Privatisation vs nationalisation?

Question

i don't really remeber british rail but seem to remeber it being no better than what we have now although other countries with state operaters have excellent systmes (although an effeicinet railway network is a standard requirment for the quasi - socialist dominated govs. of europe).

Thoughts.

Answer 1

Are you referring to here in the States?  If so, then the private freight rail network should be left that way, no good can come from nationalizing it.  While other countries can claim, and do have a much better long-distance passenger rail network the United States' freight rail system is hands down the most efficient world-wide, no doubt due to the fact that it works off the free market, profit/loss system.  The efficiencies of the U.S. freight system was studied some years ago in Trains Magazine and provided in great detail it superiority to others around the world (although I cannot remember off-hand the name of the article or who wrote it).

In regards to our passenger rail network, it would be nice if it could likewise be completely private with little governmental funding.  However, by nature passenger rail is rarely ever profitable so to have a fast, efficient system some form of governmental help will be required, such as is the case with Amtrak.  

If the carrier were to ever be properly funded (by comparison Amtrak's annual subsidies hover around the $1 billion mark while highways and airlines receive several billion dollars each year) I think many would be amazed at just the kind of impact it could have in reducing congestion (and decreasing emissions).

Answer 2

It's a mess to have one company own and maintain the track while another runs the trains.  That's not done much here in the USA, for obvious reasons - it's totally unmanageable, the owner of the track has no real incentive to support the trains.  Amtrak is an interesting exception.  Amtrak pays the freight lines based on performance, they get bonuses if they keep Amtrak on time and penalties if they don't.  That is not imposed by the government, but was freely negotiated - the freight railroads agreed to it willingly.

While Amtrak trains are certainly delayed, most of the time the reason is not the freight operator per se.  Either the delay is caused by the Amtrak train, or (lately) it's congestion affecting all trains equally.  It's a lot harder to keep a 54-hour train on time than a 3-hour train, simply because a lot more stuff can happen in 54 hours than 3!

In my opinion, European governments need to get the heck out of the freight business. Leave it to private enterprise. In the 1960s, both European and American railroads were in similar decline.  Then America passed the 4R and Staggers Act, which radically deregulated the freight railroad business.  American freight railroads recovered and are going great guns, all profit-making and now their biggest problem is they can't build new track fast enough (thus the congestion problem).  European freight has continued its decline, to now about 10% of all freight.  That's just wrong.

Every first-world country subsidizes their passenger service.  The U.S. federal government wimps out on this part, and the result is a weaksauce passenger system, except where various states (Illinois, Michigan, California) step up and subsidize passenger rail. Many lines in California now provide more passenger service than they ever did in history.

An efficient passenger railway network is essential if you don't want Europe to become Los Angeles.  They're quite right to subsidize it.  It's cheaper than roads, by far.

Answer 3

First I must say my thoughts are only as I see things and that would be as applied to U.S. rail service.

Private industry with it's attendant profit motives and efficiency are almost alwasy the best way to provide services, that is true for freight trains also.

However for affordable passenger service it needs to be funded somehow, not nationalized per se but we have to realize that collectively is the only way we can accomplish certain things.

No easy answers but the current system is almost broken, I still think Amtrak is a good idea, it needs to be shaken up and made accountable, and then increase it's size and scope.

In the "golden days" of passenger rail travel one of the ways it was paid for was hauling mail, most old time railroad clerks remember mail cars on each passenger train sorting mail enroute, picking up and dropping off mail packets at each stop.

That was how we "subsidized" our passenger rail service.

Answer 4

I would think that a Nationalised Railway system would be good for the UK. It's a lot simpler, and only a few individuals can be blamed for the problems, instead of the blame being [quoting Sir Humphrey out of Yes, Minsiter] "been passed round like a handgranade with the pin taken out!"

A Nationalised Rail system would be a lot better - no need for making profits, more reliability, etc. etc.

Answer 5

In Melbourne, Australia our suburban network is currently run by connex (the same company that existed in England and parts of Europe) and in some ways its better in others its not.  

The pros of connex is frequent train services that usually run on time, new trains, upgraded technology and slightly more staff than before they gained control of the entire network.

Now the cons of the privatisation of our suburban system are very complicated.

Firstly when our railways were leased to companies in roughly 1999 the government leased it out to separate companies.

The company that won most controll were National Express (tradeing as m>train/m>tram) and they controll roughly 70% of the train network and about 60% of the trams.

The next companies that won the contracts were veolia (tradeing as connex) and yarra trams who both recently gain control of the whole train and tram system.

Now to add to further confusion our current tikketing system is yet another company by the name of one link (tradeing as met card) who also privetly operate tolls on our state tollway's.

So basicly sevreal companies operateing 2 networks and another seperate company operateing the tikketing system.

Now on top of all that the current contract (for trains not sure about trams) states that there are fine for running late services. This is calculated by a certain amount of money per minute the train is late when it arrives is terminateing destination times the amount of passengers waiting on the platform (late is if the train is 5 minutes later than the schedualed time). This creates all kinds of problems for priviet operaters and in my opinion they could be spending money on more things such as more staff, less unmanned stations and new train lines.

They are just a few of the cons of privetisation where I live and I'm sure they are many more that I'm unawhere of.

Answer 6

I'd stick with privately owned / corporate service, at least here in the States.  In Great Britain and Europe, the networks are more extensive, but they ALSO only have to cover less than a third of the area.  I remember in 1976 going from Bern to Paris by train... a mere 5 hour ride. And it WASN'T Hi-Speed service, just the daily train.

Rango makes a VERY good point with the original government "subsidization" of the US passenger rail service being the US Post Department (before it became USPS).  It was the most efficient means of moving the MAIL through to the 50's.  It would be interesting to KNOW the amount of money the Government was paying for mailcar service.

ALSO remember that during that same period, passenger rail ALSO provided the equivalent services of UPS and FedEx.  A great deal of money, legal documents, and small packages went from place to place via the rails.

I think the Federal Government SHOULD "oversee" and push for a FEW serious cross-national routes... the institution of GOOD service there would fuel the improvement of other "regional" corridors.

Answer 7

just think of all the accidents after the West Coast line started togo electric  You hardy ever travelled as information boards said of derailments along the line. Even now far less trouble and more reliable services had third rail been the norm south of   Stafford and Norwich. Before folk say Weather is worse north of London  Sorry south east have far worse weather than Essex,Suffolk and Norfolk..

  The only trouble I  find travelling  nowadays is the lack of real timetables  I like sorting my own journies out en route and secondly not interchangeable tickets from one company to another.

This is made worse if you have to cross London, Station to Station and you have a ticket to take you foreward at a said time so you are on the underground or bus worried about your connection and not enjoying the journey..

I used to travel alot between Northampton and the Isle of Wight but allowed three hours in London to enjoy the journey  if I went over the three hours it didnt matter catch the next one no problem  or if raining an earlier one, but my choice

not being dictated to ...This year I wanted rural lines from Peterbro' to Darlington  but without timetables I had no option but travel on the GNR  East Coast line.. ok it was a nice ride and ontime at all points  without excessive speed but uninteresting.

Answer 8

If British Rail had been given the subidies that the goverment today gives to all the private networks, they would have been laughing all the way to the bank! And used the money more wisely.

British Rail recieved almost 25% of the goverment money that is being splashed around now, the goverment is paying for new carrages, rolling stock, research, new cheaper subsidies and fares for many different people, the London Assembly give cash to the Unemployed, Elderly and Young to ride the Overground and Underground services for free now days almost, this never used to happen, you now have a New Deal Card the enables claimants of Unemployed benefits 50% reductions on tickets which is unheard of, when I was unemployed in the 80's when British Rail was around you had to pay full fare to get to interviews etc!!

Also with the British Rail system the conflicts in running times, holding connections, intergrating the trains so if one area train was delayed you missed the last train home from another area, resources would be availiable to get you home or put up somewhere, now its a case of tough get a taxi and claim it back from the other company.  staff where more proud of working for BR and knew thier rights a lot more, everyone was under the same rules and regulations, now its all fragmented and some people are trained more than others, some hardly at all, others better, wages are different across the board from one company to another promoting those who are availiable to due to location to apply fully trained from one company to another.  

Customers mainly on their own area know whose trains they run on, but when they go on different journeys or out of area are not sure if their tickets are valid on one train or another, who to blame for a problem or delay, what manager they should be talking to, most seem really confused when they come in all full of fire to blast us out and we tell them nothing to do with us go to x company or y company.

Engineering works are more haphazard and complicated, Network Rail want to pull up a piece of track here for maintenance, however they have to sometimes liase with at least 3 operators on most main lines before they can to ensure there are no objections or plans for the line, maintenance staff trying to do a job and being refused access by another because no one has informed there bosses they was coming and they cant fit them in.

Loads of interesting dilemas now.

But, on the plus side, the smaller companies do try and compete against each other, staff have more company focused training, more customer friendly as the franchises only last a few years and have to be renewed so good companies get good results out of there workers as well as customer satisfaction, more of the companies now listen to the moans and groans from the customers and do something about it, unlike under BR when not a lot was done. Stations are smarter, trains are smarter, most stations also now take security and safety a lot more and attempt to work with the local councils to improve the areas around stations to look more welcoming unlike the run down state that most where in by the 1990's.

Unfortunatley we are stuck with Private railways now for the time being as the cost of re-nationalisation would be too great (look at the railtrack fiasco and that was only one branch of track maintenace and operations).

Hope this helps you

Answer 9

I remember BR and on the whole it was better but any nationalised rail system has to be protected with safeguards against extreme measures, e.g. the massive cutbacks that took place in the 1960s.

On the whole European countries do better with their rail systems because a) they are publicly owned; b) they are accountable; c) the respective governments invest money wisely and the payoff is a transport system that benefits everyone, not just profit-seeking shareholders