cheaper Rail anyone?

[Ben A]

Hello all,

Unlike most, I'm a fan of rail privatisation though I do think the model adopted in the UK (one entity operates the track, then leases out paths to other companies) is flawed.

Ideology aside the question really is why doesn't the Government just extend its control to all fares, not just regulated ones, and order that pricing structures are kept simple?  It could allow companies to make a fair profit, while allowing enough for reinvestment and to plan for growth.

The problem is profit.  In the relatively high-inflation era of the 1980s and 1990s it came to be expected that profits had to keep going up.  Now we have low inflation, but that high-profit mindset remains, and even a successful business can be considered a failure if it is not constantly growing and increasing its dividends.  And those dividends are paid to shareholders, many of whom are corporate institutions such as pension funds.  And who would begrudge pensioners maximum return for their investments?

My personal view is that we need to have some kind of re-alignment of economic thinking, such that social impact, strategic importance to UKPLC and long-term environmental effects are given as much weight as raw profits in certain areas of public/private decision making.  But with Governments elected for 5 years at a time I am struggling to see how this can happen.

cheers

Ben A.

[red_death]

What boggles my mind is why we are privatised. A model that really is not working or should I say benefitting the UK tax payer/public?

If I remember correctly both SNCF, NS , DB, SNCB are still state owned and running a better and cheaper service compared to the majority of UK rail companies.

On the first point - I am not sure that is correct.  Despite the myriad mess that privatisation has caused there is little doubt that the railways are better and more people use them than ever (or at least for a long time). So it becomes difficult to tell is that in part because of privatisation or in spite of privatisation! There has been substantial investment in infrastructure and stock - though again could BR have done better with the same funds, we just don't know.

On other rail systems - I think it is convenient sometimes to think the grass is greener, but close scrutiny may not bear up. Of the two systems I have most experience of: SNCB a lot of the stock is pretty jaded and nowhere near as nice as much of ours, furthermore they must have massive costs in unused stock which sits around during the day and is only used for peak services. SNCF - go outside the TGV network (which is excellent and cheap) and things aren't very rosy at all with large parts of the country unserved or poorly served.

My feeling is that the desperation of the Tories to get the railways privatised has left us with lots of disconnected thinking eg TOCs v ROSCOs v infrastructure instead of joined up thinking. For a lot of lines the only competition is the franchising process and the rest of the time genuine competition is actually prohibited by the franchise agreements. I completely agree with NeMo that the mantra that privatisation must be good was what seemed to drive all this.

I don't feel strongly one way or another about public/private ownership of the railways provided we (the public) are getting "value" for money...which of course means different things to different people!

Cheers, Mike

[Agrippa]

This thread is like reading the Daily Telegraph! If you are in favour of privately owned rail operations
then the user should pay , if that means £20 for  a  20 minute journey so be it. However the present
situation is extremely complicated with public money and foreign ownership being involved, and the track
owned by a different organisation. In general I think most people would agree that train travel is better
than it was in the past, I can remember commuting on stinking DMUs with slam doors that broke down
3 times a week. Also nowadays there are fewer of the national rail strikes that used to plague the country,
although that may be due to trade union legislation. It is always difficult to compare with European rail
systems as in the UK much of the rail operation involves the spider's web of the SE with huge numbers
of commuters complaining about fare increases. In Europe the big cities like Munich, Paris, Rome etc are
nowhere near the size of London and  the long distance commuter is less common (eg the Suffolk - London
types) . The situation will roll on and on, there'll be men walking on Mars before HS2 reaches Watford.
But that's the way we like it !

PS best value rail fare is the Scotrail Club 55, anywhere in Jockshire for about £19 return.

[OwL]

The situation will roll on and on, there'll be men walking on Mars before HS2 reaches Watford.
But that's the way we like it !

PS best value rail fare is the Scotrail Club 55, anywhere in Jockshire for about £19 return.

Well said

[Adam1701D]

Whatever the pros and cons of are private vs public ownership, it has pretty much been proven that the current franchising model does not provide value for money and is being propped up by a discredited Transport Department for ideological reasons.

If the government wantd to make a "quick win", I would suggest going down the London Overground route and operate all routes on a concession basis, which seems to be working.

I'm also in favour of a national identity for trains and stations - a good two-pack paintjob can last for 15 years on a train, longer than any franchise! A quality corporate image, such as Scotrail have adopted should be a given.

[red_death]

If the government wantd to make a "quick win", I would suggest going down the London Overground route and operate all routes on a concession basis, which seems to be working.

Isn't that essentially all the franchise model is ie a type of concession? I'm not sure I understand why there would be a difference - you say concession, I say franchise... 

Cheers, Mike

[EtchedPixels]

What boggles my mind is why we are privatised. A model that really is not working or should I say benefitting the UK tax payer/public?

Because the conservative government of the 1980s believed in 'free markets' and that they fixed everything by magic. They privatised a whole pile of things that turned out to be a good plan and several that turned out to be a disaster (unsurprisingly enough those that are natural monopolies - rail, water, gas, electricity, bus services)

All this nonsense about EU rules telling us to do so.........

If I remember correctly both SNCF, NS , DB, SNCB are still state owned and running a better and cheaper service compared to the majority of UK rail companies.

The EU rules were the fault of the British. We tried to infect the rest of Europe with our disaster. The other nations (notably France and Germany) recently ensured the regulations got gutted rather than tightened. Many of the EU rules we female dog (changed by forum) about were actually created by the British governments (and civil service) in the EU because they knew they couldn't get it through their own parliament. "Brussels washing" is standard policy technique all over europe nowdays.

Northern Ireland btw still has a state owned rail service and Network Rail is effectively a state owned company. Scotland and Wales are both trying to work out if they can de-privatise their passenger services.

Alan

[EtchedPixels]

On other rail systems - I think it is convenient sometimes to think the grass is greener, but close scrutiny may not bear up. Of the two systems I have most experience of: SNCB a lot of the stock is pretty jaded and nowhere near as nice as much of ours, furthermore they must have massive costs in unused stock which sits around during the day and is only used for peak services. SNCF - go outside the TGV network (which is excellent and cheap) and things aren't very rosy at all with large parts of the country unserved or poorly served.

The purpose of a train is to get you from A to B on time and preferably at a reasonable price. My experience of mainland Europe is that they do just that.

You are wrong about unused stock. Unused stock has a relatively low cost except under a broken franchising scheme where you have to lease all your trains at vastly overinflated prices. British Rail could run relief services because they had older stock parked up. When summer came you just gave it a service and a clean up. Most of the costs on rolling stock are mileage based. Park it in a siding and its cheap.

My feeling is that the desperation of the Tories to get the railways privatised has left us with lots of disconnected thinking eg TOCs v ROSCOs v infrastructure instead of joined up thinking

That was actually not the fault of the tories but the civil service. John Major actually talked at length about how he wanted to simply privatise the railways as a single unit on the basis the competition was road and air and at various other proposals that the unelected powers then blocked.

Alan

[Agrippa]

Cheaper rail ? About as likely as Janet Street - Porter being the next Bond girl.

And don't mention the Edinburgh trams !

[EtchedPixels]

These ?


THE DEMISE OF THE EDINBURGH TRAM

[Luke Piewalker]

As a resident of Edinburgh (well, just outside...) I have decided to adopt a simple approach to the trams debacle, which has political infighting and points scoring all over it...

I like trams.

I want to see trams.

Let's have trams.

It has to be an improvement over facefuls of diesel exhaust...
And a tram to the airport appeals much more than a bus.

[Agrippa]

As  a frequent visitor to Auld Reekie (which I like) I can appreciate Luke P 's remarks and hope that
the project gets completed,though I don't think it will be to the same extent as originally planned.
It's just that it has been a fiasco of  monumental proportions carried out by amateurs and few , if
any will admit to blame.

[RChook]

And you probably don't understand how airline fares work either, but that's the model they're after.

Umm, perhaps not, but I thank you for your extensive reply. I bow to your superior understanding !
But my chum who lives in Edinburgh frequently visits me ( near Bristol) and he either flies or drives !
So that says summat as well
Or does he not understand rail fares either ?

So basically what you are saying is that the rail companies have not effectively marketed their products in a way that dumbos like me (and my chum) can understand and take advantage of ?
Hahaaaa. What a fail of marketing !

[RChook]

Cheaper rail ? About as likely as Janet Street - Porter being the next Bond girl.

Lol!
Hold that thought,

I've had my say,
I'm outta here 

[NeMo]

Ah, my point wasn't that you (or I for that matter) are dumb, but rather the fares system is deliberately complicated so that it allows for lots and LOTS of different fares for any one journey.

I believe it's all to do with marketing. What something is worth is what someone is willing to pay for it. If you have 700 seats on a train, you could suppose that there'll be 70 who'll be willing one top price, 70 who'll pay another slightly lower price, and so on. By making some cheap seats available you catch one section of the market, but you don't want to sell all the train at the cheapest price because you could make lots more money selling to people who'd be willing to pay more. For some trains you wouldn't want any cheap seats being sold because that train runs at a time of highest demand. The problem for most customers is that they want to travel at periods of high demand (like Friday evening out of London) rather than low demand (3 AM on a Saturday morning pretty much anywhere).

So anyway, to cut a long story short, it's the same thing in hotels as well as airlines. In hotels there's a nominal "rack rate" for room X on night Y, but in reality you'd often sell it at some discount from that depending on demand. That's how all those online offers for hotels work. Of course you don't sell all your rooms at that night, but only on nights that you aren't busy -- half price is better than no price at all. Weekend nights and summer holidays you'd charge peak rate, but mid week in November, perhaps rather less.

Cheers, NeMo

And you probably don't understand how airline fares work either, but that's the model they're after.

Umm, perhaps not, but I thank you for your extensive reply. I bow to your superior understanding !