5 ms·

Railway tracks aren't privitised and haven't been for 20 years. The trains running on them were - at least until covid broke everything The problem is that the

Railway tracks aren't privitised and haven't been for 20 years. The trains running on them were - at least until covid broke everything The problem is that the government let companies like Virgin off when they broke their contract, allowing them to bid high, take the profits, then walk away rather than fulfilling their contracted duties. Privatise the profits, socialise the losses. Nethertheless there is tons of competition on transport in the UK 1) To get from Birmingham to London you can choose 3 different rail providers giving 3 different cost/value returns. Faster more frequent ones cost more. 2) On top of that you can also take a coach, hire a car, drive your own car, or of course not travel at all 3) Manchester to London you can fly, take the coach, drive (car hire or your own car), take three different trains ranging from £50 return and 3 hours to £180 return and 2 hours. "Railway tracks" isn't where the competition is, transport is, and there's tons of competition. I remember I used to commute from a commuter town into Manchester. I could take the train during the peak, or I could take it off peak, or I could take the slower train from a different company, or I could drive, or I could take a commuter bus. When it comes to the last mile of say BT, you used to have a monopoly, it would take months to get a replacement handset connected. Today though "a phone line" isn't what you want, internet is, and there are options 1) BT/Opeanreach connection (fibre or copper) 2) Non-BT fibre (in many cities) 3) Wireless ISPs 4) Satelite ISPs (Starlink/Oneweb or Geostationary) Each has benefits and drawbacks I would agree that the last mile of water and possibly electric provision shouldn't have been privitised. Treatment works though -- why not? There's no real limit on the number you can have. When it comes to long distance electric again why not. There is a lot of money to be made transporting Electricity in Scotland and selling it to the south east. Let multiple companies do that. The problem is planning permission and nimbyism means it's impossible to actually build new lines.

samwillis 3y ago
You've cherry picked two routes Birmingham/Manchester to London where there is choice, but for the majority of the country there isn't. From my town there is one train company that has exclusive use of the route, and its motivator is profit extraction, not quality of service and encouraging more people off the roads on to the trains. Also comparing trains to cars and busses as a positive competition is missing the point that our roads are over capacity. Moving more people off of the roads onto the train networks should be a priority.
- iso1631 3y ago
  > and its motivator is profit extraction, not quality of service and encouraging more people off the roads on to the trains Which station? Or which TOC? > Also comparing trains to cars and busses as a positive competition is missing the point that our roads are over capacity Which roads? I had no problems driving the kids to school this morning, never are. Well that time fro about 2 weeks a year that the cows cross the road at that time of day after milking which adds a few minutes onto the trip. If you doubled the passenger mileage on rail, you would reduce passengers on the roads about 10%. Rail isn't going to be a fix for general capacity problems.
  - deepvibrations 3y ago
    I do feel you are using your own experience very anecdotally, I can tell you that a lot of the routes in wales are just one operator. And also, your commute may be fine, but believe me, many cities in the UK are not... Edinburgh’s 41 per cent congestion level means a 30-minute journey will take 41 per cent longer than usual and I can tell you from personal experience that a lot of cities in the west-country are over capacity.
chimprich 3y ago
I'm unclear what your argument is here. Having rail be so expensive or badly run that people decide to use roads instead doesn't seem like a win for privatisation. Encouraging people onto roads or even flying is also a disaster for tackling climate change.
- iso1631 3y ago
  Since privatisation in 1994 to pre-covid 2019, rail usage increased from 36 billion km to 80 billion km, more than doubling. Road increased from 666 to 741 bkm, increasing 11%.
  - chimprich 3y ago
    An interesting data point to discuss, but not much of a vote for privatisation (which I assume the implication is). In that time we have seen significant urbanisation, which means both more people living in cities and people having to commute to cities to work. Both of these (and limited road capacity) mean more rail travel. In theory this extra cash and economies of scale should have been an ideal situation whereby rail transport could be significantly improved. In practice we've seen above-inflation fare rises and (in my experience) dreadful services.

samwillis 3y ago

You've cherry picked two routes Birmingham/Manchester to London where there is choice, but for the majority of the country there isn't. From my town there is one train company that has exclusive use of the route, and its motivator is profit extraction, not quality of service and encouraging more people off the roads on to the trains. Also comparing trains to cars and busses as a positive competition is missing the point that our roads are over capacity. Moving more people off of the roads onto the train networks should be a priority.

iso1631 3y ago
> and its motivator is profit extraction, not quality of service and encouraging more people off the roads on to the trains Which station? Or which TOC? > Also comparing trains to cars and busses as a positive competition is missing the point that our roads are over capacity Which roads? I had no problems driving the kids to school this morning, never are. Well that time fro about 2 weeks a year that the cows cross the road at that time of day after milking which adds a few minutes onto the trip. If you doubled the passenger mileage on rail, you would reduce passengers on the roads about 10%. Rail isn't going to be a fix for general capacity problems.
- deepvibrations 3y ago
  I do feel you are using your own experience very anecdotally, I can tell you that a lot of the routes in wales are just one operator. And also, your commute may be fine, but believe me, many cities in the UK are not... Edinburgh’s 41 per cent congestion level means a 30-minute journey will take 41 per cent longer than usual and I can tell you from personal experience that a lot of cities in the west-country are over capacity.

chimprich 3y ago

I'm unclear what your argument is here. Having rail be so expensive or badly run that people decide to use roads instead doesn't seem like a win for privatisation. Encouraging people onto roads or even flying is also a disaster for tackling climate change.

iso1631 3y ago
Since privatisation in 1994 to pre-covid 2019, rail usage increased from 36 billion km to 80 billion km, more than doubling. Road increased from 666 to 741 bkm, increasing 11%.
- chimprich 3y ago
  An interesting data point to discuss, but not much of a vote for privatisation (which I assume the implication is). In that time we have seen significant urbanisation, which means both more people living in cities and people having to commute to cities to work. Both of these (and limited road capacity) mean more rail travel. In theory this extra cash and economies of scale should have been an ideal situation whereby rail transport could be significantly improved. In practice we've seen above-inflation fare rises and (in my experience) dreadful services.