East Coast is the most cost-effective operator in Britain and it's publicly owned.
Another price hike for rail users
- Thread starter Semple
- Start date
French and Italian economies and workforce (and culture) are more socialist and more highly unionised than our own.
I'm not suggesting privatisation was a success, I'm merely saying that renationalisation is too big a political risk for the main (electable) UK political parties.
I'm not suggesting privatisation was a success, I'm merely saying that renationalisation is too big a political risk for the main (electable) UK political parties.
Doesn't seem to have been a problem for the French or Italians and is not what the recent studies suggest.
Are you suggesting the privatization of the rail network has been a success and it is now better than before when it was nationalized
SNCF has massive subsidies in France.
Indeed, however when the rail network was nationalized it only needed 1 Billion subsidies which is a quarter of what it needs now from the TAX payer
It was also massively underfunded. We're spending a lot of money on the network now to cope with a somewhat unprecedented rate of passenger growth. Old lines are being reopened, and existing lines are being newly electrified. But hey, the government shouldn't be spending money on critical national infrastructure, right?
Saying that it only 'needed' £1b of subsidy is like saying a starving guy only 'needs' to spend 5p a day on food.
Doesn't seem to have been a problem for the French or Italians and is not what the recent studies suggest.
Are you suggesting the privatization of the rail network has been a success and it is now better than before when it was nationalized
You ever travelled on a French/Italian local service? It's a complete disaster.
Trying to draw comparisons between nationalized/privatized systems by looking at other countries is fundamentally flawed. There's so many differences between countries in terms of geography, funding, passenger numbers, culture, etc that trying to point at a difference and chalking it up to the fact that a particular system is nationalized/privatized is nonsensical.
It's also the least complex franchise to operate - the fact that it's run by DOR has relatively little to do with it. GNER ran it pretty well also, they only went under because they foolishly over-bid on their franchise repayments and went insolvent.
Last edited:
East Coast is returning money as it should be as per contracts. Many other busy lines are also returning money. This also fails to take into account what Network Rail are spending on their line.
Quieter lines are taking on direct subsidies.
In terms of profits it is making very little and is why National Express jumped.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...East-Coast-Main-Line-gives-taxpayer-235m.html
Pretax profits stood at £9.5m. Which isn't too bad, but isn't the upside National Express would have gambled on.
edit:
That's not to say the East Coast line isn't efficient. It very well maybe but it is a line expected to return substantial money back to government.
Last edited:
Are you suggesting ... it is now better than before when it was nationalized
Damn right
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Frankly the government already has this responsibility for the most part - remember, all of the infrastructure is effectively government owned (Yes, technically not, but in reality, it is).