Or is a British Rail equivalent (as promised by the Green Party, Labour etc) a better idea?
BBC NewsLabour has a half-way house policy - it will review the franchise system and allow the public sector to bid to take over failing lines, but there are many in the party who would like to go further.
The Germans are more likely since they already own quite a sizeable lump of the British TOC/FOC and Open Access
And in all fairness DB do a very good of running their network in Germany.
How are those rose-tinted spectacles you seem to have there?jmcg said:But surely isn't nationalised railways and the good ol' British Rail of the past the better thing for the network? I wish we were back in those days of British Rail!
Very rose tinted, but it's difficult to compare given the different termsHow are those rose-tinted spectacles you seem to have there?
The myth of French rail superiority is a Daily Mail concept - good on infrastucture concepts , invented the TGV etc
Poor on service delivery , customer focus on travel needs and marketing , dire on freight logistics , not good on IR ......(and strike avoidance)
Magnificent heritage though .
Thanks for saving my typing out a similar post. One particular weakness of the French network is the rural lines, which are so neglected compared to English counterparts.
With multiple operating companies encroaching on what was solid British Rail territory, is allowing European companies to run our railway the best solution? Or is a British Rail equivalent (as promised by the Green Party, Labour etc) a better idea?
I concur, it appears that the once mighty SNCF can't wait to get rid of them. And not just in the North for that matter.
There's also been a lot of talk recently about wanting to get rid of or shift the burden onto local authorities for many Intercités and TER services - not the rural branch lines as I referred to in my first post, but many important inter-regional services.
The fact that the new order for the old 'line 4' (Paris - Belfort) which will see its LHCS replaced with units currently is only enough to cover 7 of the 13 diagrams (source the excellent http://transportrail.canalblog.com/) shows that unless it's TGV or urban services around large cities, things seem to be winding down.
At least British Rail cost only a fraction of the amount of money in subsidies compared with commercialisation.How are those rose-tinted spectacles you seem to have there?
I assume you'll be voting for UKIP in a couple of weeks?
Once again I concur with everything that you've said here. However the SNCF should be very careful about placing all their eggs in the TGV basket because the high cost of maintaining the LGV network is pricing people off the TGV. For what its worth the SNCF are starting to use Corail stock on some 'budget' services and the new LGV route near Bordeaux will not be used by 'budget' TGV services, so perhaps they are learning??
BR became efficient towards the end of its life, but by then the reputational damage had already been done by decades of neglect. The railways needed a big injection of cash, but this could have only happened under the "private" system we have now because of stupid politics. Now the industry has the money it needs but has forgotten how to be efficient!Holly said:At least British Rail cost only a fraction of the amount of money in subsidies compared with commercialisation.
De-nationalisation has been a very expensive experiment that we could never afford and will be able to afford even less going forward.
Regarding handing our network to the French - IIRC only two cities, Lyon and Lille have a 2tph+ service to Paris. Compare that to how many cities in the UK have a 2tph+ service to London.
Just to pre-empt the economic argument, Paris is more integral to the French economy (around 30% of GDP) than London is to the UK economy (around 20% of GDP).
This was part of the problem of the old BR and the "engineering led" railway. There was and is - not point in being efficient if nobody wants the product. You just exist for your own sake. Competitors surged ahead and took BR's business even when they had massive disadvantages (eg National Express, Easyjet etc) because they were customer and market focussed, and all those marketing phrases so hated by unions actually translated into better customer service - customers were no longer merely passengers. In that video I posted note how few passengers are there at each station. Virtually none. THe railway was operating "efficiently" by its own terms but nobody wanted dirty, unfriendly, uninformed, unreliable, demotivated, uncomfortable travel when they had an alternative. When customers / passengers left the railway they seldom came back......until post privatisation. A renationalised railway needs to learn what privatisation got right and acknowledge it instead of denying it.BR became efficient towards the end of its life, but by then the reputational damage had already been done by decades of neglect. The railways needed a big injection of cash, but this could have only happened under the "private" system we have now because of stupid politics. Now the industry has the money it needs but has forgotten how to be efficient!