Privatisation vs nationalisation vs the RoW

[BanburyBlue]

HI,

I'm sure this has probably been discussed to death before, but I've seen a few posts recently about Nationalisation vs Privatisation. I was also jogged when my son asked me my views the other day after someone in his office was saying how the rail system is broken, and we should go back to British Railways.

Thinking back, a lot of people seem to have a rose tinted view of how good things were in BR days. And while I agree there were benefits, I do remember a lot of dirty old trains, and timetables being a lot less frequent.

That said, I'm not sure the franchising system works well either. Without being too political, privatisation aims (IIRC) were to reduce cost, improve competition and make things more efficient. So yes we have nice new shiny trains and (generally) improved timetables, but the cost to travel has rocketed with the ticketing system now very complicated (for non-enthusiasts or regular travellers).

So I got to wondering how the rest of the world do it? Are most countries rail networks generally government run? Is there lessons we could learn to make things better over here? I did hear anecdotally that the East Coast route improved once the government ran it - but that may be all rubbish?

 

[JN114]

HI,

I'm sure this has probably been discussed to death before, but I've seen a few posts recently about Nationalisation vs Privatisation. I was also jogged when my son asked me my views the other day after someone in his office was saying how the rail system is broken, and we should go back to British Railways.

Thinking back, a lot of people seem to have a rose tinted view of how good things were in BR days. And while I agree there were benefits, I do remember a lot of dirty old trains, and timetables being a lot less frequent.

That said, I'm not sure the franchising system works well either. Without being too political, privatisation aims (IIRC) were to reduce cost, improve competition and make things more efficient. So yes we have nice new shiny trains and (generally) improved timetables, but the cost to travel has rocketed with the ticketing system now very complicated (for non-enthusiasts or regular travellers).

So I got to wondering how the rest of the world do it? Are most countries rail networks generally government run? Is there lessons we could learn to make things better over here? I did hear anecdotally that the East Coast route improved once the government ran it - but that may be all rubbish?

East Coast made more money; but many argue the quality of service declined. They also didn't have to pay National Express' 9-figure franchise premium. Virgin/Stagecoach are definitely putting more money into the treasury; although I concede we're comparing apples and oranges.

Network Rail provides a good insight into a possible future for the nationalised railway. Their debt was recently restructured such that it now appears on government books. Ability to deliver projects and investment has tanked since then because Network Rail now need to use the government's credit card - and therefore appalling credit rating - and not their arm's length pseudo-private company credit card to pay for things. While happy to be proven wrong I suspect that is the kind of scenario we can expect to see played out across the industry.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Everywhere in the West, governments are trying to find a formula which maintains and improves rail services without breaking the bank.
The railway debt in most countries is huge and unsustainable, even in France and Germany where they have spent fortunes on new lines.
In most countries, services are being devolved to an arms-length contractual relationship with the government, with services being competed for, whether by public sector bodies or the private sector.
We chose the private sector.

For all these reasons, it is not going to be possible to recreate BR here, as an independent corporation which controls all things rail without much oversight.
The government has got too used to micro-managing the railway, and won't give up that level of control.
The public has also got used to demanding improvements, and getting them.
Network Rail's failures, both technically and financially, mean it will not be given the control that BR had. It is more likely to be broken up.
Devolution to the regions also means that multiple agencies will have a disruptive finger in the pie, including their own funds and priorities (eg Scotland, Wales, PTEs, TfL).
There is no simple answer to the question "who should run the railway", and the specific form of financing (private or public) is not really the issue.
Even Labour is not proposing to nationalise rolling stock manufacture or freight, or open access.
I doubt any country in Europe would say they had the ideal formula for rail.
Except maybe Switzerland, which has a complex mix of public and private operation which seems to work.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I would say it's not ownership but a combination of unique structural aspects that are to its detriment that make UK rail different to continental rail. As mentioned before an excessive amount of micromanaging at a less than strategic level from civil servants that are not best placed to make these decisions. Secondly an infrastructure provider which lacks the skills and competence to do things cost effectively. Thirdly excessive fragmentation that leads to duplication, less than optimum outcomes and parts of the industry working against each other.

All the above haven been a consequence of how BR was privatised and what happened in the mid to late 1990's. People forget that the structure chosen for the industry was basically an extreme free market expriement in creating multiple interfaces in the believe that profit making was all good and that by creating more profit making levels the whole would be more efficient than in a large organisation.

 

[coppercapped]

HI,

I'm sure this has probably been discussed to death before, but I've seen a few posts recently about Nationalisation vs Privatisation. I was also jogged when my son asked me my views the other day after someone in his office was saying how the rail system is broken, and we should go back to British Railways.

Thinking back, a lot of people seem to have a rose tinted view of how good things were in BR days. And while I agree there were benefits, I do remember a lot of dirty old trains, and timetables being a lot less frequent.

That said, I'm not sure the franchising system works well either. Without being too political, privatisation aims (IIRC) were to reduce cost, improve competition and make things more efficient. So yes we have nice new shiny trains and (generally) improved timetables, but the cost to travel has rocketed with the ticketing system now very complicated (for non-enthusiasts or regular travellers).

So I got to wondering how the rest of the world do it? Are most countries rail networks generally government run? Is there lessons we could learn to make things better over here? I did hear anecdotally that the East Coast route improved once the government ran it - but that may be all rubbish?

What, exactly, would reverting to BR make better? Anyway, what is the meaning of 'better' in this (railway) context? The meaning needs to be defined before any sensible discussion can take place. Does it refer to timetables, speeds, frequencies, seats, crowding, costs to the taxpayer, punctuality, reliability, cleanliness, availability of funds for investment, growth in the passenger and freight businesses, return on investment, return on capital, accident rates, age of the trains, or something else entirely?

Three points:

1. Your post implies that the franchising system was intended to promote competition - with the implication that the competition is between the TOCs. This was never the case. The competition was always between the bidders for a franchise and never, except at the margins, between the franchisees. People who suggest the latter either do not understand the process or are misrepresenting the situation.
2. The railways are already a creature of Government. Network Rail is owned by the Government and subject to Treasury limits on expenditure - putting it on exactly the same basis as BR. 45% of fares are regulated and set by the Government. The TOCs run the services to a specification - frequencies, stopping patterns and so on - set by Government. In the case of TSGN - the biggest TOC in the country - the Government even carries the revenue risk.
3. Fundamentally the ticketing system is very simple. You want to go anywhere at any time? Then buy a full priced ticket. As in all special offers, reduced prices bring restrictions on when one can use the ticket - the lower the price the more restrictions. What sometimes isn't obvious is how to find out what the restrictions mean and when they apply. On the other hand people can work out the optimum route and carrier to fly to Bali and book hotels without the aid of travel agents so I find it difficult to understand why they find railway ticketing especially difficult.

I fail to understand why people believe that 'nationalising' the railway will make any difference.

 

[yorkie]

Thinking back, a lot of people seem to have a rose tinted view of how good things were in BR days. And while I agree there were benefits, I do remember a lot of dirty old trains, and timetables being a lot less frequent.

Of course; there was a lot less money coming from Government and fewer journeys were made, so this should not be a surprise.

...privatisation aims (IIRC) were to reduce cost...

It has increased costs.

In some cases TOCs refuse to hold trains because another TOC will get a taxi bill, and all sorts of stuff like that. There are £millions spent on delay attribution too. I could go on...

improve competition

I don't know what you mean by this but you may be mistaken. See coppercapped's post above.

and make things more efficient

It perhaps has in some areas, and hasn't in others. Mostly the latter, e.g. money is wasted on pointless branding rather than on the basics sometimes.

So yes we have nice new shiny trains

We increasingly have what commuters describe as "joke" trains GTR Great Northern's new trains a joke?

and (generally) improved timetables

Because more people are travelling.

but the cost to travel has rocketed with the ticketing system now very complicated (for non-enthusiasts or regular travellers).

This is a very good point; rail travel is expensive for many journeys, especially involving XC, unless you use a site like Trainsplit to reduce the cost.

I did hear anecdotally that the East Coast route improved once the government ran it - but that may be all rubbish?

It did improve, but Virgin are doing their best to make travel unaffordable and unattractive.

 

[LLivery]

The best argument I've heard is look what BR achieved on what little money it had. If BR was still around and had the public money the network is given today, it probably would've been very good. We all know it was very financially efficient. The typical "old trains" statement seems silly as trains have a long life span and this argument is always said for both sides. The Southern slam door stock would of been withdrawn regardless of operator and of course BR was planning to replace the InterCity West Coast stock anyway. The fragmentation of the network has made the network far too wasteful, as has repetitive rebranding.

The biggest issue for many is the idea of very high fares and tax subsidies being given to faceless, hated operators who take multi million profits. 3% or 0.5% people feel like they are being ripped off and no matter how much they complain, the operator stays for years, nothing really improves (without being forced to) and makes millions. And then it happens all over again. With Southern its got worse; the amount of stains on their seats are unbelievable.

In most cases, timetables have improved because usage has risen. I don't believe that improvements to frequencies wouldn't of happened under BR, especially with clogged roads. I think if BR was around today it wouldn't be perfect, far from it. However, I'm in no doubt it would've been more financially efficient.

As for the rest of the world, Germany would probably be the closest relation. Again it has its problems, but I don't think many would argue that they have a worse system and apart from the odd priviatised route, the money all goes back into the system. If there is a problem the Germans know who to blame. Here, people still can't tell the difference between Network Rail, National Rail and Northern Rail. And then there is GTR...

 

[dk1]

As an employee who worked for BR 84-97 & the privatised railway ever since, I would NEVER vote to return to those dark cash strapped days. Yes they where fun & care free but my bank balance didn't tell the same story. There are pros & cons for the travelling public but that was the same back then too.

I have recently been asked the same question in my local Wetherspoons by two young members of staff who are half way to being brainwashed by the Corbyn Band Wagon. They seemed surprised by my response bless em.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The biggest issue for many is the idea of very high fares and tax subsidies being given to faceless, hated operators who take multi million profits. 3% or 0.5% people feel like they are being ripped off and no matter how much they complain, the operator stays for years, nothing really improves (without being forced to) and makes millions. And then it happens all over again. With Southern its got worse; the amount of stains on their seats are unbelievable.

The main rip-off merchants are the government which regulates the fares system and sets key fares (eg seasons).
All those draconian off-peak time restrictions are actually approved (even desired) by the government to increase revenue.
"Pricing people off the trains" was invented by BR to maximise revenue from limited resources.
That's because of government policy (all shades) to reduce the burden on the taxpayer, and is the source of the "RPI+x%" formula.
TOC profits are a drop in the ocean in comparison, and "BR" won't do the job for peanuts - trains don't run themselves.

 

[Hadders]

British Rail did some good work but generally had an awful reputation.

I'm neutral on whether the railways should be publically or privately run but the last thing we need is a large structural reorganisation as it'd take years for things to settle down again.

Many fares are the result of Government policy. We could simplify fares but this would result in having to pay more in many cases.

 

[sk688]

As someone who was not around for the BR era , could someone tell me what BR was really like

The image I have ascertained , is that the trains were old , dirty and run down , with low investment , as well as poor services , such as the Chiltern Line , which BR run down to single line with little/no service , before it's rejuvantation under privatization with CR ( although apparently BR played a role in making it better too )

Hence why I thought privatization was good , because under this , all the new trains , like the SWT Desiros , Southern Electrostar/Turbostars have been brought , whereas under BR it was old slam door 40 year old trains , with no amenities ( based on what I have seen in pictures , not been on one )

Could someone tell me if it was like this , or was it different

Apologies if this is wrong or offensive , am simply unaware of what they were like

 

[dk1]

Very politically incorrect these days but one of the main things that sums up BR was the lack of any Drugs & Alcohol policy. The BRSA clubs throughout the network backed this up & where usually thronging on pay day & every weekend.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Very politically incorrect these days but one of the main things that sums up BR was the lack of any Drugs & Alcohol policy. The BRSA clubs throughout the network backed this up & where usually thronging on pay day & every weekend.

Different times it was common for office workers to go to pub and drink at lunchtime back in the late 80's/ early 90's. Remember smoking on the tube?

There's a tendency to latch onto something as the bad old days failing to remember it was part of wider society and not specific to the industry. Things I did at work 30 years ago are long gone. ask anyone who worked in A& E 25 years ago to compare it to today.

 

[Gareth Marston]

As someone who was not around for the BR era , could someone tell me what BR was really like

The image I have ascertained , is that the trains were old , dirty and run down , with low investment , as well as poor services , such as the Chiltern Line , which BR run down to single line with little/no service , before it's rejuvantation under privatization with CR ( although apparently BR played a role in making it better too )

Hence why I thought privatization was good , because under this , all the new trains , like the SWT Desiros , Southern Electrostar/Turbostars have been brought , whereas under BR it was old slam door 40 year old trains , with no amenities ( based on what I have seen in pictures , not been on one )

Could someone tell me if it was like this , or was it different

Apologies if this is wrong or offensive , am simply unaware of what they were like

The amount of new stock ordered 85 to 90 was comparable to what the first round of franchises did 97 to 02. BR simply had its budget slashed during the recession and then its investment budget was diverted to pay the Lawyers and Consultants to privatise it after hence very little new came through in the final years distorting the perception.

 

[Master29]

Personally, as a rail user the dirty trains argument is naff. Has anyone travelled on XC lately. Their pooh tubes are so dirty and clearly in need of a refresh ( and no I don`t mean the stink). Leaking Northern and GWR 142/143`s to name a couple. The amount of crap between seats on many routes is pretty bad sometimes too.

Not saying BR was cleaner but certainly now isn`t any better. Most present rolling stock is left over from BR days is a point to make too.

 

[yorksrob]

As someone who was not around for the BR era , could someone tell me what BR was really like

The image I have ascertained , is that the trains were old , dirty and run down , with low investment , as well as poor services , such as the Chiltern Line , which BR run down to single line with little/no service , before it's rejuvantation under privatization with CR ( although apparently BR played a role in making it better too )

Hence why I thought privatization was good , because under this , all the new trains , like the SWT Desiros , Southern Electrostar/Turbostars have been brought , whereas under BR it was old slam door 40 year old trains , with no amenities ( based on what I have seen in pictures , not been on one )

Could someone tell me if it was like this , or was it different

Apologies if this is wrong or offensive , am simply unaware of what they were like

The point about dirty old trains is pretty overstated IMO, certainly on Network SouthEast. They gave a pretty comprehensive refurbishment to those of their units they were planning to keep for the longer term, whilst I don't recall internal cleanliness being noticeably different from now.

Those that weren't refurbished, such as the EPB's on the inner London routes were replaced by Networkers and turbo's etc anyway.

 

[dk1]

Different times it was common for office workers to go to pub and drink at lunchtime back in the late 80's/ early 90's. Remember smoking on the tube?

There's a tendency to latch onto something as the bad old days failing to remember it was part of wider society and not specific to the industry. Things I did at work 30 years ago are long gone. ask anyone who worked in A& E 25 years ago to compare it to today.

Oh yes mate I remember it all. I used to slide off from my signalbox between trains on a Sunday for a couple & when I did office work Friday after lunch was wasted just like us & the bottom filing cabinet draw was a classic. I knew of drivers who had to let their 2nd men drive the last bit most days & my pub owning parents done very very well out of crews on Merrymakers having their PNBs at Yarmouth Vauxhall during the Summer months.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It has increased costs.

In some cases TOCs refuse to hold trains because another TOC will get a taxi bill, and all sorts of stuff like that. There are £millions spent on delay attribution too. I could go on...

Can we at least lay these two misconceptions to rest?

Ever since 'privatisation' there has been scope to agree and apply sensible connectional policies at any station (either multi-user or single-user). This often happens today. However, the simple realities of a very busy network, efficient resource utilisation and often far greater frequencies mean that is often neither feasible or necessary to hold connections. Railway assets (and the time of passengers already on a 'connecting' train) are valuable commodities and the cost of a taxi (if necessary) will often pale into insignificance in comparison with the operational carnage that can ensue from well meaning local intentions to help a handful of passengers.

So far as delay attribution is concerned it is worth reflecting on why British Rail invented it (and the associated TRUST system) even before privatisation. Having had to 'manage' performance in the dark ages when numerous clerks used to try and piece together the facts behind an incident by wading through a mountain of logs, guards' journals, train registers, station chargemen's 'tick sheets' and so forth I am under no illusions about how inefficient and ineffective the old process was. Especially when the aim was to try and take action to avoid or at least mitigate any recurrence. Much of the manual record was also of questionable accuracy for many reasons.

Thanks to the advent of widespread automatic data capture the railway system is now able to mimic the healthcare system in managing the 'patient's' condition in the light of a broad spectrum of relevant information. Nobody would expect to run a hospital without accurate records of blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, urine samples, biopsies, etc. Nobody regards the time of nurses and the pathology lab in this regard as 'wasted'.

Who would want to run the East Coast Main Line or the Brighton Main Line without any understanding of why delays are happening?

 

[ChrisHogan]

As someone who was not around for the BR era , could someone tell me what BR was really like

The image I have ascertained , is that the trains were old , dirty and run down , with low investment , as well as poor services , such as the Chiltern Line , which BR run down to single line with little/no service , before it's rejuvantation under privatization with CR

The Chiltern Line was "rejuvenated" in B.R. days (1988-1992) under Chris Green's Total Route Modernisation. Privatisation simply built on the inheritance of having a modernised railway.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Oh yes mate I remember it all. I used to slide off from my signalbox between trains on a Sunday for a couple & when I did office work Friday after lunch was wasted just like us & the bottom filing cabinet draw was a classic. I knew of drivers who had to let their 2nd men drive the last bit most days & my pub owning parents done very very well out of crews on Merrymakers having their PNBs at Yarmouth Vauxhall during the Summer months.

You miss the point the whole world was different with different cultural norms not just individual aspects of one industry. Everywhere and everything has changed the railways just happened to have something called privatisation in the middle of it.

The NHS is radically different but is still a public sector organisation as it was then.

 

[Gareth Marston]

ICT as we know it and use it now simply didn't exist anywhere 25 years ago. It's moved the world on for everybody, plenty of other industries transistioned from paper to computer.

 

[PYROOGOBBO]

How different would be the case for privitization/nationalization be in scotland compared to england?

seems like nationalization would be more handy here than down there? maybe

 

[dk1]

You miss the point the whole world was different with different cultural norms not just individual aspects of one industry. Everywhere and everything has changed the railways just happened to have something called privatisation in the middle of it.

The NHS is radically different but is still a public sector organisation as it was then.

No I don't & know I wasn't missing the point. Just saying it's how it was. Don't miss it now & I own shares in privatised companies & love the railways as they are now.

 

[Spankthemonkey]

What, exactly, would reverting to BR make better? Anyway, what is the meaning of 'better' in this (railway) context? The meaning needs to be defined before any sensible discussion can take place. Does it refer to timetables, speeds, frequencies, seats, crowding, costs to the taxpayer, punctuality, reliability, cleanliness, availability of funds for investment, growth in the passenger and freight businesses, return on investment, return on capital, accident rates, age of the trains, or something else entirely?

Three points:

1. Your post implies that the franchising system was intended to promote competition - with the implication that the competition is between the TOCs. This was never the case. The competition was always between the bidders for a franchise and never, except at the margins, between the franchisees. People who suggest the latter either do not understand the process or are misrepresenting the situation.
2. The railways are already a creature of Government. Network Rail is owned by the Government and subject to Treasury limits on expenditure - putting it on exactly the same basis as BR. 45% of fares are regulated and set by the Government. The TOCs run the services to a specification - frequencies, stopping patterns and so on - set by Government. In the case of TSGN - the biggest TOC in the country - the Government even carries the revenue risk.
3. Fundamentally the ticketing system is very simple. You want to go anywhere at any time? Then buy a full priced ticket. As in all special offers, reduced prices bring restrictions on when one can use the ticket - the lower the price the more restrictions. What sometimes isn't obvious is how to find out what the restrictions mean and when they apply. On the other hand people can work out the optimum route and carrier to fly to Bali and book hotels without the aid of travel agents so I find it difficult to understand why they find railway ticketing especially difficult.

I fail to understand why people believe that 'nationalising' the railway will make any difference.

Cracking post

 

[bavvo]

As someone who was not around for the BR era , could someone tell me what BR was really like

The image I have ascertained , is that the trains were old , dirty and run down...

Not all trains were old, obviously many were replaced by BR at various times. I started commuting up to college in Richmond(London) on pretty much brand new trains when I was 16 (many years ago). They were as clean then as they are now, and still in service 25 years later.

I think privatisation was done badly and caused much more problems than it solved, but still would not now want more money spent on nationalisation either. What the railways need is stability and long term investment, although some reform is needed.

I think the Japanese managed to do a much better job of it, as they privatised much of their network by splitting into regional, vertically integrated companies.

 

[yorkie]

The image I have ascertained , is that the trains were old , dirty and run down , with low investment , as well as poor services , such as the Chiltern Line , which BR run down to single line with little/no service , before it's rejuvantation under privatization with CR ( although apparently BR played a role in making it better too )

There was much less money from Government available to BR than there is now.

Hence why I thought privatization was good , because under this , all the new trains , like the SWT Desiros , Southern Electrostar/Turbostars have been brought , whereas under BR it was old slam door 40 year old trains , with no amenities ( based on what I have seen in pictures , not been on one )

This is not true. Trains used to be comfortable, but many trains nowadays are not (see GTR Great Northern's new trains a joke?). BR introduced sliding door trains. Improvements to technology would have happened anyway. Where did you read this stuff? Someone has been telling you porkies.

 

[DarloRich]

What, exactly, would reverting to BR make better? Anyway, what is the meaning of 'better' in this (railway) context? The meaning needs to be defined before any sensible discussion can take place. Does it refer to timetables, speeds, frequencies, seats, crowding, costs to the taxpayer, punctuality, reliability, cleanliness, availability of funds for investment, growth in the passenger and freight businesses, return on investment, return on capital, accident rates, age of the trains, or something else entirely?

Three points:

1. Your post implies that the franchising system was intended to promote competition - with the implication that the competition is between the TOCs. This was never the case. The competition was always between the bidders for a franchise and never, except at the margins, between the franchisees. People who suggest the latter either do not understand the process or are misrepresenting the situation.

1. 
   
   Not sure about that. John MacGregor's words at the time were quite clear:
   
   OUR objective is to improve the quality of railway services by creating many new opportunities for private sector involvement. This will mean more competition, greater efficiency and a wider choice of services more closely tailored to what customers want.
   
   No mention of franchises there. The Conservatives of the time hoped and planned for the emergence of up to 100 rail companies which would compete for business over one private infrastructure system. The reality which has emerged is that fewer companies bid for franchises to operate rail services over a fixed timescale.
   
   I agree that today competition is via the franchise process (which delivers precious little for us mere passengers imo) however I disagree that was the intention at the time. The Tory plan might have been unworkable but their plan was for on rail competition NOT the competition via franchise race that subsequently emerged. This system has simply created regional rail monopolies.
   
   You also overlook the fact that the cost to the taxpayer has risen during the period of privitisation. It has more than doubled, perhaps even trebled! Lots of that is driven by fragmentation. There are complex tiers of contractors and sub-contractors involved in any rail project, vast costs associated with bidding for a franchises, duplicated layers of executives on decent remuneration and bonuses, man marking, dividends, debt payments etc etc.

 

[jon0844]

One side effect post-privatisation is that when train operators started to heavily promote rail travel (on their services, obviously) we saw massive rail usage growth.

BR might have been having some success in some areas (NSE for example) but I think the new brands, especially Virgin, did make the railway sexier for a lot of people that considered BR trains in the same way that most people judge rural bus services. Slow, unreliable, dirty, only for those who can't afford a car or taxi etc.

The problem is that strong growth isn't really a good thing for the railway after a while. At some point, you're going to go from simply selling more tickets for your current timetable, and you're going to need more rolling stock, to lengthen platforms, signalling, add new tracks, build new sidings and depots. Even building entirely new lines.

The problem is that this costs a small fortune, and is probably why the railway costs a lot more to run today (plus more stringent H&S law and rules that also add to the cost, but arguably making things a lot safer for everyone). It's easy for people to compare today vs BR, but things aren't comparable.

I always wonder what BR would do today, as an operation that would be quite low down in the food chain behind health, policing, education, welfare etc. Would we see continued growth in the same way?

 

[Gareth Marston]

One side effect post-privatisation is that when train operators started to heavily promote rail travel (on their services, obviously) we saw massive rail usage growth.

BR might have been having some success in some areas (NSE for example) but I think the new brands, especially Virgin, did make the railway sexier for a lot of people that considered BR trains in the same way that most people judge rural bus services. Slow, unreliable, dirty, only for those who can't afford a car or taxi etc.

The problem is that strong growth isn't really a good thing for the railway after a while. At some point, you're going to go from simply selling more tickets for your current timetable, and you're going to need more rolling stock, to lengthen platforms, signalling, add new tracks, build new sidings and depots. Even building entirely new lines.

The problem is that this costs a small fortune, and is probably why the railway costs a lot more to run today (plus more stringent H&S law and rules that also add to the cost, but arguably making things a lot safer for everyone). It's easy for people to compare today vs BR, but things aren't comparable.

I always wonder what BR would do today, as an operation that would be quite low down in the food chain behind health, policing, education, welfare etc. Would we see continued growth in the same way?

Huge external factors coincided with rail privatization that were beneficial to growth the notion that the railway lives in a vacuum immune to external influences is a nonsense. An unprecedented 15 years of ecomic growth from 1992 to 2007, population growing at a greater rate than ever officially recorded. Increasing traffic congestion and cost of motoring, the reemergence of regional city centres as vibrant ecomic hubs that rail serves well due to constrained urban road space would have all happened whether the railways were privatized or not.

What BR's funding would have been like is pure speculation however we can be fairly certain the cost base would not have been out of control like it has been since the mid 1990's.

 

[DarloRich]

As someone who was not around for the BR era , could someone tell me what BR was really like

The image I have ascertained , is that the trains were old , dirty and run down , with low investment , as well as poor services , such as the Chiltern Line , which BR run down to single line with little/no service , before it's rejuvantation under privatization with CR ( although apparently BR played a role in making it better too )

Hence why I thought privatization was good , because under this , all the new trains , like the SWT Desiros , Southern Electrostar/Turbostars have been brought , whereas under BR it was old slam door 40 year old trains , with no amenities ( based on what I have seen in pictures , not been on one )

Could someone tell me if it was like this , or was it different

Apologies if this is wrong or offensive , am simply unaware of what they were like

incorrect on many levels.

BTW The class 312 was ( I think) the last slam door units built. They were built in York between 1975 & 1978.