Would you like to see the railways nationalised?
Poll: Would you like to see the railways nationalised?
Total Members Polled: 247
Discussion
The existing arrangement, whereby we have a nationalised infrastructure and a bunch of private companies acting as government contractors just seems to be a way to bleed investment out of the industry. There isn't a country in the western world with a successful, profitable mass transit system managed in the private sector.
Having a successful railway system is vital for all right-thinking petrolheads - the more passengers and freight carried on the rail network, the more room there is on the roads. That' why it's worth subsidising from our taxes.
Having a successful railway system is vital for all right-thinking petrolheads - the more passengers and freight carried on the rail network, the more room there is on the roads. That' why it's worth subsidising from our taxes.
Gaspode said:
The existing arrangement, whereby we have a nationalised infrastructure and a bunch of private companies acting as government contractors just seems to be a way to bleed investment out of the industry. There isn't a country in the western world with a successful, profitable mass transit system managed in the private sector.
It's funny you mention that actually, because I have mentioned to many people that it is a thin veil of 'privatisation'.OllieC said:
Not in favour of nationalisation, but the setup with a monopoly maintaining the infrastructure seems a strange one to me
It makes sense for NR to govern the maintenance and renewals of the infrastructure. When it was contractors in charge, each contractor lived in its own bubble and we had some major f
k ups. MajorProblem said:
OllieC said:
Not in favour of nationalisation, but the setup with a monopoly maintaining the infrastructure seems a strange one to me
It makes sense for NR to govern the maintenance and renewals of the infrastructure. When it was contractors in charge, each contractor lived in its own bubble and we had some major fk ups. I've never understood why nationalised industries cannot be run as efficiently and effectively as those in the private sector. It should be easier, given that there is a single shareholder in the form HM Government. There's no reason why private sector structures such as bonuses to reward good performance, and firing those who fail, could not be done.
I would like to see them renationalised,
But there again I'd rather we shut them down altogether and lose them altogether rather than vote labour
.
The 'strategic' roads are being "privatised" in anything but name next year and they are maintained 'piecemeal' by contractors, 'shadow tolling' & DBFO arrangements (think PFI) presently no wonder Network rail couldn't make it pay.
There is a large company trying to do something as simple as install a few signs around the motorway in the south,
There is no Central body like network rail to coordinate and contract the job they have to liase with a number of different suppliers across different areas, TBH it's a f***ing joke how they operate to put it politely.
But there again I'd rather we shut them down altogether and lose them altogether rather than vote labour
.The 'strategic' roads are being "privatised" in anything but name next year and they are maintained 'piecemeal' by contractors, 'shadow tolling' & DBFO arrangements (think PFI) presently no wonder Network rail couldn't make it pay.
There is a large company trying to do something as simple as install a few signs around the motorway in the south,
There is no Central body like network rail to coordinate and contract the job they have to liase with a number of different suppliers across different areas, TBH it's a f***ing joke how they operate to put it politely.
Gaspode said:
I've never understood why nationalised industries cannot be run as efficiently and effectively as those in the private sector. It should be easier, given that there is a single shareholder in the form HM Government. There's no reason why private sector structures such as bonuses to reward good performance, and firing those who fail, could not be done.
The main difference in terms of bonus is really only that a 100% State Owned Enterprise can't issue stock options/shares that directly tie the interests of agents (executives) to the interests of the principals (the shareholders).There is absolutely nothing easy about being 100% state owned. Politicians simply cannot resist the opportunity/pressure to meddle - whether in strategic or operations decisions, the level of funding available (or even taken out of the business). Furthermore all state owned enterprises are supposed to fall within the Whole of Government Accounts and various definitions of what is public sector (e.g. the national debt) - the NAO have qualified the WGA in the past because the Government fudge the definition of Network Rail so as not to count them.
In terms of the railways, nationalisation was probably the worst thing that ever happened to them (following the government declining to the compensate the railway companies for taking over the system and practically running it into the ground during the war). The problem isn't with privatisation in itself here; it's just the daft way it has been implemented on the railways with the system of franchises. The Open Access operators have done reasonably well while freight has also had a number of successes.
Too many of the passengers franchises are too short - there's no point in Train Operating Companies investing in an improved product when they may not be around to see the benefits. An exception is Chilterns who were given an unusually long franchise, which has enabled to invest in knowledge that they will be around to see the benefits. The government still have a very significant level of control over the industry, including what rolling stock is ordered.
In a way, they may be better switching some of the unprofitable franchises to a concession model (as used by TfL for buses and the Overground). With that model the government set the fares, timetable, liveries and pretty much everything else. They keep the revenue but also the risk and the TOC is simply paid a flat management fee (with conditions for being on time, cleanliness etc). Leave the intercity trains to Open Access operators to compete with each other.
Inkyfingers said:
Those calling for nationalisation have obviously forgotten how bloody awful British Rail was.
Our railways aren't perfect, but they are vastly improved from 20 years ago.
A fair point, but was British Rail as bad as it was because it was a nationalised industry, or because it was plagued by bad management, troublesome unions and under investment? Although historically they have always gone together, but is really inevitably so? Our railways aren't perfect, but they are vastly improved from 20 years ago.
But to be honest given that it's a labour idea, I can't see it ever being successfully implemented. Although it might be theoretically a good idea, I think the current system is good enough.
I use trains all the time for long and short journeys and I voted no
I would like to see more competrition, ie most routes only have one operator in the current system. More operators on those routes would result in better prices and better service. This is ably demonstrated onthe routes that have several operators where prices are lower.
I am also old enough to remember British Rail (it really was bad) and to have had last week and this week stuffed up by Public sector transport workers going on strike.
Its notable that there are rarely strikes by private sector workers
So more conmpetition please, at least 2 operators on every route.
I would like to see more competrition, ie most routes only have one operator in the current system. More operators on those routes would result in better prices and better service. This is ably demonstrated onthe routes that have several operators where prices are lower.
I am also old enough to remember British Rail (it really was bad) and to have had last week and this week stuffed up by Public sector transport workers going on strike.
Its notable that there are rarely strikes by private sector workers
So more conmpetition please, at least 2 operators on every route.
Gaspode said:
A fair point, but was British Rail as bad as it was because it was a nationalised industry, or because it was plagued by bad management, troublesome unions and under investment? Although historically they have always gone together, but is really inevitably so?
But to be honest given that it's a labour idea, I can't see it ever being successfully implemented. Although it might be theoretically a good idea, I think the current system is good enough.
Massive union influence within BRBut to be honest given that it's a labour idea, I can't see it ever being successfully implemented. Although it might be theoretically a good idea, I think the current system is good enough.
Way over staffed
Way to much deadwood
Sadly still going on today but at least you don't have people maintaining your points after having 6 pints at lunchtime.
I have no doubt that the current franchise system is complex, too short term and therefore expensive but the real expense of the railways is the actual cost of the infrastructure due to the complex assurance requirements. The public sector is subsidising rail massively and without that subsidy the system is probably unaffordable.
Nationalisation won't change the underlying base cost.
Rail travel in the uk is more popular than it has been in years, and probably way more efficient than it ever was in the BR era. It's still a long way from perfect but There is vast investment going on to upgrade many things, I can't see how nationalisation would improve things further.
Nationalisation won't change the underlying base cost.
Rail travel in the uk is more popular than it has been in years, and probably way more efficient than it ever was in the BR era. It's still a long way from perfect but There is vast investment going on to upgrade many things, I can't see how nationalisation would improve things further.
ninja-lewis said:
In a way, they may be better switching some of the unprofitable franchises to a concession model (as used by TfL for buses and the Overground). With that model the government set the fares, timetable, liveries and pretty much everything else. They keep the revenue but also the risk and the TOC is simply paid a flat management fee (with conditions for being on time, cleanliness etc). Leave the intercity trains to Open Access operators to compete with each other.
I believe the new Thameslink, Southern, Great Northern franchise is on a management model.Stedman said:
Chrisgr31 said:
I believe the new Thameslink, Southern, Great Northern franchise is on a management model.
It is indeedAFAIK, Merseyrail also control the infrastructure they run over.
Going forward, it might make some sense to hand infrastructure in very self-contained areas, e.g. Scotland away from the WCML/ECML, Wales away from the Severn Tunnel - Swansea stretch, to the dominant local operator though obviously access rights for the freight companies & any open access operators would need to be maintained.
Bit more complicated in England though - pretty much every significant line has at least 2 operators...
Edit to add - talking about conditions about cleanliness etc., the SQUIRE regime in Scotland has worked wonders. The trains & stations are generally clean, vandalism free and tidy plus the staff are usually pretty visible, as are the inspectors.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff