3 ms·

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 Franc

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.

gsnedders 7y ago
> That seems... well, beyond idiotic. It's been ongoing for twenty-five years at this point. The initial goal was to improve access especially, and entered into force in 1992. Essentially, to prevent the historic case of (e.g.) a nationalised railway forbidding anyone else operating on their infrastructure (so if you want to run a freight service and the nationalised company don't care? trucks it is!). This also vastly simplified cross-border services as it's then possible to apply for track-access on a non-discriminatory basis, which completely changed the face of the European rail freight market. Note that as of 1 Jan 2019, international and domestic freight and passenger markets are, at a national level, all competitive. The world hasn't fallen apart in most of the EU. I think it's clear plenty did look at the British example and clearly decided to avoid following the British example in many ways. Also I think it's worthwhile pointing out the UK's privatisation has been in some ways a success: subsidy now is much lower per-passenger (and lowering this has been a constant goal across all governments since privatisation), and the financial risk of the success is not borne by the government (and as the NAO concluded, no franchises making loses and/or failing would imply everyone is underbidding and the government is losing money as a result) To me, it's not clear that a return to a nationalised operator would help things in GB; many of the problems come from political imperatives (c.f. "decades as under-funded political football"), and the railway is far more micromanaged by the government today than it ever was under British Rail. By and large the franchising bodies (mostly the DfT) are simply getting the services they ask their contractor for, and passenger should be more directing their annoyance at them; we also have a network that has seen massive growth in passenger numbers and number of services and comparatively little money spent on capacity enhancements to avoid a network run at capacity where a single short-term failure can propagate through large parts of the system. The change that needs to happen is political, and whether ultimate delivery is contracted out is mostly irrelevant.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  OK, that puts a rather different complexion on it. > To me, it's not clear that a return to a nationalised operator would help things in GB; ... the railway is far more micromanaged by the government today than it ever was under British Rail True, whilst I understand the reasoning of Labour's suggestion to re-nationalise, at best we would get a less effective repeat of 1947. 1947-1960 (before Beeching) worked OK in good part because BR still had the shape of the big 4 years. Even if Labour planned, executed and funded perfectly we would, at some point, get a Tory government, who would be inclined to under-fund it. Off we go again, still with infrastructure 50 years behind. I mention nationalisation more as a reason to bring it all back into one whole first -- to split it up more sensibly at the next attempt. Divvying up various bits of all the various companies differently seems challenging. :) The central micromanagement speaks to other UK post-war problems, which also affect rail. We've become one of the most centralised countries there is, whilst talking of smaller government and deregulation. Local funding has been steadily gutted since the end of the general rates. Local authorities used to be able to make far wider reaching decisions, and fund them. They could start, fund or develop local services, such as bus, power or train, and often create a municipal corporation to run it -- hands off. That's the other appeal of returning to the pre-war organisation, it would distance the government from the day to day, and local choices, especially in Scotland, the North etc, might be possible once again. We could add capacity, and undo some of the worst of Beeching. Now if only we could only undo some of the UK's excess centralisation as well...
  - gsnedders 7y ago
    I'm not going to claim there aren't ways nationalisation could play out well (and with a time machine I certainly wouldn't sell BR off), just… I'm dubious with the politically situation in this country that it would end well. Labour's railway plans essentially view nationalisation as the solution to all problems (though it might make people blame those actually making the decisions!), and it would likely take longer than one election cycle for people to realise mere nationalising hasn't made trains run on time, fares go down, etc. Regional bodies having more power and influence (and money, probably with tax raising powers to actually control their supply!) would be a fantastic thing, but I think would be needed before nationalisation would significantly change the British rail scene at this point.

gsnedders 7y ago

> That seems... well, beyond idiotic. It's been ongoing for twenty-five years at this point. The initial goal was to improve access especially, and entered into force in 1992. Essentially, to prevent the historic case of (e.g.) a nationalised railway forbidding anyone else operating on their infrastructure (so if you want to run a freight service and the nationalised company don't care? trucks it is!). This also vastly simplified cross-border services as it's then possible to apply for track-access on a non-discriminatory basis, which completely changed the face of the European rail freight market. Note that as of 1 Jan 2019, international and domestic freight and passenger markets are, at a national level, all competitive. The world hasn't fallen apart in most of the EU. I think it's clear plenty did look at the British example and clearly decided to avoid following the British example in many ways. Also I think it's worthwhile pointing out the UK's privatisation has been in some ways a success: subsidy now is much lower per-passenger (and lowering this has been a constant goal across all governments since privatisation), and the financial risk of the success is not borne by the government (and as the NAO concluded, no franchises making loses and/or failing would imply everyone is underbidding and the government is losing money as a result) To me, it's not clear that a return to a nationalised operator would help things in GB; many of the problems come from political imperatives (c.f. "decades as under-funded political football"), and the railway is far more micromanaged by the government today than it ever was under British Rail. By and large the franchising bodies (mostly the DfT) are simply getting the services they ask their contractor for, and passenger should be more directing their annoyance at them; we also have a network that has seen massive growth in passenger numbers and number of services and comparatively little money spent on capacity enhancements to avoid a network run at capacity where a single short-term failure can propagate through large parts of the system. The change that needs to happen is political, and whether ultimate delivery is contracted out is mostly irrelevant.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
OK, that puts a rather different complexion on it. > To me, it's not clear that a return to a nationalised operator would help things in GB; ... the railway is far more micromanaged by the government today than it ever was under British Rail True, whilst I understand the reasoning of Labour's suggestion to re-nationalise, at best we would get a less effective repeat of 1947. 1947-1960 (before Beeching) worked OK in good part because BR still had the shape of the big 4 years. Even if Labour planned, executed and funded perfectly we would, at some point, get a Tory government, who would be inclined to under-fund it. Off we go again, still with infrastructure 50 years behind. I mention nationalisation more as a reason to bring it all back into one whole first -- to split it up more sensibly at the next attempt. Divvying up various bits of all the various companies differently seems challenging. :) The central micromanagement speaks to other UK post-war problems, which also affect rail. We've become one of the most centralised countries there is, whilst talking of smaller government and deregulation. Local funding has been steadily gutted since the end of the general rates. Local authorities used to be able to make far wider reaching decisions, and fund them. They could start, fund or develop local services, such as bus, power or train, and often create a municipal corporation to run it -- hands off. That's the other appeal of returning to the pre-war organisation, it would distance the government from the day to day, and local choices, especially in Scotland, the North etc, might be possible once again. We could add capacity, and undo some of the worst of Beeching. Now if only we could only undo some of the UK's excess centralisation as well...
- gsnedders 7y ago
  I'm not going to claim there aren't ways nationalisation could play out well (and with a time machine I certainly wouldn't sell BR off), just… I'm dubious with the politically situation in this country that it would end well. Labour's railway plans essentially view nationalisation as the solution to all problems (though it might make people blame those actually making the decisions!), and it would likely take longer than one election cycle for people to realise mere nationalising hasn't made trains run on time, fares go down, etc. Regional bodies having more power and influence (and money, probably with tax raising powers to actually control their supply!) would be a fantastic thing, but I think would be needed before nationalisation would significantly change the British rail scene at this point.