At Last Someone Talks Sense About The Railways...

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27273672
Ok many of you may find this surprising but the Railways is one of the things I think should be run by the state. Obviously it should be run professionally not as an overmanned shambles as in the latter days of British rail but the principle is sound. I also believe it is valid for the state to subsidise railways and also to go some way to restoring the vandalism of Beeching. I am a car lover of course but I think we have been forced too far into dependency on the car and I welcome enhancements to public transport. So well done if Labour are considering this, it is at least one thing that distinguishes the 2 main Parties.

[anotheoldgit]

Yes I also go along with that, a brilliant idea if it ever came to fruition.

Perhaps they should also introduce free train travel for senior citizens? If not free at least half price.

[mushroom25]

sorry but they can't do it, no matter if they have a genuine belief, or if they're just saying it because it might attract a few votes.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0440

[Svejk]

interesting idea.

[woofgang]

can somebody please tell me WHY the railways should be subsidised?

[woofgang]

.....or nationalised?

[scooping]

We can't renationalise our railways under EU rules. That simple.

[ToraToraTora]

We can do it in all but name. Public transport should be subsidised to reduce car usage and thus polution. The fact that the masses can afford personal private transport, transporting 3 empty seats and a ton and half of steel everywhere means they are too cheap. An efficient cheap public transport system is of huge benefit generally. We should also encourage rail freight to reduce the silly amount of trucks on the roads.

[mushroom25]

//We should also encourage rail freight to reduce the silly amount of trucks on the roads//

the present infrastructure cannot accommodate any more freight. the only way this can be done is to separate the fastest trains from the slowest, or by slowing all trains so they all run at the same speed. we already know the former will cost billions. the latter would be cheaper to achieve but would result in London to Glasgow taking 7-8 hours.

[Old_Geezer]

Public transport should in the main be State run. It's a pain in the neck to have to choose a best value from options, and if it fails to reduce prices and up the offered service then all the arguments for private competition are lost.

All systems have strengths & weaknesses; I do not believe it is beyond human ability to ensure a State run industry doesn't just sit back and relax on their monopoly position. But the article lacks detail, and there are more issues than railways to worry about.

[Old_Geezer]

I have never understood why a government would continue to pour our public money into an industry that is supposed to be privatised. If there is a need because of its important, and the private industry can not be trusted to provide what is needed without a subsidy, then it ought not have been even considered for privatisation in the first place. Seems to me the public are effectively paying the dividends of the favoured lot who won the right to own the service. Unless, of course, I am mistaken and no dividends have ever been paid. Very fishy if you ask me.

[Canary42]

You have the right idea TTT, but your slur on the nationalised railway is unwarranted - we now subsidise the railways by far far more (with inflation taken into account) than we ever did British Rail - they had developed the skills to provide a reasonable service on a shoe-string - had they been given the sort of money the TOCs are getting then we would still probably have the finest railway system in the world.

[tamborine]

More likely Labour will sell the railways, like they did to our gold bullion.

[ToraToraTora]

Mushroom, yes it will need enhancement, we should do it. In th case of freight they can also utilise the network overnight like they used to.

[Zeuhl]

Agreed.

I naturally support the principle of market forces over nationalisation but without ongoing competition the process is a nonsense.
Only one provider runs trains from my local station to London. So not much of a 'market'. I think the correct term is 'monopoly'.

[mushroom25]

//In the case of freight they can also utilise the network overnight like they used to//

some use is already made of infrastructure overnight, but this cannot be increased as that's when network rail carry out maintenance. it's no longer acceptable to carry out works between trains, it's too dangerous.

[anotheoldgit]

Perhaps we should let the French or the Germans buy them up, they run their railways much better than we do, and after all they have bought up most other things.

[mushroom25]

//Perhaps we should let the French or the Germans buy them up, they run their railways much better than we do//

the government beat you to it on that one, AOG.
http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/about-us
http://www.abellio.com/uk/greater_anglia.html

[Hopkirk]

What makes you think it wouldn't become an "overmanned shambles as in the latter days of British Rail", as you called it?

[ToraToraTora]

France and Germany heavily subsidise their railway AOG, in fact most of the EU effectively have a nationalised subsidised public transport system.

[ToraToraTora]

"What makes you think it wouldn't become an "overmanned shambles as in the latter days of British Rail", as you called it? " because that's what it was! Nationalised industries tend to be poorly run and infiltrated by left wing militants. We need to find a way of running them efficiently without falling into the old ways.