Should the railways be nationalised.

[colonel c]

OK so I thought I'd get in before AJS-


Following on from the recent West coast rail debacle and with more franchise coming up for renewal. Is it time to renationalise the whole network?

[AJS-]

I'd replace them with motorways. Trains seem pretty well redundant in the age of cheap flight and pneumatic tyres. And since we're a clear 100 years into that age, let's just get rid of trains?

[thinfourth2]

AJS- said:

I'd replace them with motorways. Trains seem pretty well redundant in the age of cheap flight and pneumatic tyres. And since we're a clear 100 years into that age, let's just get rid of trains?

Go to a country with decent railways and you may think differently

[Fittster]

Does anyone think that BR provide an efficient service?

[AJS-]

thinfourth2 said:

AJS- said:

I'd replace them with motorways. Trains seem pretty well redundant in the age of cheap flight and pneumatic tyres. And since we're a clear 100 years into that age, let's just get rid of trains?

Go to a country with decent railways and you may think differently

I've been to plenty. They're alright but still very limited compared to the flexibility of cars, or even buses and taxis.

[BoRED S2upid]

YES. I don't know if you have ever been on a train in Wales but the Indians have a better service than us. It can't be any worse under Public ownership. The trick with Train travel IMO is make it cheap and pack them full. trains at the moment aren't cheaper than using your car, so why would you?

[Caulkhead]

thinfourth2 said:

AJS- said:

I'd replace them with motorways. Trains seem pretty well redundant in the age of cheap flight and pneumatic tyres. And since we're a clear 100 years into that age, let's just get rid of trains?

Go to a country with decent railways and you may think differently

I've been to several. It's lovely when all the other poor sods on the train are paying 50% tax to maintain the lovely railway for me to use, but not so much fun when you have to pay for the tax and the tickets yourself.

[oyster]

AJS- said:

I'd replace them with motorways. Trains seem pretty well redundant in the age of cheap flight and pneumatic tyres. And since we're a clear 100 years into that age, let's just get rid of trains?

So you'd be happily stuck behind the extra cars on the motorway?

[Caulkhead]

BoRED S2upid said:

YES. I don't know if you have ever been on a train in Wales but the Indians have a better service than us. It can't be any worse under Public ownership. The trick with Train travel IMO is make it cheap and pack them full. trains at the moment aren't cheaper than using your car, so why would you?

This is what all governments intend, but not by reducing the cost of travelling by rail, they'll just increase the cost of using a car until you can only afford rail. Please don't encourage them.

[AJS-]

BoRED S2upid said:

YES. I don't know if you have ever been on a train in Wales but the Indians have a better service than us. It can't be any worse under Public ownership. The trick with Train travel IMO is make it cheap and pack them full. trains at the moment aren't cheaper than using your car, so why would you?

I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to this. I am completely opposed to social ownership and control of things ideologically, practically and morally, but if you're going to make things a "public service" then you might as well just cut out the bullst and do it full on.

Thailand does this, and it's train are rickety old heaps, really I'm sure they're worse than Wales, and take ages to go anywhere, but you can travel the length of the country for about 5GBP, and it's full of people walking around selling fried chicken and cold beer. Way more fun.

[bitchstewie]

I don't care if they're privatised or nationalised, IMO the problem is that the train is really fking expensive.

The cross city line is a bargain if I want to go into Birmingham, but if I want to go to London I pretty much need to know 3 weeks in advance or I'm going to get utterly stiffed for any sort of walk-on ticket that gets me down there for office hours - if I want to go tomorrow and be there for 8am and leave at 5pm it's £130 which is fking scandalous.

Edited by bhstewie on Thursday 4th October 12:43

[ewenm]

It all depends whether you think the railways should be a public service or a business. If a public service it should be seen as a cost/investment rather than some mishmash of a profit making franchise system.

[98elise]

Pave over them and run coaches.

I use a commuter coach instead of rail for the following reasons:

Its 30% cheaper (and not subsidised).
It runs on time.
Its reliable.
It picks up 100 yards from my door (rather than me having to drive into town).
It drops me off 100 yards from work.
Its clean
Its friendly
They actually listen to their passengers.

The only down side is it has to run in all the commuter traffic. That said, door to door it takes the same time as the train.

[thinfourth2]

AJS- said:

thinfourth2 said:

AJS- said:

I'd replace them with motorways. Trains seem pretty well redundant in the age of cheap flight and pneumatic tyres. And since we're a clear 100 years into that age, let's just get rid of trains?

Go to a country with decent railways and you may think differently

I've been to plenty. They're alright but still very limited compared to the flexibility of cars, or even buses and taxis.

Comparing with flight you may find that a decent train service is quicker over short distances as an airport is normally outside the city and it doesn't have the joys of check-in

[Vocal Minority]

AJS- said:

I'd replace them with motorways. Trains seem pretty well redundant in the age of cheap flight and pneumatic tyres. And since we're a clear 100 years into that age, let's just get rid of trains?

That would be no good to me. With the price of fuel and parking, the train is MUCH cheaper for me and allows me to work in Brum but live somewhere I actually want to!

[El Guapo]

AJS- said:

I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to this. I am completely opposed to social ownership and control of things ideologically, practically and morally, but if you're going to make things a "public service" then you might as well just cut out the bullst and do it full on.

ewenm said:

It all depends whether you think the railways should be a public service or a business. If a public service it should be seen as a cost/investment rather than some mishmash of a profit making franchise system.

[VoziKaoFangio]

98elise said:

Pave over them and run coaches.

This is it. The new coachaways could also be used for all heavy goods vehicles, freeing up the motorway network for private cars. All existing rail freight could be put on to this network also. Handily, railways tend to go right through city centres, meaning that all goods will get to where they need to go.

The one drawback is safety - the railways are far, far safer than this coach/lorry proposal. We'd probably have to put up with hundreds more deaths per annum than we currently get on the trains.

[V8mate]

Fittster said:

Does anyone think that BR provide an efficient service?

In the five to six years leading up to privatisation, yes. I'm not sure the performance levels during that period have been matched since.

I still voted no in the poll though.

[Podie]

Fittster said:

Does anyone think that BR provide an efficient service?

Who?

[miniman]

Currently there's a profit margin for the TOC, Network Rail, their subcontractors, the companies that own the trains, the banks that finance the leasing of the trains, the third party sites that sell tickets, the car park subcontractors... surely that's not right.