So how would *you* vote if there was a referendum on ...?

Can we have irrational numbers?

hm. would irrational numbers mean giving all yr money away to the MANG?

No. It would mean the MANG giving money to me, via my cunning rounding hacks.

*excellent* in which case i shall sign up to the Bank of RickyT pronto.

"The Bank of RickyT, where pi = 3 0r 4, depending…"

I was thinking more along the lines that an irrational number gives you an average of 0.5p in rounding errors to skim off on per interest rate calculation, no matter how big the amount involved. But I like your suggestion better.

B-b-b-but! Returning to the question, can anyone PROVE that British Rail was any better than the current arrangement? Or is this simply NME-style kneejerk anti-Conservative rhetoric at work?

Proof by ratio of trains leaving/reaching destinations on-time, to not?
Proof by comparision of scales of lack of on-timeness?
Proof by comparison of existentitial-status ratios (eg how often you were told a train existed which actually didn't)?

To be fair, I think many of the routine failings which are now pandemic were already present in the unified but chronically underfunded system, but as dave q points out, blame Beeching for that. Or the mass desire to own two cars.

I don't actually believe the will or the talent exists within the powers-that-actually-be (fat cats plus tony's cronies, to use two rhyming cliches which set my teeth on edge) to set up in any short time a workable INTEGRATED TRANSPORT POLICY, and yes I worry that an unworkable one will just throw us back to square one AGAIN, but frankly the idea that thrusting businessmen armed w.the Right to Manage are going to achieve something better is silly. Nationalisation under a mixed economy is the least worst, because of the usual scope for under-the-desk fudging.

Well quite. That was my question, CAN you prove it woz better? Not really. I certainly can't tell the difference.

It may not have been better (tho it was) but at least you knew who to complain to. The current fractured system is a mass exercise in buck passing if nothing else (I have a friend who works in Train Care who spends much of her time trying to prove that the trains which failure are due to Railtrack, the train operator and not the lack of care she puts into looking after said trains because she is constantly passing the buck).

With one central management at least there can be vision and drive. I have been genuinely impressed by the improvement in London's buses over the past two years, its people friendly management which improves the easy stuff (single pricing scales, intergrated timetabling) whilst it goes about the serious and tough stuff.

Nobody is saying that pre-privatisation the train service was particularly great (and we all used to moan about it incessantly), DG, but almost everyone I know thinks it was better. The train lines I know best: Gypsy Hill to Victoria, Kings Cross to Leeds, Paddington to Teignmouth - were normally OK six days a week (Sunday was always hopeless) - now they are not. Sorry, I don't have stats to back up my argument, although I'll find them if you insist. But this view is shared by a lot of people who are generally in favour of privatising whatever is on offer (& none of whom have ever read a copy of the NME in their lives). Even the Economist, which tried to defend the policy for a while, now says it was a disaster - although clearly they are not in favour of renationalisation. What we've got now is chaos: the only question is which way forward.

Mark S is right: DG's father is typical of all BR commuters ever. British Rail was a national joke / laughing stock, but in an affectionate way - deep down, most people had some kind of notional respect for it. And I think most people *did* expect trains to be on time unless they weren't, whereas now most people expect trains not to be on time unless they are.

I'm sorry, but DG is wrong. I remember feeling a relationship and affinity with BR, as a traveller, however underfunded and neglected it was, that I don't believe anyone ever feels with any of the myriad companies that make up the privatised rail system. I hope the tabloids who used to rant and rave against BR as though they genuinely hated it (which I think very few of its customers did) choke on old "Speed Up British Snail" headlines, while the Mail desperately tries to persuade us that it never advocated privatisation.

Mark S has a point - no, people will never again feel the kind of respect / automatic admiration for the national rail system they did in the days of British Transport Films and the modernisation plan. All a renationalised rail company would be is a rail company providing a service, but if it was an efficient service in an increasingly integrated transport system, that'd be enough. Compared to the shambles we're in now, it'd still be a thing of utopian wonder.

And MJH is wrong about Birmingham New Street.

One body to manage the railways = good idea obviously, but I don't honestly see the need to nationalise rail as it would cost a fortune and probably not be much better. Surely some super hard bastard watchdog org would be enough if they could fine the trousers off rogue operators?

Thing is, since the railways will always have to be heavily subsidized, any private company would have to squeeze a profit out of us as passengers and as taxpayers, which is bound to cause resentment unless they do a fucking incredible job. Which is why while I have kind of changed my mind about phone lines and power, I still think that public ownership is the most logical way of running a railway.

I would soil my ballot.