Music0 min ago
Would You Like To See The Railways Re-Nationalised
Answers
When it was British Rail many staff had a "couldn't care less" attitude whereas at least staff now show some interest. I remember years ago (when still British Rail) when I was in Whitley Bay on a bank holiday Monday and there were only trains every 2 hours. I got on the platform a few minutes before the train was due in but it never arrived. I had to wait two hours for...
09:37 Fri 07th Dec 2018
“BR certainly wasn't as bad as current private firms are now.”
You must have travelled on different trains to me, Prudie. I spent most of my working life commuting into London. About half of it (or thereabouts) was under the nationalised service and the rest under private operators. I know which I prefer on almost every measure and it isn’t the government controlled version.
“Bring back the GLC and the 10, 20, 30, 40p bands, forced to double by the then government.”
London has the equivalent of the GLC in the form of the Mayor and the London Assembly. Almost all local transport in London is under the control of TfL, which is overseen by the assembly. The cheap fares you mention were heavily subsidised by London council taxpayers. The challenge to them came from the London Borough of Bromley. This is the largest London borough and the third most populous and so raised considerable sums in “precepts” for the GLC (and continues to do so for the Mayor’s office). It did not then and still does not now have a single underground station within its boundaries. Little wonder, then, that the good burghers of Bromley objected to subsidising cheap tube fares.
I don’t think re-nationalising the railways will see any improvements. In fact the reverse will probably be so as governments are notoriously poor when it comes to running public services and the mish-mash of politicians who stick their fingers into various pies usually end up making matters worse. What does need to be recognised is that railways are a vital national asset (for moving both passengers and freight) and their upkeep is expensive. The same level of funding should be provided for railways as it is for roads.
You must have travelled on different trains to me, Prudie. I spent most of my working life commuting into London. About half of it (or thereabouts) was under the nationalised service and the rest under private operators. I know which I prefer on almost every measure and it isn’t the government controlled version.
“Bring back the GLC and the 10, 20, 30, 40p bands, forced to double by the then government.”
London has the equivalent of the GLC in the form of the Mayor and the London Assembly. Almost all local transport in London is under the control of TfL, which is overseen by the assembly. The cheap fares you mention were heavily subsidised by London council taxpayers. The challenge to them came from the London Borough of Bromley. This is the largest London borough and the third most populous and so raised considerable sums in “precepts” for the GLC (and continues to do so for the Mayor’s office). It did not then and still does not now have a single underground station within its boundaries. Little wonder, then, that the good burghers of Bromley objected to subsidising cheap tube fares.
I don’t think re-nationalising the railways will see any improvements. In fact the reverse will probably be so as governments are notoriously poor when it comes to running public services and the mish-mash of politicians who stick their fingers into various pies usually end up making matters worse. What does need to be recognised is that railways are a vital national asset (for moving both passengers and freight) and their upkeep is expensive. The same level of funding should be provided for railways as it is for roads.
Unfortunately Re nationalisation of the bits not already nationalised would not fix the problem. I too remember the 'good old' BR days and good they were not.
The way to do it is to have properly franchised companies but they have to be done properly and subsidies do need to be given to get more people on the rail. It is currently rammed at commuting time. In addition the Nationalised bit, Network rail, who, as jno has pointed out, are the current problem (I can vouch for this using the rail daily) need better funding and a private management structure bought in. The problem will be getting the proper management rather than the usual old cronies that a Nationalised company usually ends up doing.
It can be done, but there is no will.
The way to do it is to have properly franchised companies but they have to be done properly and subsidies do need to be given to get more people on the rail. It is currently rammed at commuting time. In addition the Nationalised bit, Network rail, who, as jno has pointed out, are the current problem (I can vouch for this using the rail daily) need better funding and a private management structure bought in. The problem will be getting the proper management rather than the usual old cronies that a Nationalised company usually ends up doing.
It can be done, but there is no will.
//I agree with TTT, freight belongs on the rail for long distance haulage, transported overnight. //
that can't happen. most routes are closed at some point overnight for maintenance, so there's no scope for running overnight freight trains. much of the network operates at capacity now, there are no paths available for extra trains of any description, never mind slow moving freight trains. on many parts of the network (and not just commuter routes) dangerous crush loadings are experienced daily - check out train operator twitter feeds, it's not unusual to be stood wedged in a corner for 3 hours or more.
nationalisation would need to take all of that into consideration; all current trains are privately owned (and leased to the franchises) - just to buy them back will cost about £9bn, never mind the cost for stock already ordered, and more stock to tackle overcrowding. all freight services are privately owned and operated - i'm not sure there's a will - even by mr Corbyn - to buy those back. far better i'd have thought to let truckers operate 80T vehicles, and rail freight will vanish forever.
all in all, nationalisation will come at a cost so huge, that in the medium term it's a practical non-starter.
that can't happen. most routes are closed at some point overnight for maintenance, so there's no scope for running overnight freight trains. much of the network operates at capacity now, there are no paths available for extra trains of any description, never mind slow moving freight trains. on many parts of the network (and not just commuter routes) dangerous crush loadings are experienced daily - check out train operator twitter feeds, it's not unusual to be stood wedged in a corner for 3 hours or more.
nationalisation would need to take all of that into consideration; all current trains are privately owned (and leased to the franchises) - just to buy them back will cost about £9bn, never mind the cost for stock already ordered, and more stock to tackle overcrowding. all freight services are privately owned and operated - i'm not sure there's a will - even by mr Corbyn - to buy those back. far better i'd have thought to let truckers operate 80T vehicles, and rail freight will vanish forever.
all in all, nationalisation will come at a cost so huge, that in the medium term it's a practical non-starter.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Mps Have Voted In Favour Of Assisted...
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.