Why are foreign nationalised railways seen in a better light than British Rail?

[Gathursty]

As I was listening to Ian Collins on LBC this evening discuss nationalisation/privatisation, it struck me that I've never heard much about how countries such as India, Germany, Switzerland and France with their nationalised railways seem to get by. Not many people seem to criticise Deutsche Bahn, SNCF etc... but the moment British Rail is uttered, huge vitriol from both sides is unleashed.

Why are foreign nationalised railways seen in a better light than British Rail?

I'd also appreciate some idea of how good/bad the four countries I have mentioned are in terms of if they are financially sound systems, punctual, safe, modern etc...

 

[WatcherZero]

The grass is always greener, the service always looks cheaper when you aren't the one being taxed to provide it.

 

[cuccir]

The grass is always greener, the service always looks cheaper when you aren't the one being taxed to provide it.

I'm not convinced by that tax explanation. I don't think most people are that conceited: people don't generally sit there getting angry about things just because they've paid for them in tax. IF people believe a service should be state provided, then they are usually pretty happy to pay for it.

I think it's more that negative reporting about public services is typically restricted to within a nation. 'Delays on French Railway' is unlikely to be a headline in British news. However, we do often hear of best practice from other nations whenever failings in our own services appear.

 

[RJ21]

I've travelled in three of them.

Germany, from a user's point of view has been quite good value for money. Most of the network I have used has been operated with fairly modern stock, or refurbished stock. That's mostly around Munich & Berlin. There's usually been at least one member of staff about, on some of the Berlin RE & RB services guards have worked in pairs and there are plain clothes staff. So on the how safe, pretty good. Punctuality, usually OK but I did end up with a three ish hour delay on a loco hauled set when it sat down in the middle of nowhere in Bavaria. I have noticed there isn't much in the way of passenger amenities, such as at seat power & WiFi. There is also OA competition on some routes, I quite like the ODEG services around Berlin. The stock is a bit more modern, I can't recall if there was WiFi on them or not.

Switzerland, age of stock is varied, some 70s coaching stock last time I was there with some now quite elderly locos in service through to fresh out of the factory EMUs. SBB largely only operate on the standard gauge network and are very similar to DB except for there being more than one official language. It takes a while to get to most places, Bern - Basel being an exception now they have 125mph lines on that corridor, with Pendolinos. Punctuality, need I say more, this is the yodelling Nazis we're talking about. +/- 5 minutes was normal. It looked to me like they achieve the punctuality by having quite long station dwell times when much shorter stops would be the norm here. May have changed as it was a few years ago.

France. Don't leave the TGV network if you want to get anywhere. On the classic network speeds were low and stock varied in age. I quite liked the coaching stock of Mk.III vintage, seats were better than on the EMU I used only a week later (that was about 30 years younger as well). I did notice that on some routes which here might warrant hourly or better, there it was more West Highland Line frequency. When travelling to/from Annecy those infrequent services did cause extended waits in Lyon and Lille.

One thing all three had in common, availability of tickets was almost universal, even small stations had TVMs, and enforcement was by guards & revenue protection staff on trains and no ticket barriers. Also all have separate infrastructure companies, even though run by the same organisation. I didn't notice use of the RRB either, except in France where some services were replaced wholesale.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I would say it is something of a cultural thing arising from the different histories of other countries' railways compared with ours. Railway development in this country, though requiring authorising bills in Parliament, was left almost entirely to the private sector to plan and finance. In most other countries government had much more involvement whether through strategic network planning, regulation of fares and service patterns or even direct ownership from the word go. Thus the concept of government involvement was much more deeply entrenched than here.

I would also suggest that the destruction of whole economies during WW2 also had an impact. During the immediate post-war era there was no question in the worst affected countries of private motoring becoming affordable, indeed it was officially frowned upon in the Communist countries. This meant that people had little alternative but to rely on all forms of public transport for journeys not feasible by foot or bicycle. Put all these factors together and it is not surprising that in most European countries there is a wide public consensus on the needs and benefits of public ownership. Whereas here we didn't bother with such overt public involvement until 1948 and even then things continued largely as before. A gradual slide into non-profitability led to the Modernisation Plan of 1955: this was badly mismanaged by the BTC and undoubtedly undermined public confidence in the whole concept of public ownership and control. Railways were soon seen as outdated once Motorway building took off in the 1960s leading to the retrenchment of the Beeching cuts and it's only in the last 30-35 years that railways have become more valued as a transport mode though public funding is still seen as controversial by many.

That's not to say that railways are universally popular elsewhere. Go to Germany and you will find many people who would rather drive many hours in the comfort of their Audi/BMW/Mercedes than set foot on a train. France is slightly odd in that away from Paris and the mainlines that serve it the railway is much less useful than nearly all of ours. But French chauvinism means people are reluctant to criticise too much and of course the socialist tradition of La Revolution continues to underpin people's faith in the public sector generally. Switzerland is perhaps the odd one out but geography makes driving through much of the country such a chore that the Swiss have never fallen in love with their cars to the extent seen so much elsewhere.

As for India the relative lack of affluence combined with the high capital cost of mechanised transport has meant a reliance on public transport is almost inescapable. That means it really does have to work! In years to come growing affluence will probably undermine this situation to an extent but the size of the country is such that for long-distance travel domestic aviation will likely take more passengers away from the railway than private motoring. Arguably the same things can be said about China too though the Chinese have at least supported the development of high-speed rail.

 

[whhistle]

We're old school.

As above has touched upon, the UK was pretty okay during WWII and thus our infrastructure is old.
Plus, we have many people who are of the "not in my back yard" thought mentality.
Many of those who make decisions couldn't really care.

Other countries just get stuff done.
But then places like India, the train drivers don't bother wearing a uniform - I mean, why bother? Makes me laugh when UK Control staff wear a uniform - no member of the public see them, so a waste of money.

Going back to India, I think they have it right.
Maybe we should have really cheap tickets, but the fine is huge in comparison, so everyone buys.
I'm sure I read somewhere that abolishing First Class could work as that'll stop that whole layer of ticketing and increase seats for everyone.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not convinced by that tax explanation. I don't think most people are that conceited: people don't generally sit there getting angry about things just because they've paid for them in tax. IF people believe a service should be state provided, then they are usually pretty happy to pay for it.

I think it's more that negative reporting about public services is typically restricted to within a nation. 'Delays on French Railway' is unlikely to be a headline in British news. However, we do often hear of best practice from other nations whenever failings in our own services appear.

Plus there's the question of whether we're paying less tax than for the said railway systems in the first place (something which I understand was actually the case for BR by some statistics, whatever it's shortcomings).

And we don't have any equivalent to a Bahncard - which to me as a passenger seems a high price to pay for what amounts to commercial hocus pocus.

 

[WatcherZero]

The UK's national railcards (33% off, £30) are the equivalent of the Bahncard 25 (25% off short distance journeys and saver/advance fares, 65 Euro standard, 125 Euro 1st) and the Bahncard 50 (25% off long distance journeys, 50% off anytime fares, 255 Euro standard, 515 Euro 1st) and the Bahncard 100 is the equivalent of a national season ticket and priced around the same (4270 Euro standard, 7225 Euro first class).

Incidentally not available to brits but a Britrail pass for a year including the winter season discount is £6486 and includes a free child ticket, you can use it on sleepers unlike the Bahncard 100 but it doesn't include other transport modes.

 

[DarloRich]

Simple: Tories.

 

[yorksrob]

The national railcards (33% off) are the equivalent of the Bahncard 25 (25% off short distance journeys and saver/advance fares) and the Bahncard 50 (25% off long distance journeys, 50% off anytime fares) and the Bahncard 100 is the equivalent of a national season ticket and priced around the same (4270 Euro standard, 7225 Euro first class).

Well, no because not all of us are eligible for a national railcard, and I'm not aware of any of our season tickets giving unlimited travel across the network.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

European railways are not as nationalised as people think.
Most of them have some private element, and Switzerland has always been a complex mix of federal, local and private concerns.
They are all in the process of allowing competition as per the EU Rail Packages, but are at different stages.
Many local or regional services are specified locally and contracted out, with the winning operator not always being the state railway.
Just as over here, DB (Arriva), NS (Abellio) and SNCF (Keolis) are all bidding commercially for contracts outside their home turf.
Trenitalia now runs TrainOSE, the "nationalised" Greek passenger operator.
There are funding crises in Germany, France (SNCF retrenching and threatened with restructuring) and Italy (FS up for a 40% private share).
New Spanish high speed lines have been built as single track to save cash (lines to Zamora, Leon and Burgos).

 

[mpthomson]

Simple: Tories.

Because railways have always been perfect under Labour governments, have't they.......?

Your posts are normally informative and insightful, this one is ridiculous.

 

[DarloRich]

Because railways have always been perfect under Labour governments, have't they.......?

Your posts are normally informative and insightful, this one is ridiculous.

The Conservatives designed the system of railway ownership and operation we currently have in our country in such a cack handed fashion that any other system looks better, regardless of truth. They also designed that system to enable foreign state owned companies to bid for our services while preventing our own evil, useless, awful, hideous, disgusting state owned inefficient monopoly railway company from bidding.

Is it a surprise that foreign state owned companies are seen as better than our own?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because railways have always been perfect under Labour governments, have't they.......?

No, he's right.

The Tories wanted to privatise, and the only way you get support for that is to trash the state company. You give them no money and you blame them for not making miracles. You do this persistently and consistently for years and years before you start the privatisation process. See what's happening in the NHS for further details.

It's also what is happening in Germany, interestingly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is also OA competition on some routes, I quite like the ODEG services around Berlin. The stock is a bit more modern, I can't recall if there was WiFi on them or not.

There is almost no open access competition in Germany, literally just a couple of trains per day plus I believe the Austrian-run night services and sort-of Thalys which I believe DB is no longer a partner in. The private operators like ODEG are by and large a result of regional tendering. DB wins some of these tenders and can compete on level pegging with others, but often they lose them.

My experience of DB has largely been that it runs about 10-20 years behind the UK in structural terms. In the late 90s for example, it was a bit like 1970s-80s BR - low frequencies, loco haulage etc (though with the Taktfahrplan) as well as connections usually held. Now it seems to be switching to be a multiple unit railway[1] like we did in the 1980s-90s, and on regional services tendering in a way that is a bit like our franchises.

SNCF I believe to be pretty rubbish to be honest and I don't see what people see in it. Yeah, the TGV is glitzy and fast, but that's about all it is. Regional services are universally quite poor.

SNCB/NMBS, NS etc...well, they're basically like London commuter services. Functional and effective but nothing special. Capacity the key, on-board service near non-existent.

SBB - again a former LH operation switching to MU operation and introducing UK style things like Advance tickets to smooth loadings as a result. Highly punctual (though not as good as some think) largely due to slow running times and long layovers. General feel is like a piece of respected national infrastructure - definitely not glitzy. Generally good in my book, and certainly has many aspects the UK could do with emulating, but certainly has bad points as well such as surprisingly bad overcrowding on some local services.

[1] Those LH services remaining like the regional DoStos with locos being operated fixed-formation a bit like UK LH services have been for years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for India...there's just no comparison. The only thing they really have in common with us is the heritage of the British Raj and the fact that they run using steel wheels on steel rails. It's a fascinating operation, but the concepts, distances, costs, ability to pay etc just can't possibly be compared with anything in Europe.

I think the lack of criticism for it is simply because in India if you can afford to ride it, even in unreserved second class (which would have the Reading commuters running for their HSTs in terms of the level of overcrowding), you're already pretty privileged.

Edit: and by "afford" I mean "not have to choose it instead of rice and water or basic healthcare", not "complain about it being a bit pricey or having to book an Advance because walk-ups are a bit on the expensive side".

 

[AlexNL]

Here in the Netherlands, people tend to complain a lot about NS (Abellio's patent company) and it's not uncommon to hear people say that things would be better if the whole operation would be run by Deutsche Bahn!

Never mind the fact that NS is one of the best performing railways of the European Union.

 

[U-Bahnfreund]

There is almost no open access competition in Germany, literally just a couple of trains per day plus I believe the Austrian-run night services and sort-of Thalys which I believe DB is no longer a partner in. The private operators like ODEG are by and large a result of regional tendering. DB wins some of these tenders and can compete on level pegging with others, but often they lose them.

My experience of DB has largely been that it runs about 10-20 years behind the UK in structural terms. In the late 90s for example, it was a bit like 1970s-80s BR - low frequencies, loco haulage etc (though with the Taktfahrplan) as well as connections usually held. Now it seems to be switching to be a multiple unit railway[1] like we did in the 1980s-90s, and on regional services tendering in a way that is a bit like our franchises.

Totally agree with Bletchleyite here. Open-access trains are only the Flixbus-Leo Express Locomore service from Stuttgart to Berlin (one return journey per day), the Harz-Berlin-Express by Transdev and a handful of night services (ÖBB Nightjet, Berlin - Malmö, Hamburg/Düsseldorf - Verona/Villach, etc.).

All other “private” services are through regional tendering. Most of them also somehow belong to non-private entities, Abellio is NS, Keolis is partly SNCF, Hessische Landesbahn belongs to the state of Hesse, etc.

SNCF I believe to be pretty rubbish to be honest and I don't see what people see in it. Yeah, the TGV is glitzy and fast, but that's about all it is. Regional services are universally quite poor.

Also true in my experience. When I went to Sarreguemines on the Saarbrücken tram, I was shocked that the next non-Saarbahn train was due in the late evening. Or on the international line from Trier to Thionville and Metz. Hourly service on the German side just up to the border, but no trains in France. Only two trains on Saturday and Sunday from Trier to Metz use the line there.

SNCB/NMBS, NS etc...well, they're basically like London commuter services. Functional and effective but nothing special. Capacity the key, on-board service near non-existent.

Here you have to differeniate I think. NS services in the Randstad are truely like commuter services, but in the East and South of the Netherlands there are also many smaller-ish branch lines, many of them diesel and/or operated by private operators (Arriva, Keolis, Connexxion, Breng).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here you have to differeniate I think. NS services in the Randstad are truely like commuter services, but in the East and South of the Netherlands there are also many smaller-ish branch lines, many of them diesel and/or operated by private operators (Arriva, Keolis, Connexxion, Breng).

Good point, though those similarly exist in the South East - Marston Vale, Marks Tey-Sudbury, Thames Valley branches etc.

 

[ac6000cw]

With regard to the other major European railway systems, I'm with Bletchleyite (and LNW-GW Joint), and I think we have (overall) one of the better European railway systems. Every country has it's good and bad points (contrast the TGV and the 'out in the sticks' (sometimes non-) service levels in France for a stark good-vs-bad comparison). I think our Achilles Heel is poor integration/connectivity between transport modes, particularly outside major urban areas (contrast this with the Swiss system).

 

[Failed Unit]

Having a short travel with someone from France, they were extremely impressed with Thameslink and asked if the private funding helps.

We have good and bad but he was surprised when I told him that the GTR franchise is actually the worse in the U.K. it was one of those don’t let the new trains / stations fool you.

But from his experience he preferred Thameslink to RER so imagine how good it could be without GTR messing things up.

 

[DaiGog]

In my experience, Germany is a real mixed bag. On the whole, local services (DB Regio / S-Bahn etc) tend to be very good, reliable, frequent, modern and pretty punctual, as do the regional tendered networks. DB Fernverkehr (IC, ICE) is very hit-and-miss.

Switzerland is generally very efficient, as you might expect. As others have said, it's not ultra-modern, but it is always presentable and well-maintained. Punctuality is generally very good, due in part to generous station dwell times, but also in part to the size of the country; one side to the other is a few hours at most. They are no strangers to delays and cancellations though, in spite of what you hear.

France largely lost interest in its rail network, other than the TGVs, some years ago so the 'classic' network is very down-at-heel in places, although there is a considerable amount of modern stock around in various regions.

As a general point, the average Brit has very little or no experience of any foreign networks so most opinion on how efficient and punctual they are will be hearsay, or what they read in the paper, which of course is hardly reliable given that bare-faced lies and political bias to boost sales in some publications is the norm.

 

[Bantamzen]

Why are overseas railways often seen in better light? Probably the same reason that public-private contracts are seen in a similar light, in so much that there doesn't seem to be so much contract bloat that we see here in the UK. These kinds of partnerships, outsourced contracts and franchises all suffer a serious lack of expertise in the public side of the contracts which in itself leads to bidders able to bloat the costs, and/or issue unrealistic profit forecasts leading either to project costs going through the ceiling and being far greater than they would be on the Continent, or franchises failing such as we've seen on the ECML. If I ever win big on the lottery I would happily spill the beans on some of the ridiculous contracts I've been up close and personal to, but as it stands its more than my jobsworth etc, etc.

 

[tbtc]

I think a chunk of it may be that our experience of foreign railways is generally on holiday trips (or, in some cases, on business, where we are being paid to be there), rather than the daily grind of everyday commuting - a bit like the way that Open Access tends to have higher "satisfaction ratings" than TOCs running Provincial DMUs.

Because railways have always been perfect under Labour governments, have't they.......?

Your posts are normally informative and insightful, this one is ridiculous.

I'm left of centre, but I struggle to defend a lot of Labour's time in charge of the railways.

The 1960s/1970s saw huge cuts under Castle.

The 1990s and 2000s saw little real action (attention mainly focussed on creating Network Rail to replace Railtrack).

Only when they got perilously close to the 2010 General Election was there a sudden enthusiasm for electrifying railways and investing in the network.

Meanwhile under the Tories the closures started to stop (Woodhead was a lost cause when the coal market closed, there was dithering over the S&C, but nothing like the closures in the years under Labour), re-openings started (Mansfield, Bathgate etc) and we had various electrifications in the 1980s and 2010s.

I've never voted Tory, but (for all of Labour's obsession with nationalising the railway) the blue party do tend to invest in the railway more. I'm not sure why (maybe because rail users are of above average income whilst traditional Labour voters use buses?), but I struggle to portray Tories as "the bad guys" when it comes to these debates.

Most of the "good" bits of Labour's time in power were the few months under Adonis when they came up with a plan to use redundant 319s through Chat Moss. A good move, sure, but they'd done precious little for a dozen years prior to that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having a short travel with someone from France, they were extremely impressed with Thameslink and asked if the private funding helps.

We have good and bad but he was surprised when I told him that the GTR franchise is actually the worse in the U.K. it was one of those don’t let the new trains / stations fool you.

But from his experience he preferred Thameslink to RER so imagine how good it could be without GTR messing things up.

One thing that you often hear is comments along the lines of how well-kept stations and trains are in the UK, particularly those in big cities and particularly London Underground. The lack of graffiti and litter is most notable compared with many other European countries. I imagine that was quite possibly a big part of the view on Thameslink.

 

[43096]

Why are overseas railways often seen in better light?

To be honest I think it is very simple: the majority of people making the comments (railway forums are generally an exception for obvious reasons) have absolutely no direct experience of foreign railways. For instance, anyone who thinks France is a example to behold is clearly betraying such a lack of knowledge: they've probably only heard of TGVs and have no idea about the shocking level of service on the rest of the network.

 

[mallard]

It's simple really; foreign nationalised railways are run as state-owned corporations, free to do more-or-less as they please (such as take on foreign-to-them rail franchises...) as long as they meet their service and profitablity targets.

BR was run as a government department, constantly being meddled with by politicians for short-term political purposes. Railways are an inherently long-term business, politics is always more concerned with the short-term.

One of the few benefits of the franchising system is that franchise agreements cannot be changed at the whim of politicians; they're legally binding agreements with third parties.

 

[yorksrob]

I think a chunk of it may be that our experience of foreign railways is generally on holiday trips (or, in some cases, on business, where we are being paid to be there), rather than the daily grind of everyday commuting - a bit like the way that Open Access tends to have higher "satisfaction ratings" than TOCs running Provincial DMUs.



I'm left of centre, but I struggle to defend a lot of Labour's time in charge of the railways.

The 1960s/1970s saw huge cuts under Castle.

The 1990s and 2000s saw little real action (attention mainly focussed on creating Network Rail to replace Railtrack).

Only when they got perilously close to the 2010 General Election was there a sudden enthusiasm for electrifying railways and investing in the network.

Meanwhile under the Tories the closures started to stop (Woodhead was a lost cause when the coal market closed, there was dithering over the S&C, but nothing like the closures in the years under Labour), re-openings started (Mansfield, Bathgate etc) and we had various electrifications in the 1980s and 2010s.

I've never voted Tory, but (for all of Labour's obsession with nationalising the railway) the blue party do tend to invest in the railway more. I'm not sure why (maybe because rail users are of above average income whilst traditional Labour voters use buses?), but I struggle to portray Tories as "the bad guys" when it comes to these debates.

Most of the "good" bits of Labour's time in power were the few months under Adonis when they came up with a plan to use redundant 319s through Chat Moss. A good move, sure, but they'd done precious little for a dozen years prior to that.

I agree with a lot in this post. Certainly, the Blair years were largely wasted in terms of the railway.
I suppose in their favour, I can't think of many closures during the late 1970's, the Alston branch being the only one that springs to mind.

 

[uww11x]

Simple: Tories.

And labour did such a good job lol.

 

[DarloRich]

And labour did such a good job lol.

wow. An incisive comment there Gary. The lad done well.