Englandians: Redpill me on the train reform that is pissing people off over there

it's called private-public partnership, basically socialist fascism but with niggers

>a peak time Manchester-London return would set you back like £300

Attached: 1561040288319.png (500x913, 230K)

>Englandians
You mean the English?

Well at least its not Eastern Europe tier like ours.

Attached: 15315.4153.jpg (1024x779, 468K)

To be honest, if you don't have a car in the US you are an absolute failure. No need for trains then.

Attached: dd-irm.jpg (1600x1200, 840K)

Exactly why I own a car. Some of you Euros already get why white Americans shun public transportation. Like malls its full of niggers and nonwhites. The Chinese are okay on subways, but it stings knowing they're carpetbagging the fuck out of our cities and are responsible for the prices being so shit.

>a peak time Manchester-London return would set you back like £300
dude what? isn't a renting a helicopter with a few people cheaper?

>literally toothpaste on the side

The fuck are you on about?
HS2 you mean?
Look, the road and car mafia decimated the comfy train network in the 60s and 70s by axing routes and lines via a dodgy civil servant called Beeching which we could have used today.

Privitisation was ushered in in the 90s via EU directives and crony lobbyists using the same formula:
>Defund
>Degrade
>Therefore service drops and therfore Less passengers
>Sell off

But then after privitisation same lobbyists pump up demand by asking for public subsidies and encourage commuters to use the trains via higher house prices in the centres pushing commuters outwards and utilise monopolisation of rail infrasturcure (You can't realistically have competition if you live near X station and need to get to Y on 1 route - You aren't going to say "Let me take this company's train vs other company's train." if you've just moved house or work.

Now the EU's 4th rail package will enshrine privitisation for EU state run bidding companies and you will see why Britain's rail is shite giving gibmedats to Richard Fucking Branson with his fingers in your orifice.

>HS2
NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) voters are retarded; HS2 is needed for CAPACITY purposes including freight as the main track arteries are overloaded (Again, see Beeching cuts) but anti-HS2 campaigners never address this really and rely on
>But muh cost

Attached: virgin branson.jpg (600x401, 71K)

Jeez round trip from nyc to chicago would only be $200

You are exaggerating a bit. A return ticket from the Welsh coast to nottingham cost me like £140 back when I had a rail card

Indeed, the only way to make this train more Dutch is by hanging Gouda cheese wheels on the side.

Oh shit, a bong thread! Quick where's Greek user?

I got this.

Attached: 1565462999963.jpg (400x600, 84K)

Our stupid government literally sold all rail franchises to foreign nations. They simply do not care about upgrading our 200 year old railways.

It's quite literally cheaper to fly to work.

Let's assume you are 100% correct and greed is the motivating factor, as you seemingly imply.

Why would they purposefully ruin the profitability? Given the expense involved with maintaining operations, Is the railway worth more as a non-profitable organization?

That's gay. Trains, whether for commuters or freight, really make a lot of sense for certain things. It costs so much to set up rail in the first place that it's just a waste to not maintain it where it's providing a useful service.

Exactly what I was thinking. Wouldn't it be cheaper/more-profitable to (poorly)maintain the railway? How does destroying profitability and then selling it for scrap make sense, if there is no return on investment? Wouldn't destroying and replacing the railway with trucks or whatever create competition from rival mega-conglomerates?

I Don't necessarily doubt the factuality behind britbro's presented argument -it makes sense- but it seems to presuppose that greed was the sole motivating factor.

How hard was Britain's railway hit by the war? Did significant parts of it go unmaintained prior to the 60s?

Beeching was probably necessary, even if painful. The state was running, inefficiently, hundreds of tiny branch lines that couldn't be maintained. I would have loved to keep them but it would have required massive subsidies which the government simply didn't have in the 60s/70s (what with subsidising literally everything else).
I'm also skeptical about HS2. I'd love to have a proper high speed network in the UK but the price keeps rising (from 30B to 56B and now rumours of 70 or 100B). I dread to think what the ticket prices will be.

British railways were greatest when private investors threw money at every scheme available and built an enormous network in a few decades. Sure, most of them went bust, but it was a period of glorious capitalism that the state just can't replicate now.

Attached: uk rail_passengers.png (1024x559, 32K)

brahminsexposed.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/vedic-promoters-promote-mahabharat-to-promote-caste-system/
Check the entire site

Far be it from me to suggest that greed is a good thing, but it is important to put the profit motive in the right place. You're not going to get an effective operation if it doesn't matter whether or not it's operating a loss. You're not going to get a good service if the name of the game is just to Jew as much money from the government as possible.

Network rail (government owned) maintains the track, mostly paid for by taxes. Franchises own (or mostly rent) the trains and run them.

The railways are very old. Quite simply they put in the minimum amount maintenance necessary for the trains to operate, but not enough for it to work well.

But UK parliament is very inefficient. Most of the country's sewage system can't even bear the amount of new houses built. 1/4 of children live in poverty, not relative poverty, ACTUAL poverty.

Do you call yourselves Finlandian in finland?

Yeah, you guys are on an entirely different level where bureaucratic fuckery is concerned.

What's with all the poles and wires? It's so ugly.

It's electric. You'll occasionally see the same thing here from back in the era of trolley cars and whatnot.

With privatization you always lose.

>Why would they purposefully ruin the profitability?

Why do corrupt people do what they do eh?
To posit privitisation as the ONLY solution to the ensuing malaise and then ransack the assets; which they did and sell it off cheap to mates at mates rates
See: Royal Mail et al as a classic example or pick up any archived edition of Private Eye. Or simply peruse the nefarious links of the current Department for Transport Head, Peter Wilkinson for a classic modern example.
You could look at Carillion, Capita, Serco, Carlyle Group etc too.

Public Services put out to tender to Corps. who then allow Public Servants to craft the very tendering process and then reward those same civil servants with fat consultancy jobs in the very firms who pick up the contracts.

This is crony capitalism AKA corruption at it's finest; and no, I'm not saying the Unions aren't corrupt either.
Again the formula is always the same:
>Defund
>Devalue
>Privatise
>Cash in
Next
>Given the expense involved with maintaining operations, Is the railway worth more as a non-profitable organization?
The public STILL subsidise vast swathes of private rail operators.
The railway is worth more on some routes and less on some routes; that is the point of a national rail network - the profitable parts are meant to subsidise the less profitable parts but citizen wise - essential parts.
Again see Royal Mail.

Now correlate that graph with public funding of the rail network please.

What said
Although, it only looks this way in front of train stations.

Nah dude. I forget which line it is. It might just be the regular old LIRR main branch heading into Penn Station from the island. But it's fascinating to look at all the old overhead electrical infrastructure that is no longer in operation. It just goes on for miles and miles. It's almost surprising the wind hasn't brought more of it down by now. That must have cost an arm and a leg.

HS2 is an EU directive, no one actually wants it
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-European_high-speed_rail_network

>Beeching was probably necessary, even if painful.

It simply wasn't necessary. Especially when you see his departments links to road and construction and car firms. See Brimingham as the classic example of state vandalism

If he was sincere why would he turn up to record passenger numbers at deliberately off-peak times to gauge the usage?
Case in point, the South West which was just straight butchery.

>I'm also skeptical about HS2. I'd love to have a proper high speed network in the UK but the price keeps rising (from 30B to 56B and now rumours of 70 or 100B). I dread to think what the ticket prices will be.

The issue is and always was capacity. You cannot solve it in it's current setup private or public. You can only run x amount of trains. The cost of HS2 is a concern, but rail is the only way to move people en-mass efficiently, safely.

>British railways were greatest when private investors threw money at every scheme available and built an enormous network in a few decades. Sure, most of them went bust, but it was a period of glorious capitalism that the state just can't replicate now.

Ermm, yes and no.
Safety always suffered and as tracks cannot be laid in a haphazard way.
The nationalised unified service suffered for a variety of reasons; namely funding, will and vision.

Again, European state funded rail has shown to be far better than our mess and now they are getting the chop chop. Also ironically, state run EU companies can bid to run our rail networks but somehow we can't run it ourselves??

See LNER, Stagecoach and the plethora of shite flung on taxpayers by companies that bid won and bailed.

Not necessarily always.
Depends on the balance between citizen necessity, cost, efficiency, value (both monetarily and social us) and corruption.
You can make the argument that the telecom's industry in the UK needed to be privatised at the time; though BT still have an unfair advantage as they ended up with a fat chunk of essential telecom infrastructure after being sold.

>no one actually wants it
Top kek.
Typical NIMBY
Explain to me how you solve the West Coast Main Line capacity issue without HS2 being built?

That EU Directive is technically already met with HS1 via the Channel Tunnel and Eurostar.
The main EU directive to worry about is the 4th railway package.

The state of my spacing

Beeching should have replaced the cuts with matching bus services but they didn't

the so-called capacity issue is a meme, but even if it were not, spending hundreds of billions on HS2 is not a sensible answer. literally the only reason to do that is because of the EU directives