Privatisation vs nationalisation vs the RoW

[Senex]

As has been mentioned before on these boards, there is absolutely no point in looking back at BR if one wishes to know what re-nationalisation would look like. Whatever the new entity looked like, it wouldn't be BR. Politicians and their civil service lapdogs have a far bigger say on what happens on the railways these days.

And if BR had survived, it would have looked nothing like the BR as a monolithic nationalised industry that some people like to look back to. Sectorisation, business-led infrastructure investment, and OforQ were all changing the industry out of all recognition (and for the better). All the progress BR was making in all sorts of areas were just stupidly jettisoned by the Major government.

 

[yorksrob]

I see that as good business in most respects, given that what future is there in such services in the long term?

In effect, it added a lot more confusion and created a barrier for a lot of people between themselves and what had previously been an easy to use service. Directory enquiries would have dwindled anyway because of the internet, but this fiasco pushed it over the edge.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Dogma is always the enemy of clear thinking, whichever side of the fence it sits.

Outstanding quote. I do not want to go back to BR days -though I did love the research done at BREL Derby

 

[Olaf]

Oh, so we "can't afford" nationalisation, but we can afford to maintain a privatisation model that requires billions of pounds more in subsidies than its publicly owned predecessor while simultaneously generating billions of pounds of public debt?

Talk sense.

I am quite happy to see the subsidies end and cost reductions enforced.

 

[Olaf]

I did n't catch the celebrity love-in yesterday; Did the Labour Conference mention anything about the railways?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

If I may give my two cents on Nationalisation vs Privatisation, then I'm willing to also debate some of my points so long as it's civil and friendly. After all, there's not many facts on a political issue but rather just points of view.

Now I calculated myself that if all 1.2 billion + train journeys per year all cost just £20, then the railways would already make around £24 billion, along with the £4.5 billion subsidies today, giving them around £30 billion. Some journeys will cost less, others more, and there's also First Class travellers. Now here's why my mathematics might need a bit more information or correction; the staffing. Staff is perhaps the biggest thing to pay for on the railways, and Virgin Trains now pay around £31 million on 547 drivers at £57k salaries alone. Imagine a whole single entity paying for more than that?

But going onto more credible arguments, I've heard many things about British Rail and it's dirty trains and poor timetables. But given how it was deprived of funding for many years, it seemed to have done well with what it had and was gradually improving in it's final years. Someone once told me that InterCity wasn't even that bad. Nowadays you hear about how the railways now have record of investment, yet the trains are often late, we still have old dilapidated rolling stock, and many trains are too short and often left overcrowded.

Not just that, but the Great Western Main Line might not even get it's electrification finished now, and given that British Rail managed to electrify the East and West Coast Main Lines, both of which are about twice as long, with it's funding, you have to wonder where all the money's gone? So-called record levels of investment (which is primarily from the state if anything), yet the ticket prices keep going up every year to ride on late and overcrowded trains. I really know where all the money has gone!

I get this might be more of a rant than an expression of opinion, but I really believe that the railways are a mess in the current way they are and that it really needs to be discussed.

 

[nw1]

The problem I see with privatisation is that money has to be found to pay shareholders. Nationalisation would work better _as long as_ the government is prepared to put money into it, if it isn't it's probably little better than privatisation. There needs to be a 'public service' ethos in public transport, which costs money, from taxation, which sadly in the right-leaning political environment we live in now is perhaps not politically acceptable.

One thing I will say is that trains seemed to be less delayed and overcrowded during the 80s (when I used them on a daily basis Mon-Fri to go to school). Another thing I will say is that on continental Europe, where trains are nationalised, trains appear to be cheaper and more integrated with buses.

Agree that the 'old stock' argument is weak. It's just a coincidence to do with the timing of the last mass stock replacement in the 1960s. In the late BR days of let's say 1992, there was a hell of a lot of stock about 20 to 30 years old. Given the lifetime of typical MUs seems to be around 35 years, the stock was 'too young' to be replaced at that time. I suspect it would have been replaced in the early 21st century had BR remained. The mid 2020s is going to be like the early 1990s in that respect, there will be plenty of by-then-old Sprinter and Networker era stock I suspect - and that will be (presumably) under a still privatised railway. Even stock like the 377s and 444/450s is going to be 20+ years old by then.

So my gut feeling would go nationalised, though if it has to be private, I would advocate one single and regulated company, or at least a very small number of companies a la Big Four. The big problem with public transport in this country is the lack of integration. We have an ex-Southern Region with different and incompatible classes of third-rail EMU. Contrast that with BR days when CIGs, CEPs, VEPs, HAPs and EBPs could all work with each other. We have the Southern fragmented into different companies. Why not just one? Why the hell do we need South Eastern, Govia Southern (or whatever they call themselves this month) and South Western? Why not, at the very least, a Greater Southern Railway?

I'd also have integrated buses with through ticketing. Combined train-bus journeys, or even bus journeys with two operators, are disproportionately expensive. Basically we need more of a public-service ethos in public transport, this is something decidedly lacking in the UK compared to some continental countries. Perhaps we as a nation simply dislike paying tax to fund such a thing.

 

[JamesT]

If I may give my two cents on Nationalisation vs Privatisation, then I'm willing to also debate some of my points so long as it's civil and friendly. After all, there's not many facts on a political issue but rather just points of view.

Now I calculated myself that if all 1.2 billion + train journeys per year all cost just £20, then the railways would already make around £24 billion, along with the £4.5 billion subsidies today, giving them around £30 billion. Some journeys will cost less, others more, and there's also First Class travellers. Now here's why my mathematics might need a bit more information or correction; the staffing. Staff is perhaps the biggest thing to pay for on the railways, and Virgin Trains now pay around £31 million on 547 drivers at £57k salaries alone. Imagine a whole single entity paying for more than that?

I think some of your numbers may be a little off. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/14/train-journey-numbers-double-since-privatisation-railways-uk-report
from 2 years ago has the revenue from 1.65bn journeys just about covering the £9.5bn cost of running the service on a day to day basis.
Government funding then essentially covers infrastructure improvements.

But going onto more credible arguments, I've heard many things about British Rail and it's dirty trains and poor timetables. But given how it was deprived of funding for many years, it seemed to have done well with what it had and was gradually improving in it's final years. Someone once told me that InterCity wasn't even that bad. Nowadays you hear about how the railways now have record of investment, yet the trains are often late, we still have old dilapidated rolling stock, and many trains are too short and often left overcrowded.

Passenger numbers have also grown massively over that time without a corresponding increase in size of the network. We do have one of the most intensively worked railways in the world. I suspect many of the TOCs would like to run longer trains and get more customers, but either the infrastructure doesn't allow for it or the government prevents it by tightly fixing the franchise agreement.

Not just that, but the Great Western Main Line might not even get it's electrification finished now, and given that British Rail managed to electrify the East and West Coast Main Lines, both of which are about twice as long, with it's funding, you have to wonder where all the money's gone? So-called record levels of investment (which is primarily from the state if anything), yet the ticket prices keep going up every year to ride on late and overcrowded trains. I really know where all the money has gone!

I get this might be more of a rant than an expression of opinion, but I really believe that the railways are a mess in the current way they are and that it really needs to be discussed.

Times have changed, there's a safety culture that wouldn't allow now many of the cost-cutting measures BR got away with. If the extra money spent on the GWML electrification means it doesn't fall over as often as the ECML stuff appears to do it may well be worth it.

 

[47802]

If I may give my two cents on Nationalisation vs Privatisation, then I'm willing to also debate some of my points so long as it's civil and friendly. After all, there's not many facts on a political issue but rather just points of view.

But going onto more credible arguments, I've heard many things about British Rail and it's dirty trains and poor timetables. But given how it was deprived of funding for many years, it seemed to have done well with what it had and was gradually improving in it's final years. Someone once told me that InterCity wasn't even that bad. Nowadays you hear about how the railways now have record of investment, yet the trains are often late, we still have old dilapidated rolling stock, and many trains are too short and often left overcrowded.

Not just that, but the Great Western Main Line might not even get it's electrification finished now, and given that British Rail managed to electrify the East and West Coast Main Lines, both of which are about twice as long, with it's funding, you have to wonder where all the money's gone? So-called record levels of investment (which is primarily from the state if anything), yet the ticket prices keep going up every year to ride on late and overcrowded trains. I really know where all the money has gone!

I get this might be more of a rant than an expression of opinion, but I really believe that the railways are a mess in the current way they are and that it edreally needs to be discussed.

While BR Intercity wasn't too bad I tried commuting on 2 routes in the late eighties early 90's and ended up making alternate arrangements as the service was so unreliable, as has already been pointed the railways have to try and carry vastly more passengers than 25 years ago while the level of new trains on order is huge but clearly it takes quite while for those trains to be built and got into service.

As for where all the money has gone a lot seems to be gone on non Privatised Network Rail going vastly over budget in its GW Electrification Project

I'm not even sure I would call the rest of the railways privatised in the true sense of privatisation, given some are basically a management contract and the rest are highly regulated and specified

 

[Chris M]

I'm not even sure I would call the rest of the railways privatised in the true sense of privatisation, given some are basically a management contract and the rest are highly regulated and specified

This to me is the heart of the problem - we have a hybrid public and private railway with the worst parts of the private sector (shareholder take, profiteering, lack of integration ) combined with the worst parts of the public sector (central government micromanagement, high borrowing costs) that combine to add other problems (lack of incentive to invest, lack of long-term thinking, difficulty in innovating) that are not squarely allocatable to either pot.

It is thus not possible to use the current set-up as a demonstration of why a private sector railway is a good thing or a bad thing. Similarly it is not possible to use it to demonstrate a public sector railway is a good thing or a bad thing. Personally I would use it as an example of how not to structure a railway, but others may disagree.

My personal benchmark for whether something should be in the public or private sector is to ask one basic question:
If the service is in the private sector, and the operator was unable to continue operations (for any reason), would the public sector have to step in to ensure a continuity of service?
If the answer is "yes" then it should be run by the public sector.
If the answer is "no" then it might be suitable for private sector operation.

 

[yorksrob]

Talking about my perception in the north-west/Wales really, particularly outside the PTE areas.
On Saturdays, trains started later and finished earlier (with extended engineering work on Sat nights).
Trains normally of minimum length, no attempt to strengthen, even in summer.
Fewer through trains (either split or connect en route).
Out and back journeys which were possible on weekdays couldn't be done on Saturdays.
The trend was also downwards (as BR implemented the last round of imposed cuts, and were sending old stock off to scrap).

You can still see the effects of this in some franchise agreements, with TOCs (and NR particularly) being reluctant to go to a 7-day railway.
Some railway staff contracts also hinder 7-day operation.

Maybe I did overstate the 5-day thing, but it is typical in the USA/Canada and we were heading in that direction.

That wasn't really the case on the Southern Region. Sundays could be a bit ropey - e.g. the Marshlink had a two hourly service (much like my current local route after twenty years of privatisation) , but I had no difficulty travelling around on a weekend. There certainly wasn't any feeling of a long term run down of weekend services.

 

[fowler9]

Were trains dirtier under BR? I really don't think so and this is a bizarre argument. Are trains more modern under privatisation? Not if you currently live in Liverpool where most/all local services are still operated by BR era trains (I just heard a Leyland National bus glued to a high speed freight wagon grind past the bottom of my garden). Also privatisation coincided with rapid advances in internet and mobile phone technology the likes of which I don't think many of us who were young adults at the time could have envisaged. Maybe to some who live in an area with loads of new trains that helped make the world seem shiny and new since privatisation.

 

[HH]

This to me is the heart of the problem - we have a hybrid public and private railway with the worst parts of the private sector (shareholder take, profiteering, lack of integration ) combined with the worst parts of the public sector (central government micromanagement, high borrowing costs) that combine to add other problems (lack of incentive to invest, lack of long-term thinking, difficulty in innovating) that are not squarely allocatable to either pot.

It is thus not possible to use the current set-up as a demonstration of why a private sector railway is a good thing or a bad thing. Similarly it is not possible to use it to demonstrate a public sector railway is a good thing or a bad thing. Personally I would use it as an example of how not to structure a railway, but others may disagree.

The problem as I see it, is that now that the politicians and the civil servants have taken control of the railway, I don't see them giving it back, whether it's nominally public, private or any measure in between.

 

[HH]

Were trains dirtier under BR? I really don't think so and this is a bizarre argument. Are trains more modern under privatisation? Not if you currently live in Liverpool where most/all local services are still operated by BR era trains. Also privatisation coincided with rapid advances in internet and mobile phone technology the likes of which I don't think many of us who were young adults at the time could have envisaged.

I'm not sure what your last point is, but as to the other two.

I'd say that trains were generally dirtier under BR. Not that every train was dirtier then than every train now, because there are still filthy trains around now and there were some clean trains then. However, many TOCs get measured on train cleanliness and there is cash money at stake if they fail to meet benchmarks. There might also be something in the design of newer trains, or even the switch to electric power. To be clear, I don't think that train cleanliness is a direct factor of public or private ownership.

Age of trains is coming down rapidly at the moment, despite the efforts of DfT to keep the old stock going (they worry about the ROSCOs wellbeing - no, seriously). BR sometimes had to keep old stock because they didn't have funds; TOCs have sometimes had to keep old stock because DfT have loaded the dice for bidders. Essentially neither is a direct function of being public or private, but rather of "government" policy.

 

[fowler9]

I'm not sure what your last point is, but as to the other two.

I'd say that trains were generally dirtier under BR. Not that every train was dirtier then than every train now, because there are still filthy trains around now and there were some clean trains then. However, many TOCs get measured on train cleanliness and there is cash money at stake if they fail to meet benchmarks. There might also be something in the design of newer trains, or even the switch to electric power. To be clear, I don't think that train cleanliness is a direct factor of public or private ownership.

Age of trains is coming down rapidly at the moment, despite the efforts of DfT to keep the old stock going (they worry about the ROSCOs wellbeing - no, seriously). BR sometimes had to keep old stock because they didn't have funds; TOCs have sometimes had to keep old stock because DfT have loaded the dice for bidders. Essentially neither is a direct function of being public or private, but rather of "government" policy.

I meant that advances in computer design and technology came along very rapidly in the 90's and since. These days a mobile phone is obsolete a year in to a 2 year contract. The same holds true across the technological board I would say.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I think whether you're for nationalisation or privatisation I think there is one thing we can mostly agree on. Don't split the steel and the wheel! By that I mean don't separate the track and train operations, because the system becomes fragmented and almost unaccountable. The Big Four would be a better way of privatisation if you ask me.

But the problem that both British Rail and the current system face is the fact that we have politicians trying to run a railway. Let the railwaymen run the railway and leave the politicians as they are. It's not like they know how to solve any problems after all, unlike railway executives. I think the German and Swiss model might be good in that British Railways would be set up as a corporation in which the government is a shareholder and having them there for a more check-and-balance. It works well for them.

 

[HH]

I think whether you're for nationalisation or privatisation I think there is one thing we can mostly agree on. Don't split the steel and the wheel! By that I mean don't separate the track and train operations, because the system becomes fragmented and almost unaccountable. The Big Four would be a better way of privatisation if you ask me.

But the problem that both British Rail and the current system face is the fact that we have politicians trying to run a railway. Let the railwaymen run the railway and leave the politicians as they are. It's not like they know how to solve any problems after all, unlike railway executives. I think the German and Swiss model might be good in that British Railways would be set up as a corporation in which the government is a shareholder and having them there for a more check-and-balance. It works well for them.

The main problem between track and train is that the staff on the two sides are incentivised completely differently. This is why Alliancing has had very limited success.

Also NR itself is not all pulling in the same direction - there is a constant tension between different parts, plus it's easy to find fairly senior managers who do not even know what their own company does at any level of detail. This is one of the problems of large organisations. On that basis a split (like the Big 4) makes some sense, but what about big projects that would stretch across more than one?

There is no silver bullet.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think whether you're for nationalisation or privatisation I think there is one thing we can mostly agree on. Don't split the steel and the wheel! By that I mean don't separate the track and train operations, because the system becomes fragmented and almost unaccountable. The Big Four would be a better way of privatisation if you ask me.

But the problem that both British Rail and the current system face is the fact that we have politicians trying to run a railway. Let the railwaymen run the railway and leave the politicians as they are. It's not like they know how to solve any problems after all, unlike railway executives. I think the German and Swiss model might be good in that British Railways would be set up as a corporation in which the government is a shareholder and having them there for a more check-and-balance. It works well for them.

You're assuming that the purse-holders (politicians) are prepared to hand control to "railwaymen".
It might work in DE and CH with 100 or more years of consistent funding and management, but it hasn't worked here since the 1955 modernisation money was squandered by BR, and there have been repeated financial fiascos since, in both public and private mode.
The persistent problem for BR was limited money for investment, provided in fits and starts rather than consistently.

The two nadirs since privatisation have been WCRM and now electrification, both of which stole vast sums from other deserving projects.
We are just going back into another "famine" mode after 8 or so years of "feast", during which time the railway, particularly the nationalised bit (NR), didn't cover itself in glory.
It is troubling that the Tories don't seem to have a vision for the railway, other than more of the same.
Rationalisation seems to be on hold until after Brexit or a Labour revolution, whichever comes first.

 

[nw1]

I meant that advances in computer design and technology came along very rapidly in the 90's and since. These days a mobile phone is obsolete a year in to a 2 year contract. The same holds true across the technological board I would say.

Not sure that a phone is obsolete one year in, unless it no longer supports current apps? My current phone is 3 years old, and only now am I thinking about replacing it.

 

[HH]

Not sure that a phone is obsolete one year in, unless it no longer supports current apps? My current phone is 3 years old, and only now am I thinking about replacing it.

I think he's exaggerating, but the point is valid. We can take a recent railway example - the CCTV on the Class 387s is far superior to that used on the earlier version of the same train, the Class 377. Cue obvious demand that the 377 CCTV is improved to the same standard. People don't realise that this is probably a very expensive upgrade, because the Cl 377 won't be wired to carry the higher data throughput, so it's not a simple job of "take out the old, plug in the new".

 

[yorksrob]

You're assuming that the purse-holders (politicians) are prepared to hand control to "railwaymen".
It might work in DE and CH with 100 or more years of consistent funding and management, but it hasn't worked here since the 1955 modernisation money was squandered by BR, and there have been repeated financial fiascos since, in both public and private mode.
The persistent problem for BR was limited money for investment, provided in fits and starts rather than consistently.

I'm not sure what these "repeated fiasco's" after the modernisation plan were. The only real management failure perpetrated by BR after the plan was the closure programme, however that's hardly an example of money being squandered.

As we know, a lot of what turned out to be unnecessary expenditure incurred through the modernisation plan resulted from legal obligations (common carrier obligation) and Government policy (use of alternative suppliers to provide locos etc). However, it provided a useful narrative which enabled our cynical establishment to pursue motor-centric policies.

 

[coppercapped]

I'm not sure what these "repeated fiasco's" after the modernisation plan were. The only real management failure perpetrated by BR after the plan was the closure programme, however that's hardly an example of money being squandered.

As we know, a lot of what turned out to be unnecessary expenditure incurred through the modernisation plan resulted from legal obligations (common carrier obligation) and Government policy (use of alternative suppliers to provide locos etc). However, it provided a useful narrative which enabled our cynical establishment to pursue motor-centric policies.

"As we know..." Do we really?

Regarding the Common Carrier Obligation the British Transport Commission from its founding in 1948 did absolutely nothing until the mid-1950s to get it modified or abandoned. The "Big 4" started their "Square Deal" campaign to get the obligation changed in the late 1930s - and the nationalised railway then dropped the ball. It only took a quarter of a century...

 

[HH]

"As we know..." Do we really?

Regarding the Common Carrier Obligation the British Transport Commission from its founding in 1948 did absolutely nothing until the mid-1950s to get it modified or abandoned. The "Big 4" started their "Square Deal" campaign to get the obligation changed in the late 1930s - and the nationalised railway then dropped the ball. It only took a quarter of a century...

I think the war is at least partly at fault, but still 1948 to 1962 is 14 years. You could have also mentioned that just prior to the war Chamberlain brought in Vehicle Excise Duty, against popular opinion.

 

[aylesbury]

The Modernisation Plan by and large was a failure as people then did not take in the advances and importantly changes in traffic pattern.

Marshalling yards were built although the traffic that would use them was leaching away rapidly and many locomotives were built for traffic that had disappeared and were in many cases totally unreliable.

At least now trains that appear on the network are well deigned and fit for purpose even if the seats are akin to plank of wood !

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If you think a nationalised railway is some kind of nirvana, have a look at the situation in France:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...a-to-assess-future-of-french-rail-sector.html

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has appointed the former head of Air France-KLM Jean-Cyril Spinetta to draw up a fresh strategy for the rail sector. Announced by Transport Minister Elisabeth Borne on October 16, the Spinetta study is intended to inform transport legislation due to be published in the first half of next year. Spinetta is charged with putting forward proposals for a future model for national rail services that meet the requirements of a market open to competition but which retain the elements of a public service.

In a letter addressed to Spinetta on October 12, the Prime Minister draws attention to the low level of use of regional rail services outside Ile-de-France and to the ‘ongoing crisis’ of the freight sector, where traffic levels are 40% down on those in 2000. Philippe also highlights the financial disarray affecting the railway business, which threatens its future.

Spinetta is asked to set out a strategy for rail services in 2030, taking into account ‘other modes of transport that could constitute alternatives for the passenger’ and disruptive technologies such as autonomous cars. A preferred model for high speed services, where trains competing with national operator SNCF could be launched as early as December 2020 under the Fourth Railway Package, is also required.

Proposals are sought for restoring economic viability across the sector without recourse to further state funds, and Spinetta has been instructed to look at performance and productivity issues, including drawing comparisons with railways outside France. He must also formulate proposals for structuring access charges and suggest ways of ‘reimbursing’ SNCF Réseau’s debt.

My bolds.
France never seems quite to rationalise its public sector, the unions seeing off repeated attempts to make it more competitive.
But it looks like the current model is on its last legs.
We'll see how Emmanuel Macron gets on with this initiative.

 

[yorksrob]

"As we know..." Do we really?

Regarding the Common Carrier Obligation the British Transport Commission from its founding in 1948 did absolutely nothing until the mid-1950s to get it modified or abandoned. The "Big 4" started their "Square Deal" campaign to get the obligation changed in the late 1930s - and the nationalised railway then dropped the ball. It only took a quarter of a century...

We do know.

It's for Government to decide public policy, and even if BR had been in a position to lobby, they might have decided that agitating against the CCO was a dead duck having seen their predecessors get nowhere with it.

 

[nw1]

If you think a nationalised railway is some kind of nirvana, have a look at the situation in France:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...a-to-assess-future-of-french-rail-sector.html


My bolds.
France never seems quite to rationalise its public sector, the unions seeing off repeated attempts to make it more competitive..

And a good thing too arguably!
Most of Britain's problems are because we have lost the public-service ethos prevalent in the past.

There is too much of an attitude that everything has to be run for a profit.
This is all well and good if you want to travel on a profitable route like London to Birmingham, but not so good if you live in an area with loss-making public transport which has to be subsidised. Plenty of examples of this here in Hampshire where rural bus services have disappeared because they are unprofitable and cuts to council funding have meant that the council has had to withdraw support.

Having public transport state run doesn't automatically mean a good service (if the government refuses to fund it) - but we need a combination of ideally publicly-owned (or at least a London-style system where the services are planned by the public sector and merely operated by private companies) public transport and a government willing to fund it out of taxation. The Cameron-Osborne era has laid waste to a good deal of public transport for that reason; it's much harder to get around Hampshire by bus now compared to even ten years ago. Profitable routes are as good as they ever were but getting to and from outlying areas is all-but-impossible. The old 52, later the 7, from Southampton to Petersfield was every 2 hours 6 days a week until around 10 years ago, now it's two journeys which only run two days a week.

Macron was definitely much better than the alternative in the last election but only because that alternative was so bad. I suspect that if the profit motive becomes more important in France's railways, all those non-TGV lines which already have poor and infrequent services (due to over-focus on the TGV?) may end up closed if they can't turn a profit.

 

[Carlisle]

I'm not sure what your last point is, but as to the other two.

I'd say that trains were generally dirtier under BR. Not that every train was dirtier then than every train now, because there are still filthy trains around now and there were some clean trains then. However, many TOCs get measured on train cleanliness and there is cash money at stake if they fail to meet benchmarks. .

Also don’t forget BR initiatives such as BS5750 accreditation of a number of maintenance and servicing facilities etc that in many instances brought about significant improvements in cleaning and maintenance procedures / standards long before a financial penalty regime was ever introduced under privatisation, plus the absence of any smoking carriages nowadays

 

[HH]

Most of Britain's problems are because we have lost the public-service ethos prevalent in the past.

Do you have any evidence to back this assertion?

This suggests otherwise.

 

[nw1]

Do you have any evidence to back this assertion?

This suggests otherwise.

It's just based on the way the profit motive seems to be creeping into everything these days; whereas in the past it was acceptable to run things at a loss and just have the government make the shortfall, this is not seen as politically acceptable these days. The decline of rural bus services (private, but funded by the council so public money) is a good example of what I'm talking about. Even in the private sector things are going downhill too; while the profit motive was always there it seems to be even more rigorously enforced these days. Witness how local branches of my bank (and I'm in a city) have closed and been replaced by a new branch where you have to wait longer to do things like bank transfer.

I will admit that I perhaps use unprofitable services more than the average person; for instance I don't drive and therefore am more likely to notice cuts in more esoteric bus routes than many others.