Why should we pay?

Question

For the new rail infastructure announced today? Please tell me again the benefits of privatisation including capital investment, competition, private funding and less strain on the taxpayer.

I really have forgotten how good it was all going to be. Silly me!

Answer 1

I do not think that there was any benifits. Since the railway in the UK was privatised the price of train tickets have doubled and the amount of Tax payers money going into the system has tripled!

Answer 2

no idea.  I already skip fares as often as i can not because i'm a cheapskate or anything but because i don't like getting ripped off, which i am.  If they even consider putting the price up on my trainline (officially one of the worst in the country)  i will be complaining to them on a daily basis rather than a weekly one.  Already charge us a fortune for an abysmal service then tell us if we want it to be improved we have to pay even more.  What have they been doing with the ridiculous fares they've been charging for the last 20 years?

Answer 3

heres a few lines______ ____  ______ _______ thats nearly as many as the whole rail network.

Answer 4

It has cost taxpayers billions since privatisation,Sick of paying fat cats should never been privatised in the first place.

Answer 5

I did 14 years with BR and vehemently opposed the privatisation of the network..(I left way back in 1992),it was sold of for a vast amount of money and everyone thought that was that,but the government have done nothing more than pump millions into a privately owned business.

It was first proposed back in 1989 to privatise the railways and opposed by the Labour Party,after the 1992 elections Labour went ahead with the Conservative proposals and privatised BR into the many companies that mow think they can run a railway.

In my opinion it ran better back in the 1980s than it does now,

Answer 6

Several big mistakes in the sell off of the Railways and the biggest lie of all competition! How many routes is there competition on?

The East Coast has one company beyond Peterborough with a very limited service to Hull by the only competitor.

The West Coast has a rival company between London and Birmingham and then has Cross Country as competition further North (at moment run by the same company).

In the West Country you have a choice of operators between London and Exeter over totally different routes and Cross Country provide the competition west of Bristol.

The former Southern has a number of operators over parts of the London to Brighton route and not much else.

MML operate London to the East midlands of have competition as far as Bedford.

For most destinations you are left with a take it or leave it choice so there is little incentive for the operators to give you any improvements.

Answer 7

The rail infrastructure in the UK (in answer to the first response - but I agree the questioner should have been more explicit). Privitisation was a con - as there really is no competition, except perhaps between the East Coast and West Coast routes to Scotland. Even when competition is proposed (such as the service from Sunderland to London) there is a squeal of complaint from the TOCs. The whole privatisation thing was done without any real thought by the Major government - even Maggie Thatcher fought shy of trying to deal with the railways.(The Labour Government did not have anything to do with it as suggested by ine answer - Labour did not come to power until 1997).  I agree that it is stupid to expect the passenger to foot the whole bill for the proposed works. There has to be a level playing field with the road system - no one says the car driver or haulage companies have to pay for the cost of road improvements. However, it has to be acknowledged that there have been benefits from privatisation - far greater use of rail, innovations that would never have happened in BR days (the Sunderland and Hull links, doubling of track north of Princes Risborough on the Chiltern lines, the total renewal of stock, new freight flows  to name but a few)

Answer 8

Would be nice to get a link to the article you're discussing...  I checked:  http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news....

and found two articles:

DB privatization plan is revived

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has endorsed an oft-postponed plan to privatize Germany's rail operator Deutsche Bahn AG, Reuters reports. The government would divest a 25% stake of DB by the end of 2008, at an estimated worth of 3 billion euros ($4.1 billion). But the plan still requires approval by both houses of the German legislature, where its prospects are uncertain.

July 24, 2007

Anti-Amtrak amendments loom

At least three amendments will be offered today to cut Amtrak funding, currently pegged at $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2008 by House bill H.R. 3074, according to the National Association of Railroad Passengers. An amendment by Rep. Michelle Bauchman (R-Minn.) would reduce Amtrak's operating grant by $106 million and transfer funds to homeless housing programs. Two amendments by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) would cut Amtrak's operating grant by $475 million, and reduce the corporation's capital grant by $425 million. A fourth amendment, offered by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) to eliminate funding for Amtrak's Sunset Limited, could also be presented for a House vote.

OH, and the lil b*****d who cheats and steals his rides should burn in h**l

Answer 9

The Tories where so blind in selling off all the nations assests to Private companies, they forgot to look back over the History of things.

If you look back from the 1930's to the birth of the railway the same thing was going on then, fares where rising, journeys longer, ailing companies and lines, the war years and into the 50's was a real time of change for the railways and Nationalisation helped turn the railway into a proper transport system. Then Dr Beeching came along and closed almost 30% of the system, small branchlines which would be a real bonus now closed, services where trimmed, staff levels cut and the decision to switch from steam to Diesel Electric was taken.

The 60's saw the decline of Frieght and Ferry use for the railways as road haulage became cheaper and the the 70's saw the rise of the Motor Car into the main carrier of people.

The Union Troubles of the 70's affected the conditions and travelling public badly and then the recession and destruction of the thatcherite goverment of the heavy industry the railways depended on for home repairs, maintenance, fuel, and new trains collapsed and disappeared.

With the cutbacks in BR spending to try and turn it into a profit maker came in the early 80's destroyed what little hope the railways had of keeping a world renown service the Govermnt decided that along with all other national industry, it too would be sold off, not as a going concern but in small competative franchises. the theory behind it was great on paper, but then with the lack of money the goverment wanted to put into a company that was going to be sold in a few years, the system was run on a shoestring budget.

Once the franchises where set, tenders where made, the goverment seetend this by agreeing to pay the companies huge dividends on the investments made (even now compared to the pre 1995 sell off the companies are getting more money each than BR ever got) for a promise they would invest and turn around the fortunes of the railway.

What happens? Well firstly, the structure of the railway is one that companies are very limited on what they can and cant do, the proposed increases in rolling stock, station maintenance, increased running capacity and revamping of the lines can not happen, why, because the system is victorian and can not change, costs are so high and each company has a different idea. For instance, in our area we had an empty train travelling along a piece of track early in the morning, to get from its berthing point to its start station 10miles away, passing through 3 other stations. The company wanted to run this as an early morning passenger service, Railtrack (now Network Rail) said yes, if you pay an extra £10,000 a day for maintenace and upkeep (True story), reason, because the train would have to break and accelerate from each station adding wear and tear to the rails.

The new ideas coming from central goverment about adding carrages to trains, increasing passenger loads, more services over certain sections of tracks, etc, are again great on paper, but as most of the network is already full, especially in the big city areas, where are the trains going to fit? who is going to pay for the station platforms to be lengthened? who is going to pay for the extra staff required? the extra maintenance required on the new rolling stock? the answer, the tax payer and the travelling public thats who unfortunatley, after all the private companies have to keep showing a profit for their shareholders, after all some only have 7 years per franchise to flecce you of as much profit as they can get away with.

So what happens next? Well, as most railway people will tell you, one railway, one company, one goal, simple.

Tony Blair and the Labour party had a golden opportunity in 1997 when they came to power to stop privitisation and bring the railways back under one roof, but they blew it, now, well, things can only get better (????) .

Answer 10

The "privatisation" of Britain's railways was an ill-conceived plan by Margaret Thatcher's government to rid the tax-payer of the burden of the railway's upkeep.

How, exactly, the railway was going to make a profit in private hands after needing public subsidy for so long was not considered in the rush to get rid of it.

The sad fact is that the railway in "Private" hands now needs around four times as much subsidy from the tax payer as it did in state control.

There is much to lament: the traction and rolling stock was virtually given away to three companies which were then free to charge what they liked to the franchisees to lease it. The infrastructure was retained by Railtrack, which later went bust, and some of the train operating companies just weren't up to the job.

Even those that have performed well now see their franchises taken away from them. National Express Group scored highly with the Midland Mainline franchise, only to see it go to Stagecoach. Virgin Cross Country has doubled its passenger numbers in a few short years by being good at what it does, but has lost its franchise from November in favour of Arriva, who might be good at running buses but have no experience in running a former Intercity undertaking.

Nicholas Ridley, Conservative transport minister and Maggie's henchman who caused this mayhem, must be turning in his grave. I certainly hope so.

Answer 11

We have to pay because the government doesn't want to!

The problem is that politicians haven't a clue where to place a stamp, let alone run a railway. Despite the fiasco with Metronet on the underground and the millions the government has had to pour into it, they have not learnt any lessons and insist on going ahead with the same scheme on our national network.

This is ridiculous. Not only will we pay more in fares, but in a few years time we will pay for it again in tax rises due to the amount needed to fund the railways.

When will these people learn that public transport cannot be run as a business? The railways cannot be allowed to close so public money will always be found to fund the businesses.

Once again the only people to benefit are the fatcats rubbing their hands with glee. And who can blame them?

Can you imagine asking for a business loan from your local bank and insisting on a clause that would force the bank itself to pay any shortfall on money owed?

You couldn't make it up.

Basically there is no benefit, should be re nationalised as the contracts expire

Answer 12

The rail infrastructure where?

It really would help to know WHERE your talking about!

This website has people posting and answering from all over the globe!

Answer 13

Total joke isn't it. In Britain we pay the highest train fares in Europe for one of the worst services. The Government takes our tax money but opts out of its obligations to pay for things with our money e.g The Railway Network. Most of Europes governments subsidise and help the rail network so you get a half decent service at an affordable price.

We really are being f~~king ripped off.