Hurrah! Even as a free market conservative I've long been in favour of this: bidding for the multi-year contract to operate a line is a poor proxy for (impossible) proper competition where rail users could vote with their feet and wallets.
There's effectively only one operator anyway, for a given journey, it should be the state, awarding the multi-year contract to the elected government is strictly better than to a private company where there's little/much more indirect incentive to do anything in the interest of the consumer.
You don't travel with X from A to B because you think X is great value for money and provides a really top notch service; you do it because you need to get from A to B and X happens to be the operator.
However.. I'm pessimistic... I'm sure operators will push back on 'under one brand', and argue they need this that and the other in order to differentiate themselves and effectively compete...
The end of the rail franchise system is not new news.
The franchise agreements were effectively terminated in March 2020 when the government bailed out operators due to Covid.
By July, the ONS announced that rail operators were now considered part of the public sector for statistics purposes, signalling that they had effectively been nationalised:
What’s new with this announcement is that the functions of several organisations (Network Rail, ATOC/National Rail, etc) will be merged together into a single new entity.
How are customers on trains supposed to vote with their wallets? It's not as if you can set up competing parallel networks running trains side by side between identical destinations at varying levels of speed and comfort.
Capacity is physically constrained, especially on an ancient network like the UK's.
Timetable slots are scarce and have to be centrally coordinated and managed.
There is no sparkly market magic that will make these constraints disappear and somehow give customers more choice about where to go, when, and with whom. And there is no chance whatsoever that operators can compete on price.
The only way to lower prices is nationalise the entire industry and replace privatisation with direct investment, on the basis that transport infrastructure is a social cost with significant indirect benefits, and cannot possibly be run as a self-sustaining profitable business on a national scale.
The idea that competition for passengers will somehow make profitability possible is a dilettante-level view that has no insight into how the industry actually operates.
We've already had decades of this kind of thinking, and the result has been mediocre services, vastly increased direct subsidies, and ballooning fares.
> I'm sure operators will push back on 'under one brand'
You're probably right, but I don't think they'll succeed. Everyone and their dog can see that TFL has worked well compared to the rest of the country.
I don't particularly like our government, but I don't doubt their commitment to populism. This looks like a vote winner to me so I'd put low odds on a u-turn here.
As someone coming from a country (Italy) with nationalised railway I always found the trains in the UK to be pretty great.
Sure, you have a few delays but it's eons better than what I had in my country. I never understood why people were complaining about trains in the UK.
Italy added a private offering some time ago, which I personally never tried, but my friends back home always praise them for working - unlike Trenitalia.
It's sad the government imposed lockdown killed another industry - but I certainly won't rejoice for this nationalisation.
They privatised profits, but not responsibilities. I don't know why even a single person thought this was a good idea (unless they were on it for money).
I think the privatisation could work if multiple companies could bid for a given journey / timetable slice, rather than having entire routes for themselves with no realistic way of removing them if the service goes bad.
The undiscussed upside of this "privatisation pantomime" is that government's are committed to making it work. That means it gets investments and bailouts. Compare that to publicly owned services who get nothing.
The real question here isn't who owns X, it's will the government invest in X...
> awarding the multi-year contract to the elected government is strictly better than to a private company
This is objectively not true otherwise no-one would every privatise the railway. Although the answer is not agreed, my own experience of working on the public-owned railway in the UK in the 1990s was that public-sector organisations have virtually no incentive to be clever or efficient, at best they are indifferent, at worst they are job-creation systems that cost billions to the tax payer.
The theory is that private companies have a reason to make things more efficient, which is to maximize profit, reducing costs and being overall cheaper to the tax payer.
Of course, this brings it own dangers in terms of service reduction due to unprofitable services but it would be simplistic to think that somehow the tax payer should subsidise those who actually use the trains. Ultimately, they should cost what they cost to run and if that is too much, then they need to change.
I would also say that the services and overall quality are much higher on the privatised railway.
And still nobody has gone to prison from the Railtrack board. They told they government they'd be insolvent if they didn't get an injection of money, then issued a dividend to shareholders.
> awarding the multi-year contract to the elected government is strictly better than to a private company where there's little/much more indirect incentive to do anything in the interest of the consumer.
Well... the incentives really aren't different for the government.
> bidding for the multi-year contract to operate a line is a poor proxy for
But that was never the reason why railway operations and railway track exploration and maintenance was split, was it?
The whole point of splitting railway operations from track exploration was to ensure that any railway operator in Europe is free to explore any connection that they wish, provided they pay for the track usage and that the track has free capacity.
That's the whole point.
This separation from track exploration and railway operations has been a collosal success in Europe, with multiple private and even public companies stepping up to serve international corridors even with high-speed railway services.
I’m not. I have a choice on the WCML of multiple different providers. Manchester to London walk up far for almost any time can be £300 return for the fast train arriving in london before lunch and getting home before 9pm, or £50 for a slower train with a change.
Same with crewe-Manchester, Birmingham-london, Edinburgh-london etc.
Quite happy with the competition and no government interference.
Norway's railroad also went "private" a few years ago, and have butchered it up into (not all):
- we have a directorate of railway deciding where to build tracks, what providers must adhere to, their timetables etc
- one government owned company building
- one government owned company building and maintaining the tracks
- one government owned company owning the trains
- another one maintaining the trains
- one government owned company responsible for all ticketing, purchasing, route search, providing timetables etc
- 3 different companies having won a bid for different routes. They have to lease the trains. But since they have monopoly on their route and the directorate decides everything, having multiple hasn't really led to any competition. Sure, they fought somewhat on price for the bid, but for the next 10 years the only thing they really do is provide personnel for the trains.
Nothing here made train a better or more viable alternative for the people. Just 5x the amount of highly paid directors. And more overhead and less cooperation. In fact it's now often more expensive to take train long distance, as you end up paying (price + price) from two companies instead of a single rebated long distance ticket.
One of the companies now driving in Norway is the not-very-popular British Go-Ahead, even.
I feel like the decision to do this is based on an outdated idea about how to do business effectively. Take car makers. It used to be that the winners were outsourcing everything except their core competence (engines and assembling/marketing vehicles). But these days it seems like vertical integrated companies are the winners, with Tesla being a good example in the car industry. I think politicians that have pushed for this was inspired heavily by all this out-sourcing happening at the end of the previous century.
It's not that vertical integration is good everywhere. But neither is avoiding vertical integration. You have to use your brain and look at what's beneficial in a given market. And train operation strikes me as a place where vertical integration is essential to long term success and efficiency. If it was actually a free market, I'm sure that it'd converge to a few vertically integrated companies with monopolies in large geographic areas.
I'd also argue that government owned corporations have become better at operating efficiently. Business has almost become a science. You're not as reliant on brute force through competition.
And when government corporations are more expensive, it's usually just because they treat their employees better.
The seperation of track ownership and operation from actually running the trains is mandated by EU directives, so that part is going to be the same pretty much anywhere in the EU. I think some countries like Germany bend the rules a bit by having them run by nominally independent divisions of the same state-owned company (and sometimes go father than is allowed and end up on the losing end of court battles), but the UK is probably going beyond what it could do as a member of the EU here.
They don’t have to lease their trains from the government, they can bring their own trains if they’d like, but leasing is likely cheaper.
The company maintaining the trains do have to bid on the contracts, as well, and can bid for contracts in other countries if they wish.
The directorate of railway was there pre-privatization.
It’s the infrastructure company that decides the timetables, not the directorate. The directorate assigns the contracts, and the contracts specify the minimum fee for a ticket.
Operators are free to decide the interior of the trains, and any additional products on top of the minimum fee. Meaning they can charge more for better seating, reserved seating etc. Vy has their own ticketing service in addition to the government provided one, which they use to sell bus and taxi services to cover as much of your trip as possible. GoAhead doesn’t have their own ticketing service, instead relying on Vy and the government service to sell tickets. This saves them money on development, but makes them lose out on any additional revenue that Vy makes for extra sales.
GoAhead has higher customer satisfaction than NSB (the national train company pre-privatization).
Idealy you’d have more competition between the operators, but since Norway is mostly single track that is difficult to do.
Still, the government will save an estimated 12 billion NOK over the next 9 years based on the current contracts.
That’s not to say it’s all good. Long range travel has gotten more expensive (more than one operator involved) and there are now more directors with million kr saleries. Not to mention that the effects of one of these operators going bankrupt will be worse than if one national company did everything.
It's a very similar case in Finland, case-in-point when HRT (Helsinki Region Transport) requested bids from operators to run the trains in the greater capital area (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and the neighbouring municipalities).
- Rolling stock is owned by HRT
- Transport Infrastructure Agency (Väylävirasto) is responsible for the tracks and stations
Which means the bid is mainly for personnel operating the trains.
There were couple companies that placed bids for this, most of them withdrew before the end of the call, essentially leaving one competing bid along with VR's (then and now current operator).
In the end, nothing changed and VR still operates the trains using HRT's own rolling stock. The only real change going forward are the plans to have a dedicated maintenance depot for HRT's own stock, since VR does not want to have the burden of maintaining stock they don't directly own.
At least with freight, it's going to be different... right?
Unfortunately this isn't actual nationalisation. The railway will still be operated by private firms, this is only a transfer of franchising from the department of transport to this new "Great British Railways" department; which is a new franchising model. It's supposed to allow them to set unified fees, and have greater control over branding and speak with a unified voice, but apart from that I don't see any of the issues that we've had with privatised rail going away - those issues being incredibly high fees, understaffed and underpaid workers, under maintained infrastructure, and a lack of real investment in areas with little to no infrastructure at all (the north).
Also, you can really tell who the government are targeting this campaign at, and that's what it is, a media campaign. "Great British Railways"? Appealing to nationalist sentiments whilst doing little to nothing is the entire modern tory agenda.
Don't expect the people who lined their pockets during privatisation to lose any money. Do expect Tory party donors to do well in whatever actually happens.
So, during the 1948-1995 nationalized period, train ridership was in almost constant decline, and from the 1995 privatization, train ridership started a steady and steep increase.
Note: I have spent the last 7 years working in consultancy, much of which has been involved with both Metro Rail (eg TfL) and Heavy Rail in the UK.
There are certainly some messy aspects to UK Rail, but the current system was not nearly as bad as made out by some posters , and there are some very good arguments against further centralisation.
A lot of the problem as I see it has been the misalignment between Network Rail (running the tracks) and the train operating companies (TOCs).
Firstly, NR is a huge and bloated bureaucracy - it is incredibly slow moving, and many of the problems (e.g. lack of modern rolling stock) can be directly traced back to problems with NR signing off on new rolling stock (they have to authorise each type of rolling stock to be run on each line).
Second, there are definite problems with timetabling - the TOCs are told the timetables they have to run. Unfortunately, the people who designed the timetables haven't worked out that in some congested areas (eg the approaches to Waterloo station in London), there is no way on earth that the timetables and service frequency of movements in and out of the stations are actually going work.
Thirdly, NR's investment in new systems has been very patchy. It is worth noting that the Welsh Government removed control of the Central Valley lines (serving the valleys North of Cardiff) from NR, and took direct control themselves, because they were sick of decades of underinvestment from NR, which generally takes a very London-centric approach.
Going forwards, I'm hopeful that we will see NR effectively split up into regional entities aligned with the TOC regions, so we can get much better alignment between infrastructure and rolling stock / services in each region. This may also enable a more equitable distribution of funding for infrastructure, which would enable infrastructure and service improvements especially in the North.
Finally, commuter rail and long distance passenger volumes have grown vastly over the past 20 years, which is a good thing. What is needed is infrastructure investment (particularly in modern signalling systems - ETMS) to enable trains to run much more closely together, and enable a higher service density. However, I think it is unlikely that the government will be prepared to make this investment.
This isn't an area I know anything about, but is it correct to say that the points you are making are in some sense orthogonal to the nature of the ownership, i.e. public or private?
I struggle to see how much meaningful competition can be achieved, so remain unclear about the value of private ownership, but it strikes me that decentralisation is perfectly within the realm of possibility for a publicly owned entity.
I similarly spent a few years working in this space (TfL, digitising their data and website etc). It always struck me just how nuts the weekly meetings between different station operators and TOCS within the GLA would be, essentially a shouting match to determine who would have to keep their station open that weekend. Resultant timetable changes on the fly were always fun content to keep updated.
Timetabling (at that point) remained very much a manual process, I think they had to bring a poor chap out of retirement who wrote them by hand.
The flexible season tickets are welcome. However, missing from this news report is any mention of making the cost of rail travel more affordable for the public.
The report quotes the former boss of British Airways about "greater flexibility in the way that fares are operated in the future"
What does this mean? Can we expect less expensive tickets?
The UK already has some of the most expensive rail tickets in Europe. Yes, you can book in advance for cheaper tickets, but often there is limited availability, and you have to book at least a month or longer in advance. In short, the conditions which make cheaper tickets available are simply impractical for most passengers, especially regular commuters.
Here is a monthly season ticket comparison from 2017: UK vs Continental Europe:
- UK: Luton to London St. Pancras (35 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £387 (approx $547/€448)
- UK: Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Piccadilly (32 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £292 (approx $412 /€344)
- Germany: Dusseldorf to Cologne (28 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £85 (approx $120 /€98)
- France: Mantes-la-Jolie to Paris (34 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £61 (approx $86 /€71)
- Italy: Anzione to Rome (31 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £61 (approx $86 /€71)
- Spain: Aranjuez to Madrid (31 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £75 (approx $106 /€87)
Most will sympathise with public run railways (rightly or wrongly) so it is worth highlighting some positives from private companies running of the railways.
The private companies have pushed for a very large increase in the number of operating trains, with around a 50% increase in the past couple of decades, they are trying to squeeze every drop possible out if the tracks.
The train companies are also often making a loss on these routes, commonly subsidised by foreign Europeans governments looking to expand their rail business, Dutch or Italian tax payers should be annoyed at how their taxes are being wasted.
Profits are also capped so these are not potential cash cows people suspect. British tickets are expensive because the government doesn't subsidise the ticket price, which is a separate debate.
The Public Vs private debate will continue until the end of time, the truth is there are benefits to both systems.
Disclaimer, my wife is senior in a rail franchise, as well as being left leaning, fwiw.
> Profits are also capped so these are not potential cash cows people suspect. British tickets are expensive because the government doesn't subsidise the ticket price, which is a separate debate.
The system is capped and collared meaning their profits are guaranteed by the government as well as limited. This system incentivised them to underperform on their contract, buy assets, claim losses. When the franchise completes they liquidise and pay out big bucks to shareholders. They very much are the cash cows that people think they are.
Appreciate that, but vast swathes of the North and rural areas will never be profitable. As a result, entire areas of the country have rolling stock that was supposed to be dropped in the 80s, a couple of services a day, or aren't even electrified.
The one that always stands out to me is the fact that the last train from Liverpool to Sheffield (two major cities) is at 9:30pm because it wasn't profitable to continue services after that time. As a result, flight delays from Liverpool Airport (again, a major airport) can leave you stranded in that city – or facing an eye watering taxi bill.
>The train companies are also often making a loss on these routes, commonly subsidised by foreign Europeans governments looking to expand their rail business, Dutch or Italian tax payers should be annoyed at how their taxes are being wasted.
Last i checked one or 2 examples they ran a profit. Surely they can run a loss/be funded initially but if you get that money back out it's not really what you describe it as no?
Fantastic. Train fares in the UK are prohibitively high. It is at times cheaper to fly via Spain than it is to travel to London from the North East by train, as this story demonstrates.
This sounds like many niceties, BUT the elephant in the room is the utterly uncompetitive way private contractors are chosen to run the routes, and as a result, high prices / low quality of the actual journeys. Operators have a nice oligopoly on the routes, with barely any competition for tenders.
One example is that different routes have different hardware requirements. And guess what, the only provider who has the right kit available immediately is the one whose contract is just expiring. Please name your price and sign on the dotted line.
The UK does not and cannot have a free market for train travel, so we should stop pretending that it's possible.
Private companies have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to run train services in the UK. Profit always came before passenger comfort, safety and value for money. I don't believe that the state is better at everything, but in this case they're going to be the least bad option!
UK rail suffers from the service provider having zero accountability to the paying customer at the point of service. It’s the DMV on rails.
Obviously there are no competing train companies / train tracks / signalling systems. If you want to vote with your wallet you only have two ways of leveraging better service: demand compensation or stop using the trains altogether.
The problem with a nationalised rail system is... it will also have zero accountability to the paying customers!
What would be really helpful would be to have an independent and powerful ombudsman who can crack down on sloppy service, and I’m pleased to see this given brief mention in The Guardian’s coverage. We shall see.
It's just blindingly obvious to me that some services absolutely have to come under some kind of longer term (and therefore state) control, and preferably away from the whims of political change.
You absolutely can't build infrastructure, education, health in 4-year cycles. These are 10,20,50+ year projects. Personally I'd have these under control of something cross party, totally away from electioneering.
I was always wondering how the experiment in British rail would write its next chapter.
The logic of privatization seemed odd to me: "You have a choice now -- if you weren't satisfied with the service you received on your trip to Manchester, you can go to Leeds instead!"
The elephant in the room is that UK rail is too complex to be managed in siloes and it should be renationalised for the national good and to save money.
Maybe this will remove the need for adjudicating between the companies currently involved - from the White Paper:
"Previous adjudications include, among other things, who was responsible for a train being so crowded that a passenger fainted, causing delays while they were taken off; and whether a pheasant is a small bird (in which case, according to the principles at the time, the train operator was to blame for a delay caused by hitting one) or a large bird (Network Rail's problem)."
I could be mistaken but if I understand correctly, this is similar to how the TfL is run. If it is, this will be a huge boost and is a step in the right direction. TfL has its faults, but, in my experience, it is a thousand times better than anything the franchised train operators have been able to deliver.
What is actually changing here? The article says GBR will be responsible for ticketing, prices and schedules, which makes sense that you can buy a ticket for anywhere on the rail system regardless of which company happens to operate which line at whichever moment.
What I don' understand, is that the article says that the 'government has ended rail franchising', which AFAIU was the process where private companies bid to handle certain routes. Now this is to be replaced with 'concessions', which AFAIU is a bidding process where private companies bid to operate certain routes. What's the difference?
[+] [-] OJFord|4 years ago|reply
There's effectively only one operator anyway, for a given journey, it should be the state, awarding the multi-year contract to the elected government is strictly better than to a private company where there's little/much more indirect incentive to do anything in the interest of the consumer.
You don't travel with X from A to B because you think X is great value for money and provides a really top notch service; you do it because you need to get from A to B and X happens to be the operator.
However.. I'm pessimistic... I'm sure operators will push back on 'under one brand', and argue they need this that and the other in order to differentiate themselves and effectively compete...
[+] [-] Reason077|4 years ago|reply
The franchise agreements were effectively terminated in March 2020 when the government bailed out operators due to Covid.
By July, the ONS announced that rail operators were now considered part of the public sector for statistics purposes, signalling that they had effectively been nationalised:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/news/theonsclassifiestrainoperat...
In September 2020 the government announced that franchises would be not return:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/21/uk-covid-19...
What’s new with this announcement is that the functions of several organisations (Network Rail, ATOC/National Rail, etc) will be merged together into a single new entity.
[+] [-] TheOtherHobbes|4 years ago|reply
Capacity is physically constrained, especially on an ancient network like the UK's.
Timetable slots are scarce and have to be centrally coordinated and managed.
There is no sparkly market magic that will make these constraints disappear and somehow give customers more choice about where to go, when, and with whom. And there is no chance whatsoever that operators can compete on price.
The only way to lower prices is nationalise the entire industry and replace privatisation with direct investment, on the basis that transport infrastructure is a social cost with significant indirect benefits, and cannot possibly be run as a self-sustaining profitable business on a national scale.
The idea that competition for passengers will somehow make profitability possible is a dilettante-level view that has no insight into how the industry actually operates.
We've already had decades of this kind of thinking, and the result has been mediocre services, vastly increased direct subsidies, and ballooning fares.
[+] [-] conjectures|4 years ago|reply
You're probably right, but I don't think they'll succeed. Everyone and their dog can see that TFL has worked well compared to the rest of the country.
I don't particularly like our government, but I don't doubt their commitment to populism. This looks like a vote winner to me so I'd put low odds on a u-turn here.
[+] [-] jokethrowaway|4 years ago|reply
Sure, you have a few delays but it's eons better than what I had in my country. I never understood why people were complaining about trains in the UK.
Italy added a private offering some time ago, which I personally never tried, but my friends back home always praise them for working - unlike Trenitalia.
It's sad the government imposed lockdown killed another industry - but I certainly won't rejoice for this nationalisation.
[+] [-] varispeed|4 years ago|reply
I think the privatisation could work if multiple companies could bid for a given journey / timetable slice, rather than having entire routes for themselves with no realistic way of removing them if the service goes bad.
[+] [-] lathiat|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flipbrad|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LatteLazy|4 years ago|reply
The real question here isn't who owns X, it's will the government invest in X...
[+] [-] antihero|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apercu|4 years ago|reply
Interesting that even on hacker news some feel we lead with our political views. lol.
[+] [-] lbriner|4 years ago|reply
This is objectively not true otherwise no-one would every privatise the railway. Although the answer is not agreed, my own experience of working on the public-owned railway in the UK in the 1990s was that public-sector organisations have virtually no incentive to be clever or efficient, at best they are indifferent, at worst they are job-creation systems that cost billions to the tax payer.
The theory is that private companies have a reason to make things more efficient, which is to maximize profit, reducing costs and being overall cheaper to the tax payer.
Of course, this brings it own dangers in terms of service reduction due to unprofitable services but it would be simplistic to think that somehow the tax payer should subsidise those who actually use the trains. Ultimately, they should cost what they cost to run and if that is too much, then they need to change.
I would also say that the services and overall quality are much higher on the privatised railway.
[+] [-] shermozle|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JI00912|4 years ago|reply
Well... the incentives really aren't different for the government.
[+] [-] rualca|4 years ago|reply
But that was never the reason why railway operations and railway track exploration and maintenance was split, was it?
The whole point of splitting railway operations from track exploration was to ensure that any railway operator in Europe is free to explore any connection that they wish, provided they pay for the track usage and that the track has free capacity.
That's the whole point.
This separation from track exploration and railway operations has been a collosal success in Europe, with multiple private and even public companies stepping up to serve international corridors even with high-speed railway services.
[+] [-] ankalaibe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] midasuni|4 years ago|reply
Same with crewe-Manchester, Birmingham-london, Edinburgh-london etc.
Quite happy with the competition and no government interference.
[+] [-] matsemann|4 years ago|reply
- we have a directorate of railway deciding where to build tracks, what providers must adhere to, their timetables etc
- one government owned company building - one government owned company building and maintaining the tracks
- one government owned company owning the trains
- another one maintaining the trains
- one government owned company responsible for all ticketing, purchasing, route search, providing timetables etc
- 3 different companies having won a bid for different routes. They have to lease the trains. But since they have monopoly on their route and the directorate decides everything, having multiple hasn't really led to any competition. Sure, they fought somewhat on price for the bid, but for the next 10 years the only thing they really do is provide personnel for the trains.
Nothing here made train a better or more viable alternative for the people. Just 5x the amount of highly paid directors. And more overhead and less cooperation. In fact it's now often more expensive to take train long distance, as you end up paying (price + price) from two companies instead of a single rebated long distance ticket.
One of the companies now driving in Norway is the not-very-popular British Go-Ahead, even.
[+] [-] pjc50|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] audunw|4 years ago|reply
It's not that vertical integration is good everywhere. But neither is avoiding vertical integration. You have to use your brain and look at what's beneficial in a given market. And train operation strikes me as a place where vertical integration is essential to long term success and efficiency. If it was actually a free market, I'm sure that it'd converge to a few vertically integrated companies with monopolies in large geographic areas.
I'd also argue that government owned corporations have become better at operating efficiently. Business has almost become a science. You're not as reliant on brute force through competition.
And when government corporations are more expensive, it's usually just because they treat their employees better.
[+] [-] makomk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Skinney|4 years ago|reply
The company maintaining the trains do have to bid on the contracts, as well, and can bid for contracts in other countries if they wish.
The directorate of railway was there pre-privatization.
It’s the infrastructure company that decides the timetables, not the directorate. The directorate assigns the contracts, and the contracts specify the minimum fee for a ticket.
Operators are free to decide the interior of the trains, and any additional products on top of the minimum fee. Meaning they can charge more for better seating, reserved seating etc. Vy has their own ticketing service in addition to the government provided one, which they use to sell bus and taxi services to cover as much of your trip as possible. GoAhead doesn’t have their own ticketing service, instead relying on Vy and the government service to sell tickets. This saves them money on development, but makes them lose out on any additional revenue that Vy makes for extra sales.
GoAhead has higher customer satisfaction than NSB (the national train company pre-privatization).
Idealy you’d have more competition between the operators, but since Norway is mostly single track that is difficult to do.
Still, the government will save an estimated 12 billion NOK over the next 9 years based on the current contracts.
That’s not to say it’s all good. Long range travel has gotten more expensive (more than one operator involved) and there are now more directors with million kr saleries. Not to mention that the effects of one of these operators going bankrupt will be worse than if one national company did everything.
[+] [-] diftraku|4 years ago|reply
- Rolling stock is owned by HRT
- Transport Infrastructure Agency (Väylävirasto) is responsible for the tracks and stations
Which means the bid is mainly for personnel operating the trains.
There were couple companies that placed bids for this, most of them withdrew before the end of the call, essentially leaving one competing bid along with VR's (then and now current operator).
In the end, nothing changed and VR still operates the trains using HRT's own rolling stock. The only real change going forward are the plans to have a dedicated maintenance depot for HRT's own stock, since VR does not want to have the burden of maintaining stock they don't directly own.
At least with freight, it's going to be different... right?
[+] [-] mvzvm|4 years ago|reply
Edit: Link broke?
Edit 2: Thank you @bogdan https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
[+] [-] carnagecity786|4 years ago|reply
Also, you can really tell who the government are targeting this campaign at, and that's what it is, a media campaign. "Great British Railways"? Appealing to nationalist sentiments whilst doing little to nothing is the entire modern tory agenda.
[+] [-] chalst|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sampo|4 years ago|reply
From that same Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_ye...
So, during the 1948-1995 nationalized period, train ridership was in almost constant decline, and from the 1995 privatization, train ridership started a steady and steep increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of...
[+] [-] steve_gh|4 years ago|reply
There are certainly some messy aspects to UK Rail, but the current system was not nearly as bad as made out by some posters , and there are some very good arguments against further centralisation.
A lot of the problem as I see it has been the misalignment between Network Rail (running the tracks) and the train operating companies (TOCs).
Firstly, NR is a huge and bloated bureaucracy - it is incredibly slow moving, and many of the problems (e.g. lack of modern rolling stock) can be directly traced back to problems with NR signing off on new rolling stock (they have to authorise each type of rolling stock to be run on each line).
Second, there are definite problems with timetabling - the TOCs are told the timetables they have to run. Unfortunately, the people who designed the timetables haven't worked out that in some congested areas (eg the approaches to Waterloo station in London), there is no way on earth that the timetables and service frequency of movements in and out of the stations are actually going work.
Thirdly, NR's investment in new systems has been very patchy. It is worth noting that the Welsh Government removed control of the Central Valley lines (serving the valleys North of Cardiff) from NR, and took direct control themselves, because they were sick of decades of underinvestment from NR, which generally takes a very London-centric approach.
Going forwards, I'm hopeful that we will see NR effectively split up into regional entities aligned with the TOC regions, so we can get much better alignment between infrastructure and rolling stock / services in each region. This may also enable a more equitable distribution of funding for infrastructure, which would enable infrastructure and service improvements especially in the North.
Finally, commuter rail and long distance passenger volumes have grown vastly over the past 20 years, which is a good thing. What is needed is infrastructure investment (particularly in modern signalling systems - ETMS) to enable trains to run much more closely together, and enable a higher service density. However, I think it is unlikely that the government will be prepared to make this investment.
[+] [-] KaiserPro|4 years ago|reply
the reason a lot of services failed so horribly in 2018/2019 was because as OP pointed out, greyling fucked up the timetabling.
Not only that, they decided to pick a fight with the unions on southern rail, which turned out to end in a messy stalemate.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/ has some good references.
[+] [-] mrow84|4 years ago|reply
I struggle to see how much meaningful competition can be achieved, so remain unclear about the value of private ownership, but it strikes me that decentralisation is perfectly within the realm of possibility for a publicly owned entity.
[+] [-] mcdowall|4 years ago|reply
Timetabling (at that point) remained very much a manual process, I think they had to bring a poor chap out of retirement who wrote them by hand.
[+] [-] cirrus-clouds|4 years ago|reply
The report quotes the former boss of British Airways about "greater flexibility in the way that fares are operated in the future"
What does this mean? Can we expect less expensive tickets?
The UK already has some of the most expensive rail tickets in Europe. Yes, you can book in advance for cheaper tickets, but often there is limited availability, and you have to book at least a month or longer in advance. In short, the conditions which make cheaper tickets available are simply impractical for most passengers, especially regular commuters.
Here is a monthly season ticket comparison from 2017: UK vs Continental Europe:
- UK: Luton to London St. Pancras (35 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £387 (approx $547/€448)
- UK: Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Piccadilly (32 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £292 (approx $412 /€344)
- Germany: Dusseldorf to Cologne (28 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £85 (approx $120 /€98)
- France: Mantes-la-Jolie to Paris (34 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £61 (approx $86 /€71)
- Italy: Anzione to Rome (31 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £61 (approx $86 /€71)
- Spain: Aranjuez to Madrid (31 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £75 (approx $106 /€87)
Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/uk-commuters-spend-6-times-much-...
[+] [-] beck5|4 years ago|reply
The private companies have pushed for a very large increase in the number of operating trains, with around a 50% increase in the past couple of decades, they are trying to squeeze every drop possible out if the tracks.
The train companies are also often making a loss on these routes, commonly subsidised by foreign Europeans governments looking to expand their rail business, Dutch or Italian tax payers should be annoyed at how their taxes are being wasted.
Profits are also capped so these are not potential cash cows people suspect. British tickets are expensive because the government doesn't subsidise the ticket price, which is a separate debate.
The Public Vs private debate will continue until the end of time, the truth is there are benefits to both systems.
Disclaimer, my wife is senior in a rail franchise, as well as being left leaning, fwiw.
[+] [-] reedf1|4 years ago|reply
The system is capped and collared meaning their profits are guaranteed by the government as well as limited. This system incentivised them to underperform on their contract, buy assets, claim losses. When the franchise completes they liquidise and pay out big bucks to shareholders. They very much are the cash cows that people think they are.
[+] [-] drawfloat|4 years ago|reply
The one that always stands out to me is the fact that the last train from Liverpool to Sheffield (two major cities) is at 9:30pm because it wasn't profitable to continue services after that time. As a result, flight delays from Liverpool Airport (again, a major airport) can leave you stranded in that city – or facing an eye watering taxi bill.
[+] [-] modo_mario|4 years ago|reply
Last i checked one or 2 examples they ran a profit. Surely they can run a loss/be funded initially but if you get that money back out it's not really what you describe it as no?
[+] [-] carlsborg|4 years ago|reply
https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/27/man-flies-from-newcastle-to-l...
[+] [-] rich_sasha|4 years ago|reply
One example is that different routes have different hardware requirements. And guess what, the only provider who has the right kit available immediately is the one whose contract is just expiring. Please name your price and sign on the dotted line.
[+] [-] maxehmookau|4 years ago|reply
Private companies have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to run train services in the UK. Profit always came before passenger comfort, safety and value for money. I don't believe that the state is better at everything, but in this case they're going to be the least bad option!
[+] [-] gorgoiler|4 years ago|reply
Obviously there are no competing train companies / train tracks / signalling systems. If you want to vote with your wallet you only have two ways of leveraging better service: demand compensation or stop using the trains altogether.
The problem with a nationalised rail system is... it will also have zero accountability to the paying customers!
What would be really helpful would be to have an independent and powerful ombudsman who can crack down on sloppy service, and I’m pleased to see this given brief mention in The Guardian’s coverage. We shall see.
[+] [-] markb139|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterburkimsher|4 years ago|reply
"I told BR to be off. Then they offered me £1000. I said I'm not a man who can be bought. Then they offered me £2000. Good evening."
"We're going to replace the existing fare structure, with a very unfair structure"
"British Rail intend to maintain our standards. But now for the good news!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV2lmSDKvO8
[+] [-] dmje|4 years ago|reply
You absolutely can't build infrastructure, education, health in 4-year cycles. These are 10,20,50+ year projects. Personally I'd have these under control of something cross party, totally away from electioneering.
[+] [-] supernova87a|4 years ago|reply
The logic of privatization seemed odd to me: "You have a choice now -- if you weren't satisfied with the service you received on your trip to Manchester, you can go to Leeds instead!"
[+] [-] flarg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whazor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daverol|4 years ago|reply
"Previous adjudications include, among other things, who was responsible for a train being so crowded that a passenger fainted, causing delays while they were taken off; and whether a pheasant is a small bird (in which case, according to the principles at the time, the train operator was to blame for a delay caused by hitting one) or a large bird (Network Rail's problem)."
[+] [-] intsunny|4 years ago|reply
The Guardian's "UK railways to be simplified but still substantially privatised" seems more accurate:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-ove...
[+] [-] dastx|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jabl|4 years ago|reply
What I don' understand, is that the article says that the 'government has ended rail franchising', which AFAIU was the process where private companies bid to handle certain routes. Now this is to be replaced with 'concessions', which AFAIU is a bidding process where private companies bid to operate certain routes. What's the difference?