Unpopular opinion: fully privatise the railways

[Peter Kelford]

Meanwhile, the fully private model means that the Operating Superintendent would be sat in his office, see a problem and try to fix it, fully aware that P-Way, Signalling, Rolling Stock, and Public Relations all directly and strongly impact a) the fulfilment of his mandate and b) his company's situation, not another company's.

 

[Meerkat]

Why don’t we just try some different models?
Let Scotland own its infrastructure and nationalise it if they so choose.
Franchise a fully integrated C2C railway for 20 years, with a target state for the handover infrastructure condition at the end.
Add infrastructure into the Merseyrail concession.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Why don’t we just try some different models?
Let Scotland own its infrastructure and nationalise it if they so choose.
Franchise a fully integrated C2C railway for 20 years, with a target state for the handover infrastructure condition at the end.
Add infrastructure into the Merseyrail concession.

Very good idea. If we devolve things to Scotland, we might just convince them to remain in the UK and guarantee some elements of the UK's importance on the world.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Meanwhile, the fully private model means that the Operating Superintendent would be sat in his office, see a problem and try to fix it, fully aware that P-Way, Signalling, Rolling Stock, and Public Relations all directly and strongly impact a) the fulfilment of his mandate and b) his company's situation, not another company's.

The only way that would work is if 1 company ran everything. So nationalisation but privately owned with little benefit.

 

[hexagon789]

Meanwhile, the fully private model means that the Operating Superintendent would be sat in his office, see a problem and try to fix it, fully aware that P-Way, Signalling, Rolling Stock, and Public Relations all directly and strongly impact a) the fulfilment of his mandate and b) his company's situation, not another company's.

I think that would lead to too much power concentrated in one place, I'd rather privitise portions of the network to companies (infrastructure included), but retaining the ability to remove a private company in cases of repeated poor performance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Very good idea. If we devolve things to Scotland, we might just convince them to remain in the UK and guarantee some elements of the UK's importance on the world.

A bit OT, but I think that going fully federal (with a capital of England in Manchester or Birmingham and London as a city state federal capital) is the only way the UK is even vaguely likely to remain united beyond a 5-10 year horizon.

 

[hexagon789]

A bit OT, but I think that going fully federal (with a capital of England in Manchester or Birmingham and London as a city state federal capital) is the only way the UK is even vaguely likely to remain united beyond a 5-10 year horizon.

That's been my preference for quite a while, and I think a similar ethos can be applied to the railways. Have regional companies which are in charge if infrastructure, procuring stock, running services etc and then a few InterCity operators who run fast long-distance services between each of the regions.

 

[Gareth]

A bit OT, but I think that going fully federal (with a capital of England in Manchester or Birmingham and London as a city state federal capital) is the only way the UK is even vaguely likely to remain united beyond a 5-10 year horizon.

God, I hope not.

 

[Peter Kelford]

A bit OT, but I think that going fully federal (with a capital of England in Manchester or Birmingham and London as a city state federal capital) is the only way the UK is even vaguely likely to remain united beyond a 5-10 year horizon.

Why not? Grouping areas that are relatably similar in social structure, industry, culture, climate etc. and devolving powers to them is a good idea, going further than the current directly elected mayors scheme as well as rolling it out to more rural places.

Scotland is not likely to want to sever all ties with England, but the caveat is that the EU is far more important than England.

 

[Ken H]

And you've had mine.

A fully privatised railway wouldn't touch the loss-making areas, and would happily run down even busier routes if it could make more money by e.g. redevelopment of sites.

That would depend on their network licence
electricity companies and the royal mail have obligations written into law. A fully private railway could be the same.

 

[quantinghome]

Complete privatisation would never work as the railway could never make a commercial return on investment, at least not the passenger railway. Virtually all passenger railways in the world are subsidised or state-owned for this reason.

Freight railways can be run completely in the private sector, but the relatively short distances involved in the UK make this a different proposition to what we see in the US.

 

[Meerkat]

The roads are almost entirely state provided, but almost all passenger and freight transport using them is private.
Is that a model for the railways? The state can then heavily influence what gets run with path allocation and pricing. Similar to now but without large franchises.
Could any parts of the network be viable fully privatised units (probably long leases rather than track ownership) - first thought would be Fenchurch Street Network??

 

[ChiefPlanner]

first thought would be Fenchurch Street Network??

Oddly enough the very first thought back in the reign of the Grantham grocers daughter. Partly aligned to the recent privatisation of the Southend refuse collection service at the time. Not sure if they were linked though.

To be fair , the LT&S then really was a Cinderalla route of the highest order. Worn out and unloved.

 

[quantinghome]

The roads are almost entirely state provided, but almost all passenger and freight transport using them is private.
Is that a model for the railways? The state can then heavily influence what gets run with path allocation and pricing. Similar to now but without large franchises.

There are complex interfaces between train, track and signalling, as was discovered very early on in railway development. The Stockton and Darlington tried to run like a turnpike initially, but it quickly became clear it couldn't work, hence why the railways quickly developed into vertically-integrated companies.

Could any parts of the network be viable fully privatised units (probably long leases rather than track ownership) - first thought would be Fenchurch Street Network??

Possibly, but they wouldn't be very big. South West Trains is usually considered to be one part of the network which could, just about, generate a commercial return on investment.