Jump to content

Talk:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kristian Jenn I wonder whether it might be better to move the "Political positions post-privatisation" out of "Privatisation of British Rail" into the "Impact of the privatisation of British Rail" in order to keep this article about the impact, current political discussion and future possibilities and keep the other page about the historical process of privatisation Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No issue from me. I see interest in these articles is as high as ever. Kristian Jenn (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

The article relies partially on sources which are not impartial. The British railway is depicted as leading in Europe, although other sources ([1]) rank the UK on place eight. --Mathmensch (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent source is [2] - their points should at least be considered. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first para references a good source, and it should be referred to briefly in the article. It is a pity that, for instance, definitions of expenditure normalisation are not explained. Considering the subject of the article, a source with a time series of repeated assessments is better. Your comment on impartiality is not necessarily true: the choice of assessment criteria and their weighting is inevitably somewhat arbitrary and legitimate differences can emerge without partiality. The second reference is clearly not impartial and a description of it as an excellent source is not tenable.
Gravuritas (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look. The first slide of this ([3]) says "Rail Delivery Group". What is that organisation? Have a look at: [4]. This source currently is included in the article as a reference. How can you possibly say the article was impartial?
The article as it stands is total bullshit and depicts the wrong claim that the true reason for the British railway system to have gotten better was the privatisation. This is at best dubious, and 70%+ of the population rightly believe otherwise.
While certainly not being impartial, the second reference is at the very least supported by a much larger majority than the fringe theory depicted in this article. And furthermore, it makes very plausible arguments.
Very subtle means are employed to fool the reader into thinking that the railway privatisation was a total success, and the main tool for that is to claim that privatisation was the reason for the positive developments, whereas the true reason was more investment, albeit in a very covert form (as I explained rightly and well-sourced in the article, until someone came unjustly along to revert). Another subtle tool is the one-sided citation of sources to underpin the false claim that Britain's railway system was one of the leading ones in Europe, which it isn't, at least according to the source cited above, which you claim is a 'good source' (I personally would doubt such a thing and rest my confidence on publically funded research instead of a consultancy, which may be paid by whomever and thus not be independent). But I did not include this source to the article.
In short: Don't try to put an article on wikipedia that depicts only one opinion of many. I'm thinking about those people who, since the British state had to withdraw funding from other programmes in order to make the mentioned guaranteed, must suffer from being marginalized even more. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore: Please explain to me by what means the privatisation of the railway should increase the service quality while state funding ceases. The typical mechanisms of capitalism don't seem to apply here, since people who are traveling don't have a choice anyway; they mostly have to pick the option available. And furthermore, the gain in efficiency from competition may not be able to outweigh the gain from having only one development department, where all progress is shared and thus the wheel is not reinvented. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not claimed that the source you reference, or indeed the whole article, is impartial, so what are you on about? If I assert that one of your sources is not impartial, pointing to another one that is not impartial is not a defence. I have reverted your recent edit because your wording and the very high prominence that you gave it threw doubt on pretty much the whole subsequent article. In order to do that, you don't need a single source, you need sources that outgun all of the other sources. WP is not sourced from who, or how many, thinks what, it's sourced from WP:RS. We as editors are not presenting our points of view in the article, either.
If I may make a suggestion, I think your views are such that you are trying to take on the whole article at once, without putting in the detail work in that would be necessary. A constructive way forward might be for you to find a specific (small)section that you do not think can be adequately backed up, and check it. If the sources used are not reputable, then challenge it with a [citation needed] edit, and /or add a suitable comment that is appropriately referenced. But if you start with a 'whole article is bullshit' attitude then the only thing you can do, in logic, is rewrite the whole thing, preferably bit-by-bit so others can have a look at what you're doing. Good luck.
Gravuritas (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your first sentence: I think you misconstrued (at least) one of my arguments.
Regarding your revert: Indeed my recent edit throws doubt on the whole article. That is because my recent edit has high argumentative strength, and the article does not.
As to rewriting the article, I would even doubt its relevance.
Your edit-warring is not appreciated. You have broken the 3-reverts rule, while I haven't. Thus you are edit-warring, and I am not.
Please read my arguments carefully; you failed to respond to anyone of them. Currently, I am not under the impression that you are collaborating constructively. To the contrary, I am under the impression that you sabotage my work. And comments like "premature ejaculation" or the like are just an act of impoliteness IMO and should be avoided in a collaborative endeavor such as Wikipedia. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mathmensch I would appreciate it if you could point to exactly which parts of the article you think need changing and then we can work together to change them. On the BCG report, where do you think it should be added? I can't see a section where it slots neatly in, although we could create a new "Comparison with Europe" section perhaps? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Absolutelypuremilk: I have already highlighted some issues, and efforts in the direction of correction were undermined. I think this whole article, or at least the largest part of the largest section, does not adequately describe the subject matter. It does not describe the impact of the privatisation, but instead the development of the British railway system since 1995, which is when it took place. The claim that this has anything to do with privatisation is, as I pointed out, dubious at best, and it is very difficult to determine which sources on the issue are biased and which aren't. What seems certain is that the true reasons for the development of the British railway lay elsewhere. Hence, in its current state, I don't see how the article offers any information on the said impact (with the exception of the designated areas for third party opinion). Hence, I suggest deleting it. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't quite followed exactly what you've done as I'm using an ipad at the mo., but it appears that you've changed a graph expressed in subsidy per passenger to one expressed simply as a national total, as you believe that the former isn't neutral. It is really not done to make a change of that sort with a little editing comment, so if I have understood correctly please explain here. Have you also changed UK to British? Gravuritas (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gravuritas:,
Let me be absolutely clear. I will not have anybody distort the facts on privatisation such that the public is fooled into believing anything that is not true. The diagram as given suggests on the first view (and we know that many people don't go beyond that) that UK rail subsidy has recently declined in a significant way. It failes to explain that in fact, it has not done so, but instead railway operators choose to permit many more people to use the trains, leading to overcrowding, while government subsidies have skyrocketed since the privatisation. What you want to do is subtracting from that (or, more precisely, dividing from that) the dubious overcrowding in order to argue that in total, passengers are transported in a cheaper way. What this does not take into account is that the customers now have to travel in very crowded trains. Furthermore, the assertion that the rise in subsidies was solely caused by the Hatfield crash is debatable; another explanation would be lobbying by train operators to increase the profit span. But the diagram you put forward seems to support that assertion. Hence I consider your revert and the old diagram inferior and not neutral, and thus chose to replace it.
To phrase the current situation in simple terms: Fares are up, subsidies are up, passengers per train are up, hence profits are up. And this is being sold as a success. Laughable. --Mathmensch (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You want to deliver a lecturette, find another venue. The previous diagram had been around, I think, for a while, and represented somebody's honest attempt at presenting some data on the history of rail subsidy. It was possibly open to criticism as WP:OR, and I agree with you that the surge in subsidy being ascribed just to Hatfield was debatable: I suspect that the effective nationalisation, creating Network Rail, in 2002 and thereafter was a factor too.
But what you have done is to try to substitute in a diagram using data which is not normalised. The old one was normalised by passenger journey, and I've also seen data in this field presented per passenger km- either of these would be fairly standard. In principle, one might want to compare these amounts with other countries, and using your data then all you would find out is that the UK subsidy was much bigger than Luxemburg's. You have decided that a gross figure for 'Britain' is the best way of presenting that data, and your blather above is just a rant about the evils of train operators. That's not good enough- if you want to change to a different way of looking at the data, then as I've asked a serious question, please answer it seriously: why is your non-normalised subsidy figure a better way of looking at the data than 'per passenger journey' numbers?
.....and then Q2- where are the WP:RS references that say this?
Gravuritas (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
if you read my last post most carefully, you will find that I already addressed the issue of normalization at length. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your last post carefully, for the second time, I find your point seems to be either that train operators are 'choosing to let many more people use the trains' [what a strange thing for them to do?] or that the trains are overcrowded and somehow in your mind either or both of these unexceptional assertions connect through to a stance that comparisons over time using the subsidy per passenger journey are illegitimate. You seem to believe that your chosen metric (total subsidy) is the only legitimate one. There is no source referenced for what is clearly a point of view, and I would suggest that a bit of quiet reflection might lead you to understand that you very badly need to support this stance with referenced material if you wish to use it as a reason for displacing existing material. If I have missed anything substantial out of your argument, here is the opportunity to correct me.
For clarity let me add that imho a time series showing total subsidy seems like a reasonable chart to display, and I would guess that a WP:RS can be found for it easily. Feel free to do so. What you have not demonstrated is any support for your apparent view either that the existing material is wrong, or the existing material is inferior to your chosen metric. If you can't do either of these then your deletion of the orig material was unwarranted.
Gravuritas (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I see that you the current version acceptable. You may check that the image itself rests on a reliable source by clicking on the image and opening the information.
Regarding the other argument, you are making the false assumption that any edit regarding the form of the article must rest on "permission" by external forces. Let me explain. If an article regarding a certain type of tree was almost only describing a certain subspecies of that tree, it would be justified (even without a source saying that in encyclopediae, lemmata must be clearly separated in such a way) to move that content to an article describing the subspecies. Please consider how this analogy applies to the current situation.
Perhaps you should reconsider the argument given by me in the said post, and see how it serves well as a justification for the change I made.
If you wish, you can post an apology for your impoliteness in our former discussion on my talk page. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No justification even attempted for deletion of the previous stuff. If you want to leave the previous graph alone and add your new graph, feel free. If you wish, you can post an apology for being a stalker.
Gravuritas (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More than enough reason for the replacement has been given. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. You've had a rant about overcrowding on trains, and told us what you will and won't allow. You are not getting very far, very fast because you are not taking the time to make the case for what you would like to do. I suggest you slow down and patiently advance a reasoned case for your preference for your sourced material versus the existing sourced material, and stop trying to treat both the article and the talk page as a soapbox from which to present your POV.
Gravuritas (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Mathmensch tried to add the same graph (unnormalised for inflation) to Privatisation of British Rail but I reverted it. Once again, I would ask Mathmensch to point to any areas which are not neutral or should be deleted, or to suggest content that should be added, so that we can work together to improve the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutelypuremilk: Please read my comments above about why the given graph was not neutral. Once you have read this, you may reinstate the fair graph into both articles. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your comments, you say that "railway operators choose to permit many more people to use the trains" - are you saying it is a bad thing that passenger numbers have increased?
I agree that the wording about Hatfield could be clearer, I meant that the subsidy rose following the crash and the aftermath, with Network Rail having to pick up the pieces after Railtrack's failures. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Absolutelypuremilk: Consider the number of passengers per train. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that if the number of passengers goes up and the number of train carriages running stays constant (and therefore running costs stay constant) then passengers per train carriage will increase without an increase in costs. However, I am still unclear as to why you think that the number of carriages running has not increased, and also what you mean by "railway operators choose to permit many more people to use the trains" - surely increasing revenues would be a good thing? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Absolutelypuremilk: As an exercise, you may try and figure out where the increased revenue ultimately comes from. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From passengers surely? I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make and how it relates to why total subsidy should be used, rather than subsidy per passenger. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not quite. --Mathmensch (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you mean? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Absolutelypuremilk: As you could have understood on your own, the increased revenues of the operators may largely come from increased government subsidies, and those in turn have the consequence that the gov. has less money left, and thus less money to distribute to other projects (pick your favourite: help for disabled people, aid for poor people, schools etc. etc.) --Mathmensch (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "railway operators choose to permit many more people to use the trains" as if this is a bad thing, despite it bringing in higher revenue from passenger fares. Could you explain this more? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutelypuremilk: When there are lots of people on trains, it's usually pretty crowded. It is in general a very bad idea to measure whether something is bad or good based on the revenue it generates. For instance, selling weaponry usually generates a lot of revenue, but it's morally dubious.
Of course, one might argue that it's good for the businessman making the money. But the following credo I find most interesting: Those in direst need first.
It may even be an argument to say that the railway operator uses the old technology to its limit and thus the efficiency increases. However, what this in turn does not take into account is that the old trains may need more energy and are thus inefficient if one includes the damage to the environment that is done. Furthermore, the very old trains may be considerably less comfortable, and further any such measure would also be achievable without the privatisation, whence this argument isn't really one. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
APM has been questioning you very patiently, but I would like you to get to the point. You have been asked to justify deletion of information calculated on a 'per passenger journey' basis, by him and formerly by me. That has been brushed off by you with reference to previous non-justifications, and we've heard that you don't like weapons sales, overcrowding, uncomfortable old trains, Uncle Tom Cobley & all. We're all agog to hear further about your chosen credo. Not.
So please with your next post answer the question, or I for one will assume that you have realised that your stance is indefensible.
Gravuritas (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I haven't seen anything to explain why subsidy shouldn't be weighted by passenger numbers. I will remove your graph now - if you wish to challenge this then feel free to open a WP:RfC. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and the RfC will doubtless go the same way as the AfD did... ;) Muffled Pocketed 11:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to patiently wait until your prediction can be checked. I myself consider oracles untrustworthy in general. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality 2020

[edit]

The main article is still not neutral and does not include many of the criticisms of privatisation, e.g. lack of drivers, abandonment of popular routes due to pressure from TOC's, stealth subsidies, profit shifting, reduction of services, poor unkempt services in many areas outside London, failure of electrification in much needed areas, the continued use of high polluting diesel engines, TOC companies walking away from contracts and poor services and vastly overcrowded trains some due to a lack of the required amount of carriages. Vast investment was put into some of the local London bound lines (Kent, Surrey, Sussex) from the late 1990's onward bringing improved trains, stations (London Bridge, St Pancras etc) and Cross Rail (eventually) underlining another criticism of a very London centrist mindset by the Department of Transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinc1000 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on the diagram on subsidy

[edit]

The result of the RfC was no consensus to include or exclude the diagram on the state subsidy for the railway primarily because the RfC lacked a clearly worded neutral question. Editors recommended a new RfC with a neutrally posed question like "Should the article include a diagram that I created that shows state subsidies?"

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently, I strove to make this article more neutral by inserting a diagram which plainly shows state subsidy, instead of dividing out the passenger kilometers which is increased to help the operators gain more money, with the effect that passengers must travel in more crowded trains. In this way, it would become apparent that state subsidy for the railway (which is what the diagram says it measures) has actually increased by a dramatic amount; this fact is hidden in the way the current diagram is "normalized". I urge bypassers to remind the coauthors who have obstructed myself of the principles of wikipedia, in particular WP:NPOV, which indicates that diagrams should not be used to make a point for the privatisation by "massaging" them so that the increase in subsidy seems less severe. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented above, but essentially I think that looking at the subsidy per passenger journey is a much better guide to the railways performance than looking at just simply the overall figures, especially when there has been such a dramatic change in passenger numbers. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Agree with APM, and I would add that, despite differences between the circumstances in different countries, a metric based on subsidy per passenger journey or passenger kilometre also allows some comparison to be possible between countries should that be desired. The 'total subsidy' metric is useless for that purpose. MM has not remotely made a case for deletion of the 'per passenger' metric.
However, I see no reason why MM's less useful, but still interesting metric, could not be added to the article.
Gravuritas (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could go in the subsidies section alongside the existing graph of the comparison with Europe I guess. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathmensch: I've just noted that you've put this on rfc/sci board. For goodness sake stop bothering the grown-ups. WP admin & experienced editors have better things to do than deal with tantrums. You've already tried for an AFD on this page, and added off-topic stuff related to this page on ANI, which hasn't helped the losing case of the editor you were trying to support by attacking me. Even with this current rfc you've misunderstood what is being discussed, and thereby bothered the wrong people: this is an economy and company issue, not a maths and science one.
So I have a suggestion: when you lose this rfc, please put yourself on the naughty step- for the next 6 months participate in normal WP editing, but go and kick the dog when you need a bit of stress relief, don't bother some other higher or admin WP forum.
Gravuritas (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was bot summoned. @Mathmensch: please read WP:RFC, and in particular, the instructions for an RfC: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section." I would suggest you rewrite your initial comment in a neutral way and make it much shorter. However, based on what you've said it sounds like you are trying to add WP:OR to the page. Therefore, I would say at this point that your diagram should not be included. Please see WP:V. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FuriouslySerene: I fail to see how the introducing comment was not neutral. I further fail to see in what way I would add original research to the article. Could you explain? --Mathmensch (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've included an argument about why it should be included, which makes your statement not neutral. Take a look at other RfCs to see examples of how they are typically written. I would suggest rewriting it to something like "Should the article include a diagram that I created that shows state subsidies?" You could even add a link to the diagram if you've uploaded it already. You can then add a separate comment with your arguments why it should be included. That way other editors can reply with yes or no and explain their reasoning. I've called it original research because you made it sound like it was a diagram you created for the article. If you could provide reliable sources that discuss the state subsidy in the manner in which you want it presented in the article, and used a diagram like you've suggested, I think that would be helpful to your argument. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I shall do so, but for now I'm busy. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? --Mathmensch (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A rather unnecessary remark for which you are, of course, to be templated. Please refrain from suggesting that an editor who disagrees with you is by extension automatically wrong. Muffled Pocketed 16:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only here because of RFC. Could a few folks please cool it. The atmosphere here is already too fraught for such a small topic. FWIW I reject and oppose the OR accusation because the proposed material is basically a representation of the outcome of a calculation based on stats, not something that interested readers cannot verify. I reckon that it is altogether reasonable to include both items, as some already have remarked. The fact that any representation might or might not support POV bias, as long as it itself is relevant to the subject makes no difference as long as it is factual, comprehensible, and verifiable. Given that the topic is Impact of the privatisation of British Rail , both metrics have reasonable relevance, and the article is hardly cluttered with graphics as it stands at the time of writing this comment, and in matters concerning "impacts" multiple perspectives usually are useful to at least some readers. I say put both in and think calm, non-politicised thoughts. JonRichfield (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a diagram (adjusted for inflation, unlike the previous one) of the total subsidy. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the data you appear to be referencing for that graph is Passenger kilometres by year - Table 12.2, which clearly can't give you a graph looking at subsidies over time (adjusted for inflation or not). --tronvillain (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting that, I have corrected the reference. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I closed the braces on that reference, and fixed the url in the commons file description. Looks like a completely reasonable graph.--tronvillain (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the graph and then click "more details" then the sources are shown there. Are you saying that ATOC are faking the passenger number data? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Absolutelypuremilk: - Ok thanks. I'll take a look. And no, I'm not saying anyone is "faking" anything. I'm simply pointing out that we're referencing an industry group for data concerning the efficacy of industry. The neutrality issue there should be obvious, no? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This link looks broken? Is this the one you were referring to? NickCT (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what happened there, this link works though ORR report. This also gives the stats back to 1950 from the ORR rather than ATOC, so free from any neutrality issues. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The bot sent me. Firstly, no matter who owns the trains, there will always be delays. Rain, snow, drought, the trains get delayed. Secondly, see WP:RFC. You need a question, preferably a neutrally posed question. But I do see what you're going through. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality tag

[edit]

At the risk of reopening old wounds, are there any outstanding issues that need to be fixed or can I remove the neutrality tag on this article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs

[edit]

@Ednamode5700: thank you for updating the graphs on this page. Would you mind adding a marker to show where privatisation occurred - it's difficult to see the relevance of this graph to the article without it. Also I think the graph I added (with pence per km rather than % change from 1995) is easier to understand as it's a more understandable measure, especially as before 1995 the percentage change was negative, which is not intuitive to someone looking at it for the first time. Anyone else have thoughts? Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail&oldid=1202925310"