Re: More outcomes from Glenbrook.

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"Greg Rudd" <grudd@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
39E3CA11.E07C0ACA@mail.usyd.edu.au">news:39E3CA11.E07C0ACA@mail.usyd.edu.au...
>
> Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> > "Greg Rudd" <grudd@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
> > 39E39E46.DC89356C@mail.usyd.edu.au">news:39E39E46.DC89356C@mail.usyd.edu.au...
> >
> > > Think about it, a combined RAC/RSA with both access and and then float
it
> > on
> > > the stock market will bring more to the government ala Railtrack in
the
> > UK.
> > > And then we can have as the economic rationalists put it a truly
> > aggressive,
> > > customer focused investor owned transport system.
> >
> > First time I have ever heard RailTrack described as "customer
focussed" - do
> > you still have to prove that your trains will not have a safety critical
> > failure only once in every 50,000,000,000 yeas (since once in every
> > 10,000,000,000 years is considered too dangerous)?
> >
> > Dave
>
> Customer focused.  isn't what every economically rationalist company calls
> itself.

Of course, silly me.

> No, but you will have to prove that you have increased the value of the
share
> price over this financial period to the funds managers who after all, are
the
> customers that really matter.

The whole safety case situation over there is a complete farce - trains are
running around under "grandfather rights" whilst newer, _saafer_ trains
cannot get on the tracks because they cannot pass ludicrous safety
requirements (I was exaggerating - but only slightly - in the above
statement. They *did* actually refuse to pass a train once because
interference with track circuits was predicted to happen something like once
in 10,000,000 years, and they changed it to something like once in
20,000,000 years. Good old Uncle Roger (Ford) went to town on that one).

Dave