zlacker

[parent] [thread] 11 comments
1. alkjsd+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-01-12 20:44:36
They seem to be re-nationalising the railways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Railways

Maybe not: "The Transport Secretary announced on 19 October 2022 that the Transport Bill which would have set up GBR would not go ahead in the current parliamentary session."

replies(4): >>Beltal+K1 >>blibbl+x2 >>HPsqua+H8 >>Jochim+lB
2. Beltal+K1[view] [source] 2023-01-12 20:54:20
>>alkjsd+(OP)
It just got delayed AFAIK.
3. blibbl+x2[view] [source] 2023-01-12 20:57:59
>>alkjsd+(OP)
since covid it has been essentially nationalised: the government took on the risk and any pnl

the franchising sysem won't be coming back

replies(1): >>smcl+kf
4. HPsqua+H8[view] [source] 2023-01-12 21:32:04
>>alkjsd+(OP)
The actual railways (that is, the tracks and the stations) are already government owned anyway (Network Rail).

Network Rail sells access to the network to train operating companies, which are private (though often state-owned by other countries).

The network was originally built by private companies until nationalisation in 1947 (railway companies were bankrupt after WW2). It was private for a while in the 90s, then went bankrupt and renationalised in 2002. Seems to be quite the money pit!

◧◩
5. smcl+kf[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-01-12 22:08:26
>>blibbl+x2
I'm sure TransPennine Express and Avanti West Coast passengers would love that but it's not quite true (yet?)
replies(2): >>blibbl+Km >>midasu+Bo
◧◩◪
6. blibbl+Km[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-01-12 22:52:57
>>smcl+kf
it is true

TPE is still under covid arrangements and Avanti West Coast is under a new style management contract as I described above

switching out top level boss doesn't suddenly improve underlying problems with the service

in the UK this is almost always the infrastructure, which has been nationalised since 2002

the government (DfT) had more control over the railways under the franchising system than they had when BR existed

almost all of what the hated "train companies" consists of is putting a driver in the cab, the rest is down to the DfT

◧◩◪
7. midasu+Bo[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-01-12 23:05:12
>>smcl+kf
Despite what corbynites tell you the problem has never been privatisation or the franchise system - certainly not the TOCs. Indeed the system has managed to take Marylebone and the Chiltern main line from near closure under government control to providing massive investment and high quality thanks to long term franchises. The competition has lowered prices dramatically for those that care (in 1990 a 3 hour return Manchester to london cost about 3 times the £45 price it does today, but today you also have the option of a 2 hour return on a faster service, the revenue of which subsidies the rest of the network), and has driven usage to record levels arresting massive declines under BR
replies(1): >>smcl+vj1
8. Jochim+lB[view] [source] 2023-01-13 00:23:08
>>alkjsd+(OP)
Why build and maintain the entirety of the infrastructure for a national transport system: payment, timetables, rails, signalling etc. and then hand the very last bit - the only bit that actually generates revenue - to a private company?

It's just another example of the hubris of the Conservative party. We've seen it play out repeatedly over the last decade and even earlier in Thatcher's neoliberalism. Labour's lurch to the right resulted in displays of similar small minded arrogance. Their undermining of the NHS through piecemeal privatisation is nothing short of a crime.

◧◩◪◨
9. smcl+vj1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-01-13 07:53:47
>>midasu+Bo
I don't have a strong opinion personally about the franchise system as I don't use any UK rail. My gut tells me they're not adding any value and they might as well be nationalised but someone whose opinion I trust (rail engineer and YouTuber Gareth Dennis[0]) has said that ditching them and nationalising it entirely wouldn't really fix what people think it would. However it has to be said that TPE and AWC have stood out as particularly dismal services - AWC were found to be fucking around with their already disappointing stats around cancelled services, for example. Hence my comment about users of those services - I would completely understand if they would want an overhaul if not outright nationalisation.

[0] - interestingly his "RailNatter" this Wednesday was titled "How to fix Britain's broken railways". I haven't watched it yet, but it will certainly feature some good insight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKhVjw1xDA

replies(1): >>iso163+uA1
◧◩◪◨⬒
10. iso163+uA1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-01-13 10:43:43
>>smcl+vj1
Yes both of those franchises are failing, and if they aren't meeting their KPIs then they should have the franchise stripped.

Some of that is infrastructure (the cancellation of platform 15/16 at Piccadilly means the new Ordsall chord is basically useless, but they tried to use it anyway), I don't know enough about TPE to fairly attribute it, but with AWC it's franchise operation -- especially staff availability. Some of that is also government interference.

Why the left think a tory government would be any better running services than the train operators is anyones guess. When you dig down to it they seem to want more tax subsidies to big businesses (the ones who pay the £400 first class peak time returns on Manchester-London) and high income commuters (the ones with 50% discounts via season tickets who cause peak problems in the same way peak is a problem on the electric grid, and who typically earn far more than the average UK person who commutes via bus or van/car)

Fortunately the franchise system means many lines have significant competition, and you can choose based on journey time, price, and reliability.

Where privitisation does have its weakness is the financing of rolling stock.

replies(1): >>smcl+yH1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
11. smcl+yH1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-01-13 11:47:27
>>iso163+uA1
I’ve no idea where you get the idea that “the left” (an enormous and diverse block of people) primarily want subsidies for the rich. It seems similar to the same (IMO bad faith) argument American conservatives made about student debt forgiveness - that because a small amount of wealthy people would benefit from a universal thing, it is therefore wrong.

The popular opinions I have seen are:

- “nationalise the railways”

- more frequent, reliable and cheaper services overall

As discussed, nationalising the railways isn’t necessarily the silver bullet many people think, but if you engage with those people and don’t insult/berate them they’ll come round easily. They're not hardline communists, hellbent on the destruction of private companies - they just want better train service somehow and may not fully understand how to get there. That's not to deny the existence of "tankies" and other weirdos, they're just a very very tiny minority.

HS2 should enable the “more frequent” part over the regions it covers. I don’t know how to make services cheaper or more reliable, I imagine subsidies come into it somewhere though, and this inevitably means that yes someone wealthy at some point will benefit from a cheaper rail ticket.

replies(1): >>iso163+bT7
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
12. iso163+bT7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-01-15 16:00:21
>>smcl+yH1
> if you engage with those people and don’t insult/berate them they’ll come round easily

Nope, 10 years of plain simple facts and it doesn't help. It's still Richard Branson that's stealing everyones money, if only the west coast mainline wasn't run by him then it would be £20 return for Manchester to London. HS2 of course will apparently cost £600 return for every journey and nobody will be able to afford it or something.

HS2 should be cheaper than current trains, if there is the demand.

Currently to run 1000 seats London to Manchester return takes two 11 car trains, each with 3 members of staff (driver, manager, shop) on a 5 hour return trip. That's 10 hours of train and 30 hours of staff per return.

To do that under HS2 will be 2h30 return for a single train and not need a shop, so that's 5 hours of staff and train costs, so should be far cheaper operational costs.

Track costs should be far cheaper than maintaining 150 year old structure

Whether those lower train and staff costs translate to lower fares, lower subsidies, or more subsidies elsewhere on the network, is a political decision.

I fear the government is killing demand though - for 2 of my last 3 trips to London down the west coast I've hired a car and driven, and it wasn't terrible.

[go to top]