Should we nationalise the railways?

[MrMetro]

With rail fares set to rise in January (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16260872), it brings up the question again, should we nationalise our railways?

Most of Europe's rail operations are run by a state company(although some services are contracted out) and fares are generally cheaper, and the network more efficent from the messy British one.

[BDunnell]

I have always believed we should. The UK's railways are a classic example of how the private sector cannot always claim inherent superiority and greater competence than the public. Many with short memories or a lack of proper knowledge would cite British Rail as having been awful, a failure or whatever; the truth is that, at the time of privatisation, it was anything but.

However, one note of caution. It is simply bloody difficult to run a national rail network, no matter which system, public or private, you adopt. I travel all over Europe by train and experience many of the same problems and frustrations on state-owned networks as I do in Britain.

[Robinho]

Hell no, it would be an unregulated mess and would undoubtedly end up with greater proce increases. The semi-nationalised Network Rail (railtrack) is probably the best way to run the infrastructure and I doubt very much that nationalised companies would provide a better service than the current providers. I know some aren't up to much, but on the whole I have found the rail services to be quite good when I have needed to use them over the past few years.

If you genuinely want to reduce the prices, nationalise/centralise the Agency Labour providers to the renewal contractors, by the time you have added on the agencies mark ups, and then the overhead and profit of the renewals contractor, Network rail have probably paid double the cost of providing that person. consider then that every night you have gangs of 10-12 mean working on hundreds of sites around the country, and 10 times that amount at the weekends (the agency labout bill for one £20m project i worked on was more than £10m, and I was the contractor) and you have a huge amount of cash that could be spent elsewhere or saved.

[BDunnell]

Hell no, it would be an unregulated mess and would undoubtedly end up with greater proce increases.

Why unregulated? And do you feel that rail services run by state-owned firms in other countries are inferior to the UK's?

[Robinho]

I have always believed we should. The UK's railways are a classic example of how the private sector cannot always claim inherent superiority and greater competence than the public. Many with short memories or a lack of proper knowledge would cite British Rail as having been awful, a failure or whatever; the truth is that, at the time of privatisation, it was anything but.

However, one note of caution. It is simply bloody difficult to run a national rail network, no matter which system, public or private, you adopt. I travel all over Europe by train and experience many of the same problems and frustrations on state-owned networks as I do in Britain.

at the time of privatisation we had a network stretched to breaking point after years of under or poorly manaed investment. We are still struggling to overcome that network, but I strongly believed (having been involved from the inside) that the situation would be far worse if British Rail had continued as a single nationalised entity.

comparisons with some of our european neighbours are also difficult. Consder how much of France and Germany's rail network was destroyed in WW2, which enabled a completley clean slate for the network, whilst we are saddlesd with many of the compromises from a Victorian network which massivley limits the efficiency of services in and around major city stations and the ability to maintain and renew them.

[Robinho]

Why unregulated? And do you feel that rail services run by state-owned firms in other countries are inferior to the UK's?

no, but i think the regulation the British system is under currently would be superior to what would be in place for a ntionalised entity. I also point you to my comment about the state of European railway systems which are in many ways vastly superior to the British Network, due to them being far newer and better laid out due to a combination of new building after the war and the British rail network dating back further than anywhere else, which arguably makes it prohibitively complicated

[MrMetro]

The problem Britian has, is that its a weird mix-mash of government and private spending. The government spends more on 'privatised' rail than it did with BR. BR I believe was the most efficient state run railway company in Europe in the early 90's.

[BDunnell]

at the time of privatisation we had a network stretched to breaking point after years of under or poorly manaed investment.

But one which was operating more efficiently than for many years, if ever; that was demanding ever-decreasing levels of government subsidy; and that, if I recall the figures correctly, was becoming more reliable. Then the increasing goodwill on the part of the public towards BR was swept away in favour of a load of bus operators with no clue about customer service.

Let's not forget the main reason why the railways were privatised: John Major's misplaced personal nostalgia for the inter-war years, when trains from competing companies operated in a spirit of free-market enterprise, and travelling by rail was a romantic experience. The trouble was, his impression was nonsense. That situation between the wars was totally unsustainable, as the market could not sustain those levels of competition, and for most passengers rail travel was a misery. Since privatisation, the notion of competition on the British railways driving customer service up and fares down has again been proven utterly false.



comparisons with some of our european neighbours are also difficult. Consder how much of France and Germany's rail network was destroyed in WW2, which enabled a completley clean slate for the network, whilst we are saddlesd with many of the compromises from a Victorian network which massivley limits the efficiency of services in and around major city stations and the ability to maintain and renew them.

This is very true, and not a point I had truly considered before. However, I would add that in countries such as France and Germany the railways were truly valued. This was never the case in Britain, hence years of under-investment punctuated by occasional clueless bouts of indiscriminate resourcing, typified by the infamous Modernisation Plan.

[Robinho]

The problem Britian has, is that its a weird mix-mash of government and private spending. The government spends more on 'privatised' rail than it did with BR. BR I believe was the most efficient state run railway company in Europe in the early 90's.

I point you to the horribly under invested network "inherited" by the privatised system. The investment required in recent time ad currently would have been required eventually under BR, but was being left on a skeleton budget prior to privatisation. Couple that to large scale "new" infrastructure projects (Rugby, Reading, New stations in London, Crossrail) plus the West Coast modernisation and Chiltern Railways upgrades to name but a few. I may be wrong, but I cannot see that these would have gone ahead under a wholly nationalised system, unless that system was vastly different from the BR of the 80's and 90's and much more closely modelled on the system we have today.

One thing I do agree with is that the current fares, especially for the longer journeys, are overpriced

[BDunnell]

I point you to the horribly under invested network "inherited" by the privatised system. The investment required in recent time ad currently would have been required eventually under BR, but was being left on a skeleton budget prior to privatisation. Couple that to large scale "new" infrastructure projects (Rugby, Reading, New stations in London, Crossrail) plus the West Coast modernisation and Chiltern Railways upgrades to name but a few. I may be wrong, but I cannot see that these would have gone ahead under a wholly nationalised system, unless that system was vastly different from the BR of the 80's and 90's and much more closely modelled on the system we have today.

I do see your point, but the fact of the privatised network requiring ever-greater government subsidy may well nullify this to some extent. Had BR continued demanding less and less subsidy, things may have 'evened out' and made funds available for such projects.



One thing I do agree with is that the current fares, especially for the longer journeys, are overpriced

Beyond that, privatisation has left us with a bewildering array of fare options.

[Robinho]

I do see your point, but the fact of the privatised network requiring ever-greater government subsidy may well nullify this to some extent. Had BR continued demanding less and less subsidy, things may have 'evened out' and made funds available for such projects.



Beyond that, privatisation has left us with a bewildering array of fare options.

My wider point was that BR's "efficiency" at the time was completley unsustainable, modernisation, renewals and maintenance were put off, requiring less funding and obviously also causing less disruption, meaning a short term increase in performance. That efficiency and decreasing subsidy, i beleive, would and could not have continued, as the investment had to be made sooner or later, and by it coming later it has probably cost more in the long term, as what could have been maintained had to be replaced. There was no way the infrastructure at privatisation could have taken the traffic or performed the journey times, now available. The downside is that investment means work being carried out, which causes disruption and reflects badly on the networks performance short term

[Rollo]

The full story from WW2-1994:
Austerity --> The Beeching Axe --> Rising Costs --> Starvation --> Incompetence

Whilst the United States was busily building the biggest public works program in history, in contrast Britain was destroying another. In 1950 BR had about 21,000 miles of track. From about 1950 until 1975 almost 9000 miles had been destroyed and about 3000 railway stations were shut forever.

After a period of post-war austerity, that prize ****-head Beeching (pick a sware word, all of them are appropriate) demanded the same salary that he had at ICI and rather than make the improvements that were necessary, he more or less hacked apart BR to such an extent that it couldn't ever be rescued.

Britain's rail network wasn't destroyed in WW2 but it certainly wasn't maintained properly and the Beeching Axe effectively did destroy it in the 1960s. Between rising labour costs under Wilson and Callaghan, Thatchers general ****headery to smash the crap out of government services and the incompetence of the Major government (for which Blair, Brown and now Cameron Governments have followed in that august tradition) completed the story.

The thing is that Governments don't have anywhere near the sort of vision they once did. Assuming that a trillion pounds was spent tomorrow, I think it would take at least 15 years to basically rip-up and start again. Maybe when Pamela Nash, MP for Airdrie and Shotts is old enough to be a Senior Cabinet minister, provided the money was spent tomorrow, a nationalised British Rail would again be an efficient and competent system.

In principle though a nationalised rail service is the most efficient, simply because when it comes to infrastructure, it's at its most efficient when the capital base required to invest and maintain is there and that only exists in public hands.

[BDunnell]

Whilst the United States was busily building the biggest public works program in history, in contrast Britain was destroying another. In 1950 BR had about 21,000 miles of track. From about 1950 until 1975 almost 9000 miles had been destroyed and about 3000 railway stations were shut forever.

After a period of post-war austerity, that prize ****-head Beeching (pick a sware word, all of them are appropriate) demanded the same salary that he had at ICI and rather than make the improvements that were necessary, he more or less hacked apart BR to such an extent that it couldn't ever be rescued.

It must be said that large swathes of the network probably could never have survived. Britain probably had too large a network. But there was no need for Beeching's cuts to go too far.

[Bolton Midnight]

BR was truly dire on whatever level you cared to judge it on. If the cost of getting from A to B on a train really is that high then so be it, why should it be subsidised? My petrol certainly isn't.

Removing Unions would improve things no end.

[BDunnell]

BR was truly dire on whatever level you cared to judge it on.

No it wasn't. Many rail industry experts and historians — whose opinions on such a matter I would tend to place above those of the layman — would certainly beg to disagree, for starters.

[MrMetro]

It must be said that large swathes of the network probably could never have survived. Britain probably had too large a network. But there was no need for Beeching's cuts to go too far.

Indeed, I live near the Settle-Carlisle line, which Beeching wanted, but never got to close.

[MrMetro]

BR was truly dire on whatever level you cared to judge it on. If the cost of getting from A to B on a train really is that high then so be it, why should it be subsidised? My petrol certainly isn't.

Removing Unions would improve things no end.

Dire in what ways Bolton Midnight?

In the 1980's, the Network SouthEast division was pretty much running at a profit, as was Inter-City.

[Mark]

I don't know, remember back "in the day" Britain had a massively extensive railway network, you could get to pretty much anywhere in the country by train and most places had a station. It was simply silly to have expensive railways and very expensive trains running to some places which were no more than villages, when there was a much cheaper solution of road travel using buses & private cars.

However I do agree that the cuts went too far and some places of a decent size lost service completely when it should have been maintained or even expanded.

It's often said the problem with the way things are now is that the TOCs have to pay exorbitant prices to rent their trains, mostly from the banks (it always comes back to the banks doesn't it?!) whereas if they were one organsiation they could purchase and run their own trains.

However I think the main problem is the way the government does it's accounting, for public utilities it owns it can't do investment as this would count as 'public spending', so it instead relies on the likes of banks to stump up the cash and then it repays them at crazy rates from now until forever more.

Should the railways be nationalised? Yes; there's no doubt that given there is zero competition on the network it would be best off run as a single entity, however it needs to be done properly, at arms length from the government and with guaranteed funding levels. The main issue with BR was that it was far too easy for successive governments to cut rail funding in order to satisfy budgets elsewhere.

[SGWilko]

I was/am fortunate enough to live in Kent, and for many a year - first travelling from Tonbridge to CharingX, then from Farningham Road to Victoria under the Connex franchise.

When they got the boot for 'irregularities' in their accounts the government, very hush hush, was looking after the running of the network.

Trains were rarely late for the usual stupid reasons of insufficient rolling stock or staff who lost the ability to work an alarm clock.

There were no refunds that year due to the improved reliability. Of course, it was not publicised that the network was much improved......

Until last month, I was being ferried into town by Southeastern. They were not too bad. It always amused me how the coast bound 07:18 train always arrived and left Farningham road before my 07:17 train Victoria arrived - it was always 'on time' according to the announcements mind you!

I'm on a 50cc moped now - which maybe takes 10 - 15 mins longer, but will save me approximately £1,250 a year after the fare increase kicks in!

So I'd be all for a nationalised system, that is run for the customer not the shareholder. I'd also like to see much more freight on the railways.

Still - we can but dream, cos it aint gonna happen, is it?

When we holiday in Scotland, some of our favourite walks in the Borders are along Beeching's torn up railway track beds........

[SGWilko]

Dire in what ways Bolton Midnight?

In the 1980's, the Network SouthEast division was pretty much running at a profit, as was Inter-City.

Cor - they were the days. I remember when they ran 'Network Days', when you could buy a ticket that wuould take you anywhere on the Network for the whole day!

(PS - I don't own an anorak, notepad, pen and I don't sound like John Major :laugh :)

[BDunnell]

Dire in what ways Bolton Midnight?

In the 1980's, the Network SouthEast division was pretty much running at a profit, as was Inter-City.

Following the successful application of market principles to their running.

[MrMetro]

I don't know, remember back "in the day" Britain had a massively extensive railway network, you could get to pretty much anywhere in the country by train and most places had a station. It was simply silly to have expensive railways and very expensive trains running to some places which were no more than villages, when there was a much cheaper solution of road travel using buses & private cars.

However I do agree that the cuts went too far and some places of a decent size lost service completely when it should have been maintained or even expanded.

It's often said the problem with the way things are now is that the TOCs have to pay exorbitant prices to rent their trains, mostly from the banks (it always comes back to the banks doesn't it?!) whereas if they were one organsiation they could purchase and run their own trains.

However I think the main problem is the way the government does it's accounting, for public utilities it owns it can't do investment as this would count as 'public spending', so it instead relies on the likes of banks to stump up the cash and then it repays them at crazy rates from now until forever more.

Should the railways be nationalised? Yes; there's no doubt that given there is zero competition on the network it would be best off run as a single entity, however it needs to be done properly, at arms length from the government and with guaranteed funding levels. The main issue with BR was that it was far too easy for successive governments to cut rail funding in order to satisfy budgets elsewhere.

State run companies in Europe such as Dutch Railways(NS), Deutsche Bahn(DB) and SNCF are private companies, with the majority of shares owned by the state. They operate much more flexibly, hence why you see some state run companies in the UK. My local operator, Northern Rail is half owned by Abellio, who are the international division of NS.

[MrMetro]

Following the successful application of market principles to their running.

True.

[Bolton Midnight]

Trains were late, dirty, over staffed by lazy bolshy union members, food was awful, stations dirty and cold. It was an utter joke. Why did so many UK comedians of the time rip the piss out of BR if it was oh so wonderful, it wasn't. Just rose tinted spectacles and nostalgia muddling people's views. It was run for the staff's benefit not the passengers.

Why should I the taxpayer pay for something I don't use? If a line is not economically viable why should it be kept open?

The worrying thing these days is not the trains, timetable, or fares it is safety (all in the name of profit plus pikey scum robbing cables of course).

[BDunnell]

Trains were late, dirty, over staffed by lazy bolshy union members, food was awful, stations dirty and cold. It was an utter joke. Why did so many UK comedians of the time rip the piss out of BR if it was oh so wonderful, it wasn't. Just rose tinted spectacles and nostalgia muddling people's views. It was run for the staff's benefit not the passengers.

Who knows more — you or rail industry experts and historians who have written on the subject?

I would add that many of the same comedians by whose views you apparently set such great store were also doing jokes at the time about Margaret Thatcher, something for which you would presumably castigate them.

Now please leave this discussion to the grown-ups who were previously debating an interesting issue in a civilised manner despite some opposing points of view.

[Bolton Midnight]

Who knows more — you or rail industry experts and historians who have written on the subject?

I would add that many of the same comedians by whose views you apparently set such great store were also doing jokes at the time about Margaret Thatcher, something for which you would presumably castigate them.

Now please leave this discussion to the grown-ups who were previously debating an interesting issue in a civilised manner despite some opposing points of view.

Who'd more likely to have rose tinted specs me or some train spotting anoraks?

Talking of which, this chap looks like a deffo train spotter doesn't he, what a freak.

Ben Dunnell takes up editor position on Aircraft Illustrated magazine | Smart Moves | Journalism.co.uk (http://www.journalism.co.uk/media-appointments/ben-dunnell-takes-up-editor-position-on-aircraft-illustrated-magazine/s8/a531129/)

The Thatch wasn't everyone's cup of tea no, the lazy, the feckless etc probably didn't like her much. Best PM the UK has ever had mind.

Who made you the boss, freak.

[MrMetro]

Who'd more likely to have rose tinted specs me or some train spotting anoraks?

Talking of which, this chap looks like a deffo train spotter doesn't he, what a freak.

Ben Dunnell takes up editor position on Aircraft Illustrated magazine | Smart Moves | Journalism.co.uk (http://www.journalism.co.uk/media-appointments/ben-dunnell-takes-up-editor-position-on-aircraft-illustrated-magazine/s8/a531129/)

The Thatch wasn't everyone's cup of tea no, the lazy, the feckless etc probably didn't like her much. Best PM the UK has ever had mind.

Who made you the boss, freak.

When stumped, insert insult.

[BDunnell]

Who'd more likely to have rose tinted specs me or some train spotting anoraks?

Who would be likely to actually know something about the subject in hand? You or an expert?

[Dave B]

The thing is that Governments don't have anywhere near the sort of vision they once did.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Governments of all colours are fixated on winning the next election, not planning for decades down the line when they'll all be retired (or on fat directorships of privatised companies).

An eye-watering sum invested in transport infrastructure has the potential to pay for itself many times over in the course of 50 years, but nobody will invest on that basis.

[BDunnell]

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Governments of all colours are fixated on winning the next election, not planning for decades down the line when they'll all be retired (or on fat directorships of privatised companies).

An eye-watering sum invested in transport infrastructure has the potential to pay for itself many times over in the course of 50 years, but nobody will invest on that basis.

Quite, but it's far from a new problem. Reading any history of the British railways shows that successive governments going back decades have failed to recognise the value of a properly organised, well-run, suitably-resourced rail network. There have been long periods of under-investment punctuated by sudden splurges of resourcing directed at the wrong areas.

[MrMetro]

Quite, but it's far from a new problem. Reading any history of the British railways shows that successive governments going back decades have failed to recognise the value of a properly organised, well-run, suitably-resourced rail network. There have been long periods of under-investment punctuated by sudden splurges of resourcing directed at the wrong areas.

Sad, but true.

[Bolton Midnight]

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Governments of all colours are fixated on winning the next election, not planning for decades down the line when they'll all be retired (or on fat directorships of privatised companies).

An eye-watering sum invested in transport infrastructure has the potential to pay for itself many times over in the course of 50 years, but nobody will invest on that basis.

To a certain extent agree about that.

How, can cheaper rail fares pay for masses of money spent on trains? Roads > Tracks.

[Bolton Midnight]

When stumped, insert insult.

Clearly not stumped, just made me laugh seeing Mr Perfect, but it explains a lot, bound to have a chip on his shoulder going through life looking like that. I figured as much.

[Dave B]

To a certain extent agree about that.

How, can cheaper rail fares pay for masses of money spent on trains? Roads > Tracks.

An efficient and integrated - my local rail station isn't served by a bus route FFS - public transport network has the potential to replace millions of car journeys, lorry trips, short haul flights, and pay for itself as we'd spend less on road building and maintenance. Airport capacity could see more investment from growing economies who currently choose to put their European bases in Frankfurt or Paris because they don't want to waste hundreds of man hours holding over LHR and battling with the Picadilly line when they could be landing at a modern 4 or 6 runway airport and being whisked straight into town by high-speed train. Boris Johnson may have his faults but his Thames airport proposal is one of the most sane suggestions he's ever come up with - which is why successive governments have rejected it.

[BDunnell]

Boris Johnson may have his faults but his Thames airport proposal is one of the most sane suggestions he's ever come up with - which is why successive governments have rejected it.

I don't believe it is at all — in many ways, he hasn't thought it through. The danger of bird ingestion is an especially real one at the proposed site.

[Dave B]

I don't believe it is at all — in many ways, he hasn't thought it through. The danger of bird ingestion is an especially real one at the proposed site.

We might have to agree to disagree on that one: I believe the economic benefits would be vast, and the issue of birdstrike could be adequately mitigated partly through clearing habitats during construction and partly through traditional bird-scaring techniques. Certainly we can't limp on with LHR being a national joke and LGW being hamstrung by only having one runway.

[BDunnell]

We might have to agree to disagree on that one: I believe the economic benefits would be vast, and the issue of birdstrike could be adequately mitigated partly through clearing habitats during construction and partly through traditional bird-scaring techniques. Certainly we can't limp on with LHR being a national joke and LGW being hamstrung by only having one runway.

Or we could develop the rail network to render it a genuine alternative to domestic flights, thus freeing up capacity at airports, as has been the case in other European countries where economic development isn't viewed as going hand-in-hand with the number of airport runways at their disposal.

[Dave B]

Or we could develop the rail network to render it a genuine alternative to domestic flights, thus freeing up capacity at airports, as has been the case in other European countries where economic development isn't viewed as going hand-in-hand with the number of airport runways at their disposal.

For domestic flights I already think the train is a viable alternative: town centre stations vs airports on the outskirts (or in Sussex), turn up five minutes before departure vs 2 hour check-in on the plane, practically no baggage limits beyond what you can physically lug, less chance of delay, and no APD.

For long-haul travel, on the other hand, the train simply cannot compete. A better rail network could free up some capacity on domestic flight routes, but with LHR running at 99% capacity those slots would quickly be filled and once again there'd be a bottleneck.

Have read of this (and it's from the Telegraph so even BM should be happy :p ), and I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Thames Estuary: Boris Island airport 'would bring Brazil billions to UK' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8903527/Thames-Estuary-Boris-Island-airport-would-bring-Brazil-billions-to-UK.html)

[BDunnell]

Have read of this (and it's from the Telegraph so even BM should be happy :p ), and I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Thames Estuary: Boris Island airport 'would bring Brazil billions to UK' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8903527/Thames-Estuary-Boris-Island-airport-would-bring-Brazil-billions-to-UK.html)

My immediate thought is that I'm always very suspicious of reports claiming that 'x million pounds worth of investment will be brought in by y'. There is often very little basis to such figures. So I'm afraid I'm naturally cynical about the numbers cited here. Beyond that, my concern is: where does airport expansion stop? It has to at some point. Would a new Thames Estuary airport be 'it', or would, once it gets built, the calls begin again for more runway capacity?

[Mark]

We might have to agree to disagree on that one: I believe the economic benefits would be vast, and the issue of birdstrike could be adequately mitigated partly through clearing habitats during construction and partly through traditional bird-scaring techniques. Certainly we can't limp on with LHR being a national joke and LGW being hamstrung by only having one runway.

I think if they said this new airport will indeed be the end of it all AND as a result they'll close and bulldoze Heathrow and Gatwick, then perhaps.

[BDunnell]

I think if they said this new airport will indeed be the end of it all AND as a result they'll close and bulldoze Heathrow and Gatwick, then perhaps.

I agree.

[Mark]

AFAIK the main issue with domestic flights is that they are connecting with international flights, these cannot easily be replaced by train journies.

[Dave B]

I think if they said this new airport will indeed be the end of it all AND as a result they'll close and bulldoze Heathrow and Gatwick, then perhaps.

I suspect that would be a selling point of any Estuary project, but by the time of completion the promise would be conveniently forgotten.

[BDunnell]

I suspect that would be a selling point of any Estuary project, but by the time of completion the promise would be conveniently forgotten.

And therein lies one of the big problems in gaining public acceptance.

[BDunnell]

AFAIK the main issue with domestic flights is that they are connecting with international flights, these cannot easily be replaced by train journies.

A good point. But I still feel there could be some reduction in capacity. The trouble is that to do so would be construed as going against market forces.

[Mark]

A good point. But I still feel there could be some reduction in capacity. The trouble is that to do so would be construed as going against market forces.

But aren't we doing this anyway with HS2?

[BDunnell]

But aren't we doing this anyway with HS2?

In what sense — building something for which there is no market, or seeking to reduce domestic flights?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Why should I the taxpayer pay for something I don't use? If a line is not economically viable why should it be kept open?


A fast, and efficient railway is beneficial for the economy as a whole.

The biggest problem since privatisation has been that the railway industry has become too fragmented. Too many organisations have become involved and it has resulted in an inefficient railway. The truth is British Rail ran one of the most efficient railways in Europe and now we have one of the least efficient, yet it is still paid for by the tax payer.

[anthonyvop]

A fast, and efficient railway is beneficial for the economy as a whole.

The biggest problem since privatisation has been that the railway industry has become too fragmented. Too many organisations have become involved and it has resulted in an inefficient railway. The truth is British Rail ran one of the most efficient railways in Europe and now we have one of the least efficient, yet it is still paid for by the tax payer.


So the companies running the railways in the UK are subsidized by taxpayers? How is that privatization?

[Rollo]

So the companies running the railways in the UK are subsidized by taxpayers? How is that privatization?

Up until 1994 British Rail wasn't just subsidized by taxpayers but vicariously owned by them. It was government owned and then sold into private hands; thus privatization.

[anthonyvop]

Up until 1994 British Rail wasn't just subsidized by taxpayers but vicariously owned by them. It was government owned and then sold into private hands; thus privatization.

But if they are funded by Taxpayers is it safe to assume they are also regulated to the point that certain services are forced upon the companies?

Can the Railway Companies stop service to unprofitable areas without having to answer to politicians or special interest groups? If not than there wasn't real privatization but outsourcing to a private company

[MrMetro]

But if they are funded by Taxpayers is it safe to assume they are also regulated to the point that certain services are forced upon the companies?

Can the Railway Companies stop service to unprofitable areas without having to answer to politicians or special interest groups? If not than there wasn't real privatization but outsourcing to a private company

No I don't think so. The government also pretty much decides what rolling stock the Train Companies use as well. Although in the next set of rail franchises, I believe the train companies will be more 'flexible' in what services they provide and what stock they use.

[MrMetro]

Although there are some train companies with 'open-access' status, meaning they decide where its services run to, and the frequency. They pay Network Rail, the owner of the infrastructure a charge. Bear in mind there are only 2 of these companies.

[Mark]

So the companies running the railways in the UK are subsidized by taxpayers?

Yes, most of them are anyway. I think the East Coast route actually pays money to the government rather than gets it.



How is that privatization?

It's not; it's a joke. Which is the argument for renationalising it all, we have to pay out anyway so might as well be government owned.

[Mark]

But if they are funded by Taxpayers is it safe to assume they are also regulated to the point that certain services are forced upon the companies?

Correct, very very heavy regulation for most operators. The government says what services they can run, at what times, down to how many carriages they can run etc.



Can the Railway Companies stop service to unprofitable areas without having to answer to politicians or special interest groups? If not than there wasn't real privatization but outsourcing to a private companyNo they can't. For one we're in agreement ;)

Originally the track was also owned by a private (monopoly) company called RailTrack, but it turned out they were cutting back on safety in order to increase profits, which eventually lead to several train crashes due to poor maintenance and many dead. So it was abolished and the tracks brought back into government ownership, but the train companies remain privately owned - interestingly; apart from one, East Coast is operated by the government after the previous company went bust. This franchise is the most prestigious in the country.

[BDunnell]

Excellent, concise explanations, Mark.

[anthonyvop]

So it is settled.


The railways in the UK have not been privatized.

[BDunnell]

So it is settled.


The railways in the UK have not been privatized.

Tony, the simple fact is that they were privatised. You can't re-write history and say they were not. The operation of rail services was transferred from a state-owned company to private ones.

[MrMetro]

Tony, the simple fact is that they were privatised. You can't re-write history and say they were not. The operation of rail services was transferred from a state-owned company to private ones.

Correct.

[Mark]

So it is settled.


The railways in the UK have not been privatized.

Well call it what you will, they are not in government hands anyway.

[BDunnell]

Well call it what you will, they are not in government hands anyway.

I call it privatisation, seeing as that's what it's always been (correctly) called according to any sensible definition.

[anthonyvop]

Tony, the simple fact is that they were privatised. You can't re-write history and say they were not. The operation of rail services was transferred from a state-owned company to private ones.

No. Nominal control was transferred to private companies. Until the companies can decided for themselves who they serve and with what kind of service they will just be companies providing a service for the Government not the public.

[anthonyvop]

Well call it what you will, they are not in government hands anyway.

If they are under Government control then they are not in any way, shape or form a privately controlled entity. So the Railways in the UK have not been privatized.

[BDunnell]

If they are under Government control then they are not in any way, shape or form a privately controlled entity. So the Railways in the UK have not been privatized.

Tony, you are plain wrong. The British railways were privatised. End of story. You are, with respect, not better informed on this than the many industry experts (you know what one of those is?) who refer to it as, wait for it, 'rail privatisation'. At the time, the Conservative government proclaimed it to be privatisation. How else would one describe a situation in which the running of trains is passed from a state-owned operator to private operators? You may think you know people better than they know themselves, but on this you are simply mistaken.

[BDunnell]

No. Nominal control was transferred to private companies. Until the companies can decided for themselves who they serve and with what kind of service they will just be companies providing a service for the Government not the public.

Tony, this is a subject you know nothing about. What, pray tell us, is your knowledge of British rail privatisation derived from? Is it a subject about which you have read extensively?

[MrMetro]

ASLEF - Rail Privatisation (http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/100012/107535/105442/105137/rail_privatisation/)


BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | The great train sell-off: Who dunnit? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/982037.stm)

Rail privatisation - a short history - Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/rail+privatisation++a+short+history/3243362.html)

Privatisation of British Rail (http://www.railwaybritain.co.uk/privatisation.html)

[BDunnell]

ASLEF - Rail Privatisation (http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/100012/107535/105442/105137/rail_privatisation/)


BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | The great train sell-off: Who dunnit? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/982037.stm)

Rail privatisation - a short history - Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/rail+privatisation++a+short+history/3243362.html)

Privatisation of British Rail (http://www.railwaybritain.co.uk/privatisation.html)

One of those sources is from a union, so Tony will refuse to recognise it in any way, shape or form.

[Dave B]

They certainly were privatised, but in such a half-arsed fashion that they still require massive subsidies to operate. Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that the railways in the UK were privatised.

[BDunnell]

They certainly were privatised, but in such a half-arsed fashion that they still require massive subsidies to operate. Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that the railways in the UK were privatised.

Precisely.

[BDunnell]

While we are on the subject of the British railways, why do the companies involved have this obsession with 'revenue protection'? In no other country in Europe in which I have travelled by train is one confronted with ticket barriers at mainline stations, and patronising ad campaigns saying that running late and having to dash for your train is 'no excuse' for not buying a ticket beforehand, when in fact it is a perfectly good excuse. Are Britons somehow less honest than their foreign counterparts in this regard? I doubt it. The difference, as far as I can see, is that rail operators elsewhere tend to have sufficient staff to check the tickets on the train, rather than barriers being necessary.

Now in Sheffield, where the footbridge across the railway station is the only truly convenient pedestrian link into the city centre from houses on the other side of the railway tracks, the station operators have been proposing to forbid access to all but ticket-holders in an effort to clamp down on people boarding trains without tickets.

Sheffield train fare dodgers could be costing £14 million - Business - The Star (http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/business/sheffield_train_fare_dodgers_could_be_costing_14_m illion_1_4072015)

One question: if they can work out that fare-dodgers at Sheffield station 'could' (good use of the word) be costing £14 million a year in lost revenue, why can they not employ the staff presumably engaged in making those calculations to check tickets on the trains, rather than installing barriers? Or, is the figure utterly spurious?

[MrMetro]

Ever since ticket barriers were installed at Leeds (one of the busiest outside of London) it’s been a pain in the backside. Often you get long queues when somebody’s ticket isn’t recognised by the barrier (which is quite often)

[Mark]

(which is all the time every day, permanently)

I fixed your post for you. Out of the 10 or so barriers operational at any one time there is always one where someones ticket doesn't work.

[MrMetro]

I fixed your post for you. Out of the 10 or so barriers operational at any one time there is always one where someones ticket doesn't work.

LOL, yes, that is pretty much true.

[BDunnell]

I fixed your post for you. Out of the 10 or so barriers operational at any one time there is always one where someones ticket doesn't work.

Ha! And then they just give up enforcing the controls at night.

[chuck34]

I have stayed out of this, as I really do not know much about it. But have been reading with some curiosity. But Tony does bring up a good point. Call it what you will "privatization", is not what most would call true privatization. Perhaps it's simply a difference between the English language and the American language or something.

In my mind (and probably Tony's as well, and probably most Americans) in order to privatize an industry, the government must turn over ALL control. It seems that the system you have in place right now is private industry providing a service at the direction of the government. If the "private" company can not make decisions on how to be profitable (ie what lines to run, how many cars to have, fees?, etc), then they are NOT in control, the government is. Particularly when you have a system that is so restrictive that the "private" companies don't make a profit, and instead of going bankrupt as they would in the true free-market system (or private system if you like) they get taxpayer subsidies.

Tell me, if you please, what decisions can the private company make on the running of their rail lines?

How anyone can claim that system is "privatized", or has been thrown in my face so many times "free-market", is beyond me. But you Brits have some funny words, so I'll put it down to semantics at this point. But please, I beg of you, never use the British Rail System as a failure of the free-market system again, ok? It just plain isn't a free-market system.

[BDunnell]

I have stayed out of this, as I really do not know much about it. But have been reading with some curiosity. But Tony does bring up a good point. Call it what you will "privatization", is not what most would call true privatization. Perhaps it's simply a difference between the English language and the American language or something.

In my mind (and probably Tony's as well, and probably most Americans) in order to privatize an industry, the government must turn over ALL control. It seems that the system you have in place right now is private industry providing a service at the direction of the government. If the "private" company can not make decisions on how to be profitable (ie what lines to run, how many cars to have, fees?, etc), then they are NOT in control, the government is. Particularly when you have a system that is so restrictive that the "private" companies don't make a profit, and instead of going bankrupt as they would in the true free-market system (or private system if you like) they get taxpayer subsidies.

Tell me, if you please, what decisions can the private company make on the running of their rail lines?

How anyone can claim that system is "privatized", or has been thrown in my face so many times "free-market", is beyond me. But you Brits have some funny words, so I'll put it down to semantics at this point. But please, I beg of you, never use the British Rail System as a failure of the free-market system again, ok? It just plain isn't a free-market system.

The point was made earlier that it was a half-arsed privatisation, but still a privatisation nonetheless. If certain controls are then placed on the private companies involved, so what? They have still taken on the aspects needed for it to be defined as a privatisation, surely, such as operation and ownership? As far as I am aware, minimum service standards are laid down, as opposed to the government telling the rail operators that they must do this and this to a certain level. Maybe 'franchising' might be a better term?

The fact is that privatisation in the way you describe and the provision of rail services are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, for this as for many other reasons, it would have been much better had the railways remained under state ownership and control. It would probably have cost the taxpayer less, for a start.

But for you to come along and tell us not to criticise the private companies involved is utterly absurd, if I may say so. How can they be absolved of all blame for the poor standards of service encountered on the British railways, no matter what one's thoughts are as to the way in which said railways were privatised? I'm sorry — they now run the services; therefore, they should accept their proper share of responsibility for their failings. Some failings are down to the state, for sure, but by no means all. In the early days, as many rail industry experts have recounted, many of the franchise operators were bus companies with no concept of customer service. They were directly and indisputably to blame for the poor standards then experienced on their trains — they and those who implemented the privatisation in the first place, of course. (There were, as I recall, few bidders for many of the franchises, so not much in the way of choice available to those doling the franchises out, and local British Rail management buy-outs were generally shunned in spite of the fact that they would have brought the expertise of proper railwaymen to the running of the privatised services, something sorely lacking.)

[chuck34]

The point was made earlier that it was a half-arsed privatisation, but still a privatisation nonetheless.

If it is a "half-arsed privatization", I can live with that definition as long as you can as well. That means that any failings of the British rail system are not indicative of any broader failings of the free-market system.


If certain controls are then placed on the private companies involved, so what?

So WHAT?! That's everything! Control is the opposite of freedom. A controlled market is not a free market.


They have still taken on the aspects needed for it to be defined as a privatisation, surely, such as operation and ownership? As far as I am aware, minimum service standards are laid down, as opposed to the government telling the rail operators that they must do this and this to a certain level. Maybe 'franchising' might be a better term?

I believe that earlier it was stated that the government laid out what routes the trains must service. So how has any private company "taken on the aspects of privatization such as operation", if they are not allowed to operate the routes they see fit?

I like your term "franchising" much better than trying to characterize this as a free-market privatization. Can we agree to call the British rail system a government franchise from now on?


The fact is that privatisation in the way you describe and the provision of rail services are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, for this as for many other reasons, it would have been much better had the railways remained under state ownership and control. It would probably have cost the taxpayer less, for a start.

This is a point that I reserve the right to judge for myself in the future as I learn more about it. I am not (despite many people's opinion around here I think) completely opposed to governments doing certain things/providing certain services. I am VERY skeptical of that, but I don't 100% object to it.

My only arguments contained in this thread are constrained to defining the British Rail system as "privatized" or "free-market". I don't really want to get into the merits/detriments of a nationalized rail system at this point.


But for you to come along and tell us not to criticise the private companies involved is utterly absurd, if I may say so. How can they be absolved of all blame for the poor standards of service encountered on the British railways, no matter what one's thoughts are as to the way in which said railways were privatised? I'm sorry — they now run the services; therefore, they should accept their proper share of responsibility for their failings. Some failings are down to the state, for sure, but by no means all. In the early days, as many rail industry experts have recounted, many of the franchise operators were bus companies with no concept of customer service. They were directly and indisputably to blame for the poor standards then experienced on their trains — they and those who implemented the privatisation in the first place, of course. (There were, as I recall, few bidders for many of the franchises, so not much in the way of choice available to those doling the franchises out, and local British Rail management buy-outs were generally shunned in spite of the fact that they would have brought the expertise of proper railwaymen to the running of the privatised services, something sorely lacking.)

I agree that there seems to be plenty of blame to go around government and industry. I am not really trying to defend those that "run" the system. I don't know enough to do that. But for you to completely blame them and as you have done in the past use that to bash the free-market system, completely misses the point that the government is telling them to do/not to do many things. That, my friend, is NOT a free-market system.

You lay blame at industries feet for poor customer service, poor standards, and so forth. But fail to grasp the concept that in a truly free-market system those failures would have gone away through market forces. Or to put it bluntly, bankruptcy. But in this "half-arsed" system that you have put in place, bad behavior gets rewarded through more and more taxpayer subsidies. How ridiculous is that?!

[Rollo]

I like your term "franchising" much better than trying to characterize this as a free-market privatization. Can we agree to call the British rail system a government franchise from now on?

Privatize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privatize)
:to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership

Definition for privatize - Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English) (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/privatize)
verb
[with object]
transfer (a business, industry, or service) from public to private ownership and control:

The railway companies who operate and run the rolling stock are owned by private entities. That's two dictionary sources for you.


Perhaps it's simply a difference between the English language and the American language or something.

It's not even a difference between the English language and the American language, it's a failure to accept what words mean.



You lay blame at industries feet for poor customer service, poor standards, and so forth. But fail to grasp the concept that in a truly free-market system those failures would have gone away through market forces.!

This simple isn't true. Market Forces are the mechanism for determining price. Nothing more and nothing less. Market failure is a completely valid economic concept.

[chuck34]

Privatize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privatize)
:to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership

Definition for privatize - Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English) (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/privatize)
verb
[with object]
transfer (a business, industry, or service) from public to private ownership and control:

The railway companies who operate and run the rolling stock are owned by private entities. That's two dictionary sources for you.

You actually have two different definitions there. Webster says "control or ownership". So by that definition I suppose you could be correct. Oxford says "ownership and control". So by that definition I am correct. Unless I am mistaken, and I fully well could be, my understanding from this thread is that the private companies can not change the routes they want to run. Therefore they do not have control over their business. Hence, they are not privatized by the Oxford definition.

Honestly, correct me if I am wrong on the control issue.


It's not even a difference between the English language and the American language, it's a failure to accept what words mean.

The fact that you posted two different definitions of a word suggest that perhaps I am at least partially correct in stating that there may be some differences in the accepted definition of a term.


This simple isn't true. Market Forces are the mechanism for determining price. Nothing more and nothing less. Market failure is a completely valid economic concept.

Yes market failure is a completely valid concept. I stated as such. The fact that you, as a British taxpayer, are subsidizing an industry that can not pay it's own bills proves that the British Rail System is not acting within the free-market.

[BDunnell]

If it is a "half-arsed privatization", I can live with that definition as long as you can as well. That means that any failings of the British rail system are not indicative of any broader failings of the free-market system.

Why do you have such a problem with anyone daring to criticise the free-market system? You seem almost to wish to deny people the right so to do.



So WHAT?! That's everything! Control is the opposite of freedom. A controlled market is not a free market.

And a completely free market is incompatible with the notion of providing many important train services.



I believe that earlier it was stated that the government laid out what routes the trains must service. So how has any private company "taken on the aspects of privatization such as operation", if they are not allowed to operate the routes they see fit?

I like your term "franchising" much better than trying to characterize this as a free-market privatization. Can we agree to call the British rail system a government franchise from now on?

No, because as far as everyone with genuine knowledge of the subject is concerned, it is known as rail privatisation. The term is perfectly good and applicable. Do write to all those who use it if you see fit, pointing out the error of their ways. I somehow doubt you know better than them.



My only arguments contained in this thread are constrained to defining the British Rail system as "privatized" or "free-market". I don't really want to get into the merits/detriments of a nationalized rail system at this point.

There again, I'm afraid, you betray your ignorance of the subject at hand (I genuinely don't mean that to sound rude, as I know you're a bright chap, but I can't think of another suitable word). Your reference to 'the British Rail system' is wrong in this sense, because British Rail is a very specific term, being as it was the name of the old state-owned operator.



You lay blame at industries feet for poor customer service, poor standards, and so forth. But fail to grasp the concept that in a truly free-market system those failures would have gone away through market forces. Or to put it bluntly, bankruptcy.

I'm sorry, but this is idealistic nonsense, and unfounded in fact. These private companies are often ones that had done very well out of bus deregulation, and in no way done so through providing better services than any of their rivals. They were just the ones with the most spending power in the first place, able to dominate their smaller rivals and then, in effect, create local monopolies. Then they were selected, generally from small fields of contenders, to run the rail franchises. Therefore, it is entirely wrong to remove from these companies all blame for providing poor services on the grounds that they would have gone bust, because (a) they had not come to prominence in the bus industry on the grounds of quality of service, and (b) many have carried on in this vein ever since without going under.



But in this "half-arsed" system that you have put in place, bad behavior gets rewarded through more and more taxpayer subsidies. How ridiculous is that?!

There is no 'that you have put in place' about it. 'You'? We weren't given any of your beloved 'choice' in the matter. It is ridiculous, but blame the misguided policy of a Conservative government.

[Rollo]

Unless I am mistaken, and I fully well could be, my understanding from this thread is that the private companies can not change the routes they want to run. Therefore they do not have control over their business. Hence, they are not privatized by the Oxford definition.

There is a new housing estate being built not terribly far from where I live. People building new houses in the estate will not only be forced to choose a style from the approved lists but also from the list of approved builders.
Are you suggesting that the system isn't "private"?

Control of the Railway Companies which operate on the lines IS private. The Government might regulate them and even put constraints on the nature of their operators but to suggest that the Government "controls" them is flat out wrong.

[anthonyvop]

Tony, you are plain wrong. The British railways were privatised. End of story. You are, with respect, not better informed on this than the many industry experts (you know what one of those is?) who refer to it as, wait for it, 'rail privatisation'. At the time, the Conservative government proclaimed it to be privatisation. How else would one describe a situation in which the running of trains is passed from a state-owned operator to private operators? You may think you know people better than they know themselves, but on this you are simply mistaken.

Are the Railway Companies free to run the railway as they see fit?
Are the Railway Companies allow to drop service to cities, Towns and Areas without having to receive government approval?
Are the Railway Companies free from Government Subsidies and the strings that are always attached?
Are other Companies allow to start their own Railway Lines to compete with the established ones?

If the answer is yes to all 4 questions then the Railways are privatized. If the Answer is no then all it you have is Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization.

Of course you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Are the Railway Companies free to run the railway as they see fit?
Are the Railway Companies allow to drop service to cities, Towns and Areas without having to receive government approval?
Are the Railway Companies free from Government Subsidies and the strings that are always attached?
Are other Companies allow to start their own Railway Lines to compete with the established ones?

If the answer is yes to all 4 questions then the Railways are privatized. If the Answer is no then all it you have is Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization.

Of course you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector.

If that is your criteria for a company to be part of the private sector then then I guess no industry is private.

[Rollo]

If that is your criteria for a company to be part of the private sector then then I guess no industry is private.

Or individuals for that matter.
I wonder Mr Vop resents driving his car on Crony-Socialist roads and hates having to follow Crony-Socialist road laws?

[chuck34]

Why do you have such a problem with anyone daring to criticise the free-market system? You seem almost to wish to deny people the right so to do.



And a completely free market is incompatible with the notion of providing many important train services.



No, because as far as everyone with genuine knowledge of the subject is concerned, it is known as rail privatisation. The term is perfectly good and applicable. Do write to all those who use it if you see fit, pointing out the error of their ways. I somehow doubt you know better than them.



There again, I'm afraid, you betray your ignorance of the subject at hand (I genuinely don't mean that to sound rude, as I know you're a bright chap, but I can't think of another suitable word). Your reference to 'the British Rail system' is wrong in this sense, because British Rail is a very specific term, being as it was the name of the old state-owned operator.



I'm sorry, but this is idealistic nonsense, and unfounded in fact. These private companies are often ones that had done very well out of bus deregulation, and in no way done so through providing better services than any of their rivals. They were just the ones with the most spending power in the first place, able to dominate their smaller rivals and then, in effect, create local monopolies. Then they were selected, generally from small fields of contenders, to run the rail franchises. Therefore, it is entirely wrong to remove from these companies all blame for providing poor services on the grounds that they would have gone bust, because (a) they had not come to prominence in the bus industry on the grounds of quality of service, and (b) many have carried on in this vein ever since without going under.



There is no 'that you have put in place' about it. 'You'? We weren't given any of your beloved 'choice' in the matter. It is ridiculous, but blame the misguided policy of a Conservative government.

Posting from my phone so it's a bit hard to pase this out. But a few points.

You can criticize the free market system, it has many faults. This just isn't really one of them.

I am ignorant of the facts in this particular case. I have said such, and have tried to stay away from speaking about the particulars. Please forgive me for capitalizing "british rail system" I didn't mean to cause confusion between the old state run system but rather I was attempting to refer to the system as a whole.

And no, you (the definite and general pronoun) were not given any choice in the matter. You (the definite pronoun) appear to have no issue with that. Forgive me for assuming that people like to have a choice in how their money is spent. Perhaps I am alone in that quaint notion.

[chuck34]

There is a new housing estate being built not terribly far from where I live. People building new houses in the estate will not only be forced to choose a style from the approved lists but also from the list of approved builders.
Are you suggesting that the system isn't "private"?

Control of the Railway Companies which operate on the lines IS private. The Government might regulate them and even put constraints on the nature of their operators but to suggest that the Government "controls" them is flat out wrong.

Is it the government that is mandating the way houses look in that neighborhood, or the developer?

You keep contridicting youself. Are their constraints on the rail companies, or do they cotrol themselves? Or to Tony's point, can they drop service if they want without permission?

[airshifter]

After reading a few of those links IMO it is far from being privatised.

In the case of free market business the government does regulate and control them, but only to the point of laws concerning commerce, safety, zoning, tax collection, etc. However if a company has a location that is not profitable that do not need government permission to shut it down. They can open, close, move, etc at will within the regular restrictions.

Personally I see this almost as long term government contracting, with the companies also having ownership. Since they are bound by abnormal government controls and restrictions, yet they are getting money from the government in the form of subsidies it is not really a "private" business venture as I see it.

If those private companies were named Haliburton, people would claim it is simply a way of government transferring money to insider trading companies. :)

[Mark]

It's worth pointing out at this point, that in the home of the free market economy, the United States, the railways are government owned.

[Rollo]

It's worth pointing out at this point, that in the home of the free market economy, the United States, the railways are government owned.

It's a mix.

Conrail which is government owned, owns some tracks, as do some private companies like Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific. The "pointless arrow" Amtrak which is government owned, runs trains on both government and privately owned lines.

[airshifter]

It's a mix.

Conrail which is government owned, owns some tracks, as do some private companies like Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific. The "pointless arrow" Amtrak which is government owned, runs trains on both government and privately owned lines.

There are also subsidies and other such crap, and it's almost as confusing as the British Rail if you really look into it. Amtrak prices are insane IMO. A couple years back we went to visit some family and I considered going by train to let our daughter see more states on the "from the ground level". The cost for a minimalist sleeper cabin for a couple day trip was several times flight prices, and much greater than the cost of driving myself and staying in nice places nightly.

We ended up flying since days of driving kind of takes the fun out of it, and I wasn't about to pay thousands of dollars for something I could get done much cheaper.

[Robinho]

its not true privatisation, nor is it truly under state control.

The operators are close to privatised, in that they own the franchise to run services on certain areas, but subject to certain stiplulation of certain services to be retained. The operators are private companies, and are not funded by the taxpayer.

The infrastructure was privatised (see RAILTRACK), but that private company went bust, its income i believe came from selling the franchises, but the money for investment may have been subsidised. Now it is Network Rail, which is state owned, not for profit organisation, which takes its income for investment and maintenance from the Rail regulator, rather than directly from the funds from the franchises, and is probably partly subsidised by the taxpayer, on top of the incomes from the franchises.

The profits from the tickets etc are retained by the operators, but the most profitable franchises cost the most, so in theory that means some of the money is still available for re-investment.

As long as the operators and the infrastructure are under different ownership the situation will perpetuate. You could make a particluar line compleley private, so the company running the trains owns the tracks, and therefore will invest themselves into the track, but there is the risk of differing quality in different areas, plus the problem of services from other areas running on someone elses tracks. Lines could get shut down or competitors denied use, ultimately hurting the consumer.

I think the current situation is probably for the best, with private operators running on one nationally owned infrastructure. The balance of regulating the operators and managing the level of investment in the infrastructure vs the incomes from the franchises is a difficult one to get right.

[race aficionado]

This is what we're still stuck with . . . .

MobileMe Gallery (http://gallery.me.com/emeseditorials#100229/super-20trains&bgcolor=black)

[BDunnell]

And no, you (the definite and general pronoun) were not given any choice in the matter. You (the definite pronoun) appear to have no issue with that. Forgive me for assuming that people like to have a choice in how their money is spent. Perhaps I am alone in that quaint notion.

I don't believe in direct democracy with everything being the subject of a referendum. Do you?

[BDunnell]

I think the current situation is probably for the best, with private operators running on one nationally owned infrastructure. The balance of regulating the operators and managing the level of investment in the infrastructure vs the incomes from the franchises is a difficult one to get right.

I very much appreciate the input on this thread from someone who actually has some involvement in the industry.

However, you must also recognise the benefits state operation of the railways can bring?

[Dave B]

I don't believe in direct democracy with everything being the subject of a referendum. Do you?

Referendums are strange beasts, tending to only be used when the party calling them can predict the result with absolute certainty. Besides, human nature is to vote for the choice which gives them - as individuals - the greatest short-term gain, without thought for society as a whole or longer term effects.

In the UK the last time we had anything approaching a referendum was over the alternative voting system, when the only choices on offer were flawed or slightly less flawed, and a sizable part of the media ran a campaign of misinformation. So much for democracy!

[Alexamateo]

There are also subsidies and other such crap, and it's almost as confusing as the British Rail if you really look into it. Amtrak prices are insane IMO. A couple years back we went to visit some family and I considered going by train to let our daughter see more states on the "from the ground level". The cost for a minimalist sleeper cabin for a couple day trip was several times flight prices, and much greater than the cost of driving myself and staying in nice places nightly.

We ended up flying since days of driving kind of takes the fun out of it, and I wasn't about to pay thousands of dollars for something I could get done much cheaper.

Are you sure this is right? Our family of 5 (one an infant) went to New Orleans by train in October for $630 total, meals included (we got the family bedroom sleeper). The cheapest advance fare flights right now for us are $406 per person or $1624 for the 4 tickets we'd need. Driving would cost an estimated $140 for fuel (20 mpg 800 mile round trip $3.50 est./gal) $100 extra for meals, $125~$150 extra to park the car in New Orleans for 5 days. Driving would be the cheapest $365~$390, but then I would have to drive with 3 kids 7 and under in the car.

[Robinho]

I very much appreciate the input on this thread from someone who actually has some involvement in the industry.

However, you must also recognise the benefits state operation of the railways can bring?

undoubtedley, there ar a number of natural monoply industrues, which have a level of social requirement that doesn't necessarily bring enough economic benefit for them to be truly private. The Rail network (and roads etc) is one of those, but i don't think personally our rail system would be any better off than it is with the current situation. The regulation is there to ensure certain services, and the network itself is under one central control.

Even if there was a full nationalisation I would argue strongly against the operatirs and the infrastructire being one organisation

[airshifter]

Are you sure this is right? Our family of 5 (one an infant) went to New Orleans by train in October for $630 total, meals included (we got the family bedroom sleeper). The cheapest advance fare flights right now for us are $406 per person or $1624 for the 4 tickets we'd need. Driving would cost an estimated $140 for fuel (20 mpg 800 mile round trip $3.50 est./gal) $100 extra for meals, $125~$150 extra to park the car in New Orleans for 5 days. Driving would be the cheapest $365~$390, but then I would have to drive with 3 kids 7 and under in the car.

It could just be a matter of specific routes, or possibly even cheaper airfare from certain hubs. But the trip priced on Amtrack was much, much greater in cost than I expected. I was actually looking forward to it, and willing to give up some visit time to take the train. But the loss in total visit time plus the cost just steered us back towards the airport.

I do seem to remember that one certain hub seemed to have routes booked and much more expensive prices. I want to say it was Chicago area.

[chuck34]

I don't believe in direct democracy with everything being the subject of a referendum. Do you?

No I don't belive that at all. If we could just stick to the US Constitution as written we wouldn't have to worry about that here. You Brits, on the other hand ...... :)

[Alexamateo]

It could just be a matter of specific routes, or possibly even cheaper airfare from certain hubs. But the trip priced on Amtrack was much, much greater in cost than I expected. I was actually looking forward to it, and willing to give up some visit time to take the train. But the loss in total visit time plus the cost just steered us back towards the airport.

I do seem to remember that one certain hub seemed to have routes booked and much more expensive prices. I want to say it was Chicago area.

It could be, Memphis is one of the most expensive airports to fly out of. I was pleased by how economical it was and we had a blast. We are limited to where we can go though. It's pretty much New Orleans or Chicago. After that, with changing trains and all you start losing days rather than just hours traveling.

[Rollo]

No I don't belive that at all. If we could just stick to the US Constitution as written we wouldn't have to worry about that here. You Brits, on the other hand ...... :)

Britain has no constitution.

As for the US Constitution's views on railways, considering that the Stockton and Darlington Railway wasn't opened until 1825 and the US Constitution was written in 1789, it's a subject which was never envisaged let alone considered.
The closest that the US Constitution gets to mentioning anything like railways is in Article 1 Section 8 when it mentions "post roads".

In fact Britain's lack of a constitution means that the parliament is better enabled to evolve and meet the needs of the country.

[anthonyvop]

If that is your criteria for a company to be part of the private sector then then I guess no industry is private.

My Companies are. Most Companies in the USA are.

[anthonyvop]

Or individuals for that matter.
I wonder Mr Vop resents driving his car on Crony-Socialist roads and hates having to follow Crony-Socialist road laws?

What do roads or Traffic laws have to do with crony socialism?

[anthonyvop]

It's worth pointing out at this point, that in the home of the free market economy, the United States, the railways are government owned.

Actually it is the passenger railway line that is Government run.............and that is why it sucks. The Cargo Shipping railways are privately owned, extremely efficient and highly profitable.

[Rollo]

What do roads or Traffic laws have to do with crony socialism?

Roads and traffic laws fit your criteria:


Are the Railway Companies free to run the railway as they see fit?
Are the Railway Companies allow to drop service to cities, Towns and Areas without having to receive government approval?
Are the Railway Companies free from Government Subsidies and the strings that are always attached?
Are other Companies allow to start their own Railway Lines to compete with the established ones?

Roads in the United States need government approval. The US Interstate system was the largest public works program in history; massive subsidies were allowed during its construction and although there are private motorways in the US, they don't really compete with the established ones but complement them.



If the answer is yes to all 4 questions then the Railways are privatized. If the Answer is no then all it you have is Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization.
Of course you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector.

The answer to some of the questions you posed ass applied to the US Interstate system is very obviously no. Therefore by your definition you have "Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization".

Of course without all those horribly evil and disgusting interstates running across the US, the country wouldn't function as well would it? Then again you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector, have you?

[anthonyvop]

The answer to some of the questions you posed ass applied to the US Interstate system is very obviously no. Therefore by your definition you have "Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization".

Of course without all those horribly evil and disgusting interstates running across the US, the country wouldn't function as well would it? Then again you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector, have you?

Please explain to me how the Government built, run, maintained and owned road system is Crony Socialism or Privatization?

[chuck34]

In fact Britain's lack of a constitution means that the parliament is better enabled to evolve and meet the needs of the country.

Or as some would say (including me and the Founders of this country) the lack of a written British Constitution makes it very easy for Parliament to strip rights away from its citizens.

[chuck34]

Roads and traffic laws fit your criteria:



Roads in the United States need government approval. The US Interstate system was the largest public works program in history; massive subsidies were allowed during its construction and although there are private motorways in the US, they don't really compete with the established ones but complement them.




The answer to some of the questions you posed ass applied to the US Interstate system is very obviously no. Therefore by your definition you have "Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization".

Of course without all those horribly evil and disgusting interstates running across the US, the country wouldn't function as well would it? Then again you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector, have you?

Who here has ever tried to claim the the interstate highway system has been "privatized"? They are not in any way shape or form privatized. The government let contracts for building them and maintaining them. But the government makes no phoney claims of privatization as the UK government has done with their rail system.

The interstate highway system is one example where I believe Federal control is warranted. As you say there is at least a similar concept in the Constitution with post roads. Plus with something that crosses State boarders such as highways it just makes sense to have Federal control. In fact one of the incidences that lead to the call for a Federal convention (later called Constitutional convention) was a dispute over navigation rights on the Potomac River. It could easily be seen how similar disputes could arrise from interstate highways controled by the States.

Very similar arguments could apply easily to the original question of nationalizing the British rail system, if one would choose to take that stance in this debate.

[BDunnell]

Actually it is the passenger railway line that is Government run.............and that is why it sucks.

There are government-run passenger railways around the world that do not 'suck', let me remind you. Some are quite good. But, of course, you wouldn't know.

[BDunnell]

Or as some would say (including me and the Founders of this country) the lack of a written British Constitution makes it very easy for Parliament to strip rights away from its citizens.

Says the man whose national leaders had no trouble with passing the Patriot Act.

[chuck34]

Says the man whose national leaders had no trouble with passing the Patriot Act.

But at least there is something for our leaders to either ignore or twist themselves into pretzels to "prove" their "logic" is Constitutional. I have never claimed our system is perfect, particularly over the last 80-90 years. You will find that I fairly consistently argue for strict Constitutional government, which is quite different than what we currently have.

My post that you quoted only referenced our Founders, not our current "leaders" for that very reason

[BDunnell]

But at least there is something for our leaders to either ignore or twist themselves into pretzels to "prove" their "logic" is Constitutional. I have never claimed our system is perfect, particularly over the last 80-90 years. You will find that I fairly consistently argue for strict Constitutional government, which is quite different than what we currently have.

The matter simply doesn't trouble me, I have to say, given that I do not feel a written constitution necessarily offers a superior defence — or any defence at all — against bad policy-making.

[chuck34]

The matter simply doesn't trouble me, I have to say, given that I do not feel a written constitution necessarily offers a superior defence — or any defence at all — against bad policy-making.

Eh, we're well away from the OP now. But I'll just say that I would rather have a document that at least tries to define what a government can not do to me, than nothing at all. Even if that document has been trampled upon for nearly a century, at least we have something to point to for a well thought out and reasoned guiding light of principles.

[anthonyvop]

There are government-run passenger railways around the world that do not 'suck', let me remind you. Some are quite good. But, of course, you wouldn't know.

I am curious. What are some of the well run Railway Systems? None of the ones I have ridden in Europe(Spain, France, Germany Italy) would be considered quality that's for sure.

[BDunnell]

I am curious. What are some of the well run Railway Systems? None of the ones I have ridden in Europe(Spain, France, Germany Italy) would be considered quality that's for sure.

On what grounds? Do share your personal experiences.

I think the German rail system, although with many faults — for, as I said earlier, running a national rail network is simply a damn difficult task to get anywhere near right — is generally pretty good. The French TGV lines are, too.

[MrMetro]

On what grounds? Do share your personal experiences.

I think the German rail system, although with many faults — for, as I said earlier, running a national rail network is simply a damn difficult task to get anywhere near right — is generally pretty good. The French TGV lines are, too.

Nederlandse Spoorwegen are good as well, both regional and high speed services.

[Captain VXR]

Or as some would say (including me and the Founders of this country) the lack of a written British Constitution makes it very easy for Parliament to strip rights away from its citizens.

Human Rights Act. European Court of Human Rights.
Bliar failed to get 90 day detention for terror suspects, whereas Bush and Obama support indefinite detention for terror suspects

[MrMetro]

I would also like to point out that the privatisation of British Rail effectively killed off British train and rolling stock manufacturing.

[SGWilko]

I would also like to point out that the privatisation of British Rail effectively killed off British train and rolling stock manufacturing.

Look what heppened to BL (the Morris Marina van manufacterer) when first BT took over from GPO and they contracted out their van maintenance/purchasing divisions......