Should the Railways be Nationalised? Or Whats good about privatised railways?

There is something inherently potty in introducing competition into national services, like the railway.

When the arriva train I was on got stuck in the Severn tunnel, they had to wait for an engine that they owned to come and shunt us out, even though there were engines owned by other companies available, which would have been costly. It was apparently cheaper to wait (and reimburse other companies for their delays) than to use a "foreign" engine.

That is seriously potty in my book.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44194146

Anyone who thinks our privatised railways are marvellous should read about the latest c*ck up introducing new timetables.

Trenitalia is the primary train operator in Italy. A subsidiary of Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane, itself owned by the Italian government, it was established in 2000 following a European Union directive on the deregulation of rail transport. So basically its owned by the Italian government through its own company.

I am no expert on the 4th Railway package, having only read one article on it. I think its to harmonise safety standards etc which is not a bad thing. Even if different companies have to bid for franchises, these companies can be state owned or a mix of state- private. Its ironic that many of our private train companies are actually owned by European state enterprises, so our high fares and taxpayer subsidies to our rail services are going towards us funding the cheaper services enjoyed on the continent. Instead of blanket renationalisation, there is also the option of having community owned transport systems in a local area, as is the case for some bus companies, and I believe one rail line, whereby a private company does not run for shareholder profits but all profits are reinvested in the services.

Gerrispringer

Interesting. Are they private or nationalised services or a mixture?

I suppose as you instigated the question re nationalisation what do you think about the European Union ' The 4th Railway Package'?

I travel in Italy on trains frequently. This is in the north, and the trains are double decker ones and very comfortable and about 1/3 price they would be here. Over 65s automatically get a discount - none of this buy a railcard stuff.

Have you no comment to make or an opinion concerning the European Union ' 4th Railway Package '.?

I've been busy since you asked that question; no time for a considered response.

The train in Italy was in 2011, Southern Italy. No idea if it was privatised or not. It was jolly uncomfortable, though.

On the other hand, I've travelled by train in France and Holland, much more comfortable but still very reasonably priced in comparison with UK trains.

Maizie d

Perhaps you were travelling on an unprivatised rail service at the time ?

Out of interest if the price of the ticket was reflective of the condition of the train would you go for price to the customer over quality of stock here in the UK e.g plastic seating as you describe on the Italian train ?.

Have you no comment to make or an opinion concerning the European Union ' 4th Railway Package '.?

At least we agree about something, Joelsnan

Most of Europe has subsidised, nationalised railways that are well run. Why can't we?

As far as I can formulate a view privatised rail in the EU, in countries such as Italy , is fairly successful

The only train I travelled on in Italy had ancient rolling stock with plastic seats (like seating in a meeting venue; utterly basic). It was cheap, but understandably so...

I have travelled by rail all my life- I don't drive and I had family living in different parts of the country so saw lots of different lines. Before privatisation it was better in many ways, but of course things were very different, so comparisons are difficult. I don't believe government money should be paid to companies who use it to pay large dividends to shareholders. I do think the experiences of the East Coast line show that there is good reason to think that a publicly owned railway is not only ideologically but financially desirable. There is also the green question. Providing good rail connections, with reasonably priced fares could reduce road traffic, improve air quality and help the environment.

Maizie d

"The railways are already heavily subsidised with very little return to the Treasury but big returns to shareholders in the TOCs."

In my 'musings' did I say there was no subsidy involved already?

What do you think about the EU' 4th Railway Package '?

I find it bemusing the UK ' could possibly ' one day renationalise the entire rail system whilst the EU head further towards privatisation/competition.

As far as I can formulate a view privatised rail in the EU, in countries such as Italy , is fairly successful but the UK has too many restrictions/too much control over the privatised companies and we have a problem because of this.

I admit I am trying to establish the pros and cons but I am hopefully not blinded by politics but a pragmatist to commerce.

POGS

Before you start musing on subsidy levels would you read the CRESC report I have repeatedly linked to. The railways are already heavily subsidised with very little return to the Treasury but big returns to shareholders in the TOCs.

I am nether for or against but is the cost of renationalising our railways worth it ? I am trying to make informed decisions but it is a bit of a minefield to get to grips with. I certainly have no remembrance of the railways being much better under nationalisation and I wonder how much subsidy should the tax payer give to rail commuters , what percentage of tax payers use the rail network?

Renationalisation of the UK rail system is at odds with EU is it not?

What do those who believe in renationalisation of the UK railways think about. ' The 4th Railway Package ' adopted by the EU ?

www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/4th-railway-package/

3. Opening domestic passenger markets
The 4th railway package includes the proposal to open up domestic passenger railways to new entrants and services from December 2019. Companies would be able either to offer competing services, such as a new train service on a particular route, or to bid for public service rail contracts through tendering. The proposed changes would make competitive tendering mandatory for public service rail contracts in the EU."

And Hitler (sorry I know I will be told that the first person to mention Hitler has lost the argument, but he really did boast about the trains)

I know we always joke about Mussolini making the trains run on time but Italy does seem to manage plenty of trains with reasonable fares.

I agree with Welshwife that there should be government subsidies to bring rail travel into line with other European countries. Fairer and more transparent prices together with a seat for all those who have paid for one!

I'm not sure of going whole hog and re nationalising them altogether as this will mean a huge increase in the already huge public sector together with all the sick pay, pensions, extra holidays and union influences that brings with it. Not a popular view I know, but that's my view anyway.

People should be able to decide to travel, go to the station and be able to buy a reasonably priced ticket on the day, just as you can in Italy, France etc. Not have to plan a week or more in advance exactly which train to book on which day, go online, book with a credit or debit card etc. Then if you have to change your plans, you lose the cost (well admin fees for refunds make it not worth bothering) and have to pay two or three times the price on the day.
It’s all a bit elitist. Good value tickets for those with internet access, credit cards etc.

The old cheaper alternative of buses and coaches, make you go through similar hoops of online booking in advance.

No wonder people who have a car, prefer to drive.

The European train companies all receive Govt subsidies - in many cases now they are being paid for from the profits that are made from the U.K. train lines as these same companies own the U.K. lines.
As far as I could see the Labour Party idea was to allow the current contracts to run out and then nationalise the lines instead of putting them out to tender - that way costing little in outlay.
The train fares have got very expensive but also a very stupid structure. I have no idea what regular commuters are paying for their daily rides but it must be very high as it was always a considerable part of our budget in the 70/80s. It is also ridiculous the way that to buy one ticket for a journey can cost two or three times the cost of buying it in stages - same train - the only problem seems to be the need to be playing musical seats at each ticket change! Also it is half price if you have a smart phone and buy a ticket on line and collect it from the machine you are standing by on a station rather than buy it from the ticket booth!
All this needs looking into . Lots of companies such as construction companies went into railways when they were privatised and are making a fortune.
To have cheaper, clean regular trains would encourage people to use them and take cars off the road. A train journey can be relaxing particularly for older people a lovely way to travel to visit family etc but more station staff would be needed to help with luggage etc. And bring back the guards vans which were always a cave of delights to a child.
Extra staff would cost money and maybe the Govt would be subsidising but better that and have people happy in a job than taking the same Govt money sitting at home wasting away on benefits.

East Coast Mainline made a profit.

The private TOCs only make profits for their shareholders because they are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. This is not an 'opinion', it's a research proven fact (see the link I published in my last post)

If we (the taxpayer) are going to pour billions into the railways we might as well get any profits that might be made. For the good of the country, you know, not just to swell rich men's bank accounts...

I don't think there are profits to be made for the govt if they took over. If privatised rail companies were lucrative then there's no chance that private companies would so willingly give them up.

Maizie We are a long lived family

Yes, it would be better to renationalise the railways if it means a better and more efficient service, which could mean they need to be subsidised by the taxpayer.

We know from the East coast experience that a nationalised service is absolutely fine.

The railways already are subsidised by the taxpayer. for a start, Railtrack (or whatever it's called, but the company that is responsible for the infrastructure) was renationalised years ago after a number of accidents which were the fault of the privatised infrastructure company. Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are supposed to pay for the services they provide but they don't pay the actual cost of the services they use, they pay less than cost. Taxpayer subsidy no. 1. Then the TOCs don't pay anything to the Treasury (remember that they are supposed to pay for their contract) in the first few years of business. they are then free to give up the contract, as Virgin were going to in the present case, without making that payment. Subsidy no.2

It's all in this report: "'The Great Train Robbery: the economic and political consequences of rail privatisation'"

Press release here with a link to the report:

Direct public expenditure on rail has more than doubled since privatisation and is currently running at £4 billion a year, says their report published today (7 June), despite fares which are higher than in other major European countries.

www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/rail-privatisation-is-great-train-robbery-finds-cresc-report/

The railways were badly run and the rolling stock and general infrastructure was allowed to get run down. Quite frequently you ended a long journey quite dirty because the carriages were not clean, the seats exuded dust.

However, the present system is chaotic and the fare system is ludicrous.

Yes, it would be better to renationalise the railways if it means a better and more efficient service, which could mean they need to be subsidised by the taxpayer.

Wow, *MOnica! 1884 to 1990! A real long term commuter

I absolutely agree with your analysis, though.