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

[Stillhomewardbound]

It is neither a fully privatised system nor a nationalised one. It is a perfect example of a third-way 'mixed economy' in action!

As established by the very much less than third way government of John Major.

[P. G. Tipps]

Classic case of SC avoiding the point.

That makes absolutely no sense as a response to my factual post so I assume your goal (like the usual suspect) is simply to halt any sort of sensible discussion. Congratulations, you have succeeded in your goal.

Enjoy your evening!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

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!

It seems to be a privatised one paid for by the public.

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.

Those other companies actually cause line chaos, using lower speed diesel trains on an electrified line.

[P. G. Tipps]

It seems to be a privatised one paid for by the public.

There is both State and Private capital invested in our rail system. If there were no Private capital the State would a) have to fund the shortfall by increasing taxes as it has no extra money because the Treasury is bust, or b) simply manage the railways decline by lack of investment and line closures, as happened under full nationalisation last century.

The only time we had real privatisation on the railways was in the pre-nationalisation era when regional companies ran their own separate systems and the State was not involved in the running of railways in any way.

Those other companies actually cause line chaos, using lower speed diesel trains on an electrified line.

If your description of 'line chaos' is true (and there are indeed recognised "bottlenecks" on that line) surely that is the responsibility of the 'government body', Network Rail, which invites tenders from the separate companies? One remembers the issue on the WCML when Virgin (which had always run the main service pretty successfully, imo) lost the franchise to First Group purely on the basis of cost. However, NR quickly had to reverse its decision when it became apparent that the cheapest option, especially if deemed to be wholly unrealistic by other tendering companies, is a dangerous route to follow so Virgin rightly won back the franchise.

The apparent notion that there will be no 'line chaos' under a return to full nationalisation and that debt-ridden Governments will spend loads more of our money to keep it up-to-date and modernised and also reduce the fares at the same time strikes me as being somewhat fanciful, especially when comparatively recent historical experience proved quite the opposite?

[Dave2002]

Classic case of SC avoiding the point.

Who or what is SC? Secret acronyms!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Who or what is SC? Secret acronyms!

There's no-one here with those initials, unless you mean our friend suffolkcoastal, who hasn't posted on this thread at all.

[Flosshilde]

I must have been confusing him with someone else (not Suffolkcoastal) with a very similar style :winkeye:

[Flosshilde]

One remembers the issue on the WCML when Virgin (which had always run the main service pretty successfully, imo) lost the franchise to First Group purely on the basis of cost. However, NR quickly had to reverse its decision when it became apparent that the cheapest option, especially if deemed to be wholly unrealistic by other tendering companies, is a dangerous route to follow so Virgin rightly won back the franchise.

Re-writing history again. Virgin were a disaster when they started running the West Coast service - high level of passenger dis-satisfaction, lengthy delays, & generally poor service (I made - and make - frequent trips from Glasgow to London so I know what it was like). They improved the nearer it got to the franchise renewal date (funny, that). When they lost the franchise they went to court, got the process stopped (halting a number of other franchise bids for other services), and were granted an extension to run the service until the government has sorted out the mess they made of the franchise bid process. Bidding for the franchise will take place in 2016.

[P. G. Tipps]

Re-writing history again. Virgin were a disaster when they started running the West Coast service - high level of passenger dis-satisfaction, lengthy delays, & generally poor service (I made - and make - frequent trips from Glasgow to London so I know what it was like). They improved the nearer it got to the franchise renewal date (funny, that). When they lost the franchise they went to court, got the process stopped (halting a number of other franchise bids for other services), and were granted an extension to run the service until the government has sorted out the mess they made of the franchise bid process. Bidding for the franchise will take place in 2016.

I too use Virgin a lot on the WCML and have never had any real cause for dissatisfaction. Only two heavy delays in the whole of the past year, one caused by winter storms bringing down pylons in Cumbria at Xmas and the other a signal failure at Watford in April. The early delays on the WCML were mostly due to the upgrading of the line itself which again had nothing to do with Virgin. Most passengers I have spoken to on journeys seem quite content with the current service offered by Virgin, though naturally there is always room for improvement!

Of course the bidding process was flawed, which is precisely why the Government in the form of the DfT had to extend the franchise for Virgin. Furthermore, when the next bidding takes place there is no reason why another company cannot put in what it feels is a better offer than that provided by Virgin. It is up to the nationalised part of the system to decide on the merits or otherwise of that and, as you say yourself, that was where the "fault" in the process lay.

It is surely a bit rich to blame private industry for State failures/incompetence!

[Serial_Apologist]

There is both State and Private capital invested in our rail system. If there were no Private capital the State would a) have to fund the shortfall by increasing taxes as it has no extra money because the Treasury is bust, or ...

That shibboleth again! There is as much money available as the Bank of England allows to have printed. Obviating any mismatch is very much an arbitrary decision, based on how much they think the shysters who run global capitalism by gambling with the money people have created making raw materials into commodities will take fright at possible diminishing returns. This is because, yes, too much money chasing too few goods is inflationary - coinage quantity has outstripped its expression in the collective hours-based value inscribed in capital products, in absolute terms thus making it of less value; but correcting this is nowadays governments' sole chosen means of inflation control, and so only those with loadsa money stashed away benefit, as always, eh?

[P. G. Tipps]

That shibboleth again! There is as much money available as the Bank of England allows to have printed. Obviating any mismatch is very much an arbitrary decision, based on how much they think the shysters who run global capitalism by gambling with the money people have created making raw materials into commodities will take fright at possible diminishing returns. This is because, yes, too much money chasing too few goods is inflationary - coinage quantity has outstripped its expression in the collective hours-based value inscribed in capital products, in absolute terms thus making it of less value; but correcting this is nowadays governments' sole chosen means of inflation control, and so only those with loadsa money stashed away benefit, as always, eh?

I'm not sure what economic policy you are actually suggesting here.

Are you saying the Government should print 'loadsa money' to fund the railways and shouldn't worry a jot if the poorer in society get hurt in the process?

That is a serious question because we are where we are with the railways, and the national economy in general, whatever our views on capitalism?

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not sure what economic policy you are actually suggesting here.

Are you saying the Government should print 'loadsa money' to fund the railways and shouldn't worry a jot if the poorer in society get hurt in the process?

That is a serious question because we are where we are with the railways, and the national economy in general, whatever our views on capitalism?

Given that incomes do form part of any inflationary spiral, I would advocate an overarching prices and incomes policy. This was middle-of-the-road political thinking back in the early Thatcher days - it was advocated by the Social Democratic Party. The trade unions rejected such an idea as an attack on working people, but it was unfortunate, I now think, for the left back then to have rejected the idea as a fetter on "free collective bargaining", euphemism for my better-organised workers having the advantage over yours through no fault of their own. I think with machinery preset to involve people in deciding through their organisations, (and unaligned people wherever possible joining organisations), this could be seen consensually as in everyone's interests in a finite world.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Are you saying the Government should print 'loadsa money' to fund the railways and shouldn't worry a jot if the poorer in society get hurt in the process?

Isn't that what they usually do?

[Barbirollians]

By far the best experiences I have of travelling on the railways nowadays are on the renationalised East Coast line - better services ,much friendlier and happier staff than on Virgin X Country and East Midlands trains .

[P. G. Tipps]

Of course the nationalised companies now have to compete with their private counterparts hence the need to be "on their toes" which would not be the case if the network were fully nationalised!

Here's an interesting Which survey though inevitably we are hardly comparing like-with-like here ...

http://www.which.co.uk/home-and-garden/leisure/reviews-ns/best-and-worst-uk-train-companies/best-train-companies-overall/