Should the railways be nationalised?

[mph1977]

RichB said:

ust for clarification (and I realise most railway people on this thread know this) other than in Ireland the British 4' 8 1/2" track gauge is standard throughout Europe and the world (OK don't mention South African narrow gauge). (also I suspect mph1977 meant TGV not LGV)

By contrast the loading gauge refers to the clearance between the rolling stock and platforms, bridges, signals etc. In Europe they typically have a larger loading gauge meaning they can build larger coaches but still running on wheels set 4' 8 1/2" apart. This is why you see double-deck trains in Europe and not in Britain.

One exception to this is the GWR mainline to Bristol because this was originally built by Brunel to a 7' gauge, known as broad gauge, this means that even today you will see the platforms are spaced wider apart on ex-GWR mainline stations than on the relief (slow) lines where they were added after conversion to standard gauge. The effect of this could be seen in the GWR's Dreadnought coach stock of the 1900s which were 6" wider than standard gauge coaches.

I meant LGV - TGV isa train , LGV is the high speed infrastructure ...

the post in questio nwith regard to gauge implied that the UK does not use standard gauge track

if you want to be pedantic about air gauging you also need to mention the regauging works on a variety fo Uk tracks and the the GCML's gauging and planning to make gauge increase more simple ( e.g. majority of stations using island platforms )

[mph1977]

RichB said:

Rick101 said:

Grand Central run in competition with Virgin on the East Coast.

As said, long distance trains so yes it's less of an issue.

and Hull Trains


part of the problem is the way in which some 'franchises' were written to provide 'moderation of competition'

[RichB]

mph1977 said:

...if you want to be pedantic...

It would be blooming impossible with the speeling your smell checker keeps coming up with!

[rs1952]

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.

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.

There appears to be a "commuter-centric" element to this thread. Not all journeys by any means involve travelling up to London in the morning peak and then home again in the evening peak.

Not only is it possible to have tickets for certain company's trains only, it is already happening now. Not my neck of the woods by any means, but I did happen to notice when I was in Stoke on Trent a couple of years ago that fares on Virgin trains to Stockport and Manchester were cheaper than with other operators, so if you buy a ticket a Virgin prices, then you use a Virgin train. If you get on any other train your ticket isn't valid so you have to pay again and possibly pay a penalty fare into the bargain.

Similarly, if you take advantage of cheap advance tickets, your ticket is only valid on the train you said that you would be using. It isn't valid on any other train so you're buggered if you are found on a different train by a Revenue Protection Officer.

It has also been the case, since railways were invented, that if you want to travel first class its going to cost you more than if you travel second class (sorry - non PC - "Standard class"). If you sit in a first class seat with a second class ticket you run the risk of being nicked for it.

Where access to individual platforms is kept separate (as with most London termini and in quite a few other places), the ticket barrier could be programmed to refuse you access if your ticket is only valid with another company.

Whilst I agree that it is a bit more difficult to monitor inbound peak London commuter traffic, there are many ways that access to trains can be restricted eg:

• Notification on the electronic departure boards (eg. "Southern tickets only are valid on this service"
• Occasional travel by Revenue Protection Officers checking tickets on the trains. Whilst I agree that a single RPO would be unable to grip an entire packed 12-coach train in the peak, a random occasional blitz with 12 of 'em could achieve quite a lot. And once people get caught then word tends to get around...

But to finish this post on-topic - should the railways be nationalised? No. They already are in all but name. Anyone who thinks that they would get a better cheaper service if the government were allowed to meddle in railway affairs even more than they do now is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

[RichB]

rs1952 said:

There appears to be a "commuter-centric" element to this thread. <big clip>

...But to finish this post on-topic - should the railways be nationalised? No. They already are in all but name. Anyone who thinks that they would get a better cheaper service if the government were allowed to meddle in railway affairs even more than they do now is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Not intentionally, it's where I grew up, my dad worked on the underground and I travel into Paddington from time to time. Some good points though and I agree with you on nationalisation.

[gothatway]

On (at least some) Chinese railways, you can only get through the ticket barrier onto the platform when your train is the next one due on that platform, so there's no chance of using an invalid ticket to travel. And you then line up at a particular mark on the platform where the nearest door to your (always reserved) seat will be, so loading the train is always quick. It does require huge station concourses, with sufficient platforms to ensure that there is time to clear them before the next wave of passengers are allowed onto them.
A massive contrast to India, where it's every man for himself - but then the railway infrastructure in India is mostly pretty ancient whereas China has invested in modern railways.

[craigjm]

At the moment I don't care who runs the railway as long as its not Southern. The service has been a joke for far too long.

I think they got privatisation wrong by having one company in charge of infrastructure. They should have divided it into regions so the train company in that region runs the rails too and then had a special arrangement involving TFL in London.

[Stedman]

It wouldn't change much as we have a very thin veil of privatisation right now

[Halb]

gothatway said:

On (at least some) Chinese railways, you can only get through the ticket barrier onto the platform when your train is the next one due on that platform, so there's no chance of using an invalid ticket to travel. And you then line up at a particular mark on the platform where the nearest door to your (always reserved) seat will be, so loading the train is always quick. It does require huge station concourses, with sufficient platforms to ensure that there is time to clear them before the next wave of passengers are allowed onto them.
A massive contrast to India, where it's every man for himself - but then the railway infrastructure in India is mostly pretty ancient whereas China has invested in modern railways.

Something the Chinese have got right?

[craigjm]

The Chinese get lots of things right at home. Try travelling on the Beijing Metro and the coming back to London, it's like a vision of the future.

[marshalla]

Rick101 said:

Grand Central run in competition with Virgin on the East Coast.

Slight differences to each but i'd guess most just go with the cheapest.

Hardly a competition. Grand Central start at Sunderland and don't join the ECML until Northallerton - then they stop at Thirsk, York and London only. And they only run 3 or 4 trains a day in each direction.

Now Stagecoach (wearing the Virgin livery) have decided that the Sunderland line looks profitable, so they're running services on that too. I'm just surprised they're actually running a liveried service instead of a "white train".

[johnfm]

Private enterprise needs to be weaned off sucking at the taxpayer's teat.

Back in the day private investors took all the risk and all the rewards for developing rail networks in the UK and the US (and elsewhere).

It seems to me that governments have allowed investors and investment funds to become accustomed to only investing in projects where there is a healthy state subsidy so that investors are guaranteed a return.

I thought there was supposed to be risk hand-in-hand with reward? What happened to real capitalism?

[Welshbeef]

johnfm said:

Private enterprise needs to be weaned off sucking at the taxpayer's teat.

Back in the day private investors took all the risk and all the rewards for developing rail networks in the UK and the US (and elsewhere).

It seems to me that governments have allowed investors and investment funds to become accustomed to only investing in projects where there is a healthy state subsidy so that investors are guaranteed a return.

I thought there was supposed to be risk hand-in-hand with reward? What happened to real capitalism?

Surely you remember why it was done

BR Railways was shocking.
Needed vast investment which the govt couldn't provide or was one of the easiest things to cut.

It wouldn't be viable to have private owners setting up railway lines - new - in the UK the costs are biblical and in so doing wouldn't be a linked up network.


Maybe HS2 should be totally private track platforms and trains plus the pricing of the tickets.

M6 toll works well

[johnfm]

Welshbeef said:

Surely you remember why it was done

BR Railways was shocking.
Needed vast investment which the govt couldn't provide or was one of the easiest things to cut.

It wouldn't be viable to have private owners setting up railway lines - new - in the UK the costs are biblical and in so doing wouldn't be a linked up network.


Maybe HS2 should be totally private track platforms and trains plus the pricing of the tickets.

M6 toll works well

I don't think railways should be nationalised. But I don't think private investors should benefit from risk free returns. If you want more than the return from government bonds, you should have to risk capital.

[Welshbeef]

johnfm said:

I don't think railways should be nationalised. But I don't think private investors should benefit from risk free returns. If you want more than the return from government bonds, you should have to risk capital.

Are the returns not capped or around 3%? If not what % should it be?

Also are you strictly looking at the £ profit instead of he margin which is all that matters.

[TommoAE86]

After reading the thread I started out yes, but now say (& voted) no. Mainly due to safety and investment. However I've only suffered at the hands of SWT in the modern franchise world (which was overcrowded and late) and never ever had problems in the old BR world when I traveled off peak.

I'd like to get rid of franchise colours though and bring back the BR Blue/RF/Intercity ones again.
That's purely in a rose-tinted fantasy dream world as I'd like all the old engines from the 80's & 90's brought back with updated internals (87's, 47's, 50's, 33's, 421's, HST etc) as every new train I've been on since has been terrible in every way.

The worst being the voyager I had the misfortune of using from Bristol to Taunton, what a heap of crap that is, surely whoever was leasing that would have a go in it before letting passengers suffer? I've also used many HST's and can't believe how comfortable and quiet such an old machine can be, I can see why they've lasted so long.

[Smollet]

Before nationalisation were the rail companies running at a profit?

[craigjm]

Smollet said:

Before nationalisation were the rail companies running at a profit?

Yes but getting less and less because, of course, it was a different world and road haulage was only just getting going etc. Most of the profit was made on freight not passengers.

[Vocal Minority]

Welshbeef said:

Maybe HS2 should be totally private track platforms and trains plus the pricing of the tickets.

Very difficult to get the powers for something that significant as a private body.

The only tool really open to them is a Development Consent Order, and you could argue its too big a project to be left in a mechanism that size. It would totally overwhelm the Transport and Works Act process.

[mph1977]

Smollet said:

Before nationalisation were the rail companies running at a profit?

the 1923 grouping was an attempt to make the railways profitable, nationalisation came around because it would cost less than compensating the railway companies for the use, mis-use and damage sustained during WW2 aside from the ideolgical factors ...

arguably until the 1970s british rail still ran as per 1923 ...