[Travel] More than 660 trains cancelled every day on British railways

[blue-shifted]

600 trains, out of how many in total?

 

[clapham_gull]

Oh, of course, because privatisation has made such significant improvements no doubt?

It's a clichéd argument. What the trains were like in the 70s and 80s doesn't inform anyone at all regarding where they go from now.

Millions more people use the trains now and the public subsidy is far far higher than it was under BR. It's public money that has driven improvements.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

It's a clichéd argument. What the trains were like in the 70s and 80s doesn't inform anyone at all regarding where they go from now.

Millions more people use the trains now and the public subsidy is far far higher than it was under BR. It's public money that has driven improvements.

Isn't that a good thing? More people use the railway because it works better and continued investment, which there is, will mean more and more people use it.

 

[clapham_gull]

it works better and continued investment .

Public money

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Public money

.... and more members of the PUBLIC using it. The only way people will get people out of their cars is by a good public transport infrastructure and service, so YES public money will be needed now to invest in it to get more people using it. I'll ignore the dunce cap and await your apology

 

[Bodian]

The main reason for the decline in railway standards was the almost complete (deliberate) lack of investment. Then in the long run-up to privatisation money was thrown in to make it look attractive to investors and standards (both of stock and staff attitudes) improved tremendously. Yes, there has been investment since privatisation - but it was only political ideologies that stopped the same levels of investment from occurring in a nationalised industry. The public funds that now go into the railways find their way to shareholders or is frittered away on intercompany arguments and negotiations. If the same levels of public investment were continued within a newly nationalised industry, we wouldn't return to the 'bad old days'.

 

[Hastings gull]

I’m obviously. suggesting a “modern” renationalisation, not a return to the 60 or 70s. As an aside I did use trains in the 80s and they seemed to run on time, ticketing was simple and trains okay and staff helpful and incredibly knowledgeable

you are so right; that was the golden decade -well done Maggie!

 

[Happy Exile]

The more I travel for work the more I realise the shambles we accept in this country. I've used trains in Mexico, Peru, Chile, in Norway, Poland, France, Germany, India, Holland, Belgium, Morocco, Spain, Pakistan and many more and can honestly say a week of Southern to London has more problems than the combined total experienced in years of using trains in countries often with supposedly worse standards and infrastructure. In Norway over a foot of snow overnight and a fire in the station at Oslo where I set off from and a 300km journey wasn't delayed even a minute. Poland has the easiest to understand and most customer focused ticketing system. France has actual customer service on trains. We shouldn't be too proud to learn from other countries that do it so much better than us.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

No, actually it was a hangover from pre-Thatcher Britain - she was booted out before she got round to flogging off the railways along with everything else she'd flogged off.

How can it be a hangover, if stated the trains in the 80s ran fine? Was only one PM during that decade.

 

[GT49er]

How can it be a hangover, if stated the trains in the 80s ran fine? Was only one PM during that decade.

Leftover then, not hangover if that makes you happier. Funny how other people seemed to know just what I meant.

 

[Albion my Albion]

That's probably enough trains to move the whole population of England from London to Brighton.