You'd be mad to renationalise the railways ...

[amateur51]

But this is one of the most infuriating/frustrating aspects of post-nationalisation practice by the railway companies. Surely if it remains profitable to buy one's way across the country at fare rate equivalents of those of the BR era, it is possible to have the same charges at any time of one's choosing to travel, a seat being what it is. The only conclusion one can reach is that the public transport system has become a profit making machine for exploiting people who have no choice where or when they have to travel, and is no longer the service it once was and should return to being.

Hear, hear!

[Stillhomewardbound]

PG Tipps writes: "Of course the current rail system isn't "perfect" but it's so vastly improved from the old British Rail model that I'm astonished anyone could seriously talk about renationalisation."

>> The system IS improved (and by no means vastly) but only because of the public investment. British Rail would have improved by the very same increment if it had had the same level of financial committment.

In any case, the current system is really more of a public/private joint venture than being truly privatised, and the State is ready to take over if private companies are unable or unwilling to tender suitable bids for various parts of the network.

>> So, cherry picking rules ok, it seems. By this presentation it comes across that the state is there as a safety net commercial companies that can't do what they're meant to be good at.

Yes the ticket system can be confusing but you can't half get some great advance bargains on-line and/or enjoy a wide variety of options which you can consider at leisure.

Yes, you can get some great bargains. The companies throw them around like little more than loose change because it brings down the average of their ticket prices and helps mask the true horror of their peak time fares. Don't forget that all the discount cards that are available (student cards, senior cards etc, gold cards) were all introduced and available in the BR days.)

Rail nationalisation/privatisation, like the NHS, has long been a 'political football' for some but for many of the rest of us it's simply a question of arriving at the most efficient, cost-effective system possible?

'Cost-effective'???!!! If ever it was more inappropriate for two words to run together this has to be the occasion.

We have the highest rail fares in Europe and this time we can apply the word 'vastly' and other countries state rail companies eagerly helping themselves to generous slices of our train pie because it's such easy money.

If the status quo is to continue then surely it is only appropriate where there are profits to be made in the rail business then a percentage must come back directly to ticket buying customer.

[P. G. Tipps]

Ignoring the seemingly never-ending tiresome puerility from the usual suspect, I can only say that I generally pay less (sometimes considerably) for a return ticket between Glasgow and Manchester and Manchester and London than I did 10/15 years ago.

That is my own personal experience. It could be of course that others have a quite different one.

I can only go by own experience, and that is that train journeys are a generally much more civilised and pleasurable mode of travel than was the case under nationalisation. If the opposite were the case I'd soon plump for nationalisation, believe me.

When it comes to such things stale, old-fashioned political dogma on either side of the argument is of absolutely no interest to me. It's simply what appears to me to work better!

[Flosshilde]

the most efficient, cost-effective system possible?

So how come we (the tax-payer) are paying more to subsidise the rail service than pre-privatisation? & why is it more 'efficient' for some of that money to be payed to share-holders rather than invested in services or used to reduce fairs (which are among the highest in Europe)?

[Flosshilde]

The present system may have benefitted from greater state intervention since privatisation. When publicly owned, there was a tendency for governments to let BR "get on with it", while cutting their subsidies. Now, the government is ploughing investment into widespread electrification, and possibly new lines.

But that government investment could have happened without privatisation, if governments hadn't decided to run rail services down (cf Thatcher's comment that anyone who uses public transport after 30 was a failure).

[Serial_Apologist]

Ignoring the seemingly never-ending tiresome puerility from the usual suspect,

Oh come on - I'm sure your persuasiveness could charm the hind legs off a donkey, if you wanted it to...

[P. G. Tipps]

Oh come on - I'm sure your persuasiveness could charm the hind legs off a donkey, if you wanted it to...

You could be right. It would be certainly much less of a challenge.

I like donkeys, ever since one tossed my know-all sister onto the sand at Elie many years ago.

Maybe we could do with one around here ... ?

[P. G. Tipps]

So how come we (the tax-payer) are paying more to subsidise the rail service than pre-privatisation? & why is it more 'efficient' for some of that money to be payed to share-holders rather than invested in services or used to reduce fairs (which are among the highest in Europe)?

Simply because Governments (of either or any colour) don't invest in the system and keep putting the fares up even more as an additional source of income. And they always find numerous ways to waste that money instead ...

If the tax-payer is paying more (in real terms) than when nationalised then that is accompanied by a better, cleaner and more efficient service, imho.

However, if you don't think it is a better, cleaner and more efficient service then we are never going to agree, are we? :-)

[Flosshilde]

Privatisation isn't neccessary to achieve a better service.

But obviously you don't agree, so I'll leave you to your breakfast & Daily Telegraph while Mrs PGT pours the tea.

[P. G. Tipps]

Privatisation isn't neccessary to achieve a better service.

But obviously you don't agree, so I'll leave you to your breakfast & Daily Telegraph while Mrs PGT pours the tea.

I make and pour the tea in our house, thank you very much! 'Mrs PGT' knows her place.

Secondly, I no longer purchase newspapers solely intent on pleasing their core readerships, most notably the Telegraph and the Guardian, though I do confess to occasionally picking up a free Daily Mail in Waitrose for a bit of a belly-laugh ...

Thirdly, why do you think rail nationalisation will succeed this time when it failed so demonstrably before? I believe the current joint public-private enterprise is rather better than its predecessor hence, unlike some, I have no particular wish or yearning to revert to those bad old days?

[Flosshilde]

Thirdly, why do you think rail nationalisation will succeed this time when it failed so demonstrably before? I believe the current joint public-private enterprise is rather better than its predecessor hence, unlike some, I have no particular wish or yearning to revert to those bad old days?

a) it isn't a 'joint public-private partnership' - it's private companies being subsidised by the public purse.

b) The East Coast has been doing remarkably well under public ownership - in fact services & user satisfaction have improved. Which shows that privatisation isn't neccessary.

[P. G. Tipps]

a) it isn't a 'joint public-private partnership' - it's private companies being subsidised by the public purse.

b) The East Coast has been doing remarkably well under public ownership - in fact services & user satisfaction have improved. Which shows that privatisation isn't neccessary.

a) All lines are owned by the non-shareholder Network Rail (in reality a nationalised company and now officially a 'government body') and are tendered out to both private and 'publicly-owned' companies. I fail to see how the system can be described as anything else. It is neither a fully privatised system nor a nationalised one. It is a perfect example of a third-way 'mixed economy' in action!

b) The main franchise on the line is currently held by a company owned by the Dept for Transport (East Coast). However there is no guarantee that franchise will be held ad infinitum. There are also many other companies operating passenger services on the line: First Capital Connect, First Hull Trains, First TransPennine Express, East Midlands Trains, First ScotRail, Cross Country, Northern Rail and Grand Central.

[amateur51]

a) All lines are owned by the non-shareholder Network Rail (in reality a nationalised company and now officially a 'government body') and are tendered out to both private and 'publicly-owned' companies. I fail to see how the system can be described as anything else. It is neither a fully privatised system nor a nationalised one. It is a perfect example of a third-way 'mixed economy' in action!

b) The main franchise on the line is currently held by a company owned by the Dept for Transport (East Coast). However there is no guarantee that franchise will be held ad infinitum. There are also many other companies operating passenger services on the line: First Capital Connect, First Hull Trains, First TransPennine Express, East Midlands Trains, First ScotRail, Cross Country, Northern Rail and Grand Central.

When you write 'perfect example', surely it's just an example. In what sense do you mean 'perfect'?

My heart goes out to Mrs PGT, it really does.

[P. G. Tipps]

When you write 'perfect example', surely it's just an example. In what sense do you mean 'perfect'?.

No 1 in the dictionary definition below, amateur51 ... sorry if you found the use of the word somewhat imperfect in the seemingly fruitless cause of mutual comprehension.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect

My heart goes out to Mrs PGT, it really does.

Too late, I'm afraid ... I got there long, long before you.

[Flosshilde]

a) All lines are owned by the non-shareholder Network Rail (in reality a nationalised company and now officially a 'government body') and are tendered out to both private and 'publicly-owned' companies. I fail to see how the system can be described as anything else. It is neither a fully privatised system nor a nationalised one. It is a perfect example of a third-way 'mixed economy' in action!

b) The main franchise on the line is currently held by a company owned by the Dept for Transport (East Coast). However there is no guarantee that franchise will be held ad infinitum. There are also many other companies operating passenger services on the line: First Capital Connect, First Hull Trains, First TransPennine Express, East Midlands Trains, First ScotRail, Cross Country, Northern Rail and Grand Central.

Classic case of SC avoiding the point.