[mnd999]

Minimise investment to maximise profits, which you take, whilst running the minimum service required to avoid contract penalties or publicity so adverse you lose your contract. Then threaten to go bust and get bailed out by the government when the infrastructure starts to break a few years later.

At least that’s they playbook they’re all using.

[veltas]

The infrastructure isn't privatised though, it's maintained by Network Rail.

[badcppdev]

People literally died before it became Network Rail due to badly maintained infrastructure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railtrack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southall_rail_crash

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladbroke_Grove_rail_crash

Edit: To be 100% clear the badly maintained infrastructure was the responsibility of a for profit private company at the point where people died.

[veltas]

Southall:

> The passenger train operating company had failed to inform Railtrack and the signaller that the automatic warning system (AWS), which warns drivers of adverse signals, had been turned off in the cab of the HST.

But Ladbroke Grove was Railtrack's fault entirely (within the first few years of its creation). Meanwhile it's been 20 years since National Rail was created, when do we get to blame current governments and National Rail for bad infrastructure?

[KaiserPro]

Which was private under railtrack, but after a number of high profile crashes and failures was taken into public ownership again.

Railtrack made a lot of money by selling off land, and other assets, under invested and generally underperformed

[tsukikage]

Not disagreeing, but words are important here to get at precisely what happened.

> Railtrack made a lot of money

"Made" implies creation, growth, increase.

This is the opposite of what happened.

The money wasn't made. It was /extracted/. They /extracted/ a lot of money.

Railtrack doesn't have that money. Their succeeding entity doesn't have that money. The government doesn't have that money. The taxpayer doesn't have that money. None of that money was invested such that any of these entities might benefit from it in any way. It was removed from the system into private wallets.

The private owners plundered and fled, and the remaining skeleton was socialised again so it might regrow a bit of flesh from public taxes for the next extraction cycle.

[arethuza]

One example that Ben Elton gave in his excellent "The Great Railway Disaster" documentary was not training new train drivers!

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/ben-elton-the-great-rail...

[bluescrn]

"Privatise the profits, Nationalise the losses!"

[dffdsa432]

What about losses from federally funded corporations like USPS and Amtrak that are bailed out every year? Amtrak loses over $1 billion/yr and they are still "nationalized." USPS loses multi billions per year.

[ehnto]

USPS costs billions, public services don't need to be profitable they just need to be paid for. Taxpayers pay for it with their taxes.

When we sell our public investments for a quick buck we complain when the real cost of the service gets priced in. The trouble is, we pay the same taxes still, they just no longer go to the service we privatised, so we feel it in the pocketbook individually.

Presumably those taxes are going elsewhere now, but I was very happy with them going to core public services.

[cycomanic]

The USPS is "loosing" money because it was told to prefund it's Healthcare having to set aside $100 billion in 10 years (unlike any other company) . Moreover, it's much more a service than a business, e.g. it can not really set its own prices.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/usps-louis-dejoy-post-offic...

[dffdsa432]

I don't get it. The USPS has lost billions due to government policies and can't enforce prices due to government policies. They are forced to deliver to unprofitable routes and have prices set to inflation due to government policies. Private delivery services like Amazon and Fedex are generally profitable and don't have these issues. Why is a government alternative better?

[richbell]

> They are forced to deliver to unprofitable routes and have prices set to inflation due to government policies. Private delivery services like Amazon and Fedex are generally profitable and don't have these issues.

I, for one, think it's a good thing that people are entitled to their mail regardless of the profitability of their mail route. That's the point of a public service.

[vharuck]

A cynic would say Congress's actions, loading the USPS with costs while denying it control over prices, is so that people ask "Why is a government alternative better?"

[jmye]

Is it your opinion that some people simply shouldn’t get their mail, or that people who live in rural areas should pay exponentially more to get their mail delivered? Why is either of those things desirable?

USPS is not a business, and it’s a fundamental mistake to pretend it is, solely for the sake of slandering it.

[cartoonworld]

None of the competitors offer a similar service to USPS.

Among other core competencies, USPS has nationwide daily coverage of the entire United States and centuries(?) of experience interoperating the the respective mail services of every country in the world and then some.

Amazon wont even take MY package one town over.

[cycomanic]

Welcome to the world of privatising public services. This has been a scheme of free market politicians for years; call public services too expensive, strip them of funding and hamper them in other ways, then call out how they are not delivering on their promise. Then sell the off at bargain prices, often with additional government guarantees on revenue. After privatisation services don't improve and cost never go down, but somehow the public is better off?

[lostlogin]

Wait until you hear how much money the US military has lost.

[falcrist]

USPS isn't losing money. It's a public service. It costs money.

[UncleMeat]

We need to rearrange our brains. USPS provides a valuable service to the country. It does not need to make a profit. It should be evaluated based on the value it generates for the people. Why does something like the mail system get treated differently than something like road development, which is not expected to bring in any revenue at all let along a profit?

[panick21_]

Amtrak is the least subsidies mode of Transportation. It has to compete with road transport and the subsidies given to highways, roads and parking is orders of magnitude larger then what Amtrak gets.

Amtrak gets surprisingly small amount of money.

[sarchertech]

Freight rail also has priority over Amtrak, which causes all kinds of problems with scheduling and adds insane delays.

[panick21_]

I mean sure, we can talk for hours about issues with Amtrak.

However that doesn't change what I said so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. Amtrak most likely wouldn't be profitable if they had priority.

[katbyte]

Public infrastructure does not need to make a profit, its there to provide a service not make money.

USPS delivers to remote addresses no one else’s will on route that will never make money.

[ClumsyPilot]

They are not bailed out, is the highway maintenance service ‘bailedout’? They don’t build themselves you know

[zzbzq]

They don't lose money, they cost money. You can't measure the losses if they even exist

[mnd999]

There’s also water, energy, busses outside of London, Openreach (especially them), and pitty the poor people of Hull with that Kingston shitshow.

[ukoki]

>avoid contract penalties

I expect the maximum profit sweet spot actually includes a small amount of penalties. If you don't get any penalties at all, you are probably leaving money on the table re service cuts.