Privatisation VS BR

[Zoe]

over tracks that are owned by the state in lieu of a former failed company

The tracks are owned by a company limited by guarantee, this company isn't owned by anyone.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

The tracks are owned by a company limited by guarantee, this company isn't owned by anyone.

Well I think it comes across overall as a mish mash of a set up that most pig's breakfasts would be proud of.

 

[Zoe]

Well I think it comes across overall as a mish mash of a set up that most pig's breakfasts would be proud of.

What was the alternative though? Fully renationalize (not something New Labour were very keen on) or have another private for profit company take over and risk another Railtrack type situation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thing is, the owner-operator model is much more flexible than the others. With some provisos, for instance not being allowed to reduce a passenger service without permission, they could have achieved far more than the changes we have seen today. Emphasis on the 'could', because we can't be certain of that. Would the New LNER have upgraded its line, the ECML, to 140 mph? Possibly, since there would be far fewer hoops to jump through, it could be decided at a single board meeting if necessary.

The question is though if the Beeching cuts would have been prevented without nationalization? At the end of the day people preferred the private car and unless there was something done to prevent car ownership which is very unlikely then I doubt many routes would have been profitable and so would have ended up closing. Yes there may have been more heavy investment in the trunk routes but this could have been at the expense of secondary routes.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

What was the alternative though? Fully renationalize (not something New Labour were very keen on) or have another private for profit company take over and risk another Railtrack type situation.
[.

The Swiss model seems to work

 

[RobShipway]

Reading through peoples comments in this thread makes me feel that there is more lines that should be re - opened or routes/lines put in place so that you do not have to trek across London to go North or South of the country.

As much as there is more routes that have opened or re -opened since Privatisation, I think there is a more routes which have been stopped either due to paths not being there anymore such as mentioned in my original e-mail that opened this thread or down to the lack of pasengers taking the trains on some routes. So to say that there has been improvement since the 1970's is one thing but it has been at cost to the routes which now no longer exist which is a shame.

Yes, there has been an increase in passenger numbers in the last 20 years but fares need to be cheaper than they are and the railway companies need to be providing more services in my view that either were there previously in BR days or that can be seen that there is a need for it now due to the growth in traffic.

My ideas would be to have services such as the following:

Brighton via Kensington Olympia & Birmingham New Street to Holyhead.
Brighton via Fareham/Southampton to Penzance
Eastbourne via Gatwick Airport/Guildford/Reading to Swansea
Eastbourne via Gatwick Airport/Guildford/Wokingham/Reading to Liverpool
Portsmouth via Fareham/Southampton/Salisbury/Bristol Temple Meads to Blackpool
Portsmouth via Havant/Guildford/Reading to Glasgow

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The Swiss model seems to work

Albeit with very high subsidy levels - around 60% (but even the wealthy Swiss are balking at continued heavy subsidy and infrastructure costs)

Their traffic loadings are pretty flat too ......having said that , it is an impressive network and well co-ordinated , even if the fares are not that cheap - mind you nothing is cheap in Switzerland.!

 

[Oswyntail]

....At the end of the day people preferred the private car and unless there was something done to prevent car ownership which is very unlikely then I doubt many routes would have been profitable and so would have ended up closing.....

One day, someone will write the authoritative history of British transport policy in the post-war years, and explain in detail why we took the short-sighted view of going for limitless growth in private car ownership, provided for by the government. However, I think Zoe has here fallen into the Beeching trap (probably actually the Marples trap) of thinking that the only option for "unprofitable" lines was closure. If they had, instead, been considered as "underused assets", different solutions might have been found.

 

[Zoe]

I think Zoe has here fallen into the Beeching trap (probably actually the Marples trap) of thinking that the only option for "unprofitable" lines was closure. If they had, instead, been considered as "underused assets", different solutions might have been found.

Unless private car ownership had been restricted though, I'm not quite sure how people would have been forced to use the railways though and unless they are used they are not going to be profitable.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The relentless growth in car ownership (and "C" licence lorries) from the early 1950's did for much of nationalized BR traffic , and the population voted with their feet - or car keys. The much vaunted Modernisation plan did not (maybe - in hindsight) - consider the major structural changes in economy and lifestyle. Suburbia and all that, - look at the changes in the industrial economy in this time. From coal and steel to nuclear generation and services.

A major theme ....

 

[LE Greys]

The question is though if the Beeching cuts would have been prevented without nationalization? At the end of the day people preferred the private car and unless there was something done to prevent car ownership which is very unlikely then I doubt many routes would have been profitable and so would have ended up closing. Yes there may have been more heavy investment in the trunk routes but this could have been at the expense of secondary routes.

That is indeed the question. Cuts were going on before Beeching, the Bluebell Railway closed in 1957 for instance, and I think some were right back before nationalisation. Probably a moot point.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Unless private car ownership had been restricted though, I'm not quite sure how people would have been forced to use the railways though and unless they are used they are not going to be profitable.

It depends on what you perceive as being profitable. If you think about it, there are thousands of miles of country roads that cannot possibly be seen as 'profitable' on the basis of useage. The lop sided thinking when it comes to infrastructure is really quite astonishing. Multi million pound road improvement schemes are seen as 'investment' but rail improvement schemes are always presented in a manner that demands justification.

The railway were decimated, in the sixties, because the received wisdom was that they were underused. I would suggest that most of the hugely expensive road improvements are of no benefit whatsoever outside of peak periods. Try driving down the M4 from Cardiff to Swansea at this time of the evening and you will be met with massive over capacity. Many railway lines were deemed redundant because they carried either daily or seasonal peak traffic and so did not justify retention for the rest of the time.

Most roads have exactly the same traffic pattern but I never hear anyone suggesting that we should close underused road assets. Instead there is constant clamour to spend zillions to enable somebody to get out of bed five minutes later.

 

[Zoe]

It depends on what you perceive as being profitable. If you think about it, there are thousands of miles of country roads that cannot possibly be seen as 'profitable' on the basis of useage.

If the railways had stayed in the private sector though and ran on a fully commercial basis then why would a company keep something open or run services that are not making a profit? I don't see how they would ever be profitable if they were not used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Try driving down the M4 from Cardiff to Swansea at this time of the evening and you will be met with massive over capacity.

I would expect there are also railways that are overcapacity outside of peak times. I believe the motorways were primarily built for freight and I'm not sure there would be capacity to transfer most of this to the rail network considering paths are needed for more passenger services.

 

[Bald Rick]

The lop sided thinking when it comes to infrastructure is really quite astonishing. Multi million pound road improvement schemes are seen as 'investment' but rail improvement schemes are always presented in a manner that demands justification.

20 years ago perhaps, but all publicly funded transport schemes are now assessed and justified on exactly the same criteria. Those of us who work in the industry can not remember a time in the last 50 years when Government attitude to railways was so favourable, and investment in rail infrastructure was so forthcoming.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

I would expect there are also railways that are overcapacity outside of peak times. I believe the motorways were primarily built for freight and I'm not sure there would be capacity to transfer most of this to the rail network considering paths are needed for more passenger services.

Whatever the motorways were built for there is undeniably spare capacity lying idle at many times during the day. Because of the way freight traffic has developed around the motorways much of it would be unlikely to return to rail. The one glaring anomaly is that, in recent years, the overnight train has virtually disappeared leaving all that infrastructure that could be used to move goods when the passengers are safely tucked up in bed.

In any case, none of this answers the question as to why investment in the railways is treated differently to investment in roads.

 

[Bald Rick]

Try driving down the M4 from Cardiff to Swansea at this time of the evening and you will be met with massive over capacity.

And try driving down it on a summer Saturday and you'll find it quicker to walk...

 

[Zoe]

Whatever the motorways were built for there is undeniably spare capacity lying idle at many times during the day. Because of the way freight traffic has developed around the motorways much of it would be unlikely to return to rail. The one glaring anomaly is that, in recent years, the overnight train has virtually disappeared leaving all that infrastructure that could be used to move goods when the passengers are safely tucked up in bed.

Just as the capacity is not fully used all the time doesn't mean it isn't needed though. There are quite a few trains that sit around doing nothing off peak on some routes.

In any case, none of this answers the question as to why investment in the railways is treated differently to investment in roads.

I don't see how not nationalizing the railways would have helped with this though. People would still most likely have preferred the car and so the demand for rail travel would have still been lower regardless of if the railways were in the public or private sector. If the railways were run on a fully commercial basis then it's very unlikely a service would continue to run if there is little demand for it.

 

[A0wen]

The rolling stock provision between Scarborough and York has deteriorated in every conceivable way.

I am not talking about taking away "special services" here, but the regular year-round services. In the 1970s these were a 4-car DMUs bolstered to even 6 or 8 car trains at busier times.

How they can think a 3-car unit is fit for purpose for every single service at any time with a "one size fits all" approach completely escapes me.

On top of that the first generation DMUs were so much better fitted out internally than modern rolling stock (the same can be said of lots of other stock too). If the class 185 units were fitted out based on the interior style, materials, comfort and aesthetics of an ex-works class 101, I honestly believe that passengers would consider it a hugely improved travelling experience.

Carriage interiors were built with craftsmanship; craftsmanship I say!

Hmm, let me think about this one.

The "Inter City" DMUs e.g. 123/124 were limited to 70mph, compared to the 90mph of 158s or 100mph for a 185 - so easily quicker than the 1st gen stuff resulting in shorter journey times.

An ex works class 101 had low height bus style seats in standard class usually 3+2. With the exception of the units specced by London Overground, none of the units introduced in the last 10 years have had low backed seating in standard. A good proportion have 2+2 seating - the exception tends to be units which will be used on London bound stopping services.

Air conditioning? Forget it on the 1st gen stuff.

Ride quality? Well I reckon the current crop of units introduced over the last 10 years which I've ridden on (Desiros, Electrostars, Voyagers, Meridians, Pendos) all ride far more smoothly and comfortably than what went before them.

So, you can keep your rose tinted specs on about the merits of the 1st gen DMUs - I'd far rather do a journey on one of the new builds any day.

 

[silverfoxcc]

In France and Switzerland, there may be other countries but i have not travelled on their networks, they run proper trains, loco hauled and 14-16 carriages. Look at what has replaced them in this country. 2-6 car multiple units, perhaps the trains would be less crowded if we did go back to loco hauled trains, but the bean counters would be wailing that assets are being underused, to the detriment of shareholders and the bonuses paid to those who do,IMHO, the least public service to the travelling public

 

[Zoe]

In France and Switzerland, there may be other countries but i have not travelled on their networks, they run proper trains, loco hauled and 14-16 carriages. Look at what has replaced them in this country. 2-6 car multiple units, perhaps the trains would be less crowded if we did go back to loco hauled trains, but the bean counters would be wailing that assets are being underused, to the detriment of shareholders and the bonuses paid to those who do,IMHO, the least public service to the travelling public

The MUs though have allowed frequencies to be significantly increased.

 

[A0wen]

Reading through peoples comments in this thread makes me feel that there is more lines that should be re - opened or routes/lines put in place so that you do not have to trek across London to go North or South of the country.

As much as there is more routes that have opened or re -opened since Privatisation, I think there is a more routes which have been stopped either due to paths not being there anymore such as mentioned in my original e-mail that opened this thread or down to the lack of pasengers taking the trains on some routes. So to say that there has been improvement since the 1970's is one thing but it has been at cost to the routes which now no longer exist which is a shame.

Yes, there has been an increase in passenger numbers in the last 20 years but fares need to be cheaper than they are and the railway companies need to be providing more services in my view that either were there previously in BR days or that can be seen that there is a need for it now due to the growth in traffic.

My ideas would be to have services such as the following:

Brighton via Kensington Olympia & Birmingham New Street to Holyhead.
Brighton via Fareham/Southampton to Penzance
Eastbourne via Gatwick Airport/Guildford/Reading to Swansea
Eastbourne via Gatwick Airport/Guildford/Wokingham/Reading to Liverpool
Portsmouth via Fareham/Southampton/Salisbury/Bristol Temple Meads to Blackpool
Portsmouth via Havant/Guildford/Reading to Glasgow

I love this persistent argument that rail fares have got too expensive.....

Can I suggest you take a look at the following link

http://inflationmonkey.blogspot.co.uk/2012_01_01_archive.html

The figures here show that:

- Rail fares have run ahead of inflation since the early 1990s

BUT

- Rail fares increases have broadly tracked average salary levels which means average salary levels have increased ahead of inflation as well
- Bus and coach fares have increased at the roughly same rate as rail fares

The problem is to claim "rail fares are too expensive" you need to have something to bench-mark them against. Just picking numbers out of the air or citing subjective examples is meaningless.

The fact is that rail fares as a proportion of income has remained fairly static for over 20 years. Rail travel hasn't suddenly got very expensive, it's always been expensive.

As for the "services" you suggest - just how long do you think a journey from Portsmouth to Blackpool via Bristol would take? Even a National Express coach would beat that one.

And Brighton to Holyhead? Just how many people do you think would make such a journey? I reckon you wouldn't even fill a Class 153 even if you ran it once a day.

Frankly most people want a balance between cost and speed when making a journey and accept changing train is a possibility.

Places like Brighton and Eastbourne have excellent links to London with relatively easy cross London links to other major termini - there is a reason why the 'through' trains to the south coast were withdrawn - they weren't being particularly well patronised and as a result they were under-using valuable paths. And those paths are now far better used (i.e. to the benefit of more passengers) by providing another service into London.

You may not like it and you may doubt it, but generally the railway network is run with the aim of moving as many people as possible as efficiently as possible. This means that sometimes some people won't be able to make the exact journey they want - but that's quite right as far more people benefit from making the journey they need to.

And FWIW, that, I believe, has been one of the biggest changes for the better since privatisation.

With BR, passengers, customers, call us what you want, didn't matter. There was a guarantee of money - if passenger numbers declined resulting in reduced revenue then BR management simply expected government to make up the shortfall. Using the rail network in the 80s and early 90s was frequently a dismal experience and not one you'd choose to make - old rolling stock, surly staff, unreliable service, a 'who cares' attitude if your train was cancelled, I could go on.

There does seem to be a far better attitude towards passengers now - which I suspect is one of the reasons that passenger numbers are at record levels.

 

[Zoe]

There does seem to be a far better attitude towards passengers now - which I suspect is one of the reasons that passenger numbers are at record levels.

Or it could just be that the private car is in decline and people still need to travel so it's inevitable people will switch to rail.

 

[A0wen]

In France and Switzerland, there may be other countries but i have not travelled on their networks, they run proper trains, loco hauled and 14-16 carriages. Look at what has replaced them in this country. 2-6 car multiple units, perhaps the trains would be less crowded if we did go back to loco hauled trains, but the bean counters would be wailing that assets are being underused, to the detriment of shareholders and the bonuses paid to those who do,IMHO, the least public service to the travelling public

And you might like to reflect on the fact the move to MUs, particularly on the Cross Country network was a BR invention - nothing to do with Privatisation.

All those Class 155 / 156 / 158 and 159s which replaced loco hauls were done by BR - the privatised companies have inherited what BR left them and the DfT specify what kind of trains are used on what services - so your clam that "the bean counters would be wailing that assets are being underused, to the detriment of shareholders and the bonuses paid to those who do,IMHO, the least public service to the travelling public" is at best misguided.

And as Zoe pointed out, the introduction of MUs generally led to increases in frequency and speed. The best example (which did happen after privatisation) was when Virgin introduced the Voyagers onto the bulk of the XC network - the theory of what they proposed - run a 4 car train every 30 mins rather than an 8 car every hour - was quite sensible. What the DfT didn't allow for (or support Virgin on) was the capacity growth - and there is evidence that Virgin wanted to make the Voyagers 5 car units - DfT declined. Once again, government interference inhibited a private company wanting to improve things.

 

[Batman]

Or it could just be that the private car is in decline and people still need to travel so it's inevitable people will switch to rail.

It's that and a matter of social trends, fads and fashion.

I've been using my local rail service in the West Midlands for work and leisure since the Mid 90's, but 15 years ago, if I'd took the train to Birmingham for shopping on a Saturday (which I regularly did), I'd try and avoid talking about it in the pub. The idea of using a train for leisure travel was unknown to a lot of people back then and many of my friends preferred to sit in traffic jams and pay a fortune for city centre parking. They probably saw trains as being either a relic of the past or something that was only for nerds or social outcasts, or maybe a mix of all 3.

But now, those same friends who 15 years ago wouldn't have been seen dead on a train, now use them without thinking about it.

So when I got to meet with friends in Birmingham, meet me at the bull at 12 has become meet me at Bloxwich North and we'll get the 10.30 to town.

Shows how things change.

 

[Zoe]

there is evidence that Virgin wanted to make the Voyagers 5 car units - DfT declined. Once again, government interference inhibited a private company wanting to improve things.

The SRA did block Virgin from extending the units to 5 cars in 2002/2003 but who would have financed it?

 

[A0wen]

Or it could just be that the private car is in decline and people still need to travel so it's inevitable people will switch to rail.

The statistics don't support the claim private car usage is "in decline"

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/national-travel-survey-2010/nts2010-01.pdf

Look at Page 7 - the biggest drop was company cars on business mileage. And that could be accounted for by a number of factors. Interestingly company car use for commuting increased significantly. All other metrics seem to be fairly constant.

 

[Zoe]

And you might like to reflect on the fact the move to MUs, particularly on the Cross Country network was a BR invention - nothing to do with Privatisation.

I'm not sure there was ever a BR plan for the intercity cross country network to go over to MU operation though.

 

[Batman]

The SRA did block Virgin from extending the units to 5 cars in 2002/2003 but who would have financed it?

Bransons back pocket probably.

 

[A0wen]

The SRA did block Virgin from extending the units to 5 cars in 2002/2003 but who would have financed it?

Does it matter? The fact is the SRA obstructed a TOC who wanted to make improvements.

And given the monumental level of wasted public spending which a certain G Brown had embarked on by then, frankly 30 rail coaches would have been a drop in the ocean if it had hit the public purse.

 

[Zoe]

Does it matter?

It does if Virgin wanted someone else to pay for it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The statistics don't support the claim private car usage is "in decline"

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/national-travel-survey-2010/nts2010-01.pdf

Look at Page 7 - the biggest drop was company cars on business mileage. And that could be accounted for by a number of factors. Interestingly company car use for commuting increased significantly. All other metrics seem to be fairly constant.

That may well be what the statistics say but I know of people like Batman was referring to above that ten years ago would go everywhere by car but now use public transport so there must be some modal shift away from the private care. I believe that smartphones and social networking sites have helped with this shift as you would be able to use them on public transport.

 

[A0wen]

I'm not sure there was ever a BR plan for the intercity cross country network to go over to MU operation though.

Given the 47s were reaching life expiry, the Mk2s getting old and no more HSTs were due to be released (i.e. assuming GWML and MML not electrified) then frankly BR would have had to do something and I suspect an MU of some kind would have come about.

What I do doubt is BR would ever have embarked on something as radical as Operation Princess - which for its faults (and it's easy to find fault with hindsight) can generally be judged as successful.