Should we nationalise the railways?

[MrMetro]

Quite, but it's far from a new problem. Reading any history of the British railways shows that successive governments going back decades have failed to recognise the value of a properly organised, well-run, suitably-resourced rail network. There have been long periods of under-investment punctuated by sudden splurges of resourcing directed at the wrong areas.

Sad, but true.

[Bolton Midnight]

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Governments of all colours are fixated on winning the next election, not planning for decades down the line when they'll all be retired (or on fat directorships of privatised companies).

An eye-watering sum invested in transport infrastructure has the potential to pay for itself many times over in the course of 50 years, but nobody will invest on that basis.

To a certain extent agree about that.

How, can cheaper rail fares pay for masses of money spent on trains? Roads > Tracks.

[Bolton Midnight]

When stumped, insert insult.

Clearly not stumped, just made me laugh seeing Mr Perfect, but it explains a lot, bound to have a chip on his shoulder going through life looking like that. I figured as much.

[Dave B]

To a certain extent agree about that.

How, can cheaper rail fares pay for masses of money spent on trains? Roads > Tracks.

An efficient and integrated - my local rail station isn't served by a bus route FFS - public transport network has the potential to replace millions of car journeys, lorry trips, short haul flights, and pay for itself as we'd spend less on road building and maintenance. Airport capacity could see more investment from growing economies who currently choose to put their European bases in Frankfurt or Paris because they don't want to waste hundreds of man hours holding over LHR and battling with the Picadilly line when they could be landing at a modern 4 or 6 runway airport and being whisked straight into town by high-speed train. Boris Johnson may have his faults but his Thames airport proposal is one of the most sane suggestions he's ever come up with - which is why successive governments have rejected it.

[BDunnell]

Boris Johnson may have his faults but his Thames airport proposal is one of the most sane suggestions he's ever come up with - which is why successive governments have rejected it.

I don't believe it is at all — in many ways, he hasn't thought it through. The danger of bird ingestion is an especially real one at the proposed site.

[Dave B]

I don't believe it is at all — in many ways, he hasn't thought it through. The danger of bird ingestion is an especially real one at the proposed site.

We might have to agree to disagree on that one: I believe the economic benefits would be vast, and the issue of birdstrike could be adequately mitigated partly through clearing habitats during construction and partly through traditional bird-scaring techniques. Certainly we can't limp on with LHR being a national joke and LGW being hamstrung by only having one runway.

[BDunnell]

We might have to agree to disagree on that one: I believe the economic benefits would be vast, and the issue of birdstrike could be adequately mitigated partly through clearing habitats during construction and partly through traditional bird-scaring techniques. Certainly we can't limp on with LHR being a national joke and LGW being hamstrung by only having one runway.

Or we could develop the rail network to render it a genuine alternative to domestic flights, thus freeing up capacity at airports, as has been the case in other European countries where economic development isn't viewed as going hand-in-hand with the number of airport runways at their disposal.

[Dave B]

Or we could develop the rail network to render it a genuine alternative to domestic flights, thus freeing up capacity at airports, as has been the case in other European countries where economic development isn't viewed as going hand-in-hand with the number of airport runways at their disposal.

For domestic flights I already think the train is a viable alternative: town centre stations vs airports on the outskirts (or in Sussex), turn up five minutes before departure vs 2 hour check-in on the plane, practically no baggage limits beyond what you can physically lug, less chance of delay, and no APD.

For long-haul travel, on the other hand, the train simply cannot compete. A better rail network could free up some capacity on domestic flight routes, but with LHR running at 99% capacity those slots would quickly be filled and once again there'd be a bottleneck.

Have read of this (and it's from the Telegraph so even BM should be happy ), and I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Thames Estuary: Boris Island airport 'would bring Brazil billions to UK' - Telegraph

[BDunnell]

Have read of this (and it's from the Telegraph so even BM should be happy ), and I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Thames Estuary: Boris Island airport 'would bring Brazil billions to UK' - Telegraph

My immediate thought is that I'm always very suspicious of reports claiming that 'x million pounds worth of investment will be brought in by y'. There is often very little basis to such figures. So I'm afraid I'm naturally cynical about the numbers cited here. Beyond that, my concern is: where does airport expansion stop? It has to at some point. Would a new Thames Estuary airport be 'it', or would, once it gets built, the calls begin again for more runway capacity?

[Mark]

We might have to agree to disagree on that one: I believe the economic benefits would be vast, and the issue of birdstrike could be adequately mitigated partly through clearing habitats during construction and partly through traditional bird-scaring techniques. Certainly we can't limp on with LHR being a national joke and LGW being hamstrung by only having one runway.

I think if they said this new airport will indeed be the end of it all AND as a result they'll close and bulldoze Heathrow and Gatwick, then perhaps.