Rail fares 50% higher in Britain than on the continent
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Well, my adherence to the free market isn't what it was, but yes, basically I'm more of a fan of private railways than you.
Where should we go from here, given the lessons of the past? Initially, I'd like to see operators given control of infrastructure, and the ability to construct new capital projects (like restoring the Beeching lines) if they can find the investment, or convince the Treasury to underwrite a loan. At a guess, you'd like to see a return to nationalization, but how would we go about this? (Apologies if you've answered elsewhere, but you're such a mine of rail history.)
Well, my adherence to the public sector isn't what it once was either.
IMHO what matters more than who owns the railways is how they're structured. There's an ongoing debate between those who argue that separating operations from infrastructure allows operators to be more businesslike and consumer-focused, and those who think it's a recipe for expense and inertia. I'm still firmly in the latter camp, but I'm not completely wedded to the idea that a vertically-integrated railway has to be in the public sector.The problem with giving the current operators control over infrastructure is that it's not very compatible with franchising. What would be the incentive to invest millions in something you may lose the franchise on in a few years? Trains can be leased to solve that problem, but that's not really possible with track and signals. Nor, frankly, do I want to see a load of firms whose interest in railways is only part of a wider business portfolio given control over something which would require long-term, complete commitment.
All of that said, renationalisation would be my preferred solution, provided that the funding could be so arranged that the railways weren't tied into annualised Treasury budgets and could have their income guaranteed for some years ahead. It's being done now with Network Rail, and there's no reason it couldn't be done for a nationalised railway. Beyond that I would structure it much like British Rail in its later years, which was a much leaner and more efficient organisation than that which runs the industry now.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Excellent point this. I'm firmly in the inertia camp (or rather, I want to see it end). Vertically-integrated railways are IMO essential to smooth operation.
The franchise point is interesting, and I'd agree. If the railways are in private hands, I want them to be in the hands of companies who are in it for the long term and commited 100% to the project. In the old days companies also branched out (excuse the term) into land deals, but this was tied to the railways (pushing up the prices of land etc) and in many cases there was a corporate pride in services that went beyond bare economics.
Now, a state run railway can of course foster the same culture (just look at the LPTB). My only concern is how it would work across the entire country. I'd be equally worried about a private company running the system wholesale. Probably more so.
If we got back to an efficient system we were proud of and was economically viable, I doubt I'd be too bothered about who ran it. From what you say, it sounds like BR in its later years wasn't too far from this.
If you look at Japan you have private railways (outside the now privatised JR Group) that developed surburbia a la Metroland but ALSO have retailing interests in shopping centres built above their Tokyo terminii. Oduku and Keio are the 2 names that spring to mind. One stop capitalism-san.
One thing I will say for the privatised railway is that I do think the current train operators are rather better at drumming up business than British Rail was, and that probably has been a factor behind the growth of traffic we've seen over the last decade or so - perhaps especially so in the case of freight.
British Rail was far from perfect. It was perpetually short of cash (especially under the Thatcher and Major governments), and the stop-start flow of subsidy didn't help. That's the main reason why the railways tended to look dilapidated, which didn't help their image at all. Between the 50s and the 80s it presided over a period of fundamental change in most aspects railway working and inevitably some inefficient practices survived (and still do) and some compromises were made (technologically, organisationally, with the unions etc) which were not ideal. And, as we've rehearsed a few times, BR in the 50s and 60s made some horrendous mistakes. Later, though, I think it improved a great deal and from the 70s onwards its record is generally good given the constraints it had to work within.
It was always fashionable to deride British Rail for all sorts of reasons,* and in some circles it still is. It amuses me how one or two in the industry still respond to criticism by pointing to BR's supposed lack of achievements and terminal decline. But I think its record is actually a lot better than it's given credit for. By 1990 or thereabouts it had the highest proportion of services in Europe running at 100mph, it moved two-thirds as many people as the modern railway does for something like a third of the cost and its subsidy was a quarter of what the industry as a whole now gets. It had largely stopped closing lines and embarked on a programme of reopenings and upgrades, and well before this, in the mid-70s, the HST programme represented a pretty major rethink of how inter-city services should be - and a very successful one too. That's not a bad record. I also think that a lot of people tend to compare today's railway with a supposedly static and inert BR, whereas in fact it was an organisation that was evolving quite quickly, and I can't help but wonder what it would have been like by now had, for some reason, privatisation not happened.
* When I was at school there was a game for the BBC Micro that was meant to teach you good business sense. You were running a tea stall at some event or other. If you put the prices up too far all your customers went away, the screen flashed and a message popped up saying 'It's cheaper with British Rail!'
British Rail was far from perfect. It was perpetually short of cash (especially under the Thatcher and Major governments), and the stop-start flow of subsidy didn't help. That's the main reason why the railways tended to look dilapidated, which didn't help their image at all. Between the 50s and the 80s it presided over a period of fundamental change in most aspects railway working and inevitably some inefficient practices survived (and still do) and some compromises were made (technologically, organisationally, with the unions etc) which were not ideal. And, as we've rehearsed a few times, BR in the 50s and 60s made some horrendous mistakes. Later, though, I think it improved a great deal and from the 70s onwards its record is generally good given the constraints it had to work within.
It was always fashionable to deride British Rail for all sorts of reasons,* and in some circles it still is. It amuses me how one or two in the industry still respond to criticism by pointing to BR's supposed lack of achievements and terminal decline. But I think its record is actually a lot better than it's given credit for. By 1990 or thereabouts it had the highest proportion of services in Europe running at 100mph, it moved two-thirds as many people as the modern railway does for something like a third of the cost and its subsidy was a quarter of what the industry as a whole now gets. It had largely stopped closing lines and embarked on a programme of reopenings and upgrades, and well before this, in the mid-70s, the HST programme represented a pretty major rethink of how inter-city services should be - and a very successful one too. That's not a bad record. I also think that a lot of people tend to compare today's railway with a supposedly static and inert BR, whereas in fact it was an organisation that was evolving quite quickly, and I can't help but wonder what it would have been like by now had, for some reason, privatisation not happened.
* When I was at school there was a game for the BBC Micro that was meant to teach you good business sense. You were running a tea stall at some event or other. If you put the prices up too far all your customers went away, the screen flashed and a message popped up saying 'It's cheaper with British Rail!'
davesgcr
Reading books
Good post (again) RK
Two points - the present set up almost forces TOC's to market and drum up off peak traffic which even in the present non discriminatory consumer spend era seems to be holding up - day off today and paid homage to a line which I had more than a bit part in re-opening (Barry - Bridgend) the train had a decent load of 40 on into Bridgend because the off peak return fare is £2. (£2.50 into Cardiff) - we assumed a load of 6 per train when the service was evaluated.
BR had a culture change from Peter Parker (RIP) - who basically said "stop whinging" and get some confidence and get traffic / business - without doubt one of the now forgotton and best railway managers ever. As a trainee i met him several times and it was a pleasure
Incidentally - he didnt get a performance bonsu of £400K or so for a third of the responsibilities. Basic salary !
Two points - the present set up almost forces TOC's to market and drum up off peak traffic which even in the present non discriminatory consumer spend era seems to be holding up - day off today and paid homage to a line which I had more than a bit part in re-opening (Barry - Bridgend) the train had a decent load of 40 on into Bridgend because the off peak return fare is £2. (£2.50 into Cardiff) - we assumed a load of 6 per train when the service was evaluated.
BR had a culture change from Peter Parker (RIP) - who basically said "stop whinging" and get some confidence and get traffic / business - without doubt one of the now forgotton and best railway managers ever. As a trainee i met him several times and it was a pleasure
Incidentally - he didnt get a performance bonsu of £400K or so for a third of the responsibilities. Basic salary !
