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

[yorksrob]

And what has this got to do with train manufacturing? You forget that anything set up here would be perfectly capable of building and exporting rolling stock abroad as well, which makes the whole point completely moot. The fact that this is deemed uneconomic is quite telling, regardless of the domestic procurement procedures.

Any company established here would be in the same market as any abroad. If we improved our system, we'd still not be able to make things better unless we engaged in protectionism (bad in the long run because it reduces competition incentives) or understood that this would equally make things easier for foreign manufacturers.

Exactly how does train procurement not have anything to do with train manufacturing ? Train manufacturing is (understandably) symbiotic with the operational railway and its procurement process. We need a steady procurement of rolling stock over time to maintain the capacity and skills in the rolling stock manufacturing sector.

Remember - I'm not interested in high economic theory regarding markets, I'm purely interested in the best way that best way to ensure that our rolling stock needs are met now and in to the future.

This is a particularly telling statement: "If we improved our system, we'd still not be able to make things better". There is absolutely no reason why a developed country like ourselves couldn't develop and build rolling stock as good, if not better than Germany. Infact it would probably be more suitable because we would be designing it from scratch for our network and it's requirements, rather than getting it off the peg.

I suspect very strongly that the reason other countries have thriving rolling stock industries is not that they are inherently superior, rather, they have precisely the sort of ongoing procurement that has been able to provide the stability to develop and maintain that industry in the first place. But obviously, we've thrown that all away so that we could gamble on some "market" that is supposed to be the magic cure for all our ills.

 

[edwin_m]

Getting back on topic, is another reason for extra passengers on rail the decline in bus usage (outside London)?

 

[455driver]

This has been done before - the issue of manufacturing as a whole in this country is pretty damn complex, and had a lot more to do with it than privatisation.

I'd rather we specialised on a few things and did them well - as we do with pharmaceuticals and very high tech manufacturing - than did a lot of things ok. Funnily enough, the vast majority of people don't care where their trains are built, and those jobs are better used elsewhere. Or do you think it would have all been absolutely fine, just like car building here as well? :roll:

Unless they are the ones building them or supplying the bits to go in them!

Do you think those people made redundant from train building managed to get jobs in your specialised industries? :roll:

If it wasnt for the fact we are talking about peoples ability to work and pay their bills/taxes, your posts would be quite funny!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Unless they are the ones building them or supplying the bits to go in them!

Do you think those people made redundant from train building managed to get jobs in your specialised industries? :roll:

If it wasnt for the fact we are talking about peoples ability to work and pay their bills/taxes, your posts would be quite funny!

Except for the fact that you're completely ignoring the fact that that money that was previously spent subsidising an unprofitable industry can be put into a profitable one instead, which will create jobs. People don't become employed forever if their industry goes bust. It's really not as simple as just saying that "oh, that industry shut down, that must be a bad thing!"

It's not like people cannot retrain; if you're that highly skilled that you're really in demand then moving abroad is not particularly difficult, and frankly there are hundreds of transferable skills that working in a particular industry will give you. It is not particularly uncommon for people to change industries anyway. I'm sorely tempted to say that this is just nationalism shining through, because you can't bare the fact that we're not building our own bloody trains anymore.

There are some very good arguments about the social and cultural implications of doing this sort of thing, and quite a lot of the time they're very persuasive. What happened in the north-east with mining was completely immoral, but it's simply wrong to argue against this sort of thing on the economic front, because it's demonstrable that specialisation and lower trade barriers cause economies to flourish. I'm not arguing against regulation, but I am arguing that we don't need to sink our money into things when it would be better spent elsewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly how does train procurement not have anything to do with train manufacturing ? Train manufacturing is (understandably) symbiotic with the operational railway and its procurement process. We need a steady procurement of rolling stock over time to maintain the capacity and skills in the rolling stock manufacturing sector.

Remember - I'm not interested in high economic theory regarding markets, I'm purely interested in the best way that best way to ensure that our rolling stock needs are met now and in to the future.

This is a particularly telling statement: "If we improved our system, we'd still not be able to make things better". There is absolutely no reason why a developed country like ourselves couldn't develop and build rolling stock as good, if not better than Germany. Infact it would probably be more suitable because we would be designing it from scratch for our network and it's requirements, rather than getting it off the peg.

I suspect very strongly that the reason other countries have thriving rolling stock industries is not that they are inherently superior, rather, they have precisely the sort of ongoing procurement that has been able to provide the stability to develop and maintain that industry in the first place. But obviously, we've thrown that all away so that we could gamble on some "market" that is supposed to be the magic cure for all our ills.

I entirely agree, but my point is simple: if there really was the demand for it as you say, then why has no-one set up a factory to do exactly what you suggest? The government are not actively shutting industry down - they just refuse to subsidise it when it is loss-making, unless it is providing an irreplaceable public good. Train building quite simply doesn't do that. You cannot separate "high economic theory" away from this, because this is exactly the sort of thing that it's dealing with.

Also, it doesn't make much sense to think of the market as gambling. It's simply what there is demand and supply for, and in many cases this doesn't fluctuate all that much, or if it does then it's probably because everything else is as well. It makes sense to invest in things that will give us the best bang for our buck, and spreading our resources thinly just doesn't do that.

 

[tbtc]

Getting back on topic, is another reason for extra passengers on rail the decline in bus usage (outside London)?

Good point.

There's certainly been a fall in middle/longer distance bus services in the last ten/twenty years (ignoring the "bottom of the market" Megabus type of operations).

Sheffield used to have regular bus services ("pay the driver" bus - not "book ahead" National Express-style coach) service to Huddersfield/ Bradford/ Leeds/ Wakefield/ Mexborough/ Hull/ Grimsby/ Worksop/ Nottingham in recent times...

...all of these links now gone - I'd say that a large reason for that is the improved rail service (both in terms of frequencies/ capacity and in terms of reliability). The fact that pensioners had free travel on the trains in these parts may also have helped tip the balance, but that's a well documented local issue rather than something that'll have affected the national picture.

Plenty other examples in northern England - look at the decline in fast services like Manchester to Blackpool (X61), Leeds to Halifax (M62) - most of the improved long distance *bus* services are those with no proper rail competition (Leeds - Whitby on Yorkshire Coastliner, Nelson - Manchester on the X43).

I can think of two good examples of middle/long distance bus services significantly improved that do compete with rail (Stagecoach X62 from Leeds to Hull, Transdev 36 from Leeds to Harrogate), but these are rare examples - and do also serve different markets from the direct rail competition (Ripon, Glashoughton, Goole). I'll ignore the First X78 from Doncaster to Sheffield as its an all-stops service, a lot slower than the previous service.

(as for the other stuff on this thread - you can argue that a lot of improvements like websites would have happened regardless of privatisation, you can argue that passenger numbers were rising under BR for a decade before privatisation, you can argue that a lot of the increased costs aren't directly due to inefficiencies privatisation but are to do with real term increases in things like insurance/ building costs/ staff wages, you can argue that increased mobility which caused increased passenger numbers would have happened anyway, you can argue a lot of things, but you'll never change anyone's mind when it comes to an issue as big as privatisation, so there's not much point in me sounding off about it - we've been down this road before)

 

[frodshamfella]

Maybe also reduction in domestic air routes e.g Manchester to Gatwick , Leeds to Heathrow, Plymouth to Gatwick, Tees side to Heathrow, Manchester and Liverpool to London City.

 

[ianhr]

Good point.

There's certainly been a fall in middle/longer distance bus services in the last ten/twenty years (ignoring the "bottom of the market" Megabus type of operations).

Sheffield used to have regular bus services ("pay the driver" bus - not "book ahead" National Express-style coach) service to Huddersfield/ Bradford/ Leeds/ Wakefield/ Mexborough/ Hull/ Grimsby/ Worksop/ Nottingham in recent times...

...all of these links now gone - I'd say that a large reason for that is the improved rail service (both in terms of frequencies/ capacity and in terms of reliability). The fact that pensioners had free travel on the trains in these parts may also have helped tip the balance, but that's a well documented local issue rather than something that'll have affected the national picture.

Plenty other examples in northern England - look at the decline in fast services like Manchester to Blackpool (X61), Leeds to Halifax (M62) - most of the improved long distance *bus* services are those with no proper rail competition (Leeds - Whitby on Yorkshire Coastliner, Nelson - Manchester on the X43).

I can think of two good examples of middle/long distance bus services significantly improved that do compete with rail (Stagecoach X62 from Leeds to Hull, Transdev 36 from Leeds to Harrogate), but these are rare examples - and do also serve different markets from the direct rail competition (Ripon, Glashoughton, Goole). I'll ignore the First X78 from Doncaster to Sheffield as its an all-stops service, a lot slower than the previous service.

X62 has a very limited timetable and finishes quite early. The 110 Leeds-Wakefield is well used and unlike most other bus routes (with the exception of the 36) it stays on the main road!

Most other bus services in Yorkshire are little more than a joke. They are only used by the very old, the very young and the very poor. The routes are ridiculously indirect around housing estates (usually returning to the same point after 10 minutes of bouncing over speed bumps), business parks (where no one gets on or off), hospitals, supermarkets etc. Many wind up by about 17.00 and most would disappear if the massive direct and indirect (passes for pensioners and school children) subsidies were removed. Even in Leeds, where there are few rail alternatives within the city, many buses seem to run practically empty for most of the day and for shorter journeys it is usually quicker to walk.

 

[yorksrob]

I entirely agree, but my point is simple: if there really was the demand for it as you say, then why has no-one set up a factory to do exactly what you suggest? The government are not actively shutting industry down - they just refuse to subsidise it when it is loss-making, unless it is providing an irreplaceable public good. Train building quite simply doesn't do that. You cannot separate "high economic theory" away from this, because this is exactly the sort of thing that it's dealing with.

Also, it doesn't make much sense to think of the market as gambling. It's simply what there is demand and supply for, and in many cases this doesn't fluctuate all that much, or if it does then it's probably because everything else is as well. It makes sense to invest in things that will give us the best bang for our buck, and spreading our resources thinly just doesn't do that.

You're missing the key point, which is how to make sure we have the steady supply of rolling stock that the country needs.

You make the point that Government has not subsidised the train building industry, but we know that the railway as a whole, is quite expensive to the country with rolling stock being one of those items that is pretty pricey, no doubt due at least in part, to it being procured on an expensive, one off PFI basis.

There is a difference between "subsidising" an industry and managing procurement to ensure a stable turnover of business. It is the second of these that the railway needed, not the first.

You also ask, why has no one set up a factory to do this. The rolling stock industry is highly skilled and requires a lot of specialist knowledge (as well as capital). Once this is squandered, it is extremely difficult to build up again, particularly since other survivors effectively have a head start.

Whilst we're on the subject of high economic theory, specialisation does have benefits, but there are also risks for an economy in not being able to provide more and more of the products it needs to function. We might live in a "free" (to some extent) market, but other countries will always look after their own interests first.

 

[edwin_m]

Another suggestion:

Company cars have gradually ceased to be a tax-efficient form of paying people so now far fewer people have them. When travelling on business people with a company car would tend to use it whether it was the "best" choice or not, and some managers would pressure people to use their cars because the company had already paid the fixed costs. Now this distortion of the market has largely gone, more business travelers can choose to use the train.

 

[HowardGWR]

I see a big brake on growth and that is over-crowding. My recent trips in the Borders areas and West Wales have proved to me that it's not all about metropolitan services but the fact of using two car trains on a service such as West Wales to Manchester and trying to serve three levels of service in one train, - local, inter-urban and long distance.

 

[Hadders]

Another suggestion:

Company cars have gradually ceased to be a tax-efficient form of paying people so now far fewer people have them. When travelling on business people with a company car would tend to use it whether it was the "best" choice or not, and some managers would pressure people to use their cars because the company had already paid the fixed costs. Now this distortion of the market has largely gone, more business travelers can choose to use the train.

That's very true! A few years back where I used to work the unwritten rule was it is wrong to use the train when we give you a car.

Company car tax was also based on mileage - the more miles you drove the less tax you paid, the theory being that those that had a car as a perk would pay more tax. Of course what actually happened was that if you had a meeting at the other end of the country it was an opportunity to get your mileage up. 18,000 miles a year was the magic number iirc.

 

[LateThanNever]

Except for the fact that you're completely ignoring the fact that that money that was previously spent subsidising an unprofitable industry can be put into a profitable one instead, which will create jobs. People don't become employed forever if their industry goes bust. It's really not as simple as just saying that "oh, that industry shut down, that must be a bad thing!"

It's not like people cannot retrain; if you're that highly skilled that you're really in demand then moving abroad is not particularly difficult, and frankly there are hundreds of transferable skills that working in a particular industry will give you. It is not particularly uncommon for people to change industries anyway. I'm sorely tempted to say that this is just nationalism shining through, because you can't bare the fact that we're not building our own bloody trains anymore.

There are some very good arguments about the social and cultural implications of doing this sort of thing, and quite a lot of the time they're very persuasive. What happened in the north-east with mining was completely immoral, but it's simply wrong to argue against this sort of thing on the economic front, because it's demonstrable that specialisation and lower trade barriers cause economies to flourish. I'm not arguing against regulation, but I am arguing that we don't need to sink our money into things when it would be better spent elsewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I entirely agree, but my point is simple: if there really was the demand for it as you say, then why has no-one set up a factory to do exactly what you suggest? The government are not actively shutting industry down - they just refuse to subsidise it when it is loss-making, unless it is providing an irreplaceable public good. Train building quite simply doesn't do that. You cannot separate "high economic theory" away from this, because this is exactly the sort of thing that it's dealing with.

Also, it doesn't make much sense to think of the market as gambling. It's simply what there is demand and supply for, and in many cases this doesn't fluctuate all that much, or if it does then it's probably because everything else is as well. It makes sense to invest in things that will give us the best bang for our buck, and spreading our resources thinly just doesn't do that.

To the best of my knowledge train building was not subsidised by the government but was destroyed as a result of the incompetence of the government's privatisation system - so they effectively made it impossible for train building to survive. The government should have been well aware of this possibility as when the APT was cancelled the engineers were poached and Britain now purchases it's direct offspring with a fancy Italian name OKA Pendolino...

We all want the best bang for our buck but backing winners is not scientific - much as high economic theory might try to suggest it is. It is in effect gambling by another name. The UK has lost all its money on the banks and would have considerably more resources for everything including railways, mining or the health service if we had not sunk it all on a wunch of bankers.

I entirely agree, but my point is simple: if there really was the demand for it as you say, then why has no-one set up a factory to do exactly what you suggest?

Because it is too uncertain when the demand is so irregular. An industry which is so capital intensive, and with a very limited number of potential customers, and with volatile rates and quantity of finance is extremely difficult to make work - which is why even Siemens allegedly delayed rail orders to the UK and elsewhere because the wunch of bankers couldn't provide timely finance..

So building on what existed might have been possible but starting afresh just isn't.And what has this got to do with train manufacturing? You forget that anything set up here would be perfectly capable of building and exporting rolling stock abroad as well, which makes the whole point completely moot. The fact that this is deemed uneconomic is quite telling, regardless of the domestic procurement procedures.

Unfortunately because of the larger gauge everywhere else exporting would be particularly expensive unless you're building bang next to a rail connected port!

 

[TheKnightWho]

To the best of my knowledge train building was not subsidised by the government but was destroyed as a result of the incompetence of the government's privatisation system - so they effectively made it impossible for train building to survive. The government should have been well aware of this possibility as when the APT was cancelled the engineers were poached and Britain now purchases it's direct offspring with a fancy Italian name OKA Pendolino...

We all want the best bang for our buck but backing winners is not scientific - much as high economic theory might try to suggest it is. It is in effect gambling by another name. The UK has lost all its money on the banks and would have considerably more resources for everything including railways, mining or the health service if we had not sunk it all on a wunch of bankers.

The UK economy has not "lost all its money to the bankers". There's no point having this discussion if all you're going to go on about is how specialisation is a band thing because of what happened in 2008. Quite simply, the debt was already sky-high then, and its another case of money being found to bail them out that just wouldn't be available to spend on other things. It's easy to attack them because it's easy to have a single culprit to pin the blame on, but dismissing "high economic theory" because of a single industry just smacks of not really understand what that theory is saying. In fact, if you have a look, they've paid back the bailout money in the first place, but then that doesn't make for selling papers does it.

If you can come up with an explanation as to why backing lots of different industries is good economically, and back it up with empirical examples then go ahead. Pointing at a single example in one country to try and disprove something that applies the world-over isn't going to convince many people who study this sort of thing, though.

This is a phenomenon that can be observed in every post-industrial country in the world. The UK simply didn't specialise in train building, for better or worse. This is apart from the fact that all of this happened long before the 2008 crisis. We certainly wouldn't have a lot more money to spend on the railways, because it wouldn't exist in the first place if not generated through financial markets. And frankly saying "backing winners is not scientific" doesn't really make any sense at all. All industries will thrive if we have the resources for them and concentrate on them. It's not gambling, because there will always be demand for various industries - we'll just be better off if we do a few of them well rather than all of them alright.

Because it is too uncertain when the demand is so irregular. An industry which is so capital intensive, and with a very limited number of potential customers, and with volatile rates and quantity of finance is extremely difficult to make work - which is why even Siemens allegedly delayed rail orders to the UK and elsewhere because the wunch of bankers couldn't provide timely finance..

Ah yes, let's just put it all on the bankers again :roll: I'm not defending what happened, but I am seeing a pattern of "it's all their fault!". Specialisation is not a bad thing because the bankers f*cked up. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

Unfortunately because of the larger gauge everywhere else exporting would be particularly expensive unless you're building bang next to a rail connected port!

And why is that such an obstacle? Presumably it's just as expensive for Siemens et al. to design and build bespoke trains for the UK, so I'm not seeing the issue here. Shipping costs are not what tips an industry from profitable to unprofitable in the vast majority of cases; even if it was, the amount of profit they'd be making would be minuscule for that to happen.

 

[anme]

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.

What's your opinion of, for example, the German government providing services in the UK, as they do via Deutsche Bahn's ownership of Arriva who hold several rail franchises?

I'm not going to comment on the rest of this post.

 

[LateThanNever]

The UK economy has not "lost all its money to the bankers". There's no point having this discussion if all you're going to go on about is how specialisation is a band thing because of what happened in 2008. Quite simply, the debt was already sky-high then, and its another case of money being found to bail them out that just wouldn't be available to spend on other things. It's easy to attack them because it's easy to have a single culprit to pin the blame on, but dismissing "high economic theory" because of a single industry just smacks of not really understand what that theory is saying. In fact, if you have a look, they've paid back the bailout money in the first place, but then that doesn't make for selling papers does it.

Never mind the theory the practicality is the taxpayer is paying. How have they paid back the bailout money? Every single UK bank -and others - have been 'assisted' by the UK taxpayer. There may not be a single culprit but financially, there is a vastly overwhelming culprit!

If you can come up with an explanation as to why backing lots of different industries is good economically, and back it up with empirical examples then go ahead. Pointing at a single example in one country to try and disprove something that applies the world-over isn't going to convince many people who study this sort of thing, though.

The explanation that backing lots of different industries is good economically is simply that backing the specialist financial services has proved disastrous for the UK taxpayer. And backing financial services has also proved less than successful for the world economy as well.

This is a phenomenon that can be observed in every post-industrial country in the world. The UK simply didn't specialise in train building, for better or worse. This is apart from the fact that all of this happened long before the 2008 crisis. We certainly wouldn't have a lot more money to spend on the railways, because it wouldn't exist in the first place if not generated through financial markets. And frankly saying "backing winners is not scientific" doesn't really make any sense at all. All industries will thrive if we have the resources for them and concentrate on them. It's not gambling, because there will always be demand for various industries - we'll just be better off if we do a few of them well rather than all of them alright.

That backing winners is not scientific is obvious - otherwise we'd all have the formula and no business would fail!

Ah yes, let's just put it all on the bankers again :roll: I'm not defending what happened, but I am seeing a pattern of "it's all their fault!". Specialisation is not a bad thing because the bankers f*cked up. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

It is. Very. Because it has failed once at world shattering expense why are you not in favour of hedging bets for the future?

And why is that such an obstacle? Presumably it's just as expensive for Siemens et al. to design and build bespoke trains for the UK, so I'm not seeing the issue here. Shipping costs are not what tips an industry from profitable to unprofitable in the vast majority of cases; even if it was, the amount of profit they'd be making would be minuscule for that to happen.

Refer to that railman from Ireland - if you want to build trains to export I wouldn't want to start from here...

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.

Except that the taxpayer makes the major contribution!
And that the old BR railway was divided into sectors!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Never mind the theory the practicality is the taxpayer is paying. How have they paid back the bailout money? Every single UK bank -and others - have been 'assisted' by the UK taxpayer. There may not be a single culprit but financially, there is a vastly overwhelming culprit!

The practicality is that we have the money back. That's not something you can dismiss as "theory" just because it doesn't suit your way of looking at the world. Of course they were assisted by the taxpayer, but the fact is that's completely irrelevant now.

The explanation that backing lots of different industries is good economically is simply that backing the specialist financial services has proved disastrous for the UK taxpayer. And backing financial services has also proved less than successful for the world economy as well.

No, that's what you think is obvious. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how much you go on about the banks (which, as I've said several times, is one industry in one country), specialising on certain industries is what the vast majority of post-industrial countries do, and funnily enough it's generally been good for their economies. You can complain about the banks doing this, that and the other, but you cannot deny that we are, economically, in a much better position than we were in the 70s and 80s - that growth has to come from somewhere, and it can be put down to free trade and market specialisation.

I don't care how many times you blather on about "high economic theory" and cite the same example again and again, it doesn't change the general trend. The centre of the discussion is why we don't build trains anymore, and I've told you; whether this is a good thing or not is up for discussion, but really it's quite beside the point, which is that we concentrate on certain industries so that we do them well. Backing lots of horses might sound good in your head, but the reality of it is that we'd end up being crap at everything, rather than good at a few things. If every other country specialises, there's no way we'd be able to compete on every field if we divided our resources up in the way you seem to want.

That backing winners is not scientific is obvious - otherwise we'd all have the formula and no business would fail!

Obviously, but we can make a (very) educated guess. There's a big difference between sitting at a roulette wheel and economically determining what industries Britain is best suited for. You're making a massive oversimplification here.

It is. Very. Because it has failed once at world shattering expense why are you not in favour of hedging bets for the future?

It has not failed - see above. You really don't get it. This is a much larger thing than just the banks and building trains, and frankly it's all moot as we have the money back anyway. That the banks have made mistakes does not change the simple fact that pooling resources into what you're good at is a sound economic decision.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't care how many times you blather on about "high economic theory" and cite the same example again and again, it doesn't change the general trend. The centre of the discussion is why we don't build trains anymore, and I've told you; whether this is a good thing or not is up for discussion, but really it's quite beside the point, which is that we concentrate on certain industries so that we do them well. Backing lots of horses might sound good in your head, but the reality of it is that we'd end up being crap at everything, rather than good at a few things. If every other country specialises, there's no way we'd be able to compete on every field if we divided our resources up in the way you seem to want.

Obviously, but we can make a (very) educated guess. There's a big difference between sitting at a roulette wheel and economically determining what industries Britain is best suited for. You're making a massive oversimplification here.

It has not failed - see above. You really don't get it. This is a much larger thing than just the banks and building trains, and frankly it's all moot as we have the money back anyway.

Actually, it's me who blathers on about high economic theory.

There are dangers of putting all of your eggs in one economic basket.

You say that it is "up for discussion" as to whether not having a train building industry is a bad thing or not, yet you seem to suggest that this is less of an important question than what the general trend in industrialisation is.

I would say it's the other way round. Whether greater specialisation is a trend in the wider economy is neither here nor there. The only important question (certainly in the context of this thread) is whether it's a good or a bad thing that we don't have a train manufacturing industry anymore. It is a bad thing.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Actually, it's me who blathers on about high economic theory.

There are dangers of putting all of your eggs in one economic basket.

You say that it is "up for discussion" as to whether not having a train building industry is a bad thing or not, yet you seem to suggest that this is less of an important question than what the general trend in industrialisation is.

I would say it's the other way round. Whether greater specialisation is a trend in the wider economy is neither here nor there. The only important question (certainly in the context of this thread) is whether it's a good or a bad thing that we don't have a train manufacturing industry anymore. It is a bad thing.

I'm saying two things:

a) That, if we're going to discuss the reasons why we don't make trains here anymore, we need to talk in general rather than just about that. You can't get a proper picture of everything that's going on if you don't.

b) Saying that, however, we have to remember that ultimately this discussion is about making trains, and so points that specialisation is bad because of a single example are pretty irrelevant, as the general trend is that it's a good thing because it strengthens economies. Nothing like the scale of the banking crisis has happened due to us not making trains here anymore, and frankly the resources we would have put into it have been better spent elsewhere. This is not an easy thing to measure, but it makes clear economic sense and there don't seem to be anomalous factors that would make it deviate from the general model.

Your points can be made for any industry that we no longer have much of, yet it clearly makes sense to spend where we'll make the best return.

 

[LateThanNever]

The practicality is that we have the money back.

How? Can I be paid then?

That's not something you can dismiss as "theory"

If the practicalilty is at odds with the theory then the scientific method of progress is to discount it. Why should we change now?

Of course they were assisted by the taxpayer, but the fact is that's completely irrelevant now.

Why?

No, that's what you think is obvious. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how much you go on about the banks (which, as I've said several times, is one industry in one country)

Dear, dear there's the thing! It is ONE industry and that's the point. And it is not ONE country and that is also the point!

specialising on certain industries is what the vast majority of post-industrial countries do, and funnily enough it's generally been good for their economies. You can complain about the banks doing this, that and the other, but you cannot deny that we are, economically, in a much better position than we were in the 70s and 80s - that growth has to come from somewhere, and it can be put down to free trade and market specialisation.

But of course we're talking about being poorer in the last decade - nothing to do with the 70s and 80s!

I don't care how many times you blather on about "high economic theory" and cite the same example again and again, it doesn't change the general trend.

It doesn't but it does question its desirability!

Backing lots of horses might sound good in your head, but the reality of it is that we'd end up being crap at everything

Why?

Obviously, but we can make a (very) educated guess. There's a big difference between sitting at a roulette wheel and economically determining what industries Britain is best suited for. You're making a massive oversimplification here.

Really - perhaps we could have the incisive formula for this (very) educated guess?

It has not failed - see above. You really don't get it. This is a much larger thing than just the banks and building trains, and frankly it's all moot as we have the money back anyway. That the banks have made mistakes does not change the simple fact that pooling resources into what you're good at is a sound economic decision.

Of course it is - if only we knew what we are good at before we found out that we weren't...

I would say that anything where specialisation makes it potentially more difficult for us, as a country, to resource what we need to operate, is a bad thing. With a limited number of manufacturers in Europe, we could easily end up competing for capacity in train manufacturing with other countries, which is immediately a less stable and more risky situation than having our own industry. Difficulty to obtain rolling stock can push up price and have a negative effect on the viability of other aspects of the railway.

Secondly, trains are very expensive and technically complicated things to design and build. Once the expertise is lost, it becomes very difficult to rebuild. At the moment, we have the unsatisfactory situation in which our externally owned railway works are effectively living a hand to mouth existance at risk with the end of every order. In my opinion, it would be better to have some form of integration with the wider railway network.

Precisely. It is probably what the Germans make a better 'hash' of than does the UK!

 

[yorksrob]

I'm saying two things:

a) That, if we're going to discuss the reasons why we don't make trains here anymore, we need to talk in general rather than just about that. You can't get a proper picture of everything that's going on if you don't.

b) Saying that, however, we have to remember that ultimately this discussion is about making trains, and so points that specialisation is bad because of a single example are pretty irrelevant, as the general trend is that it's a good thing because it strengthens economies. Nothing like the scale of the banking crisis has happened due to us not making trains here anymore, and frankly the resources we would have put into it have been better spent elsewhere. This is not an easy thing to measure, but it makes clear economic sense and there don't seem to be anomalous factors that would make it deviate from the general model.

Your points can be made for any industry that we no longer have much of, yet it clearly makes sense to spend where we'll make the best return.

If we're talking about why we don't build trains anymore, you cannot get a proper picture without considering the circumstances surrounding the industry at the time. The long dearth of orders during the uncertainty of privatisation was a factor in the long term wellbeing of the industry, and whilst one can argue over just how much effect it had, it is nonsense to say it didn't have any effect at all. No business can survive without orders, and this particular lack of orders was an aberation caused by political interference, not by a lack of need for rolling stock, or a desire by procurers to go elsewhere.

With regard to exports, were our companies on a level playing field ? Most continental railways for example, were a lot less "liberalised" than ours until relatively recently, so I harbour my doubts.

I would agree that specialisation isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, each case should be looked at on its own merits, rather than simply with reference to an overriding ideology.

I would say that anything where specialisation makes it potentially more difficult for us, as a country, to resource what we need to operate, is a bad thing. With a limited number of manufacturers in Europe, we could easily end up competing for capacity in train manufacturing with other countries, which is immediately a less stable and more risky situation than having our own industry. Difficulty to obtain rolling stock can push up price and have a negative effect on the viability of other aspects of the railway.

Secondly, trains are very expensive and technically complicated things to design and build. Once the expertise is lost, it becomes very difficult to rebuild. At the moment, we have the unsatisfactory situation in which our externally owned railway works are effectively living a hand to mouth existance at risk with the end of every order. In my opinion, it would be better to have some form of integration with the wider railway network.

Thirdly, you correctly state that the loss of train manufacturing didn't create a crisis as bad as the financial crisis as bad as 2008. Just because the issues caused by loss of the train manufacturing industry "aren't as bad" as the financial crisis, it doesn't follow that they are a good thing.

 

[Justin Smith]

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

Well all I can say is that we went down to Little Brampton on Friday, it's about 20miles south of Shrewsbury, and (including a 45 min stop for lunch) it took five and a half hours !
The M1 was very slow due to congestion, then became a car park at junction 25 with the signs saying there was a delay of at least 10 minutes. Thus we went off down the A52 then the A6, then the A50 then finally the A38, having got lost on the way...... Using the A5 to travel across the N of Brum is a bit of a nightmare, but, somewhat irrationally, you have to pay the full toll on the M6 toll even if you're only using it from J5 to J8, so we didn`t bother. Got to Shrewsbury only to get in a huge jam on the bypass for what seemed like half an hour, all caused by a truck flashing "Diversion - lane closed" even though it wasn't actually doing anything !
I think you'll find congestion and parking (the latter will possibly be the worst) will get even worse once the economy picks up, so that'll be more passengers on the trains for the privatised companies to trumpet is down to their service (not).