Network Rail derail their own PR campaign in 24 hours



Thanks to BW reader Daniel


  • Daniel
    You are welcome.
  • Lizard
    Seeing as the article above contains no added value by Paul Smith, shouldn't the title read By BW reader Daniel?
  • Andre W.
    I can see how you could construe it, but its only a proposal, not a plan. Therefore, if they have extra staff at the moment then they need to be removed over the said next couple of years...opposed to the proposals by 2030...which by network rail standards means next century!
  • Graham
    It wasn't even a proposal - it was an report evaluating whether there was a business case for building such a line. The second article is the result of the Office of Rail Regulation requiring them to reduce the costs of maintaining the existing network to match mainland Europe, chiefly by using less labour-intensive methods, which is why they won't need (and indeed, can't afford) to employ so many people in future. So your headline comparison only works if you complete ignore the content of both stories.
  • The B.
    Ah, a business case for the link, well, return peak train ticket from London to Glasgow - approx £300, return flight for same journey <£100, you have no business case at all. NEXT!
  • Bullet
    20 years seems like the average time you would wait for a Train these days.
  • reel
    And the point of this is??....... So they are making fast trains with less staff, so what.

What do you think?

Your comment