Renationalize our railways
[Deleted User]
Posts: 155
Forum Member
✭
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8982822/British-commuters-facing-western-Europes-dearest-fare-rises.html
If ever the British tax payer is being cheated by a government that stresses that it's working for you, the voters, you only have to read how despite the fact our railways are being heavily subsidized by the tax payer, the railways are fast becoming a system where only a minority can afford to travel on it. I say that if we're paying for the profits of others, then renationalize our railways and do it without delay.:mad:
We all have a good moan about the rising cost of fares, well, stop moaning and demand some action by your MP. Failing this, use your power and stop using the railway system. Travel to work, or wherever, by other means instead. If you don't, then fares will continue to rise until the whole thing collapses and companies feel that running trains is simply not viable.
If ever the British tax payer is being cheated by a government that stresses that it's working for you, the voters, you only have to read how despite the fact our railways are being heavily subsidized by the tax payer, the railways are fast becoming a system where only a minority can afford to travel on it. I say that if we're paying for the profits of others, then renationalize our railways and do it without delay.:mad:
We all have a good moan about the rising cost of fares, well, stop moaning and demand some action by your MP. Failing this, use your power and stop using the railway system. Travel to work, or wherever, by other means instead. If you don't, then fares will continue to rise until the whole thing collapses and companies feel that running trains is simply not viable.
0
Comments
It does, except what competition is there on the railways?
If I want to travel to London, I have a choice of one carrier.
Admittedly, I think they do a very good service, but it's not a competitive scenario.
Regards,
Cypher
P.S. loving the 'derpy derpy derp' - I'll have to remember that one...:D
I don't know.
I have very vague recollections of BR - only travelled on it a few times when I was young, not enough to form a real opinion. I do recall the train being late a few times; I've not known that to happen in recent times.
When I ask my parents, they say that the current service is much better in their view.
Do we have stats on punctuality/number of accidents/reviews of cabins & service pre- and post-privatisation?
Regards,
Cypher
Alternatively create two companies for each route and two or three track companies. So if a track company is bad they lose an area. If a train company is bad, the public use their rival.
How much do you think that the taxpayer would have to fork out to buy it all back?
Not much. Wait for the franchises to expire and don't renew them. Buy the rolling stock off the banks who lease them to the TOCs at either a hefty discount, or for a notional amount because in many cases, we own the banks.
I'm still puzzled why TOCs demand and get RPI+ fare increases, rather than CPI or something more relevant to their operating costs.
That's all very cogent, but you could have posted it at least 5 years ago
It might be possible to move to a system that's more coherent and logical but without nationalising the rail system again. For example, the country could be split up into half a dozen large and long term (a couple of decades or more to allow for long term investment by the companies) geographical franchises and each of this six or so rail companies would also be responsible for the tracks, stations, etc. i.e. they would be large, efficient unitary bodies.
There would still be a need for a body to oversee standards and fares and so on. Franchises could be terminated by mutual agreement with the regulator or by the regulator in the event of poor service or safety standards.
Much of it is already nationalised, ie Network Rail. Sort of, for various reasons involving £20bn in debt that's a public sector body or a private company.
But railways are effectively national monopolies and the franchises allow monopolies on routes or in regions, not competition. So the only time competition comes in is when the franchises are up for renewal, then TOC's may compete for the right to screw rail passengers. The billions they're making go to shareholders or investors, not reinvested back into improving the network or reducing prices.
Too many opportunities to bring the whole system to a halt.
Not with sufficient and assertive regulation which would provide a safeguard for rail customers. Pre-WWII, the UK had a system of four large geographically based private unitary companies http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61aCfda8nRL._SL500_AA300_.jpg and that seemed to work pretty well though I would not necessarily advocate returning to that precise arrangement.
It is no wonder our rail fares are far higher than all comparable European countries. Whilst not perfect, with British Rail, it was one company which organised the entire network, and did so nationally with all it had, moving resources as necessary (something impossible today), and also being a world leader in technological development -- the diesel HST was a superb result from what was a lack of government investment in electrification back then, and much of the work done on the APT, often seen as a failure for the tilting-mechanism breaking down in the trial passenger runs, was fundamental to the development of current tilting trains like the Italian Pendolino design.
Re-nationalising and integrating the whole rail-system will mean a lot of private companies lose out (especially investment banks who own a lot of the trains which are leased out to the train operators), but it would save everyone a lot of money in the long run. Except people with shares in the numerous companies involved in the privatised train business, who make a nice profit every year.
When our railways are costing up to 1000% more (for a season ticket) than those on the continent which are run far better than anything we have then we definitely need to nationalize the railways and keep it that way. Our railways are run for the shareholders pockets right now and nobody else!
It is understandable why but I believe that people are in love with the idea of the railways being renationalised, more than they would the reality.
The railways aren't as bad as many would like to think. But even if they were, what kind of position would any government be in, especially now, to do anything about it?
If you think the railways are fantastic then why would you wish to see a change and if you think the railways are terrible it surely must be accepted that the only 'solution' to this, is private money.
The money it'd cost to buy back the railways would probably ensure that there would be significantly less investment in the services and infrastructure itself over the next ten to twenty years, than there would be if it continued in private ownership.
Again, I believe people are head over heels with the principle of reversing an unpopular Thatcherite policy. Although I believe it was the Major government who put the railways in private hands. It seems an argument based entirely on ideology rather than practicalities and those are the sort of arguments that I've never found particularly convincing.
It was they were highly inefficient. Most large stations had staff standing about doing very little.
Would make a refreshing change to most large stations having no staff with passengers standing around doing very little.