3 ms·

Do you understand what they were like when they were public? Costs have fallen dramatically, prices are actually way down, the govt subsidy is down (although wi

Do you understand what they were like when they were public? Costs have fallen dramatically, prices are actually way down, the govt subsidy is down (although will rise again with HS2), and service quality/output is up. We know this doesn't work because we tried it and it didn't work.

lordnacho 7y ago
I'm willing to entertain that thought, given a source.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  Simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of... - you can find other information/sources on the same page (not all of it is accurate but that will start you off).
jonplackett 7y ago
This is the usual argument. But it doesn’t hold water. France, Germany, Spain all have cheap, really good government-owned trains - in fact they also operate some of our trains in the UK and use the profit to fund their own trains. Prices have gone up by the maximum operators are allowed to increase them every year (there’s a 1 year exception where I think they were frozen for political reasons) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49331238 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49331238 Just because we tried something before and did it badly doesn’t mean it won’t work in future if done well. Execution is everything, right?
- hogFeast 7y ago
  Left out is the specific reason why you think it will work well in the future. Define really good? They are less safe, the prices charged to consumers may be lower but what is the overall subsidy (I understand that you want other people to subsidise your commute...other people tend not to be happy about this), and it is fair to say that UK trains are less punctual but the difference is not massive (and we do come ahead of the nations you mention some years too). The discussion on this in the UK is pathetically weak, and largely a function of trade union lobbying (if you didn't know, the TUC pours money into this cause like nothing else...presumably they just really really care about commuters).

lordnacho 7y ago

I'm willing to entertain that thought, given a source.

hogFeast 7y ago
Simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of... - you can find other information/sources on the same page (not all of it is accurate but that will start you off).

jonplackett 7y ago

This is the usual argument. But it doesn’t hold water. France, Germany, Spain all have cheap, really good government-owned trains - in fact they also operate some of our trains in the UK and use the profit to fund their own trains. Prices have gone up by the maximum operators are allowed to increase them every year (there’s a 1 year exception where I think they were frozen for political reasons) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49331238 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49331238 Just because we tried something before and did it badly doesn’t mean it won’t work in future if done well. Execution is everything, right?

hogFeast 7y ago
Left out is the specific reason why you think it will work well in the future. Define really good? They are less safe, the prices charged to consumers may be lower but what is the overall subsidy (I understand that you want other people to subsidise your commute...other people tend not to be happy about this), and it is fair to say that UK trains are less punctual but the difference is not massive (and we do come ahead of the nations you mention some years too). The discussion on this in the UK is pathetically weak, and largely a function of trade union lobbying (if you didn't know, the TUC pours money into this cause like nothing else...presumably they just really really care about commuters).