4 ms·

I'm in the UK and services seem worse to me. I also remember pre-privatization British Rail. It was unbelievably awful. The basic fact about rail privatization

by dash2 11mo ago

I'm in the UK and services seem worse to me. I also remember pre-privatization British Rail. It was unbelievably awful. The basic fact about rail privatization is captured in this chart. All else is commentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2023.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of...

buellerbueller 11mo ago
My commentary is this: It looks like around 1982, the trend reversed, well before the privatization. My takeaway is that whatever the government had done under nationalization was successful at addressing the concerns that existed and contributed to a downward trend that began before nationalization.
- dash2 11mo ago
  There are lots of wiggles in any graph and you can always take a wiggle and say "ah the trend was reversed". Privatization showed a steady growth in passenger numbers for decades. Nationalization didn't.
  - buellerbueller 11mo ago
    The trend is not a "wiggle." It is the slope of a local region, around which the "wiggles" bounce. Sure, I agree: privatization continued the trend that nationalization established. My point is simply this: the graph on its own doesn't indicate anything causal, but your original comment implied that the graph is enough to prove that privatization caused the growth.
    - dash2 11mo ago
      Sure. The graph on its own doesn't prove causality. The graph, plus a little basic common sense, does give strong evidence of causality. Specifically, there's no other plausible alternative for the sudden dramatic turnaround in the mid-80s and sustained growth thereafter.
      - buellerbueller 11mo ago
        The turnaround in the mid 1980s predates privatization, so unless everyone had time machines back then, this is evidence against causality. Also: common sense is not evidence. It never has been, nor will it ever be. Justification? Sure. Could even be that common sense is correct. But, evidence? No.
dghlsakjg 11mo ago
That chart doesn't normalize for population, service levels, social changes or any number of other extremely important variables. Any facts taken from that chart need to be extremely caveated.
- dash2 11mo ago
  What do you think happened exactly at the time the railway was privatized? Suddenly the population shot up? This is like looking at the light map of the border between North and South Korea and saying "ah, but they aren't controlling for longitude!"
littlestymaar 11mo ago
The British rail privatization was so successful in increasing passenger numbers it also increased the number of passengers taking the train in France (despite French rail still being state-controlled). Or maybe, just maybe, there's another underlying casual relationship that explains why train use increased a ton in the 90s and 00s in both countries (and other European countries too, by the way, AFAIK passengers count also increased in Germany in that period). Who knows.
- Reason077 11mo ago
  Much of the French high speed rail network (LGV Atlantique, LGV Rhône-Alpes, LGV Nord, LGV Méditerranée, LGV Est, etc) was inaugurated in the 1990s and 2000s. This alone would have been responsible for a big increase in French rail traffic. UK rail infrastructure certainly received improvements during this era too, but besides HS1 it was mostly just renewing and upgrading existing tracks. Nothing like the thousands of km of new high speed rail that was built in France!
  - littlestymaar 11mo ago
    If you just look at France it may be tempted to conclude it must be TGV, but that's the same methodological problem: it grew in most of Europe by comparable amount in the period. Also TGV is nice, but it doesn't explain why TER and Intercité (the two slower-speed regional networks) also experienced an influx of passengers during the period. It's not TGV, it's not privatization and it is not Wiedervereinigung, it's a broader trend.
    - Reason077 11mo ago
      > "Also TGV is nice, but it doesn't explain why TER and Intercité (the two slower-speed regional networks) also experienced an influx of passengers during the period." I don't entirely disagree with you, but rail lines don't function in isolation. If you introduce a new high speed main line, there is a network effect: connecting services will also see a boost in traffic from people travelling on other lines to reach the new one.
- 11mo ago

by dash2 11mo ago

buellerbueller 11mo ago

My commentary is this: It looks like around 1982, the trend reversed, well before the privatization. My takeaway is that whatever the government had done under nationalization was successful at addressing the concerns that existed and contributed to a downward trend that began before nationalization.

dash2 11mo ago
There are lots of wiggles in any graph and you can always take a wiggle and say "ah the trend was reversed". Privatization showed a steady growth in passenger numbers for decades. Nationalization didn't.
- buellerbueller 11mo ago
  The trend is not a "wiggle." It is the slope of a local region, around which the "wiggles" bounce. Sure, I agree: privatization continued the trend that nationalization established. My point is simply this: the graph on its own doesn't indicate anything causal, but your original comment implied that the graph is enough to prove that privatization caused the growth.
  - dash2 11mo ago
    Sure. The graph on its own doesn't prove causality. The graph, plus a little basic common sense, does give strong evidence of causality. Specifically, there's no other plausible alternative for the sudden dramatic turnaround in the mid-80s and sustained growth thereafter.
    - buellerbueller 11mo ago
      The turnaround in the mid 1980s predates privatization, so unless everyone had time machines back then, this is evidence against causality. Also: common sense is not evidence. It never has been, nor will it ever be. Justification? Sure. Could even be that common sense is correct. But, evidence? No.

dghlsakjg 11mo ago

That chart doesn't normalize for population, service levels, social changes or any number of other extremely important variables. Any facts taken from that chart need to be extremely caveated.

dash2 11mo ago
What do you think happened exactly at the time the railway was privatized? Suddenly the population shot up? This is like looking at the light map of the border between North and South Korea and saying "ah, but they aren't controlling for longitude!"

littlestymaar 11mo ago

The British rail privatization was so successful in increasing passenger numbers it also increased the number of passengers taking the train in France (despite French rail still being state-controlled). Or maybe, just maybe, there's another underlying casual relationship that explains why train use increased a ton in the 90s and 00s in both countries (and other European countries too, by the way, AFAIK passengers count also increased in Germany in that period). Who knows.

Reason077 11mo ago
Much of the French high speed rail network (LGV Atlantique, LGV Rhône-Alpes, LGV Nord, LGV Méditerranée, LGV Est, etc) was inaugurated in the 1990s and 2000s. This alone would have been responsible for a big increase in French rail traffic. UK rail infrastructure certainly received improvements during this era too, but besides HS1 it was mostly just renewing and upgrading existing tracks. Nothing like the thousands of km of new high speed rail that was built in France!
- littlestymaar 11mo ago
  If you just look at France it may be tempted to conclude it must be TGV, but that's the same methodological problem: it grew in most of Europe by comparable amount in the period. Also TGV is nice, but it doesn't explain why TER and Intercité (the two slower-speed regional networks) also experienced an influx of passengers during the period. It's not TGV, it's not privatization and it is not Wiedervereinigung, it's a broader trend.
  - Reason077 11mo ago
    > "Also TGV is nice, but it doesn't explain why TER and Intercité (the two slower-speed regional networks) also experienced an influx of passengers during the period." I don't entirely disagree with you, but rail lines don't function in isolation. If you introduce a new high speed main line, there is a network effect: connecting services will also see a boost in traffic from people travelling on other lines to reach the new one.
11mo ago