Renationalise The Railways?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29088777
Talk about swivel eyed loonies! The guy in this picture looks like he needs a bacon butty! Anyway it just goes to show, even these nutters can come up with a good policy! Never thought I'd agree with the greens!

[jim360]

I thought nationalisation was alien to right-wingers?

[janbee]

I would totally support the renationalisation of the railways. They should never have been sold off in the first place. I don't see how this could happen though, much as I would like it.

[jno]

I could never see the point of nationalising airlines and car manufacture but if the country's to be held together, things like trains and postage need to be run on a national basis. So should buses, imo - allowing private firms to take them over and abandon unprofitable routes just boosts car companies and drives people into cities.

[jno]

British Rail wasn't that great, and often seemed to be run for the benefit of those working on it. But it's hard to argue that the current situation is much better.

[Gromit]

It already is.

The Privatised RailTrack went bust and was taken over Network Rail, owner HM Government.

The Government runs the railway. Companies such as Virgin pay the Government a fee to be allowed to put their trains on our tracks.

[woofgang]

Maybe what is needed is some kind of "Bank of England" setup, where the government brings is an expert, sets the objectives and then gets out of the way and lets them run the actual show. Although having said that, where I live, private competition has resulted in more and better bus services than we had when one big company had the franchise for the whole show....
I am however solidly against taxpayer money being used for things like keeping rail fares below their actual cost.

[Gromit]

Woofgang,
Both Rail and Bus fares are subsidised by the Government.

Bus and train routes are sold with a sweetener by the Government. The subsidy attracts the big companies such as Stagecoach, who use the subsidy to keep the fares artificially lower.
The experiment with privatisation failed because without the subsidy fares were too high and people could not afford to use the teains. RailTrack ran out of money, and its safety record became very bad, which prompted the Government to replace it with Network Rail.

[mushroom25]

it's just electioneering - EU directives enacted into UK law mean they won't be allowed to do it.

[Gromit]

We are in a very strange situation with the present rail set up.

Full Nationalisation and full Privatisation failed. So we have something inbetween.

We have the best of both worls, and the worst of both world - simultaneously.

[ToraToraTora]

usually jim, however certain things should be nationalised. I don't want the return of Union riddled inneficient British Rail but I do think we should have a nationalised subsidised network. Freight should be encouraged off the roads and the public need to be able to get from most As to most Bs efficiently. We should reconstruct a thorough system based on todays needs and have it run effeiciently.

[237SJ]

"Freight should be encouraged off the roads" I agree but that could only happen if all of the minor, regional lines hadn`t been torn up. Without those, the countryside would be littered with lorry depots because the freight would still have to get to it`s final destination by road.

[Old_Geezer]

Gov may own the track, but that is different to returning to the common sense of a British Rail.

[ludwig]

I've been lucky enough to have managed to avoid rail travel for the last 6 years, but I was amazed to find out from a friend that you can spend a fortune on a 1st class ticket that doesn't even guarantee you'll get a seat.

[New Judge]

The problem with the privatisation of the railways was the way it was done. It never made sense to separate track, rolling stock and services in such a fragmented way. The way the organisation has developed since it was taken out of the State's hand has done nothing to cure that problem. Additionally, short franchise terms discourage long term investment.

On a general note, with the exception of the special case of defence, the State is usually the last institution you would choose to provide essential services. Almost all State or Local Authority run industries provide inferior service to their privately run counterparts and there is no reason to believe a State run railway system, with constant interfereance from transient politicians, would fare any better.

The two major milestones in the UK's rail industry (the "Big Four" Grouping in 1923 and nationalisation in 1948) both occurred when the system was in bad shape following the world wars. In WW2 in particular the railways took a terrible hammering whilst managing to provide essential lifelines shifting troops, civilians, goods, raw materials and war supplies on an unprecedented scale. It was probably only government that could have taken on the system and renewed it on the scale required as no private investors would have gone near it.

Today the situation is entirely different. Whilst I agree that it is not being run as well as it could be I have used the railways almost all my life, including over thirty years of daily commuting, and I know that the services provided now are far superior to those provided thirty years ago. Measures need to be taken to address the shortcomings of the current system but handing the train set back to politicians to play with is not the answer.

[janbee]

Maybe the money they're planning to waste on HS2 could go towards buying back OUR railways.?

[Old_Geezer]

The State is the first institution I would choose to provide a natural monopoly. We need a connected service for the whole country, which implies the same institution throughout, and such a thing ought not be in private hands. I'm unsure the split between track and service was such a mistake, many companies use subcontractors to provide the basic requirements for them; the mistake was not shaking up what we had rather than flogging it off (with sweeteners) to investors.

[Farriercm]

Are you on about Railways ,or vegan sweet shops====your link?????

[Gromit]

For accounting purposes, Network Rail has just return into public sector ownership adding £34billion to the national debt.

There are some Nationalised trains running on our tracks. But they have unfamiliar-sounding companies with names like Abellio, Govia and Keolis, and are owned by foreign Governments.

[youngmafbog]

I too have never been keen on privatization of 'utility' companies. For me that is water/rail/gas/elec.

The problem you get though if you have a large corporation which is Government owned is that the left wing Unions get in and hold the country to ransom.

I'm really not sure what is best to be honest any more. All utility companies need infrastructure investment, private companies, particularly those on short term contracts simply cannot afford to do this.

Rail will never be efficient and the cost is always going to be too high so it needs subsidy. It does rather gall one to see Tax payer money going to shareholders though - even for Tories jim.

[Gromit]

The Government own 100% Network Rail. But it is run as a Private Company. It is run as a not for profit so no shareholders take any money out. They do not employ any of the drivers, etc that is done by the franchisees, and they are usually Unionised.