Do you favour the nationalisation of transport?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, I don't.

It seems most of you haven't focused on freight and only on passenger transport.

Rails are great for freight transportation, not so much for Passenger transportation. The creation of Amtrak which has run huge deficits ever since has shown that passenger traffic isn't profitable whereas along with deregulation and the end of having to perform passenger service has allowed the Rail companies to merge, consolidate and prosper.

The airlines need to do the same thing that Rails were allowed to do in the 1970's and 1980's and that will require less gov't intrusion, not more because Reps and Sens will try to save there there terminals in there districts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

wasn't the panic of Panic of 1873 and 1893 caused by railroads somewhat? I think that such essential competent of society should be controlled by the state in order to ensure that financial contagion/fallout does not destroy this essential institutions.

LOL, no. There involvement was similar to that of the Housing in 2007 or Tech stocks in 2001. You going to nationalize Financial, Real-estate, Construction, electronics, Telecomunmications and high tech industries too?  They were where the bubble was formed and hence where it burst. However the era of Railroad building is long over (outside Railroad Tycoon and the world of computer games that is), so that ever happening again is near impossible.

The closest a Railroad collapsing came to causing an economic contagion was the Penn Central in 1971 because two competing lines merged and weren't allowed to consolidate lines (thanks Gov't/Unions) leading them to go bankrupt and then because they had the vast majority of the lines in the NW and MW as far west as Chicago, the collapse would have caused big economic problems. However in 1893 and 1873, the railroads that collapsed had no such importance, most of the ones that collapsed were lines leading to Mines producing Silver which also collapsed, hence no big loss, or in PA, NY and other areas where there were at least 3 or 4 other lines operating which could pick up the traffic.   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Rails are great for freight transportation, not so much for Passenger transportation. The creation of Amtrak which has run huge deficits ever since has shown that passenger traffic isn't profitable whereas along with deregulation and the end of having to perform passenger service has allowed the Rail companies to merge, consolidate and prosper.

The airlines need to do the same thing that Rails were allowed to do in the 1970's and 1980's and that will require less gov't intrusion, not more because Reps and Sens will try to save there there terminals in there districts.

Actually, if Amtrak could pare down to just the northeast corridor, where it also owns the track, and a few other profitable routes,  or if it was not responsible for the legacy pension costs of the private rail services it took over, it would be able to show a profit.

If I were in charge of Amtrak and didn't have to worry about the howls of the government or the railroad unions, I'd first shift legacy pension costs to the PBGC, then I'd eliminate the Sunset Limited and the Cardinal (which Amtrak discontinued, but Congress required it be restored) and other unprofitable routes.

Note also that some trains are kept running due to State subsides, such as the Ethan Allen Express and the Heartland Flyer, and as a business decision, as long as the individual states are willing to subsidize them, why not run them?