Topic: The British Rail Thread - Re-nationalisation incoming.

[Red Beret]

Seemed a good idea to consolidate all the discussion into a single thread as policy details emerge. It's hopefully great news for the country as a whole, especially given the number of franchises being operated by the government right now anyway.

But this isn't going to be an overnight thing like the original rail nationalisation. It's going to take years just to secure the franchises. Rolling stock is a pipe dream given the shambles of the country's finances.

But this is one long term project we can all get behind!

[bradders1011]

Christian Wolmar's recent history of BR is a very good read.

I've never understood the rationale of giving out 'competition' in natural monopolies. So many areas of life where we can just CTRL-C, CTRL-V what the Dutch, Germans, French, Scandis do into our policy and put things on a better path overnight.

[killer-heels]

Great news.

[RedDeadRejection]

Certainly a vote winner to anyone with an active brain.

[redbyrdz]

Christian Wolmar's recent history of BR is a very good read.

I've never understood the rationale of giving out 'competition' in natural monopolies. So many areas of life where we can just CTRL-C, CTRL-V what the Dutch, Germans, French, Scandis do into our policy and put things on a better path overnight.

Funnily the German railway now has different private companies operating some services. And guess what, its gone to shit. It was ok for the first years when it was just the odd company running the odd local service route. Now its lots of different ones and the whole network has huge problems with trains being delayed and getting cancelled left right and centre.

[Red Beret]

I like the idea of private rail companies being allowed to take over derelict or unused portions of the network to set up branch lines, commuter routes etc. The risk and responsibility to make them profitable would be on them, and they would reap the rewards. As part of a larger, nationalised network, they would have to charge competitive prices.

Perhaps they could borrow government funds in order to renovate infrastructure, but the loans could then be repaid to the benefit of the public purse?

[Red Beret]

There's a Wikipedia article about the creation of GBR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Railways

As news articles have indicated, this is a plan essentially started by the Tories, from the Williams–Shapps Rail Review, that Labour have taken the next logical step with. There's nothing as yet in the article detailing Labour's proposals.

[stoa]

Funnily the German railway now has different private companies operating some services. And guess what, its gone to shit. It was ok for the first years when it was just the odd company running the odd local service route. Now its lots of different ones and the whole network has huge problems with trains being delayed and getting cancelled left right and centre.

That's not an issue of the different railway companies though. It's an issue of Germany not having invested in the infrastructure and everything being pretty run down. That causes issues due to a lack of capacity, delays due to technical problems and delays due to work being done to modernise everything. The rail network has decreased from 40k kilometres in 1994 to 33k kilometres in 2022. Loads of places don't have a railway connection anymore and loads of tracks are still not electrified. Some of the infrastructure is also very old and prone to breaking down so that causes issues as well. Add a lack of personnel and everything gets even worse. I live in Austria close to the Swiss and German borders and even the Swiss have become fed up with constant delays in Germany. There's a train between Zurich and Munich that runs seven times a day or so, but it's rarely on time due to delays in Germany, because their infrastructure is not up to speed. There are long stretches where there's only one track so trains have to wait for it to become available and delays fuck the whole thing up even more. Switzerland would love an hourly connection to Munich but they just can't do it, because the German network is not fit for purpose at the moment.

[redbyrdz]

Agree about running the infrastructure down. But then instead of fixing it, the just hand out a route to a private provider, in the hope that they'll magically make it work. That's pretty much what has been happening in the UK for a a few years longer. The additional problem is that the private companies try and operate for a profit, while at the same time pretend to offer really cheap services. Something's got to give, and that's reliability and investment.
I find it interesting that it's got so far that re-nationalisation is actually on the cards in Britain, and that similar problems are now appearing in other countries that went down the privatisation route a bit later.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I find it interesting that it's got so far that re-nationalisation is actually on the cards in Britain, and that similar problems are now appearing in other countries that went down the privatisation route a bit later.

It's as though you cannot have competition to drive down fares and drive up standards where there is single private provider.

[redbyrdz]

It's as though you cannot have competition to drive down fares and drive up standards where there is single private provider.

You don't need competition to drive down fares. If there is a single state provider, you can instead have a debate of what's a reasonable fare, and what service the state should provide.

Germany actually set a great example, when, despite the privatisations, they introduced the Deutschlandticket - first as  Covid-recovery strategy, but then they kept it because it was so popular. It's a monthly ticket for travel all over Germany, first for 9 euros per month!! Then in the second version, for 49 euros per month. It's likely it'll get extended again. Each time the fare was decided in discussion  trying to find a balance between different interests.

[Red Beret]

Agree about running the infrastructure down. But then instead of fixing it, the just hand out a route to a private provider, in the hope that they'll magically make it work. That's pretty much what has been happening in the UK for a a few years longer. The additional problem is that the private companies try and operate for a profit, while at the same time pretend to offer really cheap services. Something's got to give, and that's reliability and investment.

I find it interesting that it's got so far that re-nationalisation is actually on the cards in Britain, and that similar problems are now appearing in other countries that went down the privatisation route a bit later.

What do you mean by infrastructure? Tracks and stations are administered by Network Rail, which is publicly owned.

You don't need competition to drive down fares. If there is a single state provider, you can instead have a debate of what's a reasonable fare, and what service the state should provide.

Germany actually set a great example, when, despite the privatisations, they introduced the Deutschlandticket - first as  Covid-recovery strategy, but then they kept it because it was so popular. It's a monthly ticket for travel all over Germany, first for 9 euros per month!! Then in the second version, for 49 euros per month. It's likely it'll get extended again. Each time the fare was decided in discussion  trying to find a balance between different interests.

Yeah. In the UK I believe the regulator sets a price cap on fares - and virtually all the operators immediately raise their fares to 0.01% below that cap. It's absolutely taking the piss out of commuters who are already being financially squeezed.

[thaddeus]

We had the Channel 5 documentary on British railways on in the background last night: https://www.channel5.com/show/the-great-british-train-scandal

No great insights but the first half is worth a watch as a 101 about the state of British railways (the second half felt like mostly filler with a long section about the quantities of iron particles in the air in the London Underground and germs on the surfaces of Underground trains).  It was likely over-dramatized but it seems like there's also been a long-standing under-investment in Network Rail to the extent that they're well behind on safety inspections of the infrastructure.

One thing it didn't cover which I've never really seen explained is that the number of passengers increased sharply since privatisation and whether or not that would have happened anyway (e.g. it dropped as road vehicles became more affordable and rose once roads became congested):

[Lusty]

We had the Channel 5 documentary on British railways on in the background last night: https://www.channel5.com/show/the-great-british-train-scandal

No great insights but the first half is worth a watch as a 101 about the state of British railways (the second half felt like mostly filler with a long section about the quantities of iron particles in the air in the London Underground and germs on the surfaces of Underground trains).  It was likely over-dramatized but it seems like there's also been a long-standing under-investment in Network Rail to the extent that they're well behind on safety inspections of the infrastructure.

One thing it didn't cover which I've never really seen explained is that the number of passengers increased sharply since privatisation and whether or not that would have happened anyway (e.g. it dropped as road vehicles became more affordable and rose once roads became congested):

There's likely a million different factors causing that.  Really the uptick starts in the 80s and probably coincides with financial services deregulation and a shift in employment into central London and Canary Wharf which was only built in the 90s.

You've also got whole new lines that didn't exist in the 80s like HS1, Thameslink, and London being being better connected through DLR, Jubilee line extension and the Elizabeth line.  A lot more people now live in commutable range of London than used to because they can easily get to hubs like Stratford or St Pancras.

One thing that almost certainly didn't cause the increase is privatisation itself.

[Jiminy Cricket]

You don't need competition to drive down fares. If there is a single state provider, you can instead have a debate of what's a reasonable fare, and what service the state should provide.

Germany actually set a great example, when, despite the privatisations, they introduced the Deutschlandticket - first as  Covid-recovery strategy, but then they kept it because it was so popular. It's a monthly ticket for travel all over Germany, first for 9 euros per month!! Then in the second version, for 49 euros per month. It's likely it'll get extended again. Each time the fare was decided in discussion  trying to find a balance between different interests.

It's as though you cannot have competition to drive down fares and drive up standards where there is single private provider.

[redbyrdz]

I don't know what you mean to be honest. You don't have "competition" if there is only a single provider, regardless of it being the state or a private company.

[redbyrdz]

What do you mean by infrastructure? Tracks and stations are administered by Network Rail, which is publicly owned.

Think at least some stations are being run by the train operators? For example Chester station is run by TfW afaik.

What I mean with running the infrastructure down is that there has been a lack of investment for keeping tracks in prime condition. I don't think there is any incentive for Network rail - if the trains can't run properly, they'll blame the train operators. And the train operators blame Network rail. I think it's a general problem, rail tracks are fairly robust, so for a while, not much needed to be done, so money was spent elsewhere. But now they are old, and need repairing/replacing more regularly, and there's no funding for it. There is also a lack of interest - network rail just blame the train operators, and the train operators blame the state of the tracks.


Also I think the definition of "value" has changed. Countries like Britain and Germany used to be proud of their railway. Investment went into it with a sense of pride of the great national infrastructure (same as the NHS, hah!). Now everything has to measured with regards to the profit it brings.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I don't know what you mean to be honest. You don't have "competition" if there is only a single provider, regardless of it being the state or a private company.

Private monopolies do not work. If you you are going to have services provided by private companies, there should be competition (and regulation, of course). It is different for state run services, but the lack of competition can be a problem of course. Still, if it is going to be a single provider (which is rather inevitable for some services), it really should be a state-operated provider.

[Red Beret]

Think at least some stations are being run by the train operators? For example Chester station is run by TfW afaik.

What I mean with running the infrastructure down is that there has been a lack of investment for keeping tracks in prime condition. I don't think there is any incentive for Network rail - if the trains can't run properly, they'll blame the train operators. And the train operators blame Network rail. I think it's a general problem, rail tracks are fairly robust, so for a while, not much needed to be done, so money was spent elsewhere. But now they are old, and need repairing/replacing more regularly, and there's no funding for it. There is also a lack of interest - network rail just blame the train operators, and the train operators blame the state of the tracks.


Also I think the definition of "value" has changed. Countries like Britain and Germany used to be proud of their railway. Investment went into it with a sense of pride of the great national infrastructure (same as the NHS, hah!). Now everything has to measured with regards to the profit it brings.

Yeah, not all stations are managed by Network Rail - Merseyrail stations are in-house, as is everything on the local network. But the vast majority is, which is what I was referring to.

But yeah, it makes perfect sense that the Tories would run Railtrack into the ground, because it's pretty much what they've done with every single public service they've ever laid their hands on.

This is a decent video series for people looking to grasp the basics behind some of the failed rail franchises:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/n19YOUXQL88&amp;ab_channel=Vanmanyo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/n19YOUXQL88&amp;ab_channel=Vanmanyo</a>

What's notable in this one is it emphasises that not all of Arriva's failings are down to their own mismanagement - although it doesn't absolve them of responsibility either. But it does point out the failings and broken promises of NR and the DfT, which of course are handled by the government.

[stoa]

Agree about running the infrastructure down. But then instead of fixing it, the just hand out a route to a private provider, in the hope that they'll magically make it work. That's pretty much what has been happening in the UK for a a few years longer. The additional problem is that the private companies try and operate for a profit, while at the same time pretend to offer really cheap services. Something's got to give, and that's reliability and investment.
I find it interesting that it's got so far that re-nationalisation is actually on the cards in Britain, and that similar problems are now appearing in other countries that went down the privatisation route a bit later.

That's not the case though in Germany. The state is still funding the network and infrastructure and that's where they made the mistake of not spending enough on it. Which is not helped by the state also trying to make rail-travel more attractive by offering the Deutschlandticket you mentioned. It's great that it works, but at the same time it also increases the pressure on the railway system that was on its knees even before that. It should happen the other way around. Make the system better and then get more people on it. The problem is, it costs a lot to maintain and improve the infrastructure and up until recently most countries just didn't bother, because they were more focussed on other forms of travel like roads. It's changing though and more and more people seem to realise that mass transport comes at a cost for society, but also offers a lot of advantages that might very well be worth the money you spend. Switzerland is the country to look at in terms of railway both for people and for goods. They're doing a great job even if they aren't perfect either. The thing is, they spend serious money on it.

[thaddeus]

There's likely a million different factors causing that.  Really the uptick starts in the 80s and probably coincides with financial services deregulation and a shift in employment into central London and Canary Wharf which was only built in the 90s.

You've also got whole new lines that didn't exist in the 80s like HS1, Thameslink, and London being being better connected through DLR, Jubilee line extension and the Elizabeth line.  A lot more people now live in commutable range of London than used to because they can easily get to hubs like Stratford or St Pancras.

One thing that almost certainly didn't cause the increase is privatisation itself.

Thanks.  I hadn't really factored in all the new lines, particularly in/around London.

Apparently only 35.2% of train journeys last year were for leisure so you're probably right about the growth in numbers of commuters.  My wife takes the train for work sometimes and it's paid for by the company she works for (if not she'd drive as it's always really expensive).  I expect there are lots of people in the same situation.