British Rail-Who wants it back

[Igzilla]

This is an interesting debate, as long as it doesn't turn into a binfest...

Sorry, Pastafarian, I'm not going to quotes figures and stuff, but would like to contribute. My own ideological/philosophical position is that I don't believe fundamentally vital services of a country should be in the hands or foreign or private hands. I would see these services as water, power, rail, maybe phone. These things should also be for the benefit of all legitimate residents of the country. What is more difficult is whether a state run monopoly can be run efficiently. As an aside, I don't use the trains much nowadays, but I did have to go to London the other week for business. As I was going up the mainline, I was impressed by the quietness of the train, the general cleanliness and the evidence of investment on the trackside. What was missing though, was people and consideration for bike users. It also cost my company an eye watering £60 return Worthing to London All Zones. I do remember the days of BR with dirt everywhere, rude staff and crap trains, however. It was cheap though.

Question is, why can't a State run enterprise be run more like a private company, not necessarily to make money first and foremost, but to aim not to lose money and if there is a surplus, to feed it directly back into the infrastructure or staff. Why can't we employ good people with the experience and knowledge to run the business, at competitive business rates, but without any payouts for failure? The Government should act more like an Executive Board with the final say on whether a good job is being done or not. It also needs a shift in perception as regards everyone's personal involvement with it - i.e. a State business is OUR business, therefore we should treat it as if we personally had a stake in it. This would go for staff and passengers.

Also, is it true that since the railways were privatized, the Government pays more in subsidies now than it ever did as BR? Does all of that go directly into the infrastructure or is a cut sliced off to pay dividends, bonuses etc first?

 

[Nibble]

anyone believing that service was better/would be better under nationalised rail clearly doesnt remember the old slam door trains, or the constant delays of yesturyear. there was a programme on this a few months ago and other than the grainy picture, hair cuts and suits, the interviews with people from over decades were exactly the same. to many delays, cancellations, too expensive.

I think its also overlooked that the rail infrastructure have been nationalised, and the vast majority of issues are due to this and not the private train operators. and fares will only be cheaper if the tax payer subsidises them more. which makes for a very odd situation where the left wing are advocating subsidies for the above average earners commuting to work.

what the debate always fails to recognise is that, in order to invest in the rail the owner needs to raise money. in the private owned model some of this is through shareholders and they receive some back some profit. in the public owed model all of this money is obtained via government bonds, and they will receive back some profit. the difference is in one model there is an interest in reducing costs and improving efficiencies, can we guess which?

The problem we have found though is that it is debateable whether the efficiency has been improved and if they have managed to cut down costs they have certainly not passed this onto the commuter, it's been passed to the shareholders, spent on dividends and poured into bonuses.

 

[Nibble]

Having said that, the slam doors were utterly ghastly when you had a hangover. They had very particular metallic snap to the end of the thump/slam. Ugh, I can hear it now.

 

[symyjym]

This is an interesting debate, as long as it doesn't turn into a binfest...

Sorry, Pastafarian, I'm not going to quotes figures and stuff, but would like to contribute. My own ideological/philosophical position is that I don't believe fundamentally vital services of a country should be in the hands or foreign or private hands. I would see these services as water, power, rail, maybe phone. These things should also be for the benefit of all legitimate residents of the country. What is more difficult is whether a state run monopoly can be run efficiently. As an aside, I don't use the trains much nowadays, but I did have to go to London the other week for business. As I was going up the mainline, I was impressed by the quietness of the train, the general cleanliness and the evidence of investment on the trackside. What was missing though, was people and consideration for bike users. It also my company an eye watering £60 return Worthing to London All Zones. I do remember the days of BR with dirt everywhere, rude staff and crap trains, however. It was cheap though.

Question is, why can't a State run enterprise be run more like a private company, not necessarily to make money first and foremost, but to aim not to lose money and if there is a surplus, to feed it directly back into the infrastructure or staff. Why can't we employ good people with the experience and knowledge to run the business, at competitive business rates, but without any payouts for failure? The Government should act more like an Executive Board with the final say on whether a good job is being done or not. It also needs a shift in perception as regards everyone's personal involvement with it - i.e. a State business is OUR business, therefore we should treat it as if we personally had a stake in it. This would go for staff and passengers.

Also, is it true that since the railways were privatized, the Government pays more in subsidies now than it ever did as BR? Does all of that go directly into the infrastructure or is a cut sliced off to pay dividends, bonuses etc first?

Probably because once an industry gets so large, it becomes almost impossible to run. I would hate to imagine what the rail inetwork would be like with thousands of Ernest types abusing it.

 

[Titanic]

This is an interesting debate, as long as it doesn't turn into a binfest...

Probably because once an industry gets so large, it becomes almost impossible to run. I would hate to imagine what the rail inetwork would be like with thousands of Ernest types abusing it.

Oh well... it was almost good while it lasted

 

[Simster]

This is an interesting debate, as long as it doesn't turn into a binfest...

Sorry, Pastafarian, I'm not going to quotes figures and stuff, but would like to contribute. My own ideological/philosophical position is that I don't believe fundamentally vital services of a country should be in the hands or foreign or private hands. I would see these services as water, power, rail, maybe phone. These things should also be for the benefit of all legitimate residents of the country. What is more difficult is whether a state run monopoly can be run efficiently. As an aside, I don't use the trains much nowadays, but I did have to go to London the other week for business. As I was going up the mainline, I was impressed by the quietness of the train, the general cleanliness and the evidence of investment on the trackside. What was missing though, was people and consideration for bike users. It also my company an eye watering £60 return Worthing to London All Zones. I do remember the days of BR with dirt everywhere, rude staff and crap trains, however. It was cheap though.

Question is, why can't a State run enterprise be run more like a private company, not necessarily to make money first and foremost, but to aim not to lose money and if there is a surplus, to feed it directly back into the infrastructure or staff. Why can't we employ good people with the experience and knowledge to run the business, at competitive business rates, but without any payouts for failure? The Government should act more like an Executive Board with the final say on whether a good job is being done or not. It also needs a shift in perception as regards everyone's personal involvement with it - i.e. a State business is OUR business, therefore we should treat it as if we personally had a stake in it. This would go for staff and passengers.

Also, is it true that since the railways were privatized, the Government pays more in subsidies now than it ever did as BR? Does all of that go directly into the infrastructure or is a cut sliced off to pay dividends, bonuses etc first?

Excellent post.

 

[symyjym]

Oh well... it was almost good while it lasted

Yes I can now see what I did there

 

[Gwylan]

The problem we have found though is that it is debateable whether the efficiency has been improved and if they have managed to cut down costs they have certainly not passed this onto the commuter, it's been passed to the shareholders, spent on dividends and poured into bonuses.

Not really. Some has been spent on dividends and bonuses but there's been a lot more spent on lawyers. I read somewhere that more was being spent per year on lawyers for wayleave and contract agreements than was spent on track maintenance.

 

[Nibble]

Not really. Some has been spent on dividends and bonuses but there's been a lot more spent on lawyers. I read somewhere that more was being spent per year on lawyers for wayleave and contract agreements than was spent on track maintenance.

I can well believe it.

 

[Igzilla]

Probably because once an industry gets so large, it becomes almost impossible to run. I would hate to imagine what the rail inetwork would be like with thousands of Ernest types abusing it.

I work for a private company employing 40k people in this country alone, with a worldwide TO in excess of 40 billion euros. In some sectors, we are the industry. It's not that impossible with the right people in the right jobs.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I didn't say they didn't have overcrowding but that's actually no different to the London rush hour or Brighton game days.

The difference is that they are so punctual that if you are more than a couple of minutes late you get a slip from the rail company apologising to your employer and taking responsibility for their lateness. They run massively quick bullet trains across a country much bigger than ours to precise timetables despite extreme heat, extreme cold and continuous minor earthquakes. I lived in Tokyo for eight months and I went everywhere by train. It was cheaper, more efficient and, at the weekend, less crowded.

 

[Flex Your Head]

Unlike the BR days when the station master would put on the bowler hat..

Link..

 

[symyjym]

I work for a private company employing 40k people in this country alone, with a worldwide TO in excess of 40 billion euros. In some sectors, we are the industry. It's not that impossible with the right people in the right jobs.

Which didn't generally happen when it was nationalised. It was about as efficient as the house of lords.

 

[symyjym]

I didn't say they didn't have overcrowding but that's actually no different to the London rush hour or Brighton game days.

The difference is that they are so punctual that if you are more than a couple of minutes late you get a slip from the rail company apologising to your employer and taking responsibility for their lateness. They run massively quick bullet trains across a country much bigger than ours to precise timetables despite extreme heat, extreme cold and continuous minor earthquakes. I lived in Tokyo for eight months and I went everywhere by train. It was cheaper, more efficient and, at the weekend, less crowded.

Japan's trains don't have to go wiggle to destinations, they are generally straight and probably a lot easier to maintain.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Japan's trains don't have to go wiggle to destinations, they are generally straight and probably a lot easier to maintain.

 

[Diego Napier]

So you would happily pay far higher income taxes to fund a public railway ?

Did I say that?

Why should one mean the other?

Are you a bit dim?

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

It also needs a shift in perception as regards everyone's personal involvement with it - i.e. a State business is OUR business, therefore we should treat it as if we personally had a stake in it. This would go for staff and passengers.

Interesting - could bonuses be paid to staff based on customer satisfaction?

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

...the difference is in one model there is an interest in reducing costs and improving efficiencies, can we guess which?

Reducing costs isn't always the best way to approach fundamental infrastructure for the country, it can have a greater impact on the economy as a whole.

 

[Beach Hut]

Did I say that?

Why should one mean the other?

Are you a bit dim?

Not me, the public cannot fund a health service and a nationalised railway unless more money comes so how else does it collect in money bar taxes ?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

i agree with your last sentiment.......would nationalisation though make ticket prices lower and would the service become more reliable?......just asking.

No, the same problem would exist, a lack of capacity

Higher prices are there to try to discourage use because the system couldn't cope with the potential commuter numbers otherwise.

The system was mostly built in Victorian times when the population was around 10 to 12 times smaller than it is now, and still uses most of the routes and tunnels built then, so it couldn't cope with larger trains (double deckers due to the tunnels sizes, or longer trains due to short platforms like Lewes) - Public or private ownership wouldn't change this or be able to resolve this without extremely prohibitively expensive investment in changing the infrastructure and building additional lines, which there isn't really the financial power to deliver or the public will to change (loss of countryside / homes to expand lines and major distruption whilst existing lines and tunnels / bridges upgraded which could also affect major roadways too whilst being carried out.)