Should the UK railway system be nationalised?
Discussion
I will make it easy. Yes it should !
Free enterprise, private sector, businesses work and provide value because of competition - is a product is s
t people don’t buy it and the firm that makes it either improves, or goes bust. If they are too expensive, a cheaper competitor steps in. All good.
It works with cars, supermarkets and airlines. Things that people have choice over.
But railways? No.
There are some things that people would not dream of privatising, like the armed forces. Railways should be treated similarly.
Free enterprise, private sector, businesses work and provide value because of competition - is a product is s
t people don’t buy it and the firm that makes it either improves, or goes bust. If they are too expensive, a cheaper competitor steps in. All good. It works with cars, supermarkets and airlines. Things that people have choice over.
But railways? No.
There are some things that people would not dream of privatising, like the armed forces. Railways should be treated similarly.
Earthdweller said:
Yeah, cus it was really really good when it was nationalised before!
And privatisation has been a roaring success - so much so that a bunch of franchises have been handed back to the government to sort out - so much for operators carrying commercial risk… another win win for investors.Elements of it could or maybe should be, yes. Network rail basically is.
The whole lot though? I don't think so. It needs privatisation in some areas to generate competition on both price and productivity, as well as wages high enough to make the job attractive. I doubt you'd get this after nationalisation.
The whole lot though? I don't think so. It needs privatisation in some areas to generate competition on both price and productivity, as well as wages high enough to make the job attractive. I doubt you'd get this after nationalisation.
Edited by Pebbles167 on Saturday 24th December 10:49
I don't want to be a pedant, but the "railway system" is nationalised, it's the rolling stock running on it that is privately owned. I think there's an argument for state owned operators providing local services in cities, but I remember the bad days pre-privatisation and ScotRail seems to be taking us back there.
How can it create true competition? Currently a line is sold off and a single operator has the right to run that route. If it was truly competitive then any company would be able to run their trains down any line. We would then have a choice of cost, time and quality potentially. As the current system stands the competition is just in the bid to be the cheapest to get the licence.
I’m not convinced competition works in transport within the same transport type. Would bus services be improved if any company could operate any route they chose or would some eventually go bust, be bought out and a monopoly emerge? That’s in a transport mode much more flexible than fixed rail.
I don’t know what the answer is. I can see pros and cons for both sides
I’m not convinced competition works in transport within the same transport type. Would bus services be improved if any company could operate any route they chose or would some eventually go bust, be bought out and a monopoly emerge? That’s in a transport mode much more flexible than fixed rail.
I don’t know what the answer is. I can see pros and cons for both sides
Not sure how much of a difference it would make. I'm old enough to remember pre-privatisation British Rail - the privatisation process started when I was 19. For us, as a working class family, rail travel was a massive treat as it was so expensive. Trains were horrendously overcrowded and they were utterly filthy too. I'd say rail is only thing I can think of that privatisation has actually improved, though it's still far too expensive and the train companies should be dragged before a human rights court over the extent of overcrowding.
craigjm said:
How can it create true competition? Currently a line is sold off and a single operator has the right to run that route. If it was truly competitive then any company would be able to run their trains down any line. We would then have a choice of cost, time and quality potentially. As the current system stands the competition is just in the bid to be the cheapest to get the licence.
The problem is that you cannot provide true competition. The majority of money is made in "peak" hours (less so now as people are not commuting to work) and the other times run as a service to the community. To create competition, you would need to have one train at 7:05am and another at 7:10am by a different company with different pricing structures. That makes very little sense.grumbledoak said:
Ah, the recurring answer to "What do you do when you sell a product nobody wants to buy?"
That is true very few "want" to use the train. I used to drive to canary wharf from herts and it Cost less in fuel ab parking than 2 tickets for the train an was about same time. When we switched to motorcycle time went down 30% cost halved. But when I moved roles to city train was only option due to congestion and lack of parking. The solution has been wfh. Thank you covidI could argue for and against... I suspect many would see nationalisation as handing even more power to the unions, they'd hold not only passengers to ransom (as they do already) but a government too.
However there are some things that are fairly essential - water, electricity... rail could be included. Should private companies be able to exploit and profit from services which are so vital?
And yet, privatising BT was a great thing - I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't. We were leagues behind other countries until privatisation.
This is one of those subjects where I find it hard to have a clear view.
However there are some things that are fairly essential - water, electricity... rail could be included. Should private companies be able to exploit and profit from services which are so vital?
And yet, privatising BT was a great thing - I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't. We were leagues behind other countries until privatisation.
This is one of those subjects where I find it hard to have a clear view.
It'll still be hampered with the various union battles irrespective so I doubt it would have improved the current situation.
Look at Merseyrail effectively a nationalised model, with a new fleet of great looking trains ready to go but can't be put into service due to Union issues (ASLEF I believe).
Look at Merseyrail effectively a nationalised model, with a new fleet of great looking trains ready to go but can't be put into service due to Union issues (ASLEF I believe).
boxst said:
The problem is that you cannot provide true competition. The majority of money is made in "peak" hours (less so now as people are not commuting to work) and the other times run as a service to the community. To create competition, you would need to have one train at 7:05am and another at 7:10am by a different company with different pricing structures. That makes very little sense.
That can happen, and does with coaches and aircraft. Even if it is a monopoly the tendency to be run for the benefit of it's own staff applies whether state owned or not. The Japanese railways are privately owned and extremely reliable.Not a direct comparison but we have a natural experiment with water. Private in England. Public in Scotland. No eveidence that being private brought any benefit to consumers.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/w...
As far as the railways goes I think the quality of management and allowing management rsther than unions to run the railways is the answer. Not public V private. In either case it needs huge subsidies anyway.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/w...
As far as the railways goes I think the quality of management and allowing management rsther than unions to run the railways is the answer. Not public V private. In either case it needs huge subsidies anyway.
Why can't our key infrastructure services be run by NFP organisations, where there are no shareholders to pay or share price bonuses for the boards to chase whilst they under invest in their businesses, but instead they could be run efficiently & professionally for the benefit of the country.
Have them outside of political control but responsible to their stakeholders, that would be the bill payers (the public in other words) Same with the NHS it needs removing from the political football pitch where it has been kicked around for their pleasure for far too long.
Have them outside of political control but responsible to their stakeholders, that would be the bill payers (the public in other words) Same with the NHS it needs removing from the political football pitch where it has been kicked around for their pleasure for far too long.
The question shouldn't be private or nationalise it should be can it be run and managed correctly. I'm afraid to say UK has proved time and time again it can't do that. Government has failed it and private companies it's a disgrace how the end users have had to deal with this pile of crap.
Nobody wants to compromise everyone wants to take their slice and everyone then blames everyone else. Until drastic change happen and the population actually stands up stops blaming one side or another and says this needs to change nothing will change.
We keep on paying for st services, electing st leaders and MPs complain on social media and do nothing about. Sums up the UK to a tee, a failing nation clinging on to our past history.
Nobody wants to compromise everyone wants to take their slice and everyone then blames everyone else. Until drastic change happen and the population actually stands up stops blaming one side or another and says this needs to change nothing will change.
We keep on paying for s
t services, electing st leaders and MPs complain on social media and do nothing about. Sums up the UK to a tee, a failing nation clinging on to our past history.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff