London's railways should be operated by one organisation. This is especially true with the forthcoming Crossrail and Thameslink 2000 projects. The only benefit of privatisation is the competition between differnt train builders has opened the market for better built trains from Seimens and Hitachi

Luke, London, UK

Thirty years ago I lived and worked in the Rhineland in Germany. I could buy a ticket at my local bus stop, trevel into town, change on to a tram to the station, and catch a train all on nthe same ticket. This covered the entire Rhine and Rhur area. The same system is still in operation today. We will catch up in time - I hope.

Patrick Griffin, Dalston, London,

Yay, Ken, go!

Those who doubt the benefits of public rail services should take the new Eurostar to Berlin and check their buses and underground. Which by the way don't stop running just after midnight.

Christine, London,

But all Ken's contractors walked out when they smelled the fact that they might not get paid. Taking the plans with them in the laptops they snapped shut on the day.
State controlled railways mean railway closures and no railways at all, thus increasing the tax take from congestion charges and fuel taxes. .

I always thought that man was rat-like.

Sue Doughty, Reading, UK

I gave up travelling into London by rail following rail privatisation. I just had no confidence that I was being sold the best value ticket for my journey. Then came the congestion charge, so now I don't visit London at all.

Mark Atkin, Gloucester, UK

Some contributors seem to be confusing public control with nationalisation, but I assume what Ken wants to do is to put the trains under a similar system to the buses. They are run by private companies but Transport for London, a public body, specifies the routes, frequencies and fares, handles marketing and ensures London-wide ticketing. Unlike the buses, though, you can't just put extra trains on already busy lines - you have to invest in capital projects such as eliminating conflicting junctions and providing extra platforms at the termini.

Barry, Wallington, UK

Interesting that Red Ken wants to start by taking over Southern, the best of the London commuter services. After having (thankfully) wiped Silverlink off the train landscape, One should be the next for the chop, as they run a service almost equally shambolic as the former Silverlink.

Julian, Twickenham, UK

There was no 'EU directive' mandating privatisation, there's one mandating separation of accounting between train operations and track maintenance, so you can't hide cross-subsidies (e.g. by charging the state operator less) and private operators can operate on a level playing field. That's it. The French have done it, the Belgians have done it, the Dutch have done it, the Germans have done it.

Only in the UK were the Tories mad enough to follow their ideological hearts up the dead end of the 1993 Railways Act, which has cost the country a fortune and a decade of lost opportunity - we should be seeing capacity enhancements coming on stream now, not still be patching up the network after the Railtrack debacle.

While we're at it, there's no innovation needed in running London commuter services - the template's been around since the early 20th century - frequent, high capacity electric trains and a simple fare structure. No more is required because no more is needed.

Tom, London, UK

The Mayor's move has been driven probably by the inability, incompetence and or greed of rail operators to deliver. One must never forget that in order for any project to be sustainable the common good should prevail over individual vested interests.

Dr. JC Wandemberg Ph.D., London, UK

Seems as if everyone has forgotten the down-side of nationalisation. It wasn't just about badly run services or tax subsidies. Anyone remember when the ailways could paralise the nation just because the union had a single employer and could stop everything moving on a whim?

End-to-end ticketing and fair pricing was one of the original arguments labour used to get nationalisation through in the first place. The result of their mass nationalisation program was the winter of 1979. Thatcher may have been an over-reaction to the situation in the eyes of many, but the alternative was far, far worse.

Join the cause! Stop Red Ken now! No resurrection for Clause 4!

KR, Stockport,

BK, Canada, Rail Privatisation occured after Mrs T, under Major- but don't let facts get in the way of an anti-Maggie rant.

Back-door nationalisation from Red Ken, it will be Kulaks in Berkshire next if he has his way.

Peter, London, England

The current train network is a disgrace. I was recently alone at a small, unmanned station at night waiting for a train home that was listed as delayed. The train had actually been cancelled but there was no announcement or alternative service. I am lucky I called a friend who was able to offer me a bed for the night, otherwise I have no idea what I would have done or what could've happened to me.

Public safety and responsibilty are dirty words to Network South East and the other train operators.

Claire, Henley, UK

What Ken wishes to do is creat a unified system as operated in most other capitals in the world. The RATP in Paris is a typical example. London had just such a system in the 30's, 40's and 50's called London Transport. Good luck Ken it's long overdue.

Jim Andress, Chippenham, Wilts, England

Why no St. Panras on the map?
My 1989 mRial atlas of Great Britain shows a freight only link between the Great Western main line and the Richmond - Stratford line. Modernising this link would allow a shuttle between Heathrow and Stratford.
The same atlas shows a projected spur between the Richmond - Stratford line and the Midland slow lines. If built it would allow a shuttle between Heathrow and Faringdon. calling at st. Pancras.
The same system could allow a shuttle Waterloo - St. Pancras - Faringdon.

E A George, Oakham, Rutland

Why no St. Panras on the map?
My 1989 Rail atlas of Great Britain shows a freight only link between the Great Western main line and the Richmond - Stratford line. Modernising this link would allow a shuttle between Heathrow and Stratford.
The same atlas shows a projected spur between the Richmond - Stratford line and the Midland slow lines. If built it would allow a shuttle between Heathrow and Faringdon. calling at st. Pancras.
The same system could allow a shuttle Waterloo - St. Pancras - Faringdon.

E A George, Oakham, Rutland

My recall of 'good old' British Rail is very different. Dirty, ancient trains forever breaking down on lines that came out of the Iron Age.

As to why our system is not as good as the Europeans, you have to remember that our geography and demographics are fundamentally different. WE have a huge concentration of people in relatively small areas eg Greater London, the 'coffin belt' and especially across the M62 corridor. In Scotland, the Glasgow-Edinburgh belt is extremely crowded and the rest of the country empty.

We also don't have many international connections.

You cannot compare this with Germany where it is at the heart of a continent with many international connections brining in revenue and low-density urbanisations well spread out.

Comparing the UK to Germany etc is a false and misleading route to go. They are like apples and tomates - don';t confuse the two!

karl, Sheffield, UK

Railways are a natural monopoly. When run as a privatised, for-profit system, it will always be tempting for the operators to overcharge and underinvest. After all, the wretches sardining themselves onto the morning commute out of Bedford or Reading can't just go with a cheaper, more comfortable competitor. The market will bear a lot.

Even Thatcher, tireless champion of private enterprise, understood this and left British Rail intact; it was left to the dying days of the Major government to privatise it, presumably out of spite. Meanwhile, Livingstone's management of Transport For London has improved services a great deal. Perhaps it takes a socialist to run a public transport system effectively?

Having said that, the London-centricity of Livingstone's proposed system sounds problematic; when push comes to shove, there's no guarantee that the burghers of, say, Basingstoke or St. Albans (who have no say in London mayoral elections) won't get the short end of the stick.

Andrew, Stoke Newington, UK

I would be the first to agree something needs to be done with the railways - travelling every day from St Albans to London is no fun. And I agree that unifying them and bringing some consistency to the process is the right step.
My only qualm is that those of us living outside London don't have a vote for the London mayor (the phrase "no taxation wihout representation" springs to mind).
As it happens, I would vote Labour, but that's not the point. However good the idea is, those of us using the trains ought to have a say in how they are run.
Having said that, we don't now, could it possibly be any worse? And if it stops everything on the thameslink route being painted pink and mauve then I'm probably not going to argue...

Louise, St Albans,

I travelled into and out of London yesterday on a high speed GNER train from York. Both legs of the journey were on time. Dinner on the way back was excellent.

And I'm bound to say that was typical of most such trips in the last five years.

I understand that a rail trip in France or Germany last week would not even have got out of the station. Ah well, that what happens when you have a nationalised system!

MarkS, Leeds,

The biggest problem is that people do not realise the simplest and most fundamental of facts. Passenger rail transport is NOT MARKET-ORIENTED! Speaking of privatisation makes sense as rolling stock, certain amount of staff and other services are run by private companies, but this is not a private industry. Routes, franchises, regulations, prices are regulated by the government! Short term franchises are being given to companies who can't plan long term to rationalise investment, cut costs and improve both the quality of offered service and increase profit. The operators and infrastructure have been torn apart in every possible way (which was NOT advocated by the EU directive) which unlike in Japan proveddisastrous. And if we stick with the current system then there is NO competition! It is almost impossible to choose between different operators to punish the sloppy and reward the good... And to top it up the government who calls 99% of shots does everything to slow the progress
down

Pawel Krzywulski, BIrmingham, UK

Apart from the fact that most of what has been said contravenes european law. The railways, or part of it , could have been taken back by the government when shares were taken off the market a few years ago. Most of our motorway congestion could be removed by getting goods back on the rails. Royal mail goes by road today. Branson and the other pirate, sorry, private rail companies need swept away and ownership returned to the state. It is myth that everything works better when it is privatised, certain things like rail ,road, hospitals, schools,water,gas,and rubish collection. And much better the lottery is used to help fund such, rather than this olympic party for ken and his architechtural and has been sporting comrades.

kenny livitt, Hove, uk

The Railways in the UK were deliberately short-changed by the Government in 1918 and again in 1945. Previous British Rail managers were far from lacklustre - they were railwaymen with generations of experience who were sidelined by Beeching - a chemical company director and then again by john major. The service today is the result. You simply cannot consider purely ticket prices, you have to consider the value railways add in terms of social mobility, reducing road congestion and pollution. They have to be subsidised givent the competition from state subsidised air lines and road users who pay little or nothing for their infrastructure.

Phil, Lancaster, Lancs

Richard, London claims that the Mayor will provide "grey, shabby, inefficient, expensive, dirty trains run by bureaucrats who just up tax whenever they need more money", which says more about his ideology than the actual situation.

If you want to see shabby, down at heel stations or services there are plenty of example run by the private train operators. But if you look to the North London line, you will see stations staffed all day, Oystercards made available and new trains in two years' time. For too long, private companies have bled dry the system and provided very little extra for a very large helping of government cash. Time to give the Mayor a chance to prove if he can do better!

John, London,

"Mr Livingstone said: “I am optimistic that TfL will end up controlling all the franchises in Greater London. We want to get the same standards we are introducing on London Overground on all services"."

In the case of the East London line, that involves closing the entire line for two and a half YEARS to upgrade four miles of track and join it to the northern and southern extensions. And Oyster pay-as-you-go readers are a shambles (as a TfL staffer admitted to me recently as I queued up to get a refund after being overcharged yet again).

Freya, London,

I think this is a brilliant idea and offers the chance for sustained long-term development and investment in London's commuter rail network, something short term rail franchises (no matter how good) can ever do.

The Mayor of London has access to many different funding streams which could be used to revitalise London's railways in the same way as it has done the buses.

All eyes are now on the lines the Mayor has just taken over. If things work there, then I would grab this new idea with both hands.

Richard B, Plymouth, England

Well said Ken.
Perhaps you could also design a more user friendly train too.
You know the sort of thing, one that takes luggage comfortably, giving you plenty of leg room , some where to put your coat and bits and pieces(shopping).

Where the guard patrols regularily, making us feel safe and secure. Reducing the anxiety state of paying for a ticket but not finding a seat!!!

Maggie Snook, wool wareham, dorset

In response to _Felix, Nottingham, I live in Melbourne, Australia, where our metropolitan rail network is run by ONE private company Connex, under State Government contract. Even though there is a private "monopoly", most of the funds given Connex by the Govt. simply go back to Connex shareholders and NOT into the network that they are paid to run efficiently - and Connex is a French! company, so most money goes offshore.

The penalties imposed on Connex are so small in comparison with their income from Govt and fare sources has turned the whole network into something akin to a laughing stock, with accountability reduced to finger pointing of both sides.

We have to face facts - public transport is not a profit making venture in and of itself. It is simply a public service that benefits all areas of community infrastructure. Having it run by private enterprise can never guarantee a rational nor a high-quality run system, as has been demonstrated many times before.

P.Ellis, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

The public don't want to pay for a rail network, although they would like one provided for free by magic, and funding it through tax (money taken from the public, by threat of force, without asking what they want it spent on) would superficially resemble that. They still wouldn't want to pay for it, but wouldn't be so acutely aware as if they had to pay via high ticket prices.

Unprofitability seems to demonstrate that we just don't really want railways any more, though it's also possible that they are unprofitable because they aren't properly privatised yet - are they still under those bizarre regulations designed to force competition? A single private monopoly could be more natural - rail would compete with other means of transport. Privatisation means allowing capitalists to organise things rationally, it isn't just a device to make things cheap by attempting to force price wars.

_Felix, Nottingham,

James E. Petts should take off his nostalgic rose tinted glasses and live in the real world. The four rail companies were originally formed by Govt. diktat to rescue the railways when all the individual small rail companies were going bankrupt. The pious hope that there would be enough profitable lines to subsidise the rest was never achieved.

The glorious days remembered by train spotters were a myth. Commuter lines were generally dirty, ill maintained and crowded, and the only 'nice' parts of the railways were the first class carriages on prestige routes.

By WW2 the railways were in imminent danger of complete collapse, and the 'nationalisation' during the war was a relief.

Nobody has ever managed to run a national rail network in a major country without de facto if not de jure Govt. ownership. Even that bastion of free enterprise the USA has AmTrack. Railways cannot make a profit except in unusual circumstances.

Good luck to Ken Livingstone.

David L Brown, Bedford, UK

Best idea since sliced bread, maybe one day we can renationalise the whole of the public transport system. That's the only way to sort the mess out.

Matt, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

This is unveiled socialism writ large. The current problems on the railways are largely attributable to the first wave of nationalisation in 1948, and the subsequent failure to privitise them properly with the worst-of-both-worlds franchise mess.

It should be remembered that the railways of Britain suffered decades of underinvestment as a direct result of political control, with its inevitable tradeoffs between investing in railways and more politically opportune ventures such as health and education. Simply turning back the clock to the days of British Rail will make nothing better, and has the potential to make things considerably worse.

What is needed is proper vertical integration of the private network, as well as substantial deregulation: it should never be forgotten that the country's railways were in their best state when they were run by four deregulated, vertically integrated private companies.

James E. Petts, Burnham, England

Even the apparatchiks of "new" Labour do not want Northern Rock nationalized but this diktat is no more and no less than centralized, command-economy Stalinist statism through the back door. Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your trains!

At the moment all Livingstone can do is to send us to the gulag of social opprobrium. Perhaps he ought to get on Boris Johnson's bike and look for another job before we are condemned to the cosy, one party-state days of yore.

Julian Cox, London, England

Lets hope it can be made reasonably priced and reliable, so that people want to use it. They can manage such public transport systems in France, Belgium, Holland and Germany, where buses and trains are cheap, relaibale and well-used by local people.

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

The qualityof dervice offered by South West Trains into Waterloo is far better than the onward links via TFL routes. I would hate to have them reduced to the 'same quality standard' as TFL.

All is not perfect with SW trains, but they mostly seem to try.

Yes, the issue of train operators fining people £20 with pay as you go oysters is a scandal - even if they do blame the National Rail Policy - whatever that is.

Martin How, Petersfield Hants,

Great idea - it could be called something like Network SouthEast for example...

Peter, Birmingham, UK

We always knew he was a communist and he has not changed his colours. Its a fact that central state controlled countries are failures whilst free market are success stories. So back to grey, shabby, inefficient, expensive, dirty trains run by bureaucrats who just up tax whenever they need more money.

I rather see consumer bodies having representation on the board with pricing set on a return on capital basis.

Richard, London,

I would expect if Ken Livingstone tries to take control by forcing cuts in ticket prices he could very well betaken to court. There is also the possibilty that train companies would simply terminate journeys outside Livinstone's area of control, meaning commuters would have to seek alternative means of transport for the final leg of the journey.
As to privatisation this was driven by an EU directive which the UK unlike a lot of Europe, followed slavishly.

Stephen, St. Ives, England

I remember the pre Thatcher British Rail. Things ran more or less on time. It was never German or Swiss standards but British rail (as British people) were more friendly to make up the difference. This is the way it happens in Canada.

Britian meanwhile adopted privatization and now has distinctly "failed state" third world standards for its rail services. Its really appalling the way the system has been allowed to deteriorate. I hope this plan goes through soon.

BK, Toronto, Canada

Renationalise the railways, get rid of this silly concept of running an important national service for profit. Run more trains, run better trains - bring back public sector innovation!

Sure it must be run by competent people but the London transport system shows what can be done when you have such good people in place. Sure it gets overcrowded but they are doing their best with a very complicated problem and lack of proper funding day in, day out.

I'm so tired of train companies running their services for the benefit of themselves only. The only private sector innovation I've seen on the railways is the Virgin Pendilino and even that doesn't come anywhere near close the German ICE 3 trains which are amazingly nice to travel on, and even have leg room!

Trains are not airplanes and I don't understand why they lay them out to be like that, they seem to manage just fine in Germany not doing this.

And while we're at it, get rid of those dumb diesel trains, electrify the network!

Kevin Rogers, Preston, United Kingdom

***Private sector innovation could be lost ***

Private sector innovation?

Is that the reason that britain's trains are backwards by international standards and britain's highest speed lines are slow by even european standards?

Hah! Don't make me laugh.

peter, york, uk

Bring back nationalised British Rail, but for goodness sake make sure it is managed by people who are competent and motivated unlike the many lacklustre types who ran the British Rail of old. The idealogues of privatisation have failed to convince any but themselves that their strategy has worked. Continental Europe which avoided taking this path offers a vastly superior service. Britain's railways by contrast are a total joke, and if passenger numbers have boomed this is not because of privatisation but in spite of it.
What Ken Livingstone is doing is a positive step in the right direction, but it should never have come to this sorry state of affairs in the first place. 15 years of opportunity to move rail forward have been lost, and now Ken is having to reinvent the wheel. One is tempted to wonder where we might be now, had the resources which were squandered on privatisation and franchising, instead been spent on tracks and trains under a unified organisation.

David Bond, Wellington, New Zealand