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

[Moonshot]

BR were very good at managing decline. Interestingly , a lot of ex BR managers state that the best of BR was when it was divided up into business sectors towards the end of its life.

 

[Dave1987]

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.

I'm curious as to why certain people have such a rosy picture of BR. From what I've heard people constantly moaned about it during the BR era and positively welcomed privatisation with open arms.

 

[Railsigns]

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.[?]

You are speaking of a period when the railways had practically no competition from other forms of transport (road and air), so were able to operate profitably as private companies, just as the airlines do now.

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.

Maybe one day you'll get a mind of your own and be able to form opinions based on evidence, as opposed to what your dad tells you.

 

[Manchester77]

I don't see how hard it is for people to get their heads around the fact that BR in the 90s operated very well with as many others have said very limited subsidy, intercity had none it was planned to remove NSEs by the mid 90s and regional was as greenback said operating with less subsidy then than the current regional franchises now are!

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.

But it's not the case for everything, certain things need to be state run because they simply don't make a profit and aren't there for a profit yet (public health) yet some governments like the idea of the private sector coming in on certain things like that. The Royal Mail again is another example, Germany privatised their mail system and in some places which once saw a daily postal service this has now been reduced to in some cases once a week. I don't see how people think that's better for the consumer.

People can say that the record levels of investment in the railways wouldn't have happened with privatisation but surely 90s BR can show you that's not true, the networker looked to take over from most slam door trains as well as the 319s on Thameslink (which I think were set to be cascaded to the lines out of Waterloo), intercity 250 project was set to happen on the west coast and probably wouldn't have been as unsuccessful as the WCRM on the naughties, mass sprinterisation on regional railways was to happen further and probably additional orders of some stock would have occurred to cope with rising demand.

 

[fowler9]

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.

Did your father also work on the privatised railways to be able to give a comparison. My father worked for MPTE and later Merseytravel. Once the services were deregulated his two fellow managers retired leaving my dad to do the job of all three of them. He did it but his work load was crazy and he ended up having to take early retirement which our family couldn't afford. I know which one he preferred.

And saying "End Of" doesn't mean you are right and the conversation is over.

 

[Dave1987]

You are speaking of a period when the railways had practically no competition from other forms of transport (road and air), so were able to operate profitably as private companies, just as the airlines do now.

Maybe one day you'll get a mind of your own and be able to form opinions based on evidence, as opposed to what your dad tells you.

But I am forming it based on evidence of someone who was senior management under BR! Why would I not believe what he says when he was clearly in a position to know that BR was a mess. I ask you where did the phrase "a BR excuse" come from if not from an inefficient mess?

 

[Railsigns]

But I am forming it based on evidence of someone who was senior management under BR! Why would I not believe what he says when he was clearly in a position to know that BR was a mess.[?]

Because there were other people in a similar position with opposing views to your father's?

I ask you where did the phrase "a BR excuse" come from if not from an inefficient mess?

I have to say in all honesty I have not heard this phrase.

 

[Oliver]

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.

I have never seen a claim that privatisation is the sole reason for growth in recent years. Please can you point us to such a claim?

 

[fowler9]

I have never seen a claim that privatisation is the sole reason for growth in recent years. Please can you point us to such a claim?

Read back through the thread.There are loads of them.

 

[aleph_0]

I'm curious as to why certain people have such a rosy picture of BR. From what I've heard people constantly moaned about it during the BR era and positively welcomed privatisation with open arms.

Having multiple brands in privatized-world has helped. In BR days, a bad experience on the train might cause you to say that BR are rubbish. Now, it's more likely to cause you to say "ToC X is rubbish". This has been replaced by plenty of moaning about certain commuter ToCs, but for other ToCs people are usually more positive. It also allows people to change their opinions more easily - people are far more likely to say, for example, "(DOR) East Coast is better than NX East Coast", than "services are much better than 5 years ago".

The claim is BR weren't bad at spending the money they had in an efficient way to provide a reasonable service. There's no disputing that if they had more money, they could provide a better service, or that some areas needed more investment. But if we compare privatization to BR, we really need to separate out the questions of how much money was spent on the railways, and how efficiently/effectively it was used.

 

[Dave1987]

I have to say in all honesty I have not heard this phrase.

Well I have heard it a lot when people refer to the old BR when trains may or may not turn up with no compensation. Lines would be shut for whole weekends for engineering works with no bus replacements etc etc should I go on?

 

[fowler9]

Well I have heard it a lot when people refer to the old BR when trains may or may not turn up with no compensation. Lines would be shut for whole weekends for engineering works with no bus replacements etc etc should I go on?

Yeah because that just never happens now!

 

[Greenback]

Well I have heard it a lot when people refer to the old BR when trains may or may not turn up with no compensation. Lines would be shut for whole weekends for engineering works with no bus replacements etc etc should I go on?

Do you have a source rather than hearsay? Or any details as to which routes and when? I still have a very comprehensive temporary timetable, showing rather a lot of replacement buses, from 1985 when there were weekend engineering closures in the west country due to signaling modernisation.

There were no formal compensation schemes until John Major came along, I'll give you that, yet my father received a full refund following delays and poor information in 1982. So there were process to claim 'compensation' for delays and cancellations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah because that just never happens now!

Yeah, there have no cancellations ever under the glorious privatised railway!

 

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
I have never seen a claim that privatisation is the sole reason for growth in recent years. Please can you point us to such a claim?

Read back through the thread.There are loads of them.

I don't see any post that suggests that privatisation is the sole reason for growth. Please show me the "loads" you refer to.

 

[Beveridges]

I'm curious as to why certain people have such a rosy picture of BR. From what I've heard people constantly moaned about it during the BR era and positively welcomed privatisation with open arms.

Privatisation has just been a huge waste of money. The government is still paying more subsidy than it was in BR days!

Plus the government is still running the railway indirectly through the DfT. The only difference is now there are shareholders and ROSCO's making loads of money out of it at the expense of government funding. It is a cost-inefficient mess.

If BR was still in existence, I bet there would be very little difference to the railway today. Except it would require about 5x less government subsidy to run than todays inefficient mess.

 

[Yew]

Technology - you can use your smartphone / tablet etc on public transport - you cannot use these whilst driving.

Dont forget a crackdown on drink driving too. You can have a few drinks after work with your mates waiting for the rush hour to go away if you get the train.

 

[edwin_m]

But if we compare privatization to BR, we really need to separate out the questions of how much money was spent on the railways, and how efficiently/effectively it was used.

That's very difficult because BR had inadequate levels of finance, and we have never had a privatised railway that had to live on the amounts of money that BR did.

Perhaps we should be comparing the privatised railway today with countries that have always had more funding but have kept their railways mainly in the public sector? This might be difficult however because those countries have been spending for many decades whereas the increase UK spending only happened at (or actually somewhat after) the time of privatisation.

 

[fowler9]

I don't see any post that suggests that privatisation is the sole reason for growth. Please show me the "loads" you refer to.

Just read back through the thread. I'm not linking every single post that says "Someone told me that under BR".... yadda yadda. If that isn't people arguing that improvements are due to privatisation then I don't know what they are trying to say. Given the title of the thread they are either off topic or that is what they are arguing. If you want me to show you someone saying "Increased use is just down to privatisation" then no I can't but I think we both know what some people are saying.

 

[Dave1987]

Well I'm convinced then, nationalisation is the golden ticket to all the problems in the current system. Every penny of profit of every fare will be poured back into investment and everyone will have the train service they want.

I severely doubt that, especially as the treasury will control the purse strings!!

 

[Greenback]

I'm curious as to why certain people have such a rosy picture of BR. From what I've heard people constantly moaned about it during the BR era and positively welcomed privatisation with open arms.

Sorry, missed this earlier!

I don't think it's a rosy view of BR. I am the first to acknowledge that the organisation was far from being a fantastic example of efficiency and skill. Indeed, parts of it were pretty bad. But it wasn't as bad as the media of the day liked to make out.

As I recall, there wasn't a huge amount of support for privatisation amongst rail users. It was one of the most controversial of privatisations, and even those who supported it in principle were unhappy about the form it took.

The result has been the mish mash of private and public that we have now. But compromising was the only way that the legislation could have got through, such was the debate and controversy at the time.

I suggest you have a look back at some of the articles of the time. Some of the debates and reports will be quite illuminating if you are only relying on one or two opinions rather than your own memories of what BR was like.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well I'm convinced then, nationalisation is the golden ticket to all the problems in the current system. Every penny of profit of every fare will be poured back into investment and everyone will have the train service they want.

I severely doubt that, especially as the treasury will control the purse strings!!

Well, you are correct in that, of course! But then no one is saying what you claim! This is a discussion on other forms of running the railway that may be brought up IF Labour win the next election!

 

[fowler9]

Well I'm convinced then, nationalisation is the golden ticket to all the problems in the current system. Every penny of profit of every fare will be poured back into investment and everyone will have the train service they want.

I severely doubt that, especially as the treasury will control the purse strings!!

I just think some things are a service which people need. How would you feel about privatising the roads and pavements to give people more choice?

 

[Moonshot]

Dont forget a crackdown on drink driving too. You can have a few drinks after work with your mates waiting for the rush hour to go away if you get the train.

This is an interesting post.......

Last night I happened to be working on the trains till midnight.....it was very busy coming OUT of Manchester as opposed to in. I got into a bit of a chat with a few passengers who basically said whats quoted above.....as they said to me " one of the plusses of the rail network nowadays is that the frequencies and reliability are so much better than they used to be, so we can leave cars at home and not have to worry about getting home etc "....

 

[fowler9]

This is an interesting post.......

Last night I happened to be working on the trains till midnight.....it was very busy coming OUT of Manchester as opposed to in. I got into a bit of a chat with a few passengers who basically said whats quoted above.....as they said to me " one of the plusses of the rail network nowadays is that the frequencies and reliability are so much better than they used to be, so we can leave cars at home and not have to worry about getting home etc "....

Not the kind of conversation I normally have on the way home after a night out but hey! Ha ha. Personally speaking I haven't noticed any earlier or later services in the Merseyside area than there ever were. Certainly since the buses were deregulated the services start later and finish earlier, although that is of course slightly off topic. As for the trains from my local station they are now sometimes scheduled to take some 8 minutes longer obviously to avoid paying compensation for late running. 8 minutes is a fair bit of slack when the journey only takes about 10.

 

[Beveridges]

Last night I happened to be working on the trains till midnight.....it was very busy coming OUT of Manchester as opposed to in. I got into a bit of a chat with a few passengers who basically said whats quoted above.....as they said to me " one of the plusses of the rail network nowadays is that the frequencies and reliability are so much better than they used to be, so we can leave cars at home and not have to worry about getting home etc "....

With all that money spent upgrading the infrastructure it's not surprising it runs to time more often now.

Oh yes and the improvements are nothing to do with privatisation. They are funded by the government.

 

[w0033944]

You are speaking of a period when the railways had practically no competition from other forms of transport (road and air), so were able to operate profitably as private companies, just as the airlines do now.

Very good point. As an LNER enthusiast, it's illuminating to read how increases in road haulage and bus frequency in the 1920s and 1930s limited the companys' profit, it being more reliant on industry and commuting between large towns and cities in the North and North-East, as opposed to companies such as the Southern, who had most of the wealthy stockbroker belt and the south coast ferry services, or the GWR who had the allure of holidays in the South West and the public perception of serving all those chocolate-box locations in the West Country.

When you consider that the levels of road haulage and longer-distance bus travel in that era were as nothing compared with today, yet it had a noticeable effect on profitability, you can understand why full privatisation of the kind that "Moonshot" wants would only lead to massive losses of route miles and withdrawal of services from large parts of the country, and why it was only really before such competition properly existed that most private rail companies (pre-Grouping) were able to make sizeable profits, as opposed to certain of them who happened to serve a profitable niche as would probably have been the case had the growth of road transport during the inter-war years happened without Grouping having taken place.

Maybe one day you'll get a mind of your own and be able to form opinions based on evidence, as opposed to what your dad tells you.

Unfair, sir. If one lacks knowledge on a subject, it can be tempting to rely on the opinions of a loved one. If anything, having experienced scientific training helps as it puts mass anecdotal/subjective experience and opinion in its place as useful but inferior to objective evidence, and single-person anecdotes as being weaker than either!

 

[Moonshot]

With all that money spent upgrading the infrastructure it's not surprising it runs to time more often now.

Oh yes and the improvements are nothing to do with privatisation. They are funded by the government.

Would the results be the same if the improvements were funded by the private sector?? Of course they would....so the only real issue is who funds the improvements , public or private capital.

 

[w0033944]

Would the results be the same if the improvements were funded by the private sector?? Of course they would....so the only real issue is who funds the improvements , public or private capital.

Evidence? Surely, unless investment delivered a greater return within a given timescale than it cost to achieve, no private enterprise would fund it? In that case, I presume you are suggesting that every Government-funded investment since Privatisation would have delivered a return with 5 or 10 years?

 

[Moonshot]

Evidence? Surely, unless investment delivered a greater return within a given timescale than it cost to achieve, no private enterprise would fund it? In that case, I presume you are suggesting that every Government-funded investment since Privatisation would have delivered a return with 5 or 10 years?

Correct......as it stands now, no private enterprise would fund improvements without a rate of return......state investment tends to count so called " wider economic benefits " as its rate of return, which is the plank that underpins the business case for HS2. However , that may change if Network Rail is privatised anyway.....

 

[Gareth Marston]

This is an interesting post.......

Last night I happened to be working on the trains till midnight.....it was very busy coming OUT of Manchester as opposed to in. I got into a bit of a chat with a few passengers who basically said whats quoted above.....as they said to me " one of the plusses of the rail network nowadays is that the frequencies and reliability are so much better than they used to be, so we can leave cars at home and not have to worry about getting home etc "....

BR was already starting to move in that direction, the private companies have just continued the process rather than introduce anything new.

 

[Dave1987]

Privatisation has just been a huge waste of money. The government is still paying more subsidy than it was in BR days!

Plus the government is still running the railway indirectly through the DfT. The only difference is now there are shareholders and ROSCO's making loads of money out of it at the expense of government funding. It is a cost-inefficient mess.

If BR was still in existence, I bet there would be very little difference to the railway today. Except it would require about 5x less government subsidy to run than todays inefficient mess.

Sorry but you only have to look at any govt quango or organisation to realise that they do not do efficiency. And like I said before I don't think the saying "a BR excuse" would have come out if BR was as rosy as you think it was.