Rail accounts for only 2% of all trips made

[Killingworth]

Longer but fewer trains (by way of portion working through the core) would solve the primary problem at Manc Picc, not accentuate it. There is a bit of "stacking up" goes on in the very low numbered platforms, but now the Ordsall Chord is in use relatively less of it. "Stacking up" in 13/14 is not done on a planned basis, only when circumstances dictate, and arguably it actually wastes more time than just keeping the second train outside until the platform clears.

Stacking two or three trains in the low number terminating platforms at Piccadilly is often a problem contributing to delays. It's a normal situation and as long as trains arrive close to timetable they should be able to depart in the correct order.

Unfortunately they don't all arrive at the right time. Many of the situations involve short Northern services blocking similar trains.

On a couple of journeys recently my Northern stopping service for the Hope Valley was trapped by a late running TPE from the airport resulting in the stopper starting late and missing paths to ensure it was over 5 minutes late at destination.

By being 5 minutes late at Dore it probably held up other trains. TPE crews may curse the stoppers but it's often the other way round. Lack of resilience at Piccadilly isn't just Platforms 13 and 14.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Spot on, Killingworth.

 

[Killingworth]

Spot on, Killingworth.

Dr Hoo, of course as a fellow Hope Valley line user you'll be very familiar with the TPE from Cleethorpes arriving at Sheffield a few minutes late. The on time Northern stopper is released from Platform 2C and held in the Heeley loop until the TPE can get away. The stopper is then at least 5 minutes late all the way down the line, and quite likely to be unable to take its correct place at the head of the queue at Piccadilly Platform 1 as intended.

In this case a bi-directional redoubled track through Dore & Totley station would allow the stopper to proceed further and let the TPE overtake at Dore while the stopper waited in that platform a little further down the line than Heeley loop. Delay reduced - positive result as it would be more likely to enter Platform 1 as intended. If late it could end in 2, 3 or 4.

Ah, there is an option in the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme (as shown at the public inquiry in 2016) to provide crossovers that would allow that bi-directional option to happen - but it would require expensive extra track and signalling provision. Is anyone expecting an option requiring more money for both provision and maintenance to be added to an already escalating budget? Wait and see.

There are masses of little bottlenecks across the country which can be fixed, but aren't due to cost and safety pressures.

 

[edwin_m]

Dr Hoo, of course as a fellow Hope Valley line user you'll be very familiar with the TPE from Cleethorpes arriving at Sheffield a few minutes late. The on time Northern stopper is released from Platform 2C and held in the Heeley loop until the TPE can get away. The stopper is then at least 5 minutes late all the way down the line, and quite likely to be unable to take its correct place at the head of the queue at Piccadilly Platform 1 as intended.

In this case a bi-directional redoubled track through Dore & Totley station would allow the stopper to proceed further and let the TPE overtake at Dore while the stopper waited in that platform a little further down the line than Heeley loop. Delay reduced - positive result as it would be more likely to enter Platform 1 as intended. If late it could end in 2, 3 or 4.

Ah, there is an option in the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme (as shown at the public inquiry in 2016) to provide crossovers that would allow that bi-directional option to happen - but it would require expensive extra track and signalling provision. Is anyone expecting an option requiring more money for both provision and maintenance to be added to an already escalating budget? Wait and see.

There are masses of little bottlenecks across the country which can be fixed, but aren't due to cost and safety pressures.

However to realise the capacity benefit of Dore re-doubling, trains to and from the Hope Valley must be timetabled to pass each other on the junction. If that happens then an overtake via bi-directional running though the station can't happen.

 

[Killingworth]

However to realise the capacity benefit of Dore re-doubling, trains to and from the Hope Valley must be timetabled to pass each other on the junction. If that happens then an overtake via bi-directional running though the station can't happen.

Timetabling is one thing when it works; resilience when things don't work is another. Today a bridge strike near Romiley, several points failures* in recent weeks, and frequent delays knocking on from across the nation all conspire to ensure that trains don't coincide where their paths were planned. That's when flexible options can be very useful - as somebody must have thought when planning the new works, but only went half way to providing the fullest potential benefits.

* Points failures at Dore Station Junction prevented anything running through the junction. Stopping trains from Manchester could get to Dore, but no further. Trains towards Manchester were held at Sheffield. If the optional track layout below had existed I suspect other option movements might have been possible. The option needs to be activated.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Absolutely agree. Flexible layouts at the behest of an experienced signaller are a joy to behold. To mention an example relevant to the Hope Valley, I am often impressed at the way that both passenger and freight trains are re-sequenced through Hazel Grove using either platform in either direction. (The chord line itself has always been single track since it was built.)
At Manchester Oxford Road recently I saw three eastbound services held in three of the through platforms whilst a fourth was routed round them all via Platform 1 in the face of a steady stream in the opposite direction. Less than two minutes between successive moves.
This sort of ‘tactical exploitation’ is what can sustain an intensive timetable.

 

[edwin_m]

Having said that, the more switches and crossing there are the more likely one is to fail, especially if it is only used occasionally.

 

[Killingworth]

Having said that, the more switches and crossing there are the more likely one is to fail, especially if it is only used occasionally.

Quite! Always a balancing act, but if we want to increase rail use the reliability of the services has to improve. That's a lot more difficult than rail detractors realise.

 

[Killingworth]

Absolutely agree. Flexible layouts at the behest of an experienced signaller are a joy to behold. To mention an example relevant to the Hope Valley, I am often impressed at the way that both passenger and freight trains are re-sequenced through Hazel Grove using either platform in either direction. (The chord line itself has always been single track since it was built.)
At Manchester Oxford Road recently I saw three eastbound services held in three of the through platforms whilst a fourth was routed round them all via Platform 1 in the face of a steady stream in the opposite direction. Less than two minutes between successive moves.
This sort of ‘tactical exploitation’ is what can sustain an intensive timetable.

I used two examples for one route. A Northern Hope Valley stopper trapped at Piccadilly by another service that has come into a platform behind it and not allowing it to leave on time. Then a reverse working from Sheffield allowed to leave Platform 2C on time but held in the Heeley loop to allow another service, usually TPE, to pass.

When an eastbound stopping service is delayed the fast trains of TPE or East Midlands are liable to back up behind, crawling from station to station until Sheffield. The possibility to overtake at Dore could save them 3 minutes. Having options can be very helpful.

Another option might include running a train from the North or East, currently terminating at Sheffield, up to Dore to relieve platforms there during any reconfiguration in advance of HS2. In that case it could be passed - but that would take us back to where we are now! It's hard to solve one problem without creating another.

 

[squizzler]

Going back to the title of the thread, the premise that rail - supposedly with only 2% of trips nationally - is irrelevant in the broader scheme of things makes no sense at an intuitive level. If rail was not of great national significance then there would not be serious calls to nationalise them all - something that can only be justified for the most strategic assets.

 

[6Gman]

Going back to the title of the thread, the premise that rail - supposedly with only 2% of trips nationally - is irrelevant in the broader scheme of things makes no sense at an intuitive level. If rail was not of great national significance then there would not be serious calls to nationalise them all - something that can only be justified for the most strategic assets.

Indeed. The relevant figure isn't the overall national figure. It's to what degree rail meets individual needs.

What %age of people working in Central London (or Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham etc) travel by rail?
What %age of shoppers in these major cities?
What %age of the flows between major cities etc etc?

The overall national figure will be lowered by the many, many journeys where rail's share is 0% or not much more - trips to school, hospital, church, journeys in deeply rural areas, visits to (many) shopping centres etc etc

The 2% figure is basically meaningless.

 

[Robertj21a]

Going back to the title of the thread, the premise that rail - supposedly with only 2% of trips nationally - is irrelevant in the broader scheme of things makes no sense at an intuitive level. If rail was not of great national significance then there would not be serious calls to nationalise them all - something that can only be justified for the most strategic assets.

I think many of the calls for nationalisation come from those who mistakenly believe that any profits currently made by private shareholders would then be available for investment in the rail network, or would lead to lower fares.

.

 

[Ken H]

Going back to the title of the thread, the premise that rail - supposedly with only 2% of trips nationally - is irrelevant in the broader scheme of things makes no sense at an intuitive level. If rail was not of great national significance then there would not be serious calls to nationalise them all - something that can only be justified for the most strategic assets.

its important in London, and as we know, London is all that matters in government and the media.

I think many of the calls for nationalisation come from those who mistakenly believe that any profits currently made by private shareholders would then be available for investment in the rail network, or would lead to lower fares.

.

I shudder at the thought of the industry being controlled any more by the useless Department for Transport, and see the levels of incompetence shown by Network rail with their electrification., especially Great Western happening in nationalised TOC's.

 

[Richard Ingram]

I think many of the calls for nationalisation come from those who mistakenly believe that any profits currently made by private shareholders would then be available for investment in the rail network, or would lead to lower fares.

.

I know nationalism isn't necessarily perfect, but the problem I have is that the rail network as a whole is not and will never be directly profitable, it has to be subsidised to work, produce economic benefits, and in some cases a social or environmental good, even at a cost. The current system allows TOC's to take any profit from certain areas, and force any loses onto the government, by not taking on contracts that are not profitable, or giving up on them when they can't make it pay. Private industry works when competition holds companies to account, but actual direct competition on the railways is rare, especially in the areas that are never going to be profitable.

I wonder if the current system used in parts of the London network would work, where a company is hired to do the job, but the ticket sales go to TfL. That way the competition is in getting the contract, and the profit is handled upfront, and since the government is taking the risks, they get to take the profits as well. And any profits can be used to subsidise the areas that don't make a profit, but are kept running for other reasons.

People don't have an objection to companies existing, or making a profit, but when they take money from us in a situation where people don't have a choice, either from a monopoly, or from our taxes, and then don't provide the service expected, people understandably get annoyed.

I shudder at the thought of the industry being controlled any more by the useless Department for Transport, and see the levels of incompetence shown by Network rail with their electrification., especially Great Western happening in nationalised TOC's.

Network Rail might be bad, but RailTrack had its share of incompetence, which led to its dissolution, and they had safety questions hanging over them. Private companies are only fair if they are allowed to fail without getting governments to intervene. RailTrack took money from the government when the going was good, and gave it to shareholders, then gave up and ended, leaving the government to pick up the pieces they left behind after not managing for the future.

I think it is hypocritical for governments to say that nationalised industries are badly run, lets give them to the private sector(mostly rich people who are friends with the politicians(sorry leftist prejudice showing there)), but aren't we doing a good job, please re-elect us. If they stand up and say that we cannot run a business reliably, but please let us run your country, in a logical world they would be voted out immediately.

Then there is the problem with the current system, where by breaking up everything, DfT, Network Rail, TOC's, it allows, and indeed encourages, each part to blame the others for any problems, rather than working together to solve problems.

Sorry, this turned into a bit of an essay, and I don't think I have all the answers, and there may be options I don't know about, but I think we have got to the point where the fundamental lie of privatisation has been exposed (that private enterprise always provides a better service for less money than government run organisations), and we have to find a way forward that can give us the best possible result, possibly using the best of both worlds.

 

[The Ham]

I know nationalism isn't necessarily perfect, but the problem I have is that the rail network as a whole is not and will never be directly profitable, it has to be subsidised to work, produce economic benefits, and in some cases a social or environmental good, even at a cost. The current system allows TOC's to take any profit from certain areas, and force any loses onto the government, by not taking on contracts that are not profitable, or giving up on them when they can't make it pay. Private industry works when competition holds companies to account, but actual direct competition on the railways is rare, especially in the areas that are never going to be profitable.

I wonder if the current system used in parts of the London network would work, where a company is hired to do the job, but the ticket sales go to TfL. That way the competition is in getting the contract, and the profit is handled upfront, and since the government is taking the risks, they get to take the profits as well. And any profits can be used to subsidise the areas that don't make a profit, but are kept running for other reasons.

People don't have an objection to companies existing, or making a profit, but when they take money from us in a situation where people don't have a choice, either from a monopoly, or from our taxes, and then don't provide the service expected, people understandably get annoyed.


Network Rail might be bad, but RailTrack had its share of incompetence, which led to its dissolution, and they had safety questions hanging over them. Private companies are only fair if they are allowed to fail without getting governments to intervene. RailTrack took money from the government when the going was good, and gave it to shareholders, then gave up and ended, leaving the government to pick up the pieces they left behind after not managing for the future.

I think it is hypocritical for governments to say that nationalised industries are badly run, lets give them to the private sector(mostly rich people who are friends with the politicians(sorry leftist prejudice showing there)), but aren't we doing a good job, please re-elect us. If they stand up and say that we cannot run a business reliably, but please let us run your country, in a logical world they would be voted out immediately.

Then there is the problem with the current system, where by breaking up everything, DfT, Network Rail, TOC's, it allows, and indeed encourages, each part to blame the others for any problems, rather than working together to solve problems.

Sorry, this turned into a bit of an essay, and I don't think I have all the answers, and there may be options I don't know about, but I think we have got to the point where the fundamental lie of privatisation has been exposed (that private enterprise always provides a better service for less money than government run organisations), and we have to find a way forward that can give us the best possible result, possibly using the best of both worlds.

If you strip out the HS2 costs and the Enhancements costs from Network Rail then the cost of running the railways is about £250 million.

As such it's not likely to take much for that figure to end up being zero or better.

Longer trains where they're useful would help, as would running more services over existing lines which are lightly used (as long as they go somewhere useful).

Even upping slightly the very cheap advance ticket prices (as these are often used by people who would be traveling anyway).

 

[Richard Ingram]

If you strip out the HS2 costs and the Enhancements costs from Network Rail then the cost of running the railways is about £250 million.

As such it's not likely to take much for that figure to end up being zero or better.

Ignoring the costs of enhancement work is a bit disingenuous, as that is needed to provide growth. If companies need the government to provide infrastructure for them to run on to produce profit, then the money spent on that infrastructure is a subsidy. I don't know what the plan is for HS2 once it is up and running, but if it is going to be done the same way as current TOC's, then the money spent building it is also a subsidy for whatever company then runs it. I am not against subsidies for railways, or roads, or any other infrastructure, that is what government and taxes are for, but we should be honest about it, and try to work out the best way to spend that money. I just object to the way the system works at the moment, where private individuals take the profit, but government takes the risk. They should be tied together, otherwise they are gambling with other peoples money.

Even upping slightly the very cheap advance ticket prices (as these are often used by people who would be traveling anyway).

I don't know the best result for this one way or another, but as a regular user of these tickets, I do know I would travel less by train if the prices rose, and use my car more. It seems odd that we should be happy to have my travel by road subsidised significantly(and I know it is), but not my travel by train. especially in the modern world.

 

[Robertj21a]

I know nationalism isn't necessarily perfect, but the problem I have is that the rail network as a whole is not and will never be directly profitable, it has to be subsidised to work, produce economic benefits, and in some cases a social or environmental good, even at a cost. The current system allows TOC's to take any profit from certain areas, and force any loses onto the government, by not taking on contracts that are not profitable, or giving up on them when they can't make it pay. Private industry works when competition holds companies to account, but actual direct competition on the railways is rare, especially in the areas that are never going to be profitable.

I wonder if the current system used in parts of the London network would work, where a company is hired to do the job, but the ticket sales go to TfL. That way the competition is in getting the contract, and the profit is handled upfront, and since the government is taking the risks, they get to take the profits as well. And any profits can be used to subsidise the areas that don't make a profit, but are kept running for other reasons.

People don't have an objection to companies existing, or making a profit, but when they take money from us in a situation where people don't have a choice, either from a monopoly, or from our taxes, and then don't provide the service expected, people understandably get annoyed.


Network Rail might be bad, but RailTrack had its share of incompetence, which led to its dissolution, and they had safety questions hanging over them. Private companies are only fair if they are allowed to fail without getting governments to intervene. RailTrack took money from the government when the going was good, and gave it to shareholders, then gave up and ended, leaving the government to pick up the pieces they left behind after not managing for the future.

I think it is hypocritical for governments to say that nationalised industries are badly run, lets give them to the private sector(mostly rich people who are friends with the politicians(sorry leftist prejudice showing there)), but aren't we doing a good job, please re-elect us. If they stand up and say that we cannot run a business reliably, but please let us run your country, in a logical world they would be voted out immediately.

Then there is the problem with the current system, where by breaking up everything, DfT, Network Rail, TOC's, it allows, and indeed encourages, each part to blame the others for any problems, rather than working together to solve problems.

Sorry, this turned into a bit of an essay, and I don't think I have all the answers, and there may be options I don't know about, but I think we have got to the point where the fundamental lie of privatisation has been exposed (that private enterprise always provides a better service for less money than government run organisations), and we have to find a way forward that can give us the best possible result, possibly using the best of both worlds.

Some people might struggle with the concept that a nationalised railway would be more efficient and innovative than the private sector. Where"s the evidence ?

.

 

[Richard Ingram]

Some people might struggle with the concept that a nationalised railway would be more efficient and innovative than the private sector. Where"s the evidence ?

.

I never said it would be, I just meant that it is a lie that it could never be. And nationalised infrastructure can be more efficient, just compare the prices and results of the NHS, and the American health system. Some people take it on faith that private companies are better in every case(extreme capitalists), and others take it on faith that nationalisation is better in every case(communists). Neither is right, which is obvious when you look at history and the current state of the world. But it is worth considering what drives different systems. That's why I mentioned the TfL model, as at the moment that seems to be a working system, and it keeps control and ownership in the hands of society at large, so adaptions shouldn't be too expensive. I am open to other options, but the current system has many flaws, and for something that is incredibly important to modern and future life, giving up control is massively irresponsible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

the current system has many flaws, and for something that is incredibly important to modern and future life, giving up control is massively irresponsible.

I think that's a fairly good point - you could also say "he who pays the piper calls the tune" - if it's publically funded, it should also (in some form) be publically specified.

 

[Ken H]

TOC's are not really private. They are just outsourcing of operating. The franchises are no such thing, they are tightly written management contracts where the service to be provided, the rolling stock to be used, and even if there is to be a guard on board is all laid down. There is little opportunity to grow the business by innovation. most growth comes from ORCATS raids and pushing single TOC tickets so revenue is kept.

 

[The Ham]

Ignoring the costs of enhancement work is a bit disingenuous, as that is needed to provide growth. If companies need the government to provide infrastructure for them to run on to produce profit, then the money spent on that infrastructure is a subsidy. I don't know what the plan is for HS2 once it is up and running, but if it is going to be done the same way as current TOC's, then the money spent building it is also a subsidy for whatever company then runs it. I am not against subsidies for railways, or roads, or any other infrastructure, that is what government and taxes are for, but we should be honest about it, and try to work out the best way to spend that money. I just object to the way the system works at the moment, where private individuals that the profit, but government takes the risk. They should be tied together, otherwise they are gambling with other peoples money.


I don't know the best result for this one way or another, but as a regular user of these tickets, I do know I would travel less by train if the prices rose, and use my car more. It seems odd that we should be happy to have my travel by road subsidised significantly(and I know it is), but not my travel by train. especially in the modern world.

Ignoring the Enhancements costs puts it more on equal footing with road investment, where although the maintenance budget is smaller (£0.8bn Vs >£2bn) nearly all the maintenance of the railways are covered by the income from non Governmental sources.

The very cheap tickets I was thinking of are those which are less than 1/4 of the comparable (non advance) ticket. The likes of the (when it was them) £6 LM tickets from London to Nuneaton (when even an off peak ticket was about £24) leaving London during the peak.

Increasing them to £9 or even £12 wouldn't have impacted the numbers taking them up by very much. Especially as I know of people who were traveling using those tickets for business purposes.

 

[coppercapped]

I know nationalism isn't necessarily perfect, but the problem I have is that the rail network as a whole is not and will never be directly profitable, it has to be subsidised to work, produce economic benefits, and in some cases a social or environmental good, even at a cost. The current system allows TOC's to take any profit from certain areas, and force any loses onto the government, by not taking on contracts that are not profitable, or giving up on them when they can't make it pay. Private industry works when competition holds companies to account, but actual direct competition on the railways is rare, especially in the areas that are never going to be profitable.

I wonder if the current system used in parts of the London network would work, where a company is hired to do the job, but the ticket sales go to TfL. That way the competition is in getting the contract, and the profit is handled upfront, and since the government is taking the risks, they get to take the profits as well. And any profits can be used to subsidise the areas that don't make a profit, but are kept running for other reasons.

People don't have an objection to companies existing, or making a profit, but when they take money from us in a situation where people don't have a choice, either from a monopoly, or from our taxes, and then don't provide the service expected, people understandably get annoyed.


Network Rail might be bad, but RailTrack had its share of incompetence, which led to its dissolution, and they had safety questions hanging over them. Private companies are only fair if they are allowed to fail without getting governments to intervene. RailTrack took money from the government when the going was good, and gave it to shareholders, then gave up and ended, leaving the government to pick up the pieces they left behind after not managing for the future.

I think it is hypocritical for governments to say that nationalised industries are badly run, lets give them to the private sector(mostly rich people who are friends with the politicians(sorry leftist prejudice showing there)), but aren't we doing a good job, please re-elect us. If they stand up and say that we cannot run a business reliably, but please let us run your country, in a logical world they would be voted out immediately.

Then there is the problem with the current system, where by breaking up everything, DfT, Network Rail, TOC's, it allows, and indeed encourages, each part to blame the others for any problems, rather than working together to solve problems.

Sorry, this turned into a bit of an essay, and I don't think I have all the answers, and there may be options I don't know about, but I think we have got to the point where the fundamental lie of privatisation has been exposed (that private enterprise always provides a better service for less money than government run organisations), and we have to find a way forward that can give us the best possible result, possibly using the best of both worlds.

My answer is also a bit of an essay!

Your first sentence is correct, but most of the rest of the post is quite wide of the mark.

The current system does NOT allow TOCs to give up franchises without cost to them as you imply. As part of the franchise contract the TOC, or rather its holding company, has to post a performance bond which is forfeitable if the TOC defaults within the term of the franchise. The bond amounts to some £50 to £70 million and is there to enable the DfT to select a new operator without a call on the public purse and to dissuade the incumbent to give up too easily. It is sized to hurt as Stagecoach has just found out. There is also a season ticket bond which is there to ensure that any new operator gets the income from the tickets which have already been sold and are still valid at the time the defaulting TOC went belly up.

There has to be a very persuasive reason for a TOC to default on its contract and in twenty four years only three have done so, one of which was because the TOC’s parent company got into financial difficulties and broke its banking covenants. Two more were terminated by the Strategic Rail Authority.

Because in the early-1990s it was considered that the railway system would continue to require state funding the franchising system was designed to permit state funding for socially necessary services to be passed to private companies in a transparent manner. To keep the incumbent honest the franchises were for a limited time, generally around seven years, after which a new competition was to be held. The subsidy paid by the Government covered the cost of operating loss-making routes and allowed the TOC to make a small profit, generally five per cent or so, on its turnover. The bids for the franchises included the effect of cross-subsidisation between the routes so there was no question of a TOC abandoning a loss-making route as the route structure was part of the franchise contract.

The competition that you say does not occur on rail between the TOCs was never intended to happen except in some borderline cases - and in the case of Open Access operators - as it was realised as the ‘privatised’ structure was evolving that on-rail competition would not, and could not, work because of the limitations of the railways’ infrastructure and the methods and scheduling of train operation. This is all described in the book “All Change. British Railway Privatisation” edited by Freeman and Shaw and published by McGraw-Hill in 2000.

The requirements on the bidders for franchises has changed several times since 1995 as have the bodies overseeing the process and awarding the contracts. The least competent has to be the DfT which as early as 2012 completely screwed up the award of the West Coast franchise. The concept of awarding franchises to operate chunks of railway is still valid, but the method by which the DfT selects a winner is badly broken. It now costs northwards of £10million to prepare a bid - win or lose. It’s not surprising that the main runners are foreign railway operators with deep pockets and so few bids per franchise are now submitted - the DfT has frightened off most of the UK-based commercial companies.

So I would dispute your assertion that the lie of privatisation has been exposed. The reality is that the DfT has over the years accrued more and more decision-making power to itself - as civil servants can’t resist fiddling - and the people who become civil servants and the organisational structure within which, and the incentives to which, they work are not designed to operate an industry. The Civil Service’s main product is paper: strategy papers, discussion papers, memos, white papers, bills…none of which demands an answer within the day to ensure that timetables can be prepared on time.

The fundamental problem with the rail industry at the moment is the Department for Transport. It is nothing to do with private or public ownership. Ownership is not the issue - it’s whether the incentives (by which I do not mean money only) presented to the direction and management of the industry are aligned with the requirements of the industry’s customers. Clearly at the moment they are not - and the incentives at the moment are set by the DfT in, among others, the details of the franchise agreements and its management of Network Rail.

To your point about Railtrack. It never received any Government money directly until the very end of its existence; until then its income was made up of the various access charges paid by the TOCs. The structure chosen to privatise the infrastructure left Railtrack without any direct method of controlling the infrastructure maintenance - thus controlling its costs or concentrating maintenance and renewals where they were most needed - or initiating enhancements. In any event the access charges were set at a level to run a ‘steady state’ railway with no plans to add much in the way of extra capacity - although privatisation was expected to lead to an increase in traffic the size of the increase was unanticipated. Taken together this meant that after a few years it found itself between a rock and a hard place aided and abetted by a management that saw itself as running a thrusting private enterprise company but which in reality was a regulated utility. And as we all know - it all ended in tears.

 

[coppercapped]

I never said it would be, I just meant that it is a lie that it could never be. And nationalised infrastructure can be more efficient, just compare the prices and results of the NHS, and the American health system. Some people take it on faith that private companies are better in every case(extreme capitalists), and others take it on faith that nationalisation is better in every case(communists). Neither is right, which is obvious when you look at history and the current state of the world. But it is worth considering what drives different systems. That's why I mentioned the TfL model, as at the moment that seems to be a working system, and it keeps control and ownership in the hands of society at large, so adaptions shouldn't be too expensive. I am open to other options, but the current system has many flaws, and for something that is incredibly important to modern and future life, giving up control is massively irresponsible.

Why do people in the UK always quote the US in such health care cost comparisons? The US health system is an outlier compared those in other first world countries. It works well if one can afford it - and because of the legal pressures under which it operates it tends to throw money at a problem - but leaves a large proportion of the population struggling.

Most of western Europe offers health care through closely regulated private (sometimes 'not for dividend') companies or co-ops. The costs are comparable to the NHS, they are legally required to be open to all and arguably the outcomes are better. I have paid into three such organisations over the years, the AOK in Germany, Securex in Belgium and GAN in France - they work, and work well.

 

[Ken H]

Why do people in the UK always quote the US in such health care cost comparisons? The US health system is an outlier compared those in other first world countries. It works well if one can afford it - and because of the legal pressures under which it operates it tends to throw money at a problem - but leaves a large proportion of the population struggling.

Most of western Europe offers health care through closely regulated private (sometimes 'not for dividend') companies or co-ops. The costs are comparable to the NHS, they are legally required to be open to all and arguably the outcomes are better. I have paid into three such organisations over the years, the AOK in Germany, Securex in Belgium and GAN in France - they work, and work well.

if you get ill in Europe and you are not insured, getting health care is difficult. There are safety nets built in and it seems to work. Seems a far better model than our treat the world NHS.
and in Germany, there are competing insurers, and competing health providers. So you have real choice.

 

[quantinghome]

if you get ill in Europe and you are not insured, getting health care is difficult. There are safety nets built in and it seems to work. Seems a far better model than our treat the world NHS.
and in Germany, there are competing insurers, and competing health providers. So you have real choice.

OT, but what do you mean by 'treat the world' NHS?

 

[Richard Ingram]

Ignoring the Enhancements costs puts it more on equal footing with road investment, where although the maintenance budget is smaller (£0.8bn Vs >£2bn) nearly all the maintenance of the railways are covered by the income from non Governmental sources.

The very cheap tickets I was thinking of are those which are less than 1/4 of the comparable (non advance) ticket. The likes of the (when it was them) £6 LM tickets from London to Nuneaton (when even an off peak ticket was about £24) leaving London during the peak.

Increasing them to £9 or even £12 wouldn't have impacted the numbers taking them up by very much. Especially as I know of people who were traveling using those tickets for business purposes.

It's not comparing to road that is important, at least to me. It's the fact that we pay money in taxes to give a particular business the stuff that most other businesses would need to pay for in start up costs, i.e. a site to operate from. I still maintain that is a subsidy for them, and it should be treated as such. Especially since that is the way it appears to the general public, when we see that much of our money being spent, for a private company to then price train tickets higher than the marginal cost of road travel.
Not to say we don't need to pay this, I do like to see the system improve.

 

[Richard Ingram]

Why do people in the UK always quote the US in such health care cost comparisons? The US health system is an outlier compared those in other first world countries. It works well if one can afford it - and because of the legal pressures under which it operates it tends to throw money at a problem - but leaves a large proportion of the population struggling.

Most of western Europe offers health care through closely regulated private (sometimes 'not for dividend') companies or co-ops. The costs are comparable to the NHS, they are legally required to be open to all and arguably the outcomes are better. I have paid into three such organisations over the years, the AOK in Germany, Securex in Belgium and GAN in France - they work, and work well.

Because my main point was the difference between the extreme positions, and the US is extreme capitilism. I know that most of western Europe uses a different system. I have never experienced it, but I have family living in Germany, and they have never had problems, so I assume it does work well. But I think the key phrase you used was closely regulated. To bring this back on topic, that is what seems to be missing in our rail network. I have read your longer post, and I would like some time to think it through, as I admit to not knowing much about the inner workings of the system, but isn't that a massive part of the problem? The public does not understand how it all works, and no-one seems to take responsibility for it as a whole, so to us it looks like a free for all where the private companies are making profit by giving a crap service, and bailing out when they realise they messed up.

 

[coppercapped]

if you get ill in Europe and you are not insured, getting health care is difficult. There are safety nets built in and it seems to work. Seems a far better model than our treat the world NHS.
and in Germany, there are competing insurers, and competing health providers. So you have real choice.

Also OT, but who do you mean is 'not insured'. If you as a Brit go to the continent on holiday or a visit without an EHIC, available free of charge from the Department of Health, of course you are not covered. But you can pay the doctor or hospital and claim the money back later. If you are working anywhere in the EU it is a legal requirement both to have health insurance and to pay into a pension fund. The health insurance may not necessarily be state run but the pension funds, in the cases I know about, are state run.

 

[al78]

OT, but what do you mean by 'treat the world' NHS?

Sounds like Daily Mail-talk to me.

I think what is meant is that people can come from overseas for NHS treatment and the NHS, which should be charging them for treatment, doesn't, or so I have heard so can't verfiy the accuracy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because my main point was the difference between the extreme positions, and the US is extreme capitilism

Of healthcare...but then by contrast their national passenger rail system and pretty much all local rail and bus operation is completely publically owned and operated.

It's funny how basically no country at all has deliberately[1] followed our bus model, yet for some reason people often quote it as actually being good.

[1] Obviously there are some countries where there is no regulation because they've got bigger things to worry about.