-
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!
Bring Back British Rail.org
- Thread starter D2022
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Ivo
Established Member
The simplest one is that investment has been better since the system was privatised, and that consequentially services are now far busier than they were 20 years ago. When managed properly, the current system is perfectly fine...
Just a quick note - you can't. Only moderators can do that. Believe me - it's been discussed on numerous occasions.
As Ivo has said, you can't. Given the fact that other people will have posted for your scenario to happen, it's certainly not your call to remove their posts anyway.
In terms of the thread topic, I'll agree with Ivo that the current system is actually fine, I believe the railways are in a much better position than they were.
The issue I sometimes see when people argue for a return to non-privatisation is based on nothing more than romantics. Things like the older traction, corporate liveries and nothing to do with service.
starrymarkb
Established Member
One big argument against - the DfT...
If it was run like BR where BR was pretty much left to get on with it then I guess that would be OK. But I can't see the DfT civil servants relinquishing their micromanagement of the railway.
Secondly the biggest cost is NR's infrastructure rather then the TOCs
If it was run like BR where BR was pretty much left to get on with it then I guess that would be OK. But I can't see the DfT civil servants relinquishing their micromanagement of the railway.
Secondly the biggest cost is NR's infrastructure rather then the TOCs
Buttsy
Established Member
The reason why the railways should be in govt hands is that we provide a subsidy for running the services and effectively that subsidy pays private operator's dividends (in part). If the railways were run on a contractual basis, such as Merseyrail, or it's put out to competitive tender with a fixed profit margin/subsidy requirement that the operator can't hand back, I would be happier.
The thing is that since privatisation, the cost to the taxpayer has increased 4-fold, not all of which can be put down to HSE and inflation.
The old set up of BR worked well and lowered subsidy year on year (outside of recessions) as they were given a budget and generally worked within this budget. My main argument for 'renationalising' is that it could save the govt around £1bn a year.
The thing is that since privatisation, the cost to the taxpayer has increased 4-fold, not all of which can be put down to HSE and inflation.
The old set up of BR worked well and lowered subsidy year on year (outside of recessions) as they were given a budget and generally worked within this budget. My main argument for 'renationalising' is that it could save the govt around £1bn a year.
Last edited:
In 1997 it was a Labour manifesto commitment to renationalise the railways, however this was most likely something included by John Smith and didn't really fit in with Tony Blair's 'third way' mantra. Its not something that is likely to ever happen now with the move towards mixed market economies, and that is something that is only going to increase, at least in the middle term.
steamybrian
Established Member
I am fully support bringing back British Rail.
When privatisation come in I took the money and left my job what was then Railtrack because I did not like the changes. A number of my colleagues also left or were offered redundancy because I feel they wanted younger staff.
The railways now are so dis-jointed with every one looking after their own corner and trying to blame the other company when things go wrong. The film "Navigators" illustrated this extremely well. It beats me why it is cheaper to contract out work rather than get jobs by your staff "in house".
Yes there have been some new ideas but these are out voted by the disadvantages. If BR were not interfered by politicians or starved of investment then they could have done better.
The increasing number of passengers could be due to the large increase in investment which the Government has put in or maybe increased motoring costs.
It must be a legal nightmare to operate trains now so gone of the days of having Depot Open Days or Day Excursions run by local BR area offices . Running trains at short notice were run by ONE Control controlling all trains in EACH area making it very easy. In BR days we just did it because we were all ONE company working together and helping each other.
When privatisation come in I took the money and left my job what was then Railtrack because I did not like the changes. A number of my colleagues also left or were offered redundancy because I feel they wanted younger staff.
The railways now are so dis-jointed with every one looking after their own corner and trying to blame the other company when things go wrong. The film "Navigators" illustrated this extremely well. It beats me why it is cheaper to contract out work rather than get jobs by your staff "in house".
Yes there have been some new ideas but these are out voted by the disadvantages. If BR were not interfered by politicians or starved of investment then they could have done better.
The increasing number of passengers could be due to the large increase in investment which the Government has put in or maybe increased motoring costs.
It must be a legal nightmare to operate trains now so gone of the days of having Depot Open Days or Day Excursions run by local BR area offices . Running trains at short notice were run by ONE Control controlling all trains in EACH area making it very easy. In BR days we just did it because we were all ONE company working together and helping each other.
Last edited:
No it was not http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml
1997 Labour Party Manifesto said:
Yes, but was that privatisation or the economic boom? I'd say both, but that's what I always say. BR was growing at a decent rate, as the 1991 Future Rail report below makes clear. They had turned 30bn passenger km into 34bn passenger km in the 1980s. There are no figures for freight, but they had halved the Rail Grant at the same time (over £2bn to about £1bn). I've often wondered what good management, Networkers and IC250 could have done with that.
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=125
Temple Meads
Established Member
Butts
Veteran Member
How much would it cost to renationalise the Railways - I don't mean waiting for the franchises to expire but if it were to be enacted next week ?
In 2004 Gordon Brown suggested that renationalisation would cost £22bn we can, I think, safely assume that it would be significantly more now.
That was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, the whole one company thing is always in the back of my mind, at the moment its awful, having companies always pinning the blame elsewhere. Not organising work and short notice workings well, it at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Only renationalise it if I can be in charge of the South east region, or else whats the point?
Deal...you have the Southern and I will have the LM region, or possibly Scotland
Butts
Veteran Member
Say its £30 Billion , that less than three years excise duty on tobacco
Well then I want my say
I spend about a tenner a day on smokes
Butts
Veteran Member
Well then I want my say
A condition of our benevolence is that they reintroduce smoking carriages as part of the deal
Deal...you have the Southern and I will have the LM region, or possibly Scotland
I bags Eastern!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Say its £30 Billion , that less than three years excise duty on tobacco
How many is it in subsidy? (I suspect about the same, so keep 'em burning if we want more money for the railways). Since the Rail Grant of 1990 was approximately £1bn, and allowing for economies of scale and fewer shareholders to pay off, let's assume we can halve the current subsidy to a level of about £5bn (or a halving of subsidy). So, £30bn outlay leading to £30bn of savings by 2017. The result breaks even in six years! Even if it's £8bn, thats ten years.
NB These figures are all complete guesses
bronzeonion
Member
Bassicly, train companies cut back and try as hard as they can to make profit. Railways need to be a public service so profit should not be a priority.
Butts
Veteran Member
How would you fund the subsidy that would be required to run the railways and obtain the money to renationalise them ?
The same way they were nationalised in 1948, a bond issue.
Butts
Veteran Member
What term do you have in mind and interest rate ?
I'm a zoologist, not a banker! (Dammit, Jim).
- Status