Should the railways be nationalised?
Poll: Should the railways be nationalised?
Total Members Polled: 471
Discussion
Esseesse said:
Is it that the gauge of the track is the same but the sizes of the engines/carriages are different? i.e. Perhaps our stations and tunnels are designed to take smaller engines. IIRC American trains do sometimes have a 'look' about them that the wheels are relatively close together.
A lot of the bridges on the network are also too low to allow double deck trains to run under then and the cost of changing them is prohibitive. A shame really as trains like that would be an (I assume) easy way to add extra capacity.XM5ER said:
I'm going to come at this from a very different angle.
I believe that within 20 years travel will change beyond recognition. With the rise of self driving cars, the need for train travel will diminish so the British government could be left holding a worthless asset attached to a huge debt.
Except that one of the things which has changed in the last 10/20 years is the amount of freight traffic on the roads. How many times does the motorway you're on have lane 1 - 2 almost solid with lorries? What does this cost in time and what is the cost to the economy?I believe that within 20 years travel will change beyond recognition. With the rise of self driving cars, the need for train travel will diminish so the British government could be left holding a worthless asset attached to a huge debt.
One advantage of nationalisation, if done properly, is the potential for a strategic approach to the country's transport needs, making available and best use of both rail and road networks. The problem is that this needs investment and a long term view (beyone one parliament), which makes it unlikely.
grumbledoak said:
All you can conclude from that is that TfL has a large media budget and spends it justifying it's own existence.
It also has more executives paid six-figure sums than any other branch of the civil service. They're not stupid (see above).
That may well be the case, but it simply not correct to say the services under TfL control haven't improved. They have, and massively. Nobody who used the Silverlink incarnation of the North London Line or the old East London Line tube will have any desire to go back to pre-TfL days, as the creation of the London Overground network has transformed them beyond recognition. They've gone from more or less derelict barely used backwaters to hugely important parts of the network, and are now almost a victim of their own success. I'm sure there are people in other areas of the country who would kill for a similar model.It also has more executives paid six-figure sums than any other branch of the civil service. They're not stupid (see above).
I think that railways to "work" for passenger traffic have to be quick, I saw this happening in Italy, once the trains got quicker between Milan and Rome the airtraffic and car traffic decreased accordingly. Finally in 2016 the 220mph top speed limt will be certified and the 300 miles route from Milan to Rome will take just 2 hours. Considering also the heavy car traffic of the 2 cities and the fact that train station are much positioned within the city compared to the airports the advantage of rail becomes huge.
The issue with Italian rail are the old routes which are simply inadequate and cost a lot to government in sussidies, around 10 € billions a year to keep trains that people simply do not use and do not need.
The issue with Italian rail are the old routes which are simply inadequate and cost a lot to government in sussidies, around 10 € billions a year to keep trains that people simply do not use and do not need.
Sticks. said:
XM5ER said:
I'm going to come at this from a very different angle.
I believe that within 20 years travel will change beyond recognition. With the rise of self driving cars, the need for train travel will diminish so the British government could be left holding a worthless asset attached to a huge debt.
Except that one of the things which has changed in the last 10/20 years is the amount of freight traffic on the roads. How many times does the motorway you're on have lane 1 - 2 almost solid with lorries? What does this cost in time and what is the cost to the economy?I believe that within 20 years travel will change beyond recognition. With the rise of self driving cars, the need for train travel will diminish so the British government could be left holding a worthless asset attached to a huge debt.
One advantage of nationalisation, if done properly, is the potential for a strategic approach to the country's transport needs, making available and best use of both rail and road networks. The problem is that this needs investment and a long term view (beyone one parliament), which makes it unlikely.
XM5ER said:
The only value I see long term for the railways is as a freight network linking to various hubs where the freight is removed and transferred to driverless trucks for short journeys.
Is this best done with a nationalised service? I doubt it as we don't have the cash as a nation to do it.MajorProblem said:
Seeming as someone's brought up to way people operated in BR, here are some examples of what went on our patch,
Whilst working permanent day shifts - buy a taxi, go taxi driving all night come to work, book on and sleep all day.
One lad had a carpet cleaning business, he used to book on then go carpet cleaning all day, only coming back to book off.
A few lads created a service bay in the workshop so cars can be worked on whilst on afternoon shift.
The electricians would book on and then clear off house bashing all day.
Apprentices were left behind on a Sunday day shift to cook a full Sunday dinner for the returning lads (using only a pot bellied stove and a baby belling) sometimes you had to do fry ups too.
The big "chip vans'" would be used for house removal jobs.
Everyone would be filling cars up off the company.
When tiger tokens where at ESSO they used to leave vans running all the time even with the rear axle off the ground and a brick on the throttle to waste fuel whilst at the depot, the only person to claim all the prizes (I think the top one was a TV) was from our place.
If it was a nice summers day you'd go play football or cricket at the park after a few pints,
Shift changes,
Days would come on at 6am and wake the night shift up to go home.
Afternoons would meet the day shift at the pub to changeover when the day shift has been there since dinner.
Nights would meet the afternoon shift at the working men's club until last orders where the least pissed member of staff would drive the team to the depot for sleeping and await day turn coming on.
Not to mention free rail travel for life!Whilst working permanent day shifts - buy a taxi, go taxi driving all night come to work, book on and sleep all day.
One lad had a carpet cleaning business, he used to book on then go carpet cleaning all day, only coming back to book off.
A few lads created a service bay in the workshop so cars can be worked on whilst on afternoon shift.
The electricians would book on and then clear off house bashing all day.
Apprentices were left behind on a Sunday day shift to cook a full Sunday dinner for the returning lads (using only a pot bellied stove and a baby belling) sometimes you had to do fry ups too.
The big "chip vans'" would be used for house removal jobs.
Everyone would be filling cars up off the company.
When tiger tokens where at ESSO they used to leave vans running all the time even with the rear axle off the ground and a brick on the throttle to waste fuel whilst at the depot, the only person to claim all the prizes (I think the top one was a TV) was from our place.
If it was a nice summers day you'd go play football or cricket at the park after a few pints,
Shift changes,
Days would come on at 6am and wake the night shift up to go home.
Afternoons would meet the day shift at the pub to changeover when the day shift has been there since dinner.
Nights would meet the afternoon shift at the working men's club until last orders where the least pissed member of staff would drive the team to the depot for sleeping and await day turn coming on.
I've got a mate who works for (the privatised arm of) British Rail IT, has been there since the 80s under the old days of BR, where they seemed to spend most of the day in the pub. He travels the country gratis and will do forever more, being one of these protected workers. 50,000 people still have that perk - unbelievable that it doesn't terminate when employment ends, but hey, that's good old Nationalised Industries for you!
I work for a train maintaince company for virgin train.
Virgin lease the trains off a company. The trains are then maintained by the builder.
The amound of money around is amazing, the virgin dirvers get around 50 - 70k and 100% pension on retirement, working 2 runs up and down. The old BR staff get the best deals, new starters don't get a lot of the benifts.
and everyone is a contractor, admin staff are on about £16 per hour, which considering the agency takes a cut is alot. But the whole system needs improving, too much realiance on contracting and too much money wasted.
Virgin lease the trains off a company. The trains are then maintained by the builder.
The amound of money around is amazing, the virgin dirvers get around 50 - 70k and 100% pension on retirement, working 2 runs up and down. The old BR staff get the best deals, new starters don't get a lot of the benifts.
and everyone is a contractor, admin staff are on about £16 per hour, which considering the agency takes a cut is alot. But the whole system needs improving, too much realiance on contracting and too much money wasted.
Edited by The Spruce goose on Monday 21st September 15:23
Indeed, t'was a great shame that Brunel lost the gauge war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railwa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railwa...
XM5ER said:
I'm going to come at this from a very different angle.
I believe that within 20 years travel will change beyond recognition. With the rise of self driving cars, the need for train travel will diminish so the British government could be left holding a worthless asset attached to a huge debt.
To elaborate, imagine hopping in your comfortable Ikea car, hooking up your tablet and starting your first meeting of the day via video conference as you leave the house. The car itself pops on onto the M6 and joins the high speed convoy in the outside lane and quickly joins onto a fuel efficient "train" of cars traveling at 120mph+ and this gets you down to London in a little over an hour. You hop out of you car in central London and it goes off and parks itself in a car stack and recharges for the journey home. Whilst in London you use Uber's driverless cabs to ferry you around from meeting to meeting and at your final meeting your own car picks you up again and off you pop home, maybe getting a bit of shuteye or finishing off with conference calls to the US.
Now compare that to freezing your arse of at Crewe station to get on an overcrowded train where once again "we cannot take cards at the buffet cab due to a network problem". Etc.
The only value I see long term for the railways is as a freight network linking to various hubs where the freight is removed and transferred to driverless trucks for short journeys.
It will happen, it's just a question of when.
Seriously. Trains will become even more vital. Driverless cars are the answer to the millions of commuters in London? I think you're miles off.I believe that within 20 years travel will change beyond recognition. With the rise of self driving cars, the need for train travel will diminish so the British government could be left holding a worthless asset attached to a huge debt.
To elaborate, imagine hopping in your comfortable Ikea car, hooking up your tablet and starting your first meeting of the day via video conference as you leave the house. The car itself pops on onto the M6 and joins the high speed convoy in the outside lane and quickly joins onto a fuel efficient "train" of cars traveling at 120mph+ and this gets you down to London in a little over an hour. You hop out of you car in central London and it goes off and parks itself in a car stack and recharges for the journey home. Whilst in London you use Uber's driverless cabs to ferry you around from meeting to meeting and at your final meeting your own car picks you up again and off you pop home, maybe getting a bit of shuteye or finishing off with conference calls to the US.
Now compare that to freezing your arse of at Crewe station to get on an overcrowded train where once again "we cannot take cards at the buffet cab due to a network problem". Etc.
The only value I see long term for the railways is as a freight network linking to various hubs where the freight is removed and transferred to driverless trucks for short journeys.
It will happen, it's just a question of when.
A train of computer controlled cars doing 120mph?
Do you know much about transport works and its role in society?
I think people are getting a little confused with the term re-nationalisation.
These proposals are aimed at the TOC's who operate the existing limited duration franchises, which Labour are proposing to run in a public sector fashion rather than a private sector manner (i.e reletting the franchises).
This has already been done recently with success by Directly Operated Railways on the East Coast franchise.
Nationalising the TOC's carries its own risks but in essence there is already £260m per annum which is taken out of the industry as dividends/profit by the TOC's annually which could otherwise be reinvested in the railways. Public subsidy for the railway (via tax) is already around the 70% figure and with the cost of running and operating the railway growing, alternatives need to be tried to help reduce this level of subsidy.
No-one is proposing a blanket change, rather a staged process as the franchises for each Route run out. At worst, what do we have to lose by trialling this on a few routes initially? It's hardly like it could get any worse - and those fearing an old BR attitude only have to look at TfL's success, which for all their self trumpeting PR is a resounding success in a not-for-profit model. Existing staff setups and operating methods would simply be TUPE'd across.
The infrastructure network is owned and operated by Network Rail, who are effectively a public sector company (a not for dividend company limited by guarantee that manages it's own profits - but basically any profit is reinvested) and no changes are currently proposed to this arrangement. It is in effect already nationalised. NR was born of the Railtrack failure, which in itself was responsible for a number of high profile, fatal rail accidents. Having seen the railway from the inside I would not want a return to a profit driven infrastructure owner/maintainer.
The railway is a complex technical beast, the general public really have no idea of the effort, costs and complexity of running and maintaining it, let alone upgrading it. They just see whether their train is full and/or on time and react accordingly. The simple matter of the fact is that the railways will continue to get busier as ridership levels increase in line with population and economic growth. With no feasible alternative people cannot choose any other way to commute (social journeys may be more feasible by car). The network is old, and has suffered from decades of under investment - this doesn't just disappear by throwing a few billion pounds a year at it. It's also why construction of brand new lines to add greater capacity are important - though this isn't the time for a HS2 debate.
I've said it before on other threads but I work in the rail industry, have worked for NR, and have seen how many of the different parts of the railway operate. If anyone has any questions I would be happy to help answer them.
These proposals are aimed at the TOC's who operate the existing limited duration franchises, which Labour are proposing to run in a public sector fashion rather than a private sector manner (i.e reletting the franchises).
This has already been done recently with success by Directly Operated Railways on the East Coast franchise.
Nationalising the TOC's carries its own risks but in essence there is already £260m per annum which is taken out of the industry as dividends/profit by the TOC's annually which could otherwise be reinvested in the railways. Public subsidy for the railway (via tax) is already around the 70% figure and with the cost of running and operating the railway growing, alternatives need to be tried to help reduce this level of subsidy.
No-one is proposing a blanket change, rather a staged process as the franchises for each Route run out. At worst, what do we have to lose by trialling this on a few routes initially? It's hardly like it could get any worse - and those fearing an old BR attitude only have to look at TfL's success, which for all their self trumpeting PR is a resounding success in a not-for-profit model. Existing staff setups and operating methods would simply be TUPE'd across.
The infrastructure network is owned and operated by Network Rail, who are effectively a public sector company (a not for dividend company limited by guarantee that manages it's own profits - but basically any profit is reinvested) and no changes are currently proposed to this arrangement. It is in effect already nationalised. NR was born of the Railtrack failure, which in itself was responsible for a number of high profile, fatal rail accidents. Having seen the railway from the inside I would not want a return to a profit driven infrastructure owner/maintainer.
The railway is a complex technical beast, the general public really have no idea of the effort, costs and complexity of running and maintaining it, let alone upgrading it. They just see whether their train is full and/or on time and react accordingly. The simple matter of the fact is that the railways will continue to get busier as ridership levels increase in line with population and economic growth. With no feasible alternative people cannot choose any other way to commute (social journeys may be more feasible by car). The network is old, and has suffered from decades of under investment - this doesn't just disappear by throwing a few billion pounds a year at it. It's also why construction of brand new lines to add greater capacity are important - though this isn't the time for a HS2 debate.
I've said it before on other threads but I work in the rail industry, have worked for NR, and have seen how many of the different parts of the railway operate. If anyone has any questions I would be happy to help answer them.
Atmospheric said:
Seriously. Trains will become even more vital. Driverless cars are the answer to the millions of commuters in London? I think you're miles off.
A train of computer controlled cars doing 120mph?
Do you know much about transport works and its role in society?
Let's see what happens in 20 years. I'm sure if someone told you in 1985 that you would have a computer in your pocket that you could use to watch movies on, use as a video phone to talk to your business partners in Australia for free, record your lap time performance on - stop connect wirelessly to your car and remap your engine before going out for another lap, you would have called them insane and deluded. If they'd told you the same in 1995, you'd have called them fanciful. If they'd told you that in 2005, you'd have called them Steve Jobs. 20 years is a long time in technology.A train of computer controlled cars doing 120mph?
Do you know much about transport works and its role in society?
What do you know about transport works and its role in society? Tell all.
Atmospheric said:
XM5ER said:
I'm going to come at this from a very different angle.
I believe that within 20 years travel will change beyond recognition. With the rise of self driving cars, the need for train travel will diminish so the British government could be left holding a worthless asset attached to a huge debt.
To elaborate, imagine hopping in your comfortable Ikea car, hooking up your tablet and starting your first meeting of the day via video conference as you leave the house. The car itself pops on onto the M6 and joins the high speed convoy in the outside lane and quickly joins onto a fuel efficient "train" of cars traveling at 120mph+ and this gets you down to London in a little over an hour. You hop out of you car in central London and it goes off and parks itself in a car stack and recharges for the journey home. Whilst in London you use Uber's driverless cabs to ferry you around from meeting to meeting and at your final meeting your own car picks you up again and off you pop home, maybe getting a bit of shuteye or finishing off with conference calls to the US.
Now compare that to freezing your arse of at Crewe station to get on an overcrowded train where once again "we cannot take cards at the buffet cab due to a network problem". Etc.
The only value I see long term for the railways is as a freight network linking to various hubs where the freight is removed and transferred to driverless trucks for short journeys.
It will happen, it's just a question of when.
Seriously. Trains will become even more vital. Driverless cars are the answer to the millions of commuters in London? I think you're miles off.I believe that within 20 years travel will change beyond recognition. With the rise of self driving cars, the need for train travel will diminish so the British government could be left holding a worthless asset attached to a huge debt.
To elaborate, imagine hopping in your comfortable Ikea car, hooking up your tablet and starting your first meeting of the day via video conference as you leave the house. The car itself pops on onto the M6 and joins the high speed convoy in the outside lane and quickly joins onto a fuel efficient "train" of cars traveling at 120mph+ and this gets you down to London in a little over an hour. You hop out of you car in central London and it goes off and parks itself in a car stack and recharges for the journey home. Whilst in London you use Uber's driverless cabs to ferry you around from meeting to meeting and at your final meeting your own car picks you up again and off you pop home, maybe getting a bit of shuteye or finishing off with conference calls to the US.
Now compare that to freezing your arse of at Crewe station to get on an overcrowded train where once again "we cannot take cards at the buffet cab due to a network problem". Etc.
The only value I see long term for the railways is as a freight network linking to various hubs where the freight is removed and transferred to driverless trucks for short journeys.
It will happen, it's just a question of when.
A train of computer controlled cars doing 120mph?
Do you know much about transport works and its role in society?
I grew up in the 60's and for certain by the year 2000 we were all going to be flying around the sky in our own personalised levitation machines - the highways of the sky was the way ahead. Roads would be redundant within the next generation. What could possibly go wrong! 
XM5ER said:
Atmospheric said:
Seriously. Trains will become even more vital. Driverless cars are the answer to the millions of commuters in London? I think you're miles off.
A train of computer controlled cars doing 120mph?
Do you know much about transport works and its role in society?
Let's see what happens in 20 years. I'm sure if someone told you in 1985 that you would have a computer in your pocket that you could use to watch movies on, use as a video phone to talk to your business partners in Australia for free, record your lap time performance on - stop connect wirelessly to your car and remap your engine before going out for another lap, you would have called them insane and deluded. If they'd told you the same in 1995, you'd have called them fanciful. If they'd told you that in 2005, you'd have called them Steve Jobs. 20 years is a long time in technology.A train of computer controlled cars doing 120mph?
Do you know much about transport works and its role in society?
What do you know about transport works and its role in society? Tell all.
What will happen is everywhere will get busier and more crowded, hence the huge amount of billion pound rail projects (Thameslink, Liv-Manchester electrification, HS2, GWR electrification) to secure the current way of life for many people and families. If this was a country built from a Greenfield then your suggestion would have some viable points (except the car train at 120mph).
Things never go as predicted with technological advancements - world wars and shifts in attitudes, political agendas and prospective governments see to that. All we can predict is "what will be possible,".
In my opinion, the current system should remain privatised, but I would reduce the amount of sectors to 4 or 5.
There is so much foreign investment and job creation it would be foolish to dismantle it. There is a chap on here who works for one of the train leasing companies, he would know more!
Not too far off this date now.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2015/jan/...
Won't bother with trains anymore, I'll just whizz to work on my hoverboard.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2015/jan/...
Won't bother with trains anymore, I'll just whizz to work on my hoverboard.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
ICould it be the fact that there will be so much disruption that temporary routes and various local authority fees / contractors??
Paddington line is under the wires until Hayes, so I would have thought that was a good start! Are the Class 801s included in that figure too?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff