Deprivatisation of railways

[downquark1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3588785.stm

Which sounds better deprivatisation or publictisation?

[Xaccers]

Isn't the term "renationalisation"?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Isn't the term "renationalisation"?

Sorry, yes.

Anyway opinions on it?

[Graham F]

it depends if you are talking only about the Network or the actaully train franchises. The Netowrk should be run by the Government and the train franchises how they are is fine by me as long as they are hit with BIGGER penalties for late running services

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Isn't the term "renationalisation"?

no, "Steal it back" is the phrase

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Isn't the term "renationalisation"?

For a moment I read that as "rationalisation". Not that strange, as it probably is a wise idea...

[Chris W]

what is the point... our railways are crap, always have been crap, and as far as i can see always will be!

I can't count the times i have been on late/ cancelled/ early terminating services... i just got used to it now... £45 for a ticket to london... really not worth the paper it is printed on.

Originally Posted by Scooby

it depends if you are talking only about the Network or the actaully train franchises. The Netowrk should be run by the Government and the train franchises how they are is fine by me as long as they are hit with BIGGER penalties for late running services

I read an article recently that said the performance had increased since they took track maintainance back 'in house', so the Network run by the Govt. would seem to be a good idea.

I'm not sure about the franchises - the problems with running a public service using private companies is, imo, that the shareholders may get 'priority' over the customers & employees can get the worst deal of all? Having said that, the concept of competion improving efficiency can't be ignored.

Perhaps we could also think less about innovation - like higher speeds & tilting - and concentrate more on getting what we have now, working properly?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by homealone

I read an article recently that said the performance had increased since they took track maintainance back 'in house', so the Network run by the Govt. would seem to be a good idea.

I'm not sure about the franchises - the problems with running a public service using private companies is, imo, that the shareholders may get 'priority' over the customers & employees can get the worst deal of all? Having said that, the concept of competion improving efficiency can't be ignored.

Perhaps we could also think less about innovation - like higher speeds & tilting - and concentrate more on getting what we have now, working properly?

Frankly, one wonders how competition has increased efficiency. The British rail system is one of the most expensive (and dilapidated) in the developed world. And it's about a decade behind continental Europe when it come to high speed trains.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Isn't the term "renationalisation"?

No, because that's unacceptable to New Labour, hence the Newspeak versions proposed...!

[Simon Rochelle]

Originally Posted by danielf

... And it's about a decade behind continental Europe when it come to high speed trains.

We have high speed trains?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Graham

No, because that's unacceptable to New Labour, hence the Newspeak versions proposed...!

How about - detorify

[Nugget]

On Wednesday it announced it would spend £26bn in five years to boost train punctuality to 90%.

How about spending the £26bn to try to get the punctuality to 100%!

[Halcyon]

Railways should never have been privatised in the first place.
Look at all the accidents there have been since privatisation !!!

Originally Posted by monkeybreath

what is the point... our railways are crap, always have been crap, and as far as i can see always will be!

I can't count the times i have been on late/ cancelled/ early terminating services... i just got used to it now... £45 for a ticket to london... really not worth the paper it is printed on.

It seems that way, but if you go back about 50 years (!!) we actually had a very good rail system indeed. The problem has been a disastrous 'modernisation' plan in the 1950s, which spent a fortune on new equipment but failed to tackle outdated working practices and over-manning; the 'Beeching Axe' of the 1960s that slashed railway mileage on the supposition that the network should be a viable business, not socially-necessary infrastructure (the Tories started this process but Labour reneged on an election promise in 1964 by doing nothing to stop it); chronic under-investment in the 1970s, 80s and 90s; and finally a privatisation plan that was conceived out of political dogma rather than good research and planning, and rushed through Parliament without scrutiny by a Tory Government that knew it was running out of time.

We now have a network which is simply not extensive enough to act as a viable alternative for a great many road journeys, and costs a fortune to use. Consider: I live in Hemel Hempstead. I want to visit a potential supplier of services in Leeds. I can either go on the road (M1, almost literally door-to-door in under 2.5 hours) or I can go by rail 3.5 - 4 hours with two changes of train, and considerable cost when starting a journey before 9.30am).

In the 'heyday' of the railway, there were spells of both national and private ownership. World War 2 finally demonstrated that national ownership of a fully integrated network works best. The system needs to be brought back together. The problem now is that it will take so long to do, and cost so much, that there is little political incentive to do it.