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

271–280 of 383 posts

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#271

Post by apexalpha »

duxup wrote: post #196
makomk wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is the EU's reason for that rule?

Before this rule all tracks AND rolling stock would be owned by single, national entities in every country. If you were a Austrian train operator wanting to run trains to Germany you'd have to ask Deutsche Bahn for space on the rail, and they would (obviously) give priority to their own rolling stock.

This would happen to the point where it was almost impossible to organise cross border rail connections.

By seperating the track from the train you can make the train companies compete with each other on a (more) equal footing.

Ironically, most of the 'private' train companies now running on UK tracks are actually Dutch, German and French state owned railway companies competing with each other.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#272

Post by duxup »

makomk wrote: post #230
duxup wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the EU's reason for that rule?

In theory this is meant to be a good thing because it allows for competition between train operators which sounds like it should lead to better outcomes for customers. There's also a desire for companies to be able to operate commercial trains that don't have government backing on an equal footing with the government-chosen operators, which only works if the other train operators also have an arms-length commercial r…

Ah that makes sense, yeah I can see say Country A not being keen on giving Country B's trains a fair shake if their own rail company wants time on the tracks.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#273

Post by dageshi »

dvdkon wrote: post #178
JI00912 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing the incentive to make profit does not create incentives to improve efficiency and service. The government has no such incentives.

Yes, they do, campaigning on a program of better services and then not delivering anything is very much against career politicians' interests.

This was part of the reason why a lot of previously nationalised stuff was privatised in the first place. MP's would get people complaining to them about the quality of their phone lines from BT for example.

It all moves in cycles, I could well imagine the same situation happening again in 20 years.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#274

Post by pydry »

cameronh90 wrote: post #268
de_keyboard wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very strange. In the UK you often pay a fortune to sit on a nearly empty train. This doesn't even seem like pricing optimized for profit, let alone general carbon reduction across all modes of transport.

Because it isn't. The pricing, timetables and services were basically all centrally controlled. The train operators put in requests to change them, then the government (or Network Rail or whoever they delegated the power to) would approve/deny them. Since they're sharing access to the underlying infrastructure, they can't do what they want. Additionally, there are many trains that are unprofitable but the operators a…

>The idea that our existing franchising system was anything remotely resembling free market is absurd.

As was the idea that this was even possible.

It was never set up to impose market discipline on the rail providers. It was set up to be a profitable investment. So Richard Branson could (as he put it), print money.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#275

Post by chrisseaton »

AM1010101 wrote: post #242
_Wintermute wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trains in the UK seem ok in terms of the number of services and reliability, but they're so expensive. It's almost always cheaper to fly or rent a car than it is to use the train for anything approaching long distance.

Yes this is the problem. Using the train is often a non-option. What’s costs £25 fuel will cost £70 for a rail ticket and often take longer if you are not going between major cities. It’s even worse if there are multiple people. I would love to commute on the train (use your time more effectively, lower CO2, less stress) but it’s just too costly as it is.

> What’s costs £25 fuel will cost £70 for a rail ticket

Where are you planning on parking when you get there though?

I'd rather pay quadruple for a ticket to London, than drive into London and then try to park a car. I can't imagine driving into a city - seems insane.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#276

Post by lathiat »

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…

Wendover Productions made a great video about this ridiculous system. It’s totally mad. https://youtu.be/DlTq8DbRs4k

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#277

Post by bluGill »

mschuster91 wrote: post #169
fmajid wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look how much hay Mussolini made from running the trains on time (which wasn't even the case, they just padded the schedule).

> which wasn't even the case, they just padded the schedule Well, if I'm a company using rail for freight or a worker depending on the rail to get to work, it already is a massive improvement if I can at least rely on the train being where it should be at the announced time. Improving the schedule for faster travel or shorter intervals is another thing, but predictability alone makes my life easier.

Both are important, but for different things. If the trip time is too long nobody will take the train. If the train isn't predictable nobody will take the train. You get a bit of leeway in different situations though. The longer the trip the less either matters because what else can you do? If you are only going a few meters it needs to be here now (whenever now is - on time in 1 minute is too late!), and it only needs to be faster than walking that distance. In between you get some ability to do things.

In the Swiss case on time is critical because they want people to depend on their next train being there when they get there. They assume most people will get off one train and get on another (or a bus) so they all meet in the same place at the same time. Early does nothing for anyone unless the bus/train they are meeting is early and leaves early. This is one good way to run a system. The other is run so many trains/buses that whenever you arrive there is another waiting for you that will leave as soon as you can get on. This second way to run a system is much faster and better for everyone - but the costs are significantly higher though and so nobody can afford to run a large system that way. (large cities often can run this way and should where they can). Note that system is the key word here. If you only have one train the considerations are different.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#278

Post by pydry »

andrepd wrote: post #190
LatteLazy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The undiscussed upside of this "privatisation pantomime" is that government's are committed to making it work. That means it gets investments and bailouts. Compare that to publicly owned services who get nothing. The real question here isn't who owns X, it's will the government invest in X...

It's a classic tactic: underfund government services, then point to how they don't work as a pretext to privatise.

This is happening to the NHS right now.

128k deaths thanks to an overloaded, underfunded system and Boris Johnson's own nurse rage-quits and the conservatives are still gaining electoral ground. It's bizarre.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#279

Post by squiggleblaz »

oblio wrote: post #231
Guthur wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what happens when party A fucks up and you vote in party B who also fuck it up your are officially out of options. The tender approach for time limited monopoly was just terrible though and had no good incentives at all, and so I'm not really sure a government monopoly will be much worse.

In decent voting systems, you vote in party C.

I don't think there's any voting system that genuinely gives you three choices to lead government at every election. Even in proportional systems, you might be able to select someone who more closely represents your interests and can advocate them in parliament, but the government is probably going to be led by one of the same two parties over time. If party A and party B are both ideologically inclined to fuck up rail, getting party C elected as a junior partner probably won't change that.

And if you're just hoping to replace party A entirely with party C, FPTP is one of the better systems as long as you're not in a country where election laws are set up to ensure that the Democrats and the Republicans are going to win almost every election. But that's a question of candidacy laws and incumbent rights; changing the voting system in the US won't suddenly cause other parties to get elected.

Anyway, the fact that party A fucked it up and party B is fucking it up doesn't mean party A lacks incentives to improve it tomorrow. Perhaps they fucked it up because their leader was incompetent, and now that there's been a change in leadership they will be motivated to improve.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#280

Post by chrisseaton »

jonplackett wrote: post #87

There must be a better way to set up incentives. Eg. Company is chosen - they get a temporary monopoly on a route, for free instead of having to pitch a ridiculous low ball But... Every time a train is late, they pay £100,000 Every time a train is cancelled they pay £1,000,000 They pay £10 for every passenger complaint. Etc etc

Why would a company sign up to be flogged like this, though?
Post reply on HN