by pwatsonwailes on 5/20/21, 6:33 AM with 376 comments
by OJFord on 5/20/21, 7:34 AM
There's effectively only one operator anyway, for a given journey, it should be the state, awarding the multi-year contract to the elected government is strictly better than to a private company where there's little/much more indirect incentive to do anything in the interest of the consumer.
You don't travel with X from A to B because you think X is great value for money and provides a really top notch service; you do it because you need to get from A to B and X happens to be the operator.
However.. I'm pessimistic... I'm sure operators will push back on 'under one brand', and argue they need this that and the other in order to differentiate themselves and effectively compete...
by matsemann on 5/20/21, 7:01 AM
- we have a directorate of railway deciding where to build tracks, what providers must adhere to, their timetables etc
- one government owned company building - one government owned company building and maintaining the tracks
- one government owned company owning the trains
- another one maintaining the trains
- one government owned company responsible for all ticketing, purchasing, route search, providing timetables etc
- 3 different companies having won a bid for different routes. They have to lease the trains. But since they have monopoly on their route and the directorate decides everything, having multiple hasn't really led to any competition. Sure, they fought somewhat on price for the bid, but for the next 10 years the only thing they really do is provide personnel for the trains.
Nothing here made train a better or more viable alternative for the people. Just 5x the amount of highly paid directors. And more overhead and less cooperation. In fact it's now often more expensive to take train long distance, as you end up paying (price + price) from two companies instead of a single rebated long distance ticket.
One of the companies now driving in Norway is the not-very-popular British Go-Ahead, even.
by mvzvm on 5/20/21, 6:52 AM
Edit: Link broke?
Edit 2: Thank you @bogdan https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
by steve_gh on 5/20/21, 7:40 AM
There are certainly some messy aspects to UK Rail, but the current system was not nearly as bad as made out by some posters , and there are some very good arguments against further centralisation.
A lot of the problem as I see it has been the misalignment between Network Rail (running the tracks) and the train operating companies (TOCs).
Firstly, NR is a huge and bloated bureaucracy - it is incredibly slow moving, and many of the problems (e.g. lack of modern rolling stock) can be directly traced back to problems with NR signing off on new rolling stock (they have to authorise each type of rolling stock to be run on each line).
Second, there are definite problems with timetabling - the TOCs are told the timetables they have to run. Unfortunately, the people who designed the timetables haven't worked out that in some congested areas (eg the approaches to Waterloo station in London), there is no way on earth that the timetables and service frequency of movements in and out of the stations are actually going work.
Thirdly, NR's investment in new systems has been very patchy. It is worth noting that the Welsh Government removed control of the Central Valley lines (serving the valleys North of Cardiff) from NR, and took direct control themselves, because they were sick of decades of underinvestment from NR, which generally takes a very London-centric approach.
Going forwards, I'm hopeful that we will see NR effectively split up into regional entities aligned with the TOC regions, so we can get much better alignment between infrastructure and rolling stock / services in each region. This may also enable a more equitable distribution of funding for infrastructure, which would enable infrastructure and service improvements especially in the North.
Finally, commuter rail and long distance passenger volumes have grown vastly over the past 20 years, which is a good thing. What is needed is infrastructure investment (particularly in modern signalling systems - ETMS) to enable trains to run much more closely together, and enable a higher service density. However, I think it is unlikely that the government will be prepared to make this investment.
by cirrus-clouds on 5/20/21, 8:00 AM
The report quotes the former boss of British Airways about "greater flexibility in the way that fares are operated in the future"
What does this mean? Can we expect less expensive tickets?
The UK already has some of the most expensive rail tickets in Europe. Yes, you can book in advance for cheaper tickets, but often there is limited availability, and you have to book at least a month or longer in advance. In short, the conditions which make cheaper tickets available are simply impractical for most passengers, especially regular commuters.
Here is a monthly season ticket comparison from 2017: UK vs Continental Europe:
- UK: Luton to London St. Pancras (35 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £387 (approx $547/€448)
- UK: Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Piccadilly (32 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £292 (approx $412 /€344)
- Germany: Dusseldorf to Cologne (28 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £85 (approx $120 /€98)
- France: Mantes-la-Jolie to Paris (34 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £61 (approx $86 /€71)
- Italy: Anzione to Rome (31 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £61 (approx $86 /€71)
- Spain: Aranjuez to Madrid (31 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £75 (approx $106 /€87)
Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/uk-commuters-spend-6-times-much-...
by beck5 on 5/20/21, 7:34 AM
The private companies have pushed for a very large increase in the number of operating trains, with around a 50% increase in the past couple of decades, they are trying to squeeze every drop possible out if the tracks.
The train companies are also often making a loss on these routes, commonly subsidised by foreign Europeans governments looking to expand their rail business, Dutch or Italian tax payers should be annoyed at how their taxes are being wasted.
Profits are also capped so these are not potential cash cows people suspect. British tickets are expensive because the government doesn't subsidise the ticket price, which is a separate debate.
The Public Vs private debate will continue until the end of time, the truth is there are benefits to both systems.
Disclaimer, my wife is senior in a rail franchise, as well as being left leaning, fwiw.
by carlsborg on 5/20/21, 7:40 AM
https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/27/man-flies-from-newcastle-to-l...
by rich_sasha on 5/20/21, 6:45 AM
One example is that different routes have different hardware requirements. And guess what, the only provider who has the right kit available immediately is the one whose contract is just expiring. Please name your price and sign on the dotted line.
by maxehmookau on 5/20/21, 7:57 AM
Private companies have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to run train services in the UK. Profit always came before passenger comfort, safety and value for money. I don't believe that the state is better at everything, but in this case they're going to be the least bad option!
by gorgoiler on 5/20/21, 7:38 AM
Obviously there are no competing train companies / train tracks / signalling systems. If you want to vote with your wallet you only have two ways of leveraging better service: demand compensation or stop using the trains altogether.
The problem with a nationalised rail system is... it will also have zero accountability to the paying customers!
What would be really helpful would be to have an independent and powerful ombudsman who can crack down on sloppy service, and I’m pleased to see this given brief mention in The Guardian’s coverage. We shall see.
by markb139 on 5/20/21, 7:18 AM
by peterburkimsher on 5/20/21, 7:01 AM
"I told BR to be off. Then they offered me £1000. I said I'm not a man who can be bought. Then they offered me £2000. Good evening."
"We're going to replace the existing fare structure, with a very unfair structure"
"British Rail intend to maintain our standards. But now for the good news!"
by dmje on 5/20/21, 7:58 AM
You absolutely can't build infrastructure, education, health in 4-year cycles. These are 10,20,50+ year projects. Personally I'd have these under control of something cross party, totally away from electioneering.
by supernova87a on 5/20/21, 7:35 AM
The logic of privatization seemed odd to me: "You have a choice now -- if you weren't satisfied with the service you received on your trip to Manchester, you can go to Leeds instead!"
by flarg on 5/20/21, 7:25 AM
by whazor on 5/20/21, 6:52 AM
by daverol on 5/20/21, 9:27 AM
"Previous adjudications include, among other things, who was responsible for a train being so crowded that a passenger fainted, causing delays while they were taken off; and whether a pheasant is a small bird (in which case, according to the principles at the time, the train operator was to blame for a delay caused by hitting one) or a large bird (Network Rail's problem)."
by intsunny on 5/20/21, 9:08 AM
The Guardian's "UK railways to be simplified but still substantially privatised" seems more accurate:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-ove...
by dastx on 5/20/21, 7:54 AM
by jabl on 5/20/21, 8:20 AM
What I don' understand, is that the article says that the 'government has ended rail franchising', which AFAIU was the process where private companies bid to handle certain routes. Now this is to be replaced with 'concessions', which AFAIU is a bidding process where private companies bid to operate certain routes. What's the difference?
by jonplackett on 5/20/21, 8:14 AM
Eg.
Company is chosen - they get a temporary monopoly on a route, for free instead of having to pitch a ridiculous low ball
But...
Every time a train is late, they pay £100,000
Every time a train is cancelled they pay £1,000,000
They pay £10 for every passenger complaint.
Etc etc
by apexalpha on 5/20/21, 8:04 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJ94o1B0qI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTq8DbRs4k
It takes a bit of understanding why regular market forces kind of can't apply to a system like rail transport.
by dash2 on 5/20/21, 11:56 AM
by DrBazza on 5/20/21, 12:39 PM
Reduce the staff, or reduce the staff salaries. Either way, unions get involved and there will be strikes just like the "good old days". More retail in and around stations perhaps?
I look forward to being able to just a buy a single ticket from X to Y and one that perhaps doesn't cost 5-10 times as much as it would to drive.
by elric on 5/20/21, 12:34 PM
Can anyone summarize the background of this decision? Has there been passenger backlash against the current system?
by Tsiklon on 5/20/21, 11:34 AM
I love taking the train places, for me when I’m going on holiday the journey is part of it, I find rail travel to be low stress and relaxing. The trip from St Pancras to Amsterdam (4hours) was very calm.
I hope that one outcome of this change is that other people rediscover leisure travel by rail.
That said the anorak in me will miss all the different liveries for each of the companies
by sir-alien on 5/20/21, 12:18 PM
Fast, efficient, cost-effective. The only time trains was a little difficult was in the super-peak hours on the underground in the very dense parts of the cities.
I think the world should learn from Japan in many aspects.
by michaelt on 5/20/21, 7:49 AM
* Because rail is vital national infrastructure, important to keeping congestion down, and needs to be accessible even to poor people, every train operator receives government subsidies.
* So travellers can buy tickets for a complex four-train itinerary and large stations can have multiple operators sharing platforms, much of the ticketing system (including the main types of ticket on offer) is centrally controlled.
* Because it would be nigh-impossible to have multiple companies trains with different prices (or different on-time performance) operating on the same route, each route is essentially a monopoly †.
* To prevent price-gouging of commuters on monopoly services, the rate of increase of ticket prices is capped by government. (And yet despite the subsidies and price caps, some train tickets remain absurdly expensive)
* It would be absurd for a company losing a rail franchise to get stuck with a bunch of trains they no longer need, or a bunch of employees in the wrong part of the country they have to fire. So when a rail franchise changes hands, the trains, drivers, stations, and station staff move with it.
* Any long-term investments in things like new trains won't pay off in the duration of a single rail franchise - so they have to be agreed with the government upfront.
* Rail workers are represented by powerful unions, and industrial disputes tank the train operators' performance numbers, so operators can't control their staffing costs - they can only wait out a long industrial dispute with government backing.
* To prevent rural communities losing their rail service (or having it reduced to unusable levels) the government tells the franchisee where the trains must stop, and how often.
* Because tracks and signals all have to be maintained to the same national standards, and often multiple trains will use the same tracks, the train operators don't own the tracks or signalling equipment. So they can't upgrade track for automation or to run more/faster/more reliable services.
* Because re-tendering a franchise is very time-consuming, train operators who under-perform are seldom replaced or punished (except by making less money than they hoped they would)
All of this means the train operators are boxed in on every side - Can't run more trains, can't run fewer trains, can't raise prices, can't change pricing models, can't embrace tech like driverless trains, can't cut staff. Their only powers seem to be choosing the train's colour scheme, taking the blame for poor performance, and giving some bigwig a fat salary.
Given that the trains have always been de-facto under state control, making that true de-jure makes sense.
† Except for one or two services like london-to-birmingham, and competition from cars and teleworking.
by nasmorn on 5/20/21, 8:05 PM
by speps on 5/20/21, 7:27 AM
by dangerboysteve on 5/20/21, 1:59 PM
by JoeAltmaier on 5/20/21, 2:22 PM
by alecco on 5/20/21, 4:55 PM
by 0898 on 5/20/21, 12:26 PM
by Neil44 on 5/20/21, 7:03 AM
by chillydawg on 5/20/21, 10:57 AM
by saos on 5/20/21, 1:31 PM
by baby on 5/20/21, 7:54 AM
by cies on 5/20/21, 6:55 AM
Sure govt's should not supply all food, or luxury good, or ... But public transport, schools, hospitals, ...
I think we should make a good set of rules by which we can decide which typed of biz should be in private hands, and what we prefer public.
The Fed, Blackwater, prisons, rail, hospitals, banks... What could possibly go wrong?
by bsd44 on 5/20/21, 4:46 PM
by DanBC on 5/20/21, 2:23 PM
by jpswade on 5/20/21, 11:24 AM
by ourmandave on 5/20/21, 11:07 AM
by bogdan on 5/20/21, 6:42 AM
by heurisko on 5/20/21, 7:27 AM
by cybervegan on 5/20/21, 7:19 AM
by Jolter on 5/20/21, 7:44 AM
by petewailes on 5/20/21, 7:17 AM
by jp0d on 5/20/21, 7:55 AM
by danjac on 5/20/21, 8:38 AM
by edf13 on 5/20/21, 7:46 AM
by onethought on 5/20/21, 7:33 AM
Extracting profit feels like something that disproportionately targets the poor/working class and leads to either an exploited workforce and worse service... without a reduction in overall costs.
Now this trend of a "Nationalised Brand" over a "privatised service" just feels like insult to injury...
Can capitalism hurry up and eat itself so we can try something else...