I found this article about the UK railways which looks to be on a website that has articles/podcasts on economy related matters. Having read it it seems quite reasonable if a little like wishing on a star when he talks about what is to be done i.e. a complete system transition.
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/regulation-utilities-infrastructure/why-are-uk-railways-so-bad/
Is this analysis reasonable or is he way off base? If the latter what do you think he misses or is wrong about?
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/regulation-utilities-infrastructure/why-are-uk-railways-so-bad/
"Travelling by train ought to be a low-cost, low-stress and low-carbon way of getting around. The railways ought to have a simple ticketing system, a timetable set a year ahead, along with the designated platforms. Railway technology is pretty simple, the assets are obvious and well-defined, and digitalisation ought to be massively reducing the costs, bringing labour costs down to a much more automated service.
That’s the theory, and that is what some other countries manage. Switzerland comes to mind. So why are UK railways so bad and yet so expensive? Why are trains often late, cancelled at short notice, reduced in the number of carriages? Why is information so poor? Why do minor technical problems with the trains so often cause chaos? A train door not opening, a hooter not working, toilets out of use, no catering or hot water, no seat reservations, trains in the wrong order and too often a simple lack of information?
The problems are not easily explained away by the two standard and mostly unconvincing scapegoats: the unions and privatisation. They reflect a railway that has lost its basic sense of purpose. There is a culture of decline, and a widespread view that improving the railways is a hopeless task, a bit like reforming the NHS. It is what it is and will ever more be like this."
Paragraphs:
So is it all the fault of the unions?
Did privatisation mess it all up?
What is to be done?
The system transition
Making it happen
Is it affordable?
Closing statement:
"The state of the UK economy resembles that of the 1970s: there is a widespread perception that too many things are not working, of which the railways, the Royal Mail and the NHS are but examples. The default position will probably be to muddle through, with yet more poor productivity and weakened competitiveness. If workers can’t get to work, if the economy has to bear the costs of the railways disruption to the functioning of the economy, and at very high cost too, economic growth will continue to be elusive. The railways are a “burning platform”. The current approach is not sustainable, and therefore it will not be sustained. The longer the current chaos persists, the greater the eventual cost of putting it onto a firm foundation."
Is this analysis reasonable or is he way off base? If the latter what do you think he misses or is wrong about?
Last edited by a moderator: