The increase in rail usage, nothing to do with privatisation ?

[cjmillsnun]

Yet it failed to think of future levels of traffic. Merthyr gets near 500k passengers a week now, albeit down to a passing loop. It would have made more sense to mothball than remove. Bad business end of. BR made poor business decisions, although I would have liked them to remain in power. Of course, reduced government subsidy did not help as I said.

BR Management didn't really start getting it right until after sectorisation (with some exceptions like the HST) when it became more business focussed.

 

[Markdvdman]

BR Management didn't really start getting it right until after sectorisation (with some exceptions like the HST) when it became more business focussed.

I know BR management got a lot wrong, but if they had the resources the railway companies get now, would they have made such rash decisions?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

BR Management didn't really start getting it right until after sectorisation (with some exceptions like the HST) when it became more business focussed.

Sorry man I put 500k a week when it was meant to be annual - I have since corrected my original post

 

[Beveridges]

BR Management didn't really start getting it right until after sectorisation (with some exceptions like the HST) when it became more business focussed.

BR got a lot right even after the HST:
Class 91 / IC225's.
Class 90 great loco for Intercity West Coast what more needs to be said.
Mk3 and Mk4 coaches and DVT's
Eurostars
Class 156 & 158

Admittedly some things were bad decisions (Class 142 need I even need to mention it) the results of that that the network still suffers from today.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The claim that the growth is down to privatisation alone is preposterous, there's been a number of beneficial factors in the wider world in the last 20 years that have helped grow numbers.

Population growth the increase in England and Wales between the 2001 and 2011 census is the largest ever recorded.

A straight 15 year period of uninterrupted economic growth coincided with privatisation, numbers grew under BR when the economy grew but BR never had more than a couple of years of it.

Yes traffic congestion/ costs, the reinvention of the regional city centre and the creation of city regions has helped and London has become more over heated than ever and drives growth.

So why has the current recession seen growth continue after a brief pause? Privatisation supporters claim it's all down to them but in reality the current recession is very different to previous ones as numbers in employment have risen to record numbers over 30 million and the % of unemployed has been much lower than in late 20th century recessions, this is partly a function of increased population.

And of course Government has been willing to pump more £ into the system than BR ever got.......so your never comparing apples with apples. Personally I think the growth in numbers would be even more but the constant rise in fares, the complexity of the fare system and much of the UK still having 2 car 1980's DMU's as it's rolling stock is holding growth back.

Rail privatisation got lucky with its external environment but the ideologues will never admit this, on the flip side we see the Labour attack on TOC profits and the east coast DOR franchise being dragged out.

 

[NSEFAN]

The GB rail network has never really been properly privatised, merely outsourced. The service provided BR would have probably ended up similar to that provided today, had it receive the massive cash injection which it receives today. Whether it would have gotten such amounts of money is another matter.

Recent governments seem to have had something of a fetish for private initiatives. Large state-run systems are seen as bad and inefficient, but splitting them up and contracting jobs out is somehow much better, to the point where the government will happily subsidise it! In the case of the railways, this is actually quite clever, because it means the passengers can direct their complaints at the TOCs whilst the DfT can pull levers behind the scenes and wash their hands of responsibility when it all goes wrong.

 

[Moonshot]

Going back to the original post , to what extent the railways are privatised is a very moot point.....when you consider that all major investment decisions are made by the state. Add in the fact that the state also regulates 50% of the fare basket, its not difficult to understand that the true spirit of free market competition simply doesnt exist on the UK rail network. I would only consider rail to be fully privatised when the whole shooting match is taken out of state control.

One comment I keep seeing on a regular basis is dividends paid to shareholders which in effect takes money out of the loop. Of course you could accuse any private sector company which supplies the state of doing this, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with paying dividends to shareholders, and it is somewhat hypocritical of rail unions to keep banging the drum about this when you realise that the biggest rail pension provider has assets of around £20 billion, a portion of which are shares which pay dividends.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I wonder what the odds are of 2 forumites ( myself and NSEFAN ) posting pretty much the same thing at exactly the same time !!!??

 

[NSEFAN]

I wonder what the odds are of 2 forumites ( myself and NSEFAN ) posting pretty much the same thing at exactly the same time !!!??

It happens.

IIRC, the trend in growing passenger numbers started in the mid 1980s, about the time of Sectorisation. Perhaps replacing all those old trains was a waste of time, when clearly all was needed to attract more customers was a refurbishment and shiny new livery!

 

[ianhr]

It happens.

IIRC, the trend in growing passenger numbers started in the mid 1980s, about the time of Sectorisation. Perhaps replacing all those old trains was a waste of time, when clearly all was needed to attract more customers was a refurbishment and shiny new livery!

mmmm.....In the mid-80s there were a lot of loco hauled trains which were markedly more comfortable (and with plenty of seats too) than the clapped out 1st generation DMUs that they replaced. I cannot believe that the appalling Pacers, 150s and Voyagers that displaced the loco hauled stock a couple of years later did anything to attract more passengers.

IMO the huge increase in passenger numbers is entirely due to the external factors already mentioned and has little to do with any changes within the rail industry itself which is now struggling to cope with the demand.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It happens.

IIRC, the trend in growing passenger numbers started in the mid 1980s, about the time of Sectorisation. Perhaps replacing all those old trains was a waste of time, when clearly all was needed to attract more customers was a refurbishment and shiny new livery!

1983 to 1988 saw 5 years of growth under BR then agin there were 5 years in the 70's where numbers went up.

 

[Moonshot]

mmmm.....In the mid-80s there were a lot of loco hauled trains which were markedly more comfortable (and with plenty of seats too) than the clapped out 1st generation DMUs that they replaced. I cannot believe that the appalling Pacers, 150s and Voyagers that displaced the loco hauled stock a couple of years later did anything to attract more passengers.

IMO the huge increase in passenger numbers is entirely due to the external factors already mentioned and has little to do with any changes within the rail industry itself which is now struggling to cope with the demand.

Not so sure about that.......when TOCs were established , the rail network ran 17000 trains a day. As at today, that figure is 25000. Clearly, the increase in frequency and also the likes of Virgin and Transpennine Express becoming involved has had a major impact.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I know BR management got a lot wrong, but if they had the resources the railway companies get now, would they have made such rash decisions?

TBH I think BR would've made some good decisions. They had some good management from the mid eighties and very effective cost control. Total route modernisation was a sound policy that is still benefitting lines that it was applied to to this day.

With the level of resources that the various railway companies get now (and the freedom to spend it as they wish - something BR never enjoyed), I suspect things would be in the main, better than we have now.

But there's the problem. Neither the privatised companies or BR got to set their own agenda (BR probably had more influence with larger sectors and managers like Chris Green who were also good at getting some of what they wanted). Both have suffered from short term thinking by successive governments (although finally some long term thinking is emerging).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not so sure about that.......when TOCs were established , the rail network ran 17000 trains a day. As at today, that figure is 25000. Clearly, the increase in frequency and also the likes of Virgin and Transpennine Express becoming involved has had a major impact.

You can't prove that they influenced it at all. The railways have had growth periods before. As others have said, BR never got the cash that the private railways have (with the exception of the modernisation "plan" where the management was appalling and they actually ordered steam locos and electrified little used lines). With the same cash in real terms and the 80s management BR could (I'm not saying would, we'll never know for sure) have achieved more (profits could've been invested back into the railway instead of into shareholders hands).

 

[Moonshot]

TBH I think BR would've made some good decisions. They had some good management from the mid eighties and very effective cost control. Total route modernisation was a sound policy that is still benefitting lines that it was applied to to this day.

With the level of resources that the various railway companies get now (and the freedom to spend it as they wish - something BR never enjoyed), I suspect things would be in the main, better than we have now.

But there's the problem. Neither the privatised companies or BR got to set their own agenda (BR probably had more influence with larger sectors and managers like Chris Green who were also good at getting some of what they wanted). Both have suffered from short term thinking by successive governments (although finally some long term thinking is emerging).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You can't prove that they influenced it at all. The railways have had growth periods before. As others have said, BR never got the cash that the private railways have (with the exception of the modernisation "plan" where the management was appalling and they actually ordered steam locos and electrified little used lines). With the same cash in real terms and the 80s management BR could (I'm not saying would, we'll never know for sure) have achieved more (profits could've been invested back into the railway instead of into shareholders hands).

Yes I can........I can simply point to passenger focus surveys which break down the rail industry by TOC. Both Virgin , TPE , ( and also Chiltern ) get some very positive reviews.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Yes I can........I can simply point to passenger focus surveys which break down the rail industry by TOC. Both Virgin , TPE , ( and also Chiltern ) get some very positive reviews.

Does that prove they influenced growth? Not at all. All it proves is that they are better than the others (not hard because some TOCs are positively mediocre). I'm not saying BR would be any better or worse, again that's impossible to prove either way.

 

[edwin_m]

Would Hatfield have happened?

The reason I ask is that crippled the railways and took away growth for 2 years before things finally returned to something like normal. The reason being Railtrack's poor reaction to the issue of rolling contact fatigue in the immediate aftermath (the Southern sector being the exception).

The underlying reason for both the Hatfield accident and the response to it was Railtrack's lack of corporate understanding of fundamental railway technology issues such as RCF. This was due to their corporate view that this sort of detail could be left to contractors. With cost-cutting all round and a lot of people preferring early retirement to privatisation, neither Railtrack nor the contractors had people with this knowledge, or at least not at a senior enough level to influence what was done about it.

Thus, wherever started the growth in passenger numbers, privatisation was responsible for stopping it for a couple of years by virtue of providing probably the worst service since WW2.

 

[edwin_m]

BR Management didn't really start getting it right until after sectorisation (with some exceptions like the HST) when it became more business focussed.

BR Management from the 70s onwards was pretty good at keeping the railway going at minimum cost, as well as making the best of whatever investment was available.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The underlying reason for both the Hatfield accident and the response to it was Railtrack's lack of corporate understanding of fundamental railway technology issues such as RCF. This was due to their corporate view that this sort of detail could be left to contractors. With cost-cutting all round and a lot of people preferring early retirement to privatisation, neither Railtrack nor the contractors had people with this knowledge, or at least not at a senior enough level to influence what was done about it.

Thus, wherever started the growth in passenger numbers, privatisation was responsible for stopping it for a couple of years by virtue of providing probably the worst service since WW2.

Thank you, you proved my point. Thankfully Network Rail seem to have a better understanding of some of the engineering aspects of the railway.

 

[Moonshot]

Does that prove they influenced growth? Not at all. All it proves is that they are better than the others (not hard because some TOCs are positively mediocre). I'm not saying BR would be any better or worse, again that's impossible to prove either way.

The perception of BR by the passenger was very poor......nowadays perception is so much better

 

[Wyvern]

As I understand it, massive subsidies have been given through the TOCs to buy new trains that weren't given to BR.

Be that as it may, one factor that I believe helped the Cross Country route is is smaller more frequent trains. More reliable timing has also come about from a great deal of slack in the timetable.

 

[edwin_m]

mmmm.....In the mid-80s there were a lot of loco hauled trains which were markedly more comfortable (and with plenty of seats too) than the clapped out 1st generation DMUs that they replaced. I cannot believe that the appalling Pacers, 150s and Voyagers that displaced the loco hauled stock a couple of years later did anything to attract more passengers.

IMO the huge increase in passenger numbers is entirely due to the external factors already mentioned and has little to do with any changes within the rail industry itself which is now struggling to cope with the demand.

Although the rolling stock was sometimes less than ideal, the increase in frequency on key corridors attracted a lot more passengers - and the overcrowding resulted from these numbers exceeding predictions. In the mid-1980s a route such as Liverpool to Nottingham, linking four of England's top seven cities outside London, had a handful of trains per day (with other fast services between Liverpool and Manchester but not on the rest of the route). Regional Railways introduced an hourly service with modern rolling stock and not surprisingly attracted a lot more leisure and some business passengers. Although there were more seats per day in total, they coudn't get the funding to cover the increase in passenger numbers at busy times. The same applied to the other "Regional Express" routes.

Virgin attempted the same on the XC network but with more expensive and arguably less suitable trains and less increase in total seats per hour. The result was a doubling of freqency linking the cities between Newcastle and Bristol (five of England's top seven outside London) and severe overcrowding on the busiest sections and times of day.

Comparing the two, I would say that Regional Railways did a better job than Virgin.

 

[Greenback]

The perception of BR by the passenger was very poor......nowadays perception is so much better

BR suffered through the media. which led to much of the perception from the general public that it was awful. But many of those people had never been on a BR train, and were solely influenced by jokes about BR sandwiches and sausage rolls on TV, report sof broken down trains in the papers, and moaning commuters on the news (some things don't change).

Amongst those who actually used, for example, the HST services on the Western Region, BR was seen overall as quite good. The trains were comfortable, more spacious than now, faster than now, and were a huge advance on what had gone before.

Yes, there were good and bad services, and some were truly awful, but we are still in that situation now!

As I understand it, massive subsidies have been given through the TOCs to buy new trains that weren't given to BR.

I think that's the central issue in this discussion. And not just in respect of new trains either, but also the other infrastructre required to run the system. just look at how much money has been put into station modernisation! If BR had received the funding that has been thrown at the railway since privatisation, then who knows what would have happened.

The decisions BR made in respect of cutting services, singling track and failing to invest in lines like Uckfield were solely due to the funding constraints imposed by various governments. While we may look back now and say some of those decisions were wrong, at the time the BR management really had very little choice.

 

[Moonshot]

BR suffered through the media. which led to much of the perception from the general public that it was awful. But many of those people had never been on a BR train, and were solely influenced by jokes about BR sandwiches and sausage rolls on TV, report sof broken down trains in the papers, and moaning commuters on the news (some things don't change).

Amongst those who actually used, for example, the HST services on the Western Region, BR was seen overall as quite good. The trains were comfortable, more spacious than now, faster than now, and were a huge advance on what had gone before.

Yes, there were good and bad services, and some were truly awful, but we are still in that situation now!



I think that's the central issue in this discussion. And not just in respect of new trains either, but also the other infrastructre required to run the system. just look at how much money has been put into station modernisation! If BR had received the funding that has been thrown at the railway since privatisation, then who knows what would have happened.

The decisions BR made in respect of cutting services, singling track and failing to invest in lines like Uckfield were solely due to the funding constraints imposed by various governments. While we may look back now and say some of those decisions were wrong, at the time the BR management really had very little choice.

And there we have it in bold WHY privatisation of any state industry is so much better for the consumer ...... funding constraints in the private sector are not politically influenced. We all vote for tax cuts, but when it comes to reduced spend as a result of those tax cuts, the voters tend to get upset about it.

 

[meridian2]

I'm sick to death of supporters of rail privatisation banging on about how successful it's been, "just look at the huge increse in rail usage" they say. But how much is actually to do with privatisation ? Even if we ignore the increase in money spent on the railways I think the main causes of increased rail passenger numbers are :

1 The cost and availability (or non availability....) of car parking.
2 The cost of fuel.
3 The inexorable rise in road traffic congestion.
4 The price of houses which make it increasingly difficult for people to live nearer their workplace. (see 5)
5 The “job for life” seems to be the exception rather then the rule these days, therefore people must either move house to be near to their workplace (see 4) or they have to commute.

And none of the above is anything much to do with privatisation. Can anyone else add to the list ? ! ?

Incidentally, I wrote a letter to the Railway Magazine on this subject but it wasn't published, why do they shy away from any letter even remotely controversial ?

Very well put; the only bona fide success of privatisation is in the business and private sectors, and whether supporters of it like it or not it's those sectors and those sectors alone which has made the fragmented railway the 'success' that it likes to think it is.
How many unemployed people have season tickets or can afford them? I bet that gives a much accurate figure of the usage of the railways.

 

[Greenback]

And there we have it in bold WHY privatisation of any state industry is so much better for the consumer ...... funding constraints in the private sector are not politically influenced. We all vote for tax cuts, but when it comes to reduced spend as a result of those tax cuts, the voters tend to get upset about it.

Another way of looking at it is the ideology of the times was much less pro rail than now. And it was a deliberate ploy to offer financial incentives to the privatised railway in order that government policy (both initially and subsequently when it was decided not to renationalise) was seen to be the correct one.

It is probably too much to ask that a state run organisation be funded on an equal footing to what has happened since 1994, but it is too simple to say that privatisation is automatically better. Ultimately, the government simply weren't interested in financing BR properly. The government were very interested in ensuring that privatisation wasn't a disaster.

Of course, the railways continue to be politically influenced, but the main difference is that the government now is seen as being very hands off compared to when the BR Board were running the day to day railway rather than a handful of companies.

The fact is, however, that the government is stillv ery much in overall control. And the cost to the taxpayer is far, far higher than it ever was under BR. So services should be a lot better than they were. It's arguable, however, if that is in fact the case, and what we get is commensurate value for money compared to what we used to get from BR.

 

[Moonshot]

Another way of looking at it is the ideology of the times was much less pro rail than now. And it was a deliberate ploy to offer financial incentives to the privatised railway in order that government policy (both initially and subsequently when it was decided not to renationalise) was seen to be the correct one.

It is probably too much to ask that a state run organisation be funded on an equal footing to what has happened since 1994, but it is too simple to say that privatisation is automatically better. Ultimately, the government simply weren't interested in financing BR properly. The government were very interested in ensuring that privatisation wasn't a disaster.

Of course, the railways continue to be politically influenced, but the main difference is that the government now is seen as being very hands off compared to when the BR Board were running the day to day railway rather than a handful of companies.

The fact is, however, that the government is stillv ery much in overall control. And the cost to the taxpayer is far, far higher than it ever was under BR. So services should be a lot better than they were. It's arguable, however, if that is in fact the case, and what we get is commensurate value for money compared to what we used to get from BR.

Which was the main thrust of the Mcnulty report.....costs are indeed higher. However I cannot argue with the fact that passenger levels are now at an all time high.

 

[Greenback]

Which was the main thrust of the Mcnulty report.....costs are indeed higher. However I cannot argue with the fact that passenger levels are now at an all time high.

No one can argue with that! The question is whether the higher costs are because of the way privatisation was carried out, and whether the higher passenger numbers ar ebecause of the privatisation itself, or more to do with the changes in society mentioned earlier.

Many will argue that costs ar ehigher because of privatisation, but numbers are only up because of other reasons. In my view, there is a connection between them both, and the issue is how much of an influence privatisation has had, because it must have had some sort of effect.

I do think, however, that the effect on passenger numbers has been smaller than the effect on costs!

 

[Dave1987]

I'm too young to remember BR but my father was senior management in both the BR era and the privatisation era. He has since retired. He has told me that BR was a dis functional, inefficient mess. Privatisation isn't brilliant but it's better than what it replaced....... End of really.

 

[Railsigns]

I'm too young to remember BR but my father was senior management in both the BR era and the privatisation era. He has since retired. He has told me that BR was a dis functional, inefficient mess. Privatisation isn't brilliant but it's better than what it replaced.

I'm not too young to remember BR and I've worked for the industry during the BR era and the privatisation era. I still do. BR wasn't brilliant but it was better than the dysfunctional, inefficient mess that replaced it.

 

[Greenback]

I'm too young to remember BR but my father was senior management in both the BR era and the privatisation era. He has since retired. He has told me that BR was a dis functional, inefficient mess. Privatisation isn't brilliant but it's better than what it replaced....... End of really.

I don't see how BR could be called inefficient. Despite the popular view at the time, it was efficient, certainly more so than European railways, Amtrak, and the like. Inter City was profitable, NSE more or less broke even, and Regional Railways required less subsidy than the privatised railway.

I dare say they could have found further savings and been even more efficient than they were, but if they really had bene a dysfunctional, inefficient mess, I don't see how they could have brought in HST's TRM and so on, never mind bringing to life the concept of NSE almost overnight!

BR certainly wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't a disaster either.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm not too young to remember BR and I've worked for the industry during the BR era and the privatisation era. I still do. BR wasn't brilliant but it was better than the dysfunctional, inefficient mess that replaced it.

Wasn't the railway built and run by the private sector originally? Wasn't the so called "golden era" of the railways all under private companies. I'm simply going of the opinion of someone who I trust and was in a position to know the goings on under BR. From what he has said people really wouldn't want to go back to the bad old days of BR where a trains might not turn up all and the the phrase "a BR excuse" was born.

 

[fowler9]

Certainly in my area I would say that increased use of the railways has nothing to do with privatisation. Heading from West Allerton to Lime Street the slowest train is scheduled to take 19 minutes. Every single train heading the other way is scheduled to take 11. Thats how much slack is built in to the timetable. We have one train an hour less. The rolling stock is exactly the same as it was when BR operated the service.

Liverpool South Parkway is a vast improvement over Garston and Allerton stations but it would be hard to prove that it has anything to do with privatisation. If I travel from Liverpool to Birmingham I now have a very good chance of doing it on commuter style rolling stock. The journey to London is undeniably quicker but I'd still rather do the journey a bit slower on a Mk3. I personally don't find the 185's an improvement on the Trans Pennine route and the East Midland service to Sheffield and beyond is still on BR rolling stock.

In my opinion certainly for my area more people are using trains because more people have to travel further to work and in some cases move away from their family, which means more people are travelling further to visit friends and family. Simple as that.