Labour unveils plans for a state rail company to challenge private operators for contracts (UK)
28 replies, posted
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/4-ja.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/19/labour-public-sector-challenge-private-rail-operators[/url]
[quote]Large parts of the rail network could be taken back into public ownership if Labour wins the general election, Ed Miliband has announced.
The Labour leader said the party would let the public sector challenge private operators to take on the running of rail franchises, arguing it would improve services for passengers and end a situation in which foreign state-owned companies could compete to run trains in the UK without competition from a British equivalent.
The move was announced as Miliband attempted to distance himself from the New Labour era of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, promising the party would tackle inequality while taking a responsible approach to the nation's finances in a time of continuing pressure on public spending.
Sources said an agreement on the rail policy was "pretty much a done deal" at the party's national policy forum (NPF) in Milton Keynes, which is thrashing out the details of plans which could find their way into its manifesto next year.
The package has faced resistance from grassroots activists and trade unionists who have been pressing for a return to full renationalisation.[/quote]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/20/labour-party-overhaul-failed-railways[/url]
[quote]Labour delegates hailed a new deal on rail policy as the "beginning of the end of Tory privatisation" as the party agreed to review the entire "failed" franchising system and to allow let public sector operators to compete to run services.
After negotiations at its policy forum in Milton Keynes, the leadership, unions and delegates hammered out a compromise that will put far-reaching rail reform at the heart of Labour's election manifesto.
Supporters for a bold approach from Ed Miliband secured a commitment to "reverse the presumption against the public sector" in the running of services, implying a new role for the state in overseeing services.
Under the agreement, Labour will conduct a review into a franchising system which it says has let down passengers with poor value for money and some of Europe's highest fares.
Sources said a Labour government would bring new legislation and the scrapping of the 1993 Railways Act, which laid out the framework for the private sector to take on rail franchises. Miliband had feared the issue would be put to a vote if a deal was not struck with delegates, and he might lose if he backed away from radical options. But the wording was toughened up to stress the public sector's role while condemning "Tory dogma on privatisation".
Miliband said the East Coast main line had operated well under public ownership after the private company that ran it had to pull out. "We know East Coast has worked in public hands, so on the basis of value for money let's extend that idea and let the public sector challenge to take on new lines," he said. "Let's end the situation where you can be a European public rail company and run lines, but not if you are a public operator from Britain.[/quote]
Can someone tell me whether this is good or bad and can a second person then call that person stupid and tell me why he's wrong?
I don't see the negative here. If they did produce a state-run rail company to compete with private ones while making the selection process highly objective, it'd mean better everything for the end consumer. Competition lowers costs, drives innovation, and improves the quality-of-product produced.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;45446979]Can someone tell me whether this is good or bad and can a second person then call that person stupid and tell me why he's wrong?[/QUOTE]
Kay.
So, here's the good and bad just to spare you the bitchslapping. The good is that these type of government funded programs tend to deal with over-price marking whackos that believe a cup of water should cost five dollars. In otherwords, tickets for trains have the possibility of becoming cheaper, and Union groups which constantly jerk-off on how train operators are so poor (;~;), can come to the reality that majority of train workers make already something in the range of £30,000 to £60,000, and can get fucked for being a group of irritable, over-paid, non-competing cunts.
In having a government rail program, you can force a lot of these over-paid cunts out of business, as the government rail system would be far more affordable as it's paid for taxes most likely, and therefore tickets are either free or low priced. It's a good thing in this case.
On the otherhand, if you are an irritable, over-paid, non-competing jackwash.... You are probably going to have a pay-dock or two because the government paid rail system is going to screw you and your little union over. In otherwords, it might cause these poor, poor people to be unable to buy a new engine for their car.
As you can clearly tell, I say fuck the Unions and build this goddamn rail.
This needs to happen, or restrictions need to be placed upon private rail companies.
It's fucking ridiculous. I can get a return plane ticket out of the country for half the cost or less than it takes me to get from one end of this country to the other. And that's with advanced booking for both.
Funny how we're going [I]full fucking circle again[/I]. The rail system used to be state ran.
[QUOTE=Noss;45447115]This needs to happen, or restrictions need to be placed upon private rail companies.
It's fucking ridiculous. I can get a return plane ticket out of the country for half the cost or less than it takes me to get from one end of this country to the other. And that's with advanced booking for both.[/QUOTE]
Trains are fucking expensive. Most of the time trains here cost (at minimum) a little more than flying, depending on where you're going.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45447142]Trains are fucking expensive. Most of the time trains here cost (at minimum) a little more than flying, depending on where you're going.[/QUOTE]
Then why would you ever take a train
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;45447158]Then why would you ever take a train[/QUOTE]
I don't. I think some people might take them long distances for scenic reasons but I personally hate how much longer they take.
However if you're going a really short distance then trains are cheaper.
[QUOTE=Noss;45447115]This needs to happen, or restrictions need to be placed upon private rail companies.
It's fucking ridiculous. I can get a return plane ticket out of the country for half the cost or less than it takes me to get from one end of this country to the other. And that's with advanced booking for both.[/QUOTE]
Had to get myself up to Inverness last month and it cost me £90 on easyjet for an hour and a bit flight where as I would of had to pay about £180 for the train :v:
not to mention the retardness of the UK rail network system
[B]do you live somewhere in the south?[/B] yes
[B]do you want to go somewhere by train?[/B] yes
[B]is that place london?[/B] no
[B]no you're wrong it's london. [/B]​ok thanks
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;45447793]not to mention the retardness of the UK rail network system
[B]do you live somewhere in the south?[/B] yes
[B]do you want to go somewhere by train?[/B] yes
[B]is that place london?[/B] no
[B]no you're wrong it's london. [/B]​ok thanks[/QUOTE]
I live in the South, and this is absolutely true. Except for a few larger towns/a city nearby, you can't get anywhere cheap.
Think it's cheaper to get the train up from the nearest station to me to the middle of London (which includes ticket for underground) than it costs me to get down to Portsmouth. Think it cost me £24 for open return to portsmouth without railcard
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;45447985]I live in the South, and this is absolutely true. Except for a few larger towns/a city nearby, you can't get anywhere cheap.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't go that far, I'm going from Bournemouth to Brighton (via Southampton) tomorrow for £15 open return (w/ railcard) which would cost me like £30 in fuel to do by car, Southern are really good value
South West Trains can go fuck themselves though, if I were to just go Bournemouth to Southampton which is half an hour (it takes 2 hours to get to Brighton) it costs me £10, even going to London with ADV tickets costs me £30 from here
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;45447985]I live in the South, and this is absolutely true. Except for a few larger towns/a city nearby, you can't get anywhere cheap.[/QUOTE]
In the South East you're either ending up in Ashford International or London (Pancras or Waterloo), those are your choices.
This is very good news, train prices are ridiculous and the operators are leaching on their contracts.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45447142]Trains are fucking expensive. Most of the time trains here cost (at minimum) a little more than flying, depending on where you're going.[/QUOTE]
That's what kills me about being in the US. Back home (UK) trains are pretty available and relatively cheap (Depends on location too, some areas prices are fucking joke). Here in the US you're not really going to fine much train services, maybe in a big metro area but other then that you're forced to drive or take a plane. Hell, even the bus services suck in my area.
Why i like being at home, I didn't need a car - I could easily walk everywhere, and if i needed to get around take a ferry/train/or bus.
[QUOTE=Reagy;45447136]Funny how we're going [I]full fucking circle again[/I]. The rail system used to be state ran.[/QUOTE]
nationalizing it was a terrible idea in the first place back in the 1940s
[QUOTE=Complifused;45448118]Think it's cheaper to get the train up from the nearest station to me to the middle of London (which includes ticket for underground) than it costs me to get down to Portsmouth. Think it cost me £24 for open return to portsmouth without railcard[/QUOTE]
at least £90 to get from brighton to derby pls kill me
Damn near £70 for a peak return to London without a railcard from here in the south. It's only twice that for a weekly railpass with the underground.
Total madness, commuters would never do it but you make it far too expensive for a one off trip.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45448572]nationalizing it was a terrible idea in the first place back in the 1940s[/QUOTE]
No, privatising it all was the terrible fucking idea. They should have just opened up the lines to 3rd parties and allowed side by side development but nope, they sold the load. Fucking conservatives
The railways were never even really meant to be this way, with the government doing track maintenance and private companies reaping the profits from services.
Originally the tracks were privatised too and handed to a company called Railtrack, with the idea that they'd be keen to build new lines and stations to open new markets and get more money. But it didn't work and Railtrack collapsed within a few years, forcing the government (by then Labour) to renationalise the tracks and set up Network Rail to run them.
Here in Ireland, Public transport has been state run for a long time. We have CIE which oversees both Bus Éireann, and Ironrod Éireann(Irishrail). And for the most part, the rail travel is decently affordable, mostly reliable((averaging about 95%+ Reliablity, 99 most of the time)) and overall quite pleasant to deal with.
Their student rates are absolutely amazing too.
[editline]21st July 2014[/editline]
Even though the UK network is bigger and used much more, I think it could benefit quite well from being state run by a single company.
Feel like I have a rant in every UK train related thread but it would be great if we could just get tickets at a reasonable and consistent price instead of what seems like totally random prices such two journeys at equal distance yet one costs 2-3x the price.
A little tip, its more fuss to sort out but you can sometimes get tickets quite a bit cheaper if you book a ticket to a station part way along the track, and then one from that station to your final one, using the same train. Drawback of this is that if you get a ticket for a specific train and then do have to change or there is an issue then they aren't liable for you missing your connection and wont accept you getting on the next train usually.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45447100]Kay.
So, here's the good and bad just to spare you the bitchslapping. The good is that these type of government funded programs tend to deal with over-price marking whackos that believe a cup of water should cost five dollars. In otherwords, tickets for trains have the possibility of becoming cheaper, and Union groups which constantly jerk-off on how train operators are so poor (;~;), can come to the reality that majority of train workers make already something in the range of £30,000 to £60,000, and can get fucked for being a group of irritable, over-paid, non-competing cunts.
In having a government rail program, you can force a lot of these over-paid cunts out of business, as the government rail system would be far more affordable as it's paid for taxes most likely, and therefore tickets are either free or low priced. It's a good thing in this case.
On the otherhand, if you are an irritable, over-paid, non-competing jackwash.... You are probably going to have a pay-dock or two because the government paid rail system is going to screw you and your little union over. In otherwords, it might cause these poor, poor people to be unable to buy a new engine for their car.
As you can clearly tell, I say fuck the Unions and build this goddamn rail.[/QUOTE]
The one thing that's come out of this is the electrification or rail and less emphasis on diesel. That's about it. It's cheaper to drive my car 70 miles to London at the moment than get the train. Go figure.
[QUOTE=Reagy;45451316]No, privatising it all was the terrible fucking idea. They should have just opened up the lines to 3rd parties and allowed side by side development but nope, they sold the load. Fucking conservatives[/QUOTE]
the tories will cut it whenever they get into office. nationalizing it just means that when it comes to saving money they'll reduce the number of lines
if the railways hadn't been nationalized, then you wouldn't have had all the numerous cuts, reductions in length of track, etc that happened throughout the 1960s onwards that's taken britain from having the best railway system in the world to being a second rate mediocrity
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45464860]the tories will cut it whenever they get into office. nationalizing it just means that when it comes to saving money they'll reduce the number of lines
[/QUOTE]
Agreed the entire exercise is futile for the tories will just sell stuff off again when they get in, no doubt for discount rates giving most shares to their friends in businesses.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;45447321]It costs me £4.20 to get home from work via train every day, the trains themselves are beyond cramped and uncomfortable.[/QUOTE]
I spent like 3 hours going from Northampton to Swindon. most of the time sat between compartments on the floor because there was no room. Two of the trains were late.
Fuck. Our. Rail.
It costs me £200 a month for my season ticket on the Brighton mainline. Sometimes I do feel like it's good value for money, but the last 9 months has been full of delays, cancellations and often cramped trains with no air conditioning. It's clear that the lack of competition has allowed the train operators to not invest in new trains and equipment.
P.s. First Capital Connect are the worst
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.