Do we need BR back

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Met Driver

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
1,734
I don't think the government can be trusted, as they are already proposing a cut in the network's subsidy. Maybe under a different government, yes, but not under this one!
 

Guinness

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2005
Messages
3,737
BR would be interesting. It would end the arugment of who the better TOC is. But in the end it would all come down to money on the railways etc.
 

Simming

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
1,186
Location
Cornwall
What alot of people dont realise, is that the railways is alot better now than it was under BR. I say keep it Privatised
 

Met Driver

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
1,734
Don't forget, it is private money that keeps the trains moving, and keeps new trains coming in. Apart from reliability issues, we have it pretty damn good IMO!
 

joy54.gen

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
613
BR would make the trains run on time more IMO, also it would be alot easier to hold connections, and make new ones. The money issue though may mean lines close etc.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
48,768
Location
Yorkshire
Seth said:
Don't forget, it is private money that keeps the trains moving, and keeps new trains coming in. Apart from reliability issues, we have it pretty damn good IMO!
Oh no it isn't! I guess you don't read 'Informed Sources'?

The private sector does invest in trains (in the form of ROSCOs), not the TOCs, however they rake in vast amounts of cash in excessive leasing fees from the TOCs, many of whom are subsidised to a much larger extent than under BR.
 

evil_hippo

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Messages
772
Location
Lewisham
I am unilaterally for renationalisation. The railway, to me, as a public service, not a business and should not be run as the latter. Besides, look at punctuality figures!

I might have been against it a few months ago, because of the incentive for new ideas afforded to TOCs. This is when Arriva ran a locomotive hauled service on the S&C along with a service bridging the 3-hour gap northbound in the afternoon and a new evening service out of Carlisle, later than was and now is possible. However, the franchise merry-go-round has not only put our railways in the hands of the oweners of serco education Bradford, making every ticket I buy play on my conscience, but lost us all the new services Arriva started up on their own initiative shortly before the end of their franchise, putting the line back to square one.
 

Guinness

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2005
Messages
3,737
joy54 said:
BR would make the trains run on time more IMO, also it would be alot easier to hold connections, and make new ones. The money issue though may mean lines close etc.
I agree! The current TOCs seem to suffer from communication brakedowns at times.
 

Dave A

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2005
Messages
1,161
Chaz said:
joy54 said:
BR would make the trains run on time more IMO, also it would be alot easier to hold connections, and make new ones. The money issue though may mean lines close etc.
I agree! The current TOCs seem to suffer from communication brakedowns at times.
MONEY ISSUE :shock: What money issue? According to the Evening Standard, National Rail is rolling in it!
 

joy54.gen

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
613
What are you talking about, National Rail was never around in BR days, the money issue is the privatised money that wasn't there in BR days, get facts right before you start moaning.
 

Dave A

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2005
Messages
1,161
joy54 said:
What are you talking about, National Rail was never around in BR days, the money issue is the privatised money that wasn't there in BR days, get facts right before you start moaning.
Doesn't he mean reverting back to BR? That's what I mean, there wouldn't be any if they reverted back :roll:
 

TheSlash

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2005
Messages
2,339
Location
Marwell Zoo
AlexS said:
Oi, be nice, or be on the receiving end of a whipping!
Harsh but true Mr S. Getting a travel pass for your own company is considered good these days, in BR days you had privs which even covered ferry companies. Working practises have changed for the worst aswell when it comes to whats best for the staff
 

HSTfan!!!

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2005
Messages
1,966
I think personally maybe it would be nice in some ways if BR was reformed but I don't think it would be that convinient. Conditions, pay and benefits for rail staff hadn't really got better until privatisation so keep it how it is!
 

Met Driver

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
1,734
Re-Nationalisation will never happen. The costs involved would be extreme to say the least. It is simply not an option - the damage has already been done.
 

Andrew

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2005
Messages
175
I'm all for renationalistation. The "it would cost too much" arguement does not hold water for me. Subsidies are massively more than BR times, saving on those could be £bns AIUI. As I see it, you could quite easily just not refranchise regions when the current TOC's franchise runs out, ie run it like SET for a bit, but as BR, leasing rolling stock from ROSCOs as per your normal privatised TOC. With the massive savings you're making, you could buy back the newer trains from ROSCOs, or as another option keep leasing them, and just let BR buy new trains itself (or better still, build them itself). That way, in the end, you have a nationalised railway. Freight would be more of a problem, but IMO freight does seem to be doing a better job under privatisation than the mucked up passenger system.
 

Nick

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
976
I can't help but agree with Angus. As much as I love British Railways (well circa 1960!) I can't help but think privatisation was a good move for the railways, though done the wrong way. Privatising the rail network has given more investment, more trains and more services to England. Tell me, anyone here whos train was more frequent, or served with newer stock on British Railways in the 90's than today?
 

Andrew

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2005
Messages
175
Tell me, anyone here whos train was more frequent, or served with newer stock on British Railways in the 90's than today?
Well quite a lot of places. Stock is continuously getting older you know. Examples for stock would be Thames routes, Great Western, ECML, SWT inner suburban, etc etc. And SWT have reduced frequencies on some routes just recently. I'm not saying it wasn't for the overall better, I'm just proving a point.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
48,768
Location
Yorkshire
Big Brother said:
Chaz said:
joy54 said:
BR would make the trains run on time more IMO, also it would be alot easier to hold connections, and make new ones. The money issue though may mean lines close etc.
I agree! The current TOCs seem to suffer from communication brakedowns at times.
MONEY ISSUE :shock: What money issue? According to the Evening Substandard, National Rail is rolling in it!
National Rail is just a term for the collection of TOCs, it's effectively an ATOC brand. I'm not sure if it even exists as a company - it's just a brand run by ATOC, which in turn is an organisation that all TOCs have a stake in.

In a way you may be right as all TOCs make a profit (Those that make a "loss" get the loss - and more - subsidised so the company that runs the franchise actually makes a profit).

However if you mean Network Rail, I'd hardly call billions of pounds of debt "rolling in it" :shock: ;)
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
48,768
Location
Yorkshire
Nick said:
I can't help but agree with Angus. As much as I love British Railways (well circa 1960!) I can't help but think privatisation was a good move for the railways, though done the wrong way. Privatising the rail network has given more investment, more trains and more services to England. Tell me, anyone here whos train was more frequent, or served with newer stock on British Railways in the 90's than today?
I'm not sure that's a relevant argument in this context.

If we're talking purely about frequency, then yes trains are more frequent now but there's reasons for that (See my post earlier).

Bear in mind there were over 1,000 days of NO new trains ordered at the time of privatisation, this combined with the under-investment of previous years and the election of a non-Tory/car mad government for the first time in ages meant there was a huge backlog and therefore many new trains were always going to be ordered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top