The beginning of the end for privatised railways?

[bfcmik]

PLUS ...as I said above the taxpayer support for the current rail system is massively greater than it was for the nationalised BR. That is the irony of our "private" system ......it is more closely managed by the civil service and more heavily funded by the treasury than BR ever was.

In practice of course Network Rail (which is the single biggest part of what BR used to be) is a nationalised company.

Massively greater in it's proportion of GDP or just in absolute numerical terms? Capital investment is still relatively smaller than it was under BR when massive electrification projects took place (London to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Norwich (I think) and extensions to Southern's 3rd rail electrification) and revenue expenditure is also lower in terms of GDP than it was under BR.

[Hipper]

You can't post that graph and then mic drop. I can't think what happened post war, can you? Oh yeah, everyone bought a car and as a country we went on a road building spree to drive them on. At the end of the 90s people started reverting to rail because frankly the roads had suffered under investment and you struggled to drive anywhere, fuel also started getting progressively more expensive.

As much as nationalisation, those facts can explain your graph.

How can 'those facts' explain the two graphs? They show two different parameters - miles travelled and passenger numbers.

A look at your graph shows a relatively small increase in rail miles.

Fuel costs shot up in the mid 70s for both road and rail (train fares). Currently car fuel costs aren't relatively expensive judging by the number of cars being driven about - the roads have never been so crowded.

Basically more people are moving about using all forms of transport. More goods are being moved about too.

With the 'Climate Emergency' we should be discouraging travel of all forms.

[deanothedino]

GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png

Privatisation of the rail industry is not an unalloyed success story. But it is a success story.

I don't think passenger numbers alone defines success.

[Hipper]

I don't think passenger numbers alone defines success.

Of course it doesn't but it illustrates the problems that have to be dealt with.

That graph says 750 million to 1,750 million in twenty years. That's an extraordinary increase.

Post war rail journeys went down, I guess especially for more local travel. Also goods were going more by road. The railways were reduced (Beeching). At one point it was suggested the most economic solution to the problem of the railways was to convert all the routes to roads.

There was undoubtedly a political part to play in the decision to privatise but I guess it was hoped that it would be a similar success to BT. I don't know what the facts are regarding strikes but they were a regular occurrence with BRB.

[deanothedino]

Of course it doesn't but it illustrates the problems that have to be dealt with.

That graph says 750 million to 1,750 million in twenty years. That's an extraordinary increase.

Post war rail journeys went down, I guess especially for more local travel. Also goods were going more by road. The railways were reduced (Beeching). At one point it was suggested the most economic solution to the problem of the railways was to convert all the routes to roads.

There was undoubtedly a political part to play in the decision to privatise but I guess it was hoped that it would be a similar success to BT. I don't know what the facts are regarding strikes but they were a regular occurrence with BRB.

Well, looking at the two different graphs post it actually looks like short rail journeys increased considering the huge increase in passenger numbers but the minor increase in distance travelled.

[dsr]

Well, looking at the two different graphs post it actually looks like short rail journeys increased considering the huge increase in passenger numbers but the minor increase in distance travelled.

I don't think it's a minor increase in distance travelled - it looks to have about doubled from its low point just above the Y of Years, which would be about 1980-ish.

[thatdberight]

I don't think passenger numbers alone defines success.

That's what I said. Nice that we're in agreement.

[deanothedino]

That's what I said. Nice that we're in agreement.

Not if you think privatisation of the railways has been a success we're not.

[thatdberight]

Not if you think privatisation of the railways has been a success we're not.

Oh, OK. Your initial post was less than clear.

[deanothedino]

Oh, OK. Your initial post was less than clear.

Not really. You posted one piece of supporting evidence and I said it doesn’t prove anything.

[elwaclaret]

I don't agree with you, but pretending you had a point for a moment I much prefer that unions exploit the economic power of something for the benefit of their members than private companies exploiting workers and their necessity for a meagre wage to the benefit of their shareholders.

I find myself in rare agreement over a political matter with IT. When our infrastructure is predominantly owned by foreign owned multinationals there is something very wrong. Massive potential profits or they wouldn’t be involved. It’s a service for the nation... it should be controlled by the nation.

The seventies Union’s power bears NO comparison to the vast majority of today’s unions.

[thatdberight]

Not really. You posted one piece of supporting evidence and I said it doesn’t prove anything.

You said it alone didn't show success. You didn't say what conclusion you'd reached. But I'll be honest, I'm not that interested in your view.

[thatdberight]

I find myself in rare agreement over a political matter with IT. When our infrastructure is predominantly owned by foreign owned multinationals there is something very wrong. Massive potential profits or they wouldn’t be involved. It’s a service for the nation... it should be controlled by the nation.

The seventies Union’s power bears NO comparison to the vast majority of today’s unions.

You can't pick and choose unfortunately. Most of those who are in any sort of position to effect the change in ownership would also roll back the legislation which has made the unions less effective / stopped them being wreckers / infringed their fundamental freedoms (delete according to choice).

[deanothedino]

You said it alone didn't show success. You didn't say what conclusion you'd reached. But I'll be honest, I'm not that interested in your view.

Why am I not surprised.

[elwaclaret]

You can't pick and choose unfortunately. Most of those who are in any sort of position to effect the change in ownership would also roll back the legislation which has made the unions less effective / stopped them being wreckers / infringed their fundamental freedoms (delete according to choice).

I disagree, the Tories can get a lot of political leverage out of nationalisation. It has the reputation in this country (rightly) as a long term Labour policy, but there is absolutely no reason that that needs to be the case. Many many Tory voters travel, and many Tory voters are in favour of service nationalisation because of the inept performance of “for profit”. I was recently stood in York station where even LNER employees on departures had no idea of what trains were coming into what platform... and I understand it is worse on Southern lines than northern rail.

[thatdberight]

Why am I not surprised.

"?"

[thatdberight]

I disagree, the Tories can get a lot of political leverage out of nationalisation. It has the reputation in this country (rightly) as a long term Labour policy, but there is absolutely no reason that that needs to be the case. Many many Tory voters travel, and many Tory voters are in favour of service nationalisation because of the inept performance of “for profit”. I was recently stood in York station where even LNER employees on departures had no idea of what trains were coming into what platform... and I understand it is worse on Southern lines than northern rail.

Personally, I think they're in favour of nationalisation because of illusory benefits about cost. I can see no evidence in my dealings with public and private sector either professionally or personally that suggests (to me) that it would be better under public ownership. But, perhaps, this generation needs to go through that learning process, yet again. I agree it would probably be a vote winner.

[elwaclaret]

Personally, I think they're in favour of nationalisation because of illusory benefits about cost. I can see no evidence in my dealings with public and private sector either professionally or personally that suggests (to me) that it would be better under public ownership. But, perhaps, this generation needs to go through that learning process, yet again. I agree it would probably be a vote winner.

One thing most nations draw the line on is service industries, our ‘open market’ on services is at odds with most developed nations... I don’t think comparing a country looking for the best path forward is best served by craning our necks back to when The country was flat broke ( thanks to Tory incompetence) and Labour had to try to deal with its own militants stopping any attempt to rescue a bad situation. They were dark the times but the nationalised industries were more a clear reflection of the mess the country was in than of the failure of the concept of nationalisation for me.

[Paul Waine]

I find myself in rare agreement over a political matter with IT. When our infrastructure is predominantly owned by foreign owned multinationals there is something very wrong. Massive potential profits or they wouldn’t be involved. It’s a service for the nation... it should be controlled by the nation.

The seventies Union’s power bears NO comparison to the vast majority of today’s unions.

Hi elwa, the "infrastructure" for the railways are the tracks and the stations - owned by Network Rail, which is, and always has been, UK state owned.

It's the train companies that are privatised - and then, under EU rules, competition to offer rail services has been opened to all that want to compete for franchises. So far as I'm aware, in all mainland European countries the rail operator is state owned - and that's how several of them have decided to compete in offering services in the UK. There is also competition in services across mainland European networks, French rail services to Belgium, Netherlands, Germany etc - and, I believe many of the other countries compete outside their home state.

I'm not sure it requires "massice potential profits" - I'd assume they all plan on making some money, but it doesn't need to be "massive" for the other rail services to want to be involved.

Re distance and numbers travelling: i) as a nation we are a lot wealthier than we were 20 and more years ago; ii) our population is also higher; iii) in addition to road and rail, air travel is also an option. Motorways are significantly more crowded and congested than they were 30+ years ago - and that will always be a mix of long-distance and local and commuter travel. If you work in London, for most, rail is the only way to get to work - and get home again. I understand that passenger numbers have increased very significantly over the past 20 years.

Speaking only for my commute, with 2 different routes to London, I had a choice of 6 trains an hour - usually 8 carriage trains - when I moved to London about 30 years back. Since privatisation additional trains have been added, so 8 trains per peak hour - and a couple of years back all the trains became 10 carriage. So, 6 trains x 8 carriages = 48 carriages is now 8 trains x 10 carriages = 80 carriages. Let's deduct 10% as the trains are now not as "overcrowded" gives us 72 carriages today v 48 pre-privatisation = 50% increase in capacity.

Yes, I know experience in other parts of the country will not be the same - I used to drive into Manchester when there was no M60. I'd get HS2 built very quickly - and also invest in a proper rail service around the Northern Powerhouse. But all the debate and the "stop, don't build" discussions around these two infrastructure investments is a very good example where we would be, again, if we re-nationalised the train services.

[elwaclaret]

Hi elwa, the "infrastructure" for the railways are the tracks and the stations - owned by Network Rail, which is, and always has been, UK state owned.

It's the train companies that are privatised - and then, under EU rules, competition to offer rail services has been opened to all that want to compete for franchises. So far as I'm aware, in all mainland European countries the rail operator is state owned - and that's how several of them have decided to compete in offering services in the UK. There is also competition in services across mainland European networks, French rail services to Belgium, Netherlands, Germany etc - and, I believe many of the other countries compete outside their home state.

I'm not sure it requires "massice potential profits" - I'd assume they all plan on making some money, but it doesn't need to be "massive" for the other rail services to want to be involved.

Re distance and numbers travelling: i) as a nation we are a lot wealthier than we were 20 and more years ago; ii) our population is also higher; iii) in addition to road and rail, air travel is also an option. Motorways are significantly more crowded and congested than they were 30+ years ago - and that will always be a mix of long-distance and local and commuter travel. If you work in London, for most, rail is the only way to get to work - and get home again. I understand that passenger numbers have increased very significantly over the past 20 years.

Speaking only for my commute, with 2 different routes to London, I had a choice of 6 trains an hour - usually 8 carriage trains - when I moved to London about 30 years back. Since privatisation additional trains have been added, so 8 trains per peak hour - and a couple of years back all the trains became 10 carriage. So, 6 trains x 8 carriages = 48 carriages is now 8 trains x 10 carriages = 80 carriages. Let's deduct 10% as the trains are now not as "overcrowded" gives us 72 carriages today v 48 pre-privatisation = 50% increase in capacity.

Yes, I know experience in other parts of the country will not be the same - I used to drive into Manchester when there was no M60. I'd get HS2 built very quickly - and also invest in a proper rail service around the Northern Powerhouse. But all the debate and the "stop, don't build" discussions around these two infrastructure investments is a very good example where we would be, again, if we re-nationalised the train services.

Great post. Thanks Paul. I have to say one of the few things I like about London Is the public transport network... unfortunately it is just however symptomatic of the problem we have as a country. Our capitol is extremely well run on the whole. So those residing within the metropolis have little experience of the issues facing the rest of the nation. London centric politics has made it great for London... and where do our politicians spend most of their time?

[Paul Waine]

Great post. Thanks Paul. I have to say one of the few things I like about London Is the public transport network... unfortunately it is just however symptomatic of the problem we have as a country. Our capitol is extremely well run on the whole. So those residing within the metropolis have little experience of the issues facing the rest of the nation. London centric politics has made it great for London... and where do our politicians spend most of their time?

I don't know whether you've seen some of my posts where I suggest that Parliament should move out of the "Palace of Westminster" and spend 5 years, in turn, in Manchester/Northern Powerhouse, Newcastle, Birmingham/Midlands and Bristol/Southwest - and add in Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland if they want to re-join a single "united kingdom."

Moving the MPs around the country would start to fix some of our challenges. I'd swap "brexit" for a change in British politics and bursting the "westminster bubble." Lot's of other ideas to re-connect politicians with the people. Another time.... or maybe someone can find my earlier posts...

[Hipper]

MPs come from all over the place so they should not behave as if they are in the 'Westminster Bubble'.

Scottish MPs for example don't seem to forget this. Nor do the Irish.

If your MP does act like that then you should vote him out.

On railways and unions, there have been numerous underground strikes over the last few years and of course we have the on going dispute on Northern Rail. Rail unions are still active and effective.

[Garnerssoap]

They should forget HS2 until they can stop those jalopy shunters we have to put up with from smelling of pish

[tiger76]

A good day to bury bad news,HS 2 costs spiralling out of control. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49563549

[willsclarets]

As noted above, the infrastructure is already state owned. Though privatisation hasn't been a universal success, part of the problem franchises face in meeting increase in demand is a failure by the state to upgrade a rail network that's over a century old. Networks in continental Europe are in general, miles ahead. Not the fault of privatisation.

It's also worth noting that the best rail system in the world is in Japan, which is entirely privately run. Not the case here. The problem we have in the UK, is that we have a centralised contractor with tight control over franchise companies. It's a fragmented system which is the worst of both worlds, and ain't ever going to work.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

A good day to bury bad news,HS 2 costs spiralling out of control. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49563549

Not really a shock, most government plans tend to spiral out of control financially, especially the big ones.

Just gives people something to beat the government over the head with

[thatdberight]

It's also worth noting that the best rail system in the world is in Japan, which is entirely privately run.

That may or may not be the case. It's very expensive and has cut the size of the network dramatically. Even if it is, the cultural differences which underpin it make a simple read across of ownership pretty meaningless. I'm a fan of private railways but I don't think we could copy Japan in any meaningful way.

[willsclarets]

That may or may not be the case. It's very expensive and has cut the size of the network dramatically. Even if it is, the cultural differences which underpin it make a simple read across of ownership pretty meaningless. I'm a fan of private railways but I don't think we could copy Japan in any meaningful way.

My point was that Japan's railways are entirely privatised. You couldn't characterise our railways as being so at all, so while there are inevitable differences as you have highlighted we can copy the concept or model of privatisation which is meaningful ie don't fragment state and private ownership of track, stations and trains.

[Corky]

I have only quickly scanned this thread so don't know if these figures have been mentioned...“Government direct subsidy of the railways is around £5 billion per year, an increase of over 200% since privatisation… ... The government (on average) now subsidises the railway industry by about three times as much as in the years just before legislation to privatise it came into place, almost 25 years ago exactly.

Now, we were sold privatisation on the basis that good old private enterprise would provide us with a more efficient and cost effective service. To some extent the above clearly shows that that is not the case. As a commuter into London for almost 45 years I think it is fair to say that the last 5 years were the worst for things like timekeeping, overcrowding and costs. At work with Royal Mail I dealt with various Rail Companies over about 30 years so through the whole period of privatisation and they were poor. I won't name names but one in particular got the contract based on having good availability of additional drivers should we need to put on extra trains at short notice. I don't think they managed it once throughout the period of their contract and even preplanned additional requirements at Christmas became an issue due to track congestion and pathing difficulties. You see when mail moved by rail back in the day when I first started with RM or GPO as it was then we were valued customers of BRB and all our trains were given top priority so you did not get 4Z96 as a headcode they were all 1S96, 1S09 etc and being a 1 instead of a 4 gives it priority.

I found the franchising a complete shambles.

[willsclarets]

Totally agree about the franchise system. Total shambles.

As for spending, those figures aren't necessarily a direct result of privatisation. Much of the expenditure is on well-needed infrastructure improvements that is state owned, not to mention that 2.1 billion alone was spent on HS2 in 2017/18. There's so much investment needed still without that ridiculous distraction; some 40% of our signalling is still manually operated for starters. It's convenient for Corbyn to blame privatisation for this increased subsidy but not at all a fair correlation. It's successive governments' failure to invest in our railways for decades along with a botch job of incorporating a franchise system for train ownership.

The claim that centralising the whole railway network would drive costs down is based on a system that is not fully privatised, and I would argue that it would if privatisation was done properly. A fully public railway would cost more, it just might not appear as a price increase on your ticket.

[aggi]

I see that First Group have just taken on the whole of the management structure from Virgin West Coast. It doesn't suggest much is going to change there.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... gin-trains" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[claret2018]

Something needs to change with the UK rail system. It's unbelievably expensive to use (I regularly pay the best part of £300 to travel to London and back from Preston, thankfully on work's dime) and generally unreliable. I used to get the Clitheroe to Manchester train occasionally for work, and it would frequently be late, cancelled, and always overcrowded. It also took longer than it did to drive.

I use trains semi-regularly all over Europe, and everywhere they are cheaper, faster, cleaner and generally more pleasant. How is the UK getting it so wrong?

[ten bellies]

Privatisation of public services was a Tory scam, perpetuated under Blair/Brown. They created private monopolies in most places in the case of the buses. The only place buses aren't privately owned is London. They have sold off for a below market value in the case of utilities and the Royal Mail, or subsidised dividends to shareholders in the case of the railways. It is nothing more than theft from the state. Give aways to their corporate mates.

[elwaclaret]

British rail was one one casualties of the country being on the point of bankruptcy in the mid to late 70’s. That Thatcher made it one of the first sell offs because Thatcher continued to massively under invested with the intention of a smooth sell off without public outcry.

I have no problem with a nationalised railway, run properly. Complete nonsense that British rail was bound to fail. Which is why so many EU countries formed dodgy limited companies to make sure they got slices of our infrastructure.... pretty much wanted out of Europe ever since...

[Buxtonclaret]

Privatisation of public services was a Tory scam, perpetuated under Blair/Brown. They created private monopolies in most places in the case of the buses. The only place buses aren't privately owned is London. They have sold off for a below market value in the case of utilities and the Royal Mail, or subsidised dividends to shareholders in the case of the railways. It is nothing more than theft from the state. Give aways to their corporate mates.

She planted the same seeds in the National Health Service, (which have taken root and growing at a pace now) with the same intention of selling it off.

[basil6345789]

I wonder if the nationalised railway would be as good as British Rail used to be?

I think we've come a long way since the bad old days, in terms of managing investments, efficiency, accountabilities, etc. It wouldn't have to be a return to the holiday camp culture.