ChatterBank1 min ago
The railways, should they be a national service?
Now I know some of you lefties will probably think you are dreaming here but when it comes to transport I actually have quiet a left wing view. This latest news from the railways:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8127851.st m
just reenforces the view that the railways should be a public service, they should be cheap and subsidised by private transport, they should renationalise the whole lot, revitalise it reopen branch lines etc, the Beeching changes where vandalism, we should re create the equivalent or BR but without the old public sector diseases. What are your thoughts?
Blue Geezer badges are available!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8127851.st m
just reenforces the view that the railways should be a public service, they should be cheap and subsidised by private transport, they should renationalise the whole lot, revitalise it reopen branch lines etc, the Beeching changes where vandalism, we should re create the equivalent or BR but without the old public sector diseases. What are your thoughts?
Blue Geezer badges are available!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree R1. The Railways can never make a profit and will always have to be publically funded. The problem does arise in the running of them of course and, if it is one employer strikes can become more rife. If a way can be found round that then we will be home and dry.
I also thing electricity, gas, water and sewage should also be Government owned.
I also thing electricity, gas, water and sewage should also be Government owned.
I have always thought the railways should be a public sector service. There were undoubtedly problems with British Rail and a better management structure would need to be employed and Unions would have to act more responsibly, but the general principle is sound. Not everything in life can be run with profit as the overriding principle.
I'm with Geezer on this.
Rail just doesn't lend itself to privatisation. The well-worn argument for privitisation is that competition among private companies keeps costs down and quality of service up. But there is no competition. There can only be one train operator per line. And 7-year franchises doesn't exactly address that.
The ability to arbitrarily set prices and to dump less profitable services stiffs passengers badly.
Rail just doesn't lend itself to privatisation. The well-worn argument for privitisation is that competition among private companies keeps costs down and quality of service up. But there is no competition. There can only be one train operator per line. And 7-year franchises doesn't exactly address that.
The ability to arbitrarily set prices and to dump less profitable services stiffs passengers badly.
Panic Button
The Government already run the railways. When Railtrack when into administration, the Government effectively nationalised the stations, track and infrastructure. Train operators such as Virgin pay the Government to run their services on the nationalised network.
It seems to work well until a badly run operator, such as National Express go bump. The Government plan to run NE operation until another service provider can be found.
The Government already run the railways. When Railtrack when into administration, the Government effectively nationalised the stations, track and infrastructure. Train operators such as Virgin pay the Government to run their services on the nationalised network.
It seems to work well until a badly run operator, such as National Express go bump. The Government plan to run NE operation until another service provider can be found.
Panic Button
There is no competition. The operators have a monopoly on the routes they buy. No one was competing with National Express on the East Coast Mainline. That is why fares are high.
True, operators who are not up to the job can be removed but only it seems, when there is no alternative because they are bankrupt. NE have not lost their franchise because of poor service or their fares are too high.
There is no competition. The operators have a monopoly on the routes they buy. No one was competing with National Express on the East Coast Mainline. That is why fares are high.
True, operators who are not up to the job can be removed but only it seems, when there is no alternative because they are bankrupt. NE have not lost their franchise because of poor service or their fares are too high.
The Sherman
I suspect the BGB will go to the person who points out that it is all Thatchers fault for breaking British rail up into small salable packages to sell. Resulting in hundreds of companies with very little coordination between them leading to frequent train crashes with loss of lives.
The resulting booty she made was squandered on paying 6 million unemployed to do nothing.
BGB please.
I suspect the BGB will go to the person who points out that it is all Thatchers fault for breaking British rail up into small salable packages to sell. Resulting in hundreds of companies with very little coordination between them leading to frequent train crashes with loss of lives.
The resulting booty she made was squandered on paying 6 million unemployed to do nothing.
BGB please.
Latest Posts
Crosswords12 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News21 mins ago
News21 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.