renationalising railways

The taxpayers already subsidise the private companies, and have to bail them out when they fail in their statutory duties.

Aveline

I'm with Plunger. I remember the bad old days of nationalised industries. The trains were as Plunger described them.

Totally agree.. The Trains never on time, dirty, shambles most of the time.

I watched a programme from 70's last night (Man about the house) and was eye-opening to see sign outside rail station on it (they had taken a trip to see parents) was British Rail in huge lettering! A real blast from the past.

Visgirl- but theyre exactly like that now as well, with the privatised companies, yet much more expensive!

Spabbygirl I am all for better run and cheaper prices whatever it is, but sadly I don’t believe for one minute that prices will go down , I think there will
Be an excuse , however I hope I am proved wrong

I live in a country that still has a nationalised railway and I doubt that re-nationlising British rail will solve the problems you mention, as we have most of them here too, even with a nationalised railway company.

The service is nothing like as good as it was formerly - there are no longer ticket offices except in very large stations, everywhere else you either book online and the homepage is a right pain to use, or have to buy a ticket at an online machine placed on the open platform bang in the sun, so you cannot see what you are actually trying to do and which only accepts credit cards as payment. Trains are rarely on time and lifts at stations frequently either do not work, or are conspicuous by their absence. No luggage trolleys, and the last porter died in 1970.

In other words: be careful what you wish for!

The railways will never be better run so long as unions have the powers that they do, and Labour won’t water them down. Forget cheaper prices - that won’t happen.

I too remember British Rail before privatisation and didn't think it was that bad. I commuted from Essex to London in the mid sixties and then from Suffolk to London in the mid eighties.

The trains to Norwich were comfortable two seats with a table on either side of the gangway. More suburban trains at 5 sides across the width I think.

There were delays but not all BR's fault. They would range from suicides, children playing near the line, youths throwing rocks and blocks from bridges, vehicles entering level crossings after the warning bells and also leaves and the wrong snow.

A delay to the suburban trains could affect the other trains using the same lines because there weren't enough passing places. I remember one time I was reading and savouring my G & T and thinking that we ought to be coming into Ipswich. I looked out of the window to see that we were over the M25 - it had taken an hour to get that far.

Some of the offshoots, such as catering, British Transport Hotels, Sealink and engineering. All of these went during Thaatcher's "reign"

Before privatisation we used to be able to go up to London (after I stopped commuting) for an evening out for £12 return, using the nearly empty trains going to collect the commuters.

After privatisation we had to specify which train we would go on. Not wanting to leave a performance before it finished, we would book the 11.30pm from Liverpool Street. One day we were in time for the previous train and so got in it. The jobsworth told us that we had to get off at the first stop - Colchester and he watched to ensure that we did so. it made no difference to him because there were plenty of seats bu "I'm just doing my job"

In Europe, on long distance trains, all the seats are reserved because you have to book in advance. Once, coming back from Rome by train (caused by Ryanair cancellations) we got the last two seats. Had there been no seats we would not have been allowed to get on that train.

I am a bit of a train nerd. One day I went home from work via Euston because the Mallard was coming to London. The most beautiful train you ever saw, or will see probably.

grandtanteJE65

I live in a country that still has a nationalised railway and I doubt that re-nationlising British rail will solve the problems you mention, as we have most of them here too, even with a nationalised railway company.

The service is nothing like as good as it was formerly - there are no longer ticket offices except in very large stations, everywhere else you either book online and the homepage is a right pain to use, or have to buy a ticket at an online machine placed on the open platform bang in the sun, so you cannot see what you are actually trying to do and which only accepts credit cards as payment. Trains are rarely on time and lifts at stations frequently either do not work, or are conspicuous by their absence. No luggage trolleys, and the last porter died in 1970.

In other words: be careful what you wish for!

That's strange. I never have a problem booking trains on line in France. Sadly I've just cancelled our visit to Marseille but got all the money back for our fares. I must admit that the shortest rail journey I've done is from Perigueuex to Bordeaux but the trains were OK. The longest I've done is Limoges, Paris (two stations), Zurich, Chur, small Italian town and then Milan to Florence. Return - Florence Turin Paris (two stations) Limoges.

Probably took me about 1/2 hour because of checking the timetables. It worked perfectly.

Germanshepherdsmum

I was talking about increased taxation to cover money created or borrowed by the government for privatisation and the predicted increased running costs Maizie. And possibly increased fares.

I realise that that is how you think that government spending is financed, GSM, but it isn't how it works. Spending comes first.

Where do you think that the money the government invests in the public sector goes? It isn't a big black hole. The money doesn't just disappear.

grandtanteJE65

I live in a country that still has a nationalised railway and I doubt that re-nationlising British rail will solve the problems you mention, as we have most of them here too, even with a nationalised railway company.

The service is nothing like as good as it was formerly - there are no longer ticket offices except in very large stations, everywhere else you either book online and the homepage is a right pain to use, or have to buy a ticket at an online machine placed on the open platform bang in the sun, so you cannot see what you are actually trying to do and which only accepts credit cards as payment. Trains are rarely on time and lifts at stations frequently either do not work, or are conspicuous by their absence. No luggage trolleys, and the last porter died in 1970.

In other words: be careful what you wish for!

What makes you think that your experience of nationalised rail in a different country will be duplicated in the UK?

There are some absurd assumptions being made on this thread.

The spending might come first Maizie, but would it happen without the knowledge that tax revenue was coming along to cover it?

Won't hold my breath about railway privatisation by any party. It will be horrendously expensive all those shareholders to be bought off for a start. Utilities would be a start but again expensive. Scotland has companies running water system on behalf of government but it's not cheap either.

vegansrock

I agree utilities should be nationalised, but the also railways definitely. Our rail service is the most expensive in Europe and most of it owned by foreign companies. Railways should be subsidised for the benefit of travellers, not subsidised for the benefit of the shareholders as it is at the moment.

I agree👍🏻

I don't believe a word of it

4allweknow

Won't hold my breath about railway privatisation by any party. It will be horrendously expensive all those shareholders to be bought off for a start. Utilities would be a start but again expensive. Scotland has companies running water system on behalf of government but it's not cheap either.

Won't it just be a case of not renewing the contracts when they expire?

I think so, Growstuff, that's how it's set up. I love trains but they have become less reliable over the last 15 years, & when they are so expensive too,that does send commuters back to their cars. Nationalising them sounds an excellent plan.

For Wyllow -- "Major had to do a Thatcher" - and others blaming the hapless JM, it seems folk have forgotten that the blueprint for the BR privatisation WAS developed by the wretched Thatcher (yet something else she messed up!).

The plan was roundly condemned by industry pundits and 'insiders', but Major went ahead anyway. I've since seen comments from Portillo (a Minister back then) that the country just had to take the private investment route for rail improvements, as there was NO MONEY to bring what was then a quite derelict British Rail back to life.

As Urmstongran says (keeping away from the Trump fascination, with an accurate comment!!) nobody who remembers the British Rail from 60s and 70s wants THAT service back!

There are train services that are vastly better now, and the numbers using them have had a quantum leap, but the fares being demanded are quite ridiculous. I did hear a Labour minister-to-be (presumably) saying that Labour's rail plans would not greatly impact fares though!

Perhaps they COULD get a unified, sensible fares structure in place, so you don't have to scan the i'net for a week trying to find some promised promotional fare that is allegedly in place for one day in 6 months time?!

Germanshepherdsmum

The spending might come first Maizie, but would it happen without the knowledge that tax revenue was coming along to cover it?

The point I was originally trying to address was the belief that government spending means increased taxation for everyone.

The point I am trying to make is that government spending generates more tax revenue without any increase in taxation because the money spent will mostly circulate in the economy and be subject to taxation just about every time it is used to make a transaction.

Incidentally, tax revenue has rarely ever covered spending. It hasn't done so for hundreds of years. It could 'possibly' come close to doing so if no-one saved any of their money, or spent it abroad and on imports, or evaded tax. But that is a fantasy scenario.

‘The money spent will mostly circulate in the economy and be subject to taxation …’. Well that rather depends what the government spends on, doesn’t it?

Germanshepherdsmum

‘The money spent will mostly circulate in the economy and be subject to taxation …’. Well that rather depends what the government spends on, doesn’t it?

I agree to a certain extent. If the government spends it on imported goods and services their overseas suppliers will be taxed in their own country and the money won't return to the government. Though it 'may' be balanced by revenues from our exports. But there will inevitably be spend into the domestic economy which will generate tax revenue. The key question is how much can be sourced domestically, the procurement choices the government makes.

I'm not so naive as to think that running a national economy is a simple business.

nationalise all services ,simples, where's the profit? thats the problem with the whole system

As a regular and long term rail user I can't wait for nationalisation.

We can also re-nationalise water, sewage and gas and electric.

Can't be any worse than the poor service for high cost we have now, the only people who benefit from privatisation now are the foreign investors (including European governments) who are making lots of money out of our poorer and poorer pockets. It's crazy!

You will still have the same unions causing the same rail problems, privatised or nationalised. And if you have read the links posted upthread, you will see that nationalisation may lead to increased fares and fewer services.

Fares go up every year now.
As to improved services I travel often both short and long distance. It is a lottery that the train comes on time, that there are enough seats and carriages, that you get your booked seat, that you get room for your luggage, that you get a cup of tea or even a sandwich even on a four hour jouney.

Why shouldn't unions keep trying to improve things for their members in this age of self-interest?

The rail unions were not only fighting for wages, but for customer safety but you never heard that on the media.

The rail unions are among the most successful because they care about their members. Probably more so than the rail companies care about the profits for their shareholders and CEOs. But probably not.