The railways, should they be a national service?

[R1Geezer]

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!

[Panic Button]

The government don't exactly have a good record of running any business efficiently, with good service.

[jackthehat]

I agree.

[youngmafbog]

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.

[Julnar]

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.

[BertiWooster]

What '' businesses '' have Governments 'ran' ?

What a cheek - National express cant run the service profitably and efficientlty - so they want to renegotiate the contract ?

[Gromit]

They should privatise the motorways and major roads to the highest bidder and plough the money into new railway infrastructure. I'm sure car drivers would pay a lot more in tolls to drive on empty roads.

[youngmafbog]

Actually Gromit surveys showed Drivers would not pay and the scheme has been dropped

The motorist already pays a fortune in taxes, it just needs channelling corerctly.

[Quinlad]

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.

[jackthehat]

I was agreeing with R1..........which is not something I am used to saying.........

[Panic Button]

I remember the railwayswhen the government ran them - they were shocking. You get far better service these days.

[R1Geezer]

Yes PB they were shocking, that's why I say we need management without the usual public sector deseases.

[Gromit]

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.

[Gromit]

youngmafbog

Car drivers would have no option to pay. Just because the Government does not have the bottle to introduce road charging does not mean it is not a good idea.

[Panic Button]

With the current system, if an operator doesn't do the job properly, they can be removed.

If you go back to the bad old days of the government being the train operator, you are stuck with it.
That very lack of competition means service levels would nosedive.

[Gromit]

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.

[Panic Button]

There is a form of competition, because if they do a sh1t job, someone else will be given the contract.

Go back to BR days and they didn't even have that worry.

[Gromit]

Panic Button

Repeat: National Express have not lost the contract because they have done a sh1t job, they have lost the contract because they have lost too much money and cannot afford to continue.

Rather than the Government sacking them, they have sacked themselves.

[The Sherman]

can't beleive no one has won the prestigious BGB yet?

Can we have a clue what they will be handed out for at least Geezer?

[Gromit]

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.

[paraffin]

To answer the question : Yes.