Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

I've yet to be on an overly crowded British train whereas every train I've taken in German was overly crowded. Thankfully I always had a seat reservation.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Reservations are free on Virgin trains, so even if he couldn't get a seat it is because he is an incompetent commie knobhead unable to plan in advance 

[garbon]

I love people.

Tweets:

There was a 12yr old boy on that train. He sat on the floor with Corbyn and told him a story about hope. That boy's name? Albert Einstein.

American political scandal: he lied about that affair.
Italian political scandal: he lied about those bribes.
British political scandal:...

Jeremy Corbyn is the Ryan Lochte of public transport.

#traingate

[Agelastus]

Hope this doesn't damage his otherwise 100% correct point.

What, the dumb idea of a general re-nationalisation of the railways?

Going back to British Rail days would be a disaster for my local line; while I agree it wasn't done in the correct way you'll never convince me to support re-nationalisation over privatisation. More consolidation, perhaps, along with passing the responsibility of track maintenance to the companies actually using the line, but not re-nationalisation.

Yes, I take your point about the lack of investment for some lines pre-privatisation - but my line, despite being a significant commuter line into London, was treated as a distant third priority long before the investment rate lagged. Privatisation's visible effect for my line has been better trains, more trains and more direct route destinations.

Incidentally, the same is true of the buses - despite the cuts over the last few years I still have twice as many buses to choose from when travelling between my village/town and the nearest shopping town than I had pre-privatisation, plus a better service to the second choice local shopping town; in fact, I've been very impressed with the way Stagecoach has been juggling the cuts while keeping local services running in my area of the County. They've been quite imaginative, in fact, in combining routes to cut buses and costs while maintaining services.

Are you actually old enough to properly remember what the nationalised services were like? You're about 10 years younger than me, aren't you?

[Josquius]

...yet London is one part of the country where we do have nationalised railways and it has the best transport system around

Saying British Rail in its dying days when it had been dismembered and left to rot was rubbish ergo all nationalised railways will be rubbish just doesn't fly. Plenty of countries have nationalised railways which are more than fine.

[Barrister]

...yet London is one part of the country where we do have nationalised railways and it has the best transport system around

Saying British Rail in its dying days when it had been dismembered and left to rot was rubbish ergo all nationalised railways will be rubbish just doesn't fly. Plenty of countries have nationalised railways which are more than fine.

Our nationalised railway is a disaster.

[garbon]

...yet London is one part of the country where we do have nationalised railways and it has the best transport system around

Saying British Rail in its dying days when it had been dismembered and left to rot was rubbish ergo all nationalised railways will be rubbish just doesn't fly. Plenty of countries have nationalised railways which are more than fine.

I'm not sure you can constantly play the gov't only cares about London card but then it would suddenly be better if the gov't took over more infrastructure in the country. Why would they suddenly care?

[Agelastus]

...yet London is one part of the country where we do have nationalised railways and it has the best transport system around

Saying British Rail in its dying days when it had been dismembered and left to rot was rubbish ergo all nationalised railways will be rubbish just doesn't fly. Plenty of countries have nationalised railways which are more than fine.

I have family that travelled regularly (at least five times a week) on my local inter-city line before investment by British Rail faltered; the "hand-me-down" trains and lack of investment in stations etc. for that line preceded the lack of investment era that you have previously alluded to. One universal operator will naturally set priorities that don't suit large chunks of the network. In my case the East and West Coast Main Lines were prioritised over the one that runs between them despite the size of the commuting population along that line.

Unless you were one of the "favoured few" lines British Rail was a disaster; better to have multiple reasonably sized companies to ensure a better local focus. And I don't see how that model can exist unless the companies involved are partially to totally privatised given nationalisation-freaks seeming obsession with the "one big company" approach.

Not, as I've said before, that I'm entirely happy with the way privatisation was done; just that re-nationalisation is definitely not the answer.

Comparing the tightly focused TFL (covering mainly urbanised London controlled by London's Mayor) to the former British Rail (covering the whole country with areas with vastly different needs controlled by an effectively random minister) is a false equivalency.

[Josquius]

...yet London is one part of the country where we do have nationalised railways and it has the best transport system around

Saying British Rail in its dying days when it had been dismembered and left to rot was rubbish ergo all nationalised railways will be rubbish just doesn't fly. Plenty of countries have nationalised railways which are more than fine.

I'm not sure you can constantly play the gov't only cares about London card but then it would suddenly be better if the gov't took over more infrastructure in the country. Why would they suddenly care?

The bulk of the money will always go to the south, it's true.
Though devolution  and the consolidation of all the local transport into the government ran Transport for London really helped things in London a lot. I'm hopeful that the new move towards mayors might do the same for other parts of the country, in the north east for sure major expansion of metro services into logical places along existing lines is already being talked about.

I have family that travelled regularly (at least five times a week) on my local inter-city line before investment by British Rail faltered; the "hand-me-down" trains and lack of investment in stations etc. for that line preceded the lack of investment era that you have previously alluded to. One universal operator will naturally set priorities that don't suit large chunks of the network. In my case the East and West Coast Main Lines were prioritised over the one that runs between them despite the size of the commuting population along that line.

Unless you were one of the "favoured few" lines British Rail was a disaster; better to have multiple reasonably sized companies to ensure a better local focus. And I don't see how that model can exist unless the companies involved are partially to totally privatised given nationalisation-freaks seeming obsession with the "one big company" approach.

Not, as I've said before, that I'm entirely happy with the way privatisation was done; just that re-nationalisation is definitely not the answer.

Comparing the tightly focused TFL (covering mainly urbanised London controlled by London's Mayor) to the former British Rail (covering the whole country with areas with vastly different needs controlled by an effectively random minister) is a false equivalency.

Again you're engaging in false equivalencies, thinking nationalisation=a return to exactly how things were before privatisation, or in the 50s or whenever it is you're talking about here.
Of course British Rail wasn't great. It was operating in the mid 20th century, a time period where the government considered railways to be old technology and was gutting them in favour of a future of roads and helicopters.
In the modern world we now know better.
I don't know where  you're getting the idea that nationalisation means one big company. My favoured model is actually one where you have multiple groups along TFL lines handling local transport, albeit with heavy cooperation along the lines of the JR companies (one of the things to be learned from there. Selling off the profits isn't another) and a "British Rail 2.0" being there for the major inter-city routes.
Open access operators will continue to exist for niche routes.
But then even the one big company idea need not be a disaster if done right. DB and SBB for example.

[Sheilbh]

...yet London is one part of the country where we do have nationalised railways and it has the best transport system around

Sort of. And I'm sure commuters on Southern Rail, into London Bridge or Clapham Junction would dispute that.

Again you're engaging in false equivalencies, thinking nationalisation=a return to exactly how things were before privatisation, or in the 50s or whenever it is you're talking about here.

Exactly. We spend and invest almost double on rail than when it was nationalised. I'm not sure that it's a given that the same level of investment, publicly run, would necessarily be worse or that the improvement is due to privatisation as to the increase in public spending - especially since the mid-90s rail disasters.

[garbon]

Isn't Southern run by a private company?

[Josquius]

It is.
TFL is doing such a good job with the parts it does run though so....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tfls-london-overground-is-being-handed-control-over-londons-entire-suburban-rail-network-a6824761.html

[Sheilbh]

Isn't Southern run by a private company?

Sort of. One of the issues with Southern is that it doesn't actually exist:
http://www.citymetric.com/transport/southern-rail-mess-isn-t-privatisation-failure-it-s-return-1970s-2321

TFL is doing such a good job with the parts it does run though so....

Yes, but it very often runs services through franchises like the rest of the rail network (not to mention the other bits that are run through franchises: trams and buses, arguably bikes). My understanding is that a big difference with TFL is the way it structures those franchises (I believe technically they're not franchises because TFL sets fares, frequency etc) but many of the services are still operated by private companies but they win their role from TFL, who manage it more closely, rather than from the Department for Transport who don't.

Edit: Incidentally Tyr, if you dislike it now....
http://www.citymetric.com/transport/britain-s-rail-system-working-ok-once-so-competition-markets-authority-wants-stuff-it-1914

[Savonarola]

Only the reddest of dirty godless commies would nationalize the railways!



Oh right

I have seen the future and it always arrives late and frequently crashes.

[Tamas]

I could tell you about the state and cost of the Hungarian nationalised railway after about 60 years of glorious existence but it would be dismissed as untermensch inefficiency so I won't bother.

But for best results you need private property and competition, so that the organisation cares for both costs and quality of service.