Should the railways be nationalised.

[RichB]

Yertis said:

..<cliP> .The tragedy of the railways is the nature of their privatisation, rather than the privatisation itself. The railway is a complete system, from track bed to ticket office, and destroying that structure was one of the biggest governmental cock-ups of recent memory (Conservative government).

I strongly suspect that anyone advocating a return to nationalisation has never had much day to day experience of BR.

Totally agree with that! p.s.not read the rest of the thread but to the "tarmac it over brigade" what would yo do with the tons of freight transported by rail?

[AV12]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thats disgraceful, but typical of money-grabbing revenue.

[ninja-lewis]

The only disaster that caused more harm to the railways than the model chosen for privatisation was nationalisation in the first place.

Twincam16 said:

I voted yes, but my solution would be different in spirit as I don't necessarily think it should be nationalised per se.

However, the main problem with the railways in this country stem from the multitude of companies all attempting to run bits of them, badly-co-ordinated with each other, all attempting to do each bit of the job with minimum outlay for maximum profit.

So what I'd propose is that either a government department or a private company could run the railways, but they'd have to run the whole thing. Track, trains, stations, maintenance, safety, infrastructure, freight - the whole lot. That way, everything should be properly co-ordinated, so you wouldn't get someone else's local slow train holding up another company's fast one because another company didn't get the signalling right, or 'engineering works' that drag on for year after year after year because of having to fit in with ongoing budget constraints and other company cock-ups.

EU rules require that the tracks and running of the trains be separate to prevent a vertically integrated operator denying another company from accessing their track. So the split between the TOC side and Network Rail has to remain. You couldn't let Eurostar run HS1, for example, not only because it is also used for local trains and cross-channel freight but Deustche Bahn are planning to offer through services from London to Germany that compete with Eurostar.

Podie said:

I thought Network Rail are non-profit.

Network Rail actually made a £2 billion operating profit last year. Even after financing costs (signicant) and tax, they had a 5% proft margin. What Network Rail is a "not for dividend" company limited by gurantee. It has no shareholders to distribute profits to so they're reinvested back into the network. It also prevents the Government using it as a cashcow and thereby depriving it of investment as happened to successful nationalised industries in the past.

[Wills2]

Nationalised railways? People have short memories...

[RichB]

ninja-lewis said:

EU rules require that the tracks and running of the trains be separate to prevent a vertically integrated operator denying another company from accessing their track.

Didn't know that but it explains a lot.

[blueg33]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I believe those muppets were at cheltenham station this morning. I may have advised them to activate their shared brain cell and go forth and multiply!

No way they should have treated your wife the way they did.

[hornet]

AV12 said:

It is very good and provides a orbital service which has been much needed by London. Agree on the Tottenham
Hale, but I think the now Southeastern "Metro" regions, the London - Dartford via Greenwich/Sidcup etc. The lack of a tube network into these highly populated (and growing hugely)areas would be ideal - could possibly link to the old East London line from the main lines into London Bridge. May sound far-fetched to some, but youll be surprised what will be done when the powers that be want it to. They are now going to introduce the LO into Clapham Junction from Dalston etc very soon, from which then it will run "full circle" around inner suburban London.

Link: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes...

The thing that's impressed me has been the re-use of old paths. I'm a bit when it comes to long disused routes and links - stuff like the Connaught Tunnel and the old NLL branch that Crossrail is taking over. Just fascinates me that this stuff can lay disused for so long in such a major city with so much demand for transport.

[AV12]

There's a fair amount of it East and South London, too, owing to it's industrial past.

[CooperD]

I do a lot of travelling on the French Railways. If the UK could have a service as good as their's I would support nationalisation. I've only once had a delayed train, because of a suicide apparently, but that was only about 10 minutes late. I have to admit that the service in East Anglia has improved a bit recently with Greater Anglia taking over the franchise.

[Yertis]

RichB said:

ninja-lewis said:

EU rules require that the tracks and running of the trains be separate to prevent a vertically integrated operator denying another company from accessing their track.

Didn't know that but it explains a lot.

Me neither - yet another reason for me to loathe the EU.

[martin84]

It seems to me that irrespective of whether the railways are privatised or nationalised, they still seem to cost the taxpayer lots of money and cost the rail users more than it should.

[johnfm]

Putting aside ownership for a moment, I heard an interesting idea the other day about the railways - the lines are mostly empty.

A train from A to B every 20 minutes or whatever means that the track is virtually 'empty'.

He was suggesting many more, smaller 'trains' running every few minutes - effectively 'filling' the track with little 10 person 'mini trains'.

I suppose it would then turn the railways into a form of automated motorway.

It will never happen, but the concept was interesting.

[Bibbs]

Where I live the transport system is basically nationalised (it's actually different companies running the services in different areas, but all under the one name).

Train/bus/ferry all the same company. You buy a ticket on one, and it works on the others, similar to the zone system in London.

My travel is the equivalent of about 3 quid a day. Trains are every 15/20 mins. The are clean, air conditioned and eletric. The new busses are run on LPG so are less polluting too.

On Friday and Saturday the late trains (2:30am, 4am) are free.
The car parks at each station are free.
The bus service once in the city is free.
Sporting events have free travel included in the tickets, and the venues are close to transport.

It's subsidised through car tax and carpark tax.

I like it.

[Vocal Minority]

AJS- said:

Vocal Minority said:

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!

How about if you had a straight level motorway right into town where the railway goes now? And cut fuel prices because we're no longer subsidizing railways

If there was an auto-bahn running through Malvern I wouldn't want to live there anymore! Besides, we have one called the M5 not too far away.

Also, presumably you are being a bit glib with your subsidizing the railways comment, as taxes go to a mirriad of other things as well, and it would hardly change the duty levied on fuel.


In fairness, I think my journey at around £130 per month (for 35 miles each way every day) is the exception that proves the rule on the value for money basis. If I include parking (at £4 odd or so a day in a euro car park dungeon), I would have £42 left for fuel, and in my car fuel would have to be about 27p per litre to make it cheaper than the train.

[RichB]

johnfm said:

Putting aside ownership for a moment, I heard an interesting idea the other day about the railways - the lines are mostly empty.

A train from A to B every 20 minutes or whatever means that the track is virtually 'empty'.

He was suggesting many more, smaller 'trains' running every few minutes - effectively 'filling' the track with little 10 person 'mini trains'.

I suppose it would then turn the railways into a form of automated motorway.

It will never happen, but the concept was interesting.

As I mentioned earlier, everyone thinks of railays as passenger lines and forget freight yet my objective would be to get as much heavy freight off the roads onto the rails. Ideas like tarmacing tracks or mini trains overlook freight.

[JontyR]

blueg33 said:

One person travelling, into a major city, train beats car in every way, even the crappy cross country ones like the one I am sitting on at the moment.

As for nationalising them, has everyone forgotton how poor British Rail was? If they were nationalised every train would be as crap as the ones BR had, at least this way some of the trains are ok, and in the last 12 months most of them that I use have been on time.

My personal order of train quality is as follows:

Virgin
First Great Western
Both of the above are good for intercity services

The rest are pants - if nationalised it would all be pants. In each year I use most train companies many times.

I disagree....I was travelling from Chippenham to Slough. Only needed to do the commute 3 days per week, but even so the cost of a weekly ticket was cheaper than 3 day tickets. Even so this was still working out at including parking over £600 per month. The drive was 168 miles return which equated to £31 per day in fuel. There was no parking fee as I could use the office car park. I would still leave at the same time in the morning so set off at 5:30 in the morning so didn't get caught in traffic then leave early to avoid the evening rush hour.

No depreciation on the car as it was a hand me down. Servicing I did myself, so just worked out so much cheaper! Plus although the train in the morning was direct, the return meant a change at Reading and that meant standing for the rest of the journey home!

Where was the incentive? FGW take the p1ss when it comes to pricing. The best way round was to buy 2 tickets using Didcot as a hub (I think that is the term used) but I was told if caught I could get fined! didn't want the hassle. What was more frustrating was that my Father's ticket from Horsham to London including tube was less than my ticket...plus his was 1st class, not cattle!!

[blueg33]

JontyR said:

I disagree....I was travelling from Chippenham to Slough. Only needed to do the commute 3 days per week, but even so the cost of a weekly ticket was cheaper than 3 day tickets. Even so this was still working out at including parking over £600 per month. The drive was 168 miles return which equated to £31 per day in fuel. There was no parking fee as I could use the office car park. I would still leave at the same time in the morning so set off at 5:30 in the morning so didn't get caught in traffic then leave early to avoid the evening rush hour.

No depreciation on the car as it was a hand me down. Servicing I did myself, so just worked out so much cheaper! Plus although the train in the morning was direct, the return meant a change at Reading and that meant standing for the rest of the journey home!

Where was the incentive? FGW take the p1ss when it comes to pricing. The best way round was to buy 2 tickets using Didcot as a hub (I think that is the term used) but I was told if caught I could get fined! didn't want the hassle. What was more frustrating was that my Father's ticket from Horsham to London including tube was less than my ticket...plus his was 1st class, not cattle!!

By tain I can get from my station at Evesham to Paddington in 2 hours and am able to rely on it to within about 5 minutes as a rule. To drive and get to paddington for 8am it would take a minimum of 2 and a half hours but is regularly 3-4 hours. The cost in my car is circa £1 a mile according to whatcar, so that means 93 miles each way costs £186, the return train fare is £68. I dont have to pay to park near the station either. Its a no brainer in terms of time and cost.

Same with Manchester Picadilly, train takes the same time as car but costs less.

[rs1952]

Yertis said:

RichB said:

ninja-lewis said:

EU rules require that the tracks and running of the trains be separate to prevent a vertically integrated operator denying another company from accessing their track.

Didn't know that but it explains a lot.

Me neither - yet another reason for me to loathe the EU.

Aw - and we were totally in agreement until you said that

The Eu's intention with this particular Directive was to encourage competition to improve standards, and avoid the situation (that we had in this country, along with many others) of having a state owned and subsidised railway system that was in a monopolistic situation. Under BR, nobody else was allowed to run trains on their tracks - they simply wouldn't let them. You may recall, for example, the "steam ban" introduced by BR in 1968, where preserved steam locomotives and coaches - that BR used to own, of course , but didn't maintain them as well as the preservationists did - were simply not allowed on BR tracks. Because BR said so, and that was the end of the matter.

Provided that the company that owns the infrastructure allows competition between other providers that want to use its tracks, that would comply with the EU Directive. I would be surprised if anybodyb on here thought that denying competitors access was a bad thing. Many other EU countries dealt with this by setting up different companies - one owning the track and infrastructure, the others owning the trains. This could be done as an accounting measure, and was done as an accounting measure, and there was no need of the multi-bilion pound reorganisation that we had in the UK. That bit was dreamt up by Whitehall, not the EU.

That might also explain why the former Deutche Bundesbahn, privatised as DB Schenker in 1994, now runs a fair proportion of the services in this country.

The whole episode of UK railway privatisation has fallen into a common misconception in the UK - Whitehall cocks something up and the EU gets the blame for it.

[crankedup]

Steam loco's were still being manufactured even though they were no longer required, diesel and electric had taken over. I believe the last steamer built was not even used!

[rs1952]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

OK - I'll own up to being a sad case (and hope that the thread doesn't get hijacked as a result, as it is supposed to be about railway nationalisation, not steam engines).

For those that don't know, after nationalisation in 1948 a new series of standard engines were designed, and 999 were built between the first (70000 Brittania) introduced in January 1951, and the last (92220) in March 1960. At the time of the plan's inception it was thought to be a good idea because we had a country nearly bankrupt after WW2, and steam engines didn't need imported oil to run on, they could use indigenous coal.

Then along came the 1955 modernisation plan, which envisaged replacing steam with diesel and electric, but at a sensible pace. Steam was expected to still be around well into the 1980s, Then, in its infinite wisdom, Whitehall accelerated the modernisation plan in 1958, and BR were forced to order large numbers of new diesel locomotives "off the shelf" without prior testing and trialling. It would not be uncharitable to say that some were more successul than others. The steam replacement programme was also accelerated in consequence, and the last BR steam engine was withdrawn in August 1968.

But, of course, the contracts for steam engine construction had been let; the material contracts had been signed and the railway workshops were still busy building them in 1958, so that's why we had a situation where some engines (particularly the 9Fs, of which Evening Star was one, and a total of 251 were built) had a stupidly short working life. The longest serving was 92004 with a working life of 12.4 years, the shortest was 92220 with 5 years as mentioned above, and the average length of service was 9.7 years. They would have easily lasted 30 to 40 years.

A monumental waste of money and another Whitehall cock-up.

Now the plug
www.br-steam-allocations.co.uk