Should we nationalise the railways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

---

There is a new housing estate being built not terribly far from where I live. People building new houses in the estate will not only be forced to choose a style from the approved lists but also from the list of approved builders.
Are you suggesting that the system isn't "private"?

Control of the Railway Companies which operate on the lines IS private. The Government might regulate them and even put constraints on the nature of their operators but to suggest that the Government "controls" them is flat out wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

---

Are the Railway Companies free to run the railway as they see fit?
Are the Railway Companies allow to drop service to cities, Towns and Areas without having to receive government approval?
Are the Railway Companies free from Government Subsidies and the strings that are always attached?
Are other Companies allow to start their own Railway Lines to compete with the established ones?

If the answer is yes to all 4 questions then the Railways are privatized. If the Answer is no then all it you have is Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization.

Of course you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Are the Railway Companies free to run the railway as they see fit?
Are the Railway Companies allow to drop service to cities, Towns and Areas without having to receive government approval?
Are the Railway Companies free from Government Subsidies and the strings that are always attached?
Are other Companies allow to start their own Railway Lines to compete with the established ones?

If the answer is yes to all 4 questions then the Railways are privatized. If the Answer is no then all it you have is Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization.

Of course you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector.

---

If that is your criteria for a company to be part of the private sector then then I guess no industry is private.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

If that is your criteria for a company to be part of the private sector then then I guess no industry is private.

---

Or individuals for that matter.
I wonder Mr Vop resents driving his car on Crony-Socialist roads and hates having to follow Crony-Socialist road laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.

---

Posting from my phone so it's a bit hard to pase this out. But a few points.

You can criticize the free market system, it has many faults. This just isn't really one of them.

I am ignorant of the facts in this particular case. I have said such, and have tried to stay away from speaking about the particulars. Please forgive me for capitalizing "british rail system" I didn't mean to cause confusion between the old state run system but rather I was attempting to refer to the system as a whole.

And no, you (the definite and general pronoun) were not given any choice in the matter. You (the definite pronoun) appear to have no issue with that. Forgive me for assuming that people like to have a choice in how their money is spent. Perhaps I am alone in that quaint notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

There is a new housing estate being built not terribly far from where I live. People building new houses in the estate will not only be forced to choose a style from the approved lists but also from the list of approved builders.
Are you suggesting that the system isn't "private"?

Control of the Railway Companies which operate on the lines IS private. The Government might regulate them and even put constraints on the nature of their operators but to suggest that the Government "controls" them is flat out wrong.

---

Is it the government that is mandating the way houses look in that neighborhood, or the developer?

You keep contridicting youself. Are their constraints on the rail companies, or do they cotrol themselves? Or to Tony's point, can they drop service if they want without permission?

After reading a few of those links IMO it is far from being privatised.

In the case of free market business the government does regulate and control them, but only to the point of laws concerning commerce, safety, zoning, tax collection, etc. However if a company has a location that is not profitable that do not need government permission to shut it down. They can open, close, move, etc at will within the regular restrictions.

Personally I see this almost as long term government contracting, with the companies also having ownership. Since they are bound by abnormal government controls and restrictions, yet they are getting money from the government in the form of subsidies it is not really a "private" business venture as I see it.

If those private companies were named Haliburton, people would claim it is simply a way of government transferring money to insider trading companies. :)

It's worth pointing out at this point, that in the home of the free market economy, the United States, the railways are government owned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

It's worth pointing out at this point, that in the home of the free market economy, the United States, the railways are government owned.

---

It's a mix.

Conrail which is government owned, owns some tracks, as do some private companies like Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific. The "pointless arrow" Amtrak which is government owned, runs trains on both government and privately owned lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

It's a mix.

Conrail which is government owned, owns some tracks, as do some private companies like Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific. The "pointless arrow" Amtrak which is government owned, runs trains on both government and privately owned lines.

---

There are also subsidies and other such crap, and it's almost as confusing as the British Rail if you really look into it. Amtrak prices are insane IMO. A couple years back we went to visit some family and I considered going by train to let our daughter see more states on the "from the ground level". The cost for a minimalist sleeper cabin for a couple day trip was several times flight prices, and much greater than the cost of driving myself and staying in nice places nightly.

We ended up flying since days of driving kind of takes the fun out of it, and I wasn't about to pay thousands of dollars for something I could get done much cheaper.