4 ms·

Privatisation destroyed rail as a cost effective means of rail travel in the UK. In fact it all fell apart during the pandemic when the government had to take c

Privatisation destroyed rail as a cost effective means of rail travel in the UK. In fact it all fell apart during the pandemic when the government had to take control of a number of franchised routes and temporarily re-nationalize them. Rail should not be a for-profit business, it is a public service and a natural monopoly. 100% of the money the public pay to make a journey should go back into maintaining the network and running the trains. I'm happy for a few execs to get their 100k+ salaries and for it to be justified by all the "hard work" and "value" they bring. But taking money from ticket sales, calling it profit and handing it to shareholders has to stop, it means the public get a dysfunctional rail service because there is no investment. Or it works, but the ticket prices are stratospheric. The Transport for London corporation is a good example of how it should be done.

hogFeast 5y ago
It is very weird as someone who studied British economic history and privatization to see this view so commonly. I am not sure where it has come from (although tbf, the media does not report accurately on this subject). The main benefit from privatization was a significant reduction in fares combined with massive growth in availability (people take for granted things today that were huge problems then: punctuality, safety, etc.). The rail network in the UK is publicly-owned, what is private is the franchise to operate on a certain route. The lack of investment, if any exists, has come from the govt...and I am not sure there is a lack of investment either...HS2 is going to cost £100bn...£100bn is a large number (as ever, I think people mean...London and the area around me isn't getting enough, this is also false, London receives obscene amounts of investment relative to the rest of the UK). Also, trains in Europe aren't really cheaper. Tickets are subsidised in Europe, in the UK passengers pay. The main constituency for subsidising the travel costs of wealthy commuters is...wealthy commuters. I am not sure why that idea is inherently attractive (and again, it is worth mentioning...our safety record is best in Europe, there is no real difference in punctuality, our fares are marginally higher but the ecosystem we have is far more robust). TfL is a great example: sucks down tens of billions in public money to subsidise the wealthiest people in the country...the North-East is still missing motorways and we are spending £20bn on the Elizabeth line...okay. The cost of a fiber roll-out for the whole of the UK is less than the Elizabeth line. The problem is that this has no end because the more infrastructure you build, the more agglomeration, the more infrastructure...London had this problem in the late 19th century with slums, the solution wasn't more density (also, we had to bailout TfL twice I believe, they are not an example of the system working, tbf there isn't a lot management can do with the workforce).
- avianlyric 5y ago
  > TfL is a great example: sucks down tens of billions in public money to subsidise the wealthiest people in the country...the North-East is still missing motorways and we are spending £20bn on the Elizabeth line...okay. TfL no longer receives any central government funding (beyond COVID money, but every aspect of public transport in the U.K. got buckets of money for that), this is despite being required to maintain a significant chunk of London surface roads and bridges. Something that councils normally receive central subsidies for. Additionally for Crossrail, the Dft only provided £5b in direct funding. The remainder is either loans TfL will have to repay, or has come from locally collected taxes like council tax, and business rates. All of which only impact London residents and businesses. > also, we had to bailout TfL twice I believe, they are not an example of the system working, tbf there isn't a lot management can do with the workforce That’s hardly fair. London is the only capital city in the world where it’s public transport get zero subsidies, and costs have to be covered entirely by fare collection and advertising. The central government told people not to take public transport, then forced TfL to run a full service, despite there being 60% fewer passengers. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that isn’t going to be financially possible, despite TfL always having 6 months of emergency operating capital on hand. Additionally TfL’s status as a local authority means it can’t operate in a deficit, ever. So it can’t borrow to cover short term cash flow issues. Long story short, government rules and requirements placed TfL in a position where it was either getting a bailout, or collapsing. Nothing short of 3 years of spare operating capital, approximately £30b, would have prevented this situation. Also worth mentioning that every other public transport operator in the U.K. also collapsed, and needed to be bailed out as well. So it’s a little unfair to single out TfL.
  - antihero 5y ago
    TfL has also become a partisan issue because the Conservative government sees it as an arm of the usually Labour controlled Greater London Authority. For instance, when commuters were begging for TfL to take control of the garbage South Eastern routes in the South East of London during Boris Johnson's Majorship (the area most neglected, transport wise), the transport minister at the time vetoed it because it could mean it fell into the hands of a Labour GLA. I'd say TfL is far far more popular than any of the private companies and for good reason. If we funded it properly and extended this approach (running things for the people, not for shareholders) to the rest of Britain it would be a good thing.

hogFeast 5y ago

It is very weird as someone who studied British economic history and privatization to see this view so commonly. I am not sure where it has come from (although tbf, the media does not report accurately on this subject). The main benefit from privatization was a significant reduction in fares combined with massive growth in availability (people take for granted things today that were huge problems then: punctuality, safety, etc.). The rail network in the UK is publicly-owned, what is private is the franchise to operate on a certain route. The lack of investment, if any exists, has come from the govt...and I am not sure there is a lack of investment either...HS2 is going to cost £100bn...£100bn is a large number (as ever, I think people mean...London and the area around me isn't getting enough, this is also false, London receives obscene amounts of investment relative to the rest of the UK). Also, trains in Europe aren't really cheaper. Tickets are subsidised in Europe, in the UK passengers pay. The main constituency for subsidising the travel costs of wealthy commuters is...wealthy commuters. I am not sure why that idea is inherently attractive (and again, it is worth mentioning...our safety record is best in Europe, there is no real difference in punctuality, our fares are marginally higher but the ecosystem we have is far more robust). TfL is a great example: sucks down tens of billions in public money to subsidise the wealthiest people in the country...the North-East is still missing motorways and we are spending £20bn on the Elizabeth line...okay. The cost of a fiber roll-out for the whole of the UK is less than the Elizabeth line. The problem is that this has no end because the more infrastructure you build, the more agglomeration, the more infrastructure...London had this problem in the late 19th century with slums, the solution wasn't more density (also, we had to bailout TfL twice I believe, they are not an example of the system working, tbf there isn't a lot management can do with the workforce).

avianlyric 5y ago
> TfL is a great example: sucks down tens of billions in public money to subsidise the wealthiest people in the country...the North-East is still missing motorways and we are spending £20bn on the Elizabeth line...okay. TfL no longer receives any central government funding (beyond COVID money, but every aspect of public transport in the U.K. got buckets of money for that), this is despite being required to maintain a significant chunk of London surface roads and bridges. Something that councils normally receive central subsidies for. Additionally for Crossrail, the Dft only provided £5b in direct funding. The remainder is either loans TfL will have to repay, or has come from locally collected taxes like council tax, and business rates. All of which only impact London residents and businesses. > also, we had to bailout TfL twice I believe, they are not an example of the system working, tbf there isn't a lot management can do with the workforce That’s hardly fair. London is the only capital city in the world where it’s public transport get zero subsidies, and costs have to be covered entirely by fare collection and advertising. The central government told people not to take public transport, then forced TfL to run a full service, despite there being 60% fewer passengers. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that isn’t going to be financially possible, despite TfL always having 6 months of emergency operating capital on hand. Additionally TfL’s status as a local authority means it can’t operate in a deficit, ever. So it can’t borrow to cover short term cash flow issues. Long story short, government rules and requirements placed TfL in a position where it was either getting a bailout, or collapsing. Nothing short of 3 years of spare operating capital, approximately £30b, would have prevented this situation. Also worth mentioning that every other public transport operator in the U.K. also collapsed, and needed to be bailed out as well. So it’s a little unfair to single out TfL.
- antihero 5y ago
  TfL has also become a partisan issue because the Conservative government sees it as an arm of the usually Labour controlled Greater London Authority. For instance, when commuters were begging for TfL to take control of the garbage South Eastern routes in the South East of London during Boris Johnson's Majorship (the area most neglected, transport wise), the transport minister at the time vetoed it because it could mean it fell into the hands of a Labour GLA. I'd say TfL is far far more popular than any of the private companies and for good reason. If we funded it properly and extended this approach (running things for the people, not for shareholders) to the rest of Britain it would be a good thing.