5 ms·

This is an interesting conclusion to a problem other countries are facing as well. The Czech Republic fully divided its railway infrastructure (under SŽ) and na

by dvdkon 1y ago

This is an interesting conclusion to a problem other countries are facing as well. The Czech Republic fully divided its railway infrastructure (under SŽ) and national train operator (ČD) sooner than most of the EU. SŽ being incompetent is a favourite topic of railway fans here, but most everyone agrees that this kind of split was for the best, at least for long-distance trains. Pretty soon after the railways were opened to non-state operators, quality of long-distance train routes improved, both by new trains by private operators and increased competition forcing ČD to improve. On regional railways, where the state pays for train operations, costs have gone down thanks to competition. It seems to me like this model can work well, you just need an infrastructure operator that's receptive to its "customers" (which SŽ often isn't), or a political structure that can force them to listen.

mschuster91 1y ago
> On regional railways, where the state pays for train operations, costs have gone down thanks to competition. German here. Yes, costs have gone down thanks to competition, but at what cost? IMHO, the cost of "competition" on regionals has been massive. A lot of infrastructure has had to be rebuilt (e.g. maintenance shops), a huge expense and waste of space (think about how long a regional train is - easily 150 meters [1], which means the shop has to be at least that long). Some operators chose to run with old, run-down rolling stock or go for the absolutely cheapest options. Others, and that has happened at least twice in the last few years, calculate their offers to be barely profitable and then a crisis (Covid, Russian invasion and energy cost explosion) hits, forcing the companies into bankruptcy. Cleanliness of trains, regular expulsion of toilets takes a hit as that's a very easy way to save a few hundred euros. In the case of demand surges (e.g. soccer games, Oktoberfest, Karneval), there's no way to ad-hoc add rolling stock and drivers because there are no spares and modern rolling stock isn't compatible with anything other than its specific model and configuration. And some regional tender processes have gotten even worse, where the state prescribes or outright buys the rolling stock... and suddenly the only way the providers can compete is staffing cost. Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather like the old system back! [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Desiro_HC https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Desiro_HC
- eru 1y ago
  Complaining about disastrous and unnecessary competition has a long and proud tradition. > And some regional tender processes have gotten even worse, where the state prescribes or outright buys the rolling stock... and suddenly the only way the providers can compete is staffing cost. Sounds pretty bad.
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  In Czechia, competition was a huge boon for the railways. I still remember the rusty, hopelessly dirty Communist trains with fake leather seats that glued your buttocks with sweat, "open hole" toilets that stank to high heaven in summer and froze your ass off in the winter. Nowadays, we usually ride in nice and clean trains, and on the main lines of some operators, there is a delivery service where you can order small snacks or even warm meals to your seat and get them. Compared to the past, it is a freaking luxury. Maybe the problem that you described is German-specific. Over my lifetime, as I visited Germany, I noticed a steady drift towards lower quality in almost all public services, not just trains. As if the German voters just somehow stopped to demand or value quality of governance. IDK why, but it can be seen everywhere. And there is already a visible contrast in public cleanliness and order when you travel, say, from Zurich to Munich. Germany looks like a has-been. That wasn't the case in the 90s. Back then, the difference between BRD and Schweiz was negligible. My pet theory is that Merkel's 16 years of sleepy rule was too much. Most politicians need to fear replacement in order to do something. If the nation votes for the same person over and over again, there will be no real political competition. But IDK how that works on the Länder level.
  - usrnm 1y ago
    Absolutely the same change happened in Russia over the past 30 years or so, but it had nothing to do with privatisation or competition, all trains are still operated by the same state-owned corporation.
- crote 1y ago
  > some regional tender processes have gotten even worse, where the state prescribes or outright buys the rolling stock Isn't this done in an attempt to resolve some of the issues you mentioned? If you don't want the absolute cheapest old run-down toilet-less rolling stock, the tender has to be quite specific about the minimum requirements the rolling stock is expected to meet. This in turn means an operator switch leaves the new operator having to quickly obtain a bunch of highly-specific rolling stock with the old operator having to get rid of a bunch of now-worthless highly-specific rolling stock. The logical result is that the old operator sells the rolling stock to the new operator. Or, you have the rolling stock owned by a holding company, who leases it to whoever happens to be operating the tender. Same with the maintenance shops. So why not cut out the middle man and have the rolling stock and maintenance shop be government-owned? The end result is the same, but it's cheaper for everyone involved.
eru 1y ago
You might the Wikipedia page on the impact of British Rail privatisation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of... Looking at graphs with clear improvements on many metrics straight after privatisation, you might think the change would be universally acclaimed. High fives all around. Instead, it's one of the UK's most hated things the government has ever done. I especially like the almost miraculous recovery in rail's share of passenger transport. Or just the very first graph on the page, that shows the total number of passengers.
- pjc50 1y ago
  > Looking at graphs with clear improvements on many metrics .. one of the UK's most hated things the government has ever done This is a classic of metrics driven management, isn't it. Customer satisfaction isn't in the metrics so people stand around saying "well they should be happy!" Mainly about the cost, but the overcrowding on certain lines and the unreliability are also major factors. Commuters end up using the train because they're more or less forced to - you're not going to drive into rush hour London, and there's nowhere to park; and that's also a matter of policy to get people on the trains for sustainability reasons. The "playing at shops" market setup exacerbates the problems. Original comment says "costs have gone down due to competition", but since the UK's operators are little regional monopolies they don't actually compete. The operators own neither track nor rolling stock; most of the money flows to the "train landlords", the ROSCOs. Privatising the track, through "Railtrack" was the big disaster. They cut maintenance, but when you enshittify railways eventually people get killed, and nationalization was inevitable after Hatfield.
  - eru 1y ago
    They managed to increase rail's share of overall transport. Reversing long running trends from before. > Commuters end up using the train because they're more or less forced to [...] Rail transport had been losing passenger share. Did the private companies somehow figure out how to 'more or less force' people to take the train? Why couldn't the government rail do that before?

by dvdkon 1y ago

mschuster91 1y ago

> On regional railways, where the state pays for train operations, costs have gone down thanks to competition. German here. Yes, costs have gone down thanks to competition, but at what cost? IMHO, the cost of "competition" on regionals has been massive. A lot of infrastructure has had to be rebuilt (e.g. maintenance shops), a huge expense and waste of space (think about how long a regional train is - easily 150 meters [1], which means the shop has to be at least that long). Some operators chose to run with old, run-down rolling stock or go for the absolutely cheapest options. Others, and that has happened at least twice in the last few years, calculate their offers to be barely profitable and then a crisis (Covid, Russian invasion and energy cost explosion) hits, forcing the companies into bankruptcy. Cleanliness of trains, regular expulsion of toilets takes a hit as that's a very easy way to save a few hundred euros. In the case of demand surges (e.g. soccer games, Oktoberfest, Karneval), there's no way to ad-hoc add rolling stock and drivers because there are no spares and modern rolling stock isn't compatible with anything other than its specific model and configuration. And some regional tender processes have gotten even worse, where the state prescribes or outright buys the rolling stock... and suddenly the only way the providers can compete is staffing cost. Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather like the old system back! [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Desiro_HC https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Desiro_HC

eru 1y ago
Complaining about disastrous and unnecessary competition has a long and proud tradition. > And some regional tender processes have gotten even worse, where the state prescribes or outright buys the rolling stock... and suddenly the only way the providers can compete is staffing cost. Sounds pretty bad.
inglor_cz 1y ago
In Czechia, competition was a huge boon for the railways. I still remember the rusty, hopelessly dirty Communist trains with fake leather seats that glued your buttocks with sweat, "open hole" toilets that stank to high heaven in summer and froze your ass off in the winter. Nowadays, we usually ride in nice and clean trains, and on the main lines of some operators, there is a delivery service where you can order small snacks or even warm meals to your seat and get them. Compared to the past, it is a freaking luxury. Maybe the problem that you described is German-specific. Over my lifetime, as I visited Germany, I noticed a steady drift towards lower quality in almost all public services, not just trains. As if the German voters just somehow stopped to demand or value quality of governance. IDK why, but it can be seen everywhere. And there is already a visible contrast in public cleanliness and order when you travel, say, from Zurich to Munich. Germany looks like a has-been. That wasn't the case in the 90s. Back then, the difference between BRD and Schweiz was negligible. My pet theory is that Merkel's 16 years of sleepy rule was too much. Most politicians need to fear replacement in order to do something. If the nation votes for the same person over and over again, there will be no real political competition. But IDK how that works on the Länder level.
- usrnm 1y ago
  Absolutely the same change happened in Russia over the past 30 years or so, but it had nothing to do with privatisation or competition, all trains are still operated by the same state-owned corporation.
crote 1y ago
> some regional tender processes have gotten even worse, where the state prescribes or outright buys the rolling stock Isn't this done in an attempt to resolve some of the issues you mentioned? If you don't want the absolute cheapest old run-down toilet-less rolling stock, the tender has to be quite specific about the minimum requirements the rolling stock is expected to meet. This in turn means an operator switch leaves the new operator having to quickly obtain a bunch of highly-specific rolling stock with the old operator having to get rid of a bunch of now-worthless highly-specific rolling stock. The logical result is that the old operator sells the rolling stock to the new operator. Or, you have the rolling stock owned by a holding company, who leases it to whoever happens to be operating the tender. Same with the maintenance shops. So why not cut out the middle man and have the rolling stock and maintenance shop be government-owned? The end result is the same, but it's cheaper for everyone involved.

eru 1y ago

You might the Wikipedia page on the impact of British Rail privatisation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of... Looking at graphs with clear improvements on many metrics straight after privatisation, you might think the change would be universally acclaimed. High fives all around. Instead, it's one of the UK's most hated things the government has ever done. I especially like the almost miraculous recovery in rail's share of passenger transport. Or just the very first graph on the page, that shows the total number of passengers.

pjc50 1y ago
> Looking at graphs with clear improvements on many metrics .. one of the UK's most hated things the government has ever done This is a classic of metrics driven management, isn't it. Customer satisfaction isn't in the metrics so people stand around saying "well they should be happy!" Mainly about the cost, but the overcrowding on certain lines and the unreliability are also major factors. Commuters end up using the train because they're more or less forced to - you're not going to drive into rush hour London, and there's nowhere to park; and that's also a matter of policy to get people on the trains for sustainability reasons. The "playing at shops" market setup exacerbates the problems. Original comment says "costs have gone down due to competition", but since the UK's operators are little regional monopolies they don't actually compete. The operators own neither track nor rolling stock; most of the money flows to the "train landlords", the ROSCOs. Privatising the track, through "Railtrack" was the big disaster. They cut maintenance, but when you enshittify railways eventually people get killed, and nationalization was inevitable after Hatfield.
- eru 1y ago
  They managed to increase rail's share of overall transport. Reversing long running trends from before. > Commuters end up using the train because they're more or less forced to [...] Rail transport had been losing passenger share. Did the private companies somehow figure out how to 'more or less force' people to take the train? Why couldn't the government rail do that before?