The inflated costs of new projects isn't really related to privatisation though is it.Riche wrote:The ridiculously high costs that projects now cost and the amount of time they take is obscene. If the railway is going to cope with growth, it cannot continue to be run like this.
Privatisation vs Nationalisation - The Debate
Moderator: Moderators
-
rodw1997
- Been on the forums for a while
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: East Sussex, near .. well, nowhere really
Whilst it's tempting to look back fondly at BR days, one should remember that the rail network in the couple of decades before privatisation suffered tremendously. Investment levels in infrastructure were poor, waste and inefficiency was rife within the organisation, and it was a time of frequent strikes and disruption.
Privatisation was pushed through by the gvernment for a number of reasons, many quite wrong and with no relation to improving rail services. As such, the environment was totally wrong and very few of the claimed benefits ever materialised, at least in this part of the world. That's with the possible exception of the regular repainting of station benches in the gaudiest liveries of the latest short-term franchisee!
The situation has now matured and positive benefits are evident. The Chiltern line has been mentioned, I would point to the Uckfield line as another example of things working well under a private TOC. For decades the line was systematically run down by successive public and private managements - singling of the line, hopelessly unreliable services, dirty and inadequate stock, and only a few direct services to London a day. Now, Southern have introduced efficient and comfortable Turbostars, bright and helpful staff, and an hourly direct service into London with extra trains during peaks. Instead of barely a handful of passengers to be seen on the platforms, the station car parks are overflowing.
No matter how good Southern may prove to be at running trains, they are totally dependent on the track infrastructure which IMHO should be nationally funded and controlled. Phew, need a lie down after that.
Privatisation was pushed through by the gvernment for a number of reasons, many quite wrong and with no relation to improving rail services. As such, the environment was totally wrong and very few of the claimed benefits ever materialised, at least in this part of the world. That's with the possible exception of the regular repainting of station benches in the gaudiest liveries of the latest short-term franchisee!
The situation has now matured and positive benefits are evident. The Chiltern line has been mentioned, I would point to the Uckfield line as another example of things working well under a private TOC. For decades the line was systematically run down by successive public and private managements - singling of the line, hopelessly unreliable services, dirty and inadequate stock, and only a few direct services to London a day. Now, Southern have introduced efficient and comfortable Turbostars, bright and helpful staff, and an hourly direct service into London with extra trains during peaks. Instead of barely a handful of passengers to be seen on the platforms, the station car parks are overflowing.
No matter how good Southern may prove to be at running trains, they are totally dependent on the track infrastructure which IMHO should be nationally funded and controlled. Phew, need a lie down after that.