ks.234
Half way to Infinity
What evidence? Everyone I know who has to use the railway is not happy. If you were travelling from the South to say Glasgow, would you fly or go by train?
Winter election
- Thread starter hifinutt
- Start date
- Status
Stunsworth
pfm Member
Only around half of Northern rail trains were on time, the suburban trains near me are converted buses.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
Farage is claiming in public that his candidates are being ‘intimidated and threatened’ by the Conservative Party. He’s making an allegation of criminal activity- shouldn’t he be making a complaint to the police? These ‘pacts’ between right wing groups never endure. I mean, look at what Johnson did to his own MPs, even the mighty, like former Chancellors and Attorney Generals. He’s not going to waste any time stomping on flies like Farage and Tice.
glancaster
In the silicon vale
Within the last few years, a brand new station was opened where I live, leading to a clear improvement in access and convenience. Some of the fares (e.g. peak into London) are rather expensive, though. I wouldn't say I was happy, exactly, but I am content, more positive than negative.
The railways are not privatised currently, anyway. It is the train operating companies that are, and not even all of them. There is still a great deal of direct government running of railways and also of government subsidies e.g. see https://fullfact.org/economy/how-much-does-government-subsidise-railways/ .
The debate reminds me rather of the debate large organisations have periodically about IT: in-house vs outsourcing. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to worry about running IT services ourselves and got someone else to do it, so outsource! (A few years later) Wouldn't it be great if we had more control and flexibility over a core part of our business: in-house! Tick, tock, tick, tock. There are arguments for both, and none of them are killer. The railways were originally, during the golden age of rail, all/mostly private operators, then came nationalisation and Dr. Beeching under BR, then the Tory privatisation in the 1990s, now maybe the clock ticks once more. We shall see, but I'm deeply sceptical it will make much difference one way or the other. What would/does, is more public money.
Kind regards
- Garry
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Is it the ‘train operating companies’ that opened your brand new station with monies generated from their profits?
jackbarron
Chelsea, London
Free broadband in the UK is a great idea and the Tories have been caught with their hands down their trousers. It helps to gear the nation up for the future. If broadband goes totally wi-fi, it doesn't matter. The areas dealt with by BT can be nationalized.
Corbyn has just said in a speech it will be called British Broadband.
The message has had a dramatic result. Fat-boy Johnson, the CEO of BT and right-wing lobbyists are grunting and whinging. The Sky Business editor has said free broadband wouldn't be possible unless Brexit takes place due to EU regulations. A Labour MP has argued this is a misunderstanding of the rules.
The role-out of broadband by private companies has been appalling. I remember being on Talk Talk a number of years ago, which barely worked at times. When I rang up to complain to the customer service, I'd get through to somebody in the Far East, who couldn't speak English. These companies don't give a monkey's.
Broadband is as important as the NHS and utilities. It shouldn't be left to private company chancers and spivs.
The idea of the running costs being paid for by tech monsters like Facebook and Amazon is sound, if it can be brought off.
Jack
The biggest break up of our rail service happened under nationalisation. You cannot blame private sector for that. London is getting loverly cross rail etc.
My point is that are rail service has been relatively crap for a while. It has improved in terms of increased rail journeys & usage. Nationalisation would only improve things with massive further investment so is not a solution in itself.
The main problem is paying for it. The idea is lovely but the practicalities are difficult. It is not as important as the NHS.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
But as people have pointed out upthread, what we have now is a complex mixture of public and private. Masses of public money still go into the Rail/Train service as a whole and much of it, it appears, goes into private pockets. As I understand it, only the train companies are privatised, so who is actually paying for crossrail. And the nice new stations that've been mentioned a couple of times?
It is complex. Rail infrastructure is generally state owned, stations are operated by TOCs. Stations are partly funded by commercial means, rents from retailers, revenue from advertising. You will always have some private involvement in rail, it is indivisible. I think TOC model can work & has on some services but it is a difficult situation & I get a little annoyed by the assumption that solutions are easy.
glancaster
In the silicon vale
Why does it matter? Why should I, as a passenger and 'station user', care? I'd never really thought about it before today.
As far as I can work out with a quick web search, it was partly paid for by the TOC and partly by Network Rail, in what seems an expression of the general hybrid nature of UK rail.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
British governments killed the railways through disinvestment and political dogma while France, Germany, Italy and Spain were investing in magnificent high speed rail networks. The train operators here are trying to increase capacity and profit on an infrastructure much of which was built when Disraeli was Prime Minister. Thatcher said everyone wants to travel in their own shiny new car and sod the railways ( or more accurately the employees and their unions).
Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
Isn't that what the Tories are now doing to the NHS?
glancaster
In the silicon vale
My Dad had some knowledge of the original development of the Advanced Passenger Train (APT). The initial stages, which had been farmed out to commercial companies for development, went well. Then it was taken in house by BR, and they completely ruined it. It became known as the 'queasy rider' due to the sensation imbued by the tilt system, and for spilling cups of tea, and became a massive white elephant. Whole sorry saga: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Passenger_Train . Nationalised railways don't necessarily have to be pants (see France), but BR was. In this case, at least, it wasn't through lack of money either, just poor management.
Kind regards
- Garry
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
But it needed private ownership to actually make that public money do something. BR was a money pit that delivered unsafe, rattly trains, Casey Jones burgers and Maxpax coffee.
I am not against nationalising rail but it has a lot of work to prove it won't repeat what happened when it was nationalised before.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
All Government capital expenditure goes into private pockets. We buy from private companies.
gavreid
Pretty Words...
The privatisation was virtually the last act of a failing Tory Government, sneaked through before they were kicked out, and in the full knowledge that there was no majority public support. It's also important to realise that it was deregulated as a consequence of EU directive that the Tory Government failed to oppose.
gavreid
Pretty Words...
The structure of RailTrack led directly to the worst disaster of the modern era - trying to run a train company without an engineer in the boardroom.
- Status