PREAMBLE:
This Act repeals the National Rail Act

DEFINITION
This bill will repeal the National Rail Act, and a free and just auction will be held to sell stakeholds in the National Rail system.

---

There is no need for a rail system to be under Government control, it's a burden on the Government and a more effiecient rail service could be had using free market principles.

This bill may not go to debate, but it is to foster conversation about what people think of the state of the rail network.

I am glad that we are willing to pre-debate this. I'm still studying the rail network, even after I rode extensively on my July 2009 election tour.

My gut instinct is to potentially support potential privatised facilities and perhaps the vehicles that run on the tracks, but we maintain the physical rails to travel on.

This is to mainly stir conversation more then anything else.

I think a concept where the Government maintains majority ownership, but privatises 49% of it would be good. That way the free market gets a say in what happens, but we retain ulimate control. Over time, we can reduce the percentage of Government ownership to 0 but the infrastructure will be there to support a efficient rail network.

I think not.

Free market principles fail to apply correctly on the railway network due to its inherant monopoly on high speed internal travel, high barriers to entry and little room for expansion. Thus I oppose your claim that a non-government run system would be more efficient and your effort to create one.

The National Rail Bill was superceded by the Comprehensive Railways Act anyway, repealing this would do nothing.

Regardless, the point of this conversation is to discuss privatising the rail network.

Pretty much what HRH King Zog said. The railway industry is not one that applies to free market principles.

That, and if you look at the rail industry in Britain compared to that of most Western European countries, the private rail industry there is not uhm... Brilliant... Whereas the Western European countries have excellent rail systems as an offset of government investment.

How is a privately owned state-enforced monopoly any better than a publically owned state-enforced monopoly?

Exactly. I know I may have come to this conclusion a little late, but the rail industry is not one in which competition can be effectively introduced. I see no reason for privatisation.

*Jumps into air in celebration before rushing to Commons bar and buying everyone a drink :D *...

^_^

I can say more left wing things if you buy me more drinks. Alcohol seems to turn me left wing. Seriously, I have been known to make passionate speeches in support of Gordon Brown and socialism while pissed.

That's okay. I just wanted to have a discussion about it, and I've succeeded in that objective. Case closed.

You're both right and wrong. Nationalization of passenger transport can be a good thing, but it is better on the freight side to have competition.

(note: post contains ooc references)
Depends what you mean. After all, how would it operate?

A completely competitive rail network is disasterous for freight - which is one of the main reasons why Britain's rail network mainly consolidated into the big four (LMS, LNER, GWR and Southern) during the late 19th and early 20th century - in order to end the extortionate prices that each company was charging the others to run trains on their lines. This in turn was the main thing that effectively turned Britain's rail network from competitive to four local monopolies.

Those companies that refused to sell off to the big companies were easy prey to the growing road hauliage industry and the larger railways, both of which could easily transport the freight over longer distances and to more destinations. Many of those ended up selling to the larger companies or going out of business. The handful that were clinging on when the rail network was nationalised were in desperate decline and all that lasted that long - without exception - fell to the Beeching Axe.

However, if you mean a situation whereby all the infrastructure is publicly financed and owned and just the operation (with permission and at a suitable fee) on the lines being done by competitive and prviate firms then yes I agree.