Benefits of privatisation?

[Daniel Hampson]

Guys since privatisation, what have been the main benefits from different stakeholders perspectives, e.g.,:

passengers
manufacturers
maintainers
etc..

My project is almost complete, thanks to you all for your previous feedbacks

Danny

 

[ungreat]

As staff,the main benefit in my opinion is the huge pay rise...other than that,I can't see any to be honest

 

[hairyhandedfool]

New trains on some routes....................Some routes have really cheap fares (to balance the really expensive ones).................now I'm struggling............

 

[Z12XE]

Paint and Vinyl manufacturers have increased their sales....



:-P

 

[Guinness]

Passenger Numbers are up.

 

[gordonthemoron]

passenger fatalaties are down

 

[P156KWJ]

the railways are a darn sight more colourful

 

[Mojo]

Lots of stakeholders and passengers blame the private companies when most of the negative things are the doing of the DfT, so the Government gets off nearly scot-free.

 

[bluenoxid]

Increase in rail services
Record Investment in infrastructure and trains
Reversal of rationalisation policy

 

[me123]

In theory allowing cll these big companies in allows for greater investment in the railways. Which would happen if only they gave them longer franchises. If they did that, the companies could really start to invest in services and improve rail travel in this country a good bit.

 

[richa2002]

Is that due to privitisation or just natural increase though?

 

[jopsuk]

There's various numbers I'd like to see:
Total Government investment from taxation since privitisation (including things such as costs incurred due to the failure of Railtrack)
Total profits earned by the privitised companies in that time
Total investment by the private companies from their other interests.

 

[anthonycutt]

When I saw the heading, 'Privatisation... Benefits', I expected a mass of 'privatisation is a disaster' comments. So I'm pleasantly surprised. As I'm only 26, I have very little experience of nationalised rail but it seems to me that as the situation stands, for all it's failings, a private run railway couldn't possibly be worse than a Government one.

The problem to me seems to be that 'privatised' should mean 'competition' but that just hasn't happened. If my gas bills are too high, I can pick a different company; if Curry's don't have the electrical appliance I want, I can go to Comet etc etc. BUT: if I want to travel from Manchester to London, I have to use Virgin... and that's it. or National Express (God forbid). That said, I could go from Manchester to Sheffield & use EMT or Leeds & use NXEC... but that's hardly reasonable.

Anyway, I couldn't list the benefits of a privatised railway over a nationalised one having never really experienced the nationalised version but I'm constantly reminded that the railway was private in the first place & it was succesive Governments that presided over it's subsequent destruction.

 

[Doorslammer]

I would have thought the biggest benefit would have been to all the people who really like to see blue or pink colours on anything.

My personal thought on the privatisation is that it definitely has added some interest to what was a pretty standardised operation before. And when I say standardised, I do of course take into account the fact that there were more diesel types in BR than you could shake a stick at. But what I mean is that it adds interest to those who like spotting different things i.e. a new train to the area or new colour scheme.

Whatever it may be, it has perked up a bit overall in many ways. Not counted the general inefficiency, but that's for the negative thread.

 

[christopher]

More plastic.
Trains getting a new livery quicker than you can say privatisation.

 

[jopsuk]

That's a good point, there's very few routes over which there's actual, meaningful competition- and in most cases where there are several operators running the same/similar routes, there's only inter-operator fares, or the choice is slightly quicker versus slightly cheaper. But for the vast majority of journies, there's a single option. The only time there's real competition is in the tendering for franchises.

The privitised telecoms, electricity and gas markets in this country have been successes- because there is real competition for customers. Rail lies somewhere between that and the true nadir of privitised utilities and services in England- the water companies.

 

[Nick W]

One good benefit is that you don't fell bad fare avoiding by whatever means, especially when the railway's use all the technicalities they can.

 

[Metroland]

There's plenty of competition with other forms of transport - I think that's rather a red herring.

As for fare evasion, the railway loses (at least) 20% of their income this way, which ultimately means higher fares for everyone else and less investment for a bigger/better network.

 

[ungreat]

I really can't see none...too many companies,too much buck passing,ages to sort out failure assistance unless one of your own trains is nearby,new staff getting limited travel facilities,endless money wasting corporate image changes,constant turnover of local managers on one year contracts,no worthy investments as TOC's dont get long leases,limited inter company ticketing...I could go on