4 ms·

It's a well worn topic. Had they not achieved the weird corporate separation, such that track, train, station building and ticket can all be separate companies

It's a well worn topic. Had they not achieved the weird corporate separation, such that track, train, station building and ticket can all be separate companies putting on a new service, or adjusting timetabling and even putting up new posters could have been achievable things. As is they spend months, and millions going nowhere. [Edit: Not forgetting that station hotels, ferries and hospitality were separated out to yet more companies. Just because.] Had they just gone back to the big 4 of 1921-1947, or created a "medium 8" with extra rights to run charters on the tracks we might have rail that works by now. Then there's the 50+ year story of line and infrastructure upgrades... Each time we update, we seem to update to the previous generation's capability.

simplesleeper 7y ago
Britain runs 20% of Europe's rail journeys. It has the least accidents and deaths of passengers and staff. It is considered the most improved rail network year on year since 1997. It has some of the lowest fares if you book far in advance (and count the cost of subsidisation for foreign fares).
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  How many decades did it take to electrify Europe's busiest line, the West Coast Main Line? Did it become modern? No. It used last generation signalling such that when we had 125mph HST they were limited to 80 and 100, when we bought back BR's APT as 150mph Pendolino they were limited to 1980s HST speeds as the tracks were electrified and upgraded to 125mph. In 2010. The "negotiations" between train operators wanting better rolling stock, railtrack (government), station upgrades and the inconvenient length of franchises made the whole process suitable for a Laurel and Hardy or Buster Keaton movie. Little wonder they're most improved, they gave themselves so much scope...
- lentil_soup 7y ago
  Do you have any sources where I can read more about this? I find it surprising
  - cirrus-clouds 7y ago
    The Office of Rail and Road publish annual safety statistics for UK rail. Here is a link to the 2019 edition. The page linked states: "2018-19 is the twelfth year in a row with no passenger fatalities as a result of a train accident." https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/health-and-safety/rail-safety/ https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/health-and-safety/r... The European Union Agency for Railways (ERAIL) collects statistics for EU countries: https://erail.era.europa.eu/safety-indicators.aspx https://erail.era.europa.eu/safety-indicators.aspx
- the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
  > It has the least accidents and deaths of passengers and staff. I think this is largely only an effect of a lot of rails being third rail and as a result there are fewer crossings.
  - vertex-four 7y ago
    Lots of rail is third rail... in London. The entire rest of the country uses overhead lines. We have been phasing out level crossings wherever possible though.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      South coast was still third rail, last I checked. Has Wales been upgraded since I left? Not that it matters if the power supply affects the number of crossings and those crossings are supposed to be the cause of accidents, new crossings will be rarely built.
- phatfish 7y ago
  No idea if these statistics reflect reality or are just cherry picked, but one of the problems that England has is attempting to cram a everyone into the only city attracts top businesses and talent and then ship them out again. Daily. Germany for example has multiple cities with over 1 in million population that are attractive for business and distribute resources and infrastructure. England has London with around ~7 million in population then Birmingham at 0.9.
  - panarky 7y ago
    The greater Manchester area has a population of 2.5 million.
- cirrus-clouds 7y ago
  "It is considered the most improved rail network year on year since 1997" Improved in what way? Punctuality? Frequency of services? Affordability of tickets? Refurbishment of stations? New rolling stock? It's a claim that doesn't match the experiences of many passengers. What is the source? "It has some of the lowest fares if you book far in advance" Even if this is true, it's little consolation for the vast majority of passengers who need to commute daily. The reality is that, for most passengers, rail in the UK is expensive. 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 - UK: Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Piccadilly (32 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £292 - Germany: Dusseldorf to Cologne (28 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £85 - France: Mantes-la-Jolie to Paris (34 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £61 - Italy: Anzione to Rome (31 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £61 - Spain: Aranjuez to Madrid (31 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £75 Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/uk-commuters-spend-6-times-much-their-salary-rail-fares-other https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/uk...
  - runlevel1 7y ago
    As a point of reference from the US: Dublin/Pleasanton to San Francisco - Embarcadero (35 miles): $6.80 each way, which works out to ~£204 per month for 40 trips.
makomk 7y ago
We should have plenty of tests of that theory in the upcoming years, since the EU decided that this weird seperation is such a good idea they're going to mandate all members do it. If I remember rightly, currently track and train have to be run by totally independent management structures (though as a sop to Germany and co, both can be part of nominally the same umbrella organisation), other companies have to have the right to run passenger services, and in a few years public passenger services will have to be put up for competitive tender UK-style. I'm not sure off-hand what they're doing with station ownership. This was something of an issue in the recent UK election. Obviously, EU membership was a major issue, and one of the main parties also wanted to renationize the railways... which is technically allowed by EU rules, it's just that there's very little point since we wouldn't be able to undo the weird structuring created by privatization.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  That seems... well, beyond idiotic. Have to confess I've not been paying much attention to EU plans for continental railways, I just visit Netherlands and France from time to time and remind myself we could have done so much better. Netherlands has proper integration, France actually stumped up for a proper modernisation and high speed rail. UK had BR's (actually very good) plan that no one paid for... With the number of failed and failing franchises, there's a lot to be said for a new approach, perhaps via a period nationalised to draw a line and start again. It seems patently clear that the post-Beeching nationalised years, decades as under-funded political football, and UK's privatisation were all absolute disasters for passengers... Seems like the EU should look, shake their head, and mutter "definitely not". If it were me, I'd go back to the pre-war big 4 era, where there were a dozen or two smaller companies running parallel competition on some routes, or running goods and charters on big 4 lines. I probably wouldn't reinvent the pre-1921 situation that gave Manchester four stations all essentially overlapping - Central, Victoria, Oxford Road and Exchange. Pre-big 4 company history detangles that! Manchester Piccadilly was lucky in having less parallel competition. What we've lost, and totally forgotten, is just how much those pre-war railway companies did to feed the railways. Hotel stations that were not the manky unloved budget rooms of the seventies through today, but often a premium offering. The railways bought into early bus, ferry and tram services to develop those, and ensure services fed the stations. Integrated transport and travel! Compatible timetabling! Now I have to go to the Netherlands to experience that.

simplesleeper 7y ago

Britain runs 20% of Europe's rail journeys. It has the least accidents and deaths of passengers and staff. It is considered the most improved rail network year on year since 1997. It has some of the lowest fares if you book far in advance (and count the cost of subsidisation for foreign fares).

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
How many decades did it take to electrify Europe's busiest line, the West Coast Main Line? Did it become modern? No. It used last generation signalling such that when we had 125mph HST they were limited to 80 and 100, when we bought back BR's APT as 150mph Pendolino they were limited to 1980s HST speeds as the tracks were electrified and upgraded to 125mph. In 2010. The "negotiations" between train operators wanting better rolling stock, railtrack (government), station upgrades and the inconvenient length of franchises made the whole process suitable for a Laurel and Hardy or Buster Keaton movie. Little wonder they're most improved, they gave themselves so much scope...
lentil_soup 7y ago
Do you have any sources where I can read more about this? I find it surprising
- cirrus-clouds 7y ago
  The Office of Rail and Road publish annual safety statistics for UK rail. Here is a link to the 2019 edition. The page linked states: "2018-19 is the twelfth year in a row with no passenger fatalities as a result of a train accident." https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/health-and-safety/rail-safety/ https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/health-and-safety/r... The European Union Agency for Railways (ERAIL) collects statistics for EU countries: https://erail.era.europa.eu/safety-indicators.aspx https://erail.era.europa.eu/safety-indicators.aspx
the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
> It has the least accidents and deaths of passengers and staff. I think this is largely only an effect of a lot of rails being third rail and as a result there are fewer crossings.
- vertex-four 7y ago
  Lots of rail is third rail... in London. The entire rest of the country uses overhead lines. We have been phasing out level crossings wherever possible though.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    South coast was still third rail, last I checked. Has Wales been upgraded since I left? Not that it matters if the power supply affects the number of crossings and those crossings are supposed to be the cause of accidents, new crossings will be rarely built.
phatfish 7y ago
No idea if these statistics reflect reality or are just cherry picked, but one of the problems that England has is attempting to cram a everyone into the only city attracts top businesses and talent and then ship them out again. Daily. Germany for example has multiple cities with over 1 in million population that are attractive for business and distribute resources and infrastructure. England has London with around ~7 million in population then Birmingham at 0.9.
- panarky 7y ago
  The greater Manchester area has a population of 2.5 million.
cirrus-clouds 7y ago
"It is considered the most improved rail network year on year since 1997" Improved in what way? Punctuality? Frequency of services? Affordability of tickets? Refurbishment of stations? New rolling stock? It's a claim that doesn't match the experiences of many passengers. What is the source? "It has some of the lowest fares if you book far in advance" Even if this is true, it's little consolation for the vast majority of passengers who need to commute daily. The reality is that, for most passengers, rail in the UK is expensive. 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 - UK: Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Piccadilly (32 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £292 - Germany: Dusseldorf to Cologne (28 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £85 - France: Mantes-la-Jolie to Paris (34 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £61 - Italy: Anzione to Rome (31 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £61 - Spain: Aranjuez to Madrid (31 miles) | Monthly season ticket cost: £75 Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/uk-commuters-spend-6-times-much-their-salary-rail-fares-other https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/uk...
- runlevel1 7y ago
  As a point of reference from the US: Dublin/Pleasanton to San Francisco - Embarcadero (35 miles): $6.80 each way, which works out to ~£204 per month for 40 trips.

makomk 7y ago

We should have plenty of tests of that theory in the upcoming years, since the EU decided that this weird seperation is such a good idea they're going to mandate all members do it. If I remember rightly, currently track and train have to be run by totally independent management structures (though as a sop to Germany and co, both can be part of nominally the same umbrella organisation), other companies have to have the right to run passenger services, and in a few years public passenger services will have to be put up for competitive tender UK-style. I'm not sure off-hand what they're doing with station ownership. This was something of an issue in the recent UK election. Obviously, EU membership was a major issue, and one of the main parties also wanted to renationize the railways... which is technically allowed by EU rules, it's just that there's very little point since we wouldn't be able to undo the weird structuring created by privatization.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
That seems... well, beyond idiotic. Have to confess I've not been paying much attention to EU plans for continental railways, I just visit Netherlands and France from time to time and remind myself we could have done so much better. Netherlands has proper integration, France actually stumped up for a proper modernisation and high speed rail. UK had BR's (actually very good) plan that no one paid for... With the number of failed and failing franchises, there's a lot to be said for a new approach, perhaps via a period nationalised to draw a line and start again. It seems patently clear that the post-Beeching nationalised years, decades as under-funded political football, and UK's privatisation were all absolute disasters for passengers... Seems like the EU should look, shake their head, and mutter "definitely not". If it were me, I'd go back to the pre-war big 4 era, where there were a dozen or two smaller companies running parallel competition on some routes, or running goods and charters on big 4 lines. I probably wouldn't reinvent the pre-1921 situation that gave Manchester four stations all essentially overlapping - Central, Victoria, Oxford Road and Exchange. Pre-big 4 company history detangles that! Manchester Piccadilly was lucky in having less parallel competition. What we've lost, and totally forgotten, is just how much those pre-war railway companies did to feed the railways. Hotel stations that were not the manky unloved budget rooms of the seventies through today, but often a premium offering. The railways bought into early bus, ferry and tram services to develop those, and ensure services fed the stations. Integrated transport and travel! Compatible timetabling! Now I have to go to the Netherlands to experience that.