Europeans thank Tory Britain

JohnD · 4 Jan 2017

Hurrah for Thatcher's economics, still paying out!

And our money also buys us a rail system who quality, service and reliability are in a completely different class to European railways.

We can only thank Conservative policies for this achievement.

transam · 4 Jan 2017

yep they should be grateful to this country

We even purchase & buy there boilers , most of which would not be sold in Germany as the germans would not buy em

so they dump there rubbish over here

blimey how this ounce great nation has been dragged down by europe.

key member of nato , permanent member of the UN security council , send our troops to certain european countrys etc ect

and than we cannot even set our own tampon tax with out getting permission from a load of X military dictarships & X commie states

JohnD · 6 Jan 2017

none of which, obviously, has any relevance to Britain's national assets being carved up and sold off, while still subsidised by the taxpayer. This is not an EU policy, it's a Conservative policy.

Have you been on a train recently?

Grayling is now carving off parts of the infrastructure.

Gerrydelasel · 6 Jan 2017

The railways are not really national assets though (if you mean they should belong to 'the people) -they were privately created; it's not the same as selling off the NHS, for example. The state only took custody of the railways after the war, and promptly did it's best to dismantle it. The problem is not with private ownership but with the level of ongoing subsidisation. I think we should reduce it or revoke it, and let the private compaines sink or swim in their own competitive economy. Full state ownership is a bad idea because the state is hugely profligate -it can't be trusted not to shut it down and demolish it on a whim. Half of Britain's track mileage was ripped up under state ownership. Easy to improve service figures if you just downsize the service you offer... During privatisation we have only seen expansion (often rebuilding what the state previously destroyed). Private owners either sell or go bust, thereby leaving the infrastructure intact for a future investor.
As for comparison with European railways, ours are far more complicated, more densely used, and -surprisingly- are actually LESS subsidised than Germany and France's. So whilst ours have problems, they're actually coping suprisingly well by comparison.

JohnD · 6 Jan 2017

Do you know a country that has a good rail system without taxpayer subsidy?

As you say, UK railways are underfunded compared to France and Germany.

How do you think the passenger prices and the quality and reliability of the service compare?i

Gerrydelasel · 6 Jan 2017

Japan. But they have a work ethic that no one can compete with, thanks in part to employment law that no one would envy!

Belboz · 6 Jan 2017

Difficulty in re-nationalising the rail network is that we now have much cheaper air travel and (arguably) a better roads infrastructure. There is no way that a lot of the routes can run at a profit so they either have to be (a) run at a loss offset by the profitable routes or (b) run on a reduced service or (c) closed

Gerrydelasel · 6 Jan 2017

Belboz said:
(c) closed

But unlike the state, private compaines at least close the genuinely non profitable ones, unlike BR who closed the most inexplicable grab-bag of lines many of which were very profitable.

JohnD · 6 Jan 2017

Corporate finance in Japan is notoriously opaque and corrupt.

Throughout the world, rail systems are subsidised by the taxpayer. Britain's is very bad, and was carved into little segments that were easy to sell, not because they are in the customers benefit.

I don't see how air travel is any use to a person wishing to travel from Guildford to Waterloo every day, or from Perth to Edinburgh.

Gerrydelasel · 6 Jan 2017

JohnD said:
Corporate finance in Japan is notoriously opaque and corrupt.

That doesn't have to be the case in this country though. Subsidy encourages laziness and complacency.

Belboz · 6 Jan 2017

JohnD said:
I don't see how air travel is any use to a person wishing to travel from Guildford to Waterloo every day, or from Perth to Edinburgh.

I didn't just say air travel - I included a better roads infrastructure.

I used to use the train regularly for journeys from London to Perth. At that time, even though it took a heck of a lot longer (8 hours direct on the Inverness service), air travel was prohibitively expensive and coach wasn't a viable option. The rail fare was reasonable - esepcially if you booked in advance. I also used to travel regularly from Perth to Edinburgh and from Perth to Glasgow. That was when the roads infrastructure wasn't what it was now and rail travel worked out a cheaper option with similar journey times.

Fast forward to now. I travel from London to Perth at least once a year. My return flights from London City to Edinburgh Airport cost less than £100. The journey time (including airport time) is less than 2 hours. Compare that to the cost of the rail travel (more and often significantly more) and a journey time of around 6 hours.

Train from Edinbugh to Perth takes about an hour and a half and costs around £20 one way. Yet the drive takes less than an hour and costs less in fuel. The improved road infrastructure around the airport and between Edinburgh and Perth makes it a no-brainer.

Belboz · 6 Jan 2017

My point is that decades ago, when I travelled up North on trains, the trains were often full. I recall having to stand all the way on numerous joirneys. Many people used these trains and I would imagine the routes either paid for themselves or made a profit.

Not so now. I cannot see how a number of routes make anything but a significant loss. That means any nationalising would have to offset the cost of these non-profitable routes using monies from the profitable commuter routes.

JohnD · 6 Jan 2017

Gerrydelasel said:
Subsidy encourages laziness and complacency.

So what do you think of the Swiss railways?

EFLImpudence · 6 Jan 2017

I must admit that I am confused about the difference between a nationalised service and paying a private company to do it - although I do realise that the bosses of the private companies seem to make a significant amount of money plus there are shareholders to be paid as well.

It couldn't just be dogma with no regard for the country, could it?

Belboz · 6 Jan 2017

I think it's a lose/lose situation whichever way you look at it providing the aim is to retain all current lines and routes.

With the availability of cheaper and faster methods of getting from A to B, many routes will remain running at a loss.

If we go down the re-nationalisation route, the cost of keeping the unprofitable lines/routes running will need to be offset by the profits coming in from the profitable routes (predominantly the city commuter routes where there is no viable alternative method of travel) Over time, that dictates more and more price rises to rail travellers in the profitable areas to avoid bailouts by the taxpayer. That negates the main argument of re-nationalisation. The alternative to that is to keep costs down by paying subsidies from the public coffers. So either the poor old commuter of the general taxpayer loses.

If we retain the current privatisation, the only way to avoid having to pay subsidies is to allow the private companies to raise revenue through increased ticket costs on the profitable lines/routes [to offset the cost of keeping the loss-making lines/routes open] The poor old commuter loses.

Europeans thank Tory Britain

Similar threads