Should we nationalise the railways?

[MrMetro]

Ever since ticket barriers were installed at Leeds (one of the busiest outside of London) it’s been a pain in the backside. Often you get long queues when somebody’s ticket isn’t recognised by the barrier (which is quite often)

[Mark]

(which is all the time every day, permanently)

I fixed your post for you. Out of the 10 or so barriers operational at any one time there is always one where someones ticket doesn't work.

[MrMetro]

I fixed your post for you. Out of the 10 or so barriers operational at any one time there is always one where someones ticket doesn't work.

LOL, yes, that is pretty much true.

[BDunnell]

I fixed your post for you. Out of the 10 or so barriers operational at any one time there is always one where someones ticket doesn't work.

Ha! And then they just give up enforcing the controls at night.

[chuck34]

I have stayed out of this, as I really do not know much about it. But have been reading with some curiosity. But Tony does bring up a good point. Call it what you will "privatization", is not what most would call true privatization. Perhaps it's simply a difference between the English language and the American language or something.

In my mind (and probably Tony's as well, and probably most Americans) in order to privatize an industry, the government must turn over ALL control. It seems that the system you have in place right now is private industry providing a service at the direction of the government. If the "private" company can not make decisions on how to be profitable (ie what lines to run, how many cars to have, fees?, etc), then they are NOT in control, the government is. Particularly when you have a system that is so restrictive that the "private" companies don't make a profit, and instead of going bankrupt as they would in the true free-market system (or private system if you like) they get taxpayer subsidies.

Tell me, if you please, what decisions can the private company make on the running of their rail lines?

How anyone can claim that system is "privatized", or has been thrown in my face so many times "free-market", is beyond me. But you Brits have some funny words, so I'll put it down to semantics at this point. But please, I beg of you, never use the British Rail System as a failure of the free-market system again, ok? It just plain isn't a free-market system.

[BDunnell]

I have stayed out of this, as I really do not know much about it. But have been reading with some curiosity. But Tony does bring up a good point. Call it what you will "privatization", is not what most would call true privatization. Perhaps it's simply a difference between the English language and the American language or something.

In my mind (and probably Tony's as well, and probably most Americans) in order to privatize an industry, the government must turn over ALL control. It seems that the system you have in place right now is private industry providing a service at the direction of the government. If the "private" company can not make decisions on how to be profitable (ie what lines to run, how many cars to have, fees?, etc), then they are NOT in control, the government is. Particularly when you have a system that is so restrictive that the "private" companies don't make a profit, and instead of going bankrupt as they would in the true free-market system (or private system if you like) they get taxpayer subsidies.

Tell me, if you please, what decisions can the private company make on the running of their rail lines?

How anyone can claim that system is "privatized", or has been thrown in my face so many times "free-market", is beyond me. But you Brits have some funny words, so I'll put it down to semantics at this point. But please, I beg of you, never use the British Rail System as a failure of the free-market system again, ok? It just plain isn't a free-market system.

The point was made earlier that it was a half-arsed privatisation, but still a privatisation nonetheless. If certain controls are then placed on the private companies involved, so what? They have still taken on the aspects needed for it to be defined as a privatisation, surely, such as operation and ownership? As far as I am aware, minimum service standards are laid down, as opposed to the government telling the rail operators that they must do this and this to a certain level. Maybe 'franchising' might be a better term?

The fact is that privatisation in the way you describe and the provision of rail services are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, for this as for many other reasons, it would have been much better had the railways remained under state ownership and control. It would probably have cost the taxpayer less, for a start.

But for you to come along and tell us not to criticise the private companies involved is utterly absurd, if I may say so. How can they be absolved of all blame for the poor standards of service encountered on the British railways, no matter what one's thoughts are as to the way in which said railways were privatised? I'm sorry — they now run the services; therefore, they should accept their proper share of responsibility for their failings. Some failings are down to the state, for sure, but by no means all. In the early days, as many rail industry experts have recounted, many of the franchise operators were bus companies with no concept of customer service. They were directly and indisputably to blame for the poor standards then experienced on their trains — they and those who implemented the privatisation in the first place, of course. (There were, as I recall, few bidders for many of the franchises, so not much in the way of choice available to those doling the franchises out, and local British Rail management buy-outs were generally shunned in spite of the fact that they would have brought the expertise of proper railwaymen to the running of the privatised services, something sorely lacking.)

[chuck34]

The point was made earlier that it was a half-arsed privatisation, but still a privatisation nonetheless.

If it is a "half-arsed privatization", I can live with that definition as long as you can as well. That means that any failings of the British rail system are not indicative of any broader failings of the free-market system.

If certain controls are then placed on the private companies involved, so what?

So WHAT?! That's everything! Control is the opposite of freedom. A controlled market is not a free market.

They have still taken on the aspects needed for it to be defined as a privatisation, surely, such as operation and ownership? As far as I am aware, minimum service standards are laid down, as opposed to the government telling the rail operators that they must do this and this to a certain level. Maybe 'franchising' might be a better term?

I believe that earlier it was stated that the government laid out what routes the trains must service. So how has any private company "taken on the aspects of privatization such as operation", if they are not allowed to operate the routes they see fit?

I like your term "franchising" much better than trying to characterize this as a free-market privatization. Can we agree to call the British rail system a government franchise from now on?

The fact is that privatisation in the way you describe and the provision of rail services are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, for this as for many other reasons, it would have been much better had the railways remained under state ownership and control. It would probably have cost the taxpayer less, for a start.

This is a point that I reserve the right to judge for myself in the future as I learn more about it. I am not (despite many people's opinion around here I think) completely opposed to governments doing certain things/providing certain services. I am VERY skeptical of that, but I don't 100% object to it.

My only arguments contained in this thread are constrained to defining the British Rail system as "privatized" or "free-market". I don't really want to get into the merits/detriments of a nationalized rail system at this point.

But for you to come along and tell us not to criticise the private companies involved is utterly absurd, if I may say so. How can they be absolved of all blame for the poor standards of service encountered on the British railways, no matter what one's thoughts are as to the way in which said railways were privatised? I'm sorry — they now run the services; therefore, they should accept their proper share of responsibility for their failings. Some failings are down to the state, for sure, but by no means all. In the early days, as many rail industry experts have recounted, many of the franchise operators were bus companies with no concept of customer service. They were directly and indisputably to blame for the poor standards then experienced on their trains — they and those who implemented the privatisation in the first place, of course. (There were, as I recall, few bidders for many of the franchises, so not much in the way of choice available to those doling the franchises out, and local British Rail management buy-outs were generally shunned in spite of the fact that they would have brought the expertise of proper railwaymen to the running of the privatised services, something sorely lacking.)

I agree that there seems to be plenty of blame to go around government and industry. I am not really trying to defend those that "run" the system. I don't know enough to do that. But for you to completely blame them and as you have done in the past use that to bash the free-market system, completely misses the point that the government is telling them to do/not to do many things. That, my friend, is NOT a free-market system.

You lay blame at industries feet for poor customer service, poor standards, and so forth. But fail to grasp the concept that in a truly free-market system those failures would have gone away through market forces. Or to put it bluntly, bankruptcy. But in this "half-arsed" system that you have put in place, bad behavior gets rewarded through more and more taxpayer subsidies. How ridiculous is that?!

[Rollo]

I like your term "franchising" much better than trying to characterize this as a free-market privatization. Can we agree to call the British rail system a government franchise from now on?

Privatize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
:to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership

Definition for privatize - Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English)
verb
[with object]
transfer (a business, industry, or service) from public to private ownership and control:

The railway companies who operate and run the rolling stock are owned by private entities. That's two dictionary sources for you.

Perhaps it's simply a difference between the English language and the American language or something.

It's not even a difference between the English language and the American language, it's a failure to accept what words mean.

You lay blame at industries feet for poor customer service, poor standards, and so forth. But fail to grasp the concept that in a truly free-market system those failures would have gone away through market forces.!

This simple isn't true. Market Forces are the mechanism for determining price. Nothing more and nothing less. Market failure is a completely valid economic concept.

[chuck34]

Privatize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
:to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership

Definition for privatize - Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English)
verb
[with object]
transfer (a business, industry, or service) from public to private ownership and control:

The railway companies who operate and run the rolling stock are owned by private entities. That's two dictionary sources for you.

You actually have two different definitions there. Webster says "control or ownership". So by that definition I suppose you could be correct. Oxford says "ownership and control". So by that definition I am correct. Unless I am mistaken, and I fully well could be, my understanding from this thread is that the private companies can not change the routes they want to run. Therefore they do not have control over their business. Hence, they are not privatized by the Oxford definition.

Honestly, correct me if I am wrong on the control issue.

It's not even a difference between the English language and the American language, it's a failure to accept what words mean.

The fact that you posted two different definitions of a word suggest that perhaps I am at least partially correct in stating that there may be some differences in the accepted definition of a term.

This simple isn't true. Market Forces are the mechanism for determining price. Nothing more and nothing less. Market failure is a completely valid economic concept.

Yes market failure is a completely valid concept. I stated as such. The fact that you, as a British taxpayer, are subsidizing an industry that can not pay it's own bills proves that the British Rail System is not acting within the free-market.

[BDunnell]

If it is a "half-arsed privatization", I can live with that definition as long as you can as well. That means that any failings of the British rail system are not indicative of any broader failings of the free-market system.

Why do you have such a problem with anyone daring to criticise the free-market system? You seem almost to wish to deny people the right so to do.

So WHAT?! That's everything! Control is the opposite of freedom. A controlled market is not a free market.

And a completely free market is incompatible with the notion of providing many important train services.

I believe that earlier it was stated that the government laid out what routes the trains must service. So how has any private company "taken on the aspects of privatization such as operation", if they are not allowed to operate the routes they see fit?

I like your term "franchising" much better than trying to characterize this as a free-market privatization. Can we agree to call the British rail system a government franchise from now on?

No, because as far as everyone with genuine knowledge of the subject is concerned, it is known as rail privatisation. The term is perfectly good and applicable. Do write to all those who use it if you see fit, pointing out the error of their ways. I somehow doubt you know better than them.

My only arguments contained in this thread are constrained to defining the British Rail system as "privatized" or "free-market". I don't really want to get into the merits/detriments of a nationalized rail system at this point.

There again, I'm afraid, you betray your ignorance of the subject at hand (I genuinely don't mean that to sound rude, as I know you're a bright chap, but I can't think of another suitable word). Your reference to 'the British Rail system' is wrong in this sense, because British Rail is a very specific term, being as it was the name of the old state-owned operator.

You lay blame at industries feet for poor customer service, poor standards, and so forth. But fail to grasp the concept that in a truly free-market system those failures would have gone away through market forces. Or to put it bluntly, bankruptcy.

I'm sorry, but this is idealistic nonsense, and unfounded in fact. These private companies are often ones that had done very well out of bus deregulation, and in no way done so through providing better services than any of their rivals. They were just the ones with the most spending power in the first place, able to dominate their smaller rivals and then, in effect, create local monopolies. Then they were selected, generally from small fields of contenders, to run the rail franchises. Therefore, it is entirely wrong to remove from these companies all blame for providing poor services on the grounds that they would have gone bust, because (a) they had not come to prominence in the bus industry on the grounds of quality of service, and (b) many have carried on in this vein ever since without going under.

But in this "half-arsed" system that you have put in place, bad behavior gets rewarded through more and more taxpayer subsidies. How ridiculous is that?!

There is no 'that you have put in place' about it. 'You'? We weren't given any of your beloved 'choice' in the matter. It is ridiculous, but blame the misguided policy of a Conservative government.