Samd22 wrote:We need the big four again plus others (North British, North East, Lancs & Yorks, etc). Private companies but hopefully with regional authorites as shareholders amongst others.
They would wholly own their own tracks, trains, stations and other associated infrastructure therefore making big long term investment much more likely.
That's a much better vision of privatisation! If only someone had told the Tory government that! - not that they'd have listened anyway - they just wanted rid of the railways. Remember everything Thatcher said about Britain being a 'motoring nation'?
Nick
Shame really, if they had did it that way who knows how our railways would have been like now?
Sort of system that would actively encourage private investment and public/private partnership.
Also allows for lesser used branch lines to be run by local people and open access freight operations.
The Conservatives were so mean to totally destroy BR. The CTRL is the only major new line for over 100 years and it is mainly for international services (except comestic commuter services - only a few). Network rail is not uprading the track much, just keeping to government targets. I love the BR and don't want Britain to have rubbish. Many of the journey times are the same or have got worse - by adding stops. My favorite train in the whole wide world is the one and only Class 43 (fastest diesel train) 238 km/h. 1st Nov 1987 , well before the privatisation. World records were made on the GWR. Paddington - Chippenham non stop was the fastest average timetabled journey at that time. Class 222's, Voyagers' and other trains are nothing like the 125's with it's Paxman 'Sreamers' on the MML. I used to watch the class 43 pass our station, so sad to see some of them replaced. All I want is BR with it's famous logo.
Public Private Parternship = No Go. All that means is more managers & executives creaming more of the budjet off for private schooling & big BMWs.
Unfortunately I don't trust the present government to run the railways, so whilst in an ideal world I'd vote nationalise again, with a smart-thinking government at the helm, I'm going to have to stick with privatisation, simply because of the total farce that is the current "Labour" government.
Sorry if we're not alowed to go into politics here?
chandramohan wrote:All I want is BR with it's famous logo.
Why?
Looking at BR from a relatively objective viewpoint (ie not rose-tinted with nostalgia), it seems to have been an absolubtely awful company in just about every way. People might complain about the level of subsidy our network currently requires, but many of BR's decisions didn't exactly make economic sense either, eg replacing almost-new steam locomtives with diesels that didn't work, or building lots of non-standard railbus designs when a single, well thought out design might have saved many branch lines from the Beeching axe.
Journey times may have increased, but at least punctuality is improving, despite what the media would have you believe. (So is saftey, for that matter).
The double arrow logo was a good one, but you need more than just a logo to convince people to use your trains. BR painted their trains in austere liveries because they couldn't afford to pay people to keep them clean, they reduced stations to bus sheleters which, while functional, were unwelcoming, and their on-train catering is still the butt of jokes today. Compare that to companies like GNER and Chiltern, with new or refurbished stock always in immaculate condition, well-maintained stations whose staff are friendly and helpful, on-train food which tastes nice and may even be good for you-and I just cannot comprehend how anybody can get enthusiastic about British Rail. Everything I've read, seen and heard about them just gave me the impression that they simply didn't care.
Chandramohan, you make a valid point there, though I see slightly different sides of it. It is true that expansion is nearly imossible under privatisation, but it is also worth pointing out that, for the same reason, upgrading of lines is incredibly difficult.
Under BR, there was a rolling electrification programme, which would have seen most major routes electrified, including the GWML and MML (instead of HST2). This was first planned and started in the 80s, and should have lasted well into this century. The first elements of it can be seen in the Southern Region (Hastings, Portsmouth-Southampton - and I believe Exeter was also in the pipeline).
These days any sort of upgrade is nearly impossible - think of the ferrago of the WCML upgrade. It is difficult to make the smallest of improvements (like a signal being moved, or a set of points installed), for whilst Network Rail will maintain the lines, they have no incentive to upgrade them, or build any new track.
If we must have private companies, we should at least reunite the TOCs with their trains and their track, so the company can control everything, and organise improvements (though I don't see why one national system wouldn't be the most effective way of doing this).
I think the solution is to renationalise, but keep the freight operators seperate.
The ridiculously high costs that projects now cost and the amount of time they take is obscene. If the railway is going to cope with growth, it cannot continue to be run like this.
When BR finally got its act together and started running things like a business it was privatised. Important knowledge was squandered and research was all but abandoned, treated as unneeded. So now, we buy tilting technology from Italy, high speed trains from France and a large portion of new trains are built overseas.
Thameslink 2000, Crossrail, WCML Upgrade, the list of projects that would have been done quicker by BR is large and numerous.
Everything seems to cost more for the railways these days even accounting for inflation, and its all because they have to involve far more people than nessecary.
If not renationalisation then at least vertical intergration is nessecary. Its about time that more lines were electrified, and we finally get somewhere with Britain's rail network.
The track-train split was wrong - everyone, even Chris Grayling (Shadow Transport) accepts this. The problem with recreating BR is that the only organisation capable of being at the centre of the 'new BR' is Network Rail. There's a few slight issues with that, namely £21bn of Treasury guarantees, and the accountability of Network Rail. Dealing with accountability first, NR is held 'accountable' to it's Members, who should act like Shareholders - except they don't have any teeth, and the financial performance of Network Rail is inconsequential to them (it's not their money, it's us taxpayer's money). That £21bn is a big issue - if the National Audit Office squeal that it should be on Gordon's books, then that busts the Public Sector Borrowing rules - expect HM Treasury to be very loud, and Mr Alexander to go and "represent his constituents better". NR, as a basis for a renationalised network, is a ship in a storm, overladen with lead weight. And with NR's present unassailable call, through the ORR, on Treasury funding, a 'New BR' could easily turn into the railway's NHS. Investment would stall, and it may well be that significant portions of the network could close under a nationalised 'New BR' - just to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. Even when 'New BR' gets out of the troubled inception, the railways would still be left picking up the scraps after the NHS and Education have overspent as usual - cue stagnation, only with a smaller network.
The only solution to preserving the network in present form is to recreate regional railway companies - private sector bodies, with ownership of all assets, and responsible for both maintaining and operating services. Yes, the state should have a role - continuing to provide a (reduced) subsidy for socially-necessary services (on a contractual basis - subject to each side fulfilling their part of the contract with performance penalties for failure). The beauty of this is that it can take the debt off Gordon's books, but also retains the ability for any of the new regional companies to borrow in the private sector - where, provided it can demonstrate a business case with a decent return on investment, Capital can be sought without having to 'compete' with the NHS and Education. BR was always tied to Public Sector Borrowing - hence the lack of investment.
Having seen some of the effects of the half-and-half railways over the pond, I can see some problems. I think Stu will confirm this, but basically, all US railways are privately owned by the freight companies, and apart from a few shortline and commuter services, passenger traffic is handled by Amtrak. Apart from such premium lines as the NE corridor, this frequently results in fast passenger trains being held up to allow a slow freight to occupy the line as the freight company owns the line. For reasons I have yet to ascertain, Amtrak's routes are difficult to understand. I live near Detroit, which has rail connections with Canada, with Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana directly, but the only place I can travel to by passenger train is Chicago. Even were I to want to travel to Toledo, Ohio, 40 miles south of me, I have to go to Chicago, 200 and some miles west, then change to come back on the same line for about 180 miles to get to Toledo - even though Detroit has a direct rail connection to Toledo. I shudder to think how I'd get to Toronto, but I suspect it would mean something like Chicago-Winnipeg-Toronto, taking two days to do a journey I can do in a car in two hours and a plane in about the same.
I think that the UK is a somewhat different situation to the US or to Europe - distance on the whole are shorter, for one thing, so comparing like for like is fraught with problems.
Privatisation was carried out in the nineties in a similar way to the cable TV franchises in the states - divide the country into regions then give operators a monopoly in that area. Quite how this stimulates competition I have yet to work out.
What we need to do is learn from history, not just try to recreate it. We know that for whatever reason, complete privatisation of the railways doesn't work these days; they've lost the speed and capacity advantage they had in Victorian days, and the freedom given to road haulage, plus loads of army surplus trucks after WWI gave road haulage an unfair advantage - and that was a large factor in the original failures which led to the Grouping in 1923.
I honestly think that the best way to deal with the railway operation would be to treat it in exactly the same way as the roads - the infrastructure is national, and paid for out of taxation of the users. If the railways were treated in the same fashion as roads, there'd be little trouble getting upgrades to overcrowded, popular routes - though thank heaven at least DfT doesn't have to design the railway - look at the mess they made of the M25 from day one!.
The services should be entirely private, in the same way as most buses. I can get a bus in areas of London that could belong to any one of a hatful of companies, and they would all go the same way. Similarly, TOCs should be able to run a train from A to B if they want to; customers would soon determine which operators ran a worthwhile service. Even now, I have a choice of routes to Nottingham, but I won't use Virgin again. I'd rather spend the extra tenner and save half an hour going via London, despite having to use at least four trains. At least I get a seat and the trains are on time.
True competition would allow operators to compete over the same route, then the passengers will decide. What we have at the moment is a politically driven system that exists to make money; for the government in selling the franchises, and TOCs who are given an effective monopoly over a region of the country.
TOCs too should be allowed to buy (lease, rent, whatever) whichever trains they feel are best for their services, not be dictated to by a central authority for political reasons.
We should keep politics out of transport, and, on past experience, keep politicians out of transport management. Read Gerald Fiennes book 'I Tried To Run A Railway' about the joys of trying to manage a BR region under political control; it's a wonderful illustration of how politicians know how NOT to do it.
Barry - the problem with true Open Access is that many routes are very marginal - if not loss-making. Whilst Open Access works well in long-distance, where a couple of trains a day, with no real 'peak' period in the market, can make a profit, many routes are barely profitable, except for about three hours per day each way where the network works to bursting point. Under Open Access, you'd end up with every operator looking to go into London between 0630 and 0930 and looking to leave London between 1600 and 1900 - but a paltry service at other times. Performance would be badly affected, and the delay compensation process would go into meltdown. Regional monopolies can at least cross-subsidise their weakest off-peak service with the profits from their strongest peak services.
Following the bus example is bad - you state London as an example: this is factually wrong - all London 'red' buses are franchised on a route-by-route basis by Transport for London (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses). The routes are specified as to the route taken, stops, and frequencies - the operators have to provide the vehicles and staff to operate the route at the best cost. Elsewhere, competition virtually doesn't exist. Except for two routes in Manchester, some in the North East, and a few in Birmingham, there is no competition. Bus patronage outside London has been falling consistently year-on-year - the disorganised and expensive nature of buses outside London is destroying the industry. Most bus operators have come to 'arrangements' with their neighbours to not step on each others' patches - purely as the only way to survive is to have a monopoly. Bus deregulation is a failed policy - cities like Leeds are now calling for London-style franchising within their area.
Think I'd have to definitley go with big private companies but with regional authorities being able to buy shares in them.
You'd have something like Great Western, London North Western, London North Eastern, Great Eastern, Network South East, South West Trains, Scot Rail and Northern Trains.
Obviously the whole owning stations, track, stock, etc goes without saying.
Other services to be run by organisations such as Tfl and hopefully other regional equivalents. Rural services could be run as micro-franchises and freight can stay private.
chandramohan wrote:All I want is BR with it's famous logo.
Why?
Looking at BR from a relatively objective viewpoint (ie not rose-tinted with nostalgia), it seems to have been an absolubtely awful company in just about every way.
Compare that to companies like GNER and Chiltern, with new or refurbished stock always in immaculate condition, well-maintained stations whose staff are friendly and helpful, on-train food which tastes nice and may even be good for you-and I just cannot comprehend how anybody can get enthusiastic about British Rail. Everything I've read, seen and heard about them just gave me the impression that they simply didn't care.
What Rubbish Muz!! I suggest you read a few books on the subject, try E. A. Gibbins for the views of an ex-BR manager, that might change your mind a bit. Firstly half the changes you mention, scrapping steam, closing branch lines etc were decided by politicians rather than BR...and it was the politicians who ran the system into the ground during the war then decided it must break even as soon as possible.
Its a surprising statistic but if you look at the complaint figures (as Gibbins does) they tell a different story. He compares the number of journeys to the number of complaints for a year during the 'bad old days' of the 1980s and reveals that about 0.00127% of people complained. I would love to see that figure for 2005.
Oh and BTW where do you think the bosses of most of the TOCs learnt their trade?
andrewtoplis wrote:What Rubbish Muz!! I suggest you read a few books on the subject, try E. A. Gibbins for the views of an ex-BR manager, that might change your mind a bit. Firstly half the changes you mention, scrapping steam, closing branch lines etc were decided by politicians rather than BR...and it was the politicians who ran the system into the ground during the war then decided it must break even as soon as possible.
Fair point, but it still seems to me that the logical solution would be to separate the railways from the politicians...
andrewtoplis wrote:Its a surprising statistic but if you look at the complaint figures (as Gibbins does) they tell a different story. He compares the number of journeys to the number of complaints for a year during the 'bad old days' of the 1980s and reveals that about 0.00127% of people complained.
Maybe so, but we humans are a lazy race and I suspect that there were probably many more people how were dissappointed with their journey but couldn't be bothered to put pen to paper and say so. Furthermore, there will have been many more who simply voted with their feet and stopped travelling by train. You can come up with statistics to prove anything...75% of all people know that.
mattvince wrote:Under Open Access, you'd end up with every operator looking to go into London between 0630 and 0930 and looking to leave London between 1600 and 1900 - but a paltry service at other times.
Whilst the JR-style approach would seem the much stronger option (although some places would inevitably lose out as a result of ownership boundaries), I'd imagine fear of competition would mitigate this to some extent, providing there was a limit as to how many paths you could occupy in peak periods. Likewise, some services could be contracted out, and coaches could operate some off peak services like TER in France - a longer journey time at a reduced fare. All in all, it would be a disaster, but maybe not a complete catastrophe
mattvince wrote:Under Open Access, you'd end up with every operator looking to go into London between 0630 and 0930 and looking to leave London between 1600 and 1900 - but a paltry service at other times.
Whilst the JR-style approach would seem the much stronger option (although some places would inevitably lose out as a result of ownership boundaries), I'd imagine fear of competition would mitigate this to some extent, providing there was a limit as to how many paths you could occupy in peak periods. Likewise, some services could be contracted out, and coaches could operate some off peak services like TER in France - a longer journey time at a reduced fare. All in all, it would be a disaster, but maybe not a complete catastrophe
Boundary issues are probably over-done by opponents of the regional break-up plan - how was it done in Ye Olde Days? By joint working, reciprocal access agreements, and other contractual access agreements. In the modern era, this could involve creating a jointly-owned company (such as a 'Cross-Country Trains Ltd' operating company, jointly owned by the various Railway Companies), or joint-working (the fleet used being jointly or equally owned, and each company providing staff).
In Open Access: Bustitution could be an option - but I'm not sure its an attractive one - equally contracting out: who's going to pay for the contract? Of the companies, the most profitable will be the ones which don't operate the off-peak, as the ones which do will have their profit margins hit, with consequent reduced availability of capital. Railways, due to their operational nature, are inherently inter-dependant. Therefore if the Cheap'n'Nasty Trains service to Charing Cross sits down on the Up at Borough Market at 0800, then the following SuperComfyExpress and UltraValueRail trains will all be delayed - resulting in a 'service quality failure' for their customers, and a consequent hit on their revenue, with nothing to recoup that lost revenue save for the compensation - and certainly no way to prevent such an occurance from happening again. Vertical Integration takes it all away - giving the operator the power to ensure higher standards, and removes the Money-go-Round which full open competition could worsen. Before anyone suggests that Regional Monopolies would equally be lax in maintenance, I'd have the ORR act as a Regulator in the same vein as OFWAT, OFCOM, etc - able to demand improvements in performance with the threat of fines for failing to meet targets.
Disclaimer: TOCs named in the above paragraph are fictional and do not represent any real-world operators. Any similarities are purely coincidental.
What I meant by 'contracting out' was subsidising from the government (for "socially necessary" services etc). There would need to be some kind of performance targets met by Cheap'n'Nasty Trains, but it wouldn't be an improvement on the current situation in any case.
