Not all messages are displayed:
show all messages (49 of them)
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 Morris, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
― Robin Carmody, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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?
― DG, Saturday, 5 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
― Mark Morris, Saturday, 5 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link