Part of railway to be nationalized

The government says it intends to take the East Coast rail service, run by National Express, into state ownership.

Click to expand...

Ministers have refused National Express's requests for its contract with the government to be renegotiated.

The Department for Transport said that all East Coast services would continue and that tickets would be honoured.

Click to expand...

BBC NEWS | Business | East Coast rail to be state-run

Why stop there?
Buy back all of the railways.
It should never have gone to private hands in the first place

I agree, our Rail system really needs to be revamped. I mean there is no reason it should be so expensive, and so time consuming to travel by train while the Europeans can do it so cheaply.

I agree because our goverment is nothing if not fast and efficent. They for sure will run things much better.

braindrain said:

I agree because our goverment is nothing if not fast and efficent. They for sure will run things much better.

Click to expand...

The following is assuming that the above quote is sarcastic...

Your logic is faulty to assume that it would be more poorly run by the government. Huge corporations are no less susceptible to corruption and greed than is the United States, or any government for that matter. Any time when you find a situation where one entity has great deals of power and or money that the folks at the top are going to have the most to gain. These gains have been unethical many times. To imply that the private sector could in fact run it so much better, which in fact has proven to be untrue in this situation. Many government programs are actually quite efficient and cost efficient as well as many others that should be scrapped. This mirrors very closely to what happens in the private sector.

Comment if you will, as to whether or not you want your tax payer dollars going towards something you disagree with, that is your right. Don't, however, imply "Private=good, Government =bad"

Midwest Lib said:

Many government programs are actually quite efficient and cost efficient...

Click to expand...

Such as?

...

Ethereal said:

Such as?

...

Click to expand...

I have a reliable infrastructure maintained to a very high degree. Sure, there is some detours and potholes from time to time, but I sure do like not having to stop at tolls constantly. Once I'm on that paved road leading me wherever I want to go, I can stop in at the DMV, which people love to criticize, but for all it regulates, does a fine job. I personally have never waited more than 30 minutes at any of my local dmv's and i have lived in four different states. I doubt that a privately run business would be any more efficient for the volume it must deal with. I have also been able to do much of what I need that department for online. I have registered my vehicles, sent for plates, updated address information all within a matter of minutes. It is quite efficient.

I can also go to the post office and send a letter in the mail anywhere in the country for less than fifty cents. The USPS also offers a parcel service that is competitive with private carriers, further proving its competency.

I am not trying to argue for the validity of all government programs nor the inadequacies of private enterprise, but rather that they are quite similar in many aspects. Many people love to blame the government for anything that goes wrong. While the government does do many things poorly and makes many mistakes, it is no reason to chastise every program that comes to pass.

Again, this is not to say that you can't fundamentally disagree with a program in general. In this case, you might find federal control of the railroad system to be a poor way to spend your tax dollars. It is completely within the bounds of reason for you to feel that way. Just don't use the logic that it will be bad because everything the government does is bad.

braindrain said:

I agree because our goverment is nothing if not fast and efficent. They for sure will run things much better.

Click to expand...

The MTA is semi Goverment operated and it does quiet well.

Midwest Lib said:

I have a reliable infrastructure maintained to a very high degree. Sure, there is some detours and potholes from time to time, but I sure do like not having to stop at tolls constantly. Once I'm on that paved road leading me wherever I want to go, I can stop in at the DMV, which people love to criticize, but for all it regulates, does a fine job. I personally have never waited more than 30 minutes at any of my local dmv's and i have lived in four different states. I doubt that a privately run business would be any more efficient for the volume it must deal with. I have also been able to do much of what I need that department for online. I have registered my vehicles, sent for plates, updated address information all within a matter of minutes. It is quite efficient.

I can also go to the post office and send a letter in the mail anywhere in the country for less than fifty cents. The USPS also offers a parcel service that is competitive with private carriers, further proving its competency.

I am not trying to argue for the validity of all government programs nor the inadequacies of private enterprise, but rather that they are quite similar in many aspects. Many people love to blame the government for anything that goes wrong. While the government does do many things poorly and makes many mistakes, it is no reason to chastise every program that comes to pass.

Again, this is not to say that you can't fundamentally disagree with a program in general. In this case, you might find federal control of the railroad system to be a poor way to spend your tax dollars. It is completely within the bounds of reason for you to feel that way. Just don't use the logic that it will be bad because everything the government does is bad.

Click to expand...

Just because these programs may work well (in your estimation) does not mean they are cost effective.

OxymoronP said:

I agree, our Rail system really needs to be revamped. I mean there is no reason it should be so expensive, and so time consuming to travel by train while the Europeans can do it so cheaply.

Click to expand...

It's not cheap it's subsidized.

Ethereal said:

Just because these programs may work well (in your estimation) does not mean they are cost effective.

Click to expand...

I see your point. Perhaps that isn't the best way to put it. I ask you then, do you believe that it would be better in the hands of the private sector, and if so, what are your reasons. Do you believe that it is none of the governments business or that the private sector could truly do a better job?

The problem with private sector choo-choos is that there's a train from Washington to Baltimore to New York.

How many different sets of tracks are there? In order to promote efficient service, there has to be

enough traffic to be commercially viable.
more than one service provider.

Generally, there's not more than one or two sets of tracks going from point to point, not any more.

Do competing companies share the track? Why bother?

So, the basic problem with rail is lack of competition and yet, if there's only one company running trains from A to B, because only one can afford to run, sure enough, there'll be a mob of dimwits whining about "monopoly".

Could be that no one in the private sector, given all the controls and regulations and other hassles, wants to run a train that way. So the government volunteers, except governments do not excel in passenger service, no. The forte of government, after all, is power, and force, and threats.

Fortunately, the United States is no longer linked by passenger rail as the only long distance means of mass transit.

We've got airplanes.

Which suck even more of the passenger base away from the choo-choos.

Laila said:

BBC NEWS | Business | East Coast rail to be state-run

Why stop there?
Buy back all of the railways.
It should never have gone to private hands in the first place

Click to expand...

Just what America needs bigger government and more businesses. 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. We do not need the government buying the train industry, because then they will just buy the car companies, and then it is the air industry. The government should not own the transportation companies, that is not there job.

Midwest Lib said:

I see your point. Perhaps that isn't the best way to put it. I ask you then, do you believe that it would be better in the hands of the private sector, and if so, what are your reasons. Do you believe that it is none of the governments business or that the private sector could truly do a better job?

Click to expand...

The private sector does it better because it has an incentive to be efficient and live within its means. With a government program, if they fail, they get more money, so there's actually an incentive to run a bad company. This is why private companies are better than government at running businesses.

phattonez said:

The private sector does it better because it has an incentive to be efficient and live within its means. With a government program, if they fail, they get more money, so there's actually an incentive to run a bad company. This is why private companies are better than government at running businesses.

Click to expand...

Brilliant! The private sector has this thing called competition which prevents a business from giving up on trying to innovate and get better. Competition encourages advancement. Also competition will actually keep prices lower, because there is not one power (the government) that controls the price and cannot be challenged.

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.

Polimaster said:

Just what America needs bigger government and more businesses. 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. We do not need the government buying the train industry, because then they will just buy the car companies, and then it is the air industry. The government should not own the transportation companies, that is not there job.

Click to expand...

Not to pick on you, since it seems no one actually read the link...but go read the link. It has a nice map that should make things much clearer for you, assuming you can recognize that Britain is not part of America.

Redress said:

Not to pick on you, since it seems no one actually read the link...but go read the link. It has a nice map that should make things much clearer for you, assuming you can recognize that Britain is not part of America.

Click to expand...

A condescending liberal, that's a rarity.

phattonez said:

A condescending liberal, that's a rarity.

Click to expand...

It was simply too easy this time.

Polimaster said:

Just what America needs bigger government and more businesses. 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. We do not need the government buying the train industry, because then they will just buy the car companies, and then it is the air industry. The government should not own the transportation companies, that is not there job.

Click to expand...

America?
Dude, this is UK. You are safe no worries.

What cheap train tickets?
No. It should never have gone to some greedy ass minority who make the rest of Londoners life hell. The majority outweigh the minority of billionaires [My heart is bleeding for them really]
The other railway lines should be taken away from them by the Government imo.

Privatization of rail in the UK has brought some of th highest prices in Europe and arguable on a cost benefit basis, the worst service.

Rail in Europe proper for the most part is profitable and is both state and private owned. The French high speed rail network is a state owned company (51%) and last I looked has a yearly profit of 1 billion Euros.. that is 1.4 billion dollars. It is also far cheaper that flying and faster.

In the end, governments keep rail systems in place for political and social reasons and in many ways also economic and environmental reasons. Rail networks are part of the whole economic system as it provides a very good alternative to the car to get to work. Congestion in major cities, lack of parking and so on, is a serious problem in most European cities and rail networks provide a way for people too choose a different way and many do. Without them, the congestion in for example London would be far far far worse, not to mention the pollution would be higher.

So while the rail network in places might not be profitable per say, it does have other benefits that up to a point is acceptable, both politically and economically.

And lets be realistic, the rail network we are discussing here lacks one very important thing..high speed rail. The UK rail companies have been talking about it for 20 years but have barely done anything about it. They are just finishing the high speed rail connection between London and the Channel tunnel.. what.. 15 years after the tunnel was completed? pathetic. So basically the UK rail service (in places) on long distances is relatively too expensive for the speed they achieve and time it takes. Also from what I gather, because of the privatization, the companies have done what private companies always do if they are allowed,... screw the consumer over. From what I have experienced on the UK rail system (granted it was 10 years ago) was utter confusion on pricing. You could get 3+ different prices for the same time period, on the same class, on the same connection... wtf is that. I was once going from London to Birmingham and for some reason I was able to get 3 different prices for the same ticket...

Also lets not forget, rail is by far the cheapest way to transport goods from city to city, something America needs to learn.

PeteEU said:

So while the rail network in places might not be profitable per say, it does have other benefits that up to a point is acceptable, both politically and economically.

Click to expand...

If the traffic is as bad as you say it is, then a private company would make great profits there.

Also lets not forget, rail is by far the cheapest way to transport goods from city to city, something America needs to learn.

Click to expand...

I think you might underestimate how much we ship by freight rail.

phattonez said:

The private sector does it better because it has an incentive to be efficient and live within its means. With a government program, if they fail, they get more money, so there's actually an incentive to run a bad company. This is why private companies are better than government at running businesses.

Click to expand...

Well the Brittish experience with privitised railways would surgest that railways are an exception. Spend a week using our railways, then spend a week using the railways in France and Spain and im sure you'll see why

Red_Dave said:

Well the Brittish experience with privitised railways would surgest that railways are an exception. Spend a week using our railways, then spend a week using the railways in France and Spain and im sure you'll see why

Click to expand...

What was the British experience with it?

phattonez said:

What was the British experience with it?

Click to expand...

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

Red_Dave said:

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

Click to expand...

How did the privatization system work? Was there only one company in charge of it all or did certain companies get certain lines?

How did the operating cost compare?

phattonez said:

How did the privatization system work? Was there only one company in charge of it all or did certain companies get certain lines?

How did the operating cost compare?

Click to expand...

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?

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.