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

[Justin Smith]

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 ?

 

[oldman]

6 The population is rising, especially in Southern England.
7 On average people are better off, so can afford luxuries like rail travel.
8 Government willingness to subsidise rail travel on a massive scale, leading to new and improved services.

I struggle to understand the finances of the industry, so it is difficult to know how much new private capital has come in to contribute to the improvement. The companies tend to call almost anything they do an 'investment', down to painting a station fence, often taking credit for things paid for by others - 'with our strategic partners, we have invested ...', meaning 'they have given us some money to spend'.

 

[thealexweb]

Population growth of certain areas has also been a factor.

Also then number of stations that Network Rail have reopened could also be a reason.

 

[Justin Smith]

Population growth of certain areas has also been a factor.

Also the number of stations that Network Rail have reopened could also be a reason.

I agree with the former, but not so much the latter. The newer stations generally have fairly low passenger figures (relatively speaking, I doubt all of them together would match just one of the top 10 stations) and compared with the number of existing stations there aren`t really that many of them.

 

[Olaf]

It is the private sector that has rive the change i the railways, if it was not for privatization the railways would still run for the union members. I think part of the problem is that a minority will not accept that renationalisation of industries was a disaster, and can not accept that the Government has no role in providing services.

 

[chorleyjeff]

It is the private sector that has rive the change i the railways, if it was not for privatization the railways would still run for the union members. I think part of the problem is that a minority will not accept that renationalisation of industries was a disaster, and can not accept that the Government has no role in providing services.

Seems to me that rail workers terms and conditions of employment have improved since privatisation. The old daysof low productivity and low wages were not very good for employeees.

 

[Class 170101]

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

 

[GatwickDepress]

I'd say the ability to plan journeys, view fares, and purchase tickets online has contributed, if only a little.

 

[Oliver]

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 ?

Well Justin, you seem to be pretty sure of your views, but I am not so sure that the facts support them.

1. Do you have any figures to demonstrate that car park charges have increased in real terms. I think they have at station car parks, which rather defeats your point.

2. In real terms the cost of fuel has not increased, partly because cars have become markedly more efficient. (The Honda Accord I had in the 1990's would never do more than 30 mpg; my current Civic's long term average is >50mpg.) In real terms cars cost less to buy, insure and maintain. Rail fares have increased in real terms.

3. Not true; many cross country journeys have become faster in the last 15 years, and traffic volumes have marginally dropped.

4. The quality of rail services in the southeast, where rail commuting is most intense, has improved notably in recent years. Are you saying that quality is in no way a function of management?

5. Yes, people travel further to their work, by all modes. That's because car ownership is even more widespread and because rail services have improved (see 4.)

In essence you are saying that the doubling of rail passenger-miles and privatisation are a chance coincidence. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

PS: some data showing largely static traffic volumes for private cars:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...798/road-traffic-estimates-quarter-4-2012.pdf

And the average speed of traffic over the last 7 years: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...5/congestion-local-a-stats-release-dec-13.pdf

 

[Tom2521]

Most of my family and non rail enthusiast friends, have, from what I've learnt in conversation have little knowledge or interest in the different brands that privatised franchises TOC's have bought about, the only real exception to this is Virgin and mainly because it was already an established brand in other areas and people still have reason to moan about rail travel as they did with BR but don't aim it at any company or organisation in particular so it's hard for me to see much of a positive impact of the re-branding of the railways though this is only a small outcome of privatisation.

I too don't quite understand the way money goes around the rail industry anymore with grants and subsidies available it's hard to see who pays what for what and how much at times though I must confess to have never looked much into it. However it's obvious that investment has shot up since BR's days and it's impossible to say if

1: The increase in investment has contributed (and by how much) to the growth of rail use.

2: If the investment would have been there under BR if we were still in a nationlised period now.

My personal opinion is, either way, the railways ARE being invested in and they ARE seeing almost unprecedented growth and whether that's down to privatisation or would have happened anyway we should be thankful for it.

 

[Manchester77]

I think part of the problem is that a minority will not accept that renationalisation of industries was a disaster, and can not accept that the Government has no role in providing services.

Not for everything, the railways are a good example of this. Especially in the later years of BR where trains were produced in house generally which resulted in development of new types of trains. There was extensive development for new ideas such as a tilting train which while it was given up on made its return as the 390. The railways when divided into business sectors required less subsidy than the current network does now; intercity operated with no subsidy yet present day intercity operators require a subsidy! Privatisation at least in the form in occurred on the railways has not been as good as it was put up to be.

Having a fully free market whereby the private sector provide all services doesn't work because the bits that aren't lucrative enough won't be operated since what company wants to do something they know will make a loss and they won't get any other support to run it? Nationalisation has worked for many things such as healthcare and it's a shame that some people can't see that the state running things actually works.

 

[yorkie]

In essence you are saying that the doubling of rail passenger-miles and privatisation are a chance coincidence. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

So what's caused NIR's increased passenger numbers?

Don't you think the huge increase in taxpayer support, investment by Network Rail, and increasing road congestion might all have something to do with it?

 

[Beveridges]

Rail usage has took off considerably since privatisation due to companies like Virgin doing the following:
- Being very active at marketing and advertising their companies services
- Ordering shiny new trains
- Constantly advertising how much better the new Units are than the Loco hauled trains they replaced (even though they may be wrong in what they are saying)


It's a shame railfreight has not exactly shouted success. Freight and mail have seen significant losses with even many 2nd & 3rd generation locomotives being stored and staff being made redundant.

 

[trainophile]

I'd say the ability to plan journeys, view fares, and purchase tickets online has contributed, if only a little.

This ^ hugely in my case. It used to be intimidating to have to go to a station counter without really knowing your options, just that you needed to get somewhere, and have to wait while they blinded you with information that was too much to digest all in one go.

Modern technology has made planning and booking your journey part of the pleasure of travel, rather than an ordeal that had to be got through.

 

[radamfi]

Dramatic increase in rail patronage has also occurred in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, where there has been no privatisation.

Patronage levels in the UK were very low compared to most European countries. So there was a lot of scope for growth, and that growth has happened, but patronage levels are still relatively low by western European standards especially outside the SE.

Population in the major urban areas had declined for many decades, but that started to reverse around 1990. Therefore there has been a growth in travel between city centres, which favours rail. In particularly, the growth in London's population and economy has been dramatic, and obviously travel to central London is largely rail captive.

 

[Railsigns]

Privatisation has done nothing for Britain's railways.

We were told it would be better for taxpayers: The amount of taxpayers' money going into the rail industry now is vastly more than what BR got. That's billions of pounds more of our money going towards running the railways each year, whether you use the trains or not.

We were told it would be better for passengers: British rail fares are the highest in Europe.

We are told it has "liberated" the railways: The government exercises far more direct control over the rail industry now than it ever did over BR.

All that's left to show that rail privatisation has been a "resounding success" (DfT's words) is the rise in passenger numbers. Sounds great, until you realise that passenger numbers on Northern Ireland Railways have risen to record levels, and their railways are publicly owned. So, clearly "the essential role franchising and private sector operators have played in the success of the past 20 years" (ATOC's words) are not essential at all.

We are being lied to and it's time to get angry, folks. Write to your MP and to the DfT and tell them to stop this pretence that rail privatisation is benefitting passengers and taxpayers.

 

[Greenback]

I tend to believe that increases in passengers have happened due to changes in society rather than because of the railways being privatised. At best, the privatisation may have had a very small effect, in terms of the marketing mentioned above by the likes of Virgin, though much of the marketing was probably more effective in the early years.

 

[Chrisgr31]

The staggering increase of passenger numbers on the Uckfield Line is down to privatisation, and without privatisation I strongly suspect the line would be closed.

For those who have forgotten BR did not invest in the line, the old diesel sttock was well beyond its shelf life and notoriously unreliable. They cut the service so there were only a couple of through trains a day, the rest required a chang at Oxted, the last train from London was 9pm, changing at Oxted. The line was not maintained which eventually lead to the single track. As commuters we used to have a row of seats to ourselves.

When Southern came along they invested in new rolling stock, they created an hourly service with no changes to London Bridge, demand rocketed, the latest train from london is now 11pm, they have had to create early trains due to demand with the first train about 5am now, All peak hour trains are absolutely packed with standing room only from stations as far out as Crowborough. There is now a need to increase platform lenghts to allow 10 coach trains.

So to say privatisation has not improved the railway has to be garbage, I would be surprised if there were not other examples.

 

[Railsigns]

When Southern came along they invested in new rolling stock, they created an hourly service with no changes to London Bridge, demand rocketed

You have absolutely no evidence that this investment would not have occurred under BR, had privatisation not happened.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Rail usage has took off considerably since privatisation due to companies like Virgin doing the following:
- Being very active at marketing and advertising their companies services
- Ordering shiny new trains
- Constantly advertising how much better the new Units are than the Loco hauled trains they replaced (even though they may be wrong in what they are saying)


It's a shame railfreight has not exactly shouted success. Freight and mail have seen significant losses with even many 2nd & 3rd generation locomotives being stored and staff being made redundant.

To be fair, Intercity were very active in marketing. One thinks back to the Relax ads.

Replacement stock was happening. It got halted when privatisation was inevitable (and in fact for a long time afterwards). It's likely Mk1 stock would've gone before 2004 had BR still existed, and the Mk3s would likely have gone on the WCML. Would we have got tilting stock though? That I have my doubts about.

Remember the 225s were still fairly new when GNER took over (to be fair so were the 90s on the WCML when VT took over)

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).

Privatisation has been a bit of a twin headed beast.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When Southern came along they invested in new rolling stock, they created an hourly service with no changes to London Bridge, demand rocketed, the latest train from london is now 11pm, they have had to create early trains due to demand with the first train about 5am now, All peak hour trains are absolutely packed with standing room only from stations as far out as Crowborough. There is now a need to increase platform lenghts to allow 10 coach trains.

So to say privatisation has not improved the railway has to be garbage, I would be surprised if there were not other examples.

Factually incorrect as Southern own no rolling stock at all.

 

[Chrisgr31]

You have absolutely no evidence that this investment would not have occurred under BR, had privatisation not happened.

One cannot of course prove the investment would not have happened under BR but there were no signs that BR had any intention of investing in the line and their actions proved this as all BR did was manage to run the service down, cutting direct services, increasing journey times, single tracking the line etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Factually incorrect as Southern own no rolling stock at all.

OK if you want to nit-pick. Southern were prepared to pay the rental fees on brand new rolling stock and therefore a ROSCO bought it to rent to Southern.

 

[Railsigns]

One cannot of course prove the investment would not have happened under BR but there were no signs that BR had any intention of investing in the line and their actions proved this as all BR did was manage to run the service down, cutting direct services, increasing journey times, single tracking the line etc.

Oh really? Let's examine BR's investment record during the last years of its existence: Significant investment in new rolling stock (Classes 90, 91, 156 and 158, etc.), ECML electrification, investment in new signalling on rural routes (e.g. Far North Line, West Highland, Heart of Wales, etc.) so safeguarding their future survival, and various line reopenings (Bathgate and Paisley Canal, etc).

Had rail privatisation occurred a few years earlier than it did and all the investments mentioned above had been made by the privatised industry, you would be here today telling us that none of this would have happened under BR and the lines to Wick and Thurso, etc., would have been closed.

If anyone is talking garbage, it's you.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Oh really? Let's examine BR's investment record during the last years of its existence: Significant investment in new rolling stock (Classes 90, 91, 156 and 158, etc.), ECML electrification, investment in new signalling on rural routes (e.g. Far North Line, West Highland, Heart of Wales, etc.) so safeguarding their future survival, and various line reopenings (Bathgate and Paisley Canal, etc).

Had rail privatisation occurred a few years earlier than it did and all the investments mentioned above had been made by the privatised industry, you would be here today telling us that none of this would have happened under BR and the lines to Wick and Thurso, etc., would have been closed.

If anyone is talking garbage, it's you.

I was making specific reference to the Uckfield Line, and I suspect there are others. There is in my mind and from my discussions with other long term travellers ont eh line no doubt that it has improved due to privatisation.

I don't know (and not sure I care) about other lines.

 

[Railsigns]

I was making specific reference to the Uckfield Line, and I suspect there are others. There is in my mind and from my discussions with other long term travellers ont eh line no doubt that it has improved due to privatisation.

The Uckfield line, like all others, just had to wait its turn. There aren't the resources to invest in every line simultaneously. If this particular route was in need of investment, it would have been forthcoming in due course.

I don't know (and not sure I care) about other lines.

I see.

 

[radamfi]

Slam door stock south of London was due to be replaced in the early 90s, but investment was halted because the industry was being prepared for privatisation. So arguably the Uckfield line would have had new trains earlier if it wasn't for privatisation.

 

[Manchester77]

OK if you want to nit-pick. Southern were prepared to pay the rental fees on brand new rolling stock and therefore a ROSCO bought it to rent to Southern.

Southern had to lease new stock since mark I derrived stock with slam doors didn't meet modern safety requirements and so had to be withdrawn, it's not just that Southern decided to lease new stock

 

[radamfi]

The taxpayer shelled out hundreds of millions of pounds to replace the slam door rolling stock, and also paid £1 billion for the upgrade of the power supplies to power the new third rail trains.

 

[Markdvdman]

Privatisation is NOT good for the paying consumer for sure. It is driven by shareholders end of.

However, FWIW BR singled many lines in the 70s like Merthyr, Gowerton etc to save on maintenance costs.

On the other hand, IF BR had the state subsidy they get now they may not have.

It is six of one, half a dozen of another.

A well run state controlled railway would be better, but maybe a better control of the companies running it would be better too.

Ultimately, it is a complexity that is not easy to resolve, as the railway in the UK is incredibly fragmented. The cost of bringing it back to state control means it is not going to happen.

It could and should be better though!

 

[Railsigns]

FWIW BR singled many lines in the 70s like Merthyr, Gowerton etc to save on maintenance costs.

They also doubled a few, such as Blair Atholl to Dalwhinnie (23 miles) in 1978, so it wasn't all decline back then under BR.

Had BR not singled those lines where traffic levels no longer warranted double track, it would have been rightly criticised for wasting its limited funds maintaining superfluous infrastructure.

 

[Markdvdman]

They also doubled a few, such as Blair Atholl to Dalwhinnie (23 miles) in 1978, so it wasn't all decline back then under BR.

Had BR not singled those lines where traffic levels no longer warranted double track, it would have been rightly criticised for wasting its limited funds maintaining superfluous infrastructure.

Yet it failed to think of future levels of traffic. Merthyr gets near 500k passengers a year 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.