|
Wanna Argument?
Rail privatisation - a concept long overdue?
The debate about how the railways should be run have been brought into sharp focus by recent accidents and the resulting concerns over safety. The crash at Hatfield was thought to have been caused by faulty rails and as a result speed limits have been imposed in a number of places throughout the network. There was chaos on the railways while it was all sorted out. There have then
been further accidents with the one at Potters Bar thought to have been caused by loose nuts on a set of points. So who is responsible? Is it the fault of the government? Railtrack? The train regulator? How do the train operating companies fit into all this?
 |
|
 |
|
|
| |
The railways should never have been privatised. The service has deteriorated and safety has been compromised. |
 |
|
 |
| |
Privatising has been the best possible thing for the railways. Passenger numbers are right up and investment is growing faster than it ever was under British Rail. Privatisation has increased efficiency. |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Privatisation - why?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Railways are a monopoly and privatising a monopoly will just leave the company in a position to exploit consumers. It was bad enough before, a private monopoly will just make it worse. |
|
|
|
| |
Look around at the number of train companies now, there is lots of competition. The government split the industry up when it was privatised and competition between firms will give much better results for consumers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Railways - one for all or all for one?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Just look at the profits that Railtrack have been making. Shareholders have been making money hand over fist, while the railway system has been languishing. |
|
|
|
| |
Successive governments have put nothing into the railways, so the problems have been building up for years. Railtrack is at last starting to address them, but it will take time to correct years of neglect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing in the straight and narrow?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The railways were supposed to be properly regulated, but the regulators have no teeth at all and have proved themselves ineffective. |
|
|
|
| |
That's not fair on the regulators. They have removed the franchise from one train operating company and have been imposing fines on them if they don't meet their targets. Anyway, the market mechanism is a more effective way of allocating resources. If there is a demand for services then the market will provide it in the most efficient way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulation - why, who, how and when?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The most important thing of the lot is the record on safety and this alone should tell us that the railways should never have been privatised. |
|
|
|
| |
Travelling by rail is still the safest way to travel. Just walking is a hundred times more dangerous than travelling by train. I think I'll be taking the train thank you! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Railways - safe and sound?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Well whatever else is the case, the evidence against privatisation is clear as a user. Prices have risen and services and reliability have deteriorated. |
|
|
|
| |
So if that's the case why are so many more people using the railways and why are the reliability figures so much better than before? You've been watching a different railway to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Train prices - part of rip-off Britain?
|
