23 ms·

UK Rail services to come under unified state control

277 points by petewailes 5y ago

bogdan 5y ago
Working link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
- mattowen_uk 5y ago
  Dang.
  - mattowen_uk 5y ago
    Um, I was flagging to dang that the URL was broken. Thanks for the nice down votes tho!
rich_sasha 5y ago
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.
- bennyp101 5y ago
  One would hope that being a single entity at the top, they would be able to help negotiate better rates around the country .. but then as it is a government project it will probably end up more expensive!
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    I read the article with that question in mind, it doesn’t mention any changes to sourcing the contractors.
    - CaptArmchair 5y ago
      Here's the formal press release from the UK government: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/great-british-railways-for-the-passenger https://www.gov.uk/government/news/great-british-railways-fo... And this is the actual document weighing in at 116 pages: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987752/gbr-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Pages 52 and onwards: "Replacing franchising" details the exact vision on how those contracts are to be set up. It states: > TfL Overground services and many railways across Europe, including local and regional services in Germany and Sweden, use a concession model to contract with private partners to operate trains. These contracts have been more successful than franchising in enabling operators to be held to account for running trains on time, delivering passenger satisfaction and controlling costs. > Our new system of Passenger Service Contracts will build on this approach. Great British Railways will specify the timetables, branding, most fares and other aspects of the service and agree a fee with the competitively-procured passenger service operator to provide the service to this specification. In most contracts, fare revenue will go to Great British Railways, with operators delivering to the specification and managing their costs in doing so. Operators will take cost risk but will need to balance that with service quality, in order to be efficient while also meeting the needs of passengers. > Operators will be held accountable and risk termination of their contracts if they are not delivering punctual, effcient and high-quality services. The government will retain its operator of last resort function to enable services to continue seamlessly for passengers in such cases, just as it did with Northern Rail in early 2020. Learning from the experience of the pandemic, it will adapt this function as the sector is reformed so that operators can be held to account more effectively to targets in their contracts and so that interventions can be made in the interests of passengers and taxpayers if this is required. > Passenger Service Contracts should broaden interest and open up the market to new commercial partners, including those who can help to modernize and improve the railways by bringing expertise in technology and innovation. This diversity should increase competition between bidders and therefore create better outcomes for taxpayers and passengers alike. It's a white paper on which there's a consensus: "this is how we would like to move forward". It's not a detailed business plan though. The entire thing only exists on paper at the moment. The next steps are working on a concrete implementation. Which can still deviate in many regards from this vision. The UK already axed the franchising model late last year. There's a concrete need to replace it with a different model. That's what this paper is trying to answer. And there's a clear vote for a "concession model" over a "franchising model" The questions you're posing are valid, but they pertain to the finer details. The answer you're going to get if you'd ask those involved would be: "we're going to figure this out in the next stage."
- bauc 5y ago
  I thought all the rolling stock was owned by a different company to the ones running the actual franchises. Which is separate from controlling the timetable. Although very confusing.
- jlokier 5y ago
  That didn't work for Virgin trains, after running a service for 22 years, undoubtedly still having the right kit in place, and probably the best on-station support staff in the UK for disabled travellers. It was a good service, shame to see it go. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/10/stagecoach-barred-from-rail-franchise-bids-over-pensions-row https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/10/stagecoach-...
  - breakfastduck 5y ago
    I found it ironic that Virgin lost their contract, considering they operate by far the best service in the UK.
mvzvm 5y ago
Good. This is wildly overdue. The privatization of public infrastructure (ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail) was a crime of the highest corruption. Edit: Link broke? Edit 2: Thank you @bogdan https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
- carnagecity786 5y ago
  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.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    Re infrastructure, my worst memories involve commuting between Oxford and London (a major rail route in the grand scheme of things) and it breaking down a few times a month, especially in winter, due to “signalling failures”. It turns out rail signals were controlled by buried cables without adequate insulation, so when it was wet they literally stopped working. And yes, this was 21st century, not steam trains.
    - Y_Y 5y ago
      Alas this seems to be best served by bus nowadays. The buses are comfortable and cheap, and connect several places in Oxford to Victoria coach station.
whazor 5y ago
Applause for the Transport Supremo for getting this done (for reference check Bed of Nails from Yes Minister).
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Ah yes, the Transport Muggins!
cies 5y ago
And so the privatization experiment come to an end. Bye bye Thatcherism. I hope this silly belief in the cure-all of "small govt" will die with it. Sure govt's should not supply all food, or luxury good, or ... But public transport, schools, hospitals, ... I think we should make a good set of rules by which we can decide which typed of biz should be in private hands, and what we prefer public. The Fed, Blackwater, prisons, rail, hospitals, banks... What could possibly go wrong?
- leskat 5y ago
  For what it's worth, even Thatcher thought rail privatisation was "a privatisation too far" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#...
  - cies 5y ago
    Thatcherism went beyond the namesake :)
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > The Fed, Blackwater, prisons, rail, hospitals, banks... What could possibly go wrong? This is not a universal truth. Come enjoy an African government hospital, then sample one of the listed private hospitals.
  - fnord123 5y ago
    "There exists a private hospital in a country of superior quality to a public hospital in the same country" is a weak claim. Even weaker is "there exists a private hospital in the world of superior quality to a public hospital also in the world".
    - samatman 5y ago
      I'm fairly certain that the claim you're replying to is that private hospitals in the countries in question are consistently better than public ones.
matsemann 5y ago
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.
- pjc50 5y ago
  The best description of this I've seen is "playing at shops": there's no real market, it's just set up to look like one.
  - jonplackett 5y ago
    The other crazy side to it is that the government still own and pay for the track - the only bit that doesn’t even make any money. And is crazy expensive! Privatise the profit, socialise the loss.
    - jabl 5y ago
      Tracks are certainly very valuable infrastructure, it's just hard to monetize (and very expensive to build, as you say). So in a way it makes sense for the government to handle it.
peterburkimsher 5y ago
For anyone who appreciates 1980s British comedy, there's a sketch by Ronnie Barker about the joys of British Rail. "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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV2lmSDKvO8
Neil44 5y ago
This is very strange. The BBC article has gone 404 and there’s nothing on the guardian or daily mail. But I also heard this discussed on radio 4 earlier. Odd. 8:04am.
- Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-overhaul-privatised-great-british-railways- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-ove...
petewailes 5y ago
They changed the URL after I posted it. Can someone update it?
markb139 5y ago
Sounds like it's going to be similar to the local London trains. i.e private companies running the system with "Transport for London" branding.
cybervegan 5y ago
OP's URL doesn't work for me, but the article is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
flarg 5y ago
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.
- kmlx 5y ago
  Japan managed to do it just fine. Completely private, excellent service, fastest trains, huge infrastructure.
  - theYipster 5y ago
    As far as I've seen, Japan is the only country that can make a complex rail system work with private actors. There are many factors for this, including: 1. Japanese rail operators are in most cases multi-industry conglomerates that own land, surrounding infrastructure, hotels, retail, and more. 2. The national investment in rail in Japan is much greater than that in the UK. 3. Modern post-war Japan was literally built around the rail network, and this was not accidental nor a matter of happenstance. Rail access is ubiquitous across urban and suburban areas (not just in Tokyo,) and even rural rail services are in a different category than those in the UK.
speps 5y ago
Another point of view: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-overhaul-privatised-great-british-railways- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-ove...
heurisko 5y ago
The link is now 404, new link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
onethought 5y ago
Love to be proved wrong. But public transport's goal never was to turn a profit. It's a public good, and should be measured by its "public good"ness. Extracting profit feels like something that disproportionately targets the poor/working class and leads to either an exploited workforce and worse service... without a reduction in overall costs. Now this trend of a "Nationalised Brand" over a "privatised service" just feels like insult to injury... Can capitalism hurry up and eat itself so we can try something else...
- kmlx 5y ago
  Japan is completely privatised, extremely efficient, huge network, fastest trains in the world, and is profitable. One of the many ways they did it was by converting stations into mini-malls and charging rent. Also, a strong partnership with the state helped.
  - onethought 5y ago
    Huge network... Japan... sure if you’re Taiwan I guess you’d think it’s huge.
    - kmlx 5y ago
      for the size and the topography of the country, yes, it's huge. shinkansen network alone is 1700 miles. or, if you prefer a larger country, china's network is 24000 miles.
      - onethought 5y ago
        ... Chinas rail is state owned enterprise... kind of proving my point.
OJFord 5y ago
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...
- flipbrad 5y ago
  I'm sorry to say, but these plans still see routes being operated by private companies awarded multiyear contracts...
  - kitd 5y ago
    Pricing and scheduling are to be centralised though AIUI
  - tomxor 5y ago
    Perhaps, but: > The government says the new system should look more like Transport for London, with multiple operators under one brand, offering greater accountability when things go wrong. If it introduces more accountability, it's basically doing it's job. Multiyear contracts do not mean no accountability. I'm not a regular passenger but my understanding is that reliability of current service is generally poor with little to no recourse.
    - pydry 5y ago
      I didn't see any promises about additional recourse. It seems to be more about bureaucratic consolidation than accountability. This is not the nationalisation and price freezes promised by Corbyn.
beck5 5y ago
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.
- reedf1 5y ago
  > 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.
  - breakfastduck 5y ago
    Yes, the comment you've replied to is spouting a pretty important mis-truth by trying to make out they aren't profitable for the franchisee.
  - beck5 5y ago
    Some of the franchises did make decent profits, westcost/virgin etc. This generally happens at the end of the franchise once most of the up front investment happened. A lot of other franchises make a loss so it isn't quite so black and white. With the previous model a lot of the risk was on the private company, if times were good profits were there, in bad times they made losses. Now with the new model the risk has gone over to the UK government, for better or worse. The new setup should guarantee a low level of profitability for private companies, with a theoretical lower max, what will be interesting is to see how many companies actually bid. The private companies actually own very little when running a franchise, most things are leased, such as rolling stock which is largely owned by German funds if memory serves. Investments into stations/parking/ticketing etc is left in place for the next person to take the keys.
supernova87a 5y ago
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!"
- scatters 5y ago
  Some intercity routes are (were) open access, particularly the East Coast. Of course this was dependent on spare capacity being available.
gorgoiler 5y ago
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.
dmje 5y ago
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.
carlsborg 5y ago
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. https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/27/man-flies-from-newcastle-to-london-via-spain-because-its-cheaper-than-the-train-6737975/ https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/27/man-flies-from-newcastle-to-l...
- baby 5y ago
  Yup. I lived in London for a year and pretty much just traveled by train the whole time. I feel like I missed out on a lot of cool trips around the city because train tickets were absurdly expensive.
- switch007 5y ago
  Are you suggesting fares will come down? If so, based on what?
- Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
  There is no way the Treasury has agreed to renationalisation in order to put the fares down. Expect them to go up, if anything.
- abainbridge 5y ago
  Isn't transport by plane just cheaper to provide than rail? You don't need to maintain railway lines, bridges, tunnels, points, overhead power lines, signalling or intermediate stations. Routing congestion is reduced because planes can move in 3D. There is no rolling resistance and air friction is reduced due to flying high-up where the air is thin. Airports are built away from city centres, where land is cheap. The natural monopolies of rail-track providers are avoided. I think it would be amazing if train travel was as cheap as air travel.
  - markus92 5y ago
    The energy requirements are vastly different, rolling stock is a lot cheaper than airframes etc.
steve_gh 5y ago
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.
- mrow84 5y ago
  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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Jolter 5y ago
Moved to url: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57176858
edf13 5y ago
Page not found??
michaelt 5y ago
The UK's rail "privatisation" has always been bizarre, for practical reasons. * Because rail is vital national infrastructure, important to keeping congestion down, and needs to be accessible even to poor people, every train operator receives government subsidies. * So travellers can buy tickets for a complex four-train itinerary and large stations can have multiple operators sharing platforms, much of the ticketing system (including the main types of ticket on offer) is centrally controlled. * Because it would be nigh-impossible to have multiple companies trains with different prices (or different on-time performance) operating on the same route, each route is essentially a monopoly †. * To prevent price-gouging of commuters on monopoly services, the rate of increase of ticket prices is capped by government. (And yet despite the subsidies and price caps, some train tickets remain absurdly expensive) * It would be absurd for a company losing a rail franchise to get stuck with a bunch of trains they no longer need, or a bunch of employees in the wrong part of the country they have to fire. So when a rail franchise changes hands, the trains, drivers, stations, and station staff move with it. * Any long-term investments in things like new trains won't pay off in the duration of a single rail franchise - so they have to be agreed with the government upfront. * Rail workers are represented by powerful unions, and industrial disputes tank the train operators' performance numbers, so operators can't control their staffing costs - they can only wait out a long industrial dispute with government backing. * To prevent rural communities losing their rail service (or having it reduced to unusable levels) the government tells the franchisee where the trains must stop, and how often. * Because tracks and signals all have to be maintained to the same national standards, and often multiple trains will use the same tracks, the train operators don't own the tracks or signalling equipment. So they can't upgrade track for automation or to run more/faster/more reliable services. * Because re-tendering a franchise is very time-consuming, train operators who under-perform are seldom replaced or punished (except by making less money than they hoped they would) All of this means the train operators are boxed in on every side - Can't run more trains, can't run fewer trains, can't raise prices, can't change pricing models, can't embrace tech like driverless trains, can't cut staff. Their only powers seem to be choosing the train's colour scheme, taking the blame for poor performance, and giving some bigwig a fat salary. Given that the trains have always been de-facto under state control, making that true de-jure makes sense. † Except for one or two services like london-to-birmingham, and competition from cars and teleworking.
baby 5y ago
France went private more than a decade ago. It made no sense to me at the time, I’m wondering what’s the post mortem on that.
dastx 5y ago
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.
jp0d 5y ago
This is a working link. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57176858
maxehmookau 5y ago
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!
cirrus-clouds 5y ago
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) Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/uk-commuters-spend-6-times-much-their-salary-rail-fares-other-european-passengers https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/uk-commuters-spend-6-times-much-...
- midasuni 5y ago
  Why should frequent travellers get 50% plus discounts on journeys? When I travel to london I pay about £1 a mile in the peak on a fast train. A season ticket holder pays about 20p a mile.
  - breakfastduck 5y ago
    Because buying in bulk gets you a discount, one of the most universally understood things in economics.
    - midasuni 5y ago
      That’s not what it is though - if I buy 20x £300 returns it costs £6,000. If I buy a monthly season ticket for the same journeys it costs £1500. It’s rare to get such large discounts too.
apexalpha 5y ago
I've found that these two YouTube video's do an okay job explaining the actual 'market forces' actually at play here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJ94o1B0qI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJ94o1B0qI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTq8DbRs4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTq8DbRs4k It takes a bit of understanding why regular market forces kind of can't apply to a system like rail transport.
jonplackett 5y ago
There must be a better way to set up incentives. Eg. Company is chosen - they get a temporary monopoly on a route, for free instead of having to pitch a ridiculous low ball But... Every time a train is late, they pay £100,000 Every time a train is cancelled they pay £1,000,000 They pay £10 for every passenger complaint. Etc etc
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Why would a company sign up to be flogged like this, though?
- ferongr 5y ago
  Does the state pay the company when delays, cancellations and passenger complaints are a result of publicly owned infrastructure and timetable planning?
- gsnedders 5y ago
  The existing management contracts pre-COVID19 (primarily London Overground and the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern railway (yes, that's all one company!)) _did_ have penalties for late running, partial cancellations, or full cancellations. One can argue whether increasing the fines would lead to better service, or whether it would just increase the cost they bid for the concession to cover those costs, effectively resulting in increased subsidy. There's also the fact that in many cases there's limitations to what the concession can do: the existing ones have had much decided by the body granting the concession (such as rolling stock, thus limiting their ability to procure more reliable rolling stock if needed), and they don't have any control over infrastructure (and e.g. signal failures or flooding).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jabl 5y ago
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?
- dua2020 5y ago
  A concession means the private company operates the railway for a set fee and a set operational standard, the state owner will retain ticket revenue (and risk). This is how the London Overground concession works. A franchise basically gives all operation responsibilities and ticket revenue to the private operator, in return, the private operator gives a lump sum bid for the contract at the beginning.
danjac 5y ago
Page 404s. A bit like a British rail scheduled service.
- makomk 5y ago
  Some issue with the bbc.com vs bbc.co.uk split I assume. The UK version is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
intsunny 5y ago
The title seems heavily editorialized. 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-overhaul-privatised-great-british-railways- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-ove...
daverol 5y ago
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)."
chillydawg 5y ago
I'm looking forward to seeing the new GBR company privatised in 20 years, making a small group of people a very large amount of money. Again.
ourmandave 5y ago
I'm reading all the comments here in my head with a proper British accent.
jpswade 5y ago
This is fantastic news.
Tsiklon 5y ago
I hope this decision leads to better value railway journeys for regular people. I love taking the train places, for me when I’m going on holiday the journey is part of it, I find rail travel to be low stress and relaxing. The trip from St Pancras to Amsterdam (4hours) was very calm. I hope that one outcome of this change is that other people rediscover leisure travel by rail. That said the anorak in me will miss all the different liveries for each of the companies
dash2 5y ago
I suspect a key divide in reaction to this news is between those of us who are member British Rail and those of us who don’t. I do. It was like stabbing yourself with broken glass.
sir-alien 5y ago
If you want to see a good train service look at Japan. Went there for a holiday and used the train service all over. They are a classic example of what a train service "should" be like. Fast, efficient, cost-effective. The only time trains was a little difficult was in the super-peak hours on the underground in the very dense parts of the cities. I think the world should learn from Japan in many aspects.
- tailsdog 5y ago
  They also apparently make a rather healthy profit
- yboris 5y ago
  I'd like to second that - Japan has an amazing train (and subway) system. Here's a great explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFpG3yf3Rxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFpG3yf3Rxk
0898 5y ago
It's not impossible that one day our rail network could stand shoulder to shoulder with GOV.UK and the NHS – which I don't think it's too hyperbolic to suggest are both the envy of the world.
elric 5y ago
This is an interesting shift. When I lived in the UK, I was rather fond of how well public transport worked - in general, and trains specifically. In my native Belgium, on the other hand, it's all basically shit. While Belgium is slowly pushing for less state control in public transport (allegedly on account of EU competition rules), the UK is now changing direction. Can anyone summarize the background of this decision? Has there been passenger backlash against the current system?
- stdbrouw 5y ago
  Guess it depends on what you consider to be shit. Public transport in Belgium is incredibly widespread and affordable, and while trains are somewhat often delayed (but people love to kvetch and exaggerate all the time, https://punctuality.belgiantrain.be/nl/dashboard https://punctuality.belgiantrain.be/nl/dashboard) due to years of neglect of the infrastructure, at least you don't have to pay an arm and a leg as you would for e.g. a short trip between London and Brighton. Public transport in London is pretty good, but doesn't strike me as being way better than it is in big cities in Belgium like Antwerp or Brussels.
  - elric 5y ago
    Their way of calculating punctuality is pretty misleading. It takes into account the predicted arrival at the final destination, without taking into account where passengers actually go. Delays along the route are hidden that way, even though most passengers don't go from origin to terminus, i.e. hardly anyone travels from Liège to Ostend, but the start & end of that 2hour+ journey are what's used to compute delays. If they were to count what percentage of passengers arrived on time, things would look radically different. Adding to that: a 5 minute delay on a 2hr journey is fine, but a 5 minute delay on a 12 minute journey is awful. As for cheap .. I wouldn't exactly call trains cheap in Belgium. Especially if you factor in how uncomfortable they are, how most stations have zero accessibility options, how frequently things go terribly wrong, and how nonexistently awful their customer support is.
    - stdbrouw 5y ago
DrBazza 5y ago
Lots of comments about how this is a good thing, but if private companies are still running the trains, and fares are set centrally, how are they expected to make a profit? Reduce the staff, or reduce the staff salaries. Either way, unions get involved and there will be strikes just like the "good old days". More retail in and around stations perhaps? I look forward to being able to just a buy a single ticket from X to Y and one that perhaps doesn't cost 5-10 times as much as it would to drive.
saos 5y ago
Still loads of smoke. I want to see the fare prices. If they’re flexible and affordable then maybe I can move out of London!!
dangerboysteve 5y ago
the people on the Wendover YouTube channel did a video on this back in March which explained the issue really well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTq8DbRs4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTq8DbRs4k
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
A tried and true management system: To appear effective, centralize things that are distributed, and distribute things that are centralized. You can claim benefits either way. And in a few years, put it all back again and claim more benefits.
DanBC 5y ago
I want to know how much money will be spent painting fucking Union Jacks on all the trains.
nw05678 5y ago
I still hate Thatcher.
bsd44 5y ago
Yes please! It's long overdue! The state of current rail services cannot possibly be any worse!
alecco 5y ago
I know this one. Privatize and pocket money. Mismanagement with both unions and suppliers lining their pockets for a while. Then bailouts and/or expropriation and the bill goes to the taxpayer, again. Rinse, repeat.
nasmorn 5y ago
8000 pounds for a 50min train ride season ticket is absolutely insane. Are the trains fancy like the orient express?

277 points by petewailes 5y ago

bogdan 5y ago

Working link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858

mattowen_uk 5y ago
Dang.
- mattowen_uk 5y ago
  Um, I was flagging to dang that the URL was broken. Thanks for the nice down votes tho!

rich_sasha 5y ago

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.

bennyp101 5y ago
One would hope that being a single entity at the top, they would be able to help negotiate better rates around the country .. but then as it is a government project it will probably end up more expensive!
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  I read the article with that question in mind, it doesn’t mention any changes to sourcing the contractors.
  - CaptArmchair 5y ago
    Here's the formal press release from the UK government: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/great-british-railways-for-the-passenger https://www.gov.uk/government/news/great-british-railways-fo... And this is the actual document weighing in at 116 pages: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987752/gbr-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Pages 52 and onwards: "Replacing franchising" details the exact vision on how those contracts are to be set up. It states: > TfL Overground services and many railways across Europe, including local and regional services in Germany and Sweden, use a concession model to contract with private partners to operate trains. These contracts have been more successful than franchising in enabling operators to be held to account for running trains on time, delivering passenger satisfaction and controlling costs. > Our new system of Passenger Service Contracts will build on this approach. Great British Railways will specify the timetables, branding, most fares and other aspects of the service and agree a fee with the competitively-procured passenger service operator to provide the service to this specification. In most contracts, fare revenue will go to Great British Railways, with operators delivering to the specification and managing their costs in doing so. Operators will take cost risk but will need to balance that with service quality, in order to be efficient while also meeting the needs of passengers. > Operators will be held accountable and risk termination of their contracts if they are not delivering punctual, effcient and high-quality services. The government will retain its operator of last resort function to enable services to continue seamlessly for passengers in such cases, just as it did with Northern Rail in early 2020. Learning from the experience of the pandemic, it will adapt this function as the sector is reformed so that operators can be held to account more effectively to targets in their contracts and so that interventions can be made in the interests of passengers and taxpayers if this is required. > Passenger Service Contracts should broaden interest and open up the market to new commercial partners, including those who can help to modernize and improve the railways by bringing expertise in technology and innovation. This diversity should increase competition between bidders and therefore create better outcomes for taxpayers and passengers alike. It's a white paper on which there's a consensus: "this is how we would like to move forward". It's not a detailed business plan though. The entire thing only exists on paper at the moment. The next steps are working on a concrete implementation. Which can still deviate in many regards from this vision. The UK already axed the franchising model late last year. There's a concrete need to replace it with a different model. That's what this paper is trying to answer. And there's a clear vote for a "concession model" over a "franchising model" The questions you're posing are valid, but they pertain to the finer details. The answer you're going to get if you'd ask those involved would be: "we're going to figure this out in the next stage."
bauc 5y ago
I thought all the rolling stock was owned by a different company to the ones running the actual franchises. Which is separate from controlling the timetable. Although very confusing.
jlokier 5y ago
That didn't work for Virgin trains, after running a service for 22 years, undoubtedly still having the right kit in place, and probably the best on-station support staff in the UK for disabled travellers. It was a good service, shame to see it go. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/10/stagecoach-barred-from-rail-franchise-bids-over-pensions-row https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/10/stagecoach-...
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  I found it ironic that Virgin lost their contract, considering they operate by far the best service in the UK.

mvzvm 5y ago

Good. This is wildly overdue. The privatization of public infrastructure (ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail) was a crime of the highest corruption. Edit: Link broke? Edit 2: Thank you @bogdan https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858

carnagecity786 5y ago
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.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Re infrastructure, my worst memories involve commuting between Oxford and London (a major rail route in the grand scheme of things) and it breaking down a few times a month, especially in winter, due to “signalling failures”. It turns out rail signals were controlled by buried cables without adequate insulation, so when it was wet they literally stopped working. And yes, this was 21st century, not steam trains.
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    Alas this seems to be best served by bus nowadays. The buses are comfortable and cheap, and connect several places in Oxford to Victoria coach station.

whazor 5y ago

Applause for the Transport Supremo for getting this done (for reference check Bed of Nails from Yes Minister).

rich_sasha 5y ago
Ah yes, the Transport Muggins!

cies 5y ago

And so the privatization experiment come to an end. Bye bye Thatcherism. I hope this silly belief in the cure-all of "small govt" will die with it. Sure govt's should not supply all food, or luxury good, or ... But public transport, schools, hospitals, ... I think we should make a good set of rules by which we can decide which typed of biz should be in private hands, and what we prefer public. The Fed, Blackwater, prisons, rail, hospitals, banks... What could possibly go wrong?

leskat 5y ago
For what it's worth, even Thatcher thought rail privatisation was "a privatisation too far" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#...
- cies 5y ago
  Thatcherism went beyond the namesake :)
throwaway210222 5y ago
> The Fed, Blackwater, prisons, rail, hospitals, banks... What could possibly go wrong? This is not a universal truth. Come enjoy an African government hospital, then sample one of the listed private hospitals.
- fnord123 5y ago
  "There exists a private hospital in a country of superior quality to a public hospital in the same country" is a weak claim. Even weaker is "there exists a private hospital in the world of superior quality to a public hospital also in the world".
  - samatman 5y ago
    I'm fairly certain that the claim you're replying to is that private hospitals in the countries in question are consistently better than public ones.

matsemann 5y ago

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.

pjc50 5y ago
The best description of this I've seen is "playing at shops": there's no real market, it's just set up to look like one.
- jonplackett 5y ago
  The other crazy side to it is that the government still own and pay for the track - the only bit that doesn’t even make any money. And is crazy expensive! Privatise the profit, socialise the loss.
  - jabl 5y ago
    Tracks are certainly very valuable infrastructure, it's just hard to monetize (and very expensive to build, as you say). So in a way it makes sense for the government to handle it.

peterburkimsher 5y ago

For anyone who appreciates 1980s British comedy, there's a sketch by Ronnie Barker about the joys of British Rail. "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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV2lmSDKvO8

Neil44 5y ago

This is very strange. The BBC article has gone 404 and there’s nothing on the guardian or daily mail. But I also heard this discussed on radio 4 earlier. Odd. 8:04am.

Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-overhaul-privatised-great-british-railways- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-ove...

petewailes 5y ago

They changed the URL after I posted it. Can someone update it?

markb139 5y ago

Sounds like it's going to be similar to the local London trains. i.e private companies running the system with "Transport for London" branding.

cybervegan 5y ago

OP's URL doesn't work for me, but the article is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858

flarg 5y ago

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.

kmlx 5y ago
Japan managed to do it just fine. Completely private, excellent service, fastest trains, huge infrastructure.
- theYipster 5y ago
  As far as I've seen, Japan is the only country that can make a complex rail system work with private actors. There are many factors for this, including: 1. Japanese rail operators are in most cases multi-industry conglomerates that own land, surrounding infrastructure, hotels, retail, and more. 2. The national investment in rail in Japan is much greater than that in the UK. 3. Modern post-war Japan was literally built around the rail network, and this was not accidental nor a matter of happenstance. Rail access is ubiquitous across urban and suburban areas (not just in Tokyo,) and even rural rail services are in a different category than those in the UK.

speps 5y ago

Another point of view: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-overhaul-privatised-great-british-railways- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-ove...

heurisko 5y ago

The link is now 404, new link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858

onethought 5y ago

Love to be proved wrong. But public transport's goal never was to turn a profit. It's a public good, and should be measured by its "public good"ness. Extracting profit feels like something that disproportionately targets the poor/working class and leads to either an exploited workforce and worse service... without a reduction in overall costs. Now this trend of a "Nationalised Brand" over a "privatised service" just feels like insult to injury... Can capitalism hurry up and eat itself so we can try something else...

kmlx 5y ago
Japan is completely privatised, extremely efficient, huge network, fastest trains in the world, and is profitable. One of the many ways they did it was by converting stations into mini-malls and charging rent. Also, a strong partnership with the state helped.
- onethought 5y ago
  Huge network... Japan... sure if you’re Taiwan I guess you’d think it’s huge.
  - kmlx 5y ago
    for the size and the topography of the country, yes, it's huge. shinkansen network alone is 1700 miles. or, if you prefer a larger country, china's network is 24000 miles.
    - onethought 5y ago
      ... Chinas rail is state owned enterprise... kind of proving my point.

OJFord 5y ago

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...

flipbrad 5y ago
I'm sorry to say, but these plans still see routes being operated by private companies awarded multiyear contracts...
- kitd 5y ago
  Pricing and scheduling are to be centralised though AIUI
- tomxor 5y ago
  Perhaps, but: > The government says the new system should look more like Transport for London, with multiple operators under one brand, offering greater accountability when things go wrong. If it introduces more accountability, it's basically doing it's job. Multiyear contracts do not mean no accountability. I'm not a regular passenger but my understanding is that reliability of current service is generally poor with little to no recourse.
  - pydry 5y ago
    I didn't see any promises about additional recourse. It seems to be more about bureaucratic consolidation than accountability. This is not the nationalisation and price freezes promised by Corbyn.

beck5 5y ago

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.

reedf1 5y ago
> 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.
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  Yes, the comment you've replied to is spouting a pretty important mis-truth by trying to make out they aren't profitable for the franchisee.
- beck5 5y ago
  Some of the franchises did make decent profits, westcost/virgin etc. This generally happens at the end of the franchise once most of the up front investment happened. A lot of other franchises make a loss so it isn't quite so black and white. With the previous model a lot of the risk was on the private company, if times were good profits were there, in bad times they made losses. Now with the new model the risk has gone over to the UK government, for better or worse. The new setup should guarantee a low level of profitability for private companies, with a theoretical lower max, what will be interesting is to see how many companies actually bid. The private companies actually own very little when running a franchise, most things are leased, such as rolling stock which is largely owned by German funds if memory serves. Investments into stations/parking/ticketing etc is left in place for the next person to take the keys.

supernova87a 5y ago

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!"

scatters 5y ago
Some intercity routes are (were) open access, particularly the East Coast. Of course this was dependent on spare capacity being available.

gorgoiler 5y ago

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.

dmje 5y ago

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.

carlsborg 5y ago

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. https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/27/man-flies-from-newcastle-to-london-via-spain-because-its-cheaper-than-the-train-6737975/ https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/27/man-flies-from-newcastle-to-l...

baby 5y ago
Yup. I lived in London for a year and pretty much just traveled by train the whole time. I feel like I missed out on a lot of cool trips around the city because train tickets were absurdly expensive.
switch007 5y ago
Are you suggesting fares will come down? If so, based on what?
Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
There is no way the Treasury has agreed to renationalisation in order to put the fares down. Expect them to go up, if anything.
abainbridge 5y ago
Isn't transport by plane just cheaper to provide than rail? You don't need to maintain railway lines, bridges, tunnels, points, overhead power lines, signalling or intermediate stations. Routing congestion is reduced because planes can move in 3D. There is no rolling resistance and air friction is reduced due to flying high-up where the air is thin. Airports are built away from city centres, where land is cheap. The natural monopolies of rail-track providers are avoided. I think it would be amazing if train travel was as cheap as air travel.
- markus92 5y ago
  The energy requirements are vastly different, rolling stock is a lot cheaper than airframes etc.

steve_gh 5y ago

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.

mrow84 5y ago
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.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Jolter 5y ago

Moved to url: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57176858

edf13 5y ago

Page not found??

michaelt 5y ago

The UK's rail "privatisation" has always been bizarre, for practical reasons. * Because rail is vital national infrastructure, important to keeping congestion down, and needs to be accessible even to poor people, every train operator receives government subsidies. * So travellers can buy tickets for a complex four-train itinerary and large stations can have multiple operators sharing platforms, much of the ticketing system (including the main types of ticket on offer) is centrally controlled. * Because it would be nigh-impossible to have multiple companies trains with different prices (or different on-time performance) operating on the same route, each route is essentially a monopoly †. * To prevent price-gouging of commuters on monopoly services, the rate of increase of ticket prices is capped by government. (And yet despite the subsidies and price caps, some train tickets remain absurdly expensive) * It would be absurd for a company losing a rail franchise to get stuck with a bunch of trains they no longer need, or a bunch of employees in the wrong part of the country they have to fire. So when a rail franchise changes hands, the trains, drivers, stations, and station staff move with it. * Any long-term investments in things like new trains won't pay off in the duration of a single rail franchise - so they have to be agreed with the government upfront. * Rail workers are represented by powerful unions, and industrial disputes tank the train operators' performance numbers, so operators can't control their staffing costs - they can only wait out a long industrial dispute with government backing. * To prevent rural communities losing their rail service (or having it reduced to unusable levels) the government tells the franchisee where the trains must stop, and how often. * Because tracks and signals all have to be maintained to the same national standards, and often multiple trains will use the same tracks, the train operators don't own the tracks or signalling equipment. So they can't upgrade track for automation or to run more/faster/more reliable services. * Because re-tendering a franchise is very time-consuming, train operators who under-perform are seldom replaced or punished (except by making less money than they hoped they would) All of this means the train operators are boxed in on every side - Can't run more trains, can't run fewer trains, can't raise prices, can't change pricing models, can't embrace tech like driverless trains, can't cut staff. Their only powers seem to be choosing the train's colour scheme, taking the blame for poor performance, and giving some bigwig a fat salary. Given that the trains have always been de-facto under state control, making that true de-jure makes sense. † Except for one or two services like london-to-birmingham, and competition from cars and teleworking.

baby 5y ago

France went private more than a decade ago. It made no sense to me at the time, I’m wondering what’s the post mortem on that.

dastx 5y ago

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.

jp0d 5y ago

This is a working link. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57176858

maxehmookau 5y ago

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!

cirrus-clouds 5y ago

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) Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/uk-commuters-spend-6-times-much-their-salary-rail-fares-other-european-passengers https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/uk-commuters-spend-6-times-much-...

midasuni 5y ago
Why should frequent travellers get 50% plus discounts on journeys? When I travel to london I pay about £1 a mile in the peak on a fast train. A season ticket holder pays about 20p a mile.
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  Because buying in bulk gets you a discount, one of the most universally understood things in economics.
  - midasuni 5y ago
    That’s not what it is though - if I buy 20x £300 returns it costs £6,000. If I buy a monthly season ticket for the same journeys it costs £1500. It’s rare to get such large discounts too.

apexalpha 5y ago

I've found that these two YouTube video's do an okay job explaining the actual 'market forces' actually at play here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJ94o1B0qI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJ94o1B0qI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTq8DbRs4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTq8DbRs4k It takes a bit of understanding why regular market forces kind of can't apply to a system like rail transport.

jonplackett 5y ago

There must be a better way to set up incentives. Eg. Company is chosen - they get a temporary monopoly on a route, for free instead of having to pitch a ridiculous low ball But... Every time a train is late, they pay £100,000 Every time a train is cancelled they pay £1,000,000 They pay £10 for every passenger complaint. Etc etc

chrisseaton 5y ago
Why would a company sign up to be flogged like this, though?
ferongr 5y ago
Does the state pay the company when delays, cancellations and passenger complaints are a result of publicly owned infrastructure and timetable planning?
gsnedders 5y ago
The existing management contracts pre-COVID19 (primarily London Overground and the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern railway (yes, that's all one company!)) _did_ have penalties for late running, partial cancellations, or full cancellations. One can argue whether increasing the fines would lead to better service, or whether it would just increase the cost they bid for the concession to cover those costs, effectively resulting in increased subsidy. There's also the fact that in many cases there's limitations to what the concession can do: the existing ones have had much decided by the body granting the concession (such as rolling stock, thus limiting their ability to procure more reliable rolling stock if needed), and they don't have any control over infrastructure (and e.g. signal failures or flooding).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jabl 5y ago

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?

dua2020 5y ago
A concession means the private company operates the railway for a set fee and a set operational standard, the state owner will retain ticket revenue (and risk). This is how the London Overground concession works. A franchise basically gives all operation responsibilities and ticket revenue to the private operator, in return, the private operator gives a lump sum bid for the contract at the beginning.

danjac 5y ago

Page 404s. A bit like a British rail scheduled service.

makomk 5y ago
Some issue with the bbc.com vs bbc.co.uk split I assume. The UK version is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858

intsunny 5y ago

The title seems heavily editorialized. 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-overhaul-privatised-great-british-railways- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/19/uk-rail-ove...

daverol 5y ago

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)."

chillydawg 5y ago

I'm looking forward to seeing the new GBR company privatised in 20 years, making a small group of people a very large amount of money. Again.

ourmandave 5y ago

I'm reading all the comments here in my head with a proper British accent.

jpswade 5y ago

This is fantastic news.

Tsiklon 5y ago

I hope this decision leads to better value railway journeys for regular people. I love taking the train places, for me when I’m going on holiday the journey is part of it, I find rail travel to be low stress and relaxing. The trip from St Pancras to Amsterdam (4hours) was very calm. I hope that one outcome of this change is that other people rediscover leisure travel by rail. That said the anorak in me will miss all the different liveries for each of the companies

dash2 5y ago

I suspect a key divide in reaction to this news is between those of us who are member British Rail and those of us who don’t. I do. It was like stabbing yourself with broken glass.

sir-alien 5y ago

If you want to see a good train service look at Japan. Went there for a holiday and used the train service all over. They are a classic example of what a train service "should" be like. Fast, efficient, cost-effective. The only time trains was a little difficult was in the super-peak hours on the underground in the very dense parts of the cities. I think the world should learn from Japan in many aspects.

tailsdog 5y ago
They also apparently make a rather healthy profit
yboris 5y ago
I'd like to second that - Japan has an amazing train (and subway) system. Here's a great explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFpG3yf3Rxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFpG3yf3Rxk

0898 5y ago

It's not impossible that one day our rail network could stand shoulder to shoulder with GOV.UK and the NHS – which I don't think it's too hyperbolic to suggest are both the envy of the world.

elric 5y ago

This is an interesting shift. When I lived in the UK, I was rather fond of how well public transport worked - in general, and trains specifically. In my native Belgium, on the other hand, it's all basically shit. While Belgium is slowly pushing for less state control in public transport (allegedly on account of EU competition rules), the UK is now changing direction. Can anyone summarize the background of this decision? Has there been passenger backlash against the current system?

stdbrouw 5y ago
Guess it depends on what you consider to be shit. Public transport in Belgium is incredibly widespread and affordable, and while trains are somewhat often delayed (but people love to kvetch and exaggerate all the time, https://punctuality.belgiantrain.be/nl/dashboard https://punctuality.belgiantrain.be/nl/dashboard) due to years of neglect of the infrastructure, at least you don't have to pay an arm and a leg as you would for e.g. a short trip between London and Brighton. Public transport in London is pretty good, but doesn't strike me as being way better than it is in big cities in Belgium like Antwerp or Brussels.
- elric 5y ago
  Their way of calculating punctuality is pretty misleading. It takes into account the predicted arrival at the final destination, without taking into account where passengers actually go. Delays along the route are hidden that way, even though most passengers don't go from origin to terminus, i.e. hardly anyone travels from Liège to Ostend, but the start & end of that 2hour+ journey are what's used to compute delays. If they were to count what percentage of passengers arrived on time, things would look radically different. Adding to that: a 5 minute delay on a 2hr journey is fine, but a 5 minute delay on a 12 minute journey is awful. As for cheap .. I wouldn't exactly call trains cheap in Belgium. Especially if you factor in how uncomfortable they are, how most stations have zero accessibility options, how frequently things go terribly wrong, and how nonexistently awful their customer support is.
  - stdbrouw 5y ago

DrBazza 5y ago

Lots of comments about how this is a good thing, but if private companies are still running the trains, and fares are set centrally, how are they expected to make a profit? Reduce the staff, or reduce the staff salaries. Either way, unions get involved and there will be strikes just like the "good old days". More retail in and around stations perhaps? I look forward to being able to just a buy a single ticket from X to Y and one that perhaps doesn't cost 5-10 times as much as it would to drive.

saos 5y ago

Still loads of smoke. I want to see the fare prices. If they’re flexible and affordable then maybe I can move out of London!!

dangerboysteve 5y ago

the people on the Wendover YouTube channel did a video on this back in March which explained the issue really well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTq8DbRs4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTq8DbRs4k

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

A tried and true management system: To appear effective, centralize things that are distributed, and distribute things that are centralized. You can claim benefits either way. And in a few years, put it all back again and claim more benefits.

DanBC 5y ago

I want to know how much money will be spent painting fucking Union Jacks on all the trains.

nw05678 5y ago

I still hate Thatcher.

bsd44 5y ago

Yes please! It's long overdue! The state of current rail services cannot possibly be any worse!

alecco 5y ago

I know this one. Privatize and pocket money. Mismanagement with both unions and suppliers lining their pockets for a while. Then bailouts and/or expropriation and the bill goes to the taxpayer, again. Rinse, repeat.

nasmorn 5y ago

8000 pounds for a 50min train ride season ticket is absolutely insane. Are the trains fancy like the orient express?