This looks like how the London Overground, DLR and London buses are operated, and their models have been reasonably successful and uncontroversial, with private operators being paid to operate services by TfL (to a strict specification) and all the revenue (and risk) reverting to TfL. I imagine a lot of people don't even realise that their DLR train or the 89 bus is being operated by a private company
Or that London Overground, that fabulous mixture of old freight chords and unloved passenger lines (hello Silverlink) is operated by a company owned by Germany.
My feeling is that we are learning that private doesn't always mean good and public doesn't always mean bad and that decent investment and strong management can exist in either or neither tenure.
We all know that what we want as passengers is a reasonably reliable reasonably affordable service that doesn't have to involve knowing which operator's train you can use when going Doncaster to Peterborough and doesn't need to have 3 browsers open when buying tickets. There can still be price differentials - we all accept that flying Lufthansa will be better than flying RyanAir - but these need to be clear rather than just the fact that the carriages are a different colour.
The biggest con trick that's ever been pulled on people is privatisation of the railways to increase 'competition'. What are we going to do - take the track next to it that starts and arrives at the same place?
It was an absolute disgrace from start to finish - irrespective of your political persuasion.
The biggest con trick that's ever been pulled on people is privatisation of the railways to increase 'competition'. What are we going to do - take the track next to it that starts and arrives at the same place?
It was an absolute disgrace from start to finish - irrespective of your political persuasion.
Well basically I agree with you, been slagging the UK version off since it happened. But certainly in Europe it can work. The big State operator might be blind to new markets (i.e new routes). Last year the Czech private operator RegioJet had a brilliant success with a night sleeper service to Rijeka on the Croatian coast. 500+ capacity, rammed solid. Lo and behold, this year both the Czech and Austrian state operators are trying to grab a bit of the action. But it took RegioJet to spot the market opportunity. The whole night sleeper thing is taking off again, led by the Austrian state operator to be fair to them, but now you've got some private guys out of Amsterdam looking to start up, with their first service connecting Prague, Berlin, Amsterdam and Brussels. And for years when Deutsche Bahn ran a sleeper from Cologne to Prague, I was using it, but silently screaming, send it on to Brussels, there's a market there. But instead DB decided they wouldn't do any more sleepers, period. I cursed them. But thanks to the private operator I'll be able to do Ebbsfleet-Prague with one easy change in Brussels. Whether that sort of potential exists in the UK is less obvious, there was Hull Trains, who I think went bankrupt.
But then the real competition is with the car and the plane, and for the railways to smash the competition you need increased speed, and that means infrastructure like HS2 and only the State can do that.
A few years ago I went to Edinburgh for the weekend. The shortness of the trip took car out of the equation as realistically I'd have needed to stop overnight on route both ways.
The options were: Coach - £28pp Plane - £45pp (plus parking at Stansted and Dartford toll) Train - £110pp
So we chose the overnight coach because at the time we worked in London so already had season tickets that made getting to Victoria essentially free. Regretted it, because whilst the overnight coach gave us the most time in Edinburgh, I didn't get much sleep so ended the weekend so exhausted I needed another break to recover.
The point is of course that those price differentials are ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind is going to choose the train unless they're travelling along, really need to travel city centre to city centre, and can use the journey to get some work done, i.e. lone business travellers who are probably expensing the rail fare anyway. Leisure travellers are always going to drive or fly. If the UK is serious about it's environmental goals then they urgently need to fix this, and not buy penalising the airlines and their passengers.
If I want to get the train from Sittingbourne to St Pancras, I'm looking at pretty much that airfare from above to travel just 450 miles.
EDIT: Just checked the rail fares for Sittingbourne to St Pancras. If I want to travel before 9am then it's £53.80, how the fuck can that be justified for journey of just over an hour and just over 50 miles?
The bit I'm always in is how they brand it, see there keeping the double arrows and Rail Alphabet font, but always interested in what the trains will look like, the uniforms etc etc
The biggest con trick that's ever been pulled on people is privatisation of the railways to increase 'competition'. What are we going to do - take the track next to it that starts and arrives at the same place?
It was an absolute disgrace from start to finish - irrespective of your political persuasion.
It was never about competition, it was idealogical. Thatcher had sold off anything of value that stayed still long enough, Major was left with the dregs but still wanted to make his mark.
1 Jun 2017 — The case for renationalising the railways proposed by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn does not "stack up "
Today:
Telegraph: “Flexible season tickets will be formally unveiled as Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, lays the groundwork for a series of radical changes on Thursday”
@randy andy one thing I would disagree with in your otherwise sound post, is that (we) air travellers are benefitting from a global scam,namely the fact that kerosene isnt taxed. That has to be fixed and fast, but the trouble is no one country can go it alone.
Personally I would whack a carbon tax on air travel too.
it will end in tears, the tears of travellers, as private companies will still be running the services and taking large fees to do so, with the majority being foreign owned. The new GBR willl be Network Rail under a new name with a few extra responsibilities with the same people who have messed the system up over previous years. Bring back full nationalisation b ut in a modern manner
Never forget that while she hated trains, it wasnt Thatcher that sold them off. Presumably she realised it was a can of worms. But then again...water...
It was on her agenda.
Thatcher never got round to privatising the railway because beforehand, she got stabbed in the back by her own party.
The biggest con trick that's ever been pulled on people is privatisation of the railways to increase 'competition'. What are we going to do - take the track next to it that starts and arrives at the same place?
It was an absolute disgrace from start to finish - irrespective of your political persuasion.
The original bus privatisation made me laugh, little fly-by-night operators with minibuses trying to get to every bus stop a minute before the scheduled bus was due to turn up. You only had to watch the first five minutes of that particular wheeze to know it was never sustainable.
The biggest con trick that's ever been pulled on people is privatisation of the railways to increase 'competition'. What are we going to do - take the track next to it that starts and arrives at the same place?
It was an absolute disgrace from start to finish - irrespective of your political persuasion.
Well basically I agree with you, been slagging the UK version off since it happened. But certainly in Europe it can work. The big State operator might be blind to new markets (i.e new routes). Last year the Czech private operator RegioJet had a brilliant success with a night sleeper service to Rijeka on the Croatian coast. 500+ capacity, rammed solid. Lo and behold, this year both the Czech and Austrian state operators are trying to grab a bit of the action. But it took RegioJet to spot the market opportunity. The whole night sleeper thing is taking off again, led by the Austrian state operator to be fair to them, but now you've got some private guys out of Amsterdam looking to start up, with their first service connecting Prague, Berlin, Amsterdam and Brussels. And for years when Deutsche Bahn ran a sleeper from Cologne to Prague, I was using it, but silently screaming, send it on to Brussels, there's a market there. But instead DB decided they wouldn't do any more sleepers, period. I cursed them. But thanks to the private operator I'll be able to do Ebbsfleet-Prague with one easy change in Brussels. Whether that sort of potential exists in the UK is less obvious, there was Hull Trains, who I think went bankrupt.
But then the real competition is with the car and the plane, and for the railways to smash the competition you need increased speed, and that means infrastructure like HS2 and only the State can do that.
Speed is certainly one element But I think you'll find that passengers are also looking at: Price Comfort Ease of connections Food & drink Connectivity as in Wifi
In today's world many of us might choose to spend travel time on here, watching Netflix or skimming the news and social media, as well as the odd call or even video call
And many of us find long drives unattractive. One thing lockdown and working from home has shown us is that time, comfort and quality of life are fairly important to help one both relax and think straight.
@seriously_red sure, but speed is what causes “modal shift” from air to rail. The TGVs have wiped out whole airlines in France, such as Air Inter. Eurostar has seriously eroded the air travel from London to Paris and Brussels, etc. The other things you list are important but not game changing.
@seriously_red sure, but speed is what causes “modal shift” from air to rail. The TGVs have wiped out whole airlines in France, such as Air Inter. Eurostar has seriously eroded the air travel from London to Paris and Brussels, etc. The other things you list are important but not game changing.
Domestic flights within England are a fraction of what they used to be (aided by air passenger duty) and the improvement in rail services. Token flights operate from London to the likes of Manchester or Newcastle that only really exist for connection passengers, while several regional airports have closed down and FlyBe went broke.
For all the failings of privatisation, passenger numbers have gone up massively, basically doubling , and this has been across all types of journey, so you can't say the policy was a complete failure.
@killerandflash It always makes me laugh when i hear the passenger growth numbers trotted out, usually by Tories with no real business experience, to justify privatisation. I dont include you in that lot, but before assuming this as proof, you need to consider the huge population increase since the mid 90s. We need to know whether rail has significantly increased share of long distance journeys vs air, car, and coach in that time. The Ministry certainly has the data, but I have never seen them published, let alone brandished in triumph, which makes me suspect the share hasnt increased that much. And even if it has, how much was positive choice? I mean the motorways seem choked all the time now. Cause and effect...
@killerandflash It always makes me laugh when i hear the passenger growth numbers trotted out, usually by Tories with no real business experience, to justify privatisation. I dont include you in that lot, but before assuming this as proof, you need to consider the huge population increase since the mid 90s. We need to know whether rail has significantly increased share of long distance journeys vs air, car, and coach in that time. The Ministry certainly has the data, but I have never seen them published, let alone brandished in triumph, which makes me suspect the share hasnt increased that much. And even if it has, how much was positive choice? I mean the motorways seem choked all the time now. Cause and effect...
Well the UK population hasn't doubled during that period. And while the number don't justify privatisation, it's equally a nonsense to also say that it's been a complete failure, when bums on seats is a tried and tested method of judging success, whether in transport, leisure activities, religion or football clubs...
Cheers, yes that would be the data. Unfortunately the download doesnt seem to open on this little iPad but I will take a look on the Mac tomorrow. I hope the data goes back far enough.
However as yet I’m not really seeing an answer to the big headache of the private railway which nobody has so far addressed.
Privatisation makes sense if it encourages competition, which benefits customers. How’s your choice of water supplier working out?
The UK system split the railway up into 20+ private monopolies. Now, I can certainly see that you can introduce competition on long distance routes, so long as you have a body that controls the timetables and fares, which GBR would do. So lets say you have two operators running high speed London- Manchester. You might be the sort that chooses one operator for the free coffee. But others just want to know that every half hour, on the same minute, there’s a train on that route. GBR would organise that. But will it be of interest to private operators compared to the old monopoly that Virgin enjoyed for years? Not sure. I am sure that you cant do this anyway on the commuter services. Better to hand it all to TfL, effectively the return of Network South East. But then it is all State owned, so where’s the pressure to deliver? Dunno. Across Europe they run the Open Access system on these routes, which works better, but private operators say it is still unfair because they go up against a strong State operator such as Deutsche Bahn. Fact is though that you could get from Brussels to Prague for €29, — albeit you need the Man in Seat 61 to guide you through buying the tickets. So we aint got it sorted either.
Never forget that while she hated trains, it wasnt Thatcher that sold them off. Presumably she realised it was a can of worms. But then again...water...
Water is due to be opened up to competition for households over the coming years, it has already happened for business and i’d argue the margins are so small that unless you’re a huge nationwide company like Tesco and would benefit from consolidating all your retail element over the country into one supplier, then there is very little benefit to be gained. And I think it will be the same for households, but where you might be able to realise benefit for non-financial reasons.
I’d argue your average measured water bill of approx £1-2 a day is astonishing value compared to most other services. And most measured customers could do a lot to bring their own costs down.
@killerandflash It always makes me laugh when i hear the passenger growth numbers trotted out, usually by Tories with no real business experience, to justify privatisation. I dont include you in that lot, but before assuming this as proof, you need to consider the huge population increase since the mid 90s. We need to know whether rail has significantly increased share of long distance journeys vs air, car, and coach in that time. The Ministry certainly has the data, but I have never seen them published, let alone brandished in triumph, which makes me suspect the share hasnt increased that much. And even if it has, how much was positive choice? I mean the motorways seem choked all the time now. Cause and effect...
Well the UK population hasn't doubled during that period. And while the number don't justify privatisation, it's equally a nonsense to also say that it's been a complete failure, when bums on seats is a tried and tested method of judging success, whether in transport, leisure activities, religion or football clubs...
Thanks for that link. As a marketing professional, I have to say that your last point wouldnt last five seconds in a review of the performance of businesses under the marketeer’s care. It certainly looks that more recently, rail is gaining share. But then you have to prove that this happened *because of* privatisation. Its telling that the document refers to Germany, where the State has essentially retained control, and invested heavily in the high speed infrastructure. The UK could have taken that path too but did not. What would the figures have been, had the UK govt from mid 80s been committed to rail as Germany was? For a start you’d have had that APT running at 140mph and keeping British factories busy long before Branson came along and started importing Pendolinos. We will never know. But no, “bums on seats” just doesnt cut it.
However as yet I’m not really seeing an answer to the big headache of the private railway which nobody has so far addressed.
Privatisation makes sense if it encourages competition, which benefits customers. How’s your choice of water supplier working out?
The UK system split the railway up into 20+ private monopolies. Now, I can certainly see that you can introduce competition on long distance routes, so long as you have a body that controls the timetables and fares, which GBR would do. So lets say you have two operators running high speed London- Manchester. You might be the sort that chooses one operator for the free coffee. But others just want to know that every half hour, on the same minute, there’s a train on that route. GBR would organise that. But will it be of interest to private operators compared to the old monopoly that Virgin enjoyed for years? Not sure. I am sure that you cant do this anyway on the commuter services. Better to hand it all to TfL, effectively the return of Network South East. But then it is all State owned, so where’s the pressure to deliver? Dunno. Across Europe they run the Open Access system on these routes, which works better, but private operators say it is still unfair because they go up against a strong State operator such as Deutsche Bahn. Fact is though that you could get from Brussels to Prague for €29, — albeit you need the Man in Seat 61 to guide you through buying the tickets. So we aint got it sorted either.
Never forget that while she hated trains, it wasnt Thatcher that sold them off. Presumably she realised it was a can of worms. But then again...water...
Water is due to be opened up to competition for households over the coming years, it has already happened for business and i’d argue the margins are so small that unless you’re a huge nationwide company like Tesco and would benefit from consolidating all your retail element over the country into one supplier, then there is very little benefit to be gained. And I think it will be the same for households, but where you might be able to realise benefit for non-financial reasons.
I’d argue your average measured water bill of approx £1-2 a day is astonishing value compared to most other services. And most measured customers could do a lot to bring their own costs down.
Well, while it's diverting from the topic a little, I'm really interested in this. Can you tell me more about exactly what the nature of the competition is here? There's the reservoir. There are the pipes from the reservoir, which I presume are owned by Thames Water for many Lifers. The pipes go down your street and into your house. The water coms out of your tap. You pay Thames Water. They say thank you and shove your prices up next year in gratitude. So how exactly will a "competitor" be inserted into that flow? Not having a dig at you mate, by all means just send me a link to something about it; I'm really surprised I haven't picked this up before, as the water privatisation does my head in, and it's all over Europe thanks to the Brits pushing it in the early 90s.
However as yet I’m not really seeing an answer to the big headache of the private railway which nobody has so far addressed.
Privatisation makes sense if it encourages competition, which benefits customers. How’s your choice of water supplier working out?
The UK system split the railway up into 20+ private monopolies. Now, I can certainly see that you can introduce competition on long distance routes, so long as you have a body that controls the timetables and fares, which GBR would do. So lets say you have two operators running high speed London- Manchester. You might be the sort that chooses one operator for the free coffee. But others just want to know that every half hour, on the same minute, there’s a train on that route. GBR would organise that. But will it be of interest to private operators compared to the old monopoly that Virgin enjoyed for years? Not sure. I am sure that you cant do this anyway on the commuter services. Better to hand it all to TfL, effectively the return of Network South East. But then it is all State owned, so where’s the pressure to deliver? Dunno. Across Europe they run the Open Access system on these routes, which works better, but private operators say it is still unfair because they go up against a strong State operator such as Deutsche Bahn. Fact is though that you could get from Brussels to Prague for €29, — albeit you need the Man in Seat 61 to guide you through buying the tickets. So we aint got it sorted either.
Never forget that while she hated trains, it wasnt Thatcher that sold them off. Presumably she realised it was a can of worms. But then again...water...
Water is due to be opened up to competition for households over the coming years, it has already happened for business and i’d argue the margins are so small that unless you’re a huge nationwide company like Tesco and would benefit from consolidating all your retail element over the country into one supplier, then there is very little benefit to be gained. And I think it will be the same for households, but where you might be able to realise benefit for non-financial reasons.
I’d argue your average measured water bill of approx £1-2 a day is astonishing value compared to most other services. And most measured customers could do a lot to bring their own costs down.
Well, while it's diverting from the topic a little, I'm really interested in this. Can you tell me more about exactly what the nature of the competition is here? There's the reservoir. There are the pipes from the reservoir, which I presume are owned by Thames Water for many Lifers. The pipes go down your street and into your house. The water coms out of your tap. You pay Thames Water. They say thank you and shove your prices up next year in gratitude. So how exactly will a "competitor" be inserted into that flow? Not having a dig at you mate, by all means just send me a link to something about it; I'm really surprised I haven't picked this up before, as the water privatisation does my head in, and it's all over Europe thanks to the Brits pushing it in the early 90s.
Comments
My feeling is that we are learning that private doesn't always mean good and public doesn't always mean bad and that decent investment and strong management can exist in either or neither tenure.
We all know that what we want as passengers is a reasonably reliable reasonably affordable service that doesn't have to involve knowing which operator's train you can use when going Doncaster to Peterborough and doesn't need to have 3 browsers open when buying tickets. There can still be price differentials - we all accept that flying Lufthansa will be better than flying RyanAir - but these need to be clear rather than just the fact that the carriages are a different colour.
It was an absolute disgrace from start to finish - irrespective of your political persuasion.
BTW
London Gatwick to Marrakech
Marrakech to London Gatwick
Basket £70.99£70.99
OUTSun 4 Jul
London Paddington to Penzance
5h 7m, 0 changesRETURNSun 11 Jul
Penzance to London Paddington
5h 6m, 0 changesSuper Off-Peak Return£124.40
So not just more expensive, apx twice as much. 2 people can fly to Marrakech and back for the price of one person going to Penzance and back.
And you are less likely to be ripped off or mugged in Marrakech.
You can buy better Cornish paasties in Penzance, though.
**edit
Just looked, £150
But then the real competition is with the car and the plane, and for the railways to smash the competition you need increased speed, and that means infrastructure like HS2 and only the State can do that.
The options were:
Coach - £28pp
Plane - £45pp (plus parking at Stansted and Dartford toll)
Train - £110pp
So we chose the overnight coach because at the time we worked in London so already had season tickets that made getting to Victoria essentially free. Regretted it, because whilst the overnight coach gave us the most time in Edinburgh, I didn't get much sleep so ended the weekend so exhausted I needed another break to recover.
The point is of course that those price differentials are ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind is going to choose the train unless they're travelling along, really need to travel city centre to city centre, and can use the journey to get some work done, i.e. lone business travellers who are probably expensing the rail fare anyway. Leisure travellers are always going to drive or fly. If the UK is serious about it's environmental goals then they urgently need to fix this, and not buy penalising the airlines and their passengers.
If I want to get the train from Sittingbourne to St Pancras, I'm looking at pretty much that airfare from above to travel just 450 miles.
EDIT: Just checked the rail fares for Sittingbourne to St Pancras. If I want to travel before 9am then it's £53.80, how the fuck can that be justified for journey of just over an hour and just over 50 miles?
Off-peak savers offer an hourly service and you turn up whenever you like and get on any train - even if it's "full". (Off-peak of course!).
Airlines rarely offer that sort of deal unless you pay hundreds of pounds.
When you compare "advanced against advanced" I don't think there's usually that much difference.
2015, the telegraph:
Telegraph: “Flexible season tickets will be formally unveiled as Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, lays the groundwork for a series of radical changes on Thursday”
Sample LNER advance fares advertised today
LONDON TO EDINBURGH
HARROGATE TO LONDON
EDINBURGH TO LONDON
https://www.lner.co.uk/
Bring back full nationalisation b ut in a modern manner
Thatcher never got round to privatising the railway because beforehand, she got stabbed in the back by her own party.
But I think you'll find that passengers are also looking at:
Price
Comfort
Ease of connections
Food & drink
Connectivity as in Wifi
In today's world many of us might choose to spend travel time on here, watching Netflix or skimming the news and social media, as well as the odd call or even video call
And many of us find long drives unattractive. One thing lockdown and working from home has shown us is that time, comfort and quality of life are fairly important to help one both relax and think straight.
For all the failings of privatisation, passenger numbers have gone up massively, basically doubling , and this has been across all types of journey, so you can't say the policy was a complete failure.
Agreed. It's unfair to compare the Easyjet/Ryanair ticket bought months in advance with a walk on rail fare.
It always makes me laugh when i hear the passenger growth numbers trotted out, usually by Tories with no real business experience, to justify privatisation. I dont include you in that lot, but before assuming this as proof, you need to consider the huge population increase since the mid 90s. We need to know whether rail has significantly increased share of long distance journeys vs air, car, and coach in that time. The Ministry certainly has the data, but I have never seen them published, let alone brandished in triumph, which makes me suspect the share hasnt increased that much. And even if it has, how much was positive choice? I mean the motorways seem choked all the time now. Cause and effect...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/761352/rail-factsheet-2018.pdf
I’d argue your average measured water bill of approx £1-2 a day is astonishing value compared to most other services. And most measured customers could do a lot to bring their own costs down.
There's the reservoir. There are the pipes from the reservoir, which I presume are owned by Thames Water for many Lifers. The pipes go down your street and into your house. The water coms out of your tap. You pay Thames Water. They say thank you and shove your prices up next year in gratitude. So how exactly will a "competitor" be inserted into that flow? Not having a dig at you mate, by all means just send me a link to something about it; I'm really surprised I haven't picked this up before, as the water privatisation does my head in, and it's all over Europe thanks to the Brits pushing it in the early 90s.