Should we nationalise the railways?

[anthonyvop]

Up until 1994 British Rail wasn't just subsidized by taxpayers but vicariously owned by them. It was government owned and then sold into private hands; thus privatization.

But if they are funded by Taxpayers is it safe to assume they are also regulated to the point that certain services are forced upon the companies?

Can the Railway Companies stop service to unprofitable areas without having to answer to politicians or special interest groups? If not than there wasn't real privatization but outsourcing to a private company

[MrMetro]

But if they are funded by Taxpayers is it safe to assume they are also regulated to the point that certain services are forced upon the companies?

Can the Railway Companies stop service to unprofitable areas without having to answer to politicians or special interest groups? If not than there wasn't real privatization but outsourcing to a private company

No I don't think so. The government also pretty much decides what rolling stock the Train Companies use as well. Although in the next set of rail franchises, I believe the train companies will be more 'flexible' in what services they provide and what stock they use.

[MrMetro]

Although there are some train companies with 'open-access' status, meaning they decide where its services run to, and the frequency. They pay Network Rail, the owner of the infrastructure a charge. Bear in mind there are only 2 of these companies.

[Mark]

So the companies running the railways in the UK are subsidized by taxpayers?

Yes, most of them are anyway. I think the East Coast route actually pays money to the government rather than gets it.

How is that privatization?

It's not; it's a joke. Which is the argument for renationalising it all, we have to pay out anyway so might as well be government owned.

[Mark]

But if they are funded by Taxpayers is it safe to assume they are also regulated to the point that certain services are forced upon the companies?

Correct, very very heavy regulation for most operators. The government says what services they can run, at what times, down to how many carriages they can run etc.

Can the Railway Companies stop service to unprofitable areas without having to answer to politicians or special interest groups? If not than there wasn't real privatization but outsourcing to a private company

No they can't. For one we're in agreement

Originally the track was also owned by a private (monopoly) company called RailTrack, but it turned out they were cutting back on safety in order to increase profits, which eventually lead to several train crashes due to poor maintenance and many dead. So it was abolished and the tracks brought back into government ownership, but the train companies remain privately owned - interestingly; apart from one, East Coast is operated by the government after the previous company went bust. This franchise is the most prestigious in the country.

[BDunnell]

Excellent, concise explanations, Mark.

[anthonyvop]

So it is settled.


The railways in the UK have not been privatized.

[BDunnell]

So it is settled.


The railways in the UK have not been privatized.

Tony, the simple fact is that they were privatised. You can't re-write history and say they were not. The operation of rail services was transferred from a state-owned company to private ones.

[MrMetro]

Tony, the simple fact is that they were privatised. You can't re-write history and say they were not. The operation of rail services was transferred from a state-owned company to private ones.

Correct.

[Mark]

So it is settled.


The railways in the UK have not been privatized.

Well call it what you will, they are not in government hands anyway.