• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Part of railway to be nationalized

They are pretty much delayed by default. Which is rarely the case in France and Spain. My Spanish teacher was saying a while back that in Spain the trains run on time "because we never had a Margaret Thatcher". Ask anyone whos used both systems and i guarante they will say the same thing

Which European country has the most successful railway system?
 
Multiple companies which is pretty much why things went down the ****ter,though surely giving one company a monopoly wouldnt be that different from nationalisation?

Nope, in fact I think it would be like the saying "same ****, different asshole."

The nationalised system certainly swallowed up alot of money but i wouldnt have a problem with that today provided it meant getting people out of cars, planes etc.

So the free market system was cheaper to operate?
 
Also lets not forget, rail is by far the cheapest way to transport goods from city to city, something America needs to learn.
I see you dont know a lot about the US transportation industry.

The veracity of your claim depends entirely on the cities. Cleveland to Pittsburg, truckload is cheaper. Cleveland to LA, rail is cheaper. The breaking point is about 1100 miles, and presumes that rail service is available.

Oh, and water transportation is the cheapest way to go, assuming that the cities in question have ports. $6/ton will get you a 2.5 day trip from from Superior WI to Detroit MI, rate untouchable by any other mode of transportaion.
 
Nope, in fact I think it would be like the saying "same ****, different asshole."



So the free market system was cheaper to operate?

Im not sure how the cost compare [nor do i know which european system is the most succesful] but although these companies arent running at a loss like the nationalised system they still swallow up quite alot of subsidy money. Which is odd as ticket prices are rising rapidly, so we,re paying them to charge us more:doh
 
It is called free market, if you want a cheap train, go start and cheap train company and charge low prices, you competition will lower theirs.


Genius! Because a train company wouldn't have massive start-up costs and doesn't require lots of infrastructure, so it would be really easy to do, in fact after reading your post I've decided to set-up my very own train company!

Soon I will have solved all of Britain's problems and I'll be a millionaire!

Also competition will actually keep prices lower, because there is not one power (the government) that controls the price and cannot be challenged.

You have really thought this through haven't you! :rofl

I think the space industry should also be given up to the private sector. They would accomplish the same stuff faster and cheaper. If there was competition it would not cost sixty trillion dollars to put a bottle of water in orbit.

Why not privatise roads and the army while we're at it? I'm sure they would become faster and cheaper too!
 
Im not sure how the cost compare [nor do i know which european system is the most succesful] but although these companies arent running at a loss like the nationalised system they still swallow up quite alot of subsidy money. Which is odd as ticket prices are rising rapidly, so we,re paying them to charge us more:doh

Thatcher subsidized those private companies? Well that's a joke, I thought it was a real private company experiment.
 
Why not privatise roads and the army while we're at it? I'm sure they would become faster and cheaper too!

They have. Although I don't really trust private armies (the US does use Blackwater though).
 
They have. Although I don't really trust private armies (the US does use Blackwater though).

Private defense contractors are not "the army" and in Britain at least roads are still owned by the public!
 
Private defense contractors are not "the army" and in Britain at least roads are still owned by the public!

No, but they're the closest thing we have to a private army.

In the US there are some private roads. The most notable example is in DC, but there is so much government intrusion into it that it's not a fair example.
 
I see you dont know a lot about the US transportation industry.

The veracity of your claim depends entirely on the cities. Cleveland to Pittsburg, truckload is cheaper. Cleveland to LA, rail is cheaper. The breaking point is about 1100 miles, and presumes that rail service is available.

Oh, and water transportation is the cheapest way to go, assuming that the cities in question have ports. $6/ton will get you a 2.5 day trip from from Superior WI to Detroit MI, rate untouchable by any other mode of transportaion.

There is no big difference between the US and European transport industry. They both transport tons of goods by rail, water, air and road every day of the year. The biggest difference is the US reliance (relatively speaking) on trucks compared to Europe, even on long hauls. In Europe in the 1960s and 1970s countries independent of each other (at first) made it policy to put as much good transport as possible over medium and long distances on rail and river/sea. During the 1980s and onwards a more centralized strategy was put in place little by little and investments made so that we had a mass transportation system for goods in Europe that went on rail, and trucks took it from hubs to their final destination. That is pretty much how it works today.

And the main thing here is that Europe invested in rail, where as the US invested in.. nothing. Now that inaction is coming home to roost with higher oil prices.
 
Which European country has the most successful railway system?

Depends on how you categorise "successful".

Most state owned rail companies (100% owned) are non profit so..

Then there are the state owned "semi private" companies like SNCF in France that generate a profit. Last one I heard was over a billion euros... that is 1.4 billion dollars.

As for passenger numbers.. another measure. I seriously dont know, but since the 150 dollar oil, rail travel has become more and more popular. Plus there are different types of rail travel... local (metro/subway), to regional and country wide.. very different kettle of fish so to say when it comes into determine the "success" rate.

For example, while the semi local and regional trains in the UK are pathetic, the London Underground has been named the best in the world for a number of years plus has passenger growth.
 
There is no big difference between the US and European transport industry.

What about high-speed rail?

And the main thing here is that Europe invested in rail, where as the US invested in.. nothing. Now that inaction is coming home to roost with higher oil prices.

I'd assume we'd have more rail if we developed more densely and had more roads. I think the problem may have been government intrusion in planning our cities, not the lack of it.
 
What about high-speed rail?

By transport I mean of goods. But yes, high speed rail is a huge difference between the US and Europe when it comes to transportation of people.

I'd assume we'd have more rail if we developed more densely and had more roads. I think the problem may have been government intrusion in planning our cities, not the lack of it.

And what would have instead of government city planning?

The American problem is it is a car nut nation pure and simple and people are in many ways lazy. The biggest opstical for rail way and especially high speed railway in the US, is not money, not the lame geographical excuse the right constantly uses, but the mindset of Americans in general.
 
And what would have instead of government city planning?

We would have a denser city form. I believe I don't have to explain the benefits of that to you.

The American problem is it is a car nut nation pure and simple and people are in many ways lazy. The biggest opstical for rail way and especially high speed railway in the US, is not money, not the lame geographical excuse the right constantly uses, but the mindset of Americans in general.

There may be a mindset, but I believe that it was induced by the federal and state governments. They have encouraged suburban land use and through that emphasized auto transportation while giving the shove to rail (its position was weakened via the subsidization of the auto industry). Now you may say, the auto industry in this country is not subsidized. Technically, you'd be right, but I'm arguing that the auto industry is indirectly subsidized through freeways and a gas tax that is too low to pay for all of the roads, monetary aid to homeowners, free parking, and minimum parking requirements. However, even if we did not have any parking subsidies, home ownership subsidies, or if the gas tax was high enough, it would still be subsidized. When we take rail, we see the cost of our trip before we go. We will know exactly how much it costs through the ticket we pay. With a gas tax, this is not so. We don't know which roads are cheaper and which are more expensive because the cost is blurred via that gas tax.

I argue that the only way for us to know the real cost of driving is if we get tolls on our roads and take away all other subsidies of suburbanization. There still may be a desire for suburbia among the American populace, but once people started seeing the real cost of this way of life, then I think the demand would be much, much lower.
 
There is no big difference between the US and European transport industry. They both transport tons of goods by rail, water, air and road every day of the year. The biggest difference is the US reliance (relatively speaking) on trucks compared to Europe, even on long hauls. In Europe in the 1960s and 1970s countries independent of each other (at first) made it policy to put as much good transport as possible over medium and long distances on rail and river/sea. During the 1980s and onwards a more centralized strategy was put in place little by little and investments made so that we had a mass transportation system for goods in Europe that went on rail, and trucks took it from hubs to their final destination. That is pretty much how it works today.

And the main thing here is that Europe invested in rail, where as the US invested in.. nothing. Now that inaction is coming home to roost with higher oil prices.

Pete you can't make a fair comparison between the U.S. and Europe.

The overall landmass of the U.S. is larger than what the EU countries compromise.
Even then you have to account for the fact that Europe has been in development centuries before the U.S.

We have rail but to expand it to compromise all major U.S. cities would be a monolithic, ungodly expensive project that would take a huge amount of time.
 
Hey has anyone mentioned how this could possibly be connected to the Private-Public ventures set up by Thatcher? I didn't read the thread, but you guys are talking about the UK rail systems, right?

Edit: Wait a second, I'm confused, what rail systems are you talking about where are they located?
 
Last edited:
^^This thread is about UK railways getting nationalized.
 
Okay, I was confused because it looked like there were Americans talking in this thread talking about American stuff.
 
^^Yeah, there is that too, it's kind of confusing.
 
There is no big difference between the US and European transport industry. They both transport tons of goods by rail, water, air and road every day of the year. The biggest difference is the US reliance (relatively speaking) on trucks compared to Europe, even on long hauls.
The only time someone uses a truck for a long haul (~1100 mile sor more) is that they need the freight sooner rather than later. or they need it refrigerated.. Otherwise, they use rail.
Under that ~1100 miles, truck is cheaper. Every time.

And the main thing here is that Europe invested in rail, where as the US invested in.. nothing.
Again - you dont know all that much about the transportation industry in the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom