Gigabit
Member
Why?
Richer people gain more from subsidised rail travel. Why should the lower paid people subsidise their leisure trips?
If you want to help the lower paid you spend available money on buses.
I assume you think the rich should pay for healthcare too do you?
Which will change absolutely nothing. It will be the same people in DfT running the railway, doing what the Treasury instructs them to do and say.
The industry will lose some good people in senior positions in the TOCs.
Network Rail is a great example of the dead hand of the Treasury stopping progress as soon as any opportunities to reduce spending (eg GWML electrification).
I think it will at worst change absolutely nothing. But I cannot see what private companies offer over just the government running the TOCs. What do the TOCs bring?
It still needs to cover its costs.
This isn't a 'subsidy' the Government will bear the entire cost of the railway. They will not get value for their services because there is no incentive to compete for a contract and we all know what happens when the Gov contract anything.
How much should the taxpayer 'subsidise' the railway ? Every penny that those evil private companies pay will now transfer over to being part of the public purse. Spending money and filtering that to private companies will still happen because almost every aspect is contracted out to someone.
Should the railway run at a loss ? Will ticket between Beckenham Junction and Kent House be overpriced because Taunton and London runs as a loss ? Who will get the investment into their local route ? Ones with a strong commuter flow or some backwater village with 5 passengers a day ?
How should a public service be run ? How is it funded ?
Which I believe is a genuine concern. Are they too high ? Maybe but price isn't always as clear as we think it is. I think intercity prices are shocking but I also loathe paying £2.50 for a local bus that goes a less than a mile but at the same time takes 20 minutes to do it.
Whatever pricing model you want to use will go horribly wrong and be very unbalanced. The current model needs and overhaul but nationalisation isn't needed to implement that.
It doesn't need to cover its cost though, we just accept it won't ever make a profit and we subsidise it to the degree that it needs to keep fares low. Or do you think the NHS should make a profit too?