Private Railways and Consumer Choice

[Pretty Boy]

During the recent debates over rail price increases I was watching a piece on BBC News in which 3 people were interviewed. The 1st was a Tory MP who insisted it was all the nasty unions faults that fares were going up and running the various franchises for profit had no bearing at all on anything.The 2nd was one of those pie in the sky thinking lefties who wanted us to believe nationalisation would solve every problem ever, the shouty type who I'm sure the BBC roll out to deliberately discredit the viewpoint. Finally there was a policy adviser who insisted private companies running the railways was a necessity as it provided 'consumer choice'.

This was the guy who confused me. I understand that various companies bid for the rail franchises and at that point there's a process to choose the best bid. Where I struggle is how that then translates to a choice for the consumer. If I go to my nearest station (Brunstane) I can get a train to Edinburgh or a train to Tweedbank. These are operated by Scotrail. If I get to Waverley and decide I wish to carry on my journey to Glasgow, Dunfermilne, Aviewmore, Inverness, Stirling and so on the train will be operated by........Scotrail. Where is my 'consumer choice' to use a different service? I recently had to get a train from Lincoln to Metheringham and my choice was East Midlands Trains or East Midland Trains.

Am I completely missing something or does the franchise system completely negate the idea of choice as it essentially awards a monopoly on a territory to one company? I accept if I wanted to travel to Bristol, as an example, I could shun Cross Country and choose to break the journey into small sections using different franchises but how likely is that to happen?

[JeMeSouviens]

Afaict, you're not missing anything. Furthermore, there is only 1 Swiss rail operator (SBB/CFF) and only 1 German rail operator (DB) and their trains seem orders of magnitude better/more reliable than ours.

[PeeJay]

Afaict, you're not missing anything. Furthermore, there is only 1 Swiss rail operator (SBB/CFF) and only 1 German rail operator (DB) and their trains seem orders of magnitude better/more reliable than ours.

We have more than 1 rail operator in Germany - here's a list of non-federally owned railway operators/companies : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_railway_companies
Switzerland also has more than 1 rail operator, with foreign rail operators also running services in Switzerland (French/Austrian) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_companies_in_Switzerland

- you're right about it being better than the UK service though - although I did enjoy my last run on a train up to Mallaig ... :greengrin

[Sylar]

During the recent debates over rail price increases I was watching a piece on BBC News in which 3 people were interviewed. The 1st was a Tory MP who insisted it was all the nasty unions faults that fares were going up and running the various franchises for profit had no bearing at all on anything.The 2nd was one of those pie in the sky thinking lefties who wanted us to believe nationalisation would solve every problem ever, the shouty type who I'm sure the BBC roll out to deliberately discredit the viewpoint. Finally there was a policy adviser who insisted private companies running the railways was a necessity as it provided 'consumer choice'.

This was the guy who confused me. I understand that various companies bid for the rail franchises and at that point there's a process to choose the best bid. Where I struggle is how that then translates to a choice for the consumer. If I go to my nearest station (Brunstane) I can get a train to Edinburgh or a train to Tweedbank. These are operated by Scotrail. If I get to Waverley and decide I wish to carry on my journey to Glasgow, Dunfermilne, Aviewmore, Inverness, Stirling and so on the train will be operated by........Scotrail. Where is my 'consumer choice' to use a different service? I recently had to get a train from Lincoln to Metheringham and my choice was East Midlands Trains or East Midland Trains.

Am I completely missing something or does the franchise system completely negate the idea of choice as it essentially awards a monopoly on a territory to one company? I accept if I wanted to travel to Bristol, as an example, I could shun Cross Country and choose to break the journey into small sections using different franchises but how likely is that to happen?

A very select few routes offer you a choice. For example, if you wish to travel from Glasgow to Carlisle, you can go via either ScotRail or Virgin.

You wish to go from Edinburgh to Glasgow, you can travel via ScotRail or Cross Country (sometimes...).

However, it is geographically monopolised for the most part with seemingly negligible alternatives for us, the consumer. Nobody takes these companies to task when they repeatedly make a mess of their operations and subsequently put the fares up year on year to "improve service" despite consistently failing to achieve this. We're simply told it's "necessary to improve", then given a breakdown of how every £1 is spent.

I don't know what the solution is - I don't believe nationalising the railways would work but the current model seems to provide a recompense free system for private companies to milk every penny out of commuters while producing a sub-par service.

[RyeSloan]

It’s a classic myth in the the UK that German trains run on time...the latest figures for German long distance trains is a mighty 70% with DB having over €20bn debt. In fact there is a rather fraught debate ongoing in Germany on what to do with DB and its troubles.

SNCF is being bailed out by the French government due to a debt load approaching €50bn.

So while no doubt the UK has issues, not least the high cost of tickets, and creating consumer choice on limited track space seems a rather improbable aim let’s not pretend it’s all sweetness and light elsewhere (unless you are Swiss of course...but then what’s new there [emoji38])

[PeeJay]

It’s a classic myth in the the UK that German trains run on time...the latest figures for German long distance trains is a mighty 70% with DB having over €20bn debt. In fact there is a rather fraught debate ongoing in Germany on what to do with DB and its troubles.

SNCF is being bailed out by the French government due to a debt load approaching €50bn.

So while no doubt the UK has issues, not least the high cost of tickets, and creating consumer choice on limited track space seems a rather improbable aim let’s not pretend it’s all sweetness and light elsewhere (unless you are Swiss of course...but then what’s new there [emoji38])

The punctuality aspect is an issue, but that's only part of the package: overall the German rail operators provide a better and more comprehensive rail service than that available in the UK …

[Ozyhibby]

A very select few routes offer you a choice. For example, if you wish to travel from Glasgow to Carlisle, you can go via either ScotRail or Virgin.

You wish to go from Edinburgh to Glasgow, you can travel via ScotRail or Cross Country (sometimes...).

However, it is geographically monopolised for the most part with seemingly negligible alternatives for us, the consumer. Nobody takes these companies to task when they repeatedly make a mess of their operations and subsequently put the fares up year on year to "improve service" despite consistently failing to achieve this. We're simply told it's "necessary to improve", then given a breakdown of how every £1 is spent.

I don't know what the solution is - I don't believe nationalising the railways would work but the current model seems to provide a recompense free system for private companies to milk every penny out of commuters while producing a sub-par service.

There is some accountability. I doubt the Dutch company that currently run scotrail will win the franchise again.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lyonhibs]

The Swiss trains are epic. Nothing further to add, apart from it does provide a ready made excuse for when there are delays - literally "this train is delayed because of issues on another train coming from France/Italy" is a regular announcement.

There is more than one provider though, it's just they are all very, very good.

[Ozyhibby]

Ticket prices have risen less in the 20 years since privatisation than they did in the previous 20 years under British Rail. The level of taxpayers subsidy has dropped as well.
The number of passengers has doubled and the frequency of the service has doubled as well.
And anyone who remembers the disgusting state of British rail trains would never want to go back to a nationalised railway.
There is nothing more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.
Nationalising the railway would be a disaster.
It will happen though if Jeremy Corbyn gets in and we are no longer in the EU. This is the reason he wants out as nationalising would not be allowed under EU rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

The Swiss trains are epic. Nothing further to add, apart from it does provide a ready made excuse for when there are delays - literally "this train is delayed because of issues on another train coming from France/Italy" is a regular announcement.

There is more than one provider though, it's just they are all very, very good.

More than one provider is key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

And anyone who remembers the disgusting state of British rail trains would never want to go back to a nationalised railway.


I remember British Rail. Apart from the jokes about the sandwiches, it was far better value than today's total farce. There are elements of the overall service that have improved, but obviously thats because of technical improvements that arent going to disappear because the private sector arent creaming off profits for shareholders instead of reinvesting it!

Since most of the world operates with a nationalised or part nationalised railway, including most of Europe, why is the UK unique in being unable to do so?

Its also an overwhelmingly popular policy, 60% agree 25% disagree 15% dont know
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view

The cost of season tickets have increased at about the same rate, as have advance tickets, but a standard single fare has gone up by about double, even taking into account inflation since privatisation under the Major government.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21056703


RyeSloan, you seem a bit confused about the situation in France. Macron is not 'bailing out' the failing French Railways, he is flogging them off to foreign investment along the UK model, like the Thatcherite he is. The French are rightly proud of their railways, Macrons proposal for 'liberalisation' is one of the stimuli for the gilet jaune protests.

[Moulin Yarns]

Don't get me started on buses!! Edinburgh is great but try living in rural perthshire.

[JeMeSouviens]

We have more than 1 rail operator in Germany - here's a list of non-federally owned railway operators/companies : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_railway_companies
Switzerland also has more than 1 rail operator, with foreign rail operators also running services in Switzerland (French/Austrian) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_companies_in_Switzerland

- you're right about it being better than the UK service though - although I did enjoy my last run on a train up to Mallaig ... :greengrin

I knew the SNCF/Italian trains run into Switzerland but I didn't realise there were other Swiss rail operators than SBB/CFF (apart from the myriad mountain narrow gauge ones) but they do seem to cover the vast majority of Swiss rail services.

Anyway, the point being that while there might be the odd delay, I would be frankly astonished if a Swiss train pulled some of the stunts that seem commonplace in the UK: trains cancelled at short notice, missing out stops at stations as they go, etc.

[Hermit Crab]

A very select few routes offer you a choice. For example, if you wish to travel from Glasgow to Carlisle, you can go via either ScotRail or Virgin.

You wish to go from Edinburgh to Glasgow, you can travel via ScotRail or Cross Country (sometimes...).

However, it is geographically monopolised for the most part with seemingly negligible alternatives for us, the consumer. Nobody takes these companies to task when they repeatedly make a mess of their operations and subsequently put the fares up year on year to "improve service" despite consistently failing to achieve this. We're simply told it's "necessary to improve", then given a breakdown of how every £1 is spent.

I don't know what the solution is - I don't believe nationalising the railways would work but the current model seems to provide a recompense free system for private companies to milk every penny out of commuters while producing a sub-par service.


Or transpennine express.

[hibsbollah]

During the recent debates over rail price increases I was watching a piece on BBC News in which 3 people were interviewed. The 1st was a Tory MP who insisted it was all the nasty unions faults that fares were going up and running the various franchises for profit had no bearing at all on anything.The 2nd was one of those pie in the sky thinking lefties who wanted us to believe nationalisation would solve every problem ever, the shouty type who I'm sure the BBC roll out to deliberately discredit the viewpoint. Finally there was a policy adviser who insisted private companies running the railways was a necessity as it provided 'consumer choice'.

This was the guy who confused me. I understand that various companies bid for the rail franchises and at that point there's a process to choose the best bid. Where I struggle is how that then translates to a choice for the consumer. If I go to my nearest station (Brunstane) I can get a train to Edinburgh or a train to Tweedbank. These are operated by Scotrail. If I get to Waverley and decide I wish to carry on my journey to Glasgow, Dunfermilne, Aviewmore, Inverness, Stirling and so on the train will be operated by........Scotrail. Where is my 'consumer choice' to use a different service? I recently had to get a train from Lincoln to Metheringham and my choice was East Midlands Trains or East Midland Trains.

Am I completely missing something or does the franchise system completely negate the idea of choice as it essentially awards a monopoly on a territory to one company? I accept if I wanted to travel to Bristol, as an example, I could shun Cross Country and choose to break the journey into small sections using different franchises but how likely is that to happen?

As an ex 'Policy Advisor' myself, I can confirm that having this as your job description does not confer political neutrality:greengrin

It sounds like your BBC News piece had a discussion where 2 people who support the privatised rail network were arguing against 1 who didnt. Which might have affected his mood and made him more of a 'shouty type' than he otherwise would have been.

I think you have it spot on; fragmentation=eventual monopoly=reduced choice=the exact opposite of what was claimed was going to happen.

[RyeSloan]

I remember British Rail. Apart from the jokes about the sandwiches, it was far better value than today's total farce. There are elements of the overall service that have improved, but obviously thats because of technical improvements that arent going to disappear because the private sector arent creaming off profits for shareholders instead of reinvesting it!

Since most of the world operates with a nationalised or part nationalised railway, including most of Europe, why is the UK unique in being unable to do so?

Its also an overwhelmingly popular policy, 60% agree 25% disagree 15% dont know
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view

The cost of season tickets have increased at about the same rate, as have advance tickets, but a standard single fare has gone up by about double, even taking into account inflation since privatisation under the Major government.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21056703


RyeSloan, you seem a bit confused about the situation in France. Macron is not 'bailing out' the failing French Railways, he is flogging them off to foreign investment along the UK model, like the Thatcherite he is. The French are rightly proud of their railways, Macrons proposal for 'liberalisation' is one of the stimuli for the gilet jaune protests.

The UK does operate a part nationalised railway does it not? Network Rail is a publicly owned company.

As for France...I’m not expert on the proposed changes but the state taking on some of the debt sounds damn like a bail out to me!

[hibsbollah]

The UK does operate a part nationalised railway does it not? Network Rail is a publicly owned company.

As for France...I’m not expert on the proposed changes but the state taking on some of the debt sounds damn like a bail out to me!

Well, if we're being technical the British railway IS Government owned....Its just owned by foreign governments!


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/01/02/britains-railways-already-state-owned-just-not-uk/

[RyeSloan]

Well, if we're being technical the British railway IS Government owned....Its just owned by foreign governments!


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/01/02/britains-railways-already-state-owned-just-not-uk/

The railways are government owned though, of that there is no doubt.

The operators are of course (largely) private companies...backed it seems by foreign wealth funds.

Strangely enough I have no problem with a profit making train operator. Lothian buses is a profit making company (not a private one granted) and manages to provide a damn good service with an effective monopoly. So the often heard mantra of ‘profit bad’ is way too simplistic.

But none the less I doubt anyone can argue that the rail set up in the UK is anywhere near optimal despite its impressive user growth. Full scale nationalisation is unlikely to be the panacea however.

[Smartie]

My political beliefs are made up of mostly left and also some surprisingly right wing beliefs.

I believe wholeheartedly that the railways should be nationalised.

Where possible free markets should exist and private enterprise encouraged. When it is not possible, nationalisation is occasionally desirable and often absolutely necessary.

I simply do not see where choice exists regarding the railway system and where the benefits of private ownership lie. I'm often fairly bamboozled when I have to travel as simple a journey as, say, Edinburgh to Newcastle or Manchester and struggle to work out what trains I can get and cannot get and what benefits exist for the various prices.

The bother that companies appear to have had in making a profit on services on the LNER route whilst providing an acceptable service also interests me. It is a very important service, and sometimes if a service is useful but not necessarily profitable it is best that government bear that loss.

It could and should be more straightforward, and I cannot see the benefits that I often see when such services are in private hands, such as the fact that sometimes service improves when companies/institutions etc are run and directed by people whose livelihoods depend upon it.

What is quite funny is that holding this particular belief and arguing often flags you up as some sort of communist, and I remember it being used as a stick to beat Jeremy Corbyn with when folk were trying to work out who he was and what he stood for as he rose to prominence.

[Ozyhibby]

My political beliefs are made up of mostly left and also some surprisingly right wing beliefs.

I believe wholeheartedly that the railways should be nationalised.

Where possible free markets should exist and private enterprise encouraged. When it is not possible, nationalisation is occasionally desirable and often absolutely necessary.

I simply do not see where choice exists regarding the railway system and where the benefits of private ownership lie. I'm often fairly bamboozled when I have to travel as simple a journey as, say, Edinburgh to Newcastle or Manchester and struggle to work out what trains I can get and cannot get and what benefits exist for the various prices.

The bother that companies appear to have had in making a profit on services on the LNER route whilst providing an acceptable service also interests me. It is a very important service, and sometimes if a service is useful but not necessarily profitable it is best that government bear that loss.

It could and should be more straightforward, and I cannot see the benefits that I often see when such services are in private hands, such as the fact that sometimes service improves when companies/institutions etc are run and directed by people whose livelihoods depend upon it.

What is quite funny is that holding this particular belief and arguing often flags you up as some sort of communist, and I remember it being used as a stick to beat Jeremy Corbyn with when folk were trying to work out who he was and what he stood for as he rose to prominence.

Nationalising the railway will see the level of public subsidy go through the roof so that people like me who do not use the railway will be left paying even more for it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

The bit I don't understand about the railway is how companies buy the franchise for millions and then get millions in government subsidies!

And if the private companies don't think they're making enough profit they just walk away from their contract without penalty.

[Pete]

My political beliefs are made up of mostly left and also some surprisingly right wing beliefs.

I believe wholeheartedly that the railways should be nationalised.

Where possible free markets should exist and private enterprise encouraged. When it is not possible, nationalisation is occasionally desirable and often absolutely necessary.

I simply do not see where choice exists regarding the railway system and where the benefits of private ownership lie. I'm often fairly bamboozled when I have to travel as simple a journey as, say, Edinburgh to Newcastle or Manchester and struggle to work out what trains I can get and cannot get and what benefits exist for the various prices.

The bother that companies appear to have had in making a profit on services on the LNER route whilst providing an acceptable service also interests me. It is a very important service, and sometimes if a service is useful but not necessarily profitable it is best that government bear that loss.

It could and should be more straightforward, and I cannot see the benefits that I often see when such services are in private hands, such as the fact that sometimes service improves when companies/institutions etc are run and directed by people whose livelihoods depend upon it.

What is quite funny is that holding this particular belief and arguing often flags you up as some sort of communist, and I remember it being used as a stick to beat Jeremy Corbyn with when folk were trying to work out who he was and what he stood for as he rose to prominence.

:top marks

An efficient, integrated public transport service is what the Nation needs.

No need for millionaire owners and shareholders.

[Pete]

Nationalising the railway will see the level of public subsidy go through the roof so that people like me who do not use the railway will be left paying even more for it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this post encapsulates your way of thinking rather nicely.

‘What’s in it for me?’

[wpj]

The punctuality aspect is an issue, but that's only part of the package: overall the German rail operators provide a better and more comprehensive rail service than that available in the UK …

When I lived in Germany the trains were amazingly punctual (90s) but I'm told they are less so now, I am there tomorrow night so hope they revert to 90s standards. They are still cheaper than here though. I live in Cambridge and the provider can change station by station to London, frustrating if I am trying to use the "key" pay as you go card.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Sitting on a Lothian Bus as i write this, it never fails to amaze me why this model - which so evidently works - isnt replicated elsewhere.

A publixally owned company run on a for profit basis.

They seem to constantly have new busses, services are safe, mostly clean and frequent, they seem to be a good employer who pay pretty well, and it has a reasonable cost.

Could this model not be applied to railways?

[Hermit Crab]

Sitting on a Lothian Bus as i write this, it never fails to amaze me why this model - which so evidently works - isnt replicated elsewhere.

A publixally owned company run on a for profit basis.

They seem to constantly have new busses, services are safe, mostly clean and frequent, they seem to be a good employer who pay pretty well, and it has a reasonable cost.

Could this model not be applied to railways?


That ship sailed when BR was sold off in APR 97, everything from parcels to freight was all under British Rail, as well as cross channel ferries and hotels. All broken up into lots of separate companies/franchises, many of whom have royally screwed up our rail network over the years to the point that some of the damage is irreparable.

[ballengeich]

Sitting on a Lothian Bus as i write this, it never fails to amaze me why this model - which so evidently works - isnt replicated elsewhere.

A publixally owned company run on a for profit basis.

They seem to constantly have new busses, services are safe, mostly clean and frequent, they seem to be a good employer who pay pretty well, and it has a reasonable cost.

Could this model not be applied to railways?

Lothian Buses operates in a fairly small geographical area with quite a high population density, so its vehicles have an unusually high occupation rate for public service transport. In rural areas most services have relatively few people using them.

That isn't an argument for or against public ownership, simply pointing out that conditions in and around Edinburgh aren't the same as other areas. If you require a service to make a profit there won't be much public transport left outside the cities. There are social reasons for subsidising unprofitable routes, both bus and train.

As a historical aside, the 1960s Beeching report which led to widespread closure of unprofitable railway lines originally proposed closing all lines north of Edinburgh and Glasgow.

[mvteng]

Nationalising the railway will see the level of public subsidy go through the roof so that people like me who do not use the railway will be left paying even more for it.



Why?

if the private companies are making profits with the current level of subsidy , then why would the subsidy increase with a change of ownership ( i.e. from private company to nationalised)

[Ozyhibby]

I think this post encapsulates your way of thinking rather nicely.

‘What’s in it for me?’

It’s not so much me as I can afford it but why should people living in rural areas miles away from any train service be expected to subsidise train services for people in the central belt or London?
Privatisation has been a massive success. The trains have never been more popular. Going back to the old British Rail with run down trains, poor service and high prices is not a sensible idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Why?

if the private companies are making profits with the current level of subsidy , then why would the subsidy increase with a change of ownership ( i.e. from private company to nationalised)

Because a nationalised railway will be run to suit the short term needs of politicians. The subsidy the old British Rail needed to run the railway was much higher than the subsidy now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mvteng]

Because a nationalised railway will be run to suit the short term needs of politicians


Maybe, maybe not. Whos to say that the short term needs of politicians are? You're assuming the worst case



The subsidy the old British Rail needed to run the railway was much higher than the subsidy now.


ok, so that good. As before, if the current private companies can run the railways at a profit, I dont see why a change in owners would necessarily result in a worse service

[hibsbollah]

Privatisation has been a massive success. The trains have never been more popular

Astonishing claim. But since you said yourself you don't use trains I'll take it with a pinch of salt.

[Ozyhibby]

Astonishing claim. But since you said yourself you don't use trains I'll take it with a pinch of salt.

I don’t need to use them to see that their use has more than doubled since privatisation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

I don’t need to use them to see that their use has more than doubled since privatisation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure if I'd rush to the simple cause and effect conclusion that privatisation = far better service = satisfied customers = increase in use.

It might have had some influence, but I'd also consider other factors - a push to make driving as unappealing as possible (congestion charges etc) as being the most significant in the fact that passenger numbers are increasing in spite of a number of factors.

For all you don't use the railway personally, would you be prepared to pay something towards them so that people who very much do something for you might be able to travel more easily to somewhere to do something that is useful to you?

[hibsbollah]

I don’t need to use them to see that their use has more than doubled since privatisation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People use them because they are there, not because the service is anything better than piss poor. That's not 'a success'.

[wpj]

It’s not so much me as I can afford it but why should people living in rural areas miles away from any train service be expected to subsidise train services for people in the central belt or London?
Privatisation has been a massive success. The trains have never been more popular. Going back to the old British Rail with run down trains, poor service and high prices is not a sensible idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not noticed the absolute appalling services recently? Well, no as you admit to not using the rail service. Come back and comment when you do. Your opinion is irrelevant otherwise.

[Ozyhibby]

People use them because they are there, not because the service is anything better than piss poor. That's not 'a success'.

They were there before privatisation but people used it a lot less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Not noticed the absolute appalling services recently? Well, no as you admit to not using the rail service. Come back and comment when you do. Your opinion is irrelevant otherwise.

My opinion is irrelevant even though it’s been suggested I should pay more for the service? Surely if I’m being asked to pay for something I’m entitled to my opinion on it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

They were there before privatisation but people used it a lot less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Its a bit obvious but surely you've considered the context behind an increase in number of users? 1. An increase in the overall population since the mid 90s, 2. the increasing impossibility of most people to live and work in and around London. This is where most train journeys take place. Everyone i know who works in London lives outside and using mainline train services, NOT the tube, to get to work. This was not the case in the mid 90s, when people could (just about) afford to live in the city. 3. The degradation in bus services since deregulation. 4. The increase in travel to work times 5. The gentrification of towns and the growth of satellite towns/commuter belts across Britain.

You cant just take user numbers and say rail privatisation has been a success. Have you seen customer satisfaction surveys recently? I take trains in France quite a bit, and I actively enjoy the experience. I take trains in the UK and I actively hate the experience. I think most people in my boat agree with me.

[hibsbollah]

My opinion is irrelevant even though it’s been suggested I should pay more for the service? Surely if I’m being asked to pay for something I’m entitled to my opinion on it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your opinion is relevant, but i don't think youre well informed about how bad it is because you dont use trains.

You're also not taking into account the positives you'd get from better trains even as a non-user of them. There would be less road congestion. There would be less air pollution. Businesses would be more efficient. Your constantly late and grumpy coworker would be late less often and be less grumpy. Everyone benefits from better trains.

[lyonhibs]

I knew the SNCF/Italian trains run into Switzerland but I didn't realise there were other Swiss rail operators than SBB/CFF (apart from the myriad mountain narrow gauge ones) but they do seem to cover the vast majority of Swiss rail services.

Anyway, the point being that while there might be the odd delay, I would be frankly astonished if a Swiss train pulled some of the stunts that seem commonplace in the UK: trains cancelled at short notice, missing out stops at stations as they go, etc.

Without wishing to rain on the Swiss parade, I've been sat on trains to work in Zurich Station that have been cancelled as I sat there or got halfway then had to go back because of technical issues on other trains. We're talking about 3 or 4 times in 3 years though, and the point is that the density of services on the most popular routes means that you're never more than 5-10 minutes for an alternative.

Likewise, there's a "slow" train (it's not really, but it does stop at more places) from work to home and sometimes, to make up a delay to avoid causing downstream hassle, it stops at all the stops until a hub that's halfway back to Zurich and then from there back to Zurich it's direct, which it's not meant to be, and that's only announced on the train, resulting in much tutting.

But again, from that hub back to Zurich, stopping at all the stops that my slow train is going to miss, there's an alternative within 10 minutes.

Also, the Swiss consider (and give an explanation and apology for) any delay over about 2 minutes - literally. When they say "your train is going to be delayed by a few minutes" they generally do mean a few minutes not "anything up to 3 hours"

It usually takes about 3 minutes of interacting with Scotrail for my blood pressure to be higher than it ever is here (except for trains back from the mountains on a Sunday late afternoon....)

[Saturday Boy]

Without wishing to rain on the Swiss parade, I've been sat on trains to work in Zurich Station that have been cancelled as I sat there or got halfway then had to go back because of technical issues on other trains. We're talking about 3 or 4 times in 3 years though, and the point is that the density of services on the most popular routes means that you're never more than 5-10 minutes for an alternative.

Likewise, there's a "slow" train (it's not really, but it does stop at more places) from work to home and sometimes, to make up a delay to avoid causing downstream hassle, it stops at all the stops until a hub that's halfway back to Zurich and then from there back to Zurich it's direct, which it's not meant to be, and that's only announced on the train, resulting in much tutting.

But again, from that hub back to Zurich, stopping at all the stops that my slow train is going to miss, there's an alternative within 10 minutes.

Also, the Swiss consider (and give an explanation and apology for) any delay over about 2 minutes - literally. When they say "your train is going to be delayed by a few minutes" they generally do mean a few minutes not "anything up to 3 hours"

It usually takes about 3 minutes of interacting with Scotrail for my blood pressure to be higher than it ever is here (except for trains back from the mountains on a Sunday late afternoon....)

One of the really good things about transport in Switzerland is when your train arrives at a station, the Postbus is waiting at the adjacent bus station to take passengers to the villages not served by rail.

[lyonhibs]

One of the really good things about transport in Switzerland is when your train arrives at a station, the Postbus is waiting at the adjacent bus station to take passengers to the villages not served by rail.

Yeah, the integration is second to none, and all valid on one ticket. No such thing as peak or off peak to worry about either (although there's talk of that changing) unless you buy a cheap ticket for a very specific train, but then obviously you know exactly which train with no grey area. All app based or on 1 card these days as well, I've not had to fanny about with the equivalent of a wee orange Scotrail ticket for the best part of a year.

[southfieldhibby]

Isn't part of the issue the disconnect between Network Rail ( owned and operated by the government) and the train companies ( owned and operated by private companies)
Network Rail don't benefit from any inward 3rd party investment whereas rail companies benefit from customer investment along with government subsidies.

The aging network combined with more intense usage with under investment results in delays rather than any fault with the actual rail companies?

[speedy_gonzales]

Isn't part of the issue the disconnect between Network Rail ( owned and operated by the government) and the train companies ( owned and operated by private companies)
Network Rail don't benefit from any inward 3rd party investment whereas rail companies benefit from customer investment along with government subsidies.

The aging network combined with more intense usage with under investment results in delays rather than any fault with the actual rail companies?

The VAST majority of recent delays that jaundice the travelling publics memory is due to ScotRail (the local TOC) trialling a new way for drivers to cover routes in the central belt, a minor delay can affect crew position and this leads to a bigger knock on effect.
However, delays are not just caused by crew/staff, there's many reasons why trains become delayed, from infrastructure failure to 3rd parties.
For a few years now, ScotRail & Network Rail have aligned together as an "Alliance" to mitigate these delays and pull together when serious incidents occur,,,, squabbling over who is responsible for a delayed train doesn't alleviate the passengers fury.

[Johnny Clash]

There’s now more public funding of the private rail system than ever happened in BR’s day! Tax payers in UK are now helping to line the pockets of the privateers. We are also allowing state railways from abroad to run our services at a profit that is then used to subsidise national rail ‘back home’. So much for national rail not being able to be successful.

Rail Privatisation was a rip off of immense scale due purely to the political obsessions of the Conservative Party . It created more instant millionaires than the national lottery ever did. Scandalous.

The problem with BR was always the lack of operating funds and little investment. Shamefully Labour did little better than the Tories it has to be said. . I was a guard at Waverley when I was 18 back in early 80s. We were trained to give the cheapest fare possible and got into trouble if we sold a more expensive ticket in error. It was all about giving a service to the public despite obvious constraints. The privateers don’t exactly share that philosophy as their only interest is maximising profits. ££££ That also means slashing jobs, replacing people with machines and lessening safety in order to improve their financial return.

If the private operators start seeing their profits threatened they run away and leave the state to pick up the mess. Then, as in East Coast, the state runs a better service with less complaints, improved punctuality etc only to see the political dogmatists sell off to another set of Privateers. You could not make this up!

I now travel thousands of rail miles each year and can categorically say the sooner the entire network is brought back under public ownership and control with proper investment the better!