If we want more people to use the railways, should they be run as a business or a service?

Question

Transport union RMT has attacked the failure of rail privatisation after revealing that 70 per cent of the public support renationalisation of the network.
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/britain/Most-people-want-rail-privateers-to-go
The results of a poll carried out for the union by ICM will be released tomorrow just weeks before the East Coast Main Line franchise is due to be brought back under direct public control.

Answer 1

People have wanted the railways in public ownership since the day Major privatised it. It was not the same type of privatisation as we saw in other industries. There is no competition, just a set of regional franchised monopolies. There is nothing driving cost down, and it is a rip off from the word go. Ticketing is bizarre to say the least.



The aim of the railways shouldn't necessarily be to make a huge profit, but to deliver a good, affordable service. Profits should be reinvested in rolling stock and infrastructure.



The prvatised railways have used a lot of public funds since the early 1990s. I would rather use public money on a public body, than give it away to supposedly private enterprises.

Answer 2

The railways can be both a service and a business .The difference between the two is simple.If it was run on purely business considerations then any non profitable line or route would be scrapped immediately .Then as time progresses the routes that make only a small operating profit will be closed. Any profit made cannot be used to support the loss making routes they are paid to shareholders as bonuses If it is run as a service then the most profitable routes subsidize the non profit parts of the network and if all the sums are correct at the end of the day the company should break even or make a slight operating profit.What we need is a public service run like a business

Answer 3

How many railway companies are involved on "Manhattan".? (if it has a railway.)

Our 'land owners' only have small areas. To have to cope with more 'competition' causes mayhem.

Silly J. Major. (down Fido, good things come in little packages.) Our Monarchs Commonwealth would have been better. I've time to have a look around - I'm retired. Before this interesting interlude it was too hectic. You got a 'complex' about your 'history'.? Poor Russia, and the "cold war".

Answer 4

I believe in capitalism and the free market.



But in a small country like ours, how can there be any real competition for railway companies? It is hardly a free market with just one company to choose from on each of the different routes. It has worked in recent years more like privatised socialism.



In this instance, I personally think it should all be wrapped up into one company again and run as a government owned business. Not an inefficient state business like the NHS under Labour, but a modern business that makes a small profit on top of its operating costs to put towards further improvements.



This would also prevent foreign companies from taking hundreds of millions of pounds of profit out of the country each year for giving us a pathetic service.

Answer 5

Deregulation or privatization offer some advantages, but the goods or services that they offer usually end up over priced.



With regard to rail service for public travel, I prefer as a service.

Answer 6

You will never get real Americans to take rail transportation. Its costly, slow, and lately dangerous. We are not like Europe willing to drive little death trap cars and live on top of each other in apartments of 800 sq ft and ride government run railways.

Answer 7

Americans have too much pride. They look at it as a step backward.