Should the railways be nationalised?
Poll: Should the railways be nationalised?
Total Members Polled: 471
Discussion
'Should the railways be nationalised?'
This implies that they're privatised now. However, are they as privatised as they once were? When all the lines (and branch lines) were built, were they not privately owned? Doesn't the government now own/maintain the lines? Back in the day were ticket prices subsidised by the government? Could it be better if we went back to something more like this?
This implies that they're privatised now. However, are they as privatised as they once were? When all the lines (and branch lines) were built, were they not privately owned? Doesn't the government now own/maintain the lines? Back in the day were ticket prices subsidised by the government? Could it be better if we went back to something more like this?
Rick101 said:
I think it is worse now. It is essentially privatized for profits but state supported for losses.
State could make it financially worthwhile as clearly evidenced by East Coast.
A privatised service would give customers a genuine choice of franchises with which they could travel, thereby actually providing some genuine competition and pressure on service / cost trade-offs.State could make it financially worthwhile as clearly evidenced by East Coast.
At present from my local station I have a single choice of operator to travel to / from my place of work.
Jockman said:
Surely the State benefits from privatised profits?
Well if there are investment requirements BUT there is a drastic need to cut or delay spending by the govt that works. Essentially investment is now ringfenced - imagine a choice for voters let's say a cut in some kind of benefit purely to invest in trains when countless people don't use them. Or let say cutting all spend on food banks to go instead on trains or from NHS to trains. That's the crux of it.
Welshbeef said:
Jockman said:
Surely the State benefits from privatised profits?
Well if there are investment requirements BUT there is a drastic need to cut or delay spending by the govt that works. Essentially investment is now ringfenced - imagine a choice for voters let's say a cut in some kind of benefit purely to invest in trains when countless people don't use them. Or let say cutting all spend on food banks to go instead on trains or from NHS to trains. That's the crux of it.
Just noticed this (long-running) thread. Naturally, I haven't bothered reading the discussions so far, so...
I found it hilarious listening to a Union bloke on the Today programme a few mornings ago citing the profit returned to the Treasury by the ECML whilst it was under recent 'public ownership' as a prime reason for the railways being re-nationalised. Talk about selective thinking!
Firstly, that line just happens to be 'naturally profitable', so you could pretty much leave anyone to run it and they'd make money. But, and this is the important bit, it's the suggestion that it was state ownership/control which delivered the profit. ECML, while it was 'between owners', just like South Eastern before it, wasn't run by the public sector. It was run by a bunch of consultants. A group of private sector railway managers who were themselves 'between jobs'. And on both ECML and South Eastern, their job was simply to keep it ticking over and prepare it for re-tendering.
That it was 'state-run' couldn't have been further from the truth.
I found it hilarious listening to a Union bloke on the Today programme a few mornings ago citing the profit returned to the Treasury by the ECML whilst it was under recent 'public ownership' as a prime reason for the railways being re-nationalised. Talk about selective thinking!
Firstly, that line just happens to be 'naturally profitable', so you could pretty much leave anyone to run it and they'd make money. But, and this is the important bit, it's the suggestion that it was state ownership/control which delivered the profit. ECML, while it was 'between owners', just like South Eastern before it, wasn't run by the public sector. It was run by a bunch of consultants. A group of private sector railway managers who were themselves 'between jobs'. And on both ECML and South Eastern, their job was simply to keep it ticking over and prepare it for re-tendering.
That it was 'state-run' couldn't have been further from the truth.
Esseesse said:
'Should the railways be nationalised?'
This implies that they're privatised now. However, are they as privatised as they once were? When all the lines (and branch lines) were built, were they not privately owned? Doesn't the government now own/maintain the lines? Back in the day were ticket prices subsidised by the government? Could it be better if we went back to something more like this?
The railway boom of the mid 19thC saw lines being built everywhere by private investors. If you look at the history of the railways there were lines from the most obscure village to somewhere else, often used for goods; getting cattle, sheep, corn and wheat etc. to market towns. Most had gone bankrupt by 1900 and all long since gone. The idea that there can be any competition on the railways is a strange one. There cannot really be true competition because the rails all simply go from A to B, so what will you do, wait for another train because it's cheaper or has better seats? I guess it may be faster but then you have that choice now. I accept that from London to Scotland this may have been the case but one line went to Edinburgh up the east coast the other to Glasgow via the west so frankly still not really a choice. The great railway advertising that you saw in the 1930s was to attract customers to go to holiday destinations in their region so not really what we're talking about these days when we say there's no competition. Hummm shall I go to Morcombe Bay from Euston or Paignton on the GWR what a choice... This implies that they're privatised now. However, are they as privatised as they once were? When all the lines (and branch lines) were built, were they not privately owned? Doesn't the government now own/maintain the lines? Back in the day were ticket prices subsidised by the government? Could it be better if we went back to something more like this?
People then forget, or weren't born, when the railways were nationalised; British Railways were slow, dirty, strike ridden and under invested. In fact the dreadful lack of investment in the railways by any government after the war up to the '70s lead to the state they were in 10-20 years ago.
The real issue now is the way it's been privatised, instead of breaking it into regions the government decided that the rails (and infrastructure) would be one company and the trains run like privatised buses on someone else's track. Personally I would have liked to see it revert to 4 main operating companies with responsibility for everything in their region. I still think this would be better than re-nationalisation.
RichB said:
The idea that there can be any competition on the railways is a strange one. There cannot really be true competition because the rails all simply go from A to B, so what will you do, wait for another train because it's cheaper or has better seats? I guess it may be faster but then you have that choice now.
I'm not sure I understand this?At the moment, at peak times there are at least 6 (sometimes 8) trains per hour from my local station into London. It should be feasible for 4 trains to be operated by one company and 4 by another.
It would then be realistic for a customer to choose which service - combination of comfort & cost - that suited them best, a,d give the train companies a good reason to improve their offering.
sidicks said:
I'm not sure I understand this?
At the moment, at peak times there are at least 6 (sometimes 8) trains per hour from my local station into London. It should be feasible for 4 trains to be operated by one company and 4 by another.
It would then be realistic for a customer to choose which service - combination of comfort & cost - that suited them best, a,d give the train companies a good reason to improve their offering.
I wasn't trying to be complicated. What I meant is that people will simply jump on the next train that come in for their commute. I'd bet a penny to a pound that if you had a red one and a blue one to get to work you'd just get whatever came in first. At the moment, at peak times there are at least 6 (sometimes 8) trains per hour from my local station into London. It should be feasible for 4 trains to be operated by one company and 4 by another.
It would then be realistic for a customer to choose which service - combination of comfort & cost - that suited them best, a,d give the train companies a good reason to improve their offering.
As an aside, what a nightmare to police such a system. I guess you could overcome that by making passengers swipe their oyster card on the train rather than at the station but how else would the revenue be allocated to each train operating company? If they simply shared the revenue then there would be no competition.
RichB said:
sidicks said:
I'm not sure I understand this?
At the moment, at peak times there are at least 6 (sometimes 8) trains per hour from my local station into London. It should be feasible for 4 trains to be operated by one company and 4 by another.
It would then be realistic for a customer to choose which service - combination of comfort & cost - that suited them best, a,d give the train companies a good reason to improve their offering.
I wasn't trying to be complicated. What I meant is that people will simply jump on the next train that come in for their commute. I'd bet a penny to a pound that if you had a red one and a blue one to get to work you'd just get whatever came in first. At the moment, at peak times there are at least 6 (sometimes 8) trains per hour from my local station into London. It should be feasible for 4 trains to be operated by one company and 4 by another.
It would then be realistic for a customer to choose which service - combination of comfort & cost - that suited them best, a,d give the train companies a good reason to improve their offering.
As an aside, what a nightmare to police such a system. I guess you could overcome that by making passengers swipe their oyster card on the train rather than at the station but how else would the revenue be allocated to each train operating company? If they simply shared the revenue then there would be no competition.
V8mate said:
RichB said:
sidicks said:
I'm not sure I understand this?
At the moment, at peak times there are at least 6 (sometimes 8) trains per hour from my local station into London. It should be feasible for 4 trains to be operated by one company and 4 by another.
It would then be realistic for a customer to choose which service - combination of comfort & cost - that suited them best, a,d give the train companies a good reason to improve their offering.
I wasn't trying to be complicated. What I meant is that people will simply jump on the next train that come in for their commute. I'd bet a penny to a pound that if you had a red one and a blue one to get to work you'd just get whatever came in first. At the moment, at peak times there are at least 6 (sometimes 8) trains per hour from my local station into London. It should be feasible for 4 trains to be operated by one company and 4 by another.
It would then be realistic for a customer to choose which service - combination of comfort & cost - that suited them best, a,d give the train companies a good reason to improve their offering.
As an aside, what a nightmare to police such a system. I guess you could overcome that by making passengers swipe their oyster card on the train rather than at the station but how else would the revenue be allocated to each train operating company? If they simply shared the revenue then there would be no competition.
sidicks said:
Most commuters have a season ticket - you'd pay for company A (and only be able use company A trains) but if you were unhappy at renewal, you could switch to company B instead.
That sounds a massive pain in the arse. What is the guard (or whatever they are called now) meant to do, check every single ticket to make sure they are on the right service provider?They hardly do this at the moment and good luck doing that at rush hour when the train is rammed.
Then what do they do when they find someone using another companies ticket, ask them to get off at the next stop then check that everyone who they asked has done so?
KTF said:
sidicks said:
Most commuters have a season ticket - you'd pay for company A (and only be able use company A trains) but if you were unhappy at renewal, you could switch to company B instead.
That sounds a massive pain in the arse. What is the guard (or whatever they are called now) meant to do, check every single ticket to make sure they are on the right service provider?They hardly do this at the moment and good luck doing that at rush hour when the train is rammed.
Then what do they do when they find someone using another companies ticket, ask them to get off at the next stop then check that everyone who they asked has done so?
Exactly. The only time this works is on long distance trains where there's a ticket inspector who checks every ticket. E.g. if I but an off-peak return ticket to London I can't use the Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill to get home and jump off at Maidenhead (first stop) because that train is considered a peak time express. However the inspector works his way along the carriages. This is a non-starter for commuter trains.
sidicks said:
RichB said:
The idea that there can be any competition on the railways is a strange one. There cannot really be true competition because the rails all simply go from A to B, so what will you do, wait for another train because it's cheaper or has better seats? I guess it may be faster but then you have that choice now.
I'm not sure I understand this?At the moment, at peak times there are at least 6 (sometimes 8) trains per hour from my local station into London. It should be feasible for 4 trains to be operated by one company and 4 by another.
It would then be realistic for a customer to choose which service - combination of comfort & cost - that suited them best, a,d give the train companies a good reason to improve their offering.
If a company wanted to run an express service cutting out stations then there is no way to overtake the train stopping at all the stations and the terminus has no extra platforms for twice the number of trains if two companies instead of one.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff