Bring back british rail!

[Minilad]

Give me a class 87 and a set of mk3's any day of the week. The pendolino is the most uncomfortable train I've ever had the misfortune of travelling on.

I only reason why class 87's became unreliable was because Virgin Trains ran them into the ground.

I often wish that the government would re-nationalise the railways but I don't think it will ever happen.

I thought Labour when they took office in 1997 that was one of their main pledges in their manifesto.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Absolutely. I often wonder if Virgin didn't do this on purpose so they could say how much better it will be when they get their shiny new trains (I use the word train loosely)

 

[Zoe]

Give me a class 87 and a set of mk3's any day of the week. The pendolino is the most uncomfortable train I've ever had the misfortune of travelling on.

That may well be but at the end of the day journey times are faster which is important for business and modal shift.

 

[HSTEd]

How much of the network do they own and run compared to private operators?

Swiss Federal RAilways operates roughly 82% of the standard gauge network, with the vast majority of the remainder held by BLS AG.
BLS AG is owned primarily by the Canton of Bern and the Swiss Federal Government (55.8/21.7%) so is effectively state owned under my previous definition.

As for the narrow gauge railways:
- RhB runs 26% of the 1m gauge track mileage and is owned almost entirely (~95%) by the canton of Graubunden and the Swiss federal government.
- Matterhorn-Gotthard Bahn is peculiar, but it would appear the infrastructure is held by the public sector and the stock/operations by some weird partnership, so I will exclude them from the count. (~10%)
- The remainder, totally something on order of 63% of the narrow gauge network, and roughly 15% of the whole network are in the hands of various minor operators, either private or local government owned and I dont have the resources or local knowledge to attempt an exhaustive survey.

So it would appear that the state (if not entirely through Swiss Federal railways, and through its local and national guises) owns (or has a controlling stake in) effectively the entire standard gauge network and somewhere between a quarter and a third (if you count MGB or not) of the narrow gauge one.

The public sector carries the vast majority of the tonne-kilometres hauled on Swiss metals, so to answer your question: lots and lots.

---

Someone also mentioned that the trains on the West Coast Main Line are far faster and more reliable than under British rail....might this have something to do with the ten billion pounds of public money spent on the WCRM?

The improvements under "privatisation" are almost entirely paid for by the public sector with the private sector contributions almost entirely coming from non operators who would have paid BR for the improvements anyway.


As for staff, I don't see why a public sector worker can't be just as courteous as a private sector one, but maybe I simply don't understand how efficient the private sector is.

Many people seem to have fallen into the trap that the private sector exists to provide a service..... it doesn't, it exists to make money, if it can obtain a better return on its investment by closing a line and spending the money on something else it will do so.

 

[Schnellzug]

It wouldn't have been so bad if they left it with the Pre privatisation having the Business Sectors ie IWCA intercity West Coast Main Line.


HD

How would that have differed from Virgin, unless it's just purely that Public sector=Good?

 

[phil8715]

That may well be but at the end of the day journey times are faster which is important for business and modal shift.

Pendolinos were built for speed not comfort. At least the mk3's were comfortable with plenty of leg room in the airline style seats.

I would rather travel on a 185 to Glasgow then a pendolino.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Zoe]

Intercity was the business sector. Intercity West Coast was a division but only became a fully separate business when it was set up as a shadow TOC for the purpose of privatization.

 

[WestCoast]

In an international setting, don't forget there are different types of privatisation on the railways, you can't overgeneralise that term.

The UK uses Net Tendering , where a subsidy is based on top of the fares the company collects. The TOCs have a degree of control over fares and other matters, and they run stations.

Other systems (e.g. regional rail in parts of the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia) use Gross Tendering - where the operator is merely paid money to run the service (to an agreed standard in terms of service pattern and stock e.t.c) and the franchise authority retains ticket revenue and the authority over fare levels. TOCs aren't responsible for stations or other parts of infrastructure.

 

[Zoe]

the operator is merely paid money to run the service (to an agreed standard in terms of service pattern and stock e.t.c) and the franchise authority retains ticket revenue and the authority over fare levels. TOCs aren't responsible for stations or other parts of infrastructure.

Don't forget London Overground although LOROL do take a small part of the revenue risk.

 

[Hydro]

Absolutely. I often wonder if Virgin didn't do this on purpose so they could say how much better it will be when they get their shiny new trains (I use the word train loosely)

The Pendo would be a good train if the interiors were completely redesigned. I've never experienced such a hotch potch of jamming seats and tables into a coach interior than on a Pendolino. The windows don't particlarly bother me (except when I'm unlucky enough to get a wonderful pillar view), but the layout is pretty poor.

Nationalisation vs Privatisation is moot, depending on how each task is carried out. All Nat vs Priv means is who runs and finances the railway. It just so happens we have a real *******isation of a Privatised railway. Who's to say that we wouldn't have a real *******isation of a Nationalised railway if it happened again?

 

[Zoe]

The Pendo would be a good train if the interiors were completely redesigned. I've never experienced such a hotch potch of jamming seats and tables into a coach interior than on a Pendolino. The windows don't particlarly bother me (except when I'm unlucky enough to get a wonderful pillar view), but the layout is pretty poor.

The more seats you can fit in though, the more tickets you can sell.

 

[Minilad]

The more seats you can fit in though, the more tickets you can sell.

But when people end up cramped in a horrible interior in an uncomfortable seat they might well decide not to bother again

 

[WestCoast]

Don't forget London Overground although LOROL do take a small part of the revenue risk.

Of course yes, and it's a model that I'd be keen to test the suitability of in other parts of the country.

 

[Zoe]

But when people end up cramped in a horrible interior in an uncomfortable seat they might well decide not to bother again

For a journey to London though, what choice is there? Driving into Central London isn't really an option.

 

[Minilad]

The Pendo would be a good train if the interiors were completely redesigned. I've never experienced such a hotch potch of jamming seats and tables into a coach interior than on a Pendolino. The windows don't particlarly bother me (except when I'm unlucky enough to get a wonderful pillar view), but the layout is pretty poor.

You are right. Its not the train but the way it was fitted out. I am sure they could have been done a lot nicer

 

[Hydro]

The more seats you can fit in though, the more tickets you can sell.

But that's no reason to do it badly.

 

[Minilad]

For a journey to London though, what choice is there? Driving into Central London isn't really an option.

Well I for one don't travel on Virgin between Birmingham and London for that very reason

 

[WestCoast]

For a journey to London though, what choice is there? Driving into Central London isn't really an option.

Aside from the car. It's possible to avoid Pendolinos by taking other routes, or taking the coach (megabus/mega sleeper/NX/Greyhound UK).

 

[Snapper]

Privatisation was done very badly but it did bring much needed investment and got people back on to the trains. But like Greenback says, we don't know what would have happened had BR been given the kind of investment we are seeing in today's railway.

Actually, we do know the answer to that.

The point that is always ignored by the 'bring back BR' types is that BR would never have been given the money that has been invested in the railways since privatisation. It simply wouldn't have happened because of the way BR was structured and it's relationship to Government. So, there's really no point in saying 'what if' BR was given that money because it would never have received it - end of story really.

The only way that was going to change was through privatisation - and we can see the results - the amount of money invested since (and that continues to be invested) is dramatic.

 

[Zoe]

But that's no reason to do it badly.

Could you have fitted as many seats though using a different arrangement?

 

[WestCoast]

The only way that was going to change was through privatisation - and we can see the results - the amount of money invested since (and that continues to be invested) is dramatic.

On certain parts of the network.....

 

[Schnellzug]

For a journey to London though, what choice is there? Driving into Central London isn't really an option.

And that's exactly what I was arguing. If you want to go from manchester to london, you've got to use Virgin. Would it be better to return to a State-owned monopoly provider, or would it be in the interests of the travelling public to be able to have a choice of operators, with different kinds of rolling stock? What would have happened if BR had remained in being (either good old Unified BR, or the Sectors)? Would we still have the Mk3 stock (and hence, probably, the Media would be continually sniping about Old Trains), or would it have been replaced, and what would BR or ICWC have chosen? And let's not forget, everyone, what post-Sectorisation BR's ideas about rolling stock were like. They who decided on two-car Sprinters for everything, including long cross-country routes that formerly used 8 or 9-coach loco hauled stock; who brought us the Pacers ; and who gave us Britains' least comfortable train, the class 321 and its commuter brethren.

 

[Hydro]

Could you have fitted as many seats though using a different arrangement?

I think it's certainly possible, yes.

 

[lincolnshire]

It will never happen as its too far gone now to be renationalized again.

What should of happened in BR days was when they appointed a chairman of the railways to give the money and let him get on with the job instead of keep tinkering with his allocation of money .
The best person for the railways to move forward in them days( in my own op ion) was Peter Parker a man who tried to run the railway in a fit manner , but was let down by the government of the time.
The last few Chairman of the Railways only seemed to be interested in getting a night hood for themselves at it usually went with the job when you finished your stint.

Railtrack thought its stations was like airports, lets have lots of shops for people to spend money in etc. look at its Leader Gerald Corbet. a cast off from big business and where did he go to after Railtrack! Woolworths sorry no longer with us( he was a good leader)

Now we have Network Rail, who seem to know how to waste vast amounts to taxpayers money.

As said before, what if all the money that privatization has cost had been put into BR instead what would we have had now?

Because unless you worked for them, you only see what you want to see with your rose tinted glasses.

 

[Zoe]

So, there's really no point in saying 'what if' BR was given that money because it would never have received it - end of story really.

Only due to the politics of the time which were still quite pro-car. These days governments are more pro-public transport so it's not out of the questions that BR would have been given more.

 

[WestCoast]

If you want to go from manchester to london, you've got to use Virgin..

Well, true if you want a direct service, however EMT to St Pancras via Sheffield isn't a bad alternative, a via Chesterfield ticket does exist for this purpose.

 

[Schnellzug]

It will never happen as its too far gone now to be renationalized again.

What should of happened in BR days was when they appointed a chairman of the railways to give the money and let him get on with the job instead of keep tinkering with his allocation of money .
The best person for the railways to move forward in them days( in my own op ion) was Peter Parker a man who tried to run the railway in a fit manner , but was let down by the government of the time. .

Yet again, yearning for what could have been, if only they hadn't been let down by the Government. But that's what would always have been the case if it had remained in the Public sector; it would never have been free of Government interference or Government insistence on controlling the amount of money it was prepared to provide. Is it conceivable to anyone that the blissful situation would ever have arisen that BR would have been free of interference and free to spend as much as it liked?

 

[Old Timer]

....I thought Labour when they took office in 1997 that was one of their main pledges in their manifesto.

On 15th January 1995 Labour issued a briefing to the media concerning their intention to return the Railways back to Nationalised status.

The following quote came from The Independent.

LABOUR is drawing up detailed plans to renationalise the bulk of the railway network in a move expected to swing key left-wing support for Tony Blair's proposed changes to Clause IV of the party's constitution.

A working party under Mr Blair's deputy, John Prescott, has examined how each privatisation step could be reversed by a future Labour government.
In a significant shift in tone, Mr Blair's close supporters are stressing his "explicit commitment to publicly owned railways''. Earlier Mr Blair said only that the party's policy would be determined by the extent of the privatisation it inherits.

Mr Prescott, one of the key links between the leadership and the union movement, is expected to spell out in more detail the party's determination to return the rail network to the public sector in a speech today.

The move comes as Mr Blair faces a left-wing backlash against his plans to reform Clause IV, which in theory commits the party to public ownership. The Labour leader is likely to need support from the trade unions to secure the planned changes.

 

[Zoe]

On 15th January 1995 Labour issued a briefing to the media concerning their intention to return the Railways back to Nationalised status.

However this policy had been dropped before the election.

 

[150222]

But when people end up cramped in a horrible interior in an uncomfortable seat they might well decide not to bother again

That's why I never use crosscountry voyagers if I can avoid it. Sorry

 

[Minilad]

That's why I never use crosscountry voyagers if I can avoid it. Sorry

No need to be sorry. But it just shows people will avoid using trains that are uncomfortable