gavintc said:
I commute daily by train between Edinburgh and Glasgow and reckon that the break up of BR was a 'good' thing. You now have incentivised companies significantly better than the only BR monopoly. I normally travel Scotrail to work, but will occasionally catch either the Virgin or East Coast trains. BR was dreadful.
BR was privatised due to political dogma rather than to better serve the customer. If you look across Europe you'll find a mix of ownership models for rail systems, but nearly all are state owned or the state is a key stakeholder. They all manage to be cheaper and more efficient than our system.
I said before its the
manner of privatisation that has made life particularly difficult. BR was split up into a myriad of franchises and companies to make it difficult for future government to re-nationalise it. Short term franchises make it difficult for rail companies to get a return on investment without hiking fares. This also means that the companies lease trains instead of owning them and of course, the banks that actually own the trains need to turn a profit for their shareholders as well. More overhead that the passengers have to pay for. The companies own the 'franchise' but not the tracks that they run on, making coordinated management of the network almost impossible, reducing efficiency and therefore increasing costs even more.
As for the monopoly, it is still a monopoly, or more strictly a cartel. Mrs Dr Bollo travels from Winchester to Oxford and back each day. She can travel by.........X Country Trains. No choice. No options. For her and most other commuters, her ticket is a distress purchase, meaning that she has to pay whatever price X Country decide, up to the point where working no longer becomes economically viable. Train companies are only limited in what they can charge by government regulation, which they'd happily see the back of as their primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not the passengers. Some franchises, like Scotrail and SWT have profitable routes that allow them to run a reasonable service, but still with some of the most expensive per-mile fares in the world in order to pay the shareholder. Others, like X Country, have less profitable routes, so have to reduce services, reduce rolling stock and staffing costs and increase fares to pay their shareholders. Shareholders first, customers second.
Finally, most other European countries recognise that a rail system is a vital component of their infrastructure. A good rail network will support an economy by providing a mobile workforce, efficient mass freight movement and reduced road congestion. A rail network doesn't have to be profitable directly to justify its existence. What does matter is that it's run
cost-effectively, something that neither BR or the current system does particularly well.
My fingers are tired!
