Forum Topic

Does rail nationalisation actually make travelling better?

New transport minister Heidi Alexander has been on every news station this morning extolling the virtues of the takeover of South Western Railway. However, there was a worrying lack of detail about what this would actually mean for local commuters. She talked about improved punctuality but most of the delays into Waterloo arise because of signalling and track issues which comes under Network Rail a company already operated by the government.The litmus test as to whether this government sees this takeover as just an expansion of the public sector at the expense of the private sector or if it really wants to help rail passengers, is what it does with the Hounslow Loop. It makes zero sense for this to be managed by any other body than Transport for London. There would be an immediate service improvement due to integration. However, it probably would also mean that its revenues would be reduced as fares were harmonised with London Overground and London Underground. If this doesn't happen there probably will be zero noticeable benefit from ditching SWR.

Francis Rowe ● 80d10 Comments

Nationalising the TOCs will not make a single bit of difference unless both RIPs are brought under full state control. The same applies to the fragmented non permanent way infrastructure companies and the Rolling Stock leasing companies. Privatising those would have network-wide potential for improvement. Simply privatising the TOCs has disaster written all over it

N V Brooks ● 80d

They’d be better off nationalising the water companies and with zero compensation. Let those that borrowed pay the debts.

Russell Pearson ● 80d

Ok thanks.

Keith Iddon ● 80d

Because it was the first to have it's franchise expire.

David Burke ● 80d

I wonder why they've chosen one of the better performing companies to nationalise.

Keith Iddon ● 80d

I'm agnostic on this. Both approaches have advantages and drawbacks. Privatised rail has not been the complete disaster it has been presented as and full nationalised rail would face a huge challenge of empty government coffers and not being anywhere near the front of the queue.What matter here is whether or not the change is for the benefit of the service providers or service users - thus far things have gone well for the former but it is early days.

Francis Rowe ● 80d

I repeat state owned is state ruined, I do agree that they should be governance with teeth and water is a classic example all private operators should adhere to investment in infrastructure and not just huge dividends. All fines which are in their multi millions should be plough back into infrastructure where does that money go?

Jayne Thorburn ● 80d

And thinking that privatisation is the holy grail is ridiculous when you look at how many privatised public services are run just for the benefit of the pockets of the investors abroad without the necessary input into the services and benefit of the users right here right now. 

Philippa Bond ● 80d

A prediction. TFL takes control of the London suburban rail networks post release from their privatised franchises. I would give it no more than 90 days before they or tube divers go on strike for pay parity. Khan will, as ever, roll over and fares will go up.

N V Brooks ● 80d

State owned means state ruined, they were privatised for a reason they were dreadful under the state. Where is the money coming from for the state to run the railways? The size of the state needs to reduce not be enlarged it’s already close to 50% pretty shocking.

Jayne Thorburn ● 80d