Given that you seem to be the only one (other than your dad) to have heard of the phrase (all the more remarkable given the number of ex-BR employees on this forum), I wonder whether putting much weight on it is inadvisable? There were plenty of BR jokes in the media at the time (I'm old enough to remember the latter days of BR), mainly surrounding late trains and nasty buffet food, but, as has already been said, it was somewhat over-hyped, rather as today, the press makes out that every TV presenter in the '70s was a paedophile. No-one who recalls the BR era could seriously suggest that it was problem-free, but most of those were due to years of dodgy management being followed by years of chronic under-investment. I'd like to see evidence that there was a structural flaw with BR or that it was inevitably a failure due to being State-run.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The increase in rail usage, nothing to do with privatisation ?
- Thread starter Justin Smith
- Start date
- Status
Given that you seem to be the only one (other than your dad) to have heard of the phrase (all the more remarkable given the number of ex-BR employees on this forum), I wonder whether putting much weight on it is inadvisable? There were plenty of BR jokes in the media at the time (I'm old enough to remember the latter days of BR), mainly surrounding late trains and nasty buffet food, but, as has already been said, it was somewhat over-hyped, rather as today, the press makes out that every TV presenter in the '70s was a paedophile. No-one who recalls the BR era could seriously suggest that it was problem-free, but most of those were due to years of dodgy management being followed by years of chronic under-investment. I'd like to see evidence that there was a structural flaw with BR or that it was inevitably a failure due to being State-run.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The way the current railway network is organised - with NR, the TOCs, the ROSCOs, the DfT, the contractors, the local authorities and all the various charges and contracts between each of these organisations - makes BR actually look quite efficient. The key difference is that the current network receives significantly more in subsidies and also charges the most expensive fares in Europe, and that sort of revenue allows them to work together well and keep improving the network. BR didn't have the funding it required to function properly.
Well I very much disagree that nationalisation is the magic cure to make the railways what people want them to be......
That is a sweeping generalisation! Do you have personal knowledge of every quango and government agency in order to back up this claim, or is reliant on what others have told you like your opinion on BR?
The only 'BR excuse' that I can remember was about the wrong type of snow. This was highly ridiculed in the media despite it being technically accurate.
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,754
Yes, we know you're against it, but you haven't given a compelling reason why.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,275
Excuse me one minute...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You do know where most of that money is coming from don't you???
State subsidy.
Well given your "Never trust a Tory" quote I'm not sure we will agree on many things. I the current system works, the DFT let out a franchise with commitments the franchisee has to comply with. A new BR would under no such obligation and I do not believe this mantra that all profits would be invested back into the system! People bang on about subsidies constantly. Doesn't that tell you that a lot of services that operate are not commercially viable?
IF the railway was nationalised it would have to be under the caveat that it was a closed system, ie the treasury did not get their hands on any revenue. That would never happen so I'm against renationalisation.
Gareth Marston
Established Member
Your views are from the jack and Gill ABC book of right wing fink tanks the real world is far more complex and grey than private is good and public is bad. How do you account for the fact that 90% of private businesses fail? The public sector hospitals schools etc can't fail go bust and disappear of course there are poor decisions made but many more are made in third and private sector. There are also good decisions made as there are. In the third and private sector, there's also a whole stack of indifferent ones that's life!
As I said In a previous post there's a range of outside influences that have been beneficial to the railway in the last 20 years that BR didn't enjoy making a direct comparison as to the merits of each system very hard.
Well thats the whole point, it is a service that helps the country to function. Take away the none commercially viable services and you end up with people that can't afford to get to work, can't afford to move somewhere they may be able to work and trust me, a lot of the things you rely on just won't get done.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,275
Why would BR not be under that obligation. As a government owned company surely it would be under more obligation as the board are directly accountable to the minister of transport.
The treasury gets its hands on revenue from the private TOCs in the form of corporation tax. Where's the difference?
Personally I have no issue with renationalising, as long as it is done in a business focussed way (like the sectorisation of BR). Prior to that, despite what some say, BR wasn't that great.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The whole point is that the state subsidy itself is up to the whim of government.
There is nothing at all (except public backlash) to stop the state scrapping that subsidy.
If that happened, there would be cuts in the railways worse than Beeching, and the ticket prices would soar higher than they do now, and the franchisees would be walking away from their franchises as there would be no money in it for them.
In other words, the system is now dependent on more money in real terms from the state than BR ever was.
Last edited:
So a current franchise is failing, their PPM is constantly poor and they have not met their franchise commitments, the DFT excludes them from bidding for the next franchise or they are removed from their franchise. A new TOC comes in and implements improvements.
Under BR none of that would exist, no commitments to meet, rubbish PPM? Who cares as there's no franchise to lose, no consequences.
So why aren't people campaigning for all air carriers to be nationalised? Why are people not campaigning for all bus companies to be nationalised? Why aren't all car companies in the UK nationalised if travel is so crucial?
If services that are not viable have to run, govt HAS to subsidise them.
Last edited:
Wow, you are making out that BR was like the North Korean government.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As air travel has become de nationalised people are crying more and more about Ryanair and saying how they can get a better service off KLM etc. for a little more money. But more and more privatised airlines are becoming more and more like Ryanair. Bus companies are worse than when they were locally run. I now have no choice than to use the same bus company in several countries in Europe. Back when the buses were state run in Liverpool we had Ribble, Crosville and MPTE, now its Arriva or Stagecoach and I can use them almost countrywide. Loads of choice.
And who is the biggest boom airline at the mo, Emirates, and where do they get their money from? Their government.
Last edited:
Why do you keep taking absurd generalisations of the opposite point of view to yours?
What people are saying is, yes BR wasn't perfect, and privatization wasn't perfect, but, on balance, a properly structured nationalised railway would be better than the current privatised system.
In the current privatised system, the government already decides how much money they spend on the railway. Ok, they can't meddle mid-franchise, but they can decide how much to spend on a franchise at renewal. Renationalisation would have to involve arms-length management, giving BR fixed-term franchises/settlements, but I've seen no evidence that such a system couldn't happen. Isn't this what basically happens with Network Rail at the moment.
All I am doing is disagreeing with your point of view, I have been told by people I trust and don't tend to lie to me that BR was an inefficient mess.
I think that the current system works fine. My view is a new BR would be just as inefficient as the old one as the treasury would have direct control over the finances and other projects wield quicker results than rail projects do.
The treasury already have fairly tight control over what the TOC's can do, thats why we are still rocking around on 142's here in the north west.
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,754
Yes, wow, I have political views. I take it Mummy and Daddy brought you up to be a good Tory boy?
A "new BR" would be accountable to the Secretary of State for Transport. Did you notice that word "accountable" or is accountability an alien concept to you?
I've already responded to that point. Others have done too.
I know perfectly well that a lot of (most, actually) services aren't commercially viable. What's your point?
There wouldn't be any revenue! Better efficiency would reduce the railway's dependence on subsidy, leaving more of our money to spend on other things like the NHS. Not everyone can afford private healthcare, you know.
Is this a discussion about rail nationalisation or you bashing me because I have different political views to you?
If it's the later I'm perfectly willing to bash your socialist views but seeing as this is a RAIL forum I suggest we leave it there don't you?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Anyway unless some can prove that a new BR era will solve all the problems of the railways I will stick with my view that the current system for the most part works.
Last edited:
Where about do you live? Don't worry, I don't want your address or anything, ha ha. Where I am I certainly wouldn't say the service has got any better. I am happy with the service Northern provide but I certainly wouldn't say its any better than it has been before. As I said before the train to town often takes longer than it did before, not enough for me to be bothered. We also have less trains at some times of the day than we had before but not enough to annoy me. It hasn't changed that much at all, especially having the same rolling stock we had before privatisation.
I used to live in Warwickshire but since moved to North Essex for work.
And what is the train service like around there, and the rolling stock? As I've said before, where I am it is the same stock taking longer and less frequently.
trainophile
Established Member
Apols if this has already been said, but maybe the increase in population age demograph has meant that more pensioners with time on their hands, and the health to still enjoy getting out and about, plus the popularity of Senior Railcards, has impacted on the number of rail travellers.
When I travel (granted it's generally off peak), I can't help but notice that a large proportion of my fellow travellers are past working age. I am myself
, and find the railway gives me a sense of adventure and freedom, that I can go anywhere I fancy in safety and without hassle.
Going back to my earlier post where I agreed about being able to buy tickets online, there's also the recognition that walk-up price is not the only option, and indeed travel is possible for a fraction of it once you get the hang of the system.
I'd never want to go back to driving (beyond my home town) now.
When I travel (granted it's generally off peak), I can't help but notice that a large proportion of my fellow travellers are past working age. I am myself
, and find the railway gives me a sense of adventure and freedom, that I can go anywhere I fancy in safety and without hassle.Going back to my earlier post where I agreed about being able to buy tickets online, there's also the recognition that walk-up price is not the only option, and indeed travel is possible for a fraction of it once you get the hang of the system.
I'd never want to go back to driving (beyond my home town) now.
That's not all you're doing. No-one has said "nationalisation is the magic cure". They've just said they think it's better than the alternative. I don't see any reason to make such a statement unless you're trying to create a straw man.
Ok, I'm out. Nothing will solve all the problems of the railways, partly because one man's problem is another man's feature, and partly because no big organisation is ever perfect.
But your threshold seems absolutely bizzare. If I, hypothetically, proved that a nationalised railway was more efficient, cheaper to run, but still had the same frequency of overhead wire problems on the ECML as now, I still wouldn't meet your criteria!
Similarly, it seems impossible to convince you that BR wasn't a simple, monolithic entity, and it's entirely probably that one person in BR thinks it's amazing, and another person in BR thinks it's a complete mess.
Last edited:
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,275
If you think the efficiency of BR would be that of the old one, then I'll take it. The sectorised BR was acknowledged to be one of the most efficient railways in Europe. They could account for every single penny.
The solution we have now is the worst of both worlds.
Either nationalisation or full privatisation would be better than we have now. I'm a lefty and would tend towards renationalisation, but accept that full privatisation would possibly work.
Last edited:
The Modern railway (MR) should be given an ammount of money each year (the subsidy) with a caveate that they will run x no (loss making) services, then they can spend the rest of the money how they see fit on the understanding that that is all they are getting.
MR could then prioritise that expenditure on twhat is most important for the railway rather than now when its what is best for the Government.
The railway expenditure at the moment is far to prescriptive (and expensive) plus the people making the decisions havent got a clue most of the time.
MR could then prioritise that expenditure on twhat is most important for the railway rather than now when its what is best for the Government.
The railway expenditure at the moment is far to prescriptive (and expensive) plus the people making the decisions havent got a clue most of the time.
- Status