The good things about privatisation

[MCR247]

I just thought after seeing Bittern's signature, what are the good thins about it? Everyone is always talking about the bad things about it, what are the good things?

a) It gives you lots of choices, like splitting
b) More people use the railways because it can be cheaper due to competition
c) Individual TOC offers like Red Dot day etc

Can anyone think of anymore?

 

[Mojo]

Comparing timetables from today to timetables from the mid-1990s, service frequencies on a lot of routes and from a lot of stations have improved although at a loss to overnight services in most areas and direct services to certain destinations.

 

[tbtc]

As Mojo says, most areas have had increased provision, most timetables are simpler, most routes are busier too. In a lot of ways, the railway has been a victim of its own success (since the "over"crowding is because its not kept up with increasing demand).

However, I disagree with "a" and "c" above. British Rail regions used to have promotions (I remember Scotrail doing "travel anywhere in Scotland for £5" promotions in the 1980s - *think* it was a fiver). Additionally, splitting tickets was sometimes the best option on BR (since there were certain areas where this was cheaper - not as many as nowadays for sure).

Cheap single tickets and "yield management" have been a big success, but experience in the airline industry suggests that this may well have happened anyway

 

[MCR247]

Whats yield management?

 

[yorkie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management

Basically a way of increasing revenue, while reducing overcrowding.

 

[MCR247]

Thanks

 

[yorkie]

I just thought after seeing Bittern's signature, what are the good thins about it? Everyone is always talking about the bad things about it, what are the good things?

a) It gives you lots of choices, like splitting

Splitting was possible under BR, but has ballooned in popularity because SuperSavers/Cheap Day Returns for longer journeys were abolished by the TOCs. This means that you now have to split the journey into a combination of shorter distance tickets, for which CDRs are still available. This is a backward step.

b) More people use the railways because it can be cheaper due to competition

Sadly not, see http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=31954 for details on how the price of walk-on travel has increased massively due to TOCs introducing draconian restrictions on tickets.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=31954
c) Individual TOC offers like Red Dot day etc

http://www.srpublicity.co.uk/nse/nse04.htm

http://www.srpublicity.co.uk/nse/b-adverts/ad-networkcard-87-03.jpg

I rest my case

 

[tbtc]

I'll happily bow to Yorkie's definitions (and greater experience) of Yield Management, but I'd suggest that it was always going to happen on the railway, regardless of privatisation.

Whilst the likes of Ryanair/ Megabus (etc) have made a big feature out of it, British Airways/ National Express Coaches (etc) have responded by adopting similar pricing too.

Defining "choices, like splitting" as a good thing about privatisation is (IMHO) wrong, as you shouldn't *need* to split tickets- the "through" fare should be cheap enough not to need any splitting!

 

[yorkie]

I'll happily bow to Yorkie's definitions (and greater experience) of Yield Management, but I'd suggest that it was always going to happen on the railway, regardless of privatisation.

Thanks, but that's not mine! I just linked to Wikipedia and provided an extremely brief summary. I believe glynn80 and Metroland (and probably others) may be more knowledgeable on the subject than I am.

Whilst the likes of Ryanair/ Megabus (etc) have made a big feature out of it, British Airways/ National Express Coaches (etc) have responded by adopting similar pricing too.

Defining "choices, like splitting" as a good thing about privatisation is (IMHO) wrong, as you shouldn't *need* to split tickets- the "through" fare should be cheap enough not to need any splitting!

Splitting 'needs' to be done to obtain the cheapest fare more and more, as different TOCs have different policies, in effect, the TOCs that have the greatest increases cause tickets that they price to go up disproportionately compared to other tickets priced by other TOCs. If you are unfortunate to be a victim of an expensive TOC, then you need to find tickets priced by a more reasonable TOC, either by 'splitting' the journey into combinations of tickets, or buying a longer ticket that assumes travel by a different route. This brings your fare down and also gives other, more reasonable, TOCs more ORCATS revenue and ensures that the greedy TOCs get less ORCATS revenue. But this is a problem created (or at least made a lot worse!) by privatisation...

For example, I very rarely would buy a ticket priced by XC, when travelling on walk-on tickets on XC. But if it was still under BR, then the through ticket (such as the York - Brum example) would have been far more reasonable, so splitting may not have 'needed' to be done to make the fare acceptable.

 

[TEW]

Splitting was possible under BR, but has ballooned in popularity because SuperSavers/Cheap Day Returns for longer journeys were abolished by the TOCs. This means that you now have to split the journey into a combination of shorter distance tickets, for which CDRs are still available. This is a backward step.

Are you sure that long distance Cheap Day Returns have been abolished since privatisation? I am sure they went under BR.

 

[yorkie]

Are you sure that long distance Cheap Day Returns have been abolished since privatisation?

Yes, quite sure that they have indeed on some routes. In fact, we were discussing it just 12 days ago.

I am sure they went under BR.

Under BR, CDRs for longer distances were renamed SSRs (SuperSavers) and increased in validity to return within 1 month, but decreased in flexibility in that they were not valid on Fridays and Summer Saturdays. However many TOCs have since withdrawn the replacement SSR products, causing huge price increases on many flows. A method of avoiding these unfair increases is to 'split' the journey into a combination of tickets, for which CDRs are still available.

 

[TEW]

So long distance CDRs have been gone for a long time.

 

[yorkie]

So long distance CDRs have been gone for a long time.

On which route(s)? And how do you define "long distance"? In some cases, they have. In others, they haven't.

"Long distance" is subjective, but if a CDR which was renamed as SSR, and a private TOC abolished the SSR, causing passengers to pay more for an SVR, who is responsible for the price increase, in your opinion?

 

[TEW]

A SuperSaver Return isn't a Cheap Day Return though. One is valid for a month and the other a day, I'd expect a day ticket to be cheaper than a ticket valid for a month. I don't actually know whether replacing CDRs with SSRs caused price increases or not. I would say that both BR and private operators have caused these rises if, as I suspect, prices rose when SSRs replaced CDRs. Long distance is subjective, but I'm taking it to mean journeys where there were previously CDRs but there no longer are.

 

[Nightrider]

I,d swap the lot for a return to British Rail.

The railways now seem to be run by a load of dodgy bus companies.

 

[87015]

Under BR, CDRs for longer distances were renamed SSRs (SuperSavers) and increased in validity to return within 1 month, but decreased in flexibility in that they were not valid on Fridays and Summer Saturdays. However many TOCs have since withdrawn the replacement SSR products, causing huge price increases on many flows. A method of avoiding these unfair increases is to 'split' the journey into a combination of tickets, for which CDRs are still available.

Not everywhere. From Southern WCML stations CDRs to as far away as North Wales were still in existence at privatisation but were summarily withdrawn by Virgin very quickly with no super saver introduced, just the savers left behind which was a near 100% increase IIRC and saw an end to days out in North Wales. They withdrew CDRs to Birmingham/Stoke etc at the same time, never any super savers. Pretty sure the same happened on XC routes radiating from Birmingham.

It is rather ironic that Bittern had a thread moaning about missed connections when that is one of things to have been hammered by the "every penny counts" mondern railway...

 

[Woody]

I,d swap the lot for a return to British Rail.

The railways now seem to be run by a load of dodgy bus companies.

Despite a booming railway privatisation has not produced a value for money railway from the taxpayers point of view.Annual subsidy in the last year of British Rail was only £1billion this has gradually escalated to around £5billion annually which the new coalition governments Autumn spending review will no doubt seek to address in a vigorous manor.Given the vast public sums dished out we should not now be in a position of a lack of adequate rolling stock and argueing the toss whether or not this or that route should be electrified.A great deal of money has been wasted since privatisation and now as a country we are going to have to pay for those errors.The TOC franchising model is now fatally flawed and the government is going to have to address that problem to prevent even more TOCs falling into "special measures".Sad really as it could of been handled much better with a lot more to show for all that subsiby.

 

[yorkie]

Not everywhere. From Southern WCML stations CDRs to as far away as North Wales were still in existence at privatisation but were summarily withdrawn by Virgin very quickly with no super saver introduced, just the savers left behind which was a near 100% increase IIRC and saw an end to days out in North Wales. They withdrew CDRs to Birmingham/Stoke etc at the same time, never any super savers. Pretty sure the same happened on XC routes radiating from Birmingham.

It is rather ironic that Bittern had a thread moaning about missed connections when that is one of things to have been hammered by the "every penny counts" mondern railway...

Yes, I agree totally. BR replaced CDRs with a product that was, by TEW's admission better, at the same price. I believe this occurred in the 1980s and they were originally called Blue Savers (I think that's right, White Savers became Savers, unless I have it the wrong way round), I've been told about this by people who remember it happening. Many of these good value fares (in whatever name they were under privatisation - the name is largely irrelevant) were abolished by the TOCs, so that they could charge people more for the SVR fare instead.

The way round these increases is to split the journey into a combination of tickets, something that was possible under BR but has been made easier due to technological advancements such as widespread use of the internet, improved machines for ticket office staff etc, but it has also become much more necessary due to the actions of TOCs.

The ability to combine tickets is not a bonus of privatisation, and the requirement to combine tickets in order to avoid being ripped off certainly isn't.

 

[RPM]

The main benefit of privatisation is that money can be raised for major infrastructure upgrades as long as a sound business case can be made. It no longer depends on the whim of the Treasury. Things like the various Chiltern Evergreen projects would never have been possible under BR due to the financial straightjacket they were placed in.

Another good thing that springs to mind is Open Access Operators.

Privatisation could show a lot more positives if franchises were made longer, DfT interference was reduced and operators were selected on the basis of performance rather than providing the chaepest bid.

 

[tbtc]

The main benefit of privatisation is that money can be raised for major infrastructure upgrades as long as a sound business case can be made. It no longer depends on the whim of the Treasury. Things like the various Chiltern Evergreen projects would never have been possible under BR due to the financial straightjacket they were placed in.

Another good thing that springs to mind is Open Access Operators

Money can be raised for infrastructure, but when you consider the £2.6 million cost of one new platform at Chesterfield, I'd question whether money is being spent wisely

Open Access operators are interesting for enthusiasts, is a 125mph five coach class 180 taking almost two hours to travel from Doncaster to Bradford, carrying a handful of passengers really A Good Thing? (when we can't cope with demand on routes like Cardiff - Portsmouth)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Money can be raised for infrastructure, but when you consider the £2.6 million cost of one new platform at Chesterfield, I'd question whether money is being spent wisely

Open Access operators are interesting for enthusiasts, is a 125mph five coach class 180 taking almost two hours to travel from Doncaster to Bradford, carrying a handful of passengers really A Good Thing? (when we can't cope with demand on routes like Cardiff - Portsmouth)

You know on the Donny-Bradford leg has about 15 mins slack?

 

[tbtc]

You know on the Donny-Bradford leg has about 15 mins slack?

Yes, but it's thirty six miles between the two!

Can you justify the use if a five coach 180 on a little used route like this as a good thing about privatisation (and not a waste of resources)?

 

[RPM]

How can an operation that runs well-filled trains, recieves no subsidy, makes use of unsold paths, uses previously redundant or off-lease rolling stock, creates new jobs and provides the public with new direct journey opportunities ever be described as a waste of resources?

To be fair I can't comment on Grand Central, having no experience of them at all, but the above is absolutely the case for WSMR.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that WSMR is a waste of resources. However Grand Central's Bradford service really is wasting the Class 180s, especially seeing as Bradford has good links to Leeds and onwards to London anyway!

 

[tbtc]

How can an operation that runs well-filled trains, recieves no subsidy, makes use of unsold paths, uses previously redundant or off-lease rolling stock, creates new jobs and provides the public with new direct journey opportunities ever be described as a waste of resources?

To be fair I can't comment on Grand Central, having no experience of them at all, but the above is absolutely the case for WSMR.

There's a big difference between using old Mark 3s and using 180s. Whilst WMSR does use scarce paths through Birmingham they can be accommodated relatively easily, unlike paths over Welwyn.

Creating new journey opportunities is all well and good, but the railway struggles to meed demand on existing services - take a ride on a Cross Country service as an example - should we be using resources to provide Pontefract and Gobowen with an "Intercity" service when we can't provide sufficient capacity for journeys like Leeds - Manchester, Leeds - Sheffield, Sheffield - Manchester, Manchester - Birmingham etc etc?

Open Access Operators have exploited a gap that was there, but I'd struggle to define them as "a good thing about privatisation"

 

[TrainBrain185]

The main benefit of privatisation is that money can be raised for major infrastructure upgrades as long as a sound business case can be made. It no longer depends on the whim of the Treasury. Things like the various Chiltern Evergreen projects would never have been possible under BR due to the financial straightjacket they were placed in.

Another good thing that springs to mind is Open Access Operators.

Privatisation could show a lot more positives if franchises were made longer, DfT interference was reduced and operators were selected on the basis of performance rather than providing the chaepest bid.

I am not fully convinced with your view of money being raised for major infrastructure upgrades? Perhaps the Chiltern Evergreen projects are more down to being operated by the fruitful benefits of DB ownership rather than speculation what would, or what would not have been done under a nationalised BR banner?

Open Access Ops could have been allowed to compete or alternatively compliment a nationalised rail network.

You will find that todays private rail network "is" controlled by the whim of the treasury, more than it ever was as a nationalised system whilst poor UK customers have to pay the highest rail fares in Europe.

It was a shallow decision to privatise the UK Rail network.

 

[Greenback]

I,d swap the lot for a return to British Rail.

The railways now seem to be run by a load of dodgy bus companies.

Quite. I don't think many of the good things that have been attributed to privatisation are, in fact, anything to do with it.

As Yorkie has said, splitting has become almost a necessity, due to fare rises, new restrictions and the complexity of the system.

It's arguable whether the service improvements would have happeend under BR, but I believe they would have, given the rise in rail travel due to economic recovery after the early 1990's recession.

As has also been said, there were promotions under the nationalised railway too. Boots 2 for 1 springs to mind.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am not fully convinced with your view of money being raised for major infrastructure upgrades? Perhaps the Chiltern Evergreen projects are more down to being operated by the fruitful benefits of DB ownership rather than speculation what would, or what would not have been done under a nationalised BR banner?

Open Access Ops could have been allowed to compete or alternatively compliment a nationalised rail network.

You will find that todays private rail network "is" controlled by the whim of the treasury, more than it ever was as a nationalised system whilst poor UK customers have to pay the highest rail fares in Europe.

It was a shallow decision to privatise the UK Rail network.

Yeah, can't argue with much there!

 

[Newportmuscles]

Market forces, although it has calmed down as the number of TOCs has decreased. The TOCs saw it cheaper and easier to poach rather than fully train drivers, therefore I've seen my pay rise from a wage of £11,900 in 1997 to a clean salary of nearly £42k by 2010

 

[142094]

The problem with private money coming in for infrastructure is that they normally need a quick profit on their expenditure, whereas infrastructure normally repays itself after periods greater than 30 years or so. The only reason why private firms would invest in infrastructure would be if they were guaranteed either a full or near monoply on the product, such as the Dartford Crossing and Birmigham Relief, where the tolls mean a near guaranteed profit.

 

[Nightrider]

Market forces, although it has calmed down as the number of TOCs has decreased. The TOCs saw it cheaper and easier to poach rather than fully train drivers, therefore I've seen my pay rise from a wage of £11,900 in 1997 to a clean salary of nearly £42k by 2010

Gone then are the days, "1930s", when the LMS sacked people for one day each year and told them to report to their nearest unemployment benefit office.
A relative of mine was sacked each year just before Christmas* for some reason. Sacked Monday, told to report to the UB on a Tuesday and return to work on Wednesday as per usual.
This was to break your service record and any small benefits you might gain.
It ceased completely at the outbreak of WW2 for obvious reasons.

* Not a public holiday in Scotland until the 1950s.