British Rail-Who wants it back

[lawros left foot]

Before the rail privatisation, I was a daily commuter from Worthing to Pompey and I always thought the service was very good. Ok, the trains were old, but the fares were reasonable, the was good(three trains an hour) and rarely more than about five minutes late, and very reliable.
I don't commute now, but have been on the train up to the Smoke and couldn't believe how expensive it is, and the fact, trains stopping at Gatwick, a major airport ,has only got storage for about six or seven suitcases per carriage. I suppose there is no profit in adequate luggage provision,and the bottom line is all that matters now

 

[Surrey_Albion]

if they were nationalised would that take the power away from unions who just got train workers another pay rise because "they work so hard making the service run efficiently ", and on that note would everyone be happy over paying rail workers with public money

 

[Hampster Gull]

governments are best doing other things. Customer fscing thry are not good at

 

[Gwylan]

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 ?

As already mentioned, the railways get about £4 to 5 million of public money already. The money saved from running a cohesive network would reduce prices (or at least stop them rising excessively)

Before the rail privatisation, I was a daily commuter from Worthing to Pompey and I always thought the service was very good. Ok, the trains were old,

I know it's not fashionable to say so but I liked those old trains: there seemed to be more room on the seats. They were quicker at loading/unloading as there were more doors per carriage; the toilets generally worked, you could open the windows so didn't swelter in summer and there was room for bikes. Wish we had them back

 

[Creaky]

The real choice as I see it is to either privatise the track side part of the rail system or nationalise the operational side. The railways have only really been innovative and progressive under private ownership - private ownership that included the tracks, stations, rolling stock etc all under one umbrella. Until 1948 the railways continued to grow, new rolling stock was developed and new destinations linked to the network.

Each of the four big rail companies owned the lines their trains ran on, the signalling that controlled them and the stations they stopped at. They decided on timetables and ticket prices to maximise their profits which in the main coincided with demand.

Following nationalisation in 1948 the railway system seemed to stagnate. Apart from the phasing out of steam engines unsurprisingly I can't really remember a lot of innovations taking place during the next 50 years of national ownership - unless you call the closure of large parts of the network during the 60s and the sell off of land, hotels, ferry services etc. an innovation.

The idea that you could privatise the system in parts which were dependent on each other always struck me as a little strange. The operators can't run longer trains for instance if they have no control over the platforms the trains stop at, decide timetabling and traffic density if they have no control over signalling. On the other hand there was no benefit, (profit), to the track operating companies to carry out improvements that weren't in immediate demand.

I've answered no to the poll question regarding nationalisation but I'm not happy with the current combination of private operators on nationalised tracks and think total nationalisation would be a better option if the ideal one of private operators also owning the infrastructure isn't possible.

 

[portslade seagull]

Go back to the money pit days no thanks, if you think it is bad now think back to when it was nationalised

 

[brightn'ove]

“Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another. But if we face a monopolist we are at his absolute mercy. And an authority directing the whole economic system of the country would be the most powerful monopolist conceivable…it would have complete power to decide what we are to be given and on what terms. It would not only decide what commodities and services were to be available and in what quantities; it would be able to direct their distributions between persons to any degree it liked.”
― Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

The free market has done a great job of creating competition on the Brighton main line... Both Thameslink and Southern are owned by the same company.

 

[Beach Hut]

As already mentioned, the railways get about £4 to 5 million of public money already. The money saved from running a cohesive network would reduce prices (or at least stop them rising excessively)

So the ethos BR had of buying vans on 30 year leases was a step in the right direction ?

You will need a hell of a lt more than £5m to make a nationalised railway work.

 

[Gwylan]

So the ethos BR had of buying vans on 30 year leases was a step in the right direction ?

You will need a hell of a lt more than £5m to make a nationalised railway work.

Sorry, I meant to write billion

This is a few years old now but ... "The cost of running the railway has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation from £2.4bn per year (1990–91 to 1994–95) to approximately £5.4bn per year (2005–06 to 2009–10)"

 

[Beach Hut]

Sorry, I meant to write billion

This is a few years old now but ... "The cost of running the railway has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation from £2.4bn per year (1990–91 to 1994–95) to approximately £5.4bn per year (2005–06 to 2009–10)"

I thought you had but the whole point of rail privatisation was to free up investment and new trains which will not happen if re-nationalised

 

[Northstander]

I seem to recall dilapidated trains, always late when there were any, the network across UK facked. Now there are clean stations and trains and many of them.....costs remain too high however

 

[DataPoint]

In the early 90’s, (before privatisation), a German guy told the clerk at Horsham station ticket office - “I’ve just read in an international business publication - that states that British Rail is the 5th most efficient organisation in the world”.

Now, isn’t that something to be proud of?

 

[Hampster Gull]

In the early 90’s, (before privatisation), a German guy told the clerk at Horsham station ticket office - “I’ve just read in an international business publication - that states that British Rail is the 5th most efficient organisation in the world”.

Now, isn’t that something to be proud of?

LOL

Certainly not true

 

[vegster]

The subsidy paid to British Rail is now being paid to as a bribe to get private operators on the railway. However they do not like to invest in rolling stock and staff as they have the franchise for a fixed term and they have no interest in the long view of railway development. They are in it simply to make money.
At least British Rail had a unified ticketing policy and staff who, may not have been the brightest fireworks in the box, knew the timetables and had an interest in getting people to where they wanted to go.

 

[looney]

What happened to the idea we would all have jet packs by now?

Pri or state is a mute point, Beaching screwed the railways the most.

 

[DataPoint]

Before the rail privatisation, I was a daily commuter from Worthing to Pompey and I always thought the service was very good. Ok, the trains were old, but the fares were reasonable, the was good(three trains an hour) and rarely more than about five minutes late, and very reliable.
I don't commute now, but have been on the train up to the Smoke and couldn't believe how expensive it is, and the fact, trains stopping at Gatwick, a major airport ,has only got storage for about six or seven suitcases per carriage. I suppose there is no profit in adequate luggage provision,and the bottom line is all that matters now

Many a time I travelled on a crowded train - in the "guard's brake" - amongst parcels, bikes, pigeons and post. Real railway days'!

 

[DataPoint]

LOL

Certainly not true

Definition of efficiency – “Getting the most out – when putting the least in”.
In 1959 there were about 1,000,000 railway employees – in the early nineties it was 100,000.
In the late eighties, British rail were carrying more passengers than at any time in their history!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

does this mean yes rail fares would reduce and become affordable for all if the network was nationalised.......i cant seem to get any definite conformation either way

The German railway is state owned. Their fares are way lower than the UK's. What more do you need to know?

 

[Hampster Gull]

Definition of efficiency – “Getting the most out – when putting the least in”.
In 1959 there were about 1,000,000 railway employees – in the early nineties it was 100,000.
In the late eighties, British rail were carrying more passengers than at any time in their history!

That doesn't make them the 5th most efficient organisation in the world, i would just say that they were at least ten times less efficient beforehand. BR were a joke, everything that we need to avoid

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

BR were a joke

I look back on them with fond memories. Ticketing was incredibly simple and cheap, stations were staffed, staff were helpful and knowledgable, services were integrated.