Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[Domh245]

Don't forget Russia!

I don't think that modern day Russia is quite Jeremy's cup of organic, allotment grown tea.

(although I think we're getting quite off topic now!)

 

[Harbornite]

I don't think that modern day Russia is quite Jeremy's cup of organic, allotment grown tea.

Maybe, but I bet that some of his cadres would like nothing more than to see the Uk joining a newly formed USSR.

 

[Richard_B]

Essentially the system right now works by the government subsidy paying for track, and the tocs overall run about a balanced book on running the trains.
What annoys users most are delays and overcrowding. Overcrowding means you aren't running enough carriages. Delays are made worse by running too many carriages so that the system doesn't recover. So to make both better you need more capacity. This can either come from more trains or longer trains.
The problem here is that the length of the train is (in theory) the Tocs problem, and the number of trains that can run is (in theory) Network rails problem.

This means that the improvements to service is both Governments and the Tocs problems which means it ends being neither.

The solution, for me, is for the DfT to enforce buying more carriages in the contracts - which tbf is happening now but you can't build a train ovenprnight so there is delays in the new carriages having affect.

Renationalisation comes into this because the profits don't go to investors but can go into extra carriages/lower fares.

 

[southern442]

Renationalisation comes into this because the profits don't go to investors but can go into extra carriages/lower fares.

The fares are rising again now, if the railways were nationalised this wouldnt have to happen because the profits that all the shareholders would otherwise have made could be reinvested into the network. The fare rise is making big headlines at the moment - why isn't Corbyn bringing this to attention? Now's his chance to convince the masses, come on!

 

[J-2739]

Having been a long time lurker of this thread (even before I joined the forum), I am now ready to state my opinion on this (however, bear in mind I never grew up in BR era):

I'm with renationalisation. Like someone else said above, it should be a full nationalisation or a full privatisation. I feel as if privatisation should have been more of a competing ground similar to Japan, where multiple companies can compete to lower prices and attract more people to their services. However, now most of the franchises are in the hands of few transport foundations, some doing better than some (National Express/C2C performing better than Govia/GTR). The feeling amongst them is that 'no one else is competing with us and our future passengers have no over transport option therefore, if we mess up, they'd just put up with it' so prices would just be set so they make an easy profit, upsetting passengers, but there's nothing they can do about it, can't they?

However, I think a sectored system would work better. It's broadly similar to the privatised system but without many TOC's, non for profit, and under government control.

A bit different from the above but it didn't take long for railway infrastructure to be brought over government control.

What do you think of my post? Is there any fault with it? Any criticism welcome.

 

[Gathursty]

I'll sit on the fence as I need to do a bit more reading on what renationalisation was like from a customer perspective but I'll give points from my perspective:

- I think different companies have diluted customer service. I don't expect every staff member to point to Kildonan or Whitwell on a map but I've experienced Merseyrail first-hand and heard stories of London Overground/Underground not being very helpful when it comes to journeys involving other TOCs or in other parts of the country. I'd like to have some anecdotal evidence of whether this was the case in nationalised days.

- I think some people get confused between what a TOC is responsible for and all the other important layers (Network Rail/their contractors/ROSCOs/PTEs) and so when frustration abounds they demand a simpler system understandably. If you nationalised, you'd still have these layers but they'd all be within one company. I do believe SWT and Chiltern(?) could be exceptions as they have that NR Alliance thing going on.

- Following on from the above point, the multiplicity of TOCs infers 'management' and stakeholders and anyone else taking a slice of the profit pie which can jar especially when you hear about price increases.

- TOCs and NR need to promote what they are doing much more. We know on this forum about several schemes such as Crossrail, GWR electrification etc.. but I know some Wiganers who were unaware/not arsed about the fact that there are shiny electric trains doing the Liverpool turns. There can only be so much announcing of these things but perhaps NR could emphasis that even though one part of the country isn't at that minute being improved, there is always some big project going on somewhere which will eventually come full circle (Northern getting Thameslink cascades). As well as this, emphasising the money that such things and maintenance etc... cost as well as what proportion of £1 goes to what aspect of the rail network should be done much more.

- Some stations will always be unstaffed. The general public need to get over this. However, I think all stations should have some machine to extract revenue. You will say ahhh Altnabreac etc... OK, all stations within easy reach for the people who deal with those machines without spending half a day getting to to only extract £3 for example. I wouldn't bother with Card only machines at these remote locations for obvious reasons.

- Every station should have a help point which directs you to someone fairly local at the first instance and at later times of the day, to a foreign country. I'll leave this a bit woolly as 'later times' varies wildly for different stations. 'Fairly local' should be the nearest station with someone there 24/7. I'll leave this open to who this could be but I imagine if you rung Manchester Piccadilly at 2am, there would be someone near to the ringing phone who if they can't help, someone else in the vincinity could. I'll emphasise the need that some customers just want someone local, if not at the station, to listen to them.

- More benches to sit on at the bigger stations please (Waterloo/Marylebone).

- More opportunity for non-chain ventures to rent within station grounds. I'm not expecting a greasy spoon in the middle of Waterloo but if you've been to Plymouth you'll know what I'm on about. This may not change with renationalisation but I'm optimistic. It's just soul destroying paying top dollar in a station when just round the corner prices can be very resonable.

If anyone can tell me whether any of these would change with nationalisation, I'd love to hear.

 

[southern442]

I'll sit on the fence as I need to do a bit more reading on what renationalisation was like from a customer perspective but I'll give points from my perspective:

- I think different companies have diluted customer service. I don't expect every staff member to point to Kildonan or Whitwell on a map but I've experienced Merseyrail first-hand and heard stories of London Overground/Underground not being very helpful when it comes to journeys involving other TOCs or in other parts of the country. I'd like to have some anecdotal evidence of whether this was the case in nationalised days.

I believe that station staff are trained to have knowledge of their TOC's network and the areas surrounding their network. TfL are a very good example because tube staff will know the tube inside out but may not know the SWT or GWR networks very well, for example. Staff knowledge would probably improve with nationalisation, but I guess there isn't anything to stop it happening on a privatised railway.

- I think some people get confused between what a TOC is responsible for and all the other important layers (Network Rail/their contractors/ROSCOs/PTEs) and so when frustration abounds they demand a simpler system understandably. If you nationalised, you'd still have these layers but they'd all be within one company. I do believe SWT and Chiltern(?) could be exceptions as they have that NR Alliance thing going on.

With a nationalised railway I would assume that there would be one body that works on everything but with different sub-teams and layers as you suggest. This could mean better communication as they are all one body and also it would be much more simpler for a passenger to understand what is going on if there are improvement works.

- Following on from the above point, the multiplicity of TOCs infers 'management' and stakeholders and anyone else taking a slice of the profit pie which can jar especially when you hear about price increases.

Absolutely. If the railways became public owned, the income they can spend on improving the network would increase hugely as part of the ticket price goes towards paying stakeholders off. This extra income would go towards the railway and you could have reduced fares or a fare freeze as well.

- TOCs and NR need to promote what they are doing much more. We know on this forum about several schemes such as Crossrail, GWR electrification etc.. but I know some Wiganers who were unaware/not arsed about the fact that there are shiny electric trains doing the Liverpool turns. There can only be so much announcing of these things but perhaps NR could emphasis that even though one part of the country isn't at that minute being improved, there is always some big project going on somewhere which will eventually come full circle (Northern getting Thameslink cascades). As well as this, emphasising the money that such things and maintenance etc... cost as well as what proportion of £1 goes to what aspect of the rail network should be done much more.

Promotion of improvements to the rail system would absolutely happen more with a nationalised railway. The government would want to promote every single good thing they have done for the railways to get popularity points with the public.

- Some stations will always be unstaffed. The general public need to get over this. However, I think all stations should have some machine to extract revenue. You will say ahhh Altnabreac etc... OK, all stations within easy reach for the people who deal with those machines without spending half a day getting to to only extract £3 for example. I wouldn't bother with Card only machines at these remote locations for obvious reasons.

As I mentioned before, a nationalised railway would have more money on their hands than the DfT and NR have today, so yes this could be a possibility.

- Every station should have a help point which directs you to someone fairly local at the first instance and at later times of the day, to a foreign country. I'll leave this a bit woolly as 'later times' varies wildly for different stations. 'Fairly local' should be the nearest station with someone there 24/7. I'll leave this open to who this could be but I imagine if you rung Manchester Piccadilly at 2am, there would be someone near to the ringing phone who if they can't help, someone else in the vincinity could. I'll emphasise the need that some customers just want someone local, if not at the station, to listen to them.

- More benches to sit on at the bigger stations please (Waterloo/Marylebone).

- More opportunity for non-chain ventures to rent within station grounds. I'm not expecting a greasy spoon in the middle of Waterloo but if you've been to Plymouth you'll know what I'm on about. This may not change with renationalisation but I'm optimistic. It's just soul destroying paying top dollar in a station when just round the corner prices can be very resonable.

As above, hiring staff, more benches etc would indeed come out of a nationalised railway (although the former would depend on who was in power maybe). I'm not sure how much income Network Rail get form WHSmith and M&S and Costa etc etc. but I don't see why renting space out to more local businesses would be too much of a risk. Again, I guess it depends on who's in charge.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Essentially the system right now works by the government subsidy paying for track, and the tocs overall run about a balanced book on running the trains.
What annoys users most are delays and overcrowding. Overcrowding means you aren't running enough carriages. Delays are made worse by running too many carriages so that the system doesn't recover. So to make both better you need more capacity. This can either come from more trains or longer trains.
The problem here is that the length of the train is (in theory) the Tocs problem, and the number of trains that can run is (in theory) Network rails problem.

This means that the improvements to service is both Governments and the Tocs problems which means it ends being neither.

The solution, for me, is for the DfT to enforce buying more carriages in the contracts - which tbf is happening now but you can't build a train ovenprnight so there is delays in the new carriages having affect.

Renationalisation comes into this because the profits don't go to investors but can go into extra carriages/lower fares.

Longer trains are not possible on some routes. A 2+9 HST is as far as you can go with HSTs and won't improve until the new 800/801s come into service, a 12 car 450 or 377 is again the max. SWT is pushing what were previously 8 car but limited by platform length into 10 car where possible, although 12 car may be better (but for that they need more stock).

Running more trains during the peaks isn't an option. There just aren't the paths available. We're approaching the absolute limits of capacity in many areas.

The biggest things that can be improved are reliability, both from the infrastructure and the stock, and industrial relations. Some companies are getting it right in that respect, but others aren't, and the unions, whilst trying to represent their members, are bloody awful at PR. Actually being fully privatised rather than a franchisee running to a government spec may help improve matters with industrial relations, as it may allow a more pragmatic approach.

Do that, and you will cut cancellations and late running.

We won't have solved overcrowding, and unfortunately the only practical way to combat overcrowding in the short term is through the fare box (something BR were just as guilty of), long term measures need to be made to increase available paths so more trains can be run. This may mean new lines, or improvements to existing lines and signalling to allow faster trains with shorter headways.

 

[HH]

I don't think that modern day Russia is quite Jeremy's cup of organic, allotment grown tea.

You show a worrying lack of knowledge about Comrade Corbyn. He was what was colloquially known as a "tankie", i.e. one of those who supported USSR use of tanks to keep control in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.

Being that Putin is former KGB, wor Jezza may well have common ground.

OFC he's now being sold as something completely different; a veritable 'man of the people', a gen-you-INE working class hero. Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing...

 

[highdyke]

The fares are rising again now, if the railways were nationalised this wouldn't have to happen because the profits that all the shareholders would otherwise have made could be reinvested into the network. The fare rise is making big headlines at the moment - why isn't Corbyn bringing this to attention? Now's his chance to convince the masses, come on!

Shareholder profits (that's the return on investment, which is currently about £600 million a year) are 3p in every pound. Train fares have been driven up by the DFT on most lines this in order to offset subsidy elsewhere. The demand model is derived from MOIRA.

If you lower prices demand can easily outstrip supply, which could cause major problems in some areas (more overcrowding, delays due to increased dwell times). Some lines now are very short of capacity as it is. There is no easy answers in some places, especially London and the SE. Again this may require major investment which has to be paid for by the users (in which case more fare rises) or taxpayers.

BTW Corbyn is against HS2...So it's all very well talking about overcrowding but there's no easy answers on the classic network without massive rebuilding and disruption. Check out the Open Train times maps for parts of the ECML/WCML and Southern to see how crowded some lines are. Even Cross Country routes like Didcot to Leamington spa are well worth watching, freight trains and several TOCs trains are constantly being juggled for most of the day.

These pressures will not be any different, unless the public as a whole wants to put more into rail. Whereas staff, enthusiasts and users (who are mostly middle class) may wish for this to happen, ultimately it is a political decision. This may involved tax rises and/or cutting money from elsewhere or borrowing money from future generations.

BR 2 would have its own issues as the staff will all want to be paid the rates of the best TOC, which would wipe out any savings, if there any in the first place as less competition reduces the desire to be efficient.

Maybe the current structure is not the best and there are many inefficiencies, however it's not all about 'profit'.

 

[AlterEgo]

I believe that station staff are trained to have knowledge of their TOC's network and the areas surrounding their network. TfL are a very good example because tube staff will know the tube inside out but may not know the SWT or GWR networks very well, for example. Staff knowledge would probably improve with nationalisation, but I guess there isn't anything to stop it happening on a privatised railway.

I don't know whether this was different under the nationalised railway, but you're right in saying employees are trained to know their own TOC network and maybe some connecting journeys.

The reason staff don't learn the national network is because, frankly, they can't be bothered their arse to take an interest.

I came across some absolutely inexcusable ignorance on the railway. I don't expect railway staff to know where IBM Halt is, but I do expect people to at least know that Ayr is in Scotland, or where Weymouth is, or Fishguard, or Shrewsbury. All customer facing staff should have good British geography - it is invaluable. Failing that, open your bloody smartphone and check it out Maps, lazybones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

- I think different companies have diluted customer service. I don't expect every staff member to point to Kildonan or Whitwell on a map but I've experienced Merseyrail first-hand

I grew up with nationalised Merseyrail, and to be honest the character of the overall operation really hasn't changed much - on Merseyside old habits tend to die hard. It has of course turned yellow, and things are much less tatty and rough round the edges than they used to be, but the culture is not much different.

The main exception is perhaps ticket office staff, where the older generation used to take a real pride in ensuring they knew and offered everything, even if it required a telephone call to another booking office to do a reservation (only the larger Merseyrail stations had CRS terminals). Brian at Aughton Park (wouldn't surprise me if he is no longer with us, he was quite old back then) really knew his stuff and gave the impression that he took a personal interest in every journey, even if it was just a single to the next stop.

The other thing that's changed is the "zero tolerance" to things like feet on seats, fare dodging etc. Previously, these things were tolerated ("paying at the other end" being a common euphemism for not paying at all unless the staff came out to collect, though they often did) and now they are not. There are different views on whether the relatively heavy-handed approach is good or not, but it does at least seem effective.

You also had the old enquiry line 0151 709 9696, staffed at Rail House in Liverpool, which actually knew where places were. But to be honest, National Rail Enquiries by phone is now somewhat of an anachronism for most people - back then you didn't have the Internet let alone any journey planners or PDF timetables. With most things self-service online, I think there's now an argument to go back to the old regionalised small centres offering good local knowledge for a relatively small number of callers - I think the mass call centre really has had its day.

 

[sprinterguy]

Was this why they didn't stick with the proposals for "Challenger" 2+5 HSTs and single cabbed Class 67s, or were these simply ditched in favour of more Voyagers?

The proposal for single cab 67s came prior to the finalised order for the Voyagers, and was dropped in favour of the 220 fleet. Note that the push-pull rakes were also intended to be four carriages in length. The "Challenger" proposal came later, but I believe that was for a largely new service between Blackpool and Paddington rather than bolstering capacity on existing routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can give you 'crap that doesn't work'. Birmingham New Street.

In what way does it not work? The new concourse is a great improvement on what was there before and has in fact been delivered by the publically owned Network Rail, not by any of the privately owned TOCs. The track and platform layout itself is restrictive, but that was the brainchild of your supposedly hallowed pre-sectorisation BR in the 1960s.

Where the design falls short today is that it was never designed to handle the number of trains that it does today (and yet despite that, it seems to hold up very well to the demands being placed on it on a day to day basis), and that it was designed for traditional loco hauled trains with locomotives at the end of the train, where fumes could be emitted to the open air, rather than the multiple-engine, diesel guzzling high performance multiple units of today.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pre-sectorisation.

Really? Pre-sectorisation BR was, IMO, a grossly inefficient and outdated outfit that had clung onto steam age principles long after steam itself had been phased out, maintaining large fleets of poorly utilised, clapped out locomotives on long strings of tatty carriages serving what seem to have been almost universally grimy stations.

While I don't wholeheartedly agree with the way that the current privatised structure strives to achieve maximum utilisation from the smallest number of trains required to carry the total number of passengers, it is difficult to argue against the fact that the bright, shiny and generally efficient face of the privatised railway, and many of its' stations, today presents a far more attractive image to the passenger. Pre-sectorisation British Rail seemed to keep going through sheer bloody-mindedness in the face of ever declining demand simply because that's the way it had always done things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The West Highland Line will be confined to using Whistlers as they are the only train that suit that line.
The Far North Line will be confined to Deltics as, again, they are the only trains fit for that line.

This is absurd. Class 40s were never suited to the West Highland line because they were great big heavy monsters with a restrictive axle loading, which meant that they were banned from the route until more recent engineering works during the 21st century to clear the line for class 47 and 67 locos. Deltics, meanwhile, are massively fuel thirsty, which would do nothing for the economics of lengthy, rural branch lines run on a shoestring.

One of BRs' greatest innovations in securing the futures of the West Highland and Far North lines was the introduction of RETB signalling, and not far-fetched flights of fancy regarding introducing great fuel-guzzling brutes of locomotives to the lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ideally we would have seen a mix of 11 coach Voyagers as well as 5 and 6 car units that could be used for portion working, which is a similar arrangement to that being sought by GWR.

Even with the benefit of fifteen years of hindsight with respect to ever rising passenger numbers, I don't think that anyone could have successfully argued the case for eleven carriage units on what was commonly perceived as the "Cinderella" operation of Crosscountry, with no dominant London market to shore up its' passenger loadings (and revenues!).

I still contend that, for the most part, a fleet of five and seven carriage trains (preferably with slightly better internal configuration than the Voyagers) would, for the most part, be ideal for passenger loadings on the Crosscountry network, with the opportunity to double up 5-car units to run ten carriage formations on the very busiest trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Think of the poor New St drivers who suddenly have a routecard of about 800 miles and 47 types of traction in order to keep it going!

Saltley drivers didn't seem to have a problem with that.

 

[Comstock]

I'm for renationalisation. I think it will mean less short termism, more focus on service instead of profit and more co-operation between areas of the railway where we currently have destructive competition

But I think those who think it will suddenly result in overcrowding free trains running dead to time with low fares will be bitterly disappointed.

It will make things a bit better- in the long term. In the short term, well at least I know my sky high rail fare will go towards the railway instead of shareholder profits.

 

[Western Lord]

I'm for renationalisation. I think it will mean less short termism, more focus on service instead of profit and more co-operation between areas of the railway where we currently have destructive competition

But I think those who think it will suddenly result in overcrowding free trains running dead to time with low fares will be bitterly disappointed.

It will make things a bit better- in the long term. In the short term, well at least I know my sky high rail fare will go towards the railway instead of shareholder profits.

I think you will find that your sky high rail fare will go into government coffers to spend on whatever it wants, rather than being re-invested in rail, as has been the case with road/car taxes for decades.

 

[Comstock]

I think you will find that your sky high rail fare will go into government coffers to spend on whatever it wants, rather than being re-invested in rail, as has been the case with road/car taxes for decades.

Fair point- we would need some sort of arms-length not for profit organisation to specifically make sure that doesn't happen.

 

[sprinterguy]

Fair point- we would need some sort of arms-length not for profit organisation to specifically make sure that doesn't happen.

Yes, I would support renationalisation as long as was implemented by an arms-length organisation as per the German model (As I understand it). My primary concern with renationalisation is that it not return the railways to the status of a political football as it was before, where it has to fight directly for funding against other sectors such as the NHS, which are quite rightly seen as being more worthy of public spending by the majority of the population than the railways.

One of the primary aims of railway privatisation was to permit increased spending within the industry free of the "dead hand" of Government, at which it has been very successful: It's just a shame that the money is used so inefficiently and disappears so often down the cracks in the wrong places as a result of the duplicative and deeply complex nature of the privatised railway.

 

[southern442]

Shareholder profits (that's the return on investment, which is currently about £600 million a year) are 3p in every pound. Train fares have been driven up by the DFT on most lines this in order to offset subsidy elsewhere. The demand model is derived from MOIRA.

If you lower prices demand can easily outstrip supply, which could cause major problems in some areas (more overcrowding, delays due to increased dwell times). Some lines now are very short of capacity as it is. There is no easy answers in some places, especially London and the SE. Again this may require major investment which has to be paid for by the users (in which case more fare rises) or taxpayers.

BTW Corbyn is against HS2...So it's all very well talking about overcrowding but there's no easy answers on the classic network without massive rebuilding and disruption. Check out the Open Train times maps for parts of the ECML/WCML and Southern to see how crowded some lines are. Even Cross Country routes like Didcot to Leamington spa are well worth watching, freight trains and several TOCs trains are constantly being juggled for most of the day.

These pressures will not be any different, unless the public as a whole wants to put more into rail. Whereas staff, enthusiasts and users (who are mostly middle class) may wish for this to happen, ultimately it is a political decision. This may involved tax rises and/or cutting money from elsewhere or borrowing money from future generations.

BR 2 would have its own issues as the staff will all want to be paid the rates of the best TOC, which would wipe out any savings, if there any in the first place as less competition reduces the desire to be efficient.

Maybe the current structure is not the best and there are many inefficiencies, however it's not all about 'profit'.

I think perhaps I should clarify some points that I made.

First, when I was mentioning rail fares. I think I made it seem like I was implying that there would be no need for any fare rises at all. Of course there will be fares rising because we will always need more money for investment. What I was saying was that with the current fares in place, 3% of the total income that would go towards paying off shareholders would instead go to the railway, meaning the 1.9% increase would not need to happen for a while.

Secondly, with regards to demand and supply. I am also against HS2 because it isn't the best solution in my opinion for a number of reasons, (but I won't go into it on here because that would be going off-topic) however I do think that we need more railway lines in the UK. Cheaply reopening mothballed lines may also attract more income for the railways without having to put pressure on already crowded lines. In my opinion we should have a new north to south and east to west main line with provision for local, regional and high speed services, to relieve demand for other lines which could then be upgraded. Whilst this would be hideously expensive, it would be a better investment than HS2 in my opinion.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Coming in away from recent comments. While i possibly support nationalisation. I am not confident in it.

Jeremy Corbyn may enjoy sitting on the floor of standard close on VTEC saying we need more trains blah blah. Ticket prices rising faster than inflation blah blah blah.

One of the only trains the government has recently ordered are taking over twice as long as the Anglia order and i would hazard a guess costing significantly more. We are currently awash with new trains being produced for the country i don't think nationalisation could increase this so that is not an argument for it. Note every one of those fleets is cheaper and quicker than the IEP government procured one, and the other has taken an age and has now arrived fit for the 21st century without wi-fi or plug/USB sockets.

Yes ticket prices have risen above wages if you measure from January 2010. But the coalition (and continued by tories now) have put a stop to that. If you look at ticket prices since January 2013 then they have gone up 0.1% less than wages. Read BBC articlehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37095651.

So while nationalisation might be the answer, currently more trains and lower fares doesn't wash with me as benefits nationalisation can bring.

 

[Holly]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16186...g-train-fares-set-to-rise-again-this-morning/

TAKE BACK THE TRAINS Jeremy Corbyn calls for re-nationalising the railways as crippling train fares set to rise again this morning

Labour leader pledges to 'rebuild and transform' UK's transport network to address 'transport nightmare' for commuters ...

Surely a vote winning policy among the commuters of the South-East of England? Lower fares and simpler ticketing.

And as Harry Perkins so famously said "We are all first class people you see, everyone should have first class."

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

You'll need to wait another couple of generations before it has any chance of being a vote winner. Too many of us remember what the reality of British Rail was like. Once that memory has died off then maybe. Until then better to find ways of improving what we've got.

 

[theblackwatch]

Actually, I think most people have too short memories. Those commuters we see being interviewed at Victoria stating the railway should be nationalised due to the poor service are probably the same ones who said BR was terrible and needed to be privatised...

 

[southern442]

Actually, I think most people have too short memories. Those commuters we see being interviewed at Victoria stating the railway should be nationalised due to the poor service are probably the same ones who said BR was terrible and needed to be privatised...

The same thing will happen if and when the NHS gets privatised. In the run up to privatisation, a government will completely neglect the service so everyone complains and then celebrates when it gets privatised, then 20 years down the line we will all realise what a stupid decision that was.

 

[najaB]

The same thing will happen if and when the NHS gets privatised.

The implication being, as I understand it, that British Rail was deliberately starved of resources in order 'prepare' it for privatisation. The issue I have with that is who would want to buy a railway that had been run down and was in need of serious investment?

If anything, assuming that the Government was acting in the best interests of their 'buddies' in the private sector, you would expect a lot of investment to be made on the public purse so that the private investors got a premium asset at a bargain price and could cream off the profits without having to make any investment.

 

[Railsigns]

You'll need to wait another couple of generations before it has any chance of being a vote winner.

Given that opinion polls consistently show majority support in favour of renationalisation of the railways, even amongst Tory voters, in what way isn't it a vote winner?

 

[Domh245]

Given that opinion polls consistently show majority support in favour of renationalisation of the railways, even amongst Tory voters, in what way isn't it a vote winner?

Because transport is often the least valued area of policy. People support re-nationalisation (although I think they support it for reasons similar to some people who voted for Brexit, because they perceive the current system not working and just want an alternative)

 

[Railsigns]

Because transport is often the least valued area of policy. People support re-nationalisation (although I think they support it for reasons similar to some people who voted for Brexit, because they perceive the current system not working and just want an alternative)

If it has the support of a majority of voters, then it's a vote winner. Simple as that.

 

[urbophile]

There are many ways of ensuring that a publicly owned railway system was kept at arms length from government finance and policy. There is a strong argument for saying that regional services should be run by devolved regional government: as indeed they are to an extent in London, Merseyside, Wales and Scotland. There is an equally strong argument for long-distance services to be under one umbrella (InterCity was successful in BR days). And there is no logic or justice in allowing other countries' national railways to run parts of ours, while outlawing nationalisation under our own government.

As a minimum we need more co-ordination. Less confusing and competing fares structures and an end to the nonsense like 'thank you for choosing XX Rail' when there is no alternative. If you want to go from A to B by train you should be able to take the most convenient train at the most convenient time without worrying who issues your ticket.

 

[infobleep]

Overcrowding. Now, it's probably due to traffic that many people use trains.

Would a negative advertising campaign to encourage people not to use the trians encourage people back on to the roads?

If we can't have more rolling stock on some lines, perhaps we need to encourage people to not use the trains.

Of course there may be parts of the day when trains are less busy but if people need to get somewhere at a set time, that might not help them so the car might be a better option, assuming a negative campaign was run to encourage that.

I say all of that knowing such a thing would never be done. If more rolling stock isn't an option for varied reasons, they would probably gloss over the fact it can't be improved and maybe only mention it when asked.

I am being cynical though. So take it with a pinch of salt.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[najaB]

And there is no logic or justice in allowing other countries' national railways to run parts of ours, while outlawing nationalisation under our own government.

How, exactly, is nationalisation 'outlawed'?