Time for a national, publicly-owned, railway?

[teamsaint]

In inspector calls makes an interesting point about people who use publicly funded services.
I have no intention at all of using nuclear weapons, so I think I should be able to withdraw from the scheme.

Interesting though, that he somehow sees London as exempt . Odd.

Also, I wonder if he has considered how all the lovely services that he enjoys, (lets guess, restaurants, concerts,NHS ) are going to be run when the people providing the service can't get to work because public transport has been scrapped, or costs more than their wages, or , or because the road network is gridlocked permanently.
Great scheme otherwise though !!

[teamsaint]

Pay towards them would be nearer the mark

TBF Amsy, the average motorist pays ****loads of tax /duty etc !!
Not that this addresses the main point, I know.

[Flosshilde]

Didn't Virgin invest a lot of money in the service? Do they not deserve a return on this investment? If there were no prospect of a profit, they would not have made the investment. Then the government (i.e. the taxpayer) would have had to put up the money instead. Why then would we be better off?

You seem to have missed the fact that the government/us is putting up the money anyway, to a much greater level than it did before privatisation.

[Flosshilde]

Ah. What a difference an a makes!

Deepest apologies for inadvertantly misleading you.

Brian Souter used some of his several millions of pounds (gained, to a large extent, from running subsidised train and bus services) to fund a campaign/referendum against the repeal of Section 28 in Scotland (I've forgotten what it was called here). It failed, I'm pleased to say

[Flosshilde]

Why let the government anywhere near managing engineering facilities and operations? They obviously have no expertise within either government or the civil service.

... So why would we want to place the running of the railways in the hands of these idiots?

Actually, the 'Government' didn't run British Rail - British Rail managers did. The Government might have decided policy, but they do so now.

[Dave2002]

These are out of date and I haven't Googled for more recent figures or more ... authoritative sources, but they give a flavour for road accidents.

http://www.standard.co.uk/newsheadlines/road-accidents-cost-nhs-470m-7084364.html

http://www.makingthelink.net/tools/c...road-accidents

Jean and hey nonymous

Agreed, but I think the revenue from fuel duty and licensing runs into £billions, so relatively the NHS and other costs are small. This is not to say that these should be ignored, or that we should be complacent about driving and accidents, though.

[amateur51]

"The transport secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, who has only been in post for a few weeks, says that civil servants were to blame for the blunders over the west coast mainline franchise, and that heads will roll. However, Gus O'Donnell, former head of the home civil service, countered that it is "self-defeating" to attack officials, and that ministers are to blame for failing to ensure that salaries are sufficient to secure properly skilled staff. Who is right?" asks Vernon Bogdanor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/05/west-coast-rail-blame-game-principle

[John Shelton]

And perhaps the whole franchise process was flawed in requiring bidders to predict revenue growth over 15 years. I don't think there's any "perhaps" about that . "Think of a number and then almost double it ...."

For me the nub of the problem is here: "Civil servants are to be offered workshops to boost their commercial skills, following a series of problems with outsourcing contracts." http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-lea...vice-workshops

The outsourcing idea is unproven as far as I can discover beyond the level of dogma. Perhaps someone has evidence that's not the case? (particularly as it is now in full flow in the NHS. With an inevitable smash doubtless on its way).

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Also, I wonder if he has considered how all the lovely services that he enjoys, (lets guess, restaurants, concerts,NHS ) are going to be run when the people providing the service can't get to work because public transport has been scrapped, or costs more than their wages, or , or because the road network is gridlocked permanently.
Great scheme otherwise though !!

Strawman. I haven't advocated scrapping all of public transport, nor even part of it. But it seems to me that operation and maintenance of railways cannot be achieved at costs comparable with road transport. We all benefit equally from nuclear weapons; we don't from the railways.

The case of London and the use of railways is singular because it's almost certain that London can't 'operate' without them. But why does the rest of the country have to subidise an area where incomes are higher than anywhere else in the UK? Surely in heliocentric's Big Society, the affluent area would help the less well off - or does he want his world the other way round?

Rail doesn't even carry much freight because the rail networks don't like freight trains because they wreck the lines. Perhaps, like the canals, it's time to relegate railways to leisure pursuits?

But whatever, I don't think government should play any part in their operations or maintenance.

[heliocentric]

The outsourcing idea is unproven as far as I can discover beyond the level of dogma

That depends on your perspective of course. From the point of view of the ordinary person it's usually an incomprehensible catastrophe, because naturally it's kept fairly quiet that from the point of view of "the 1%" everything is going swimmingly according to plan.

[John Shelton]

That depends on your perspective of course. From the point of view of the ordinary person it's usually an incomprehensible catastrophe, because naturally it's kept fairly quiet that from the point of view of "the 1%" everything is going swimmingly according to plan.

What is interesting (in a grim way) about the situation is that the going swimmingly for particular interests depends on a strange limbo where privatisation primarily involves the transfer of money from the public to the private sector to act as a kind of proxy public sector with very little clear analysis I can find of cost benefit (never mind analysis of effectiveness: though there's plenty of research, against conventional wisdom, that the NHS is highly coat and performance effective against alternative models). The social consequences of total privatisation probably wouldn't exercise the 1% etc. - but the profit making opportunities would reduce.

Why people seem happy to see public money handed over to private enterprises without any clarity about cost and outcome is a puzzle to me.

Perhaps the information is there and I am looking in the wrong place?

[heliocentric]

The social consequences of total privatisation probably wouldn't exercise the 1% etc. - but the profit making opportunities would reduce.

Quite: of course there's no massive conspiracy or "master plan", just the relentless logic of capitalism, which probably will eventually enter (perhaps already has entered the first stages of) a crisis from which there are no longer any winners. Not that this is anything to look forward to of course, since it could well involve war, famine and destruction on a global level not seen even in the twentieth century, although I would like to think that is not the only alternative if there's a collective will to stop it. Sorry for straying so far offtopic, but the current state of the rail system in the UK is a small symptom of something much larger.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

This isn't capitalism, it's management by ignorant government. It's the same in the power industry.

I think Hey Nonymous is on to something when he mentions the complete lack of any cost benefit analysis. Does anyone really know what it should cost to run a railway, and thus what rates of return the various franchises achieve? I find it quite staggering that it's cheaper for me to drive a car there and back to London (a round trip of ~500 miles) for less than the 'cost' of the rail ticket (excepting those serendipity days when the fare's ridiculously cheap).

[amateur51]

This isn't capitalism, it's management by ignorant government. It's the same in the power industry.

I think Hey Nonymous is on to something when he mentions the complete lack of any cost benefit analysis. Does anyone really know what it should cost to run a railway, and thus what rates of return the various franchises achieve? I find it quite staggering that it's cheaper for me to drive a car there and back to London (a round trip of ~500 miles) for less than the 'cost' of the rail ticket (excepting those serendipity days when the fare's ridiculously cheap).

How much is your driver on and do you factor in depreciation, insurance, parking, cleaning & garaging?

Plus the fluffy dice and the nodding dog

[teamsaint]

Strawman. I haven't advocated scrapping all of public transport, nor even part of it. But it seems to me that operation and maintenance of railways cannot be achieved at costs comparable with road transport. We all benefit equally from nuclear weapons; we don't from the railways.

The case of London and the use of railways is singular because it's almost certain that London can't 'operate' without them. But why does the rest of the country have to subidise an area where incomes are higher than anywhere else in the UK? Surely in heliocentric's Big Society, the affluent area would help the less well off - or does he want his world the other way round?

Rail doesn't even carry much freight because the rail networks don't like freight trains because they wreck the lines. Perhaps, like the canals, it's time to relegate railways to leisure pursuits?

But whatever, I don't think government should play any part in their operations or maintenance.

So London "Can't operate without them" but presumably other cities can. Still odd. Wages might be high in the SE, but they aren't high enough to pay for unsubsidised transport for the people who keep the city moving ......the people on sub UK average wages.

Oh, and my point about staff getting to work.......how is that going to happen in your subsidy free London?

The bit about nuclear weapons...I don't FEEL I benefit....but you don't FEEL that society(or you) benefits from subsidised rail. But perhaps I am wrong, or you are, or we both are.