jbilton wrote:Sorry...but why is it we're expected to take your statement as the truth...but ours are false.
AFAIK BR was making money 'hand over fist' towards the end...as more people began to use the railways (nothing to do with privatisation).
If they had been allowed to continue there would be no subsidiaries to pay these days.....and I would be paying less income tax.
This is fact...not fiction.
Cheers
Jon
I find it interesting that you make a point about how I must feel my statement is the truth and yours is false (you're putting words into my mouth there) and yet you go on to base an act of supposition as an article of fact.
BR was making money towards the end, no different to usual when the times were good, hands over fist? Well the Intercity and NSE sectors were in good health but the rest is debatable.
Now the major flaw to your argument, the act of supposition. You state that if BR had been allowed to continue as they were then there would be no need for subsidy and you would be paying less income tax. You state this as categorical.
BR no longer exists and has not existed for 10 years now, therefore there is no model a present day BR could be based upon, but we can make some basic assumptions (without stating them as fact) that;
1) The massive replacement of MK1 stock in the south would still have had to take place.
2) This would have neccessitated the power upgrades to the electrified parts of the network in the south.
3) The WCML would still have needed upgrading and new stock would still have needed ordering to replace the fleets of aging HSTs and Class 47+MKII rakes.
4) If the railway was still nationalised then then BR would have been responsible for the construction of the CTRL and the procurement of the new Kent Coast high speed trains.
5) If BR had continued with the development of ATP then it would have eventually been rolled out across the whole of the network.
6) Much of the damage to the finaces of the railway post-privatisation were caused by the fatal accidents that occurred.
Some of these accidents had their roots in working practices from the BR days and as Clapham and Hither Green had shown railway accidents can easily happen under nationalised railways especially where budget pressures are involved. Therefore it can be assumed that if any disasters had occurred since 1995 they would have also impacted BR.
A substantial amount of investment that would be required that could not be covered by any operating profit made by BR unless things were done on the cheap as had been the case for most of BRs history.
Therefore I can rightly argue that while BR might be able to cover the cost of running services during a strong economic period such as now without requiring subsidy it would still have required a large amount of subsidy for all of the above required investment.
Lastly, based on historical precedent, rather than doubling services as has been the case in many areas since privatisation, to control the increase in demand for rail travel during the strong economic growth of recent years BR would likely have dramatically increased fares even beyond what they presently are at.*
This would mean that;
A) You may have been paying less to BR indirectly through income tax but you may have been paying more directly through fares.
B) Without a significant increase in service frequencies there would be even more people using cars than there already are which would put an even greater strain on the motorways requiring the government to further invest in them so you could be paying more in income tax to the construction and upkeep of new motorways or upgrading of existing roads. There is no evidence to suggest that the present Labour government would not have been just as happy as the previous Tory government to invest in the roads over rail.
* - Yes, I am expecting the anti-Thatcher rant.
