Rail Privatisation a failure...what a surprise.

[Oceans11]

Well not really..
I'm only surprised that they took so long to admit reality.
The private sector have flogged off all the land assets from the last century and scampered over the horizon with their handfuls of cash.
(Privatisation lasted over 10 years. wow.

)

So, now we get back to the real world, almost...
Renationalisation is just a matter of time, the railways are too important to leave in the hands of a bunch of hamburger salesmen.

---------------------------------
Ministers tighten grip on railways

Local bodies will get more power
The government will take more direct control of the national rail system as part of a major shake-up.
The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) set up four years ago is being scrapped and most of its powers are moving to Transport Secretary Alistair Darling.

Changes outlined in a White Paper stop short of renationalisation, something the rail unions have campaigned for.

There will be tighter government control, with Network Rail assuming responsibility for the network.

Some of the Mr Darling's plans will need new legislation and a bill will be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr Darling said changes to the rail structure would steer it away from moments of confrontation.


Network Rail will be responsible for ensuring that the network delivers a reliable service

Alistair Darling
Transport secretary


Grappling with change
He told the Commons: "The new structure will bring the operation of track and train closer together.
"Too often under the present system companies have been able to pass the buck for poor performance.

"So in future, Network Rail will be responsible for ensuring that the network delivers a reliable service through an agreement with the government."

The reorganisation would "put the railways on a stable long-term footing and tackle the remaining flaws left from privatisation".

The main points of the White Paper are:


Strategic Rail Authority to be abolished after four years
Most powers will be with transport secretary
Network rail takes full responsibility for maintaining a reliable service
Safety function goes from HSE to Office of Rail Regulation
Number of franchises reduced
Considerable devolved powers to Scotland over rail
More powers for Wales and English regional bodies
Mayor gets responsibility for all trains in Greater London
Community railway lines will be put on a "better financial footing"

Under the new proposals, Network Rail would be responsible for timetabling, use of routes and enforcing the punctuality of train companies.

Responsibility for safety on the railways would move from the Health and Safety Commission's (HSC) executive arm - the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) - to the Office of Rail Regulation.

HSC chairman Bill Callaghan said: "The commission is naturally disappointed with this decision. It is our firm belief safety regulation should be independent of its industry and any regulator should have teeth to be able to enforce measures where necessary."


HAVE YOUR SAY
How can we be sure these changes will make the system work?

Paul, UK


Send us your comments
Proposals at-a-glance
Tim Yeo, Conservative transport spokesman, said "shifting responsibilities around Whitehall, replacing one set of bureaucrats with another" would not make the trains more reliable.

The Liberal Democrats said they had long argued for a simpler and clearer structure, but said the railways now needed a long-term vision.


The SRA released a statement saying despite its abolition it remained "proud of its leadership role in rehabilitating Britain's railway" .

SRA chairman Richard Bowker, who will stand down in September, said the body had brought "stability, clarity and certainty."

The railway sector has been dogged by upheaval since the first steps to privatisation over ten years ago.

In 1993 the Tories replaced British Rail with privatised regional franchises, to run services, and Railtrack, to maintain the railway infrastructure.

After Labour came to power in 1997, the company was put into administration and was replaced by not-for-profit Network Rail in 2002.

The government also set up the Strategic Rail Authority four years ago to promote rail use and strategically develop the rail network.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3894791.stm

 

[Oceans11]

I see that the US has its own rail problems.

US to break up struggling Amtrak


Amtrak has never made a profit
The US Government is effectively proposing the break up Amtrak, the long-distance rail operator that came close to collapse a year ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3107667.stm

Rebels stall Amtrak break-up plan

Amtrak says it needs $1.8bn in subsidies
A US Government plan to break up ailing national rail operator Amtrak has already run into resistance in Congress.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3112185.stm

 

[bblight]

The Railway unions are what put the railways under in the USA - and the rails will never come back as long as the railway unions are part of the equation.

This isn't an accusation, or a diatribe against unions - it's just the facts!

 

[Oceans11]

Right.

So as long as there are no unions, private railways, all over the world, will be a roaring profitable success.

It works with McDonalds. So it must be true.

 

[Phaedrus]

Now, I will precede this with the caveat that I am unfamiliar with the British rail system aside from what I'm reading above, but let me see if I am following this:

1) From the dawn of time, British rails have been either state-run or state-company collaborations

2) A decade or so ago they were "deregulated" (which in 99.9% of all cases bears no resemblance to the process of deregulation and can be more accurately described as "re-regulation.")

3) Because private (or half-assed "re-regulation" private) industry cannot save a century and change worth of British railways, privatisation is a failure and the governmentis taking it back over.

Sounds an awful lot like "deregulated" electricity in California to me. We all had a swinging great time with that one, and everyone has enjoyed pinning the blame for the problems on private companies while voting the politicians who both caused and exacerbated the problems more money, more power etc.

Mind you, I've only had this cursory study on the topic.


Phaedrus

 

[Oceans11]

Hiya Mr P.

Tell us how we can have a decent private rail system.
It got flogged off to the public over 10 years ago and the share price went through the roof as the lucky early entrants had access to initially increasing government subsidies and the right to sell loads of inner city railway real estate.(for housing boom cherry picking)

Now its only a skeleton ownership from those heady railtrack days(Railtrack is now bust).

So now that huge chunks of public assets have been squandered by the private sector we need someone (way smarter than most of us btw) to at least 'minimise losses', I would say.
While providing a very essential infrastructure service, especially in the more populated and profitable regions like London.

A private dude that could 'minimise losses' would make a fortune.

Its never really mentioned, but without the commuter railways, Capitalist London grinds to a halt.
Whether the network makes a profit or not is irrelevant...

(But its only socialist pigs that mention that.)

oink oink

 

[Oceans11]

A bit of background

http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/railways.htm#Railways

IMO the Beechings cuts in the 60's were the end of the real infrastructure, at least one third was lost, and since then about 50% has shut down.
If we closed 50% of our roads, anywhere, it would be a disaster.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2806285.stm

BTW.

Does a road make a profit?

Methinks that because railways have unions, governments will always avoid using them as core infrastructure, except in wartime.

 

[Phaedrus]

Again, this is a subject outside of my sphere of knowlegde. I could only compare it to other privatisation disasters with which I am familiar, such as the aforementioned California power market, which was pretty typical of how deregulation works:

1) Existing rules scrapped

2) Bigger, more complicated rules take their place

3) Photo op with politician and some rich guy

4) Union makes a fuss

5) Politicians calls in mark; smooths it over

6) Photo op of politician, union guy and rich guy all smiles

7) Everything collapses in on itself

8) Blame capitalism

In the specific case of California, as part of the "stipulations" of deregulation (a contradiciton of terms if ever existed) retail power companies had a cap set on how much they were allowed to charge consumers for power. Power generators had no such cap, nor did power transmission companies. As expenses (and yes, filthy lucre profit*****ring pig-swine yaddah yaddah) increased on the supply side, the retailers couldn't respond as they should have, which would be by raising prices in accordance with their increasing expenses. So there were rolling blackouts and all that drama. And it's all capitalism's fault, naturally.

Regarding your last staement -- my last trip to London it struck me as about as capitalist a place as New York City, which sure as hell isn't saying much.


Phaedrus

 

[Phaedrus]

But I will add that one of the few material things over which I have ever truly lusted was a flat at Kensington Gardens (Might have been Kensington "Green" ... been several years and can't really remember.) Back in 1996-ish they were 3.2 million pounds a pop and there was a waiting list.

Phaedrus

 

[jimbutorac]

I just came across this thread as I have been out most of the evening. I'm gonna refrain from arguing any points on this one but as soon as I saw eek's title: "Rail Privatisation a failure - what a Surprise" I knew Phaedrus would be responding to this one.

Have at it, boys.

I'm just sittin" back and wathcin" the show.

 

[Oceans11]

Just between you and me...
I may have overextended him on this one Mud.

I suppose its like privatising all roads, not too sensible, an integral part of the free movement of civilisation etc.

[This message was edited by eek on July 15, 2004 at 11:41 PM.]

 

[Phaedrus]

Um, I did respond, and as I said above, I don't think I know enough about the subject to really comment effectively on it. However, I notice the elegance with which my central question is dodged, as usual: British rail -- formed, maintained and expanded for over a century under the crown. Private owners can't fix what's wrong with it in just a few years -- so it's a failure of capitalism. The argument doesn't even make basic sense.

Privatising roads is an outstanding idea. The American government had a wonderful time taking over the thousands of miles of private roads that existed in America in the 19th century, and today runs transportation as the poster boy for pork-barrel politics. But that's America, not Britain, so who knows what similarities exist. How anyone can't run reasonable trasportation over that postage stamp-sized place is anyone's best guess.

London the "capitalist centre" still tickles me. I actually was thinking about that earlier and had a chuckle.


Phaedrus

 

[jimbutorac]

Phaedrus,

I saw that you did respond. what i was trying to say, was that as soon as I saw eek's title which was obviously intended to be provocative, i knew you'd be jumping into the fray, that's all. No disrespect intended towards either party.

Kinda reminds me of the old Warner Brothers cartoon where Sam and Ralph punch in and out every day.

 

[Diarmuid]

The press in the UK like to decry British Railways for the way they are. Privatisation is taking three times the amount in subsidy in real terms than they were under Nationalisation. That has been necessary to make up for a 10 year shirtfall in investment.

British Rail was Europes most financially efficient operator. No other European Rail company operated so many high speed trains over such a high proportion of track.

Richard Beeching should not be demonised either. The vast majority of the track that was closed in the 1960's had served its purpose. He introduced financial accountability, and succeeded in removing the obsolete and outdated common carrier obligations that plagued the rail network once Road competition started to eat into the unprofitable traffic flows.

Rail should specialise in the following:

1. Long Distance High Speed passenger traffic between major urban centres between 100 and 500 miles apart.

2. Short distance high volume, high frequency commuter traffic around urban centres.

3. High volume bulk freight traffic, or high speed container traffic.

The lines that were closed were regional in nature. Some still exist, some escaped Beeching, and are white elephants for tourists, example, Inverness to Thurso and Wick in the Far north of Scotland. It should have closed in 1964, meanwhile it barely covers 10% of its operating costs.

 

[bblight]

You can't privatise a utility that has been nationalized - not without getting rid of the bureaucracy and supporting infrastructure that has developed.
Unless you restructure with a massive change to labor and management, all that you're doing is changing the label and nothing else.

Eek - you come across like a bureaucrat to me - are you a railroad man?

 

[Skyweasel]

we should subsidize rail in the U.S. at the same rate we subsidize highways and airports.