Railways

Former Member

Some reckon that the railways need to be re-nationalised and say all privatisation is bad because of this.

Well, what about British Airways? BP? The water, gas, electricity?

Are these 'bad' privatisations? Is there any popular desire to renationalise these industries? Does any political party, irrespective of their size, reckon they should be?

My point is that if all privatisation is bad due to one flawed privatisation, then how do you account for other successful privatisations?

Former Member

Re: Railways

Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
Some reckon that the railways need to be re-nationalised and say all privatisation is bad because of this.

Well, what about British Airways? BP? The water, gas, electricity?

Are these 'bad' privatisations? Is there any popular desire to renationalise these industries? Does any political party, irrespective of their size, reckon they should be?

My point is that if all privatisation is bad due to one flawed privatisation, then how do you account for other successful privatisations?

The nature of the privatisation. BA, BP, water, gas and electricity don't rely on each other to work well. Whereas in the rail network, the company's need a great deal of co-operation for a person to get, without too many delays or too much messing around, from say derby to bournemouth. There's one route that I know of, run by Virgin, but it takes the better part of a day to do it. Where I live it's Chiltern, which are a good company individually, but if I want to go to l'boro, I need to take midland from St Pancras station, my train was delayed by an hour once, the journey takes less than that in total, it was ridiculous!

Former Member

Things that used to be in public ownership, that are essential to the infrastructure of the country, that Thatcher sold off to make money for her mates, should be re-nationalised.

Former Member

There is no need to do so.
Certainly not from any pragmatic point of view.

Former Member

Yes there is. They are run for profit. There is a legal requirement for them to keep increasing profits for their sharholders. This leads to crap service, cut backs in safety, outrageous prices etc etc.

Former Member

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have no problem with the railways being in private ownership (as the gas, 'leccy etc are) but the fuddled structure of the railways created during privatisation is a mess and is the cause of all the problems. The pre-1948 structure worked fine and should have been brought back in 1997.

Ideally the railways should never have been nationalised in the first place.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Yes there is. They are run for profit. There is a legal requirement for them to keep increasing profits for their sharholders. This leads to crap service, cut backs in safety, outrageous prices etc etc.

Where's the crap service in British Airways? They could have strikes but they have no outrageous prices in comparison with other airlines, or are any less safe.

Or BP? Sorry but these things work well. You're only saying this because you're an anarchist.

Former Member

BA and BP aren't essential to the infrastructure of the country are they? :rolleyes:

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
BA and BP aren't essential to the infrastructure of the country are they? :rolleyes:

BP is actually a cracking organisation. And for the record BP doesn't stand for Bristish Petroleum anymore, it's Beyond Petroleum because of the work they do in alternative fuel sources.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
BA and BP aren't essential to the infrastructure of the country are they? :rolleyes:

Maybe they aren't but those industries which are part of the country's infrastructure work well, even if they are privatised.

I know of no practical reason why electricity should be nationalised for example. There are no major blackouts or power cuts.

Former Member

There was a massive power cut in London last summer. The point is, that some things are natural monopolies - gas, electric, railways etc, and as such, it makes much more sense to have an integrated system.

Former Member

That power cut was a one off, they aren't a regular occurence.

The point is, that some things are natural monopolies - gas, electric, railways etc, and as such, it makes much more sense to have an integrated system.

According to whom? The only 'natural monopolies' are public goods like the police.

Former Member

Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
Maybe they aren't but those industries which are part of the country's infrastructure work well, even if they are privatised.

I know of no practical reason why electricity should be nationalised for example. There are no major blackouts or power cuts.

well actually there was last year, and experts reckon there isnt enough investment in infrastructure due to competition

Former Member

and in railways the can be no effetive competition, possibly be 1948 system may work, but as it stands at moment the railways are private, the companies demand money off government and they pay bonuses for poor performace, surely that subsidy will be better off being spent on railways themselves

the problem is e need to redo the entire infrastructure, and that takes a lot of time and a lot of money

Former Member

Japan privatised their railways, and it' generally considered a success.

If they can do it, why can't we?

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/2051094.stm. It's a bit long, sorry!

One of the memories most British tourists returning from Japan cherish is their experience of riding the Shinkansen, or bullet train.

No doubt they will come back to the UK and wonder why our railways cannot be like the Japanese ones.


The Shinkansen have not had a single fatal accident in 38 years and carry millions of passengers every day.


Journey times
London-Inverness (914km): eight hours 30 mins
Tokyo-Hakata (1,174km): five hours
London-Manchester (313km): three hours
Tokyo-Niigata (333km): two hours



But it has not come cheap and Japan's ultra-modern railways have landed it with a historic debt of 28,000bn yen (£153bn).

That is roughly equivalent to 200,000 yen (£1,089) for every Japanese man, woman and child.

It is a sum which dwarfs the $4bn (£2.6bn) which hangs around the neck of the beleaguered Amtrak, the giant US rail company which was set up as a non-profit corporation in 1971.

Most of the Shinkansen lines were built with the help of huge loans.

By the 1970s the government-owned Japanese National Railways (JNR) was crippled with debt.

In 1987 it had reached 25,000bn yen.

Enough was enough and the Japanese Government decided to privatise the railways.

Several different companies were formed and a special fund was set up through which the firms operating the most profitable routes (eg the Tokyo commuter lines and the Shinkansens) subsidised those operating the less profitable, but socially important routes.


Japanese railway history
Jun 1949: Japanese National Railways (JNR) formed. General MacArthur bans strikes.
1963: Automatic stoppers introduced after two accidents which killed 321 people
1964: First bullet train line opened, part financed by World Bank
1987: JNR privatised after losses reach 25,000bn yen
2002: Debt now 28,000bn yen (£153bn)



Privatisation has been generally considered a success, unlike in the UK, where British Rail was replaced by Railtrack and numerous franchises in the mid-1990s.

Most of the privatised companies have made operating profits.

The big difference is the way Britain and Japan went about privatisation.

In the UK the infrastructure was split off under a company called Railtrack who maintained the stations, track and signals for a myriad of companies who ran the train franchises.

But in Japan they had a system of "vertical integration" which meant that the network was broken up geographically with train operators responsible for the trains, the tracks, the stations and the signals in their own areas.

Service comes first

Dr Ryo Takagi, a transport research fellow at Birmingham University, said: "That one decision is the reason for success in terms of providing good service to passengers."

He said the confusion over the points at Potters Bar would not have happened in Japan.

"They have subcontractors too but the final responsibility is kept within the operating companies," said Dr Takagi.

Mike Knutton, a senior editorial consultant with the International Railway Journal, said privatisation the British way was "a recipe for disaster".

"Margaret Thatcher thought rail privatisation was too difficult but John Major thought he could do it.

"But he did it at a time when they probably knew they were going to lose the next election. It was rushed through and it was botched."

Mr Knutton said: "The Japanese kept the crucial link between the wheel and the track."

But despite the collapse of Railtrack and the succession of rail disasters in recent years, the new Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has insisted he will press on with the current system, all be it replacing Railtrack with a non-profit body called Network Rail.

At a meeting of the Railway Forum earlier this week he was asked by Brian Souter, chairman of the Stagecoach train and bus company, why he was persisting with it.

Mr Darling said switching to vertical integration would take too long and would not deliver the rapid improvements in safety and performance which were needed.

Dr Takagi said Britain needs to adopt Japanese attitudes to safety.

"Japan's safety record is very high and that is partly because of the Japanese culture.

"Safety is the priority no matter what it costs, whereas in Britain we have decided not to go ahead with certain safety features because they will decrease capacity or cost too much."

Mr Knutton said the Japanese railway industry used to have a saying: "We will never be satisfied with 99.99% safety."

He said: "The trains are organised in such a way that the sort of conflicting movements that occurred in the Paddington crash could not happen there. They are prepared to pay for safety we are not."

In his speech to the Railway Forum Mr Darling said: "The railways have been through a difficult time. The legacy of years of under investment are very apparent."

Former Member

fair enough comparing, but our network is different to theirs, we have trains going like EVERYWHERE, and there still isnt enough capacty on some routes

and for out network, estimates for updating come to £50 billion i believe, and that doesnt include maintenece whilst this is happening

Former Member

Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
According to whom? The only 'natural monopolies' are public goods like the police.

According to the bleedin' obvious. :rolleyes: There is only one national grid, one gas system, water system, telephone system (well, OK, there is also cable, but this is not available in every area), one rail network etc etc etc

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
fair enough comparing, but our network is different to theirs, we have trains going like EVERYWHERE,

And Japan doesn't? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tra_rai_tot

It has more railways than Britain does. Why shouldn't Japan have trains going 'like everywhere'?

Former Member

It might have escaped your notice, but we aren't Japan.

Former Member

Why is that of relevance?

Former Member

Things that work well in one culture might not work well in another. Just a thought.

*shrugs*

Former Member

Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
Why is that of relevance?

Size of country? Population density? Cultural background? Route diversity and volume? These are all things that affect a rail network, and all things that differ between the UK and Japan.

Perhaps the German or French network would have been a better example? As at least culturally, we are similar, the population is roughly the same, though the UK is small compared to both countries.

Former Member

If the UK railway network was actually privatised it would actually work. It ahsn't been, it's been out-sourced to private companies.

A train company wanted to set up an express trains ervice between Newcastle, Leeds, Wakefield, Manchester and Liverpool. No public subsidy, it would pay it's way and compete against the current train company. The "strategic" rail authority said no, because it would "damage the profits" of the current train company, who would need "extra subsidy".

The rail network effectively is nationalised.

Things such as the national grid should not have been privatised, however the energy market SHOULD have been opened up to competition. For the most part I think it has worked, although not in the water market.

And everyone slaughters the buses for being privatised, but do believe that the private bus companies are better than the old National Bus Company. And National Express has got a lot better since it was freed from public control.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Size of country? Population density? Cultural background? Route diversity and volume? These are all things that affect a rail network, and all things that differ between the UK and Japan.

Perhaps the German or French network would have been a better example? As at least culturally, we are similar, the population is roughly the same, though the UK is small compared to both countries.

France and Germany are less densley populated than the UK and are bigger in terms of area.

Culture is a nonsense, since that has no total bearing on economic decisions.

Besides has France or Germany privatised their railway system?

Former Member

nope they havent, but have you seen how good they are!


you seem to be unaware almost all of our network was built over 100 years ago, and well that was built on cheap labour, and well how is it cheap these days to cover over 10000 miles of network with update to update rail and trains and signalling, whilst not pissing off the commuters who use it day in day out

i say shut it down for a year and completly rebuild it all - okay a serious amount of hassle, but it saves 15yearsof on off hassle

Former Member

Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
France and Germany are less densley populated than the UK and are bigger in terms of area.

Culture is a nonsense, since that has no total bearing on economic decisions.

Besides has France or Germany privatised their railway system?

I think you'll find that I said that France and Germany are less densely populated. Culture is not nonsense, Japanese people may be quite happy to give a grand each to get a good rail system, whereas here, we seem to expect it for free.

Regardless of whether France or Germany have private systems, they work very well and we need to work out why. I think the answer will be volume of money and where it went.

Former Member

The countries with excellent public transport systems have them because there was consistent investment, and new ititiatives were brought in.

In this country, we close everything down instead. No investment, closure of lines, the pulling of any prject that doesn't initally make money.

In the 1960s half the railway network was pulled away, including important lines such as the Waverley Route between Carlisle, Galashiels and Edinburgh, and the Somerset and Dorest railway.

In the 1980s British Rail invented the tilting train, the APT, but the then Conservative administration would not provide extra funds to get the bloody thing to work. It was scrapped, and now we buy tilting trains from fucking Fiat of all people.

Instead of building the East Coast Railway to a decent standard, it was done on the cheap. Capacity is full for electric trains- the electric sub-stations will over-heat if any more electric trains draw current from the section between Kings Cross and Hitchin.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
I think you'll find that I said that France and Germany are less densely populated. Culture is not nonsense, Japanese people may be quite happy to give a grand each to get a good rail system, whereas here, we seem to expect it for free.

Regardless of whether France or Germany have private systems, they work very well and we need to work out why. I think the answer will be volume of money and where it went.

But the fact Japan has privatised its railways shows that a privately run rail system can work!

Rail was never for free since it was funded by taxation (it certainly wasn't free at the point of delivery!).

Former Member

Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
But the fact Japan has privatised its railways shows that a privately run rail system can work!

Rail was never for free since it was funded by taxation (it certainly wasn't free at the point of delivery!).

Yes privatisation works, what do you want? A cookie? It's obvious that it works, otherwise capitalism would have failed.

Something being funded by taxation seems to confuse the british public, we want the best health care and education system, we want top notch defense and intelligence, but if you hike up taxes we'd be up in arms, that's what I mean about 'for free'.

It's especially when what's being funded is supposed to be private. Our system can't quite seem to make up it's mind.

Former Member

Privatisation works where there is competition. And the way it works is to make a minority rich at the expense of the majority.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Privatisation works where there is competition. And the way it works is to make a minority rich at the expense of the majority.

So our main problem is there is no actual competition when it comes to the rail system in this country.