Crosswords1 min ago
Should We Re-Nationalise British Rail?
37 Answers
I am delighted that Jezza is on board here....
http://
But he's going off half c0ck3d. Yes I admit that TGL was wrong here, the rail system has been a disaster since privatisation, in fact I'd go as far to say that the vandalism following the Beeching report start the destruction of our rail system. Socialist though I must sound now, we need a proper nationwide rail system, subsidised by the fortune they take from the roads. Your brickbats and nosegays are awaited.......
http://
But he's going off half c0ck3d. Yes I admit that TGL was wrong here, the rail system has been a disaster since privatisation, in fact I'd go as far to say that the vandalism following the Beeching report start the destruction of our rail system. Socialist though I must sound now, we need a proper nationwide rail system, subsidised by the fortune they take from the roads. Your brickbats and nosegays are awaited.......
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
oh dear - HS2 again criticised as "nonsense", "truly daft", rich man's vanity project, etc.
let's get this straight. the current network - in particular the west coast route - is now so traffic heavy that it's on the verge of seizing up on a daily basis. virgin have extended all their trains, that capacity is full; subsequently they declassified one first class coach on each train, that capacity is full. the last infrastructure upgrade of the WCML (which isn't finished yet) was meant to future proof capacity until the 2020s but that too is already full. some of the slow trains were speeded up to create an extra train path, those trains are now full and standing all day, every day. that's not to mention the burgeoning freight sector which is now on a plateau because there are no more paths available.
so what to do.... upgrade the existing line? nope, the 20 further years disruption this would entail would be politically unacceptable, bearing in mind the improvements this would create would be at best marginal. there are 2 other non HS2 solutions that would create more capacity but both would be equally unacceptable - that is, make all trains including freight run at the same speed (60mph), but that would involve journey times that would double overnight; or eliminate slow freight trains by permitting 80T trucks on the road, but i don't believe that would be environmentally acceptable.
no. the only way to provide more capacity is new build. HS2 would reduce traffic on existing lines and provide the additional capacity for commuter services and freight that's needed right now, never mind in ten years.
let's get this straight. the current network - in particular the west coast route - is now so traffic heavy that it's on the verge of seizing up on a daily basis. virgin have extended all their trains, that capacity is full; subsequently they declassified one first class coach on each train, that capacity is full. the last infrastructure upgrade of the WCML (which isn't finished yet) was meant to future proof capacity until the 2020s but that too is already full. some of the slow trains were speeded up to create an extra train path, those trains are now full and standing all day, every day. that's not to mention the burgeoning freight sector which is now on a plateau because there are no more paths available.
so what to do.... upgrade the existing line? nope, the 20 further years disruption this would entail would be politically unacceptable, bearing in mind the improvements this would create would be at best marginal. there are 2 other non HS2 solutions that would create more capacity but both would be equally unacceptable - that is, make all trains including freight run at the same speed (60mph), but that would involve journey times that would double overnight; or eliminate slow freight trains by permitting 80T trucks on the road, but i don't believe that would be environmentally acceptable.
no. the only way to provide more capacity is new build. HS2 would reduce traffic on existing lines and provide the additional capacity for commuter services and freight that's needed right now, never mind in ten years.
Gulliver....ta muchly !
To be fair to Mush, he has a point. In wealthier times I would be calling for more money to be spent on the railways. But considering we are supposed to be struggling with austerity, the zillions that will be needed for HS2 is difficult to justify.
We need more houses, and some of the HS2 money would go a long away to dealing with that problem.
Anyway, HS2 is not going to benefit commuters on the Southern Railway. And its not going to help all those hundreds of people I see, having to stand from Bristol Parkway all the way into Town, every time I am on the train from Swansea.
To be fair to Mush, he has a point. In wealthier times I would be calling for more money to be spent on the railways. But considering we are supposed to be struggling with austerity, the zillions that will be needed for HS2 is difficult to justify.
We need more houses, and some of the HS2 money would go a long away to dealing with that problem.
Anyway, HS2 is not going to benefit commuters on the Southern Railway. And its not going to help all those hundreds of people I see, having to stand from Bristol Parkway all the way into Town, every time I am on the train from Swansea.
On 22nd September last year I wrote this in response to an identical question:
Absolutely not!
I will be the first to admit that the model used to privatise (splitting service provision, infrastructure and rolling stock) was disastrous. What should have been done was some sort of provision that reverted back to the pre-nationalisation “Big Four”.
However, to revert to full nationalisation would be a disaster. Governments are rarely the best organisations to manage services and railways are no exception. Those looking back at BR days must be doing so through rose-tinted glasses. The organisation was reasonably acceptable until the mid to late 1960s (when the 1955 Modernisation Programme was being implemented). But come the 1970s, along with many other nationalised industries, the services deteriorated substantially. Like many other organisations of that time BR was run for the convenience of its staff. Customers came a very poor last in the pecking order.
The railways did make some progress and tried hard to rebrand some of its services (Inter-City springs to mind and the Inter City 125 High Speed trains were ahead of their time). But the organisation was a moribund affair with little concern for the overall quality of service provided. London commuter services were a case in point. I used them for around 30 years from the mid-1970s and the change following privatisation was remarkable.
Railways cost money. The country has to decide how to fund them, either through taxation and grants or high fares or a balance between the two. Putting the network and services back under the control of civil servants is not an answer.
Despite the recent shambles on Southern, my opinion has not changed. With the possible exception of national defence, governments are not best placed to run public services of any sort. There is always the argument that private concerns need to make a profit. Of course they do. But they are infinitely better at providing services because of that; it does not jeopardise the service as some would suggest.
The current dispute between the RMT and Southern is symptomatic of the sort of disputes that took place throughout the 1970s. It is caused by an intransigent trade union refusing to accept that times change, progress is made and it means changes in working practices are necessary.
Absolutely not!
I will be the first to admit that the model used to privatise (splitting service provision, infrastructure and rolling stock) was disastrous. What should have been done was some sort of provision that reverted back to the pre-nationalisation “Big Four”.
However, to revert to full nationalisation would be a disaster. Governments are rarely the best organisations to manage services and railways are no exception. Those looking back at BR days must be doing so through rose-tinted glasses. The organisation was reasonably acceptable until the mid to late 1960s (when the 1955 Modernisation Programme was being implemented). But come the 1970s, along with many other nationalised industries, the services deteriorated substantially. Like many other organisations of that time BR was run for the convenience of its staff. Customers came a very poor last in the pecking order.
The railways did make some progress and tried hard to rebrand some of its services (Inter-City springs to mind and the Inter City 125 High Speed trains were ahead of their time). But the organisation was a moribund affair with little concern for the overall quality of service provided. London commuter services were a case in point. I used them for around 30 years from the mid-1970s and the change following privatisation was remarkable.
Railways cost money. The country has to decide how to fund them, either through taxation and grants or high fares or a balance between the two. Putting the network and services back under the control of civil servants is not an answer.
Despite the recent shambles on Southern, my opinion has not changed. With the possible exception of national defence, governments are not best placed to run public services of any sort. There is always the argument that private concerns need to make a profit. Of course they do. But they are infinitely better at providing services because of that; it does not jeopardise the service as some would suggest.
The current dispute between the RMT and Southern is symptomatic of the sort of disputes that took place throughout the 1970s. It is caused by an intransigent trade union refusing to accept that times change, progress is made and it means changes in working practices are necessary.
// The current dispute between the RMT and Southern is symptomatic of the sort of disputes that took place throughout the 1970s. It is caused by an intransigent trade union refusing to accept that times change, progress is made and it means changes in working practices are necessary. //
The problems at Southern cannot solely be pinned on the RMT. There are 23 Train Operating companies, and the Union works well with the others. This operator has performed badly over many years, consistantly coming last in performance figures before the present difficulties.
http://
The problems at Southern cannot solely be pinned on the RMT. There are 23 Train Operating companies, and the Union works well with the others. This operator has performed badly over many years, consistantly coming last in performance figures before the present difficulties.
http://
// The current dispute between the RMT and Southern is symptomatic of the sort of disputes that took place throughout the 1970s. //
the same issue is extant in Scotland, with no solution in sight. http://
other companies are likewise involved, but in those cases the issue hasn't reached the industrial action ballot box yet.
in a separate action, TSSA are in dispute with Southern (and others) relating to the continued existence of booking offices.
http://
however in the case of southern, manuel cortes, the general secretary has made it clear in interviews that the objective of the action is to force the stripping of southern's franchise - action that is outside the union's own rule book.
the same issue is extant in Scotland, with no solution in sight. http://
other companies are likewise involved, but in those cases the issue hasn't reached the industrial action ballot box yet.
in a separate action, TSSA are in dispute with Southern (and others) relating to the continued existence of booking offices.
http://
however in the case of southern, manuel cortes, the general secretary has made it clear in interviews that the objective of the action is to force the stripping of southern's franchise - action that is outside the union's own rule book.
