Sleeper trains are making a comeback in Europe, allowing existing infrastructure to be put to good use. So why hasn’t North America made any progress on slee...
I’m not sure either! British Rail was literally, factually privatised and sold off to a lot of different private companies, over a few years running up until 1997. It has not been re-nationalised since. I can’t understand how you wouldn’t be aware of that, unless your view on what nationalised and privatised means is different than the news/dictionary/encyclopaedia/anyone else.
The railways were nationalised between 1948 and 1997, but it’s currently 2023 - and unless you’re from a parallel universe where Neil Kinnock won, they haven’t been nationalised for two and a half decades now.
Worth taking statistics with a pinch of salt, but apparently after a couple of decades of underperforming privatised service, the UK population is overwhelmingly (across both sides of the political spectrum) in support of re-nationalising the railways.
Who owns the infrastructure? The government (through Network Rail).
Who decides which routes to run and how? The government (through Rail Delivery Group).
Who is managing the ticketing? The government (through Rail Delivery Group).
Who decides which companies to hire to run day to day operations and how much to pay them? The government (through DfT).
What is privatised exactly? Once again, British railways are 100% nationalised. This is just a fact. And this is the only reason why they are so poor. The so called “privatisation” never really happened, what happened is that the government created a scapegoat to blame all their failures on. And they stole a lot of tax payer money along the way. Just like it ALWAYS happens with nationalised industries.
Network Rail profits are at least to some extent nationalised, so have to be used for railway reinvestment instead of shareholders, yes - and therefore additionally that means indirectly, the government kind of have some representation in the Rail Delivery Group, amongst the privately owned operators that make up the rest of it.
Some of the fares (not all), or at least their rises each year, are regulated by the government, the rest are set by the individual companies.
The privatisation is the ownership of the trains, the stations, the staff, the companies that run them, and the investment of profits - now I know some of the companies have had to be individually renationalised as a “company of last resort” after they’ve failed, but that’s only in the last couple of years - there’s been over 20 years of profits going to shareholders and not being used to improve the railway - which is why at commuter hours, you still, in 2023, have 400 people trying to get onto a 35 year old, 2 carriage Sprinter - despite the billions each year paid from public money. Like with the energy companies, we’re playing “private profits and public losses”.
I sort of get how you could see regulations/guidance/controls as being a bit like “they own it all”, but I’d assume you don’t see all British pubs as nationalised, despite the fact that (local or national) government controls whether a pub is allowed to exist in that location, who is allowed to run it, what the opening hours are allowed to be, what the minimum price of an alcohol unit can be, the sizes of single servings of different types of alcoholic drink etc etc.
Anyway, if you perceive regulation as nationalisation, we’ll never agree or even reach a middle ground of understanding on that term specifically, though would both agree “What they have currently is not as good as it could be” - and I imagine we both agree that the railways are important, are an essential alternative to individual car travel and desperately need some support and investment to improve.
I don’t think I can spend any longer talking about this, but thanks - it’s been interesting to see a different point of view :)
Just like it ALWAYS happens with nationalised industries.
It was an interesting, err, “conversation” I guess, but I am starting to see that the disagreement is based in the fact that you are viewing things through a particular lens.
I’m not sure either! British Rail was literally, factually privatised and sold off to a lot of different private companies, over a few years running up until 1997. It has not been re-nationalised since. I can’t understand how you wouldn’t be aware of that, unless your view on what nationalised and privatised means is different than the news/dictionary/encyclopaedia/anyone else.
The railways were nationalised between 1948 and 1997, but it’s currently 2023 - and unless you’re from a parallel universe where Neil Kinnock won, they haven’t been nationalised for two and a half decades now.
Worth taking statistics with a pinch of salt, but apparently after a couple of decades of underperforming privatised service, the UK population is overwhelmingly (across both sides of the political spectrum) in support of re-nationalising the railways.
Who sets the fares? The government (through DfT).
Who owns the infrastructure? The government (through Network Rail).
Who decides which routes to run and how? The government (through Rail Delivery Group).
Who is managing the ticketing? The government (through Rail Delivery Group).
Who decides which companies to hire to run day to day operations and how much to pay them? The government (through DfT).
What is privatised exactly? Once again, British railways are 100% nationalised. This is just a fact. And this is the only reason why they are so poor. The so called “privatisation” never really happened, what happened is that the government created a scapegoat to blame all their failures on. And they stole a lot of tax payer money along the way. Just like it ALWAYS happens with nationalised industries.
Network Rail profits are at least to some extent nationalised, so have to be used for railway reinvestment instead of shareholders, yes - and therefore additionally that means indirectly, the government kind of have some representation in the Rail Delivery Group, amongst the privately owned operators that make up the rest of it.
Some of the fares (not all), or at least their rises each year, are regulated by the government, the rest are set by the individual companies.
The privatisation is the ownership of the trains, the stations, the staff, the companies that run them, and the investment of profits - now I know some of the companies have had to be individually renationalised as a “company of last resort” after they’ve failed, but that’s only in the last couple of years - there’s been over 20 years of profits going to shareholders and not being used to improve the railway - which is why at commuter hours, you still, in 2023, have 400 people trying to get onto a 35 year old, 2 carriage Sprinter - despite the billions each year paid from public money. Like with the energy companies, we’re playing “private profits and public losses”.
I sort of get how you could see regulations/guidance/controls as being a bit like “they own it all”, but I’d assume you don’t see all British pubs as nationalised, despite the fact that (local or national) government controls whether a pub is allowed to exist in that location, who is allowed to run it, what the opening hours are allowed to be, what the minimum price of an alcohol unit can be, the sizes of single servings of different types of alcoholic drink etc etc.
Anyway, if you perceive regulation as nationalisation, we’ll never agree or even reach a middle ground of understanding on that term specifically, though would both agree “What they have currently is not as good as it could be” - and I imagine we both agree that the railways are important, are an essential alternative to individual car travel and desperately need some support and investment to improve.
I don’t think I can spend any longer talking about this, but thanks - it’s been interesting to see a different point of view :)
It was an interesting, err, “conversation” I guess, but I am starting to see that the disagreement is based in the fact that you are viewing things through a particular lens.