The tracks are owned by a company limited by guarantee, this company isn't owned by anyone.over tracks that are owned by the state in lieu of a former failed company
The tracks are owned by a company limited by guarantee, this company isn't owned by anyone.over tracks that are owned by the state in lieu of a former failed company
The tracks are owned by a company limited by guarantee, this company isn't owned by anyone.
What was the alternative though? Fully renationalize (not something New Labour were very keen on) or have another private for profit company take over and risk another Railtrack type situation.Well I think it comes across overall as a mish mash of a set up that most pig's breakfasts would be proud of.
The question is though if the Beeching cuts would have been prevented without nationalization? At the end of the day people preferred the private car and unless there was something done to prevent car ownership which is very unlikely then I doubt many routes would have been profitable and so would have ended up closing. Yes there may have been more heavy investment in the trunk routes but this could have been at the expense of secondary routes.Thing is, the owner-operator model is much more flexible than the others. With some provisos, for instance not being allowed to reduce a passenger service without permission, they could have achieved far more than the changes we have seen today. Emphasis on the 'could', because we can't be certain of that. Would the New LNER have upgraded its line, the ECML, to 140 mph? Possibly, since there would be far fewer hoops to jump through, it could be decided at a single board meeting if necessary.
What was the alternative though? Fully renationalize (not something New Labour were very keen on) or have another private for profit company take over and risk another Railtrack type situation.
[.
The Swiss model seems to work
One day, someone will write the authoritative history of British transport policy in the post-war years, and explain in detail why we took the short-sighted view of going for limitless growth in private car ownership, provided for by the government. However, I think Zoe has here fallen into the Beeching trap (probably actually the Marples trap) of thinking that the only option for "unprofitable" lines was closure. If they had, instead, been considered as "underused assets", different solutions might have been found.....At the end of the day people preferred the private car and unless there was something done to prevent car ownership which is very unlikely then I doubt many routes would have been profitable and so would have ended up closing.....
Unless private car ownership had been restricted though, I'm not quite sure how people would have been forced to use the railways though and unless they are used they are not going to be profitable.I think Zoe has here fallen into the Beeching trap (probably actually the Marples trap) of thinking that the only option for "unprofitable" lines was closure. If they had, instead, been considered as "underused assets", different solutions might have been found.
The question is though if the Beeching cuts would have been prevented without nationalization? At the end of the day people preferred the private car and unless there was something done to prevent car ownership which is very unlikely then I doubt many routes would have been profitable and so would have ended up closing. Yes there may have been more heavy investment in the trunk routes but this could have been at the expense of secondary routes.
Unless private car ownership had been restricted though, I'm not quite sure how people would have been forced to use the railways though and unless they are used they are not going to be profitable.
If the railways had stayed in the private sector though and ran on a fully commercial basis then why would a company keep something open or run services that are not making a profit? I don't see how they would ever be profitable if they were not used.It depends on what you perceive as being profitable. If you think about it, there are thousands of miles of country roads that cannot possibly be seen as 'profitable' on the basis of useage.
I would expect there are also railways that are overcapacity outside of peak times. I believe the motorways were primarily built for freight and I'm not sure there would be capacity to transfer most of this to the rail network considering paths are needed for more passenger services.Try driving down the M4 from Cardiff to Swansea at this time of the evening and you will be met with massive over capacity.
The lop sided thinking when it comes to infrastructure is really quite astonishing. Multi million pound road improvement schemes are seen as 'investment' but rail improvement schemes are always presented in a manner that demands justification.
I would expect there are also railways that are overcapacity outside of peak times. I believe the motorways were primarily built for freight and I'm not sure there would be capacity to transfer most of this to the rail network considering paths are needed for more passenger services.
Try driving down the M4 from Cardiff to Swansea at this time of the evening and you will be met with massive over capacity.
Just as the capacity is not fully used all the time doesn't mean it isn't needed though. There are quite a few trains that sit around doing nothing off peak on some routes.Whatever the motorways were built for there is undeniably spare capacity lying idle at many times during the day. Because of the way freight traffic has developed around the motorways much of it would be unlikely to return to rail. The one glaring anomaly is that, in recent years, the overnight train has virtually disappeared leaving all that infrastructure that could be used to move goods when the passengers are safely tucked up in bed.
I don't see how not nationalizing the railways would have helped with this though. People would still most likely have preferred the car and so the demand for rail travel would have still been lower regardless of if the railways were in the public or private sector. If the railways were run on a fully commercial basis then it's very unlikely a service would continue to run if there is little demand for it.In any case, none of this answers the question as to why investment in the railways is treated differently to investment in roads.
The rolling stock provision between Scarborough and York has deteriorated in every conceivable way.
I am not talking about taking away "special services" here, but the regular year-round services. In the 1970s these were a 4-car DMUs bolstered to even 6 or 8 car trains at busier times.
How they can think a 3-car unit is fit for purpose for every single service at any time with a "one size fits all" approach completely escapes me.
On top of that the first generation DMUs were so much better fitted out internally than modern rolling stock (the same can be said of lots of other stock too). If the class 185 units were fitted out based on the interior style, materials, comfort and aesthetics of an ex-works class 101, I honestly believe that passengers would consider it a hugely improved travelling experience.
Carriage interiors were built with craftsmanship; craftsmanship I say!
The MUs though have allowed frequencies to be significantly increased.In France and Switzerland, there may be other countries but i have not travelled on their networks, they run proper trains, loco hauled and 14-16 carriages. Look at what has replaced them in this country. 2-6 car multiple units, perhaps the trains would be less crowded if we did go back to loco hauled trains, but the bean counters would be wailing that assets are being underused, to the detriment of shareholders and the bonuses paid to those who do,IMHO, the least public service to the travelling public
Reading through peoples comments in this thread makes me feel that there is more lines that should be re - opened or routes/lines put in place so that you do not have to trek across London to go North or South of the country.
As much as there is more routes that have opened or re -opened since Privatisation, I think there is a more routes which have been stopped either due to paths not being there anymore such as mentioned in my original e-mail that opened this thread or down to the lack of pasengers taking the trains on some routes. So to say that there has been improvement since the 1970's is one thing but it has been at cost to the routes which now no longer exist which is a shame.
Yes, there has been an increase in passenger numbers in the last 20 years but fares need to be cheaper than they are and the railway companies need to be providing more services in my view that either were there previously in BR days or that can be seen that there is a need for it now due to the growth in traffic.
My ideas would be to have services such as the following:
Brighton via Kensington Olympia & Birmingham New Street to Holyhead.
Brighton via Fareham/Southampton to Penzance
Eastbourne via Gatwick Airport/Guildford/Reading to Swansea
Eastbourne via Gatwick Airport/Guildford/Wokingham/Reading to Liverpool
Portsmouth via Fareham/Southampton/Salisbury/Bristol Temple Meads to Blackpool
Portsmouth via Havant/Guildford/Reading to Glasgow
Or it could just be that the private car is in decline and people still need to travel so it's inevitable people will switch to rail.There does seem to be a far better attitude towards passengers now - which I suspect is one of the reasons that passenger numbers are at record levels.
In France and Switzerland, there may be other countries but i have not travelled on their networks, they run proper trains, loco hauled and 14-16 carriages. Look at what has replaced them in this country. 2-6 car multiple units, perhaps the trains would be less crowded if we did go back to loco hauled trains, but the bean counters would be wailing that assets are being underused, to the detriment of shareholders and the bonuses paid to those who do,IMHO, the least public service to the travelling public
Or it could just be that the private car is in decline and people still need to travel so it's inevitable people will switch to rail.
The SRA did block Virgin from extending the units to 5 cars in 2002/2003 but who would have financed it?there is evidence that Virgin wanted to make the Voyagers 5 car units - DfT declined. Once again, government interference inhibited a private company wanting to improve things.
Or it could just be that the private car is in decline and people still need to travel so it's inevitable people will switch to rail.
I'm not sure there was ever a BR plan for the intercity cross country network to go over to MU operation though.And you might like to reflect on the fact the move to MUs, particularly on the Cross Country network was a BR invention - nothing to do with Privatisation.
The SRA did block Virgin from extending the units to 5 cars in 2002/2003 but who would have financed it?
The SRA did block Virgin from extending the units to 5 cars in 2002/2003 but who would have financed it?
It does if Virgin wanted someone else to pay for it.Does it matter?
That may well be what the statistics say but I know of people like Batman was referring to above that ten years ago would go everywhere by car but now use public transport so there must be some modal shift away from the private care. I believe that smartphones and social networking sites have helped with this shift as you would be able to use them on public transport.The statistics don't support the claim private car usage is "in decline"
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/national-travel-survey-2010/nts2010-01.pdf
Look at Page 7 - the biggest drop was company cars on business mileage. And that could be accounted for by a number of factors. Interestingly company car use for commuting increased significantly. All other metrics seem to be fairly constant.
I'm not sure there was ever a BR plan for the intercity cross country network to go over to MU operation though.