I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Printable View
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
AFAIK the main issue with domestic flights is that they are connecting with international flights, these cannot easily be replaced by train journies.
I suspect that would be a selling point of any Estuary project, but by the time of completion the promise would be conveniently forgotten.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
And therein lies one of the big problems in gaining public acceptance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
A good point. But I still feel there could be some reduction in capacity. The trouble is that to do so would be construed as going against market forces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
But aren't we doing this anyway with HS2?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
In what sense — building something for which there is no market, or seeking to reduce domestic flights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
A fast, and efficient railway is beneficial for the economy as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
The biggest problem since privatisation has been that the railway industry has become too fragmented. Too many organisations have become involved and it has resulted in an inefficient railway. The truth is British Rail ran one of the most efficient railways in Europe and now we have one of the least efficient, yet it is still paid for by the tax payer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
So the companies running the railways in the UK are subsidized by taxpayers? How is that privatization?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
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.
Yes, most of them are anyway. I think the East Coast route actually pays money to the government rather than gets it.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
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.Quote:
How is that privatization?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
No they can't. For one we're in agreement ;)Quote:
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
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.
Excellent, concise explanations, Mark.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Well call it what you will, they are not in government hands anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I call it privatisation, seeing as that's what it's always been (correctly) called according to any sensible definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
No. Nominal control was transferred to private companies. Until the companies can decided for themselves who they serve and with what kind of service they will just be companies providing a service for the Government not the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
If they are under Government control then they are not in any way, shape or form a privately controlled entity. So the Railways in the UK have not been privatized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Tony, you are plain wrong. The British railways were privatised. End of story. You are, with respect, not better informed on this than the many industry experts (you know what one of those is?) who refer to it as, wait for it, 'rail privatisation'. At the time, the Conservative government proclaimed it to be privatisation. How else would one describe a situation in which the running of trains is passed from a state-owned operator to private operators? You may think you know people better than they know themselves, but on this you are simply mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Tony, this is a subject you know nothing about. What, pray tell us, is your knowledge of British rail privatisation derived from? Is it a subject about which you have read extensively?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
One of those sources is from a union, so Tony will refuse to recognise it in any way, shape or form.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMetro
They certainly were privatised, but in such a half-arsed fashion that they still require massive subsidies to operate. Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that the railways in the UK were privatised.
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
While we are on the subject of the British railways, why do the companies involved have this obsession with 'revenue protection'? In no other country in Europe in which I have travelled by train is one confronted with ticket barriers at mainline stations, and patronising ad campaigns saying that running late and having to dash for your train is 'no excuse' for not buying a ticket beforehand, when in fact it is a perfectly good excuse. Are Britons somehow less honest than their foreign counterparts in this regard? I doubt it. The difference, as far as I can see, is that rail operators elsewhere tend to have sufficient staff to check the tickets on the train, rather than barriers being necessary.
Now in Sheffield, where the footbridge across the railway station is the only truly convenient pedestrian link into the city centre from houses on the other side of the railway tracks, the station operators have been proposing to forbid access to all but ticket-holders in an effort to clamp down on people boarding trains without tickets.
Sheffield train fare dodgers could be costing £14 million - Business - The Star
One question: if they can work out that fare-dodgers at Sheffield station 'could' (good use of the word) be costing £14 million a year in lost revenue, why can they not employ the staff presumably engaged in making those calculations to check tickets on the trains, rather than installing barriers? Or, is the figure utterly spurious?
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMetro
LOL, yes, that is pretty much true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Ha! And then they just give up enforcing the controls at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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.)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
So WHAT?! That's everything! Control is the opposite of freedom. A controlled market is not a free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
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?!
Privatize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster DictionaryQuote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
: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.
It's not even a difference between the English language and the American language, it's a failure to accept what words mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Honestly, correct me if I am wrong on the control issue.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
And a completely free market is incompatible with the notion of providing many important train services.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34