Should a country's train service be nationalised?

Should a country's train service be nationalised?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/mbEfzuCLoAQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No

worked real well with the ruskies right?

Some train companies should be nationalized. It's because certain areas will not be profitable, but are required for the citizens living in the area.

Yes

No. If anything, train, roads, buses, etc should all be privatized.

no you fucking idiot.

But private sector trains are (usually) extremely expensive.

yes because rich people are more likely to start businesses and run businesses such as the train industry and this promotes a feedback loop in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. so the only way to break this loop is to nationalize the train industry.

Yes. The UK train service was privatised and went to shit. I have to commute on slow, uncomfortable, unreliable pacer trains built 30 years ago.

>Should _____ be nationalized?

Never, collectivists OUT OUT OUT.

Lol wtf what line is that? Cornwall?

Name one thing the gov runs well

didn't know yours were not nationalised

best service, most punctual trains - guess Austria gets something right once

just use cars xD

I remember a long time ago, Sargon of Akkad made a pretty detailed video on how nationalizing the British rail system only made travel by train less efficient and more expensive. France's train system on the other hand is nationalized.

If you want to see the difference, look up how long it takes to go from London (a capital) to Glasgow (another capital) by train vs going from Paris (a capital) to Strasbourg (the EU capital). Paris-Strasbourg is 2 hours, London-Glasgow about 7 hours. Hell, even Paris-Marseille is a shorter (in time) distance to cross than London-Glasgow.

Our health service is still good. It gets an unwarranted hard time from people that take it for granted.

I thought it was on the brink of collapse?

NO, NO and one more time NO.

The privatization of the train service in my country has significantly improved quality of the service while significantly lowered the prices (like 50%)...

Yes, each and every services should be nationalized.
The word itself is service (for the citizens), they should be not for profit, they should allow for everyone to have a chance and increase fair competition.
Privatization in Italy has increased the quality in high profit sectors and lowered the quality in the not profitable ones. We now have top class fast trains for long distances and no trains at all for local movements. You need to take your car, increasing congestion, cost and time spent to reach your workplace.
Big companies gain, everyone else lose.

no

Nope.


Also man, considering the shape of my country, I wish we had bullet trains going all the way from north to south.

Nationalization in a capitalist country is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than in a communist retard.

Anything is better than a commie country.

Yeah! Equalize the opportunity! No one person should be allowed to own more than one company.

Japan's rail is all privatised right? They seem to do a pretty good job.

No, atleast in Finland it doesn't work. The quality is ok but the prices are enormous. Once I flew to Rome from Helsinki (capital) and it was cheaper than a 350 km train ride.

Because Japan is one of the humble and nicest people in the world. Their CEOs don't mind if they waste some money on building a train station a little town of 50 people really need and won't result in profits. However Europeans and american CEO would refuse it.

Its mainly because our nationalized train rails have huge profit interests which retarded.

Never said that.
I'm for a national free market, but infrastructures and services should help the economy and be state driven.
You can own whatever you want unless you hurt the national economy as a whole.

Should its Road System?

Please, teach me, master! Czechia is by far more capitalist than Sweden is.
Also, by privatization i did not mean the transition from communism to capitalism. The infrastructure here in Czechia is still in hands of the state, but transportation itself has been opend to private companies.

If you can't find a seat, no other option.

The Northern Rail Sheffield line.

they are here and it's not working at all, and I think the issue would just be privatizing but one company on a determined area

Should its cars?

That means a monopoly on that area, and that is a bullshit!

no, that just means it is totally under control and the company will have to done good or they'll be fired.

And what exactly is the problem with multiple companies servicing one area??

why not, but I just highlighted the fact that a company should not control more than a specific area, the goal is having a lot of companies with quality service cause of the short area they have to deserve.

Also, totally undear control of one company is the definition of monopoly.

would not be bad if their goal were making people happy, offering them a nice voyage and not winning tons of buckets but just some, but I'm maybe stupid and dreaming.

No.

Ayn Rand wrote a documentary about why.

Yes, if the population is deserving.

>I remember a long time ago, Sargon of Akkad made a pretty detailed video on how nationalizing the British rail system only made travel by train less efficient and more expensive. France's train system on the other hand is nationalized.

Because it was underfunded and left to rot by successive governments

Defunding and privatising is the standard capitalist method.

Looks similar to northern rail less the colours.

>Ayn Rand wrote
Stopped reading there lmao

It wouldn't change anything either way if no one is willing to invest in it

But this is very naive. The point of a company is to make money, in the first place, if there is no competition in pricing than the prices will only rise.

that's precisely where the system has a failure.
A country cannot fully control the railroad in his own territory.
Localized companies can make a good job (I heard some good things about the countryside Irish trains, if someone can argue) but they do not have to be focused on profit, maybe the country can help theme or something idk. Sure they have to live and make employment and develop themselves but I think it can be accomplished all in proposing nice service.

Our public transport is fucking shit so yes.

Really bad idea, especially in America, where we use trains for freight more so than in Europe.
Not to mention the other various reasons passenger trains aren't good for America, like dispersed cities, impracticality of getting land, worse cities for walking to and from train stations, etc.
youtu.be/mbEfzuCLoAQ

But companies are inherently focused on profit (if it is private).
You can not build a system based on best-case scenarios (comapnies focusing on hepling people).

I think the only way, how the system that you are proposing would maybe work, is in higly regulated enviroment (i.e. regulation of pricing policy, etc..). But since i am from a former communist country i am not in favor of regulations.

I think a natural, deregulated system with competition can cope with worst-case scenarios (idiotic peaple focusing only on self-profit) better than a higly regulated system.

Also, i am of to bed, so, bye, Frog!

yes, only reason to privatize is to save costs.

It did...

that is shit talk. They probaly made a deal with the goverment when the goverment sold the contract. The contract probaly sayed that the compani need to serv all people agreed upon.

The UK system is fucked because it's subsidized by the government - it's not properly privatised. Train companies know they can fuck around (because people HAVE to get to work) because the know the government won't call them on their bullshit but will actually help them pay for it. Need track relaid or repaired? The government will help pay. Need new stock? The government will help pay. And so on. It's a fucking mess.

And the worst thing about it?

>76% of MTR (Crossrail and half of London Overground) is owned by the Hong Kong government.

>Arriva UK Trains (the other half of the Overground as well as Alliance Rail Holdings, Arriva TrainCare, Arriva Trains Wales, Chiltern Railways, CrossCountry, Grand Central, Tyne & Wear Metro) is owned by Deutsche Bahn AG, which is owned by the German government.

>Keolis (owns 45% of First TransPennine Express and 35% of Govia, which runs Thameslink and Great Northern, London Midland, Southeastern, and Southern and Gatwick Express) is owned by French National Railways Corporation (70%) and the Quebec Deposit & Investment Fund (30%).

>Abellio (owns 50% of Serco-Abellio, which runs Merseyrail and Northern Rail, and runs Abellio Greater Anglia and Abellio ScotRail) is owned by the Dutch national rail operator Nederlandse Spoorwegen.

>Heathrow Airport Holdings (Heathrow Express, Heathrow Connect) is owned by, amongst others, three sovereign wealth funds - Qatar Holding (20%), Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (11.20%) and China Investment Corporation (10%) - and Quebec Deposit & Investment Fund (12.62%).

Hong Kong, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Qatar, Singapore, China and parts of Canada clearly think that state-owned railways are a good idea. Especially if they run the UK's railways and the profits then subsidise their domestic services so yeah - fucking nationalise it.

No, it was privatised for a reason, these newfaqgs dont know how bad it was

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD WE PAY MORE TAX JUST SO THE LONDON BASED BOUGIOUS ELITE CAN TRAVEL IN COMFORT FROM THE HOME COUNTIES?

FUCK THEM

Yes