Should the railways be nationalised.

Should the railways be nationalised.

Poll: Should the railways be nationalised.

Total Members Polled: 227

Yes: 62%
No: 38%
Author
Discussion

Podie

46,630 posts

274 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
The cost of station car parking is one of the staggering things.

Stations local to me are £7.50 a day

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
Podie said:
The cost of station car parking is one of the staggering things.

Stations local to me are £7.50 a day
Land value and discouraging people using the rail parking for town centre amenities, another reason to get them out of town.

AV12

5,305 posts

207 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
In a word YES.

The absolute disgrace that is FGW is an example of how a private company who really don't understand how to run a railway.

As a side note TFL should run London's railways - I think Boris wants to do this already. The Overground is an example of exactly how a modern railway should be implemented using existing and new infrastructure.

alangla

4,723 posts

180 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
otolith said:
I would build some new stations at motorway junctions with extensive car parking. The idea of driving into one town or city centre to park up and get the train to another one is just stupid. The idea that everyone will use public transport into the station is just a denial of reality.
That was certainly a failure of BR; not bad at serving existing traffic and organic traffic growth, there seems to have been an institutional inability to understand that traffic can be created from nothing(as in the park and ride case you outline) compounded by a chronic lack of money for capital investment.
I'd disagree - BR opened quite a few Parkway stations in the 1970s/80s, e.g. Bristol. They also seemed to understand that electrification could generate new journeys, so strung wires up wherever they could afford, unfortunately most of that impetus got lost at privatisation and the large-scale electrification programmes are only really restarting now.
In saying that, some of BR's electrification schemes were very much done on the cheap, hence why the East Coast line has problems every time the wind blows.

blueg33

35,576 posts

223 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
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.

hidetheelephants

23,754 posts

192 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
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.
Pro rata the privatised railways absorb twice the subsidy BR ever got.

tomw2000

2,508 posts

194 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
Kermit power said:
It's the "understanding" part that caused the challenge then, as it certainly sounded like a complaint - albeit a mild English complaint rather than the typical PH sweary special.

I'd take that £10k and compare it to any other way of doing the journey (never mind do it in 70 minutes each way) before deciding whether I was getting value for money.
I realise the train is _cheaper_ than driving and I accept it's my choice to live and work where I do.

When I started this comedy commute ~12 years ago, the cost was more like £7k per annum and the journey times shorter. So if I were to complain (...;) ) I'd say that ~12 years on, I'm paying more for a worse service.

But hey ho, I continue to grin an bear it....just about.

bitchstewie

50,779 posts

209 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
Fittster said:
bhstewie said:
Fittster said:
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.
I'm not sure I'm grateful for having the choice between being mildly fked over vs. totally fked over but regardless, I don't want to have to even think which train I need to get on or which offers best value for money, I just know the time I want to get to and from somewhere.
So what do you calculate the costs of getting to central London are via car? Remember to add congestion charges and parking.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a passenger to compare to possible routes (leave from New St. or Moor St. which are about 5 minutes apart).

You're able to decide between the M6 and M40 when you take the car.
6 gallons of diesel plus parking/congestion charge and tbh I have no idea what those would be.

I think an important point is that my car costs the same whether I plan to go three weeks in advance or on the spur of the moment whilst the train doesn't and IMO that's a significant barrier to many people using trains more.

blueg33

35,576 posts

223 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
Pro rata the privatised railways absorb twice the subsidy BR ever got.
Adjusted for inflation, health and safety laws, per passenger mile?

Please show me the figures

hornet

6,333 posts

249 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
AV12 said:
As a side note TFL should run London's railways - I think Boris wants to do this already. The Overground is an example of exactly how a modern railway should be implemented using existing and new infrastructure.
The Overground is a fantastic service, but I think expanding it too far would start to cause problems, as you'd move away from a metro service and into semi-fast suburban stuff. I think you'll see the stoppers out to Tottenham Hale absorbed into the Overground at some point, but other than that, what else is there before you get into the suburban stuff? Few bits run by Southern maybe?

GarryA

4,700 posts

163 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
I work for NR.

The way the railways are run and maintained now as opposed to BR is so far different its hard to imagine, BR ran a lot of the stuff into the ground and every one has relied on the good work the Victorians had done but now that has left us with our biggest problems, tunnels / viaducts / bridges these are strangling the network by restricting traffic flow and gauge. It was only around 4 / 5 years ago when I was removing paraffin signal lamps from one of the busiest freight junctions in the UK we are well behind the times but for me, the infrastructure has never been better.

Other things to note,

NR are pressing on with major re-signallings and using in cab tech they are also reducing the signal box number down to just 14 big control centres.

The network is so varied and versatile which is why we get issues and people start comparing it to services that only run on one line from A to B.

BR was let down by the government because it got tired of funding its train set.

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
If they can give us cheaper tickets and better service then absolutely.

eyebeebe

2,962 posts

232 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
DJRC said:
Try Switzerland. I love them here smile
Beat me to it.

I start getting pissed off when my train is late (more than 3 minutes and its announced). That happens a few times a month and is rarely more than 6 minutes late and I'm on one of the worst lines (suburban single track with limited passing points).

And taxes are more like 15% (and under 10% for the average earner).

For those wanting Deutsche Bahn to come in. The Germans who live here think DB is shocking and not a patch on SBB.

Ideologically I'm against nationalisation, but since seeing how it could be done here in Switzerland, maybe it's not the worst idea in the world, but it has to be run as a public service.

V8mate

45,899 posts

188 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
It's a ridiculous comparison. Swiss railways are a veritable branch line compared to our commuter routes.

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all

Where is the "don't be so fking ridiculous, you idiot" option?

The railways are still subsidised by government, which is why you pay through the nose for tickets and car parking, as they try and reduce the subsidy.

The simple fact is that is you want something, you have to pay for it.

Renationalisation will only increase inefficiency pushing up the cost - does anyone really think fares woukd come down and service improve under a reformed British Rail?

I do agree that there is a huge variation in service standards. In some cases there are well invested lines that enable good franchisees to do a good job, whereas in other cases the franchisees couldn't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces, but one thing is certain and that is that we are not Switzerland, and we do not have infinite amounts of money to spend.

In particular, we should not and must not expect people who do not use the train to pay for it.

We need to live within our means.

Yertis

18,016 posts

265 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
I'm frankly amazed at the number of people who are suggesting we 'tarmac' over the railways. Just think that through for one minute. How many traffic lanes do you think will fit onto your usual double-track track bed? How are you going to deal with tunnels and bridges? How are you going to connect with the rest of the road network?

Surely as enthusiastic road users you'd want to build a system that will remove traffic from the roads, rather than destroy the most efficient alternative available.

Since 'privatisation' the railways have improved so dramatically in terms of reliability and quality of service that they are scarcely recognisable from the shoddy shambles they were when nationalised. 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.

AV12

5,305 posts

207 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
hornet said:
AV12 said:
As a side note TFL should run London's railways - I think Boris wants to do this already. The Overground is an example of exactly how a modern railway should be implemented using existing and new infrastructure.
The Overground is a fantastic service, but I think expanding it too far would start to cause problems, as you'd move away from a metro service and into semi-fast suburban stuff. I think you'll see the stoppers out to Tottenham Hale absorbed into the Overground at some point, but other than that, what else is there before you get into the suburban stuff? Few bits run by Southern maybe?
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...

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why? I mean the question sincerely. Is it because they are crap managers, have a poor network to run trains on or because the rolling stock is old and keeps breaking?

If it is the latter, I would certainly be a strong advocate for government owning and investing in rolling stock to lease to operators, which they have singularly failed to do in the case of FGW.

If that happened, franchises could be shorter, delays due to poor rolling stock reduced, comfort improved, and investment in long term assets made over the long term.

AV12

5,305 posts

207 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
stinkysteve said:
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.... laugh

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.
Agreed. The issue is our infrastructure is antiquated and the lack of investment in some areas means only a limited speed and frequency can be run on main lines. Truthfully look at Japan as inspiration to what rail really is. Coaches? Nah.

How about joining coaches up together to form...wait, a train! wink

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
At least half of your points would be solved by my rolling stock point.

In term of customer service, shorter franchises would force them to sharpen up.

How did she manage to get done over by their revenue nazis?