Media bias: Privatised train fares rise three times faster than cost of living

[Goatboy]

A member of my family is senior management at a TOC (not the one I work for) and tells me a lot of what goes on as they get involved with NR and the DFT a lot. Privatisation has its downsides but also has its upsides.

I can imagine privatisation very much has its upsides for senior management at privately operated TOC's, thats hardly suprising

I have said previously the current model works passenger numbers are growing year on year so I see no reason to change it.

Thats a bit like saying 'More and people people each year are using council services, therefore I see no reason to change them'.

 

[Buttsy]

I suspect Dave1987 is referring to the maintenance holidays that were often taken rather than the big ticket investment items like ECML electrification. I forget the figure but in the early 00s we were spending a rather spectacular amount just catching up on maintenance backlogs left over from the 80s and 90s.

Wasn't the maintence backlog more to do with Railtrack not having a clue what they were doing?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A member of my family is senior management at a TOC (not the one I work for) and tells me a lot of what goes on as they get involved with NR and the DFT a lot. Privatisation has its downsides but also has its upsides. The grass is always greener on the other side, like I have said previously the current model works passenger numbers are growing year on year so I see no reason to change it.

The same could be said prior to 1994, when things were run by BR rather efficiently for the money allcoated to it. As privatisation was much more political dogma rather than a sensible idea (Mrs Thatcher, major privatiser, didn't consider privatising the railways, and she was much better at selling off to us what we already owned than John Major), the Major government had to make it look like it worked, whatever the cost to the Treasury.

 

[Zoe]

Wasn't the maintence backlog more to do with Railtrack not having a clue what they were doing?

This is what Philip Hammond said back in 2011 when the GWML electrification was confirmed.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110519/debtext/110519-0002.htm

The hon. Gentleman is right that British Rail operated the railway on a shoestring at relatively low cost, but in doing so it built up a tremendous legacy of under-investment and disregard for safety risk, the terrible consequences of which we saw only too clearly in the late 1990s and the early years of this century.

There are also extracts posted from a parliamentary report at http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=68776&page=4 although I don't seem to be able to find this report anywhere.

 

[Buttsy]

Originally Posted by Philip Hammond in Hansard
The hon. Gentleman is right that British Rail operated the railway on a shoestring at relatively low cost, but in doing so it built up a tremendous legacy of under-investment and disregard for safety risk, the terrible consequences of which we saw only too clearly in the late 1990s and the early years of this century.

Sorry, but that doesn't hold water with me, particularly as Railtrack had got rid of all their experts. BR never let a backlog of maintenance stop them for fixing serious issues. Hatfield and Potter's Bar were accidents caused by privatisation, not because of a backlog in maintenence. No-one in Railtrack had a clue about the engineering side of the business.

 

[Zoe]

Sorry, but that doesn't hold water with me, particularly as Railtrack had got rid of all their experts. BR never let a backlog of maintenance stop them for fixing serious issues. Hatfield and Potter's Bar were accidents caused by privatisation, not because of a backlog in maintenence. No-one in Railtrack had a clue about the engineering side of the business.

That was my understanding but the extracts from the 2002 parliamentary report posted in the other thread seem to suggest otherwise. I don't seem to remember anyone blaming BR at the time though.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course, Mr Hammand fails to mention that it was his party that was in charge of the purse strings during the 1980's when this maintenance backlog developed.

When a Government fails to invest enough in a nationalised industry, it is supposedly the fault of that industry that the Government of the day has failed to make that investment. Yet when private companies fail to invest in assets today, it is supposedly the Governments fault.

Curious non ?

As I understand it, Hatfield and Potters Bar were caused by track faults going unnoticed and unreported (missing bolts and cracked rails if I recall) - which would seem to me to be the fault of those organisations managing maintenance at the time.

 

[Buttsy]

If BR had had Network Rail's 'credit card', I doubt there would have been the backlog of maintenence.

I notice no-one ever comments about the costs for road maintenence, that the governement shouldn't be paying for that and users should be footing more of the bill...

Personally, I blame the Victorian governments for not at least applying some sensible planning to the network at the outset. Gladstone tried as a minister, but failed due to self interest of MPs...

 

[Zoe]

As I understand it, Hatfield and Potters Bar were caused by track faults going unnoticed and unreported (missing bolts and cracked rails if I recall) - which would seem to me to be the fault of those organisations managing maintenance at the time.

If the report is correct though and Railtrack didn't have a register of assets handed to them from BR, how would they have known the condition of every section of track and which repairs should be given priority?

 

[yorksrob]

If the report is correct though and Railtrack didn't have a register of assets handed to them from BR, how would they have known the condition of every section of track and which repairs should be given priority?

Surely they should have been carrying out routine track inspections in the years running up to these accidents ?

 

[Zoe]

Surely they should have been carrying out routine track inspections in the years running up to these accidents ?

Did they know just how serious gauge corner cracking was though? If BR did not hand Railtrack a register of track affected by this and Railtrack had known just how serious it was then the result may well have been the entire network subject to a 20 mph speed restriction until all track could undergo ultrasonic testing.

 

[Buttsy]

Did they know just how serious gauge corner cracking was though? If BR had no register of track affected by this and Railtrack had known just how serious it was then the result may well have been the entire network subject to a 20 mph speed restriction until all track could undergo ultrasonic testing.

My understanding was that BR would obtain possessions and walk the track regularly, reporting anything out of the ordinary as the guys walking the track had had years of learning under others as what to look for. If anything unusual was seen, it was reported and a judgement call made by someone senior as whether to apply a TSR or not. Railtrack had disposed of this knowledge under the theory: 'private contractors can do it better'.

BR didn't need a register as local knowledge and historical data would let teh experienced engineers know where problems were likely. If BR hadn't know about gauge corner cracking, it would have happened under their regime...

 

[yorksrob]

Did they know just how serious gauge corner cracking was though? If BR did not hand Railtrack a register of track affected by this and Railtrack had known just how serious it was then the result may well have been the entire network subject to a 20 mph speed restriction until all track could undergo ultrasonic testing.

But if BR had been monitoring this problem on an ongoing basis, shouldn't Railtrack have been doing the same ? We are talking over six years.

 

[Zoe]

But if BR had been monitoring this problem on an ongoing basis, shouldn't Railtrack have been doing the same ? We are talking over six years.

Were BR actually doing this in the latter years and even if they were and they knew the seriousness of the issue, did they inform Railtrack? I'm no fan of privatization, I would just like to clarify the issue as I have read contradictory information. If it is indeed the case that BR left the network in a very poor (and potentially dangerous) state and didn't inform Railtrack, is it reasonable to expect Railtrack to act on something they didn't know about. Also they may not even have been able to afford to bring the network up to standard with their budget. I believe after the scale of the issue became clear after Hatfield, they had to be bailed out by the government.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My understanding was that BR would obtain possessions and walk the track regularly, reporting anything out of the ordinary as the guys walking the track had had years of learning under others as what to look for. If anything unusual was seen, it was reported and a judgement call made by someone senior as whether to apply a TSR or not. Railtrack had disposed of this knowledge under the theory: 'private contractors can do it better'.

Ultrasonic testing was done after Hatfield and I believe this showed the issue to be much more widespread than originally thought. Did BR do this on a regular basis?

 

[Clip]

BR didn't need a register as local knowledge and historical data would let teh experienced engineers know where problems were likely. If BR hadn't know about gauge corner cracking, it would have happened under their regime...

You should always have a register of all issues surrounding safety and the state of the railways from Pway to rolling stock. To not have them and to only rely on local knowledge seems to me like a dodgy bit of practice.

I have got book and computer loads of everything on my stations that includes works that has happened in the past and by whom and works that are outstanding needing to be done. To not have that is not good practice in my eyes.

 

[jon0844]

Being told that BR relied on local knowledge is quite terrifying. As if the safety of rail passengers was down to a few experienced railway professionals that had an eye for spotting defects.

What if those people called in sick, got hit by a bus, retired, died...?

Of course having people with experience is vital, but I do believe that BR would have needed to get with the times and do things in a more organised fashion, with data that could be recorded and shared with whoever needed to know.

I therefore believe that many of the issues that came to light after privatisation could well be down to the way BR did things before.

 

[Buttsy]

BR would have probably 'got with the times' had they carried on running the railways. Everything develops with time, for example the lock, block & brake in victorian times improved things.

BR had had a good safety record upto privatisation and looking back and judging things how things are done now always makes people go 'the horror, the horror'.

As an example, a friend of mine works in child support and has to ask how things were done in the 70s when complaints come in about that time as the past cannot be judged on today's standards, only those applicable at the time.

My driving test was 25 minutes driving around and 5 minutes recognising signs from the highway code. That was standard in 1987-1988, but the test has improved since then.

 

[jon0844]

If BR worked like suggested above, it seems more a case of it being a miracle or extreme luck that nothing terrible happened.

 

[NSEFAN]

BR had had a good safety record upto privatisation and looking back and judging things how things are done now always makes people go 'the horror, the horror'.

That depends on which era of BR we are talking about. There were some pretty horrific crashes in the 1950s (Lewisham or Harrow, anyone?) Mind you, at least the railway tends to learn from its mistakes, which is why we now have AWS, TPWS, etc.

Looking at Wiki's statistics on UK rail accidents, it seems that 3 times as many people died on average per year under BR in crashes compared to under privatisation. Another thing to note is that most of the big accidents under privatisation which have claimed lives took place on Railtrack's watch (Potters Bar and Ladbroke Grove being some of the biggest killers).

 

[Buttsy]

If BR worked like suggested above, it seems more a case of it being a miracle or extreme luck that nothing terrible happened.

The past is a foreign county, they did things differently there.


Again, you are judging the past on today's standards. BR has a good safety record mainly there was a clear chain of command and time was taken to resolve an issue, taking necessary precautions. Today what used to take a week now takes a day.

Before ultrasound equipment, how else would you have seen gauge corner cracking apart from relying on walking the line, historical data and knowledge gleaned over the years?

Those of us who grew up in a time when computers were huge and very expensive understand the ability for humans to make decisions and judge things on combined experience.

Advances in technology have improved safety over the years.

I hoped you watched Locomotion with Dan Snow and were 'shocked' by the way the railways were run initially.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looking at Wiki's statistics on UK rail accidents, it seems that 3 times as many people died on average per year under BR in crashes compared to under privatisation. Another thing to note is that most of the big accidents under privatisation which have claimed lives took place on Railtrack's watch (Potters Bar and Ladbroke Grove being some of the biggest killers).

Fair point, however, the general improvement in safety standards overall would have probably seen the same improvement with BR.

Yet we're still happy with 3000 deaths on the roads every year...

 

[W.Tregurtha]

Another public service is to sacrificed on the alter of privatization... :roll:

£2 to post a letter anyone?

There's been no state post office in Holland for some years. All their mail is handled by DHL. They seem to manage. All that keeps the GPO afloat here is junk mail. When was the last time you wrote a personal letter to someone or received one? It's all mobile telephone text messages and e-mails nowadays. I receive all of my utility bills by e-mail and my bank statements and credit card statements. About all I get in the post that's not junk are birthday and Christmas cards and I suspect that's mostly true for the majority of people.

 

[Wath Yard]

Fair point, however, the general improvement in safety standards overall would have probably seen the same improvement with BR.

It's also down to advances in train manufacturing. Grayrigg was a serious accident by any standards, but only 1 person died. Had the train been formed of Mk Is the death toll would probably have been significantly higher. But as you have said with track safety standards, trains would have become safer whether the railway was privatised or not.

 

[Dave1987]

Look at the end of the day BR had a pretty bad safety record. I know there have been advances in technology but there is also accountabilty through financial penalty today. If it was BR there would be no penalty for delays. People constantly say that if it was BR again then all the ticket revenue would go back into improving the infrastructure....really?? Just like all the road tax we pay goes directly into paying for the road to be maintained I think not. At least a TOC has the ability to hold NR accountable for signal failures and track defects. I think the fact that Grayrigg was the last major incident on the railway is a testament to the safety and the accountability the railway currently has. Can you see there being any delay repay schemes under BR, I cant. The railways started up under private ownership, were nationalised, that didnt work so were privatised again. If people didnt like the railway now they simply wouldn't use it.

 

[Wath Yard]

If people didnt like the railway now they simply wouldn't use it.

Yep, by saying the same thing for the 10th time, you've finally convinced me. As we all know commuters into central London have so many alternatives. :roll:

 

[Buttsy]

The railways started up under private ownership, were nationalised, that didnt work so were privatised again.

Odd that state control seems to work for our European neighbours...

The privatisation was a political idea by the Tories at the time which wasn't expected to be carried out until they surprisingly won the 1992 election (they were expecting to lose).

Best way forward is to let DB run all TOCs I reckon, then at least Britain's railways will be under state control again...

 

[Goatboy]

Look at the end of the day BR had a pretty bad safety record. I know there have been advances in technology but there is also accountabilty through financial penalty today.

Health and Safety legislation and expectation along with technology and standards have come on an inordinate amount in the last 25 years. It is this progress and not the ownership structure of the rail network that is responsible for the excellent safety record we have today. You will notice similar improvements in safety records in other industries too, compare air travel in the UK in the 1980's with the 2000's. Nil deaths onboard planes involving UK passenger airlines in the 2000's. Sadly more than nil in the 1980's.

Don't also forget how much more money, in real terms, the railway network receives from the government today versus the same point in, say, 1990. No wonder in some respects things are better - we are putting more money in. Who knows what effect the same amount of money would have had on a unified publically operated railway network?

The trouble we have here is people assuming that everything that is different today can only be different because the railways were privatised. This seems to me to be quite daft.

It works both ways, too, mind. Whilst I beleive it wrong to state that passenger growth is because of privatisation I also beleive it wrong to state that fare increases are purely because of privatisation. There would also have been fare increases had BR remained and we've no way of telling what those might be.

If it was BR there would be no penalty for delays.

You can't say this with any level of certainity. Who is to say that there wouldn't have ended up being a similar delay regeime between BR subsectors? Is it even a good thing that there is a penalty for delays? There are constant moans on here from within the industry about the farce that is delay minute attribution, remember.

I do love your point about Delay Repay though. Thats particularly amusing given that it isn't a private sector innovation, it's a concept forced on new franchise holders by the government!

under BR, I cant. The railways started up under private ownership, were nationalised, that didnt work so were privatised again. If people didnt like the railway now they simply wouldn't use it.

It wasn't privatised because nationalisation 'didn't work', it was privatised because the government of the time felt, rightly or wrongly, that the state should not play a part in the operation of such businesses. Hence the privatisation of utilities etc in the same 10 year period.

Nationalisation works in other countries - this argument isn't so much a 'Privatisation v what BR was at the time' more a 'Privatisation v What BR could have been today with the same level of spending and the same stricter standards'.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

It's also down to advances in train manufacturing. Grayrigg was a serious accident by any standards, but only 1 person died. Had the train been formed of Mk Is the death toll would probably have been significantly higher. But as you have said with track safety standards, trains would have become safer whether the railway was privatised or not.

It has been a natural progression. The Mk 1s were a great deal safer than wooden bodied stock just as electric lighting was safer than oil or gas.

BR did not have a bad safety record and accidents will happen. Don't forget that today's railway runs on the benefit of 175 years of experience and lessons learned. Compare that to road traffic accidents which keep on happening for the same reasons e.g. driving too close to the vehicle in front; speeding; mobile phone use and sheer carelessness.

 

[Dave1987]

The answer to everything seems to be nationalise it. With regards to Power/water/railways the govt would alwasy try to find savings if they held to purse strings. I think the current franchise model (with changes so the WCML debacle doesnt happen again) that binds a company to their promises and if they dont fulfil those promises or their performance is very poor (with regards to delays down to them not infrastructure failures etc) they lose the franchise.

 

[Buttsy]

The answer to everything seems to be nationalise it. With regards to Power/water/railways the govt would alwasy try to find savings if they held to purse strings. I think the current franchise model (with changes so the WCML debacle doesnt happen again) that binds a company to their promises and if they dont fulfil those promises or their performance is very poor (with regards to delays down to them not infrastructure failures etc) they lose the franchise.

If the governemt had sold it all off as one entity 'GB Rail' then, while not particularly happy with the sell off, at least the vertical integration would have remained and would have allowed private enterprise to show whether or not it could be better than BR. The current situation is a total mess with the only winners really being the lawyers who have had to draw up all the contracts and get involved in expensive leagel disputes between parties, paticularly in teh early years.

Current politicians are more interested about getting re-elected than actually what the best approach is to any one problem. Never forget that Boris's idea for an airport on an artificial island in the Thames is nothing new, Ted Heath came up with the idea in the 70s and I actually think that, in general, it was a good one.

I assume that your ID reflects your year of birth and so you are unlikely to know what it was like before that time from personal experience, in the same way I'm unable to know what it was like in the 60s or before from my own experience.

 

[tbtc]

I am pro a railway network operated purely as a public service for the benefit of the country

Beyond the soundbite, what does "public service" mean on the railways?

Nobody here is arguing that the railway should operate without any public subsidy, everyone accepts the need to prop up the likes of ATW (even if we differ on where to draw the line). But what would turn the railway into a "public service" in your eyes?

 

[Zoe]

If the governemt had sold it all off as one entity 'GB Rail' then, while not particularly happy with the sell off, at least the vertical integration would have remained and would have allowed private enterprise to show whether or not it could be better than BR.

The organizational structure could not have continued regardless of if ownership was private or public. The EU directive required the separation of accounts for infrastructure and operations with the infrastructure provider charging operators for track access. What's strange is that in 1992 BR itself was restructured under the "Organizing for Quality" initiative which resulted in a vertically integrated railway with the sectors both owning the infrastructure and operating the service. It's a surprise that this went ahead if it was known that it would not be compatible with the EU directive.