Options

Rail re-nationalisation could be complete by 2021

13»

Comments

  • Options
    MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I really can't figure out what is going on, and I really don't care if its in public or private ownership.

    But at the end of the day, we have no choice, the EU says we must separate train and track.

    Yes, another 'benefit' of EU membership.... :D
  • Options
    bluesdiamondbluesdiamond Posts: 11,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I can't really figure out why it needs subsidising.

    Its such a captive customer base and tickets are so expensive, its hard to see how anyone can make a loss from such a franchise.

    Why do we pay for new roads?
    Surely the motorist could pay for them all...
  • Options
    MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do we pay for new roads?
    Surely the motorist could pay for them all...

    Surely given all the taxes on ownership and fuel they already do?


    Road Spending a mere Third of Motor Tax
  • Options
    MarkjukMarkjuk Posts: 30,436
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tony321 wrote: »
    A lot of franchises are now management contracts with no financial risk to the franchisee

    Agree.

    What exactly do franchises invest in?

    Certainly not track and infrastructure, this is pay for out of Government funds. Current advertising seen at Railway stations insists "The greatest investment in over 100 years" with a figure of £9.4 billion quoted. What have franchises contributed towards this investment? Nowt!

    Even then franchises affected by engineering work that will improve services in the future are entitled to claim compensation from Network Rail for delays caused.

    Trains themselves? New rolling stock is "underwritten by the Government".

    Profits are kept by the Franchises but losses are wiped out by subsidies from the Government.
  • Options
    MarkjukMarkjuk Posts: 30,436
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I really can't figure out what is going on, and I really don't care if its in public or private ownership.

    But at the end of the day, we have no choice, the EU says we must separate train and track.

    So why hasn't the EU insisted this happens in other EU countries just the UK?
  • Options
    MarkjukMarkjuk Posts: 30,436
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Styker wrote: »
    The franchises can come to their end without being awarded to any other company, therefore it goes back into public hands for free minus all the subsidies we've been forced to give to these private companies over the years.

    Exactly, my original opening post suggested this.

    By allowing a gradual return of train operating from private franchise to Public when franchises expire does not cost us money to buy out contracts.

    What I do not want to see is the Tories spitefully re-tendering numerous franchises on long term contracts before the election.

    It really does beggar belief that despite overwhelming public support the Tories and even Labour do not support the running of trains back to public ownership.
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    Markjuk wrote: »
    So why hasn't the EU insisted this happens in other EU countries just the UK?

    If memory serves they do not insist on ownership of track and rolling stock be separate - but that the track is open to third parties.

    So Virgin or example could own the East Coast line and run it's trains, but if some company say ACME Rail Transport wanted to run trains on that track under EU law Virgin could not stop it.
  • Options
    spanna5spanna5 Posts: 392
    Forum Member
    Markjuk wrote: »
    It really does beggar belief that despite overwhelming public support the Tories and even Labour do not support the running of trains back to public ownership.

    Perhaps that tells you something?
  • Options
    MarkjukMarkjuk Posts: 30,436
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spanna5 wrote: »
    Perhaps that tells you something?

    Yes, both are as bad as each other.
  • Options
    Multimedia81Multimedia81 Posts: 83,405
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Styker wrote: »
    Under private franchises, tickets prices are as much as flying to America sometimes! Its high time the franchises were allowed to lapse and bring it back under public control and despite Ed Balls being embarrassed of British Rail, bring it back!

    I think you may be comparing apples with oranges. You may be comparing flexible long-distance rail fares with advance inflexible air fares.
    Styker wrote: »
    The franchises can come to their end without being awarded to any other company, therefore it goes back into public hands for free minus all the subsidies we've been forced to give to these private companies over the years.

    Some commuter and local stopping services would still require a subsidy irrespective of whether ron by BR/DOR or a private operator.

    Although most current franchises expire by 2021, I think MerseyRail (tendered by MerseyTravel rather than the government) has its current franchise with Serco/ Abellio until 2028.
  • Options
    Summer DeepSummer Deep Posts: 30
    Forum Member
    Majlis wrote: »
    The fact remains that under Nationalisation we saw a 4 decade reduction in passenger numbers - this only changed after privatisation. Absurd it may be but it is also historical fact.

    The fact that car ownership expanded massively in the decades following nationalization presumably has nothing to do with this?
  • Options
    Summer DeepSummer Deep Posts: 30
    Forum Member
    Not exactly a fair comparison though is it?

    The private operators are handicapped by having to pay billions in franchise payments to the government.

    And how do they recoup these payments? By charging ridiculous fares, which are generally at least twice those in Germany and France, and often over five times those in countries like Italy.
  • Options
    Summer DeepSummer Deep Posts: 30
    Forum Member
    The issue of fare prices is not that obvious. Season tickets are either at or just below the rate of inflation. Commuter fairs are capped which they were not under BR

    It is other fares which have risen more - but then if I am doing that kind of thing I go for advance fares which are cheaper.

    see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21056703

    The advance fares argument is a poor one IMHO. The number on offer is severely restricted, and exists purely to mop up the unsold tickets for seats which could not be filled at the extortionate "normal" prices.

    Surely the major attraction of any railway system like ours ought to be its flexibility, and the ability to buy tickets on a "turn up and go" basis. In the 1970s I regularly used to buy tickets from Manchester to London by this method, despite being in my 20s and in a low-paying job. With the basic standard class return ticket priced at almost £300, this is now not an option, despite the fact that I am financially a lot better off.

    It should be noted, by the way, that cheaper advance fares were also available in the BR era, under the Apex and Super Apex system.
  • Options
    MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The fact that car ownership expanded massively in the decades following nationalization presumably has nothing to do with this?

    could have a lot to do with it - perhaps one of the drivers of the expansion was the poor unreliable service from BR?

    My father was a commuter from Essex into central London throughout the 60's and 70's and the unreliable service on the Essex commuter lines is what made him first change to using a motorbike and then a car.
Sign In or Register to comment.