currently unique in that the franchise operator also maintains the infrastructure; it provides a rather nice contrast with the main network. 157.203.255.2 (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Funding?
No mention of how Network Rail is funded, or where the money goes. How much do the TOCs and FOCs pay to be able to use the infrastructure. Is it excessive which leads to high train ticket prices? Are the TOCs able to make a reasonable profit or is nearly all their costs down to Network Rail. Does Network Rail pay anything to the government or is it subsidised by the government? Details of accounts would be useful, just basic figures really. I mention this due this BBC article which says that prices rises on tickets is due to the requirement to fund investment in the infrastructure. How much is really due to profit making by the TOCs and how much by Network Rail's mismanagement in previous years leading to this huge investment to catch up. 92.27.94.107 (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Headquarters
The article infobox says NR is headquartered in London - I thought the Network Rail National Centre in Milton Keynes was the headquarters now?Tom walker (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Milton Keynes is the centre for engineering. The official HQ is at Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 9AG and is where the executives and legal staff work. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

National network map?
I came to this article expecting to find a network map or at least a link to one. Nada! Could someone add one, eg in the 'infrastructure' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)