Live data from Hacker News

Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

rosalux.de

191–200 of 478 posts

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But trains are inherently safer (or at least, they should be). If the train driver falls asleep and the train is about to go where it shouldn't, then safety systems should kick in and halt the train automatically. This is not possible (to the same extent) in airplanes.

This is something I have a hard time squaring away. A train will likely always need to be manned, there are, in fact, checks that have to be made by a person and can't be made by a computer. However, it seems like the part of actually driving the train could be nearly completely automated. The train is on a rail, about the only thing a person is needed for when the train is in motion is to push a stop button if thing…

If you have a grade separated system - which you really want anyway - there is nothing that could get in the way.

I'm against trams because a bus can do the same thing - and if you maintain the roads to track standards they are just as comfortable.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#192

Does Britain have any privatisation success stories? Or any public-private partnership (PPP) success stories? Does any country have any success stories? I can’t think of any.

> Does any country have any success stories?

Yes, but it depends on how/why things are done. You don't hear about the successes because it's not a story worth telling.

Charter schools are a good example. They have mixed success when deployed. In many places they're deployed by right-wing politicians primarily to weaken public schools (and their unions). This can be done via a variety of ways, such as letting the charter schools charge extra (thereby essentially subsidizing private schools), allowing the schools to "expel" problem children, thereby dumping the public system with them, etc. The result is usually a framework that isn't designed to actually make education better.

In some places (Sweden is a good example), charter schools were implemented by a centre-left government because all attempts at school reform failed due to a variety of reasons. The result was by most measures successful as the charter schools couldn't pick and choose kids, were still held accountable, and it resulted in the public schools having to stop fighting reform in order to sort of compete.

The Canada line in Vancouver (metro link to the airport) was build on time and on budget and is still run by a P3 company, as is the new REM line in Montreal. The incentives here were ONE company was given a contract with clearly laid out incentives and minimal political meddling after that (as opposed to other P3s where the government is highly involved and subcontracts, etc get doled out to connected firms, etc).

The UK car industry was mostly privatized, but judgement on its post-privatization failure mostly goes down political lines (eg should a government continue to subsidize poorly made cars in the name of employment). Same with most of the rest of industrial Britain, which under public ownership was uncompetitive in most cases. That being said, most would consider Rolls-Royce to be successful and was privatized in the 1980s.

BP's privitization was mostly a success, even with all its issues.

Canada privatized CN rail and it is now one of the most efficient freight railroads in North America.

Telecom privatization in the EU has mostly been a success (though one could argue that the EU has pushed for too much competition, which has meant that while mobile prices are generally very low, it has made it harder for companies to invest).

Many airlines outside of the USA were also publicly owned pseudo-monopolies. Flying is cheaper than it's ever been, even if no longer glamourous.

The TL;DR is of course it's a mixed bag and depends on so many factors. Many UK industrial firms were so poorly run under private ownership that they were so far behind they couldn't catch up and compete once privatization did happen.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#193
post #34

For context: The website is called Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung. Rosa Luxemburg was a Polish and naturalised-German Marxist theorist and revolutionary. A very biased source

Absolutely, I flagged this post for this very reason. Far left or right websites are no place to get a reliable account of things.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#194
> so that decisions about the railways we use are made closer to us

I believe this is a mistranslation of "so that decisions about the railways we use are made by me" or more precisely "so that decisions about the railways we use are made by the sort of people that like attending committee meetings and working their way up the inside of political parties"

The privatisation was very likely botched, however, it was not as if it was done in a secret - the "fire sale" only happened at "rock bottom prices" with hindsight. The nationalisation itself was fairly botched and it is hardly as if the decimation of Britain's railways implemented following the Breeching Report (completed on a nationalised rail system) was particularly effective.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#195
post #132
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can simultaneously believe that train drivers and airline pilots deserve to be paid more. But that's not what noir_lord thinks. He/she specifically said > their pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid [my emphasis] which implies that train drivers are currently paid the correct amount.

It doesn't imply anything, they explicitly said they think it's fair: > how "overpaid" train drivers are when in reality their pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid You are the one who is implying something.

> You are the one who is implying something.

Maybe I am, so let's stick to exactly what noir_lord said

> > Train drivers can be paid as much as aircraft pilots

> that's as it should be

I understand this to mean that it is fair that train drivers are paid as much as airline pilots.

> in reality their [train drivers'] pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid

I understand this to mean that train drivers are paid fairly, and everyone else, including pilots, are underpaid, i.e. it is not fair that airline pilots don't earn more than they currently do, i.e. as much as train drivers, from which I conclude that it is not fair that train drivers can be paid as much as aircraft pilots, in contradiction to the first claim.

Where have I gone wrong?

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#196
post #22

It implies railways were les safe post privatisation. This is misleading. There were more accidents and deaths, but that was because of a huge increase in miles travelled. Deaths per billion kilometers fell consistently before and after privatisation. A lot of the problems lie in tracks and their maintenance, and the tracks were re-nationalised many years ago. It is not efficiently run (see HS2!). They are expensive,…

There is a middle ground that is quite common across Europe: a private company that has the government as a shareholder. I think it is reasonable for subsidies to be structured just like private investments rather than a donation. The public should reap the rewards of the money they invest in their country through taxes, just like wealthy investors do. It's a question of perspective. I've spent my life in countries w…

> There is a middle ground that is quite common across Europe: a private company that has the government as a shareholder.

This is in fact the situation in major parts of the UK rail network now; much has been renationalised or has the DoT as sole shareholder.

The UK rail system is not now truly privately held; this has been slowly unpicked by both the previous Conservative government and the current Labour government.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#197
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This was literally a case study for my Sociology degree in the '90s. (I would also mindfully say that there is a lot of subtle political propaganda in the UK around this issue- the powers that be want the public to blame train drivers for the failures of privatisation)

That doesn't convince me. Companies commonly handle situations like this just fine. I know because I have seen it. I think you are the one who fell for the propaganda here.

> I know because I have seen it

Companies may or may not handle strikes properly. If it were that easy, industrial interests (and their emissaries, like Reagan and Thatcher) would not have spent more than a century trying to break unions.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#198
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are expensive, but that is partly because rail workers are well paid This is in fact an interesting by-product of privatisation: train drivers became rarer due to shareholder reluctance to train and recruit them. They consequently became more expensive. A somewhat fun side effect of the free market, especially given the prevailing assumption that moving public sector employees into the private sector would dri…

The idea is usually to de-skill workers and also to try to make their contractual terms worse. In one very small way I actually sympathise on the railways, let me be specific, this is a long story: The person driving the train clearly needs to learn how to drive that particular model of train, I think that's likely true basically everywhere. The UK's railway systems are however also reliant on drivers knowing the rou…

Assuming it’s similar to every other country; Route qualifications simply require first driving the route with another qualified driver. Once that is done you need to drive the route once every 6 months (this is in Australia ut i assume it’s the same) to keep that qualification up to date.

It’s not particularly onerous and understandably helpful for vehicles that take a long time to adjust speed.

The guard requirement does seem unnecessary though and is not a universal practice globally.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#199
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Nearly?) all of the the "private" rail operators in the UK are actually the national operators of other countries - Germany, France, Italy and I think Netherlands. The national rail operators mostly know how to run a decent service, but in the UK passengers pay multiples of what those operators charge in their home country and the service is definitely not as good.

You are aware National Express (UK company) operates a lot of train routes in NRW in Germany, too? Equally Ariva (UK company, was owned by DB, now UK) in the Netherlands? The EU basically mandates privatisation of railways. They require track and trains to be run by different operators (DB InfraGO in Germany, ProRail in NL, etc) to the train operators. They then require (nearly?) all passenger rail operations be avai…

Technically Arriva is now American owned.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#200

All privatizations of public infrastructur and services are failures, simply due to the discrepancy between the interests: The public wants: Cheap, reliable, quality services. A corporation wants: Maximized Revenue. The two inevitably clash. No matter what business, no matter what country. Don't believe me? Go and find a single instance of a service that used to be provided completely by the government, that got BETT…

>Don't believe me? Go and find a single instance of a service that used to be provided completely by the government, that got BETTER FOR USERS (that is: The Public, not investors) after being privatized. I'll wait.

You won't have to wait long: flying. Shocked? You shouldn't be. In the 70s, you'd have to pay thousands of dollars to fly across the country. Now you can get a flight between NYC and London for $200.

Time to retract your entire little rant.

Post reply on HN