Jump to content
 

Scotrail to be Nationalised


Recommended Posts

I agree that rail is not suitable for all transport needs, but I cannot see electric vehicles simply replacing, like-for-like, petrol and diesel cars, let alone increasing the number of vehicles on the road. EVs are already 'priced out of most peoples reach' - I certainly cannot afford one ! That is before the materials required to manufacture the batteries, the difference in range between refuelling stops (and the time required to recharge EVs), and the power supply infrastructure are considered. 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The internet is quite a good example of this. What competitors do Amazon and ebay have? What's the alternative to Facebook? 

Amazon, eBay and Facebook all have serious competitors. However you tend to find that the competition for each varies from territory to territory. In many cases what we think of as the dominant force (i.e. Amazon, eBay, Facebook) is the competitor rather than the major player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, caradoc said:

I agree that rail is not suitable for all transport needs, but I cannot see electric vehicles simply replacing, like-for-like, petrol and diesel cars, let alone increasing the number of vehicles on the road. EVs are already 'priced out of most peoples reach' - I certainly cannot afford one !

 

It's still early days in modern EV development. I think you'll find that they will become affordable and be able to replace ic cars, though its also possible that hydrogen may become more available. We've discovered the freedoms of personal transport over the past few decades, I can't see it as something people will give up easily. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 17/03/2021 at 18:06, Rods_of_Revolution said:

Private companies are much better at innovation, raising capital and bringing supply to meet demand, than any part of the public sector. Everytime I suggest that the railways should be properly privatised, people tell me that private companies will do eveything on the cheap, gut the service and tear up railways left, right and centre to maximise profit;

 

Look at the US - plenty of examples of private companies cutting stuff / doing it on the cheap / etc. to maximise profit.

 

On 17/03/2021 at 18:06, Rods_of_Revolution said:

despite the fact almost all the railways in this country were built by private companies, and almost all the cutting of services and ripping up of tracks was done by BR.

 

Only because BR happened to be the organization left holding the ball when the road network took a lot of the traffic away.

 

Same thing happened in the US - business shifted to roads and the private railways responded by cutting services and ripping up track - and in those cases where government rules prevented those measures the railways went bankrupt resulting in a government bailout (see Conrail).

 

And it still happens today - the railways respond to decreases in traffic by ripping up track to reduce costs, and then struggle for years to rebuild infrastructure when traffic returns - but Wall Street was happy with the profits when ripping up track...

 

On 17/03/2021 at 18:06, Rods_of_Revolution said:

The same goes for almost every sector of infrastructure, private enterprise innovates and builds it, the government takes it over and runs it into the ground, before finally they 'privatise' it again, only with so much regulation that it cripples almost every positive aspect of privatisation.

 

Really, private enterprise built the motorway system and the government stole it from them?

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Look at the US - plenty of examples of private companies cutting stuff / doing it on the cheap / etc. to maximise profit.

 

 

Only because BR happened to be the organization left holding the ball when the road network took a lot of the traffic away.

 

Same thing happened in the US - business shifted to roads and the private railways responded by cutting services and ripping up track - and in those cases where government rules prevented those measures the railways went bankrupt resulting in a government bailout (see Conrail).

 

And it still happens today - the railways respond to decreases in traffic by ripping up track to reduce costs, and then struggle for years to rebuild infrastructure when traffic returns - but Wall Street was happy with the profits when ripping up track...

 

 

Really, private enterprise built the motorway system and the government stole it from them?

 

 

 

Your first one is the point I was making. People say private companies will gut the railway system, where as it was BR who gutted the railway system. Thus it is not a case of private will gut the system and public will not. They are both capable of such a thing.

 

My second point was that private companies are better at raising capital and generally managing a system for a sustainable profit, where as public companies are generally poor in both these areas, relying on the government to provide funding and often lacking accountability for their failings. If BR was a private company it would probably have failed within 20 years and been bought by other companies, instead of dragging on and hemorrhaging money for half a century.

 

As for the motorways, that's a single example. It was largely private companies who built the electricity network, roads, telecoms network, waterworks, etc. Almost the entire infrastructure of the UK at the time of nationalisation. It just so happens that the motorways as a concept only really arrived when Britain was going through a period of nationalising the infrastructure and so they were nationalised from the start. Had it not been for the two World Wars, there wouldn't have been any need for nationalisation, but I think a better approach would have been bail-outs, rather than nationalisation. Bail-outs allow for support without infrastructure and its development being used as politcal pawns. Private companies certainly wouldn't have taken 15 years to develop a report on improving the efficiency of their network, that's for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

Look at the US - plenty of examples of private companies cutting stuff / doing it on the cheap / etc. 

 

 

Britain, August 2019. National Grid has a wobble caused by two simultaneous faults and some bit of kit not doing as it should do. Privatised but regulated grid shuts off to prevent damage, power switched from adjacent districts, power back on to 95% of affected areas within minutes. Several trainloads of people late home because of a software cock up. 

 

Texas, February 2021. Unrdgulated privatised grid shuts down because none if its gas power generation equipment is winterised.  No way of switching power from two adjacent nationwide grids because unregulated Texas power generation industry has disconnected from them to avoid federal oversight. Grid stays off for days, 82 people freeze to death or die from carbon monoxide poisoning. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hobby said:

Unfortunately that's not the way it works, though. With the increasing use of EVs rail travel will remain at the less used end of the scale. Until cars can be priced off the roads buses and trains will remain the second choice for most people. And taxing the car enough so as to force people onto public transport is a vote loser. 

 

Especially amongst those you rely on to replace your car. 

Any road charging scheme designed to encourage the use of public transport forgets how those who run public transport get to work. 

Gone are the days when depots were within walking or cycling distance. You can't get to anywhere outside major cities  or into them  for that matter for an 0600 or 0430 start by public transport. 

Price the car off the road and you will have transport workers looking for significant pay increases or just leaving to find a job that allows  them to have some income left to spend on themselves. New starters would also want a job that pays above the cost of working. 

Moving house nearer work is not an option  most can afford. 

 

You also then have to consider how much tax the railways road fleet would have to pay. Despite it being a railway, trains aren't much good at getting the engineers to a failure. 

 

In short it would all add up to significant extra costs  to the public  transport operators both in road charges and wage  bill. 

 

The big advantage buses and trains have is that on arrival, you dont have to store a 2 ton, 15 foot long object for the duration of your visit

 

For travel into major cities that is a significant advantage. 

 

Andy

Edited by SM42
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wheatley said:

Britain, August 2019. National Grid has a wobble caused by two simultaneous faults and some bit of kit not doing as it should do. Privatised but regulated grid shuts off to prevent damage, power switched from adjacent districts, power back on to 95% of affected areas within minutes. Several trainloads of people late home because of a software cock up. 

 

Texas, February 2021. Unrdgulated privatised grid shuts down because none if its gas power generation equipment is winterised.  No way of switching power from two adjacent nationwide grids because unregulated Texas power generation industry has disconnected from them to avoid federal oversight. Grid stays off for days, 82 people freeze to death or die from carbon monoxide poisoning. 

 

I think the national grid would experience a bit more than a wobble if Britain was hit with a ice storm dumping half a meter of snow with temperatures below -20 Celsius, so it's not really a useful comparison. In a state with a population of 28 million, 82 deaths is a comparatively successful outcome, as just a few decades ago such a storm would have killed thousands of people.

 

In railway terms there are the UIC standards, which allow for interoperability and are a useful set of standards developed by the industry itself with members both public and private. The UIC is the sort of international industry body which performs a very useful function as the industry collectively regulates itself, rather than being subject to excessive government regulation and the politcal fallout that brings.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Look at the US - plenty of examples of private companies cutting stuff / doing it on the cheap / etc. to maximise profit.

 

 

Only because BR happened to be the organization left holding the ball when the road network took a lot of the traffic away.

 

Same thing happened in the US - business shifted to roads and the private railways responded by cutting services and ripping up track - and in those cases where government rules prevented those measures the railways went bankrupt resulting in a government bailout (see Conrail).

 

And it still happens today - the railways respond to decreases in traffic by ripping up track to reduce costs, and then struggle for years to rebuild infrastructure when traffic returns - but Wall Street was happy with the profits when ripping up track...

 

 

Really, private enterprise built the motorway system and the government stole it from them?

 

 

One could add the power grid (which, since privatisation has not had much significant investment) schools, and hospitals.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/03/2021 at 15:40, darrel said:

I don't understand the railway unions obsession with renationaliseing the railways. Railway staff have done well in terms of pay rises since privatisation, much better than they would have otherwise. As soon as the railway is renationalised that will be the end of any substantial pay rises. 

 

 

Because it gives them the ability to shut the entire network down in a strike, rather than just part of it....

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, andania 213 said:

 

Err, Really ????

 

 

For only 82 people to die in a storm of that magnitude out of a population of 28 million people is a miracle in my eyes. Comparing it to the death tolls for such storms 100 years ago and it's amazing how successful we have been as a species at improving the quality and duration of human life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

For only 82 people to die in a storm of that magnitude out of a population of 28 million people is a miracle in my eyes. Comparing it to the death tolls for such storms 100 years ago and it's amazing how successful we have been as a species at improving the quality and duration of human life.

The point surely is that the power grid should not have failed , and those who died would still be alive.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

For only 82 people to die in a storm of that magnitude out of a population of 28 million people is a miracle in my eyes. Comparing it to the death tolls for such storms 100 years ago and it's amazing how successful we have been as a species at improving the quality and duration of human life.

 

But if they hadn't been so arrogant about never needing winter protection for

their power stations, and hadn't opted to be 'stand-alone',

because they didn't want to spend the money to comply with

the safety standards set by the rest of the 'grid',

they wouldn't have had the black-out situation in

the first place, and (potentially) no-one would have died!

Edited by jcm@gwr
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/03/2021 at 16:44, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

I'm not talking in absolutes. Just as if I was to say that the water that comes out the tap is clean, it is clean for almost all purposes, but it's never truely 'clean,' if clean means 100% of the impurities have been removed. The market can never by 100% free, but it can be free for most intents and purposes.

 

I've seen instances where a company will come up with a solid business plan, apply for paths to run trains, only to be told that they'd be too competitive with an existing franchise holder. That's a functional monopoly, but it's not an inevitable consequence of the free market, it's driven by government mandates. If the railway market was free, companies would be free to bid on whichever paths they wanted and the highest bidder would recieve them. The same applies to rolling stock procurement. The companies operating the trains can't chose what rolling stock they want, the government sets the requirements and procures it on behalf of the franchisee. It even extends to new projects, like HS2; the market probably doesn't want to save 25mins on their journey, the market probably wants a seat and train that runs on time, and so an additional conventional railway route would be cheaper and better satisfy the market, yet for political reasons the government wants a highspeed route.

 

 

Passenger services frequently turn a profit, but that profit is lost because the unprofitable parts are subsidised instead of being cut. Why are empty trains running between Bristol and Paddington in the middle of the afternoon? It's not to make money, it just takes money away from the peak hours services which turn a profit; they're run because the government insists there have to be trains all day. You have observed how the freight railways turn a profit, and that's because they only run trains when there is demand, not for the sake of having a train running. You don't get an empty stone train running across the country on the off chance there may be some stone that needs moving. The demand for lots of passenger services have been lost to the car, so why are they still running? It's not practical for millions of people to drive into London at the same time, the parking is bad, there is traffic congestion, etc, so that's why people commute by train and it's what makes peak time services profitable. However if you're going into London in the middle of the afternoon, it's probably easier to drive, so people use the car not the train, and so the train doesn't need to run.

 

 

It's not as simple as that, though, for a number of reasons:

 

1) Depreciation/leasing costs. Somewhere I have a book 'A day in the life of BR' which states that BR could no more afford to have an HST sitting idle than BA could a 747.  Depreciation (or on today's railway leasing costs - the bulk of which goes to cover the leasing company's depreciation) is one of the major costs of running a service (much as a large part of the cost of motoring is depreciation of the vehicle) and it's a cost that's paid irrespective of whether the train is running or sat in a siding. I would imagine that in terms of passengers carried, the break-even point on an off-peak service is pretty low. Yes, there's fuel, staffing costs, increased maintenance and (today) track access charges (which are probably lower off-peak) but depreciation's the biggie and the operator has to pay for that anyway. So even a lightly-loaded service can be profitable.

 

What really causes the losses is the requirements for large amounts of extra capacity at peak times (both in terms of rolling stock and track). This requires assets which are only used for a short part of the day but still depreciate and require maintenance. (I can remember reading an article by a former manager of Selhurst depot who discovered that during the morning peak, the last train left the depot three minutes before the first one came back in, and as the evening peak was more spread out fewer units were needed then, so there was effectively one unit in service for three minutes a day!). This is why operators often appear reluctant to obtain extra rolling stock for peak services - most of the time it will be sat in a siding!

 

2) Interconnectivity. One of the failings of Beeching was that when the branch lines closed, if people needed to buy a car to get to the junction, they might as well drive all the way, so closing branch lines caused passenger numbers on the main lines to drop. The same can be true the other way round - when I go to visit my parents in Pembrokeshire, I usually catch the 13:12 from Reading, which for an 8 or 10 car train, is lightly loaded for most of the journey. However, at Swansea it connects into the 16:30 to Pembroke Dock, which is a 2-car DMU and often heavily loaded - mostly from passengers that got off the London train. Cutting the Paddington service would impact the viability of the Pembroke Dock one.

 

3) And of course, from a social perspective there are a significant number of people who for various reasons don't have access to a car.   

Edited by RJS1977
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

You mention a very important issue which is completely ignored by motorists. They too have to pay depreciation, or its equivalent, the cost of a new car when the old one is worn out. Yet most people only think of the cost of fuel and, if you are lucky, tyres and oil. Then there is road tax.

Some years ago someone (not me) did the sums and at that time the true cost of motoring per mile was about twice the cost of the fuel.

If people did that sum , it would often be cheaper to pay for a taxi when one was needed than to own a car, but very few people do.

I have to admit that I am biased as I do not drive. It is a nuisance in this rural area sometimes to have to ask for a lift (eg no buses on Sundays) but even if we used taxis it would be cheaper than owning a car. Of course since buses are free we use those rather than the train!

Jonathan

PS Not at all sure how we got to this point from the title of the thread. Perhaps we should return to the subject.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

The point surely is that the power grid should not have failed , and those who died would still be alive.

That depends how far outside the normal weather conditions it was. The grid will have been designed to cope with some range of things, and outside that window it might not work. And the storm in question seems to have been a long way from the norm.

 

It's similar in the south of england - snow is unusual enough that we just take the hit of some disruption for a few days every couple of years rather than provide the infrastructure necessary to prevent it causing any disruption. We could provide infrastructure to cope with -35 in the winter and 50 in the summer, and a metre of rain every month, but if we did it would probably need to be renewed before it was ever used.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

You mention a very important issue which is completely ignored by motorists. They too have to pay depreciation, or its equivalent, the cost of a new car when the old one is worn out. Yet most people only think of the cost of fuel and, if you are lucky, tyres and oil. Then there is road tax.

Some years ago someone (not me) did the sums and at that time the true cost of motoring per mile was about twice the cost of the fuel.

If people did that sum , it would often be cheaper to pay for a taxi when one was needed than to own a car, but very few people do.

I have to admit that I am biased as I do not drive. It is a nuisance in this rural area sometimes to have to ask for a lift (eg no buses on Sundays) but even if we used taxis it would be cheaper than owning a car. Of course since buses are free we use those rather than the train!

Jonathan

PS Not at all sure how we got to this point from the title of the thread. Perhaps we should return to the subject.

 

They'd still drive. Looking at it in purely financial terms isn't the way most people look at car ownership. It's more about the convenience (door to door and when they want to travel - not being restricted by a timetable). Also second hand cars these days are not expensive and are very reliable, cost for a new car may be high but they aren't for s/h ones. Even in the old days I used to make a profit on the mileage I was paid! 

 

I think I may be partly responsible for the drift. Sorry! 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Back on topic, it really doesn't make much difference whether the trains are run by a private company or by a state owned company while those in the Civil Service are sure that they know more about how to run a railway than the professional railwaymen and women. Neither public or private ownership can do an effective job under those circumstances, and that is what we have had, at least in England, and getting worse.  It will be interested to see if in Scotland the public administrators can manage to keep their hands off and leave it to the professionals; the same in Wales.

Jonathan

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

And nationalisation won't stop points failures, signal failures (they're already nationalised), suicides, trespass & vandalism, bridge bashes, cable theft, passengers being taken ill, passengers turning up on the last minute and holding up the train, etc, which are the main causes of delays on the network.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

My second point was that private companies are better at raising capital and generally managing a system for a sustainable profit, where as public companies are generally poor in both these areas, relying on the government to provide funding and often lacking accountability for their failings.

 

It is generally speaking an unfair comparison - in most cases public companies are operating items that are either inherently unprofitable (passenger rail) or operating things that are considered a public essential where making a large profit is undesirable (as it can cause hardship among the public).

 

Quote

If BR was a private company it would probably have failed within 20 years and been bought by other companies, instead of dragging on and hemorrhaging money for half a century.

 

Nope.  Private companies would not touch a business that had no hope for profitability without government subsidy.

 

Quote

Had it not been for the two World Wars, there wouldn't have been any need for nationalisation,

 

Things would have changed, unless you assume the lack of the two wars would mean somehow the car/bus/lorry and an extensive road system would never have happened.

 

Either you have nationalisation/government subsidy/or no passenger rail network - and it is doubtful whether there is enough goods traffic in the UK to maintain much if any of a rail network for goods only.

 

Quote

but I think a better approach would have been bail-outs, rather than nationalisation. Bail-outs allow for support without infrastructure and its development being used as politcal pawns.

 

Bail-outs frequently come with political strings attached - thus the private company ends up being a political pawn.

 

Quote

Private companies certainly wouldn't have taken 15 years to develop a report on improving the efficiency of their network, that's for sure.

 

Anyone being honest would acknowledge that many private companies have the same issues as public companies - but because they are private they hide it better.

 

Until they can't - like how here in Canada the Covid outbreaks have been worse and more deadly in privately owned/run seniors homes compared the public ones - and at least one government has put through legislation to protect them from lawsuits - in other words protecting them from having to improve the safety of their operations so they can continue to make easy profits.

Edited by mdvle
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

I think the national grid would experience a bit more than a wobble if Britain was hit with a ice storm dumping half a meter of snow with temperatures below -20 Celsius, so it's not really a useful comparison. In a state with a population of 28 million, 82 deaths is a comparatively successful outcome, as just a few decades ago such a storm would have killed thousands of people.

 

Except the Texas power operators were warned, based on previous storms, that they were unprepared for the future and they simply decided "going cheap" was the better option for profits and the Texas government let them.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/17/texas-power-grid-failures/

 

As such 82 deaths is not a successful outcome, because it was preventable.

 

Just like the 84 people who died in California from a wildfire started by a PG&E line - the same company who killed 8 people in 2010 when a gas line exploded.  But profits matter more than maintaining infrastructure

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pg-e-camp-fire-california-1.5614303

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...