Hi
Can someone explain why BR became privatised
And was the service was better before the privatisation.
Thank You
_____________________________________________________________
Andy
Can anyone tell me why British Rail became privatised?
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2003 20.03
- Location: West Midlands
In a nutshell - to save the state keep funding it.
That's about it really. Oh and probably for reasons of competition as well. Course, eight years down the line, we've now got modern trains on crappy tracks and crappy trains on even crappier tracks. So much for privatisation.
That's about it really. Oh and probably for reasons of competition as well. Course, eight years down the line, we've now got modern trains on crappy tracks and crappy trains on even crappier tracks. So much for privatisation.
And Thank God Connex got stripped of its licsenceNeil Jones wrote:In a nutshell - to save the state keep funding it.
That's about it really. Oh and probably for reasons of competition as well. Course, eight years down the line, we've now got modern trains on crappy tracks and crappy trains on even crappier tracks. So much for privatisation.
It was the most horrible Train Company ever,
The best is Anglia hardly any delays.
-
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Sat 16 Aug, 2003 23.34
- Location: London
Well it certainly failed on that score - the privatised railway gets a far greater government subsidy than BR did.Neil Jones wrote:In a nutshell - to save the state keep funding it.
Well that never really happened. 'Open access' was talked about but there isn't the capacity for serious competition between operators except on a very few routes (London-Birmingham, London-Gatwick and a few others)Neil Jones wrote:Oh and probably for reasons of competition as well.
Generally the way the privatisation was carried out protected the operators from competition.
Purely a political matter - the Tory government believed that private companies, subject to competition (no matter how hard it might be to provide realistic, practical competition in a particular market), were better than state monopolies.Barrett wrote:Hi
Can someone explain why BR became privatised
Oh, and Maggie hated trains with a vengeance, for some reason!
Not true, in 1998/99 (the only info I have), the state subsidy was 30% lower than pre-privatisiation.James Hatts wrote:Well it certainly failed on that score - the privatised railway gets a far greater government subsidy than BR did.Neil Jones wrote:In a nutshell - to save the state keep funding it.
Privatisation was actually fairly well done; you are never going to get direct competition between any two stations.Well that never really happened. 'Open access' was talked about but there isn't the capacity for serious competition between operators except on a very few routes (London-Birmingham, London-Gatwick and a few others)Neil Jones wrote:Oh and probably for reasons of competition as well.
Generally the way the privatisation was carried out protected the operators from competition.
The 25 train operating companies, competing due to, an arguably contestable market, which leads to more efficient production as they want to renew their franchises. The problems of the train companies not being willing to invest because of uncertainty is offset because trains are leased from Rolling Stock Compnaies.
Railrack is where things messed up, because a natural monopoly was put into private, profiteering hands.
As a whole (and i'm not daying de-privatisation is an awful idea), but more trains are cleaner and on time. Train fares have also fallen... for off peak, but risen for peak; there maybe some concerns for environmental issues (ie. lower peak fares to decrease car use).
A few years of privatisation are not going to correct decades of under investment
-
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Sat 16 Aug, 2003 23.34
- Location: London
Expected public sector support for railways in 2003/04 - £3.84 billionMich wrote:Not true, in 1998/99 (the only info I have), the state subsidy was 30% lower than pre-privatisiation.James Hatts wrote:Well it certainly failed on that score - the privatised railway gets a far greater government subsidy than BR did.Neil Jones wrote:In a nutshell - to save the state keep funding it.
In British Rail’s last year as operator of an integrated railway the total subsidy was £1.325 billion (at 2003-04 prices).
I've heard that they are probably one of the worst, but I have to say one of the worst is the Arriva Transpenninexpress (It is spelt like that), as well we had was nothing but strikes, the service is rather poor, most of the time there were no extra seats for busy journeys and the extras like food and drink are very expensive, e.g. A can of Pepsi was 85pBarrett wrote:And Thank God Connex got strapped of its licsenceNeil Jones wrote:In a nutshell - to save the state keep funding it.
That's about it really. Oh and probably for reasons of competition as well. Course, eight years down the line, we've now got modern trains on crappy tracks and crappy trains on even crappier tracks. So much for privatisation.
It was the most horrible Train Company ever,
The best is Anglia hardly any delays.
Though the franchise was given to First North Western and Keolis, can't say I've heard of Keolis, FNW are more known for the slower service to Manchester, but they are more reliable.
Blimey a can of pepsi 85p thats silly. Arriva Transpennie off with it headnwtv2003 wrote:I've heard that they are probably one of the worst, but I have to say one of the worst is the Arriva Transpenninexpress (It is spelt like that), as well we had was nothing but strikes, the service is rather poor, most of the time there were no extra seats for busy journeys and the extras like food and drink are very expensive, e.g. A can of Pepsi was 85pBarrett wrote:And Thank God Connex got strapped of its licsenceNeil Jones wrote:In a nutshell - to save the state keep funding it.
That's about it really. Oh and probably for reasons of competition as well. Course, eight years down the line, we've now got modern trains on crappy tracks and crappy trains on even crappier tracks. So much for privatisation.
It was the most horrible Train Company ever,
The best is Anglia hardly any delays.
Though the franchise was given to First North Western and Keolis, can't say I've heard of Keolis, FNW are more known for the slower service to Manchester, but they are more reliable.
So it was the conservatives plan to privatise the raillway?
Maggie was the devil in hiding.
And i have noticed that the goverment is spending more on trains then then it was with British Rail :roll:
What has transport in this country come to.
1) Delays
2)Train Accidents
3)Dirty Trains
4)Crappy Tracks
Maggie was the devil in hiding.
And i have noticed that the goverment is spending more on trains then then it was with British Rail :roll:
What has transport in this country come to.
1) Delays
2)Train Accidents
3)Dirty Trains
4)Crappy Tracks
It was the Tories plan, but it wasn't in the Thatcherite era, otherwise it would have been privatised at the same time as the Utility companies. The railways got privatised in the mid 1990's, I think 1996, but you'll have to check that, as I still remember using Intercity in the mid 1990's.Barrett wrote:So it was the conservatives plan to privatise the raillway?
Maggie was the devil in hiding.
And i have noticed that the goverment is spending more on trains then then it was with British Rail :roll:
What has transport in this country come to.
1) Delays
2)Train Accidents
3)Dirty Trains
4)Crappy Tracks
The problem was with it that they privatised whilst new trains were being used for old tracks or tracks that weren't designed for new trains, they really should have upgraded the tracks first and then privatised it.
But delays are just common I'm afraid however annoying they can be.