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

Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

rosalux.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 478 posts

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#291

Post by Sharlin »

bluGill wrote: post #191
cogman10 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you have a grade separated syste

Yeah, that's not realistic in 99% of the cases.

> 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.

But buses can't do the same thing.

The thing about LRT is capacity per driver. Even the fanciest, most expensive buses can take maybe half the passengers a standard 30-40m tram can. It's not even a competition. That alone makes trams win every time there's enough population to fill that capacity. Even if you wanted to pay for three bus drivers rather than one tram driver, you can simply not put enough buses on the same route to make up for the difference. Even if said route is independent of other traffic, which it never ever is.

Rail transport always has high up-front costs but low operating costs. But a BRT system truly designed to rail standards would cost almost as much as just building a frigging LRT system. And if you do the sensible thing and choose overhead rather than battery power – well, there's a reason trolleybus rapid transit systems do not actually exist. There's zero reasons you'd want such a thing rather than light rail.

Trams benefit greatly from being mature technology with economies of scale. There's a lot of knowledge in the world on how to build great rail infrastructure and how to make great LRT vehicles at a scale. There are maybe two companies in the world that make BRT vehicles, and no matter how excellent the infrastructure, the service lifespan of a bus is less than half that of a tram.

There also exists this thing called "rail factor". No matter how fancy your bus system, an equivalent thing but on rails will always attract more passengers, especially from demographics that would otherwise not use transit. Whatever the reason, this effect can not be ignored given how important it is to attract new transit users. Steel on steel is simply always more popular than rubber on pavement when it comes to transit.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_track

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#292

Post by renewiltord »

dh2022 wrote: post #267
Workaccount2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our ports in the US, which affects the cost of endless goods, are still running with 1950's level tech because the unions are so strong (and have heavy mob ties).

What is stopping other ports in the US from adopting 2025 tech and growing to the point where existing ports have to get new tech or become obsolete?

You try it, you get a visit. Same way it's always been.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#293

Post by thaumasiotes »

amluto wrote: post #144
tialaramex wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That ding, ding and away issue seems straightforwardly solvable with a small amount of technology (the train could refuse to go without the signal saying it’s okay) or something like the Japanese pointing and calling system, or even both. Frankly, something like positive train control or the European Train Control System should be table stakes at this point. It should be difficult or impossible for a driver unfamilia…

> It should be difficult or impossible for a driver unfamiliar with a route to cause a crash.

This is a question that's occurred to me in a different context. In Shanghai, there are subway stations where the passenger area is separated from the tracks by a floor-to-ceiling wall, making it impossible to drop something onto the tracks, fall onto the tracks, or get pushed onto the tracks.

There are also stations where there's no wall, and anyone can just shove you onto the tracks at any time.

The presence of a wall is highly predictable: newer stations have them, and older stations don't.

Should the older stations be renovated? That would be an increase in safety. It would also be a pretty substantial expense to address a mostly nonexistent problem. The wall is a good idea and it makes sense to include it when you're constructing a new station. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to add it to an existing station.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#294

Post by VBprogrammer »

bluGill wrote: post #266
rmoriz wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if signalling or mechanical failures occur and manual intervention is required? I will collapse the network, that’s why you see conductor-less operation only in separated environments, like subways (Nürnberg) or DLR (London)

Drivers cannot do much to in those cases anyway. Hit the emergency stop and wait for the mechanic. - computers can do the same thing The better answer is do maintenance such that you don't have those failures in the first place.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of railway operations knows that this isn't at all true.

For example, I've been on a Glasgow bound train where the driver was instructed to pass the signal at danger following a lengthy signoff process. Some scallywags had stolen wire for copper.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#295

Post by CGMthrowaway »

oersted wrote: post #150
graemep wrote: 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.

Becoming more common in the US too, because of Trump's policy of US re-industrialization and national security. Intel Corp (10% equity), MP Materials (15%), Lithium Americas(5%), Trilogy Metals (17.5%), US Steel (golden share), Vulcan Elements, ReElement Technologies

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#296

Post by Arrath »

BJones12 wrote: post #283
jhonof wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a middle ground that is quite common across Europe: a private company that has the government as a shareholder. Interestingly, Quebec in Canada has been loosely following this model recently and it's working great. Long video but interesting if you like infrastructure stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHqqA0onn0&t=532s TLDR: CDPQ invests on behalf of the Quebec Pension Plan, and has been building inf…

Those infrastructure "investments" will almost certainly not generate the same return for pensioners as putting the money in an index fund.

Maybe so, but I would contend it is worth considering the broader implications of those investments and the effects that new and upgraded infrastructure could have on the greater economy.

Speaking only for myself, I would be okay with a lower return if it also means we as a society have good public transit, roads that aren't more pothole than asphalt, water that doesn't have to be boiled on occasion, reliable power, modern internet, and so on.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#297

Post by thaumasiotes »

renewiltord wrote: post #292
dh2022 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is stopping other ports in the US from adopting 2025 tech and growing to the point where existing ports have to get new tech or become obsolete?

You try it, you get a visit. Same way it's always been.

> You try it, you get a visit. Same way it's always been.

In that case, there's no obstacle. This is exactly what happened with containerization, and guess what? The ports that did containerize, including some ports constructed from scratch specifically because existing unionized ports blocked containerization, replaced the ports that didn't.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#298

Post by jrockway »

rPlayer6554 wrote: post #114
_jab wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, one of the highest farebox recovery ratio transit systems has historically been BART, which is 2019 was 72%, and even today is around 50%. Unfortunately, having a very high ratio also makes systems much more vulnerable to collapse during periods of economic downturn, which is exactly what BART has been dealing with since ridership collapsed during Covid. I'm no expert in this topic (in other words, I just…

Every major station I went to in Japan had a huge mall with restaurants connected to it owned by the rail company. Inside stations were rail company owned gift shops, convince stores, etc.

I think that connecting outlying areas (especially ones you the railroad build yourself) to department stores is what got Japanese rail companies going, but it's probably less important now than it was initially. Farebox revenue covers profitable operation of the railroad. It even appears to cover upgrades; browse around on the satellite view of Tokyo and you can see many private companies moving their above-ground infrastructure to (expensive!) subways because ... trains hitting cars interferes with their ability to earn money. It is honestly something that I have trouble wrapping my head around. The business is so good you can afford to make it better, but the business is a commuter train? Weird!

I think Japan is successful because of a less pervasive car culture than the US. People expect to walk 30 minutes to the train in the morning, that's just something you do. It would be unheard of in the US (and also dangerous in many suburbs, because they are designed to move as many giant SUVs as possible per hour, not to let pedestrians and cyclists get to the train station).

Also, a big caveat is ... all of this is Tokyo and Osaka, very large, rich, and dense cities. When you go out into the middle of nowhere in Japan (even an hour out of Tokyo, think the Hachikō line, etc.), rail service kind of sucks and is subsidized heavily.

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#299

Post by [deleted] »

selimthegrim wrote: post #227
xnorswap wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading an article in the journnal of the RSS about whether it was actually less safe or whether it was just statistical clustering. I don't however remember the conclusion! I've tracked down the article to https://academic.oup.com/jrssig/article-abstract/4/1/15/7029... but I don't have access.

It says there’s no evidence for that hypothesis.

[deleted]

Re: Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

#300

Post by thaumasiotes »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #274
dh2022 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is stopping other ports in the US from adopting 2025 tech and growing to the point where existing ports have to get new tech or become obsolete?

The mob part.

The mob used to be a major issue in American politics. Today it isn't.

Are you arguing that it's grown more powerful with that change?

Post reply on HN