-
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!
The increase in rail usage, nothing to do with privatisation ?
- Thread starter Justin Smith
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Manchester77
Established Member
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Put that right for you.
Apols if this has already been said, but maybe the increase in population age demograph has meant that more pensioners with time on their hands, and the health to still enjoy getting out and about, plus the popularity of Senior Railcards, has impacted on the number of rail travellers.
When I travel (granted it's generally off peak), I can't help but notice that a large proportion of my fellow travellers are past working age. I am myself, and find the railway gives me a sense of adventure and freedom, that I can go anywhere I fancy in safety and without hassle.
Going back to my earlier post where I agreed about being able to buy tickets online, there's also the recognition that walk-up price is not the only option, and indeed travel is possible for a fraction of it once you get the hang of the system.
I'd never want to go back to driving (beyond my home town) now.
I have the impression that there has also been a large increase in the number of young people using the railways. 30 to 40 years ago hitch hiking was commonplace and no one does it now. Long distance buses seem to be a much less attractive option as fares are now higher and journeys less reliable due to congestion. Another very significant factor is that there has been a 25% reduction in the numbers of young men learning to drive as they can no longer afford cars because they do not earn enough and even if they could by a car and put fuel in it they would not be able to afford the insurance. Amazingly this reduction in driving among the young has also happened in N.America over the same period.
Last edited:
This is true, youngsters no longer see owning a car as an aspiration...and indeed in my role as a conductor, I see dozens of Young Persons Railcards every day.
Do you mean by the Federal or State governments? Amtrak is some kind of Federal quango with quite a few routes supported by State government subsidies as well. Regional and suburban trains are State or city run, but the freight railways, who own most of the infrastructure outside of big cities and the N.E.Corridor, are private companies ( and very profitable ones too).
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.
One thing British Rail did invest in was infill electrification, particularly on the Southern Region. Off the top of my head:
East Grinstead 1985
Tonbridge - Hastings 1986
Portsmouth - Eastleigh/St Deny's, around 1988
Tonbridge - Redhill, just before the Chunnel opened (can't remember when exactly, but went on it on an EPB railtour just after
)Obviously one can't know for sure what would have happened, but I think, going by NSE's record, we can make a reasonable assumption that both Uckfield and the Marshlink would have been done reasonably soon after.
OK, you may have had VEP's and CIG's for a few years, but, since the rolling stock on around half of the routes eminating from London at present dates from the decade or so before privatisation, we can also make a reasonable assumption that BR would have continued the process and replaced rolling stock on the other half of the lines radiating out of London (including an electrified Uckfield branch).
The idea that the routes would have been closed is extremely low - nil likelihood.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
To which I would add that in my student days 25+ years ago it was unusual for students who lived away from home to go home during term. Now many seem to do so most weekends.
One thing British Rail did invest in was infill electrification, particularly on the Southern Region. Off the top of my head:
East Grinstead 1985
Tonbridge - Hastings 1986
Portsmouth - Eastleigh/St Deny's, around 1988
Tonbridge - Redhill, just before the Chunnel opened (can't remember when exactly, but went on it on an EPB railtour just after
Obviously one can't know for sure what would have happened, but I think, going by NSE's record, we can make a reasonable assumption that both Uckfield and the Marshlink would have been done reasonably soon after.
OK, you may have had VEP's and CIG's for a few years, but, since the rolling stock on around half of the routes eminating from London at present dates from the decade or so before privatisation, we can also make a reasonable assumption that BR would have continued the process and replaced rolling stock on the other half of the lines radiating out of London (including an electrified Uckfield branch).
The idea that the routes would have been closed is extremely low - nil likelihood.
The late BR period also saw substantial extension of 25kV/ac electrification as well: Colchester-Norwich/Harwich, Bishops Stortford-King's Lynn, Southminster, ECML (on the cheap!) Ilkley & Skipton etc.
Privatisation killed the momentum for electrification stone dead for 15 years until the intervention of Andrew Adonis. There was even talk of removing the wires north of Newcastle.
My main experience of BR was NSE, and I have to say, cancellations seemed quite rare. They're quite rare now, but they occasionally do happen, just like then. Dysfunctional mess - certainly didn't seem like that to me as a mere passenger.
One of the pluses of privatisation is that it has forced Governments to plan funding on a long term basis with franchising. However, there's no reason why Government of the day couldn't have decided to plan funding for BR on a longer term basis (as is the case today with nationalised NR) rather than year by year. It's just the Government of the time wasn't really intelligent enough to come up with it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not quite. The passengers charter was introduced under BR, which led to more transparency over standards and performance etc, although admittedly, you couldn't "sack" a part of BR as with a franchise.
I think some aspects of privatisation (such as open access) have increased services and directly led to more passengers.
A lot of aspects of privatisation (focus on particular markets, yield management, more frequent services etc) are continuations and refinements of successful developments introduced by sectorised BR, but which have continued to lead to improved passenger numbers.
Some things during the privatisation period, such as route reopenings (certainly in England) railcards (at least until the last couple of months)and electrification, have been a failure and backwards step from BR. This is potential for growth that hasn't been grasped, but that BR might have provided.
Overall though, I think the larger chunk of the growth will have been due to economic (long period of growth) and social (increased costs of motoring for youngsters i.e, onerous insurance premiums) factors.
A lot of aspects of privatisation (focus on particular markets, yield management, more frequent services etc) are continuations and refinements of successful developments introduced by sectorised BR, but which have continued to lead to improved passenger numbers.
Some things during the privatisation period, such as route reopenings (certainly in England) railcards (at least until the last couple of months)and electrification, have been a failure and backwards step from BR. This is potential for growth that hasn't been grasped, but that BR might have provided.
Overall though, I think the larger chunk of the growth will have been due to economic (long period of growth) and social (increased costs of motoring for youngsters i.e, onerous insurance premiums) factors.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Old BR did not have the crazy amount of interfaces with ORR , NR , etc. etc.....thousands of individual contracts to manage. The performance management structure between TOC and NR led to duplication of control staff.
Take this away , plus the several millions needed for franchise bidding on a 5 /7 or even 2 year basis. All adds costs to the budget , much of which is paper chasing.
Back in the day - it did not take 6 months to agree modest timetable changes, it was not perfect but one simple meeting used to be able to sort it out. BR had good cost management and a beady eye was kept on resource management and staffing. It even knew how much a single route section cost to operate and maintain. Much of this is now lost.
The sector organisations of the late 1980's had much to commend it - a toxic mix of the early 1990's recessions and obsessional political mantra took apart a system which was both unified and pretty good at pushing up quality , demand and overall service improvements. The generations of managers who did that are now pretty well looking forward to retirement , if they have not already done so.
Take this away , plus the several millions needed for franchise bidding on a 5 /7 or even 2 year basis. All adds costs to the budget , much of which is paper chasing.
Back in the day - it did not take 6 months to agree modest timetable changes, it was not perfect but one simple meeting used to be able to sort it out. BR had good cost management and a beady eye was kept on resource management and staffing. It even knew how much a single route section cost to operate and maintain. Much of this is now lost.
The sector organisations of the late 1980's had much to commend it - a toxic mix of the early 1990's recessions and obsessional political mantra took apart a system which was both unified and pretty good at pushing up quality , demand and overall service improvements. The generations of managers who did that are now pretty well looking forward to retirement , if they have not already done so.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
the 121 companies in 1919 were amalgamated into the "Big 4" as the structure was too complex (and there were big issues in route duplication etc.) - much like Europe - the GW / LMS / LNER / SR survived the 1930's in a mixed level of business robustness. (SR did better than the other 3 , though the GWR was a second runner) - by 1938 , all major European railways were nationalised , and this is probably what would have happened to the UK group as markets became more challenging and competition on some routes (London - West Midlands etc. became more of a challenge) , but the real issue was the lack of investment , lack of commercial freedom , and a major social burden of unrenumerative services , not just in the depths of the country.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
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:
Last edited:
I would say that we weren't bad at manufacturing trains in the first place. Infact, I'd rather we had the capacity to do these things ourselves than be beholden to the priorities of other countries.
Certainly a long drought in orders caused by a policy change can't have helped the situation for home manufacturers, but then again, skilled employment has always coma a long way down the list of priorities behind political ideology in this country.
Last edited:
LateThanNever
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 1,029
You mean like being world leaders in financial services?!! Or running 'industry leading' call centres?
It is very difficult to know what will be successful till it actually is and there is no obvious evidence that either private investors or the government are better able to see the writing on the wall before they have their backs to it. It would have been better to endeavour to keep open as many possibilties as possible yet railway privatisation was forced through by the Major government on dogma and in spite of the evidence rather than with the considered benefit of the taxpayer in mind. We are where we are now of course but certainly letting one or two more franchises expire and letting Directly Operated railways run them would be worth trying and also increase the skills base available to DaFT who after West Coast so clearly need it...
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Jack of all trades, master of none. It's as true for countries as it is to people. And you might not be a fan of financial services, but that doesn't mean we're a not a world leader in it and that it makes us quite a lot of money. If we don't specialise, our industries will stagnate, as happened in the 1970s.
I've no idea what all that about DOR and West Coast is about, as it's got nothing to do with train manufacturing. Privatisation did not automatically spell the end of train manufacturing here - the fact that it didn't survive under proper market forces suggests that it was simply uneconomic in its own right.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I never said we were bad at it, but the point is that specialisation brings economies of scale, which is exactly what has happened. Our economy hasn't stagnated since we privatised quite a lot of industry, and the median income is vastly better than it once was. Quite a lot of that is down to the fact that we make certain goods extremely well, and so there is high demand for them.
Frankly, we're not really beholden to other countries either anymore than they are to us - we're not economic islands, who can mess with each other at will without consequences. The fact that we're all pretty mutually dependent on one another is arguably what has led to an unprecedented era of peace in Europe, and means that any economy that really tries to mess with others is quickly punished by market forces.
Last edited:
LateThanNever
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 1,029
Financial services has led to us being probably the most indebted country in Europe so where this idea comes that it makes us quite a lot of money comes from I cannot fathom. As financial services specialise in gambling and lost us billions if we are still gambling I'd like to see us back a diversity of horses as the evidence that specialisation is successful for countries just is not there. Regions possibly - a la Silicon Valley (although Detroit isn't a good precedent). Countries do not need to specialise and if they did the logic is we should be teaching only a limited number of courses in universities. Media studies, music and applied mathematics shall we say? Not sensible really to lose all knowledge of biology is it?
I do not think the median income is the correct yardstick to use when a significant minority of employees are on zero hours contracts when they do not want to be.
Entirely agree however on the fact that we're all pretty mutually dependent on one another is arguably what has led to an unprecedented era of peace in Europe.
UKIP please note!
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Are you serious? You're taking what I'm saying the the absolute extreme - I'm not saying we shouldn't have basic services and industry, I'm saying that as an economy we specialise in certain areas that we seem more suited to because it means that we can gain economies of scale. This is not a complex concept, and is seen around the world. Britain manufactures a vast number of pharmaceuticals, and has a large hand in a lot of very high-tech manucaturing. We also punch well above our weight in media exports and financial services. That you might have an issue with said financial services or whatever is completely irrelevant - the fact is that we've specialised them, because that's the sort of thing that countries in today's world economy do. On the whole, specialisation makes a very large amount of money, and frankly it's not economic theory's fault that Britain refused to regulate the banks properly.
The reason we do it is because it's determined by what we, as a country, have as a resource. Australia, Canada and Russia have vast natural resources; China has lots of rare earth metals; we tend to have the advantage of a very highly educated workforce, and so specialise in R&D and luxury goods. It's not like we pick one at random and go for it, hoping it'll work - if we back lots of different horses, we're essentially spending money that could be better spent elsewhere. That's where economies of scale come in, as it means you can get much better returns if you do things on a larger scale. Why train people in lots of different things, when we could concentrate on a few industries and do extremely well in them. After all, having 7 mediocre, medium-sized industries (on the world scale) will result in a lot less exports than 1 or 2 large industries that are very good at what they do, and hence generate more demand.
It's simply about maximising the marginal product of labour, which in layman's terms is "how can we make each citizen the most productive for the economy?" Clearly specialising only in one thing would be very stupid, as we need nurses, doctors, firemen etc. But that doesn't mean the general trend is not towards what I've been talking about.
This is a long-term phenomenon, and had been occurring long before the rise of zero-hour contracts. Looking at a single piece of evidence in your favour does not discredit an entire field of research. UKIP please note.
And really? Median income is what the average man on the street earns - if that's a lot higher than it was before (accounting for interest) I fail to see how it disproves my point regardless of employment status.
Last edited:
Well actually, we are beholden to other countries and their order books. What happens if other railways decide to order rolling stock when we need it ? The price increases. We have a network large enough to require a constant turn over of rolling stock to replace. In that circumstance, it's far better to have our own industry constantly developing and turning out new trains, maintaining capacity and keeping up skills, rather than the situation we have now, which is stop/start purchasing off the shelf trains with no control over costs, no co-ordination of what's needed, and little standardisation of parts etc.
It's all well and good espousing tidy economic theories that sound good in seminars, yet bear no resemblance to reality on the ground, but it doesn't stand us in good stead for the future, particularly when every rolling stock order has to be decided in detail by central Government.
Some might argue (myself included) that the presence of two huge armies armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons would have had something to do with keeping our traditionally more "restless" continental neighbours in line.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Dismissing it because a particular example you've come up with doesn't fit the model in your eyes is a bit silly. The people that come up with these things are not stupid, but I guess thinking they have no idea of the "real world" makes it easier to dismiss them, doesn't it.
All of our economies are beholden to each other, as we're all reliant on each other for various different things. Insisting on keeping this limited to just train manufacturing completely misses the point. You'll find that Germany and France are pretty damn reliant on Britain and the US when it comes to drug manufacturing, but that isn't really a case for them to start nationalising pharmaceuticals, is it. These companies are pretty supranational at the end of the day - the German government hardly dictates who Siemens can and cannot manufacture for, for example. Don't conflate a country and what happens to be in it.
And quite frankly, if, as you insist, there is large enough demand for us to have our own train manufacturing companies, why don't we have them? The government isn't actively suppressing it, it's just refusing to subsidise it. It's an easy enough test whenever this sort of thing is brought up about the government "destroying industry".
Last edited:
The model may well work for other things, but it's certainly not the best model for developing and producing rolling stock. What would strike me as being silly would be insisting that an economic model better suited to the production of small consumer durables in which individuals have a wide amount of choice what and when they purchase, must automatically be applicable to an industry in which a relatively small number of extremely expensive vehicles have to be planned, designed and procured for the strategic good of the country.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The railway has been developing and building rolling stock in numbers enough to keep the industry going for hundreds of years. It was the Government throwing everything up in the air that interrupted this process and did the damage.
Last edited:
LateThanNever
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 1,029
If the economic theory had worked then the world economy would have collapsed. The banks were completely irresponsible and incompetent and certainly didn't see the writing on the wall till they had their backs to it. Now we do as well. The fact is the theory is the servant not the master.
That presumes that countries not companies spend the money to back winners. No more for us at least -we've lost it all on the banks! And in backing a lone horse it is very high stakes (or perhaps our largest PLC employer, Tesco, would prefer steaks) and because you've been so single-minded you've lost it all.
Don't deny it's a general trend. Just question its desirability.
I presume you mean inflation not interest but the point is that if the median income is going up it does nothing for the significant and increasing numbers struggling to survive. So the research is worthless unless you think the zero hours contractors are themselves worthless. Incidentally zero hours contracts have been around for decades but seem to have become much more often close to zero than they ever were.
Let them make trains! (Which is also the reason Rolls Royce are in Derby but that's another regional specialism rather than national... )
Also I don't think UKIP are reputed for their research!
TheKnightWho
Established Member
It's not a model for individual industries - it's a model that describes interdependence between economies and the reason that we see certain countries excelling in particular areas whilst other industries diminish.
Quite frankly, there are far too many variables to really work out whether the decline of train manufacturing here has been a good thing, because it's very difficult to work out what people that would have been working on that are doing instead. An easy illustration of this is that if all those people were on averaging generating around £25,000 for the British economy making trains, and could on average be making £30,000 if they were working in some other industry, it'd be better for them to work in the other industry even though we were clearly being benefited from making trains.
Saying "this clearly doesn't work here" is pretty short-sighted, because frankly we have very little way of knowing for individual industries. What we can see, however, is that the general pattern has occurred and seems to be beneficial for most country's economies on the whole.
I'm not saying that this is evidence that we shouldn't have the industry anymore, but I am saying that making them here wouldn't automatically be better for us than buying them from abroad, and that it's a far more complex issue than most here seem to be giving it credit for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Don't be ridiculous. The British economy is vastly bigger than it was in the 1980s, and we have certainly not "lost it all on the banks". The median income has increased dramatically, and life is generally considerably better than it was back then (regardless of what UKIP might say). You cannot use certain examples as evidence against macroscopic effects that are built up of billions of small events.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry, yes, inflation. And it's not as simple as giving people tools and telling them to do it! If it was profitable for them to do so, a private company simply would have stepped in to make it happen. This is clearly not the case, as they haven't.
Equally, the government isn't going to do it because it clearly recognises the need for specialised industry, which is why we're seeing money ploughed into certain industries instead of others; contrary to popular belief, this does not just mean the banks. I'm not saying that I support zero-hour contracts, and frankly I believe the dole should be high enough to make them uneconomic, but that doesn't mean I don't recognise that there are simply occasions when it's never going to be economic to give someone a stable job. It's a hard pill to swallow, but there are people who simply will never make money in their current state. We should probably be solving this by investing in education etc., but that's where my gripes with the current government start.
But you're looking at it from the prism of whether a person can make more money in industry A than industry B.
What we really need to be considering is how can we best ensure that our rolling stock needs are met now and in to the future. From this point of view, a stable industry with a steady turnover of rolling stock production, is far preferable to an on/off procurement process which is reliant on the vagaries of a market which will include political as well as professional decisions in other countries over which we have no control.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
And I've already said that I'm not talking about specific industries, but why things are the way they are, and why on the whole it's better. And, if as you say, it would be better for us to manufacture our own trains then why aren't we doing it?
We aren't doing it precisely because the industry, as it is currently organised, isn't capable of planning and coordinating its rolling stock needs over the long term (instead we rely on the DfT - need we say more !). However, this situation is very much a result of the way in which our particular privatisation has panned out, and was not at all inevitable (as evidenced by the fact that the railway in this country had supported a rolling stock industry since its inception).
TheKnightWho
Established Member
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.
- Status