4 ms·

The real solution is to eliminate private ownership of track. Corporate-owned track makes as much sense as corporate-owned highways, ie none. The rails should b

The real solution is to eliminate private ownership of track. Corporate-owned track makes as much sense as corporate-owned highways, ie none. The rails should belong to the people, and companies allowed to use them as the government allows, not the other way around.

antognini 4y ago
Britain seems to have a better system than the US. In the US the rails are privately owned, but the train service is operated by the government. In Britain the rails are owned by the state but the operators are private. That seems to make for a better experience.
- secabeen 4y ago
  Britain has gone through regular and repeated crises with their trains, and pretty much the entire system went bankrupt during COVID. The government paid what it took to keep it going, but it's not a smooth system by any means. Even during what people would consider the heyday of British Rail, it still required significant and ongoing government subsidies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1995_to_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1948%E2%80%931994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G...
  - midasuni 4y ago
    As does the road network. And schools. Goverent services require subsidies, they aren’t run for profit. And the subsidies given the the rail which were needed because of the governemt laws about not travelling were far lower than US subsidies.
- ggm 4y ago
  Better only in narrow relative terms. The privatised trains are a disaster of Tory politics and renationalisation is a vote winning proposal. The lines which gave most problems have been resumed by the state in some cases. I miss BR. Bit of a shame it was Jimmy Saville voicing "this is the age of the train" Rail demands subsidy. Public utility functions often do.
735892568 4y ago
I would say the exact opposite. Eliminate government ownership of the trains. The government is not "the people". It's a monopoly maintained by violence.

antognini 4y ago

Britain seems to have a better system than the US. In the US the rails are privately owned, but the train service is operated by the government. In Britain the rails are owned by the state but the operators are private. That seems to make for a better experience.

secabeen 4y ago
Britain has gone through regular and repeated crises with their trains, and pretty much the entire system went bankrupt during COVID. The government paid what it took to keep it going, but it's not a smooth system by any means. Even during what people would consider the heyday of British Rail, it still required significant and ongoing government subsidies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1995_to_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1948%E2%80%931994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G...
- midasuni 4y ago
  As does the road network. And schools. Goverent services require subsidies, they aren’t run for profit. And the subsidies given the the rail which were needed because of the governemt laws about not travelling were far lower than US subsidies.
ggm 4y ago
Better only in narrow relative terms. The privatised trains are a disaster of Tory politics and renationalisation is a vote winning proposal. The lines which gave most problems have been resumed by the state in some cases. I miss BR. Bit of a shame it was Jimmy Saville voicing "this is the age of the train" Rail demands subsidy. Public utility functions often do.

735892568 4y ago

I would say the exact opposite. Eliminate government ownership of the trains. The government is not "the people". It's a monopoly maintained by violence.