Should Britain's railways be nationised?

[Wymsey]

It's been argued, for different reasons for and against, via different political parties for a couple of years or so.

Would it be a good idea or not for the economy etc?

Edited 12 February 2018 by Wymeswold fox

[m4DD0gg]

5 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

It's been argued, for different reasons for and against, via different political parties for a couple of years or so.

Would it be a good idea or not for the economy etc?

Yes they are a shambles. 

[Guest]

Yes.

The East Coast Line was under public control between the two failed privatisations and paid over £200m per year into the Treasury.

[ozleicester]

Yes, along with the banks, mines..etc etc

[Guest MattP]

Only if means we get a significant reduction in ticket fares.

 

British Rail was absolutely crap. I'd prefer a German model of part private part public.

[Fox92]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Yes.

The East Coast Line was under public control between the two failed privatisations and paid over £200m per year into the Treasury.

The East Coast Mainline is running at debts. Last two years have been losses.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Fox92 said:

The East Coast Mainline is running at debts. Last two years have been losses.

Yeah but Jeremy Corbyn is going to sprinkle some magic dust on it, add more seats, reduce the fares and also turn that loss into a big profit for the taxpayer.

 

It's amazing no business has ever asked for his help before with these foolproof and obviously realistiic plans. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

The East Coast Mainline is running at debts. Last two years have been losses.

 

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Yes.

The East Coast Line was under public control between the two failed privatisations and paid over £200m per year into the Treasury.

It's being run by virgin. Before it was making money for us.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Yeah but Jeremy Corbyn is going to sprinkle some magic dust on it, add more seats, reduce the fares and also turn that loss into a big profit for the taxpayer.

 

It's amazing no business has ever asked for his help before with these foolproof and obviously realistiic plans. 

But it was making money under government control only a couple of years ago. You've no answer to that bit have you?

[Fox92]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

It's being run by virgin. Before it was making money for us.

Yeah, that's when it was run as "East Coast" ? I remember  that.

 

(I'm agreeing with you). Do Virgin have the West Coast too? Or do they just operate on it?

Edited 12 February 2018 by Fox92

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But it was making money under government control only a couple of years ago. You've no answer to that bit have you?

Well yes actually, they implemented price rises to make sure it did rather than let the bill fall on the general taxpayer.

 

How are you going to bring this back into profit and reduce fares for the customer? 

 

What's the plan? 

[Jon the Hat]

I honestly think we are finding the bottom in terms of stupidly low bidding for public contracts.  Carrillion are the first to go down.  This has been the issue with privatisation generally; expectation of low cost and fixed return to investors = government bailout.  The failure is seen as paying dividends, but I suspect it is the tender process at fault.  Pay peanuts get shit services.

[Izzy]

[Rob1742]

I have always found the train service to be pretty good. I only travel on it say 3 or 4 times a year, but have also thought it pretty decent and always wondered what the fuss was all about.

 

I also recall services run by the governments in the past to be pretty primitive, and everything suddenly improved under private ownership. 

 

Another thought is dealings with local councils I have always found to be laboured and backward. 

 

So for me, it all points towards businesses running business, which creates competition, which ensures a good service as someone is always waiting round the corner to pinch it if you are not on your game. 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

Yeah, that's when it was run as "East Coast" ? I remember  that.

 

(I'm agreeing with you). Do Virgin have the West Coast too? Or do they just operate on it?

Haven't virgin just been awarded the west coat just after admitting they can't afford to run the east coast? I'm not 100% if that's the case but that's what i've seen inferred.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Well yes actually, they implemented price rises to make sure it did rather than let the bill fall on the general taxpayer.

 

How are you going to bring this back into profit and reduce fares for the customer? 

 

What's the plan? 

You'd be better off asking somebody that would be making those decisions.

 

What's the current plan to deal with the fact the private providers keep dropping the ball and being bailed out over and over again?

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Haven't virgin just been awarded the west coat just after admitting they can't afford to run the east coast? I'm not 100% if that's the case but that's what i've seen inferred.

I'm not sure but they haven't been banned from future contracts, which is an absolute minimum punishment. Chris Grayling is an absolute disaster.

[anotherharboroughfox]

The funny thing is that Arriva is owned by Deutsche Bahn, Northern is owned by Abellio (Holland state railway) and Southern rail is owned by Govia which is the French national rail service. I'm sure the Italians were in for a franchise at one point too. 

 

Can't see why anyone would be against it to be honest. Although I do agree with @MattP that the German model is absolutely fantastic (which we part fund)

Edited 12 February 2018 by anotherharboroughfox

[peach0000]

As an 'essential' industry I believe it should be controlled by the state and run at cost for the people. There's no point it paying hundreds of millions into the treasury when regular people can't afford train fares. Same should happen with utilities too in my opinion.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Absolutely not. The current franchise system needs reforming but there is absolutely no reason to nationalise.

[Parafox]

The last time I used a train was from Canley in Cov to Birmingham airport and back a week later. Never cost me a penny. No ticket office or machine at the station, no ticket collector/conductor on the train. No wonder it's not making money.

 

Similarly my wife went from Hinckley to Birmingham New St and on to Malvern, again without paying. Not because I/she didn't want to but because there was no opportunity to.

 

In Poland (where we went last year) they have ticket offices, booking halls with machines, clean, fast, air conditioned trains with room for everyone and a first class ticket to Krakow cost 17 euro which included free coffee or tea. And they are state owned. And they run on time. And the staff are polite, helpful and friendly.

Edited 12 February 2018 by Parafox

[Lovejoy]

As somebody who pays a fair whack in commuting costs, I am actually more about having a service that works than the cost. The cost of commuting isn't a problem, but the fact I have to arrive at the station 20 minutes early every morning because you can't trust the service to work and the operator (London North Western) are incapable of communicating is rubbish. You can also guarantee at least once a month that I have to get a different line back and rely on the missus to pick me up.

 

Fully on board with the idea of overhauling our railway system, I need some convincing that nationalisation is the answer though.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Well yes actually, they implemented price rises to make sure it did rather than let the bill fall on the general taxpayer.

 

How are you going to bring this back into profit and reduce fares for the customer? 

 

What's the plan? 

They also ran older trains where private franchised have to invest in modernisation.  It's almost like you can improve cashflow by stopping investment, cutting costs and putting prices up in the short term, which makes the franchise look more attractive to bidders.  This is classic Venture Capitalist / Private Equity behaviour, which suddenly becomes some kind of genius management technique for the public sector in the eyes of the left.  Mental.

Edited 12 February 2018 by Jon the Hat

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, Lovejoy said:

As somebody who pays a fair whack in commuting costs, I am actually more about having a service that works than the cost. The cost of commuting isn't a problem, but the fact I have to arrive at the station 20 minutes early every morning because you can't trust the service to work and the operator (London North Western) are incapable of communicating is rubbish. You can also guarantee at least once a month that I have to get a different line back and rely on the missus to pick me up.

 

Fully on board with the idea of overhauling our railway system, I need some convincing that nationalisation is the answer though.

That is painful.  I am lucky in that I started using Southern in July last year - after they got their shit together.  Since then I have arrived at 7.20 for a 7.25 train most days, and never missed one or had one cancelled, and they have been no more than 5 minutes late.  I wonder how much it varies from a smaller station etc.  They obviously focus on the busier trains being on time.

Edited 12 February 2018 by Jon the Hat

[yorkie1999]

No way, why should the taxpayer pick up the bill for a failing industry that has been completely decimated by privatization. There's so much more to nationalizing the rail ways than just picking up the bill for the operating costs.