East Coast train line under public control

[jra]

Are there passenger rail lines in the UK that actually cover operating costs with revenues?

Don't think there are any here.

Govia Thameslink Railway, I believe.

The franchise departs from previous models, with Govia now handing over revenue to the government rather than paying set premiums. Instead, the DfT will pay Govia a flat fee of around £8.9bn over the seven years, from expected revenues of £12.4bn – effectively generating a total premium of £3.5bn from Govia in traditional terms.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... nt-venture

[jra]

Are there passenger rail lines in the UK that actually cover operating costs with revenues?

Don't think there are any here.

Thats Jack's socialist 'solution'..taxpayer money--a never ending flow of it to pay for govt inefficiency.-Yes the rail lines in the UK,according to Jack, cover operating costs.With UK taxpayer money..
And Jack is fine with that as long as he's not bearing the brunt of it.

How sad that there are still those whose right wing dogma means they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

A well run, efficient railway represents huge value to the GDP of any country - far more than the costs of subsidy.

And if you want examples, try Germany, Japan, in fact most of Europe.

Getting your workers to work on time and freight to where it needs to be (and keeping it off crowded roads) counts for a lot. And keeping prices affordable counts for a lot more. Those advantages certainly outweigh subsidies.

So you’re happy to kick in extra taxes out of your pay packet so that rail users can pay lower fares?

It's necessary if you want the required investment in the rail infrastructure, which is mostly publicly owned via Network Rail. It's the TOCs which are privately owned other than the ECML franchise.

[jra]

Does privatisation result in less tax-payers' money?



Government support to the rail industry is roughly three times what it was at the end of the 1980s, varying year to year.

If it's really private it does. Corporatism or crony capitalism, not so much.

It's why Americans cant buy new Studebakers.

I don't what you mean by 'really private'.
I do know that the private train operators paid £200million to their shareholders after recieving £4billion in taxpayer subsidies - sounds like robbery to me.

Private means no subsidies. All expenses and profits must be covered by revenues.

Like if you opened McAz's Kabob Shop. If you don't make enough money, you go out of business. It's the "free" part of the free market.

Cheers - but I think I'll open a railway if anything - you get free money and get to play with trains.

If only it were that easy. Every TOC franchise will have 'service levels' to deliver, e.g. they may have to invest in new rolling stock, station upgrades, increase service frequencies, all sorts of stuff. No average person can invest in that as we're normally talking about huge amounts of money.

Even then, you may have the TOC franchise taken away, e.g. ECML.

Does privatisation result in less tax-payers' money?



Government support to the rail industry is roughly three times what it was at the end of the 1980s, varying year to year.

If it's really private it does. Corporatism or crony capitalism, not so much.

It's why Americans cant buy new Studebakers.

I don't what you mean by 'really private'.
I do know that the private train operators paid £200million to their shareholders after recieving £4billion in taxpayer subsidies - sounds like robbery to me.

Private means no subsidies. All expenses and profits must be covered by revenues.

Like if you opened McAz's Kabob Shop. If you don't make enough money, you go out of business. It's the "free" part of the free market.

In other words our railway system is partly privatized now, unlike with Railtrack which indeed went into liquidated.

The simple fact is the railways were underinvested in for years and years prior to privatisation, to make them appealing to privatise.

So, that debunks the 'railways should never have been privatized theory'. Investment (or lack of it) is the problem, rather than the railways being (part) privatized or publicly owned.

Service frequencies have increased greatly on many routes, so much so, large parts of the network are running at full capacity.

[Cannydc]

Service frequencies have increased greatly on many routes, so much so, large parts of the network are running at full capacity.

Tell that to Northern Rail commuters...

Virgin East and Virgin West Coast commuters...

Govia Thameslink commuters...

Southern Rail commuters...

[jra]

Service frequencies have increased greatly on many routes, so much so, large parts of the network are running at full capacity.

Tell that to Northern Rail commuters...

Virgin East and Virgin West Coast commuters...

Govia Thameslink commuters...

Southern Rail commuters...

I think you may be confusing service frequencies with increases in passengers numbers.

Services from London to Birmingham used to be hourly, then every 30 mins at max in service speed of 110 mph before the WCLM modernization. Now they are every 20 mins, with longer trains at max in service speed of 125 mph.

Govia Thameslink commuters have got trains which are 50% longer (12 carriages instead of 8) with trains that have better acceleration characteristics.

The ECML are getting new and better performance trains.

Northern Rail commuters should benefit from electrification in certain areas and cascaded trains which are better than existing rolling stock.

Don't get me wrong, it's not an ideal solution, but a starting point.

I'd estimate we'd need an extra £500 billion to £1 trillion investment over the next 20 years in order to get the UK railways up to German, French, Italian and Spanish standards in order to make up for decades of under-investment. This can be done either via increases in rail fares or increases in general taxation.

[Rolluplostinspace]

Who is "us", Mungo?

Here's some help from the Oxford dictionary"


first person plural Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people

[Rolluplostinspace]

Cheers - but I think I'll open a railway if anything - you get free money and get to play with trains.

If only it were that easy.
He wasn't being serious JRA.

[Cannydc]

Service frequencies have increased greatly on many routes, so much so, large parts of the network are running at full capacity.

Tell that to Northern Rail commuters...

Virgin East and Virgin West Coast commuters...

Govia Thameslink commuters...

Southern Rail commuters...

I think you may be confusing service frequencies with increases in passengers numbers.

Services from London to Birmingham used to be hourly, then every 30 mins at max in service speed of 110 mph before the WCLM modernization. Now they are every 20 mins, with longer trains at max in service speed of 125 mph.

Govia Thameslink commuters have got trains which are 50% longer (12 carriages instead of 8) with trains that have better acceleration characteristics.

The ECML are getting new and better performance trains.

Northern Rail commuters should benefit from electrification in certain areas and cascaded trains which are better than existing rolling stock.

Don't get me wrong, it's not an ideal solution, but a starting point.

I'd estimate we'd need an extra £500 billion to £1 trillion investment over the next 20 years in order to get the UK railways up to German, French, Italian and Spanish standards in order to make up for decades of under-investment. This can be done either via increases in rail fares or increases in general taxation.

"I think you may be confusing service frequencies with increases in passengers numbers."

And I think you may be missing the fact that trains can be scheduled for every 5 minutes, but that means sweet FA when none of them actually show up.

[Fletch]

Service frequencies have increased greatly on many routes, so much so, large parts of the network are running at full capacity.

Tell that to Northern Rail commuters...

Virgin East and Virgin West Coast commuters...

Govia Thameslink commuters...

Southern Rail commuters...

I think you may be confusing service frequencies with increases in passengers numbers.

Services from London to Birmingham used to be hourly, then every 30 mins at max in service speed of 110 mph before the WCLM modernization. Now they are every 20 mins, with longer trains at max in service speed of 125 mph.

Govia Thameslink commuters have got trains which are 50% longer (12 carriages instead of 8) with trains that have better acceleration characteristics.

The ECML are getting new and better performance trains.

Northern Rail commuters should benefit from electrification in certain areas and cascaded trains which are better than existing rolling stock.

Don't get me wrong, it's not an ideal solution, but a starting point.

I'd estimate we'd need an extra £500 billion to £1 trillion investment over the next 20 years in order to get the UK railways up to German, French, Italian and Spanish standards in order to make up for decades of under-investment. This can be done either via increases in rail fares or increases in general taxation.

"I think you may be confusing service frequencies with increases in passengers numbers."

And I think you may be missing the fact that trains can be scheduled for every 5 minutes, but that means sweet FA when none of them actually show up.

Looks good on paper though.

That seems to be the basis of the western world, and maybe the East as well. Living in a fantasy land of facts and figures made up to suit the people compiling them or the people who asked for them.

[jra]

Cheers - but I think I'll open a railway if anything - you get free money and get to play with trains.

If only it were that easy.
He wasn't being serious JRA.

Stick on a in there, then we'll know for sure. People will say virtually anything they mean or not mean on the net.

[jra]

Service frequencies have increased greatly on many routes, so much so, large parts of the network are running at full capacity.

Tell that to Northern Rail commuters...

Virgin East and Virgin West Coast commuters...

Govia Thameslink commuters...

Southern Rail commuters...

I think you may be confusing service frequencies with increases in passengers numbers.

Services from London to Birmingham used to be hourly, then every 30 mins at max in service speed of 110 mph before the WCLM modernization. Now they are every 20 mins, with longer trains at max in service speed of 125 mph.

Govia Thameslink commuters have got trains which are 50% longer (12 carriages instead of 8) with trains that have better acceleration characteristics.

The ECML are getting new and better performance trains.

Northern Rail commuters should benefit from electrification in certain areas and cascaded trains which are better than existing rolling stock.

Don't get me wrong, it's not an ideal solution, but a starting point.

I'd estimate we'd need an extra £500 billion to £1 trillion investment over the next 20 years in order to get the UK railways up to German, French, Italian and Spanish standards in order to make up for decades of under-investment. This can be done either via increases in rail fares or increases in general taxation.

"I think you may be confusing service frequencies with increases in passengers numbers."

And I think you may be missing the fact that trains can be scheduled for every 5 minutes, but that means sweet FA when none of them actually show up.

Very few overground services run at those frequencies, due to speed and timetable constraints. People want infrastructure upgrades and increases in service frequencies, but then complain that to do this normally involves temporary disruption to services until the work is done. You may be able to increase service frequencies by decreasing the speeds of trains, but then people will complain about the increased journey times.

So, which do you want?

[Cannydc]

I am referring to the laughable inefficiencies of many of the current rail franchises.

Parliament’s Transport Committee recently warned this system was “no longer fit for purpose” and was leading to increased ticket fares and poor performance. “It has not yielded all the competitive benefits initially envisaged by the Government in the early 1990s,” it said.

Profit-making companies place shareholder interests above customer interests, and it’s manifestly unfair for private investors to profit from the unavoidable costs of commuting. I believe that a nationalised system would have more incentive to drive down fares and improve the service.

Last year 17 of the main train companies that run normal passenger services together made an annual operating profit of £343m – an average of £20m per company.

They also paid themselves very handsomely. The top director for each company was paid an average of nearly £300,000, including pension and perks. One of them earned £478,000 – almost 17 times the UK median wage.

Eight of the companies also paid out £185m in dividends to shareholders.

I have little doubt that an integrated service without shareholder payouts would save money,

Take East Coast rail. The service was rescued by a government-controlled company in 2009, after National Express fell into financial trouble and the franchise collapsed.

It was handed back to the private sector in 2015, but the experiment had undoubtedly been a success. Under public ownership, satisfaction rates climbed to 91 per cent – the joint top score for a franchised long distance operator. In its final year of service, it provided £225m to the Department for Transport, saw ticket sales rise, and made a pre-tax profit of £8.4m.

[jra]

I am referring to the laughable inefficiencies of many of the current rail franchises.

Parliament’s Transport Committee recently warned this system was “no longer fit for purpose” and was leading to increased ticket fares and poor performance. “It has not yielded all the competitive benefits initially envisaged by the Government in the early 1990s,” it said.

Profit-making companies place shareholder interests above customer interests, and it’s manifestly unfair for private investors to profit from the unavoidable costs of commuting. I believe that a nationalised system would have more incentive to drive down fares and improve the service.

Last year 17 of the main train companies that run normal passenger services together made an annual operating profit of £343m – an average of £20m per company.

They also paid themselves very handsomely. The top director for each company was paid an average of nearly £300,000, including pension and perks. One of them earned £478,000 – almost 17 times the UK median wage.

Eight of the companies also paid out £185m in dividends to shareholders.

I have little doubt that an integrated service without shareholder payouts would save money,

Take East Coast rail. The service was rescued by a government-controlled company in 2009, after National Express fell into financial trouble and the franchise collapsed.

It was handed back to the private sector in 2015, but the experiment had undoubtedly been a success. Under public ownership, satisfaction rates climbed to 91 per cent – the joint top score for a franchised long distance operator. In its final year of service, it provided £225m to the Department for Transport, saw ticket sales rise, and made a pre-tax profit of £8.4m.

No amount of private sector inefficiencies and mismanagement are ever going to usurp the four biggest disasters that have happened when our railways were totally under public ownership, i.e. British Rail.

1. The slow adoption from steam to diesel and particularly electric traction.
2. The slow adoption of electrification of railway lines in the UK. For example, the GWML electrification would have been done decades ago in most European countries.
3. The Beeching Axe. Mainly because the transport minister had a vested interest in road transport. Ernest Marples. This was simply industrial vandalism on a nationwide scale.
4. The abandonment of the APT (tilting train) project, due to lack of government funding. We invented the tilting train and should have seen the project through, rather than embarrassingly having to buy back some of the technology from the Italians. Pendolinos.

Privatization of the railways hasn't come anywhere close to any of the above in terms of losses and chances missed.

So canny, take those rose-tinted spectacles off. British Rail were anything but the be all and end all.

The one big major thing that BR put onto the table as plan B after the APT failure was the Intercity 125/HST/Class 43 which at the time was a masterpiece of engineering and groundbreaking technology. The results speak for themselves. This train has even been described as 'the train that saved British railways' and I agree.

[Punk]

I am referring to the laughable inefficiencies of many of the current rail franchises.

Parliament’s Transport Committee recently warned this system was “no longer fit for purpose” and was leading to increased ticket fares and poor performance. “It has not yielded all the competitive benefits initially envisaged by the Government in the early 1990s,” it said.

Profit-making companies place shareholder interests above customer interests, and it’s manifestly unfair for private investors to profit from the unavoidable costs of commuting. I believe that a nationalised system would have more incentive to drive down fares and improve the service.

Last year 17 of the main train companies that run normal passenger services together made an annual operating profit of £343m – an average of £20m per company.

They also paid themselves very handsomely. The top director for each company was paid an average of nearly £300,000, including pension and perks. One of them earned £478,000 – almost 17 times the UK median wage.

Eight of the companies also paid out £185m in dividends to shareholders.

I have little doubt that an integrated service without shareholder payouts would save money,

Take East Coast rail. The service was rescued by a government-controlled company in 2009, after National Express fell into financial trouble and the franchise collapsed.

It was handed back to the private sector in 2015, but the experiment had undoubtedly been a success. Under public ownership, satisfaction rates climbed to 91 per cent – the joint top score for a franchised long distance operator. In its final year of service, it provided £225m to the Department for Transport, saw ticket sales rise, and made a pre-tax profit of £8.4m.

No amount of private sector inefficiencies and mismanagement are ever going to usurp the four biggest disasters that have happened when our railways were totally under public ownership, i.e. British Rail.

1. The slow adoption from steam to diesel and particularly electric traction.
2. The slow adoption of electrification of railway lines in the UK. For example, the GWML electrification would have been done decades ago in most European countries.
3. The Beeching Axe. Mainly because the transport minister had a vested interest in road transport. Ernest Marples. This was simply industrial vandalism on a nationwide scale.
4. The abandonment of the APT (tilting train) project, due to lack of government funding. We invented the tilting train and should have seen the project through, rather than embarrassingly having to buy back some of the technology from the Italians. Pendolinos.

Privatization of the railways hasn't come anywhere close to any of the above in terms of losses and chances missed.

So canny, take those rose-tinted spectacles off. British Rail were anything but the be all and end all.

The one big major thing that BR put onto the table as plan B after the APT failure was the Intercity 125/HST/Class 43 which at the time was a masterpiece of engineering and groundbreaking technology. The results speak for themselves. This train has even been described as 'the train that saved British railways' and I agree.

You need to understand the difference with British Rail policies and national Government transport policies. For example, one cannot possibly, rationally blame British Rail for various Conservative Party policies such as removal of funding for electricification, Beeching, removal of funding for West Coast upgrade, failure for communications upgrades so drivers can talk to each other to stop another Cowden, etc etc. Where I live the Conservatives shut the Crystal Palace High Level line AFTER the Labour GLC had bought a huge plot of land for a huge estate housing 1,000 plus people. The Upper Sydenham station was yards from the estate. It is this lack of forward planning that has ruined the country.

[Cannydc]

Very much this.

The same happened with TSR2. A government policy. And a Labour one at that.