State run v state owned

[T00ts]

Probably true — if you're talking Swiss Rail — especially as they've also needed to use different traction systems. But the recent and current records of efficiency and timekeeping seems to show they're very nearly a silk purse...

Good one!

[patman post]

Haven't railways been a bit of a pig's ear since their inception? Don't I remember that at one time all the different regions used different gauges and have always been a bit of a mess?

Probably true — if you're talking Swiss Rail — especially as they've also needed to use different traction systems. But the recent and current records of efficiency and timekeeping seems to show they're very nearly a silk purse...

[T00ts]

It's the abilities of the government advisers and the railway management.

If you think the UK model is a dog's breakfast, take a look at the Swiss Federal Railways — several national languages, challenging geography, but still managing an exemplary punctuality record...

PS: The Swiss nationalised their railways in the late 1800's...

Haven't railways been a bit of a pig's ear since their inception? Don't I remember that at one time all the different regions used different gauges and have always been a bit of a mess?

[patman post]

Just announced - Wales to renationalise its rail services.    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54635421

Abellio Scotrail, the rail operator in Scotland, is already state-owned by the Dutch government.

Railways in Northern Ireland are owned and  run by NI Railways, which is owned by the UK Government. NIR was never part of British Rail and it uses a wider track gauge.

Network Rail, which owns most of the rail infrastructure in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) is owned by the UK government.

In England, Northern Trains and the LNER are state-owned 'operator of last resort' organisations, after the failure of commercial franchises.

All looks a bit chaotic. Nobody would have ever dreamed up this scenario as the ideal way to run a national rail system.

It's the abilities of the government advisers and the railway management.

If you think the UK model is a dog's breakfast, take a look at the Swiss Federal Railways — several national languages, challenging geography, but still managing an exemplary punctuality record...

PS: The Swiss nationalised their railways in the late 1800's...

[HDQQ]

Just announced - Wales to renationalise its rail services.    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54635421

Abellio Scotrail, the rail operator in Scotland, is already state-owned by the Dutch government.

Railways in Northern Ireland are owned and  run by NI Railways, which is owned by the UK Government. NIR was never part of British Rail and it uses a wider track gauge.

Network Rail, which owns most of the rail infrastructure in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) is owned by the UK government.

In England, Northern Trains and the LNER are state-owned 'operator of last resort' organisations, after the failure of commercial franchises.

All looks a bit chaotic. Nobody would have ever dreamed up this scenario as the ideal way to run a national rail system.

[HDQQ]

Technically it's the difference between fascism and communism. To all practical purposes, there is no difference.

I thought it had more to do with the style of goose-step.

[Baff]

A comment by HDQQ has prompted a train of thought for me.

I would favour state-owned companies rather than state-run corporations Apologies for theft HDQQ

What difference would this make? State owned suggests someone appointed to run it day to day - for a profit? How would this be any different from what we have now? I thought the Government gave out time limited franchises but surely that means State owned.
Can anyone explain?

Technically it's the difference between fascism and communism.

To all practical purposes, there is no difference.

[HDQQ]

With a state-owned company there would be no private shareholders expecting dividends and speculators wouldn't be able buy and sell shares. Also it would be a bit less controversial if the government needs to lend or give such a company some funds to see them through difficulties. But it would still be able to operate mainly independently, run by experts in the field (hopefully) rather than directly controlled by government as would be the case with a state corporation. Deutshe Bahn, the German national rail operator, is a state-owned commercial company that also owns Arriva rail and bus operations in the UK, although they have divested some of their UK operations in the last year or two.

I think the test for whether a company should become state-owned should simply be whether or not it would be better for the nation if that happened - seen objectively. That might well be the case for rail operators, electricity or water supply but obviously not for things like restaurants, jewellers or poodle parlours.

[johnofgwent]

A comment by HDQQ has prompted a train of thought for me.

I would favour state-owned companies rather than state-run corporations Apologies for theft HDQQ

What difference would this make? State owned suggests someone appointed to run it day to day - for a profit? How would this be any different from what we have now? I thought the Government gave out time limited franchises but surely that means State owned.
Can anyone explain?

Weeeelllll ............

State owned seems clear enough. The State owns the assets. Which these days means holds the debts that nobody else would buy. I'm thinking Northern Rock. Who is the CEO. Then there is Direct Railways Plc, the company the government keep handy to take control of the rail franchises Virgin admit they can't get to go all the way and Stagecoach say are beset by bandits and cowboys.

State CONTROLLED seems a little more confusing. I suppose this means a private sector company unable to do much at all without state approval. Most of our pharmaceutical and defence companies fall into this

[T00ts]

I don't think either is a particularly great idea, a cooperatively run enterprise would be a better idea.

Co-op with whom?

[Borg Refinery]

I don't think either is a particularly great idea, a cooperatively run enterprise would be a better idea.

[T00ts]

A comment by HDQQ has prompted a train of thought for me.

I would favour state-owned companies rather than state-run corporations Apologies for theft HDQQ

What difference would this make? State owned suggests someone appointed to run it day to day - for a profit? How would this be any different from what we have now? I thought the Government gave out time limited franchises but surely that means State owned.
Can anyone explain?