[Travel] Appealing a rail penalty fare

[BrickTamland]

Trains in the UK are a disgrace, anyone defending them needs to get their heads checked. Rest of the world seem to be able to do it.

 

[Creaky]

Correct. The initial investment was private because that way the owner had a guaranteed return on investment. The country decided, when prices got exhorbitant, that the need to feed commuters into cities like London and Liverpool was now an essential part of UK plc, infra-structurally, they bought these lines into public ownership to protect those commuters and increase movement potential. The sellers were given a good price and surrendered their monopoly.

Thatchers crime was to reverse that and place those services back in private hands but, stupidly, maintaining responsibility for the tracks (the non revenue generating element) in public hands. This is great for the train operators who get paid directly for a seat, or a corridor place, by the passengers but shithouse for the taxpayers who get to maintain rail tracks for the profiteers.

If anyone thinks that the sell off was a great move for the UK needs to look at Australia where the public owns both elements and receives a top draw service for the country and the users.

Haven’t you omitted something in that summary - specifically whilst the railways were in public hands? - the big Beeching sell off. Thousands of miles of track and hundreds of stations closed by government and at the same time fortunes pumped into improving the road network. There is absolutely no proof that in the long term greater effective investment is pumped into nationalised industries and infrastructure in comparison to privately owned ones. Why anyone thinks that the politicians are the best people to run anything is beyond me!

The railways were built using private capital along routes where they perceived there was a demand, that way shareholders expected to get a return. Building a railway didn’t guarantee a profit by any means.

 

[father_and_son]

I think I’m casting my pearls before swine on this one. If anyone seriously thinks that running national infrastructure for profit rather than need is a good idea...despite the total shambles privatisation has brought to rail in the UK...then I have to suspect political idealism over common sense.

Oh..and before we have the “I remember how shit British Rail was” please amend it to “I remember how shit a woefully underfunded and over unionised British Rail was” as that was the situation in those days.

Thatcher did some very good work in bringing down the unions which were strangling the country. She used that to justify the sale of BR and set our country on a disastrous course where vital services are seen as revenue generators.

It’s possible for a leader to distinguish themselves in one way and soil their legacy in another. Selling BR proves that.

The key failing of breaking up a large organisation and selling off the parts is that some bits generate money and some cost money... While they remain as one they offset each other. However, breaking it up and selling it off means the benefits of the good parts generate profit for the new owners and the poor parts have to be subsidised or shut down.

For all the failings of BR (and there were *many*), at least it is a better model than a system where all the downsides are placed on tax payers and all the upsides on shareholders and the commuters just get shafted.

 

[Tokyohands]

Wouldn't hiring a solicitor cost more than the fine or are you a man of principle that prefers money going to the nicer guys and girls?

Nah it was a favour from my mates dad at DMH.