News3 mins ago
Should We Re- Nationalise The Railways?
26 Answers
http://
British Railways were criticised in many ways, but my personal experience makes me prefer B.R. to what we have today.
Before Beeching one could afford to take the train to almost every city, town or hamlet in the British Isles, and at times one could, if they so wished, enjoy the benefit of a private carriage, all to one's self.
What have we today fares where in some cases it is cheaper to fly, and unless one books a seat in advance, one can be forced to stand in packed carriages throughout their entire journey.
Give me the days of British Rail everytime.
British Railways were criticised in many ways, but my personal experience makes me prefer B.R. to what we have today.
Before Beeching one could afford to take the train to almost every city, town or hamlet in the British Isles, and at times one could, if they so wished, enjoy the benefit of a private carriage, all to one's self.
What have we today fares where in some cases it is cheaper to fly, and unless one books a seat in advance, one can be forced to stand in packed carriages throughout their entire journey.
Give me the days of British Rail everytime.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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 totally support the idea, in theory, of re-nationalisation. I can't see how we could afford it now though. I hope I'm wrong and that the railways, the energy companies and the post office/royal mail will all once again be nationaised. I think it's all just wishful thinking unfortunately. Doubt it could/would ever happen.
http://
Worth a read. It wasn't all good.
Worth a read. It wasn't all good.
This is typical of what is wrong with this country. Billions would be spent to re nationalise the railway and then in the future it will revert to private ownership again. This country doesn't go forward, it staggers from side to side doing and undoing national projects wasting vast sums of money in the process, all at the whim of the political masters at the time.
// Before Beeching one could afford to take the train to almost every city, town or hamlet in the British Isles, and at times one could, if they so wished, enjoy the benefit of a private carriage, all to one's self.
What have we today fares where in some cases it is cheaper to fly, and unless one books a seat in advance, one can be forced to stand in packed carriages throughout their entire journey. //
Several points in there...
British Rail cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. You could afford to travel everywhere cheaply (not sure that is true) because the fares did not cover the running costs. Non rail users were subsidising rail travellers. We do not want to go back to that situation.
Even in British Rails heyday, a carriage to oneself would have been very rare, and would have been to somewhere off the beaten track and off peak.
Beeching closed many routes to save money (and the rest of the network). It is clear that he went too far, as some routes have re-opened, but re-nationalisation would not result in an expanded rail network.
Crowded trains now are a consequence of success. We are moving more passengers now than ever before. And we cannot literally fit more trains on the busiest routes.
Increase in rail passenger useage.
https:/
At the moment we have the best of both worlds. A Nationalised (in all but name) Network. Railtrack is owned by the Government and run as a not for profit business. And franchised private rail companies, competing for routes. It is a win-win set up.
What have we today fares where in some cases it is cheaper to fly, and unless one books a seat in advance, one can be forced to stand in packed carriages throughout their entire journey. //
Several points in there...
British Rail cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. You could afford to travel everywhere cheaply (not sure that is true) because the fares did not cover the running costs. Non rail users were subsidising rail travellers. We do not want to go back to that situation.
Even in British Rails heyday, a carriage to oneself would have been very rare, and would have been to somewhere off the beaten track and off peak.
Beeching closed many routes to save money (and the rest of the network). It is clear that he went too far, as some routes have re-opened, but re-nationalisation would not result in an expanded rail network.
Crowded trains now are a consequence of success. We are moving more passengers now than ever before. And we cannot literally fit more trains on the busiest routes.
Increase in rail passenger useage.
https:/
At the moment we have the best of both worlds. A Nationalised (in all but name) Network. Railtrack is owned by the Government and run as a not for profit business. And franchised private rail companies, competing for routes. It is a win-win set up.
There is the theory versus the practice involved here.
On the one hand, the notion of a government-run rail system would sweep away the nonsense of carriage owners and track owners fighting for profits first and service second - it sounds wonderful.
But the cost and practicality make it very difficult to achieve over the life of one parliament, and the Opposition could win, and reverse everything, with even more costs to the public purse.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that this is Mr Corbyn's policy for if Labour were in power, and that is about as likely as landing on Mars.
On the one hand, the notion of a government-run rail system would sweep away the nonsense of carriage owners and track owners fighting for profits first and service second - it sounds wonderful.
But the cost and practicality make it very difficult to achieve over the life of one parliament, and the Opposition could win, and reverse everything, with even more costs to the public purse.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that this is Mr Corbyn's policy for if Labour were in power, and that is about as likely as landing on Mars.
Gromit
/// Even in British Rails heyday, a carriage to oneself would have been very rare, and would have been to somewhere off the beaten track and off peak. ///
Not so,
I think I can speak from my own personal experience, I remember those times, and I can also remember the times I have been able to travel, sometimes alone, or with a partner, or even some of my family, in a separate carriage and in extreme comfort, these coaches had corridors, in which in very busy times some may have stood in the corridor.
But for shorter journeys, there was also coaches with no corridors, so there would be no standing in them.
/// Even in British Rails heyday, a carriage to oneself would have been very rare, and would have been to somewhere off the beaten track and off peak. ///
Not so,
I think I can speak from my own personal experience, I remember those times, and I can also remember the times I have been able to travel, sometimes alone, or with a partner, or even some of my family, in a separate carriage and in extreme comfort, these coaches had corridors, in which in very busy times some may have stood in the corridor.
But for shorter journeys, there was also coaches with no corridors, so there would be no standing in them.
/// Crowded trains now are a consequence of success. We are moving more passengers now than ever
before. ///
Couldn't possibly be that we have too many people who consequently have this effect on, not only the trains but also on the roads, as well as on the complete infrastructure of this small country?
before. ///
Couldn't possibly be that we have too many people who consequently have this effect on, not only the trains but also on the roads, as well as on the complete infrastructure of this small country?
AOG , Yes there were 'compartment' carriages and if you paid for all the seats in a compartment you could reserve the whole compartment.
( 8 seats I think)
What you have ignored is the massive increase in passenger numbers since the 1960s 70s when we still had compartment carriages. Modern 'open plan' carriages hold a lot more passengers in the same space. You can still reserve individual seats on long distance trains.
( 8 seats I think)
What you have ignored is the massive increase in passenger numbers since the 1960s 70s when we still had compartment carriages. Modern 'open plan' carriages hold a lot more passengers in the same space. You can still reserve individual seats on long distance trains.
AOG , you are comparing pre-Beeching to what we have now.
But in between Beeching and what we have now British Rail were TERRIBLE.
They had a monopoly so did not care, the staff did not care, and there was no incentive to make the trains leave on time or provide a good service, or make the food good on the trains.
My wife travels to London from Birmngham now and again by Virgin and the company provide an excellent SERVICE (which BR never did), the trains always leave on time, and they are new, excellent clean trains.
Going back to BR would be a HUGE mistake.
ALL monopolies are bad.
Compare the old GPO when you had to wait weeks or months to get a phone in your home, and if you called an engineer they MAY turn up if they feel like it.
Now I can walk in a phone shop in my high street and get a phone straight away.
THAT is what free competition does.
But in between Beeching and what we have now British Rail were TERRIBLE.
They had a monopoly so did not care, the staff did not care, and there was no incentive to make the trains leave on time or provide a good service, or make the food good on the trains.
My wife travels to London from Birmngham now and again by Virgin and the company provide an excellent SERVICE (which BR never did), the trains always leave on time, and they are new, excellent clean trains.
Going back to BR would be a HUGE mistake.
ALL monopolies are bad.
Compare the old GPO when you had to wait weeks or months to get a phone in your home, and if you called an engineer they MAY turn up if they feel like it.
Now I can walk in a phone shop in my high street and get a phone straight away.
THAT is what free competition does.
AOG,
Not sure if it is nostalgia or just bad memory clouding your judgement, but Nationalisation of the Railways was terrible. British Rail was a national joke, and the service was universally terrible. And it was a bottomless pit for the taxpayer. Were you ever a user of the railways? And do you now travel by rail? Things are infinitely better now, speedier journeys, modern trains, punctuality, cleanliness, all far better now.
--------
The railways were nationalised in the first place because the Big Four railway Companies were effectively bankrupt after the war.
But Nationalisation was a huge failure especially for the commuter and taxpayer. By the time they were privatised again in 1997, the nationalised railways had suffered nearly two decades of chronic under investment by Thatcher/Major (Thatcher loathed the railways).
Ironically, it was those many years of under investment which undermined the Privatisation, and the rail infrastructure part, Railtrack had to be again Nationalised* when it went bust and its safety record began to set off alarm bells.
Not sure if it is nostalgia or just bad memory clouding your judgement, but Nationalisation of the Railways was terrible. British Rail was a national joke, and the service was universally terrible. And it was a bottomless pit for the taxpayer. Were you ever a user of the railways? And do you now travel by rail? Things are infinitely better now, speedier journeys, modern trains, punctuality, cleanliness, all far better now.
--------
The railways were nationalised in the first place because the Big Four railway Companies were effectively bankrupt after the war.
But Nationalisation was a huge failure especially for the commuter and taxpayer. By the time they were privatised again in 1997, the nationalised railways had suffered nearly two decades of chronic under investment by Thatcher/Major (Thatcher loathed the railways).
Ironically, it was those many years of under investment which undermined the Privatisation, and the rail infrastructure part, Railtrack had to be again Nationalised* when it went bust and its safety record began to set off alarm bells.
Absolutely not!
I will be the first to admit that the model used to privatise (splitting service provision, infrastructure and rolling stock) was disastrous. What should have been done was some sort of provision that reverted back to the pre-nationalisation “Big Four”.
However, to revert to full nationalisation would be a disaster. Governments are rarely the best organisations to manage services and railways are no exception. Those looking back at BR days must be doing so through rose-tinted glasses. The organisation was reasonably acceptable until the mid to late 1960s (when the 1955 Modernisation Programme was being implemented). But come the 1970s, along with many other nationalised industries, the services deteriorated substantially. Like many other organisations of that time BR was run for the convenience of its staff. Customers came a very poor last in the pecking order.
The railways did make some progress and tried hard to rebrand some of its services (Inter-City springs to mind and the Inter City 125 High Speed trains were ahead of their time). But the organisation was a moribund affair with little concern for the overall quality of service provided. London commuter services were a case in point. I used them for around 30 years from the mid-1970s and the change following privatisation was remarkable.
Railways cost money. The country has to decide how to fund them, either through taxation and grants or high fares or a balance between the two. Putting the network and services back under the control of civil servants is not an answer.
I will be the first to admit that the model used to privatise (splitting service provision, infrastructure and rolling stock) was disastrous. What should have been done was some sort of provision that reverted back to the pre-nationalisation “Big Four”.
However, to revert to full nationalisation would be a disaster. Governments are rarely the best organisations to manage services and railways are no exception. Those looking back at BR days must be doing so through rose-tinted glasses. The organisation was reasonably acceptable until the mid to late 1960s (when the 1955 Modernisation Programme was being implemented). But come the 1970s, along with many other nationalised industries, the services deteriorated substantially. Like many other organisations of that time BR was run for the convenience of its staff. Customers came a very poor last in the pecking order.
The railways did make some progress and tried hard to rebrand some of its services (Inter-City springs to mind and the Inter City 125 High Speed trains were ahead of their time). But the organisation was a moribund affair with little concern for the overall quality of service provided. London commuter services were a case in point. I used them for around 30 years from the mid-1970s and the change following privatisation was remarkable.
Railways cost money. The country has to decide how to fund them, either through taxation and grants or high fares or a balance between the two. Putting the network and services back under the control of civil servants is not an answer.
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.