e-petitions

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm not persuaded that Nationalisation in the next few years would, in its most meaningful ways, resemble privitisation in the mid 20th c.
At that time, the railways were still fully integrated with the (nationalised) coal, power and steel industries, with whom they had a very tight interdependence, and the newspaper and other parcel and produce delivery networks.

These days, our model for privitisation must be the NHS, Police, Schools etc., where the financial penalties from individual claimants and feared or actual down-grading from 'regulatory authorities' (such as OFSTED) has changed them into bodies which are even more averse to risk than the railways (and I thought the Railways were over-burdened with risk-aversion!).

Notwithstanding my concerns, I believe that a nations-wide transport system can, and should, only be managed on a wide basis, and because of the gross disparities in investment & revenue between modes, I will argue that it is only by nationalisation that rail transport can deliver the benefits to the nations that reach substantial numbers of people, businesses, services and disparate communities which in the longer term, will make the UK better served, educated, supported, coherent, healthier and prosperous.
By contrast, it is the fragmentaion, rather than the priviisation, that has made those benefits more elusive. Rolling stock, on-board facilities and ticket complexities have little or nothing to do with the question.

 

[Greenback]

The advantage of a much more complicated fares system is that it introduces many discrepancies that the knowledgeable passenger can use to their advantage. One good example is the Routeing Guide. You can save a fortune using that! Such "loopholes" do not exist in other countries, such as France.

Of course, a much more complicated fares system is also a major disadvantage to passengers who are not "in the know." As you say, TOC only tickets may be considered an "exception" because of increased competition.

Advance tickets are difficult as to whether they are a disadvantage or an advantage. Yes, they have made the fares system more complicated. But they haven't made it much more complicated, and have made train travel extremely cheap for those who are able to book in advance.

This is a pretty weak argument in my opinion. What you appear to be saying, in essence, is that privatisation is good, because although the fares have probably gone up by a lot more than they would have, I and a few others have found ways around the system that mean it isn't really that much mroee xpensive for us!

Never mind that it is far dearer for most of the population, that some people may have been priced off rail completely, and that this is not good for society or the environment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not persuaded that Nationalisation in the next few years would, in its most meaningful ways, resemble privitisation in the mid 20th c.
At that time, the railways were still fully integrated with the (nationalised) coal, power and steel industries, with whom they had a very tight interdependence, and the newspaper and other parcel and produce delivery networks.

These days, our model for privitisation must be the NHS, Police, Schools etc., where the financial penalties from individual claimants and feared or actual down-grading from 'regulatory authorities' (such as OFSTED) has changed them into bodies which are even more averse to risk than the railways (and I thought the Railways were over-burdened with risk-aversion!).

Notwithstanding my concerns, I believe that a nations-wide transport system can, and should, only be managed on a wide basis, and because of the gross disparities in investment & revenue between modes, I will argue that it is only by nationalisation that rail transport can deliver the benefits to the nations that reach substantial numbers of people, businesses, services and disparate communities which in the longer term, will make the UK better served, educated, supported, coherent, healthier and prosperous.
By contrast, it is the fragmentaion, rather than the priviisation, that has made those benefits more elusive. Rolling stock, on-board facilities and ticket complexities have little or nothing to do with the question.

A lot of sense there Dave.

 

[90019]

Of course, a much more complicated fares system is also a major disadvantage to passengers who are not "in the know." As you say, TOC only tickets may be considered an "exception" because of increased competition.

I'd like to point something out - by having such a complicated ticketing system, it makes it difficult for people without any knowledge of it to get cheap tickets, which in some cases just means they don't bother to use the trains and will use other forms of transport instead.

This includes myself.
I regularly choose the car over the train as the train just requires far too much time and effort to get affordable tickets, and frankly most of the time, it's just not worth it imo.

Whilst it's all very well thinking that it's so good because it allows you to get some cheap tickets, you need to consider the bigger picture.

 

[northwichcat]

This one's a good one:

Speed up rail journeys away from London
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2104

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This one's a good one:

Speed up rail journeys away from London
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2104

A pity that I did not see this one earlier as we were on holidays. The sentiment expressed is very valid. There are now 10 signatures.