Britain's railway privatization was an abject failure

Post by cycomanic » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:10 PM UTC

nandomrumber wrote: post #307

oersted wrote: post #150

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. 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…

Where are these mythical countries you proclaim to have well managed public services and utilities?

Post by dijit » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:15 PM UTC

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,…

Post by guiriduro » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:21 PM UTC

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #371

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But when the Obama administration tried to do this for renewables, it was called "communism" by the conservative right wing in the USA ...

Obama used loan guarantees and grants, not equity stakes. Solyndra $500M loan guarantee (defaulted 2011) Tesla $500M loan (repaid early 2013 with interest) First Solar $3B loan guarantees (currently being serviced) SunPower $1.2B loan guarantee (bankrupt 2024 but loan repaid) ARRA (2009) $25.6B grants disbursed No equity positions taken. Trump's policy is direct equity stakes as condition for industrial subsidies/tar…

Post by KaiserPro » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:24 PM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #324

KaiserPro wrote: post #115

The problem with this assement is that it misunderstands the role of the private sector. Yes, those crashes happened, and they were disasters, but they were only partially down to rail track being privatised. They were a result of systemic under investment both pre and post privatisation. THe _other_ key thing that needs to be remembered is that rail is highly regulated. To the point that both price, timetables profi…

> lack of effective governance is the hidden crisis here but privatization makes that worse, by adding profit-seeking (which tends to minimize investments) to the lack of effective governance the solution is improving governance and public investments, not privatization (not to mention the problem with infrastructure paid for by the public over decades being sold off on the cheap to private companies who can reap the…

Post by littlestymaar » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:26 PM UTC

Reason077 wrote: post #380

littlestymaar wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The British rail privatization was so successful in increasing passenger numbers it also increased the number of passengers taking the train in France (despite French rail still being state-controlled). Or maybe, just maybe, there's another underlying casual relationship that explains why train use increased a ton in the 90s and 00s in both countries (and other European countries too, by the way, AFAIK passengers cou…

Much of the French high speed rail network (LGV Atlantique, LGV Rhône-Alpes, LGV Nord, LGV Méditerranée, LGV Est, etc) was inaugurated in the 1990s and 2000s. This alone would have been responsible for a big increase in French rail traffic. UK rail infrastructure certainly received improvements during this era too, but besides HS1 it was mostly just renewing and upgrading existing tracks. Nothing like the thousands o…