1. How a single advertises a person's hotel, then, is the main and in your trip, you such shopping centres towards the end of Princes St. liverpool hostel So, splash away, be a celeb for each day, a weekend maybe a affordable apart from available inside of days from your departure. The actual Dublin city belongs to the prominent towns, cities in Ireland in europe. It is the budget of Eire, is situated on the east shoreline country. Dublin city may be the largest area of Ireland when it comes to both populace and terrain. Dublin city can be known as for the historical and even heritage webpages, pubs, or purchase at alluring boutiques and a lot more too. It may be a world famed tourist place. Savor any city's historic heritage along with a short take a look at the Dublin Copy writers Museum about Parnell Sq .. Letters along with tools on the trade coming from legends along the lines of James Joyce, Beckett together with Yeats probably will make an speedy and enduring impression upon visitors. It still provides you with many of alternatives for cheap places to stay.

Many countries have national transport systems. It's seen as an investment in infrastructure for industry and business as well as mobility. Having a joined up system would enable long term strategic planning and services that meet passenger needs.

@Christo60

"long term strategic planning" by governments always ends in disaster. Not sometimes, not usually, always.

"No monopoly ever functions in the public interest"

Mainstream economic theory holds that this is only the case where there are no economies of scale.

Given economies of scale, a monopoly, private or public will deliver more at a lower cost than a competative market. This was well understood in the early 19th century and was the reason monopoly gas companies were encouraged.

I don't care who owns em as long as they are used to drive Moslems to the coast and then drown em.

"a monopoly, private or public will deliver more at a lower cost than a competative (sic) market."

This is true - but 'cost' is not the same thing as 'price' ...

"Why say only marginally?"

I think you've completely missed the point here ...

"Mainstream economics", my @rse! :-)

"A much better idea would be to take up the track and use the land for toll roads."

???

Problem 1: Railways lines don’t give you much road
A four-lane (2×2) motorway, is about 30m wide
Most existing two-track railway lines are 10m wide or less

Problem 2: roads based transport is chaotic so SWOT and jams are inevitable at peak times.

Centally controled sytems can avoid this.

Generally speaking, a 2-track railway will have a carrying capacity an order of magnitude greater than that of a road of the same width.

@Mark 90

What in my statement is fabricated?

A great post. It shows us how far the road marked 'neoliberal extremism' we have travelled when none of our three main parties supports re-nationalisation, a measure backed by the overwhelming majority of the public. Bringing back British Rail would be a clear vote winner, as I argued here
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/2989/bring-back-british-rail-surefire-...
and in the NS here: http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2009/11/railways-public-privatisation

yet our parties are so in hock to global finance and big business they daren't put it forward.

Labour's refusal to back renationalisation is particularly stupid- it could have made the difference between them winning and losing the last election.

As to the government's latest proposals- where does one start?
I co-founded the Campaign for Public Ownership
http://campaign4publicownership.blogspot.com/2012/03/britains-railway-ma...
as I felt outraged that the political elite weren't listening to public opinion on this issue and
and I urge people who feel similarly disgusted by Britain's great privatised train robbery to get involved in campaigns of groups like ours and Bring Back British Rail.

@ Raymond Dance

Clearly you are an eco warrior.

I'm referring to the toll roads comment if that wasn't clear.

The reason why trains cost so much more to operate, and to use, in Britain compared with the rest of Europe can be expressed in one word: privatisation.

We need to renationalise the railways, uniquely without compensation in view of the manner of their privatisation, as the basis for a national network of public transport free at the point of use, including the reversal of bus route and rail line closures going back to the 1950s.

Only public ownership can deliver this. Public ownership is of course British ownership, and thus a safeguard of national sovereignty. It is also a safeguard of the Union in that it creates communities of interest across the several parts of the United Kingdom. Publicly owned concerns often even had, and could have again, the word "British" in their names.

The book, a copy of which has been sent to the Reviews Editor of this magazine, can be bought here - http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/confessions-of-an-old-labour-high-....

... and the utility companies.

No matter how much I agree with the re-nationalisation of railways (and utility companies) there must be some safeguards. It must be run for the travelling public - not for the benefit of the staff. It also must have proper, accountable management, not a bunch of faceless time servers appointed from the Establishment. But what chance of anything being nationalised with this bunch of idealogues in charge? None, methinks! If it worked, it would seriously undermine their ethos.

"The rail networks would still be running at a massive loss." Shinsei67 09 March 2012 at 13:14

It's not really a loss though is it? It's a subsidy for the economy. Without being able to get around the economy stops working. It's the cost of doing business. The point should be to minimise the subsidy. It's hard to answer your question about more savings without knowing what the saving of £1.2 billion derives from but clearly the economies of scale of centralising things like marketing, ticket sales, payroll, staff training, safety practices etc etc all of which will currently be duplicated as a multiple of the number of TOCs that exist will clearly lead to massive savings. Which I suspect explains the Surrey audiences applause as praise for simple common sense.

"It's not really a loss though is it?"

Well, it's a loss in the sense that even with expensive season tickets and crowded trains the rail network costs £3-4bn more than it raises in ticket sales.

So the government chooses to pay a subsidy as the rail network is a public good.

But this subsidy as well as going to mid-range public sector workers commuting into Whitehall offices also goes to bankers commuting into the City.

So you have to ask is this a good use of £3-4bn of taxpayers money.

And I repeat the question I asked earlier what is going to cause a nationalised rail service to make considerable cost savings over the current situation ?

Does anyone think their mobile phone or broadband bills would be lower if BT were still a public monopoly ?

And the utilities, for all their faults, offer cheaper electricity and gas in the UK then most of western Europe pay.

@dan Absolutely. What's worse, from ticketing to travel it is a bleedin' farce. When you add in the idea that anyone would consider giving a bonus to the saps who run these companies - you realise just how surreal the modern world is and just how out of touch our leaders are.

"Yes renationalise the railways, also the water and fuel companies All of these are things we can't do without and should not be profit making."

And nationalise the supermarkets too ? Can't do without food.

And get it done before the high-speed debacle gets up and running - another scheme to move billions of pounds of public money into private hands!

i was going to make an ironic joke about Mehdi's obsession with all things Iranian/Muslims etc etc, and then i saw that there's a thing called "breivikfan" who did it in ever such a retarded manner.

poor love, i read in the BMJ that's what happens when one has swallowed down too much cum when sucking off infected cattle.

At the end of the day, it depends on whether you want your money to go into the pockets of executives and shareholders, or ticket inspectors and guards. The cost of travel will roughly be the same. Privatisation allows the executives and shareholders to squeeze the money upwards. Nationalisation pushes the money downwards. But ticket costs remain the same.

If you have shares in the railways or your dad is an executive of a rail company you prefer privatisation. If your dad is a ticket inspector or guard, you prefer nationalisation.

@Mr Danger the argument is not based on the fact that private companies make a profit and so are less efficient. The argument is that privatisation was brought in as a money saving scheme and to increase competition and efficiency. However this has not been the case. The rail system has been running inefficiently and there appears to be no real competition as no company seems to get taken to task on their poor service. Add to this the fact that prices have rising constantly and are due to rise by another 50% in the next few years, whilst wages havent and all the while the boards of these transport companies reimburse themselves for all their 'hard work' with hefty bonuses. Their bonuses in effect seem to be covered by the increased ticket prices that are suffered by everyone else. No one would have a problem with privatisation if it was working effectively. As Medhi said, this is not an ideological debate, it is 'common sense' as D.Cameron often loves to say.

The first thing to do is to abandon any attempt to let the East Coast franchise. The current management of this franchise (the government) are doing a better job than the previous two private sector Train Operating Companies, both of which had to hand the keys back.

Within 50 years the average railway will employ as many as the average automated factory: nationalisation is dreamland.

On 3rd November 2011 the Paris Metro’s oldest and busiest line was converted to fully driverless automatic operation without any interruption of services: Metro Line number 1 is 17km long and carries 725000 passengers per day. The Siemens automatic train protection system ensures greater train frequency and faster journey times and trains are spaced at 85 second intervals instead of the 105 second intervals of driver-operated systems. The train frequency can be adapted flexibly to suit rider demands; important during special events. The conversion started with mixed running of driver operated and driverless trains and by 2013 all 49 trains will have been modified to driverless operation. Controlled by central command it has 954 platform screen doors, intercoms to the command centre and on-board cameras to maintain customer communication. It was financed entirely by the operator RATP and cost 300 million Euros only 4% more than conventional equipment replacement.

Worldwide automated driverless systems and lines

Europe

London Docklands Light Railway opened 1987 (driverless but has a Passenger Service Agent who close the doors and checks tickets during the journey).

Paris Métro Lines 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 OCTYS system provides ATP and high level ATO with mobile block system - Siemens CBTC

London's Victoria Line opened 1967 (a member of staff opens & closes the train doors but does not normally drive the trains).

London's Central Line converted to automated operation in the mid-1990s (a member of staff opens & closes the train doors and only drives the trains on Sundays; at other times trains are computer driven).

London's Jubilee Line converted to automated operation in 2011 (a member of staff opens & closes the train doors).

London's Northern Line is due to be converted in 2012.

Glasgow Subway uses driverless trains on its line. The driver checks the way is clear and operates the doors.

Munich U-Bahn (driver operates the doors and handles emergency situations, accelerating and braking is fully automated; a fully driverless turning at terminus stations is planned)

Vienna U-Bahn (uses the same system as Munich)

Barcelona Metro lines 2, 3, 5, and 11

Madrid Metro Lines 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

Madrid Metro Branch line

North America

Montreal Metro Line 1 Green, Line 2 Orange and Line 5 Blue, opened in 1966 (Lines 1 and 2) and 1986 (Line 5), operates in ATO mode introduced since 1976.

Bay Area Rapid Transit in San Francisco opened in 1972.

PATCO Speedline between Philadelphia and New Jersey operates in automated mode since 1969, but can be overridden by a staff member.

Washington Metro has an automated mode, where the driver is responsible for opening and closing of doors and of overriding the system.

South America

CPTM lines 7, 10 and 12

Caribbean

Tren Urbano - the entire system is fully automated, but can be over-ridden. Substations providing the power are remotely controlled from a operational control centre.

Asia

East West MRT Line (includes Changi Airport Extension) and North South MRT Line

Seoul Subway Lines 5,6,7,8,9 - driver on standby and will drive the train when ATO malfunctions or is not available.

Korail Bundang Line (Utilizes the SelTrac system with driver on board in case of emergencies)

Taipei Metro Red Line (Tamsui Line)
Taipei Metro Green Line (Xiaonanmen Line, Xindian Line, Xiaobitan Branch)
Taipei Metro Blue Line (Banqiao-Nangang Line, Tucheng Line)
Taipei Metro Orange Line (Zhonghe Line, Xinzhuang Line, Luzhou Line)

Tokyo Metro Marunouchi Line (Main line converted to ATO in 2010, Hōnanchō branch continues to use ATC/TASC)
Tokyo Metro Namboku Line
Tokyo Metro Fukutoshin Line
Tokyo Metro Chiyoda Line (Kita-Ayase branch)
Tokyo Metro Hibiya Line (ATO trialled during the 1960s, trains now operated in manual mode)

Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation Toei Ōedo Line

Nankō Port Town Line in Osaka

Osaka Municipal Subway Nagahori Tsurumi-ryokuchi Line
Osaka Municipal Subway Tanimachi Line (ATO trialled from October 1967 until February 1968, trains now operated in manual mode)

Fukuoka City Subway Kūkō Line
Fukuoka City Subway Hakozaki Line
Fukuoka City Subway Nanakuma Line

Sendai Subway Nanboku Line (World's first railway system to use fuzzy logic to control the speed of trains)

Yokohama Municipal Subway Green Line
MTR Kwun Tong Line
MTR Tsuen Wan Line
MTR Island Line
MTR Tung Chung Line
MTR Airport Express
MTR Tseung Kwan O Line
MTR East Rail Line
MTR West Rail Line (Utilizes the SelTrac system with driver on board in case of emergencies)
MTR Ma On Shan Line (Utilizes the SelTrac system with driver on board in case of emergencies)

Beijing Subway Line 4 (Utilizes the SelTrac system with driver on board in case of emergencies)

Wuhan Metro Line 1 (Utilizes the SelTrac system with driver on board in case of emergencies)

Mehdi is wrong on this one, call me a Blairite fellow-traveller or whatever.
I am not pro-privatization but to nationalise the railways may have additional costs, it might not be very good for the private sector and companies will just provide their own competition. Though my own view is that Thatcher should not have privatized the railways, I do not think that renationalisation is a viable answer. I think we should seek to mutualise the railways instead so they can be properly owned by the travellers and by the workforce, but regulation to ensure lower fares etc. Also, the rest of England needs proper democratization of the transport, like in London.
But on travel, Labour shouldn't be seeking leftwing populist ideas which may not be entirely sensible but they should be looking to fresher ideas like mutualisation, but also reforming the way we do transport. Many Tory voters are angry at the high fuel prices, energy prices and transport prices. If Labour promises a cut in fuel duty by 1.5p per litre, it will fuel growth and jobs but help people with travel as well as becoming incredibly popular.