Labour plan to part re-nationalise rail network

[roaminblue]

Anyone know the operating figures for East Coast Trains? I'd be interested to know, given that they're a publically owned company. Also, for those that talk up Virgin's product, I'm led to believe East Coast are even better in terms of overall quality, etc.

I'm not sure whether re-nationalisation across the whole network will work but as someone who prefers the rattler to any other mode of transport for away games I'd welcome anything that improved service and reduced ticket prices.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.directlyoperatedrailways.co.uk/PDF/DORReportAccounts2013.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.directlyoperatedrailways.co. ... ts2013.pdf</a>

that is the most recent A/R I could find.

 

[urmston]

I don't have figures, but to make that statement, you're assuming that the privatised ticket fees are less than the proportional difference in your tax, should it be nationalised.

Nationalisation is never a good idea.

Christ, you are hard work.
I'll try and explain in terms even you may grasp.
When the railways were publicly owned, they were far from perfect, and no sane person would argue otherwise.
But now they are privately owned, we have the worst of all worlds, in that we are paying more than ever in subsidies, for a less frequent service, on a much reduced network, which is more overcrowded, less safe, and miles more expensive than it was previously.
You clearly don't travel extensively on Britain's national rail network, because if you did you would be all too aware of this.
I had to stand up all the way back from Euston recently, despite having a pre-booked seat, the price of which could probably have bought me a standby ticket to New York.
And it was supposed to be first class, only Virgin, in their infinite wisdom, forgot to attach a first class carriage to the half dozen sardine tins they managed to find.
Booking any journey of length nowadays is a logistical nightmare which can often involve dozens of competing service providers, and a multitude of ticket options - it's just a shambles.
The bottom line is that things are just chaotic, and only stupid folk who consider rail nationalisation to be one step away from communist tyranny still cling to their outdated and intransigent beliefs, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Anyone who thinks nationalisation would improve things has not studied the history of nationalised industries.

The most likely result of nationalisation would be a worse service for rail users, more strikes by rail employees and more costly railways for the majority of taxpayers who hardly ever use them.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Nationalisation is never a good idea.

Christ, you are hard work.
I'll try and explain in terms even you may grasp.
When the railways were publicly owned, they were far from perfect, and no sane person would argue otherwise.
But now they are privately owned, we have the worst of all worlds, in that we are paying more than ever in subsidies, for a less frequent service, on a much reduced network, which is more overcrowded, less safe, and miles more expensive than it was previously.
You clearly don't travel extensively on Britain's national rail network, because if you did you would be all too aware of this.
I had to stand up all the way back from Euston recently, despite having a pre-booked seat, the price of which could probably have bought me a standby ticket to New York.
And it was supposed to be first class, only Virgin, in their infinite wisdom, forgot to attach a first class carriage to the half dozen sardine tins they managed to find.
Booking any journey of length nowadays is a logistical nightmare which can often involve dozens of competing service providers, and a multitude of ticket options - it's just a shambles.
The bottom line is that things are just chaotic, and only stupid folk who consider rail nationalisation to be one step away from communist tyranny still cling to their outdated and intransigent beliefs, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Anyone who thinks nationalisation would improve things has not studied the history of nationalised industries.

The most likely result of nationalisation would be a worse service for rail users, more strikes by rail employees and more costly railways for the majority of taxpayers who hardly ever use them.

You don't actually address any points any poster makes, ever, do you?
You're like a fucking automaton - 'Public Sector Bad/Private Sector Good'.
I've just explained precisely how the service is worse now than under nationalisation, but you don't fucking listen, do you?
It is simply impossible to reason with a dogma-ridden speak-your-weight machine like you.
So I won't, and good luck to anyone who even tries.

 

[wayne71]

I worked and travelled on both BR and its subsequent companies for 20 years. I can't comment on value for money as I got free travel but on service alone today's railway in the UK is a huge improvement on the old BR days.

 

[urmston]

Christ, you are hard work.
I'll try and explain in terms even you may grasp.
When the railways were publicly owned, they were far from perfect, and no sane person would argue otherwise.
But now they are privately owned, we have the worst of all worlds, in that we are paying more than ever in subsidies, for a less frequent service, on a much reduced network, which is more overcrowded, less safe, and miles more expensive than it was previously.
You clearly don't travel extensively on Britain's national rail network, because if you did you would be all too aware of this.
I had to stand up all the way back from Euston recently, despite having a pre-booked seat, the price of which could probably have bought me a standby ticket to New York.
And it was supposed to be first class, only Virgin, in their infinite wisdom, forgot to attach a first class carriage to the half dozen sardine tins they managed to find.
Booking any journey of length nowadays is a logistical nightmare which can often involve dozens of competing service providers, and a multitude of ticket options - it's just a shambles.
The bottom line is that things are just chaotic, and only stupid folk who consider rail nationalisation to be one step away from communist tyranny still cling to their outdated and intransigent beliefs, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Anyone who thinks nationalisation would improve things has not studied the history of nationalised industries.

The most likely result of nationalisation would be a worse service for rail users, more strikes by rail employees and more costly railways for the majority of taxpayers who hardly ever use them.

You don't actually address any points any poster makes, ever, do you?
You're like a fucking automaton - 'Public Sector Bad/Private Sector Good'.
I've just explained precisely how the service is worse now than under nationalisation, but you don't fucking listen, do you?
It is simply impossible to reason with a dogma-ridden speak-your-weight machine like you.
So I won't, and good luck to anyone who even tries.

It is a simple economic fact that public employees are expensive to employ compared to private employees.

Nationalisation would increase costs and mean that everyone would need to pay more towards the railways, even those who never use them from one year to the next.

I can see the benefits of nationalisation for railway employees but not the vast majority of us.

 

[metalblue]

Christ, you are hard work.
I'll try and explain in terms even you may grasp.
When the railways were publicly owned, they were far from perfect, and no sane person would argue otherwise.
But now they are privately owned, we have the worst of all worlds, in that we are paying more than ever in subsidies, for a less frequent service, on a much reduced network, which is more overcrowded, less safe, and miles more expensive than it was previously.
You clearly don't travel extensively on Britain's national rail network, because if you did you would be all too aware of this.
I had to stand up all the way back from Euston recently, despite having a pre-booked seat, the price of which could probably have bought me a standby ticket to New York.
And it was supposed to be first class, only Virgin, in their infinite wisdom, forgot to attach a first class carriage to the half dozen sardine tins they managed to find.
Booking any journey of length nowadays is a logistical nightmare which can often involve dozens of competing service providers, and a multitude of ticket options - it's just a shambles.
The bottom line is that things are just chaotic, and only stupid folk who consider rail nationalisation to be one step away from communist tyranny still cling to their outdated and intransigent beliefs, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Anyone who thinks nationalisation would improve things has not studied the history of nationalised industries.

The most likely result of nationalisation would be a worse service for rail users, more strikes by rail employees and more costly railways for the majority of taxpayers who hardly ever use them.

You don't actually address any points any poster makes, ever, do you?
You're like a fucking automaton - 'Public Sector Bad/Private Sector Good'.
I've just explained precisely how the service is worse now than under nationalisation, but you don't fucking listen, do you?
It is simply impossible to reason with a dogma-ridden speak-your-weight machine like you.
So I won't, and good luck to anyone who even tries.

But before nationalisation it was even better with ~1.5m passengers. Government then interfered creating regional monopolies with ~1m passengers before creating BR with ~750m passengers before privatising it again [albeit regional monpolies again] with ~1.5m passengers again. Well that was a waste of 100 years of government interference.

But yes it's a bit of a pickle nowadays.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Even Margaret Thatcher thought that privatisation of the rails was going too far. But from what I've read, this isn't even about privatising the railways, simply allowing a government-owned entity to offer services to compete with the private ones. For people claiming that state-ownership is always a bad idea, maybe you need reminding that the German state is the majority shareholder in the biggest German train company. The French rail network is a nationalised industry. Most of Spain's trains are operated by two state-owned companies. The Netherlands' biggest train operator and network are state-owned. And every one of these countries shits all over our train network. And all of them still allow private companies to operate trains.

As for why you should pay for it if you don't use it, why should you pay for anything? I've never had a heart attack. Why should I pay for yours? The fact is that more people travelling by public transport generally benefits everyone. It reduces pollution, it reduces health problems as people walk more, it even makes the roads less crowded for the people who still have to drive. The benefits of widespread train travel are well known to anyone who doesn't live under a stone, so the fact that one man can often make the same journey in a car for less money is stupid. The fact that it's even cheaper to fly (and not even on a budget airline) is even worse. And the UK already subsidises the rail network more than most other European countries.

 

[Cheesy]

I cannot believe that anyone who remembers what BR was like would be even remotely in favour of nationalising this service again.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I cannot believe that anyone who remembers what BR was like would be even remotely in favour of nationalising this service again.

Because it is now demonstrably less of a service in rural areas, more overcrowded than ever, more disjointed in terms of service providers, worse off through lack of investment in infrastructure and maintaining safety standards, more expensive than ever, more infrequent than ever, and still subsidised by Joe Fucking Public, the same as it was when publicly owned, only this time we have shareholders to pay.
But apart from every single aspect of the entire rail operation being worse now than it ever was under British Rail, you are completely right.
You're not related to urmston, by any chance?

 

[No6]

Just when, oh when,oh when are the LWNJ's on here going to understand and learn that nationalisation does not work?
It has never worked and it never will work. If I am wrong on this then please feel free to highlight and articulate a successful example in modern / recent times.

A Private Finance Initiative - if structured correctly and fairly (where the government own circa 40% of the business) is the only way forward for such industries which should include all of the utilities.

How do you explain the East Coast Mainline then?

"Not only that but DOR on East Coast receives the lowest subsidy of any operator and returns more money back to the state than any other train operator. By the end of this financial year it would have returned £800m to the taxpayer, all of which will be re-invested in the service, instead of going into the pockets of company shareholders"

<a class="postlink" href="http://actionforrail.org/the-attack-on-our-railways/keep-east-coast-public/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://actionforrail.org/the-attack-on- ... st-public/</a>