Live data from Hacker News

UK Rail services to come under unified state control

bbc.com

371–380 of 383 posts

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#371
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…

> bidding for the multi-year contract to operate a line is a poor proxy for

But that was never the reason why railway operations and railway track exploration and maintenance was split, was it?

The whole point of splitting railway operations from track exploration was to ensure that any railway operator in Europe is free to explore any connection that they wish, provided they pay for the track usage and that the track has free capacity.

That's the whole point.

This separation from track exploration and railway operations has been a collosal success in Europe, with multiple private and even public companies stepping up to serve international corridors even with high-speed railway services.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#372
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is to profit-maximise. Under the rail franchise agreement during the bid process, the terms might mandate that journeys from A to B cost £10, and that journeys from B to C cost £5. There might be no obligation to price travel from A to D via B & C at a particular cost, so a rail operator might make that more expensive. It’s silly from the consumer perspective, but it makes sense for the rail operators to do this…

Thanks for the explanation. I had the wrong idea that it could be due to, for example, if A->B belonged to a different provider than B->C, providers not reaching an agreement on what % to take each, for the journey from A->C - hence increasing the overall cost for covering demands from both.

No problem! You are right that it’s silly though, you shouldn’t have to split your ticket to get the lowest cost.

In real terms the main reason is to protect commuters and capacity - as a theoretical made-up example during the bid process they might be aware that lots of people travel from Milton Keynes to London so the council wants to put a cap on increases for that route. They might also still have lots of capacity on the route from Banbury to Milton Keynes on a morning, so that is priced much lower than Banbury to London. So if you go Banbury -> Milton Keynes you might get a “discount” for not a lot of people using the line, and travelling from Milton Keynes -> London you get the rate that’s protected for commuters, but if you go between Banbury and London then part of the route is already at capacity and there is less discount on the rate.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#373
post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I don’t believe for one second that Japan has better geography than the UK for rail 2) we can do much better with planning, however I’m not sure Japanese planning is the answer, when I lived there I thought most of the accommodation was horrendous. Europeans wouldn’t accept it. 3) is JR Rail etc. private? It seemed too cheap! 4) how is rail profitable in Japan, but not profitable in the UK. It’s cheaper there and…

4) Japanese railways get about 50% of their income from ticket sales, the rest comes from owning the high value land around the stations (renting, grocery stores, hotels and whatnot).

This is actually something Japan got right earlier than others. A lot of European and American train stations are rudown and surrounded by shady activity, whereas Japanese stations are effectively high-level shopping malls.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#374
post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree wholeheartedly. I would add that the real problem is that the current UK political class is too spineless to take on the responsibility of running a rail network without going broke. So they will continue to maintain some degree of chicanery to provide for plausible deniability when the trains don't run or the system goes bankrupt.

How does Japan do it? Can we try to copy them because it’s very good. My 45 minute journey into Tokyo from Chiba was around £125 per month.

Japanese capitalism has ... peculiar characteristics. Some companies are "private" in name only, and effectively run in agreement with politicians.

Their traditional approach to life, higher degree of respect for authority, and job-for-life structures, make the Japanese case fairly unique and difficult to replicate.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#375
post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article actually explains this, with different options > For travel today, bought at the station, immediate departure, outside the peaks... And > If travelling today in the business peak hours... It acknowledges that finance bros travelling from Manchester to London for a 9AM meeting and traveling back on the 1630 will pay more. That doesn't affect most people The summary makes it quite clear. The big picture is…

Yeah I’d known about peak/off-peak, but it always seemed odd that there was such a wide range and that there were so many differently priced tickets within that range and I never knew the formula. An even longer journey I take here (Brno-Prague) seems to always be either 205kč or 245kč (£7-8.50). I know British rail travel is more expensive, it’s the (to me) unpredictable ticket pricing that I would like to decrypt

Privitisation has made fares far cheaper if you know what you're doing, it's great for people with a hacking mindset who aren't worried about looking at brfares.com, and maybe investigating things like routing guides.

Advanced fares exist to encourage people to travel by train who wouldn't normally. They are released on trains that are generally more lightly to get more revenue from perishable stock. Same as supermarkets selling lunch food near expiry date cheaply in the evening - they don't want to do it earlier in the day (and canibalise their lunch trade), but doing it at 4pm means they get extra money without revenue abstraction.

I'm not a fan of advanced fares though, I don't tend to plan, and I hate the stress of missing the train, so I look for hacks to get better flexible fares.

A Manchester-London "standard fare" has increase from £50 in 1995 (£100 today) to £160, however competition and sties like trainsplit mean you can buy a walk up return fare for £45 -- less than a quarter of the old cost after inflation, and only about 20 minutes longer than the old time.

There's more "hacks" to be had too. I used to travel from Wilmslow to London on a semi-regular basis (every few months, getting the 0811 fast train, and returning about 6pm. It cost about £120 return, because I bought a super off peak ticket from Edinburgh, which was valid on any train arriving into Euston that was on the route. Break of journey is well worthwhile - I travelled from Crewe to London a fair bit on a Chirk-Tunbridge Wells return, which allowed break of journey in both directions and was valid on so called "peak" trains from Crewe to London. Splitting tickets can work, especially on very overcrowded trains like the cross country services. Don't buy a pricey ticket from Exeter to Leeds, instead buy a combination of tickets for your journey and save a fortune.

All this means if you are willing to put in time or effort you can travel far more cheaply. The goal of the "rail delivery group" over the last few years has been to remove these "hacks", so everyone has to pay the full price.

Other options to reduce fares would be

1) Getting rid of the unions (rail staff have a strong contract meaning driver salaries have increased about 5.5% a year since privitisation -- same as the "standard" fare on the Manchester-London ticket)

2) Reducing staff (DOO where the driver has to press the "door open" button instead of the guard. This led to massive industrial action on both Northern and Southern)

3) Increasing train speeds (A London-Manchester return takes about 5 hours for staff, costing 5x3 salaries for the driver, guard, and buffet. Replace with HS2 and it drops to 2.5 hour round trip, halving staffing costs - and train leasing costs - and the HS2 trains are twice the size so there's twice as many seats so no need to price people off "overcrowded peak trains")

4) Increasing taxpayer subsidy. Given that the majority of rail travellers are of an above average income, and especially on the really expensive lines

The left have painted a picture of Richard Branson having stolen trillions of pounds over the years, but the profit margins are really very small. It might account for £5 on that £160 ticket, but that's not going to make people happy. I'd rather have the option to learn how to get cheaper tickets (typically typing in "trainsplit.com"). Sadly the narrative (see many posts on this thread) is that "privitisation means high fares and poor service". The evidence is that is nowhere near the whole story. Well respected rail journalist Mark Smith does a good balanced report comparing fares in europe and UK, and the reply comes "load of rubbish guvnor, check the prices now". I check the prices now, post screenshots which back up Mark Smith's points, and it's just a downvote with no reply.

I thought HN was a rational place, but it seems not when it comes to the UK railway.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#376
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…

How are customers on trains supposed to vote with their wallets? It's not as if you can set up competing parallel networks running trains side by side between identical destinations at varying levels of speed and comfort. Capacity is physically constrained , especially on an ancient network like the UK's. Timetable slots are scarce and have to be centrally coordinated and managed. There is no sparkly market magic tha…

> It's not as if you can set up competing parallel networks running trains side by side

No, but there are usually National Express or other coach services available on many routes. For longer routes like London - Manchester you can also fly.

You can also drive yourself - peak time fares are so high that if there is more than one of you travelling it's often cheaper to do this even if you have to rent the car. You can also pay a taxi firm to drive you, which again will often be cheaper than peak fares for more than one person.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One trick to driving into London is finding a parking space at a station outside town and continuing on TfL services. E.g. if you are coming from the M40 park at Hillingdon Station.

But often the reverse is true - if your meeting isn't in the middle of London, it's much easier to drive directly to the place than get there by changing trains. This applies even more if your destination is a smaller place.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#378
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…

How are customers on trains supposed to vote with their wallets? It's not as if you can set up competing parallel networks running trains side by side between identical destinations at varying levels of speed and comfort. Capacity is physically constrained , especially on an ancient network like the UK's. Timetable slots are scarce and have to be centrally coordinated and managed. There is no sparkly market magic tha…

If I wanted to create a market in trains I wouldn't hold a bid to run a specific line or route. I would hold a bid to operate specific times on a given line. e.g. Operator A would run the 7:00,8:00 and 10:00 and Operator B would run the 7:30, 8:30 and 10:30.

There are still limits on how much competitiveness that brings to the market (Operators have very little control over delays) but it would encourage the operators to compare in terms of on train service (and potentially ticket prices as well).

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually they are because unlike shareholders who cares more about dividends then efficiency and service levels the government have stakeholders who care about efficiency and service levels.

When the government will take away your franchise in a few years - as just happened here - that is the only sane thing to do. Shareholders aren't stupid enough to invest in something long term unless their investment will have a return. Companies invest when there is a long term profit from the investment that makes it worth it. With governments all over the world having a history of nationalizing railroads, there is…

Companies don't deserve free bailouts. If they go bankrupt the government can reasonable expect something for paying their debts.

Re: UK Rail services to come under unified state control

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Rail is as expensive as a plane ticket that goes much further because the railways have far more limited capacity than the skies do. It's not related to competition or lack of it - those rails just cannot safely take more vehicles.

Lol, no, rail has 10x to 50x more capacity than skies do, a single train can carry thousands of passengers and China has invested in modern raileay because their airspace is clogged. Now they have more high-speed rail than the rest of the world conbined while plans for HS2 are older than I am and are still nowhere

Seriously? You do realize that we're talking about the capacity of the air vs land, not individual trains vs individual planes? Yes, a single train has more capacity than a single plane, but the limit to how many planes can be in the sky is more or less a function of how sophisticated your ATC system is. UK rail hit the physical limits a long time ago, and expanding it is extremely hard because the land is all taken. That's why HS2 is so expensive and slow, yet (was) still being pursued, because it's the only way to add meaningful capacity. Same with Crossrail.
Post reply on HN