• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

State monopolies are generally poor at delivering services

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vespa

Established Member
Joined
20 Dec 2019
Messages
1,733
Location
Merseyside
British Railways when it was nationalised was run by sclerotic management, surly rude arrogant railway staffs, catering left a lot to be desired, customer service non existent, you see essentially like it or lump it, the raileway is for the benefit of the railwaymen not the customers, in many cases it was easier to drive than go by rail.

Things didn't really start to improve until the 80s with the "Age of the Train" advertising blitz and better ticketing system, privatisation came along shortly after.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,342
British Railways when it was nationalised was run by sclerotic management, surly rude arrogant railway staffs, catering left a lot to be desired, customer service non existent, you see essentially like it or lump it, the raileway is for the benefit of the railwaymen not the customers, in many cases it was easier to drive than go by rail.

Things didn't really start to improve until the 80s with the "Age of the Train" advertising blitz and better ticketing system, privatisation came along shortly after.
Then privatisation wasn't really responsible for the improvement was it?

And most of the things you just said are still true today. (sclerotic management, rude arrogant railway staff, catering that leave a lot to be desired, in many cases non existant customer service and like it or lump it operations).

And in many cases it still easier to drive than go by rail.
The improvements of the late 90s and early 2000s were not purchased thanks to the dynamism of the private sector or any such rubbish.
They were purchased by torrents of public money, unlike anything BR had seen since the Modernisation Plan, pouring into the system.
 

DaleCooper

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2015
Messages
3,542
Location
Mulholland Drive
Another failure of the nationalised utilities were their old-fashioned shops on every high street where you had to speak to a human being instead of waiting for half an hour on an automated, voice menu, on-hold musak, telephone system.
 

Vespa

Established Member
Joined
20 Dec 2019
Messages
1,733
Location
Merseyside
Then privatisation wasn't really responsible for the improvement was it?

And most of the things you just said are still true today. (sclerotic management, rude arrogant railway staff, catering that leave a lot to be desired, in many cases non existant customer service and like it or lump it operations).

And in many cases it still easier to drive than go by rail.
The improvements of the late 90s and early 2000s were not purchased thanks to the dynamism of the private sector or any such rubbish.
They were purchased by torrents of public money, unlike anything BR had seen since the Modernisation Plan, pouring into the system.

Never said Privatisation improved the railways, jury is still out on that, some are good and some are just so awful that it would be preferable drive or get the National Express, Southern, TPE and Northern was so bad that its not worth the effort whereas Virgin had a rocky start and gradually it became a very reliable brand with better customer facilities and nice first class experience.

I have avoided go in on Northern or TPE because you cannot depend on it turning up or late if at all or simply so overcrowded that its simply not worth bothering.
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,373
British Railways when it was nationalised was run by sclerotic management, surly rude arrogant railway staffs, catering left a lot to be desired, customer service non existent, you see essentially like it or lump it, the raileway is for the benefit of the railwaymen not the customers, in many cases it was easier to drive than go by rail.

Things didn't really start to improve until the 80s with the "Age of the Train" advertising blitz and better ticketing system, privatisation came along shortly after.


aaah,the good old british rail sandwich.
Endless material for stand up comics!
 

PeterY

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2013
Messages
1,363
EDIT:

Oh and remember that the GPO/BT was growing the number of phone lines rather more rapidly than private operators would need to.
Between 1970 and 1975 the number of households with a phone line went from 35 to 52%.
That is an extraordinary growth rate, far higher than anything achieve in the privatised era. Because by the time private BT came along the rollout of telephone lines was functionally complete.
By 1985 it was above 80%.

Home, land line phones, ownership/usage is probably going down now. I don't have one and just use my mobile although my flat is connected.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,703
Location
Scotland
Home, land line phones, ownership/usage is probably going down now. I don't have one and just use my mobile although my flat is connected.
It's pretty flat actually. Mainly because you need the copper path for broadband.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
3,655
The argument that private is good and state is bad is so cliched. The privatised utilities like water and electric have been milked by the privatised companies, who have put so little investment back into the system that we are on a cliff-edge with security of supply. Bringing private management into the NHS proved a disaster, when they prioritised profits over patient welfare.

The one successful privatisation in my view was BT. The telephone service from the old GPO was really poor. I once had to walk from one side of Reading right to the other side to find a working payphone, as the GPO just weren't interested in repairing them. The choice of handset was minimal.

When the railways were proposed for privatisation, as a BR employee I was initially enthusiastic as I could see the main problem with BR was government interference. Spending decisions were made on priorities based on national interest, and Tory dislike for state spending, not what was best for the passenger. And industrial relations were a disaster because of government interference, both Labour and Tory. Getting rid of government control would surely be a good thing, if BR could be improved in the same kind of way as BT was. But unfortunately the Tories refused to listen to advice, with the result that we have now - far more interference from politicians and civil servants than ever happened in BR days. And far, far more money being pumped into the railways than was ever the case in BR days, and with so little to show for it. And industrial relations that are every bit as bad if not worse than they were in BR days - I can't recall anything like the ongoing SWT strikes in BR days.

As a BR employee, I was a "railway servant". While there were undoubtedly some free-riders, most of my colleagues regarded what they did as providing a service, and were proud to provide the best service that they could. They certainly didn't do it purely for the money - we could have got much better wages in private industry. People were prepared to bend over backwards to help if things didn't go to plan: I have known people work over 24 hours non-stop and come in unasked on their days off when things have been going really badly. One of the biggest shocks on privatisation was to be told our top priority - by law - was now to make a profit for our shareholders. We should forget doing it the best way if it cost more. Any sense of providing a service was out of the window.

My black and white views about the benefits of privatisation rapidly went out of the window too. For service industries, there are undoubtedly problems with state control. But there are even bigger problems with state regulation of profit-motivated private providers.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,276
To sum you are saying the state is the problem, in which case state regulated private operators is better than direct state control!
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
3,655
To sum you are saying the state is the problem, in which case state regulated private operators is better than direct state control!
Agreed that state control is a problem. Adding in private operators who are more interested in making a profit than providing a service adds in yet more problems.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,276
Agreed that state control is a problem. Adding in private operators who are more interested in making a profit than providing a service adds in yet more problems.
They make a profit by providing a service.....
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,276
I think the point that was being made is that providing quality service costs more than providing the bare minimum service.

And what makes you think a state monopoly, with a Treasury budget, is going to be throwing money around?
The franchise system makes it less likely that quiet service cuts can be made like BR used to do when the Treasury wanted to save cash
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,703
Location
Scotland
And what makes you think a state monopoly, with a Treasury budget, is going to be throwing money around?
I haven't stated an opinion either way. I was merely pointing out that you might have interpreted the post you were replying to differently to how it was intended to be taken.
 

Man of Kent

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
910
And industrial relations that are every bit as bad if not worse than they were in BR days - I can't recall anything like the ongoing SWT strikes in BR days.

Try 1982. The Ian Allan book "BR Diary 1978-1985" states that there were 17 days of strikes in the first six weeks of 1982. This was followed by an all out strike across the whole of BR for around two weeks in July. It gave an enormous boost to the fledgling deregulated coach industry (though still dominated by the state-owned National Bus Company) - as had a rather similar strike in 1919.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,961
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
That's not an entirely fair example because there has been a lot of technological change in the years since. Back in GPO days installing and activating a line required a lot more manual work than it does now - there would need to be physical jumpering work done both D and E side, nevermind the work required to configure the mechanical switchgear. These days, if the line plant is in good shape, it can all be done from a keyboard on the other side of the country.
The technology to insert a phone wasn’t onerous. It was the bureaucracy in getting one!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,703
Location
Scotland
The technology to insert a phone wasn’t onerous. It was the bureaucracy in getting one!
The technology was much more complex (I've spoken with several ex-engineers and System X vs Strowger is no comparison), but that's not too say that the bureaucracy wasn't also a major issue.
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,373
I think the point that was being made is that providing quality service costs more than providing the bare minimum service.
the best way to make profit is to create repeatable business,as well as gain new business.If you provide a good/service that is poor quality or poor value then people will seek other alternatives.

the problem really lies in monopoly, whether it be a state or corporation that controls it is immaterial.
If they can do what they like/charge what they like because people have no other option then there is no incentive to improve.

from a business point of view then keeping costs down is important,but getting the service at a level where you can entice more people to use it is the bread and butter that pays the bills.
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,373
The technology to insert a phone wasn’t onerous. It was the bureaucracy in getting one!
the manpower of running that sort of phone network was certainly labour intensive.

all the switching /routing was mechanical, and you had a physical operator in the middle operating a plug in switchboard.
These days it's all electronic/computerised.
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
the best way to make profit is to create repeatable business,as well as gain new business.If you provide a good/service that is poor quality or poor value then people will seek other alternatives.

the problem really lies in monopoly, whether it be a state or corporation that controls it is immaterial.
If they can do what they like/charge what they like because people have no other option then there is no incentive to improve.

Well this used to be how capitalism worked in t' good ole days.

Now, the internet provides a near infinite supply of buyers and so having good quality products or services is of less importance in making healthy profits through repeat business. There's a mug born every minute and almost all of them will have an internet connection where they can buy some attractively-priced tat, sight unseen. If the profits dry up, produce something else or put a different name on it.

Easyjet created a brand out of providing a cheap, crap service by making those telly programmes (and Ryanair almost pride themselves on providing even worse service as witnessed by 'the joke' of suggesting a charge for people to use the toilet on their flights). Little did we know we were being groomed for the future.

So in response as to whether 'state monopolies are generally poor at delivering services', compare the services of old British Airways with those of Easyjet or Ryanair.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
3,655
the problem really lies in monopoly, whether it be a state or corporation that controls it is immaterial.
If they can do what they like/charge what they like because people have no other option then there is no incentive to improve.

from a business point of view then keeping costs down is important,but getting the service at a level where you can entice more people to use it is the bread and butter that pays the bills.
And that was the problem with how the railways were privatised: one national monopoly was replaced with many local monopolies. If you want to go from A to B, very few people have any choice of which train company to use to make that journey.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,703
Location
Scotland
from a business point of view then keeping costs down is important,but getting the service at a level where you can entice more people to use it is the bread and butter that pays the bills.
The magic lies in finding the sweet point where you're providing a service that is good enough to keep your customers and attract new ones, without spending any more than you have to.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
3,655
The magic lies in finding the sweet point where you're providing a service that is good enough to keep your customers and attract new ones, without spending any more than you have to.
How good does a hospital have to be to attract more A&E patients? The only real way to make more profit out of A&E is to either increase the throughput (spend less time on each patient) or spend less on treating the patients. Which is why the USA has its two-tier privatised health system: super-opulent to try and attract the wealthy, and abysmal for everyone else who can't afford that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top