3 ms·

Nationalizing them would be a disaster. They were deeply unprofitable until the federal government de-nationalized them after it had nationalized them and pract

Nationalizing them would be a disaster. They were deeply unprofitable until the federal government de-nationalized them after it had nationalized them and practically ruined them in the process of that nationalization. Let's not ruin what good things there are.

stetrain 4y ago
You can nationalize the infrastructure without nationalizing the operations upon it. Many other countries use a system where one government-related entity manages in the infrastructure, and many private companies can pay to operate rail services on that infrastructure. This would actually allow market competition instead of geographic monopolies.
- Jochim 4y ago
  We have something like this in the UK. It's a dogshit system that leads to service that is both awful and overpriced. The whole thing should be nationalised.
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    It's a good idea to nationalise passenger trains in Britain, but I'm not aware of anyone calling for freight trains to be nationalised.
    - pstuart 4y ago
      My intention was to nationalize the rails; the current operators can still do so as private businesses but they now have to share with other operators (including passengers).
      - Symbiote 4y ago
        After initially privatising everything in the 1990s, which led to cut corners on track/signal maintenance and accidents as a result, Britain nationalised the rail infrastructure -- track, electric catenary, signals, tunnels, bridges and stations. Companies (private or public) operating trains pay a fee to use the track. This seems to be working much better. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/ https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/
        Jochim 4y ago
        The UK runs one of the worst rail services in Europe[0]. The involvement of the operating companies is a charade with the sole purpose of siphoning public money into private hands. What value is a private operator adding to the system when tracks, signalling, timetables, and fares are managed by the public body? Especially given they aren't providing the rolling stock themselves. Note that the private operators did such an awful job of managing timetables and fares that the responsibility was taken from them. [0] https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/how-britains-railways-compare-with-europe-182786 https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/how-britains-railways-co...
        Symbiote 4y ago
        Sorry, I was very ambiguous but I meant only that the public-run infrastructure was working much better than when that was privately run. Britain's railway network is one of the safest in Europe, and it's a very busy network. I agree the private operators bring nothing. Train tickets are one of the few things that are more expensive in Britain than here in Denmark, and I can't think of anything at all that's better about trains in Britain, other than the more varied scenery. (Advance ticket tomorrow morning London-Manchester, £40, walk-up peak fare £184. 2½ hours, 260km. Advance ticket tomorrow morning Copenhagen-Århus... £38, walk-up peak fare £48. 2¾ hours, 310km by land.)
  - stetrain 4y ago
    Fair point, but I think the UK’s “awful and overpriced” rail service would be an order of magnitude improvement for most places in the US.
- pstuart 4y ago
  > You can nationalize the infrastructure without nationalizing the operations upon it. That was the intention of my post.
crote 4y ago
Are you talking about Conrail? Because Conrail was created because the private railway system was collapsing due to mismanagement, and many railroad companies were going bankrupt. After nationalization Conrail quickly turned into a huge success, and was sold off to private investors after a decade for a massive profit. If anything, privatization was the best thing that had happened to the railways in decades. And that's not exactly a one-time-thing only - the railways were previously also nationalized during WWI, which had a similar success.

stetrain 4y ago

You can nationalize the infrastructure without nationalizing the operations upon it. Many other countries use a system where one government-related entity manages in the infrastructure, and many private companies can pay to operate rail services on that infrastructure. This would actually allow market competition instead of geographic monopolies.

Jochim 4y ago
We have something like this in the UK. It's a dogshit system that leads to service that is both awful and overpriced. The whole thing should be nationalised.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  It's a good idea to nationalise passenger trains in Britain, but I'm not aware of anyone calling for freight trains to be nationalised.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    My intention was to nationalize the rails; the current operators can still do so as private businesses but they now have to share with other operators (including passengers).
    - Symbiote 4y ago
      After initially privatising everything in the 1990s, which led to cut corners on track/signal maintenance and accidents as a result, Britain nationalised the rail infrastructure -- track, electric catenary, signals, tunnels, bridges and stations. Companies (private or public) operating trains pay a fee to use the track. This seems to be working much better. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/ https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/
      - Jochim 4y ago
        The UK runs one of the worst rail services in Europe[0]. The involvement of the operating companies is a charade with the sole purpose of siphoning public money into private hands. What value is a private operator adding to the system when tracks, signalling, timetables, and fares are managed by the public body? Especially given they aren't providing the rolling stock themselves. Note that the private operators did such an awful job of managing timetables and fares that the responsibility was taken from them. [0] https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/how-britains-railways-compare-with-europe-182786 https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/how-britains-railways-co...
        Symbiote 4y ago
        Sorry, I was very ambiguous but I meant only that the public-run infrastructure was working much better than when that was privately run. Britain's railway network is one of the safest in Europe, and it's a very busy network. I agree the private operators bring nothing. Train tickets are one of the few things that are more expensive in Britain than here in Denmark, and I can't think of anything at all that's better about trains in Britain, other than the more varied scenery. (Advance ticket tomorrow morning London-Manchester, £40, walk-up peak fare £184. 2½ hours, 260km. Advance ticket tomorrow morning Copenhagen-Århus... £38, walk-up peak fare £48. 2¾ hours, 310km by land.)
- stetrain 4y ago
  Fair point, but I think the UK’s “awful and overpriced” rail service would be an order of magnitude improvement for most places in the US.
pstuart 4y ago
> You can nationalize the infrastructure without nationalizing the operations upon it. That was the intention of my post.

crote 4y ago

Are you talking about Conrail? Because Conrail was created because the private railway system was collapsing due to mismanagement, and many railroad companies were going bankrupt. After nationalization Conrail quickly turned into a huge success, and was sold off to private investors after a decade for a massive profit. If anything, privatization was the best thing that had happened to the railways in decades. And that's not exactly a one-time-thing only - the railways were previously also nationalized during WWI, which had a similar success.