Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK Rail services to come under unified state control

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 383 posts

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#121

Post by pydry »

tomxor wrote: post #98
flipbrad wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry to say, but these plans still see routes being operated by private companies awarded multiyear contracts...

Perhaps, but: > The government says the new system should look more like Transport for London, with multiple operators under one brand, offering greater accountability when things go wrong. If it introduces more accountability, it's basically doing it's job. Multiyear contracts do not mean no accountability. I'm not a regular passenger but my understanding is that reliability of current service is generally poor with…

I didn't see any promises about additional recourse. It seems to be more about bureaucratic consolidation than accountability.

This is not the nationalisation and price freezes promised by Corbyn.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#122

Post by makomk »

matsemann wrote: post #12

Norway's railroad also went "private" a few years ago, and have butchered it up into (not all): - we have a directorate of railway deciding where to build tracks, what providers must adhere to, their timetables etc - one government owned company building - one government owned company building and maintaining the tracks - one government owned company owning the trains - another one maintaining the trains - one govern…

The seperation of track ownership and operation from actually running the trains is mandated by EU directives, so that part is going to be the same pretty much anywhere in the EU. I think some countries like Germany bend the rules a bit by having them run by nominally independent divisions of the same state-owned company (and sometimes go father than is allowed and end up on the losing end of court battles), but the UK is probably going beyond what it could do as a member of the EU here.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#123

Post by pydry »

jabl wrote: post #105
jonplackett wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other crazy side to it is that the government still own and pay for the track - the only bit that doesn’t even make any money. And is crazy expensive! Privatise the profit, socialise the loss.

Tracks are certainly very valuable infrastructure, it's just hard to monetize (and very expensive to build, as you say). So in a way it makes sense for the government to handle it.

The way to monetize is property development and rent around stations. That's how it works in Japan, where private companies sell tickets at a loss and still make profits.

In the UK that land got sold off to private equity and the like who are making the real dough while they funnel some of that into donations to the Tory party.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#124

Post by ClumsyPilot »

jabl wrote: post #105
jonplackett wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other crazy side to it is that the government still own and pay for the track - the only bit that doesn’t even make any money. And is crazy expensive! Privatise the profit, socialise the loss.

Tracks are certainly very valuable infrastructure, it's just hard to monetize (and very expensive to build, as you say). So in a way it makes sense for the government to handle it.

Track is what defines the railway, maximum speed, 85% of maintenance cost, etc.

UK tried to privatise it, but the firm collapsed and had to be nationalised.

What do private companies add, if on a good day they earn the profit and on a bad day tax payer picks up the tab.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#125

Post by OJFord »

JI00912 wrote: post #79
OJFord wrote: post #48

Hurrah! Even as a free market conservative I've long been in favour of this: bidding for the multi-year contract to operate a line is a poor proxy for (impossible) proper competition where rail users could vote with their feet and wallets. There's effectively only one operator anyway, for a given journey, it should be the state, awarding the multi-year contract to the elected government is strictly better than to a p…

> awarding the multi-year contract to the elected government is strictly better than to a private company where there's little/much more indirect incentive to do anything in the interest of the consumer. Well... the incentives really aren't different for the government.

It becomes a campaign issue (or does if it is an issue), which is what I mean is 'strictly better'. Not great, probably, but not worse in any other way that I can think of, and that is a positive (to whatever extent).

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#126

Post by rbanffy »

scatters wrote: post #62
carnagecity786 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this isn't actual nationalisation. The railway will still be operated by private firms, this is only a transfer of franchising from the department of transport to this new "Great British Railways" department; which is a new franchising model. It's supposed to allow them to set unified fees, and have greater control over branding and speak with a unified voice, but apart from that I don't see any of the…

High fares (and they aren't that high) aren't a result of privatization; they're because of a lack of subsidy. In the UK, despite the obvious environmental benefits, subsidizing rail is politically awkward because it's regressive.

If privatisation of essential services is a crime (it’s not, but it should be), privatising the subsidies and directing them to private companies is much worse.

If one has a basic right to healthcare, education, and freedom of movement, then all those things should be provided by the state.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#127

Post by pydry »

cirrus-clouds wrote: post #78

The flexible season tickets are welcome. However, missing from this news report is any mention of making the cost of rail travel more affordable for the public. The report quotes the former boss of British Airways about " greater flexibility in the way that fares are operated in the future " What does this mean? Can we expect less expensive tickets? The UK already has some of the most expensive rail tickets in Europe…

>However, missing from this news report is any mention of making the cost of rail travel more affordable for the public.

I thought that omission was glaring also. #1 concern of the public is price and they pretend it doesn't exist.

It's a strong signal that prices will increase YOY above inflation.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#129

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Skinney wrote: post #51
matsemann wrote: post #12

Norway's railroad also went "private" a few years ago, and have butchered it up into (not all): - we have a directorate of railway deciding where to build tracks, what providers must adhere to, their timetables etc - one government owned company building - one government owned company building and maintaining the tracks - one government owned company owning the trains - another one maintaining the trains - one govern…

They don’t have to lease their trains from the government, they can bring their own trains if they’d like, but leasing is likely cheaper. The company maintaining the trains do have to bid on the contracts, as well, and can bid for contracts in other countries if they wish. The directorate of railway was there pre-privatization. It’s the infrastructure company that decides the timetables, not the directorate. The dire…

"Operators are free to decide the interior of the trains, and any additional products on top of the minimum fee."

So by the sounds of it, you have tp hunt fpr tickets on different websites and exchequer looses out, but in exchange I get a different of seat, and packet of crisps?

I am really not getting 'free market innovation' vibes here

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#130

Post by thorin »

madaxe_again wrote: post #46
petepete wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until lockdown I commuted to Manchester on the Rochdale line in Leyland-branded Pacers[0]. Trains with an intended lifespan of "no more than twenty years", that are now 35-40 years old. The tickets cost £100 per month and in the years I did it, only managed to find a seat on a handful of occasions. I had to wait at the station because the train was too full more frequently than finding a seat - often they'd show up w…

£100 a month? It’s £200 return for a day for Bristol to London - and that’s if the train gets you there, and doesn’t dump you somewhere outside of Chippenham because it’s the wrong kind of sunny today and the rails have buckled, or it’s cold and the rails have frozen, or it’s raining and the train is poorly with diesel cholera. All of these are acts of god, of course, so aren’t compensatable events.

Something like 160 pounds at peak time from Nottingham to London. Service is good but it's just inconceivable that private individuals would be paying that, all the travelers are on expenses or are self employed contractors/consultants. When I started working and up till about 2005 the same journey was about 40 pounds - a massive increase!
Post reply on HN