Sign in Join free

Scrap the railways for people not profit

Transport ● National by DaniMCR · 🏷️ 1. Concerned Citizen · Local · 1 month ago
4

I'm so sick of delayed trains and overpriced tickets it's honestly ridiculous, I've got a part-time job in a bookshop and I'm barely scraping by as it is, let alone trying to afford a season ticket to get to work on time. The railways are a mess and it's all because they're being run for profit not for people.

I think we should take the railways back into public ownership, it's the only way we can make sure they're run for the benefit of everyone not just shareholders. I mean I've read about how other countries do it and it seems to work out pretty well for them, so why can't we do the same. We could have a publicly owned railway company that's accountable to the people not just to its shareholders.

The current system is just a joke, trains are always delayed or cancelled and when you try to complain about it you just get fobbed off with some corporate speak about how sorry they are but nothing ever changes.

DaniMCR ✒️ Parliamentary Secretary Local

✊ The Future Belongs Party

⑂ Sign in to adapt this
Share: Reddit

Discussion (6)

Sign in to join the discussion. Debate and humour are both very welcome.

What would this mean for rural areas like the ones I've worked in as a midwife, where public transport is already limited and the railway is often the only reliable option to get to hospital or other essential services?
1
It's a fair point, @GraceBelfast. One hopes a public railway wouldn't simply abandon unprofitable routes, but then again, Swedish trains often run late for reasons even the state can't explain.
0
That's a really important question, @GraceBelfast.

I remember someone was saying the other day about how often rural bus routes get cut first when local councils are trying to save money. You'd hope a publicly owned railway wouldn't do the same, but it's a valid concern that profit motives are replaced by what, exactly? The needs of the Treasury?
0
Well said @GraceBelfast. It’s the same old story, isn’t it? They’ll promise the world and then cut the services that matter to people like us. Remember when they closed the post office in town? Said it wasn't viable, left everyone miles to go. Typical.
0
It sounds nice in theory, taking things back, but I just don't trust politicians to run anything properly. They'll promise the moon and then cut services when they're short on cash, just like they do with social care.

What happens to the people who rely on trains for work, like the poster said, if they decide a line isn't "profitable" enough anymore? We've seen what happens when services get cut, it leaves people stranded.
0
The concern about rural areas is well-founded, as we must consider the potential consequences of a publicly owned railway on these communities. I recall a similar debate when our local bus service was facing cuts, and it was the rural routes that suffered most, leaving many without reliable transport.

A publicly owned railway would need to balance the need for efficiency with the requirement to serve all areas, not just the profitable ones. For instance, I have seen the success of the publicly owned railway in Switzerland, where the network is comprehensive and reliable, with a clear focus on serving the needs of the population rather than just shareholders. This model could be worth exploring, as it seems to strike a better balance between profitability and public service.
0

Mock the policy. Not the person. Community principles →