Should the railways be nationalised.

[Podie]

miniman said:

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.

I thought Network Rail are non-profit.

[V8mate]

miniman said:

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.

Not right for companies providing a service to make a profit? You want a blanket ban on such a proposition?

As for NR making a profit...

[tomw2000]

I don't really mind who runs/owns the thing, I just want it to work and at least feel like it's good value. And a quality service I don't mind coughing up for.

I choose to live in rural(-ish) Lincolnshire and work in London. Grantham station is on the eastcoast mainline. ~70mins to London King's Cross. Result.

And yet...it's £188.00 a week (excluding tube) and it's getting slower.

I don't expect it'll get better in my working lifetime. So I'll continue to try and grin and bear it.

[V8mate]

Podie said:

I thought Network Rail are non-profit.

They are. In every way.

[hidetheelephants]

A qualified yes; there is plenty of evidence that the caretaker organisations set up to run franchises when TOCs either walked away mid-contract or went bust have been as efficient as any of the private competition and capable of delivering a reliable service. The bonus is there is no cost penalty; just don't retender the franchises when the contracts end and they automatically revert to the state.

[MikeGTi]

We could just get Deutsche Bahn to run the railways, German railways have always been spot on when I've used them.

[miniman]

V8mate said:

Not right for companies providing a service to make a profit? You want a blanket ban on such a proposition?

Not at all, but for there to be so many points in the chain where costs are incurred seems perverse for what is essentially a public service.

As for NR - perhaps "profit" isn't the right word, but "overhead" certainly might be. For example, if Amey Rail do some work, NR will apply their "management" costs to that work - my point being that the passenger and the taxpayer are paying an inflated price for what is being done.

[grumbledoak]

The complete list of priorities of a Nationalized Railway are:
a) to drive trains around like you did in your Dad's shed/garage/loft when you were five.
b) to provide jobs for Labour voters.

Frankly I'd far prefer them to be:
a) to earn money by moving people from A to B in bearable comfort at bearable cost.

if ever they'd dare try it...

[alangla]

MikeGTi said:

We could just get Deutsche Bahn to run the railways, German railways have always been spot on when I've used them.

Arriva Trains Wales, Cross Country, Chiltern, London Overground, Grand Central and DBSchenker/EWS freight are all operated by them already!

You'll also find the state railways of France & the Netherlands operating trains here...

[AJS-]

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

[ewenm]

grumbledoak said:

The complete list of priorities of a Nationalized Railway are:
a) to drive trains around like you did in your Dad's shed/garage/loft when you were five.
b) to provide jobs for Labour voters.

Frankly I'd far prefer them to be:
a) to earn money by moving people from A to B in bearable comfort at bearable cost.

if ever they'd dare try it...

Why should a public service need to earn money? If it is earning money then fares are too high. Break even should be the target.

[Kermit power]

tomw2000 said:

I don't really mind who runs/owns the thing, I just want it to work and at least feel like it's good value. And a quality service I don't mind coughing up for.

I choose to live in rural(-ish) Lincolnshire and work in London. Grantham station is on the eastcoast mainline. ~70mins to London King's Cross. Result.

And yet...it's £188.00 a week (excluding tube) and it's getting slower.

I don't expect it'll get better in my working lifetime. So I'll continue to try and grin and bear it.

You're paying £188 per week to commute from Grantham to Kings Cross and you're complaining?

On a rough & ready calculation, at an average 30mpg it would cost you around £235 per week in petrol costs alone to drive it, and that's before the maintenance and depreciation costs of driving over 1,000 miles per week. Add to that a tenner a day for the congestion charge plus any parking costs you incurred and surely the train is an absolute bargain in comparison?

[alangla]

Kermit power said:

tomw2000 said:

I don't really mind who runs/owns the thing, I just want it to work and at least feel like it's good value. And a quality service I don't mind coughing up for.

I choose to live in rural(-ish) Lincolnshire and work in London. Grantham station is on the eastcoast mainline. ~70mins to London King's Cross. Result.

And yet...it's £188.00 a week (excluding tube) and it's getting slower.

I don't expect it'll get better in my working lifetime. So I'll continue to try and grin and bear it.

You're paying £188 per week to commute from Grantham to Kings Cross and you're complaining?

On a rough & ready calculation, at an average 30mpg it would cost you around £235 per week in petrol costs alone to drive it, and that's before the maintenance and depreciation costs of driving over 1,000 miles per week. Add to that a tenner a day for the congestion charge plus any parking costs you incurred and surely the train is an absolute bargain in comparison?

Google maps shows that as a 109 mile journey, so you're averaging 93mph, even in inner London. Most of your trip will be at or near 125mph I guess. You've probably got one of the fastest average commuting speeds in the country!

[V8mate]

ewenm said:

grumbledoak said:

The complete list of priorities of a Nationalized Railway are:
a) to drive trains around like you did in your Dad's shed/garage/loft when you were five.
b) to provide jobs for Labour voters.

Frankly I'd far prefer them to be:
a) to earn money by moving people from A to B in bearable comfort at bearable cost.

if ever they'd dare try it...

Why should a public service need to earn money? If it is earning money then fares are too high. Break even should be the target.

Why are railways a public service?
Why should the person who walks to work each morning have to pay for me to travel by train?

[stinkysteve]

miniman said:

Currently there's a profit margin the companies that own the trains, the banks that finance the leasing of the trains,

These two are the same thing.

The owners are predominantly Banks who lease them to the tocs.

However, the rest of your post regarding profit (not for NR by the way as has been said) is true.

Public transport is a public service, thus should not generate profits but should be state run.

And as for the other poster's suggestions on paving the railways and using coaches....

I suppose you know of a someone that manufacturers 140mph buses? Get real.

Pneumatic tyres on concrete V's steel on steel - Guess which loses more energy due to friction. And how do you compensate for those losses? Yep, more fuel.

Rail is the most fuel efficient motorised mode of transport on earth.

[ewenm]

V8mate said:

ewenm said:

grumbledoak said:

The complete list of priorities of a Nationalized Railway are:
a) to drive trains around like you did in your Dad's shed/garage/loft when you were five.
b) to provide jobs for Labour voters.

Frankly I'd far prefer them to be:
a) to earn money by moving people from A to B in bearable comfort at bearable cost.

if ever they'd dare try it...

Why should a public service need to earn money? If it is earning money then fares are too high. Break even should be the target.

Why are railways a public service?
Why should the person who walks to work each morning have to pay for me to travel by train?

Grumbldoak's first line about Nationalised Railways was setting the context of my reply. You can argue with him about whether a nationalised railway is a good idea or not, but given the premise of it, why should it make a profit?

Do the roads make a profit? Or are they maintained as infrastructure and cost?

[Fittster]

bhstewie said:

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

Your forgetting that there is now competition on the Rail Network. Use Chiltern Trains and the cost is £110 as opposed to the £130 that Virgin charge.

[powerstroke]

VoziKaoFangio said:

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.

Better idea build new toll roads for cars free up the motorways for coaches and bussiness trafic a lorry load of eggs is more important than someone in a micra going to see aunty ethel or a lout in an audi going to a football match..

[Otispunkmeyer]

bhstewie said:

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

Best laugh is, despite the prices I think there is still a level of government subsidy !

[V8mate]

VoziKaoFangio said:

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.

Safety isn't an issue.

Eleven years ago I suggested to relevant ears that the 'Metro' area in south-east London (the three lines from Dartford to various London terminals) should be torn up and that coaches should run along tarmac'd rail routes. Keep the dedicated routes and the station stops; bin the tracks, signals, trains etc.

They laughed.