Nationalisation - Is it the best way forward?

[whole diary]

[Andy]

It's about time we tell the EU^» (European Union - about) where to go. The only reason I would vote Tory is to stick two fingers up at Brussels. They have NO right to meddle in our affairs when we pay the amount we do. Of course, I support UKIP's proposal to enter into a trade agreement with the EU (like Switzerland) but end all political ties. The EU is the most corrupt "democracy" in the western world. They won't be happy until they've dragged the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to mirror a typical EU state, enforcing the Euro and total metrification on us.

It was, of course, the Conservative government that set up the current arrangement with regard to the UK rail industry. Moreover, its anti-protectionist stance and free market principles meant that it was also one of the driving forces behind the transformation of the E.U. into a single market, whence comes the E.U. policy regarding the rail industry mentioned earlier.

In an ideal world, the network would have been centrally planned and built in the first place, designed to meet the needs of the nation instead of evolving piecemeal, with lines routed to suit landowners and competing companies. For those who prefer it, competition could then have been introduced in a logical way. 

[vacman]

My view is that we should have larger regional franchises that are at least 20 years, by having IC^▸ (Inter City) and regional/NSE^▸ (Network South East) all under one franchise then the profitable routes would subsidise the un-profitable routes, therefore no or very little public subsidy.

Would that really be the case though?  A company may prefer to pay more of it's profits to shareholders rather than use them as subsidy for un-profitable routes.

But if there were no subsidies then they would have to use the money to pay for the non-profitable services!

[willc]

If there were no subsidies from the Government out of our taxes, a great many miles of the network would have to close.

[Zoe]

But if there were no subsidies then they would have to use the money to pay for the non-profitable services!

Or they could simply decide to run fewer services and keep the profits.

[Tim]

One of the utter calamities of the privatised railways which NR^» (Network Rail - home page) is slowly unpicking is the amount differing standards that all the various maintenance companies set up to carry out their works; there were something like 42,000 line standards at one time.

As a Nation we need the common infrastructure owner, maintainer and operator however NR needs to be kept on its toes to ensure to get its cost down

I see your point, but not sure I completly agree.  Surely some lines need different standards to others and this is what NR provides anyway (ie higher standard for high speed, well used, important lines).

Also not sure you need the same owner of everthing to get the same standard of maintainace.

NR as a monopoly provider would be better kept on its toes if there was another infrastructure owner to compare its performance with.  I am in no way suggesting that each depot is split into a different company - just that one or two pieces of revatively self contained network are handed to someone else to look after as an experiment. 

[Tim]

Think of the millions of inward investment (Falmouth line upgrade being just one example) that wouldn't have occurred. The EU^» (European Union - about) costs the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) next to nothing in real terms, when looked at in the whole (less than Surrey CC actually). The fallacies around astound me. I regard the EU as a safety net too, not letting Westminster get away with things.

Sorry, but I think that's rubbish.

Any "investment" from the EU is only our money coming back! We'd have more capital for investment if we were not paying ^106,000 a minute (latest calculation) to Brussels. You call the EU a safety net, when actually it is red tape! It creates bureaucracy and affects our lives

I agree with you here BTline.  personally I think we should leave the EU.  However, the EU does not require that stack and trains are split into different companies.  It only requires that the two aspects of the railway are separetely accounted for.  This is so that the costs of infastructure are transparent to make it easy to calculate what level of track access charge is leveies to operators of international trains.