nationalization is bad...for capitalism, and capitalists. the socio-economy that has brought us slavery for profit, highly destructive and deadly war, inequality, poverty, environmental degradation, and a host of other ills, all of which it requires to keep its grip on our minds, culture and pocket books. (ps. please learn how to use the camera you have, and note that editing software is readily available)
Nationalization isn't a good idea at all, there would be a much more likelihood of additional corruption; and look at how well Amtrak is doing after how many years. Just my opinion. Good video.
Sorry but the American railroads run on corruption and they are vehemently opposed to innovation especially in safety (ever wonder why they're so slow?) A lot of Amtrak's issues are due to private companies owning most of the track and refusing to follow the law in prioritising their traffic
@@Whiskey2shots hey did you know that more trains doesn’t equal more efficiency? Did you know that higher speed would require more locomotives even if they were electric? did you know that CSX reduced their travel times from 128 hours to just 56 after the implementation of PSR according to Trains magazine. What was this about them being slow again? Also CSX improve their safety standards after the implementation of PSR as well. Also, if PSR was so dangerous, you would’ve seen it fail under Canadian Pacific and Canadian national 20 years ago.
@@YourLocalHistorian yes I knew all of that thanks. the main failure of PSR is the refusal to Invest in more trackage....now what organisation owns the trackage...... The speed issue is due to the refusal to implement safety standards requiring a reduction in speed. More trains is a good thing. Though I also find it hilarious you immediately assumed my positions, so defensive.....
@@Whiskey2shots PSR is a function of the railroads that has existed since the 1840s this is to cut labour costs by increasing train lengths. And Conrail themselves cut 6025 miles from their network in their government owned period Spurred by USRA who would’ve put them out of business by the end of the year if they didn’t manage to make a profit. My source is the complete history of North American railroads.
Nice lie. You must be a conservative. Lying comes to conservatives as swimming comes to fish. I'm not a poorly educated conservative idiot. The Failure of Britain's Railway "Privatization" Liar! "It is no surprise to the daily English commuter that British Railway has always fallen short of providing adequate services to it’s customers. Dissatisfaction is at an all-time high, with high ticket fares and poor timing schedules. Rail user satisfaction at 10-year low. To avoid bankruptcy, the state provides subsidies and security bonds to prevent job losses - albeit bonds incur debt that will have to be paid off - and there has been a conscious effort on successive governments in terms of pushing up ticket fares, so that the burden of taxation does not fall entirely on the taxpayer".
So the British government didn’t spend millions of pounds on worthless diesel locomotives in the early nationalization era? I think you’re forcing a strawman because I didn’t specify any problems with post nationalization Britain although there are, I simply stated the problems of nationalized Britain.
nationalization is bad...for capitalism, and capitalists.
the socio-economy that has brought us slavery for profit, highly destructive and deadly war,
inequality, poverty, environmental degradation, and a host of other ills,
all of which it requires to keep its grip on our minds, culture and pocket books.
(ps. please learn how to use the camera you have, and note that editing software is readily available)
yeah, I got a new camera and I'm not good with it yet but I totally agree with you.
Nationalization isn't a good idea at all, there would be a much more likelihood of additional corruption; and look at how well Amtrak is doing after how many years. Just my opinion. Good video.
Sorry but the American railroads run on corruption and they are vehemently opposed to innovation especially in safety (ever wonder why they're so slow?) A lot of Amtrak's issues are due to private companies owning most of the track and refusing to follow the law in prioritising their traffic
@@Whiskey2shots hey did you know that more trains doesn’t equal more efficiency? Did you know that higher speed would require more locomotives even if they were
electric? did you know that CSX reduced their travel times from 128 hours to just 56 after the implementation of PSR according to Trains magazine. What was this about them being slow again? Also CSX improve their safety standards after the implementation of PSR as well. Also, if PSR was so dangerous, you would’ve seen it fail under Canadian Pacific and Canadian national 20 years ago.
@@YourLocalHistorian yes I knew all of that thanks. the main failure of PSR is the refusal to Invest in more trackage....now what organisation owns the trackage...... The speed issue is due to the refusal to implement safety standards requiring a reduction in speed. More trains is a good thing. Though I also find it hilarious you immediately assumed my positions, so defensive.....
@@Whiskey2shots PSR is a function of the railroads that has existed since the 1840s this is to cut labour costs by increasing train lengths. And Conrail themselves cut 6025 miles from their network in their government owned period Spurred by USRA who would’ve put them out of business by the end of the year if they didn’t manage to make a profit. My source is the complete history of North American railroads.
@@YourLocalHistorian that's nice bud and I understand that. You need to re-read what I've written
Nice lie. You must be a conservative. Lying comes to conservatives as swimming comes to fish. I'm not a poorly educated conservative idiot.
The Failure of Britain's Railway "Privatization" Liar! "It is no surprise to the daily English commuter that British Railway has always fallen short of providing adequate services to it’s customers. Dissatisfaction is at an all-time high, with high ticket fares and poor timing schedules. Rail user satisfaction at 10-year low. To avoid bankruptcy, the state provides subsidies and security bonds to prevent job losses - albeit bonds incur debt that will have to be paid off - and there has been a conscious effort on successive governments in terms of pushing up ticket fares, so that the burden of taxation does not fall entirely on the taxpayer".
So the British government didn’t spend millions of pounds on worthless diesel locomotives in the early nationalization era? I think you’re forcing a strawman because I didn’t specify any problems with post nationalization Britain although there are, I simply stated the problems of nationalized Britain.
Ok mr BR fan.