Should British railways be re-nationalised?

Question

Do you believe Britain's railways are better, and the country as a whole better off after privatisation?

Answer 1

There are some excellent answer above. All I would add is that it is probably to late now to renationalise the railways, and probably would cause more problems that it would solve. What does need to happen, however, is that the lumbering system that John Major's Tory Government bequeathed to the nation (and let's not forget it was the Tories who bungled the whole issue and carved up a national asset to the financial benefit of their city cronies) needs radical overhaul. The horizontal integration has to be abolished and steel reunited with wheel, without the nonsenses of Network Rail and rolling stock leasing companies. All this is doing is making vast sums of money for city accountants and lawyers which would be far better invested in the railways. We need to be looking at say four, or possibly five, regional companies in England, basically on the lines of the grouped companies, with separate companies for Wales and Scotland with each company totally responsible for it's own infrastructure and without the nonsense of constantly changing franchises - Railway Magazine recently calculated the phenomenal costs of every re-franchise from new uniforms to re-vinyling stock (after paying design consultants ). To American friends - the situation here is very different to Amtrak which is merely a public body running passenger services over privately owned tracks because the owners of those tracks don't want to run passenger trains.



Later edit. I not bty's comment about 'under new management' but, really, that is a fallacious argument. It's something of a quantum leap from the local grocers changing hands to a railway TOC. Obviously, sometimes it may be necessary - South East Trains a few years ago, sadly GNER on the collapse of its parent company and possibly First Great Western. But why on earth take the franchises away from Virgin Cross-Country, Midland Main Line and Anglia. It was a totally pointless, expensive and nonsensical exercise driven entirely but the stupidity of civil servants and Government ministers who couldn't run a Hornby Dublo set.

Answer 2

Yes, and as soon as possible. The rail network today is a lasting monument to the clowns who called themselves "The Conservative Party" who sadly had the driving seat of this country in the 80's and early 90's, and they did so much damage that it's un beliveable, running down EVERY industry that Britain ever had. It's time to put this right, not just on the railways but everywhere. The UK was once know as "The workshop to the world", we built everything and did everything, for god sakes we were an EMPIRE, now look at us, we have to buy everything from everywhere else in the world and get taxed to death in the process because as a country we cant' provide for ourselves.



This isn't about re-nationalising the railways, it's about getting pride back into the UK, and being a nation that stands for something and no longer being a country full of subserviants that Maggie Thatcher and her do gooders created.



Bring it all back, British Rail, British Road Services, National Coal Board, British Steel..............



The only people who made anything out of Maggies grand UK sale were the government and the people who could afford to buy Britain Plc. Since then we've all been stuffed.



Sod trying to save the world, we should be trying to save ourselves!



I'm not trying to come over as a spokesman for the BNP or anything, and don't want to give a bad impression. This country just needs to get it's pride back and fast.

Answer 3

Having just returned from the continent, where the Dutch, French, Swiss, German, Spanish etc railways are nationalised, I can only say yes.



The trains were clean, modern, punctual and smooth running. Not once where they late, they left on time and they were fast. They were also affordable and hence always full- good public transport.



And I come back to Britain to find... trains delayed for half an hour or more, rubbish strewn around the carriages, atrociously expensive tickets that it's debatable buying given the number of people who waltz on without paying and get away with it, the whole thing is basically a disgrace.



Bring back British Rail!

Answer 4

Having also travelled on every rail network in western europe i would say yes and no.

In germany they realise that Deutsche Bahn is a burden and there is a debate about privatising it there. Italy's railways were truly awful the trains were filthy the staff were horrible and trains were always delayed.

However in france and Spain (and switzerland) it was really good.

A railway network is a good way of seeing the state of a nation. Britain's network is not that bad. I am an engineering student and most people who complain about the overwork delays for the upgrade on the West Coast Main Line haven't a clue what they are talking about. Would you rather have delays in the short term but a good rail network or would you like the Network Rail to rush it and see another Hatfield or Paddington happen.

Answer 5

I think the whole privatisation issue with railways was a mistake. \many people made a lot of money and we have an expensive overcrowded railway which is creaking at the seams. We have to decide whether we want high quality public transport and then pay for it..like the French.



It may now be too costly to re-nationalise the rail companies.

Answer 6

Having worked for British Railways I can tell you now that it was better organised and run and used smaller amounts of government subsidy.How on earth can 100 odd maintenance companies work better than one?.I don,t believe the country is better off.Our nationalised railway was starved of investment for years so that it would look like a failing industry to be bought on the cheap when it was privatised, what a disgrace !.

Answer 7

Given that there is now more state control then there ever was under BR its probably more nationalised then it ever was. Originally the private companies were told what the minimum services levels should be and left to get on with it. Though some made mistakes and cocked up by and large they started to come good. Then Richard Bowker became head of the government regulator and began micromanaging. One example was that they now specify minimum and maximum services. In Cornwall the maximum service was less then the existing service. Private operator then has to take the flack - Blame the government and you risk being stripped of the franchise along with any others you own! Another is that stock is now allocated centrally by the government - hence Arriva Wales are now losing a fleet they'd recieved 2 months ago. At least one had been repainted and re-fitted internally from high density commuter seating to low density...



What does need to happen though is for there to be less contractors and subcontractors who all have to be seperately insured, certified etc. Under BR there was just one insurance policy for the whole network. Reduce the fragmentation and you'll save money

Answer 8

As an ex BR employee, who left after privatisation, my opinion is based on both sides.



There was not much investment immediately PRIOR TO privatisation, and lots since. But coincidental to this a huge increase in passenger numbers too.



I think that the large scale projects, and rolling stock improvements are good for the public, and the investment in the newtork, on the whole is excellent!



Price needs to drop in real yerms, but this won't happen if the capacity of seats is not able to handle more passengers.....



therefore, I think the re-privatisation is very unlikely, and not required....



*** regards re-franchising costs - this kind of thing occurs daily in other industries.....how often do you see 'UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT' signs in the high street ....it's all part of business!!

Answer 9

People pay attention to Mark B above. He has it right. What we need is longer franchises for rail companies and less central control from government; given 20-25 year franchises and more freedom the companies would invest more of their own money and flex their entrepreneurial muscle; the regulators would exercise swift and strong control where the companies failed to perform. Despite the increased heavy hand on the system by the Department of Transport, this is the one thing that doesn't happen now as theFirst Great Western saga just goes on and on; the latest piece of meaningless spin is for the D.O.T. to grab 5 trains from Arriva Trains Wales, no doubt rendering them short of trains, and giving them to First Great Western who will continue to stumble unreliably on. The whole situation is a microcosm of British dysfunction; theory and P.R. spin applied to running the country rather than long term planning and policy applied by qualified people. Nevertheless we must not lose sight of the fact that 50% more passengers are carried on the railways annually than 10 years ago; many new trains are in service and frequencies have doubled on many lines. Low cost advance purchase fares on Inter City services compete very favourably with domestic air fares, coach fares and petrol costs and continue to encourage many new passengers onto trains.

Answer 10

Yes some private company's are good some are bad look at the old connex trains in London they got so bad they wore taken over by government so yes the government should run our railways. They already own the track and some stations as they own network rail but they don't own the trains.

Answer 11

Looking at the NHS, I don't think this country needs another money pit.



But, then again the whole systems needs restructuring and modernising. This simply isn't going to be done as fast without modernisation. I think that there should be some government money allocated for this renovation but, with so many companies it's going to be a political nightmare.

Answer 12

No political system can provide good service on bad track.



No political system can provide enough service on not enough track.



Privatisation isn't enough. If you smother it with government regulation, it'll work very badly. American railroads worked very badly until they were deregulated with the 4R and Staggers Acts.



California does a pretty good job with both passenger and freight, of course, we are willing to subsidize it.

Answer 13

Yes, and bring back Dr Beeching, Steam Trains, Rickets, Dyptheria, Polio and Tuberculosis!! The GOOD Old Days lol. What should happen to the railways is to close them all down, concrete over the tracks , and use them for road transport, and coaches. I know it will be impossible to do this,as tunnels will not be high or wide enough, and the cost will be prohibitive to alter them. The only ones better off since they were de-nationalised, are the shareholders, not the poor unfortunates who have to travel on them day in, day out, with any fare increases needing a bank loan to pay for.

Answer 14

Absolutely not. In the U.S. we have one main railway: Amtrak. It is government owned. I've been on both. It completely sucks in comparison to British rail lines.

Answer 15

Yes

Answer 16

No!!! The government would screw the entire network. I reckon it should stay privatized and better companies to take control of maintaining the network. But that's my view.

Answer 17

thats the last thing they should , when a gov owns anything they run it into the ground, then sell it for someone to fix

Answer 18

yes they should make it........