GAUGE THE ISSUE: Privatisation Vs (???) Nationalisation - with guest S.A.C. Martin
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- DISCLAIMER:
Any views or opinions expressed in this video are those of Chris Eden-Green and Simon A.C. Martin. These are made without intention of offending anyone.
All BBC and NRM material is referenced under the US Copyright Act within Section 107's "fair use" guidelines.
Most of the images are from Wikipedia and licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 and 3.0, OR are in the Public Domain. All Third Party content is referenced under the US Copyright Act within Section 107's "fair use" guidelines.
Order your copy of 'Steam Locos In Profile" on DVD HERE:
www.e-gmedia.co...
Click here to Like 'Steam Locos In Profile' on Facebook:
/ timeline 
Авто/Мото
One of the problems with the nationalised system is that there seems to have been a remarkably large number of middle management staff who were in positions well above their competence. One wonders how they got promoted to that level and how they retained their posts when they obviously could not cope. There seems to have been some kind of pals' network in operation.
My mother, who kept the locomotive records at an MPD in the 1950s, was told by her incompetent manager "it's not what you know, it's who you know".
I doubt if this started in 1948 or even 1923. On the engineering side, the perpetuation for decades on end, of unsatisfactory designs, design features and components, is well documented. Midland Railway locomotive design was plagued by politics after Johnson retired and the problems continued on the LMS until Stanier arrived in 1932.
This took a controversial subject and unbiasedly set out a clear and coherent way to fix British railway issues. Very well done. You did indeed Gauge The Issue ;)
personall i think it was very biased ... not one of the systems talked about used burnels 7f gauge :P
The biggest issue is that of national mentality - British corporate culture, both public and private, seemingly finds the idea of the average joe being able to get something of a fairly decent quality on a daily basis for an easily affordable price utterly abhorrent - there's a reason that we didn't create the Model T or the 747.
Until that changes, either we're stuck with a "Roll-Royce or Mr Whippy, and nothing in between" situation - you'll either get something of ridiculously high quality, but with an eye-watering price tag, or a pathetic rock-bottom imitation of something other nations take for granted, but still absurdly overpriced.
Secondly, the most interesting proposal I have heard (and this would require national ownership) is that we should think about rail in the same way we think about the roads - the road network runs at an enormous loss and is subsidised via general taxation, but nobody ever proposes that we shut down the unprofitable parts of the network, or increase the charges to the direct users so that they 'pay their own way', as the indirect benefits they provide make it worth the money.
Why not the same with rail?
"Shut down the unprofitable parts of the network" if I may (mind you I am an American) that was tried already during the nationalized days of BR e.g the beechings axe and the network still ran at a loss
For some reason I really like hearing both of you together. It may be because you're both British, and both know a lot about railways. :)
It's really fascinating how this almost plays out here in the United States, where we have a mix bag with both our government operated passenger trains and private freight railroads. We each think we know the answer on how to improve the system, but each has it's own faults within the approach offered.
And combine that with odballs such as brightline then it resembles the current mess of the Italian rail network than what's over the pond
As stated in the video, the issue with BR was that the government just wasn't interested in properly investing and maintaining the railways, expecting Road transport to be the future. I am personally in favour of nationalising the railways again, because I think that public transport should be a public service accessible to all. I find that private companies are pushing up rail fairs, and the disorganisation of rolling stock makes it disproportional in terms of quality.
If BR is to come back, then it needs to be done FAR better, with a focus on improving both track, rolling stock, service and overall prices to the consumer. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
And we need to let the railways be run by railway people and not clueless civil servants. Public ownership cooperative management and structuring
maybe the UK should Reform the Big four
would be kinda cool .. but only and only if they readopted the logos and uniforms
Yeah, our government loves control, but hates dishing the money out to maintain or even subsidise them.
We're almost there in terms of names at least. We have southern, gwr, lner but no LMS. We have London Midland but that's as close as it gets
Yes that would be cool
@Aussie Pom "Governments don't need to keep taxpayers happy'
Errmm, yes they do because those taxpayers are voters as well as customers.
1:32, of course the Great Western Railway had already been in existence since 1835
I think we need a new word, or term of reference. Something to distinguish between an actual private company and one that only functions with the kind of state subsidy that our railways receive, if only to indicate whether or not the taxpayer is getting value for money before they buy their ticket.
but heres the thing and its going to sound elitist but .. the taxpayer probably isn't the best judge of hat is value for money in this context ( im not saying that some time is isn't blindingly obvious but like do we buy the bolts that are 1.03 pounds each but that last 3 percent longer or do we buy the bolt that costs 1 pound and wears out sooner ... and remember you're buying thousands if not millions of these things so 0.003 of a pound adds up if you know what i mean if we use this fabric that looks nicer but costs more then we have to either have a bigger budget or cut a cost somewhere else im not saying the public to stupid to under stand all this but ... its a lot to expect of a lot of people the way i look at it it should be like the nhs (i assume this is how it works) where when a patient needs a heart valve replaced you don't ask the patient which one he or she thinks is best the surgeon just says this one i think something similar with railways should be the idea for one thing it shouldn't require a bleedin act of parliament to build a new rail way line that's just bonkers on the other hand have you thought of the massive spike in unemployment that an effective, efficient railway in the uk would cause :P just think of how many surplus manages and hr departmental whatevers and accountants etc will be wandering the streets ? do you want double digit unemployment over night :P
firefox5926 true I mean your comment sums up basically as "the customer isn't always right" in the case of the taxpayers which makes sense. Mind you it wouldn't be this bad if the whole population had more information over it rather than just the costs and what it brings. Like who supplies, manages, etc. Then the value can be assert better to the taxpayer.
that is also very true btw have you ever seen ruclips.net/video/9E6CQUrP7Lg/видео.html aka the pain train ? its interesting after watching people on a train complaining about how its so slow or to be one of those people and then watch this at and go huh i see how that happens also just how much of those delays really are due to bad maintenance and practices of putting humans in a situation where they can make mistake as it were
Privatization would be alright.... iiiiiiiif the private companies in the UK actually built and owned their own track... Instead its a lot of railway companies trying to pile in on the same route and result in massive delays...
Same could be said with Amtrak here in the states. Amtrak owns and maintains only a few corridors in the country, namely the "high speed" Northeast Corridor between Washington DC and Boston. But when it comes to Amtrak running their long distance trains on private freight railroads like BNSF or Union Pacific, there's always a massive delay, sometimes up to 12 hours or more. Which is really strange considering the large Metra commuter system in the Chicago area, operates like a well oiled machine compared to Amtrak. Plus it doesn't help that every year the government keeps slashing its funding more and more.
metalheadrailfan and it will be further complicated as well. The USDOT announced a program to try and privatize some of Amtrak's long distance routes. And like you said, Metra has been the only agency in the US that has been operating efficiently and properly. Here in the greater NYC area we've seen an absolute mess of derailments and delays, and we haven't even started with the Penn Station track closures. In terms of private companies, we're still waiting to see the story with Brightline in Florida (which I hope can actually succeed) but with a current administration that is already being seen by a large portion of the US as inept at best, it could be a dark time for passenger rail in the United States.
If AMTRAK could upgrade its long-distance routes one at a time (allowing for faster travel on these routers, possibly high speed rail), People might actually utilize these longer routes.
It's interesting to note that in Switzerland, several private railways (like the BLS, RhB, Furka-Oberalp, etc.) exist alongside the national SBB/CFF/FFS system.
The Amtrak Iowa Pacific point can help too. Amtrak is not the greatest as we know and needs a kick/ boost. But this is where IPRR kicked in. They took over 2 Amtrak trains to run it there way. Since then they had been profitable on lines the government said were unprofitable. The answer is not government control but trying and improving. To go from Metroliner cars built for Penn Central to the IP fleet of F units, and pullmans offering Pullman style service that is cheaper and better than Amtrak that has basic service is incredible and just like uber a smash hit
Over here in Hong Kong we've sort of headed in the Japanese direction since our railways were privatised after a long tradition of nationalisation. Our services are wonderfully efficient and I do agree it's a shame that the Britain who gave us railways can no longer provide a gleaming example anymore.
It's a shame indeed.
Sounds like you guys are in the same boat as us from the US. I'm sure my fellow Americans will agree with me on that.
Except in America we only once had a nationalized network and that was during WWI up till Amtrak came about the companies ran to time and managed well and they were privatized (take for example the L&N railroad that ran perfectly well and to time till the 70s and made a profit at it as well (and they had their own coal mines so they didn't have to spend on coal) though at the same time here in America the road network was promoted more vigorously than the rail network by the Lobbyist's so similar but not quite
German example, same result: Railways from 1920 till 1994: 1 company for one country (Yes, even GDR and FRG had their own) which runs all its own trains, has its own tracks, has their working forces directly under their flag, and makes clear decisions.
Railways since 1994: God knows how many private companies, operating on tracks that are somewhat(?) owned by the state and can't get anything done because said state doesn't knows how to invest into their transportations properly anymore (most people think they'd rather get rid of the railways as a whole and replace it with roads), with people who work for them getting pushed from one company to the other once they take over operating rights for a few years. But hey! Everything for the sake of competition, right?!
The way I put it is, the big four actually cared for its regular passengers. Now the "Privatized Railways" don't really care about their passengers commuters. And the government isn't giving the "Privatized Railways" enough funding to make it a functional railway/railways
That outro, great. Recorded in the same room or...?
I sense a few comparisons to US railroads here, particularly in the history up until trucking/lorrying became more widespread.
As a non-British person that was the best description of the British railway system. I've always tried to find an answer and kind of understood (in that their are a shit load of private companies that run on state run railway network), but I didn't fully understand until now.
What I like about this system is that you get a lot of variety in terms of rolling stock and liveries (which give you some very unique thing like Pacers and Class 143? Perry People Movers). I think the UK railway network is one of my fav in the world...
At the moment the UK rail network is abit of a mess on how they deal with issues like getting passengers from point a to point b, delays, maintenance work on both locos and rails ect, I just hope that whatever solution they come up with it's better be beneficial for everyone. But what we can all agree that every trains NEED a driver, ticket person and a guard ( unlike southern rails ).😕
It just comes down to MONEY. Privatisation was used to raise cash to modernise the network. I know because my off peak ticket went from £6.50 to £10.50 in one day. All UK governments hate putting money into the railways for investment. Nationalisation will not change that point of view. UK governments are greedy. Low fares, no investment. No government has ever linked prosperity with train travel. We will bumble on the downward spiral to the muck at the bottom of the barrel.
If we were to pick one of these models for passenger services, I imagine it’s bound to be the one with more state control/ownership. I think the British public like having the level of state accountability, so that there’s someone it hear your complaints instead of a faceless executive.
couldn't agree more
Ah yes. We in Denmark fell into the same trap and separated our state railway operator from the infrastructure manager. People's thought are now to privatize the operation but the only models I see working are if either A, The state railways an infrastructure manager get combined again, or B, the operators of the individual lines take care of the maintenance. I mean that still happens on a lot of branch lines since they historically have been and still are privately owned and run. Just with these private companies now being owned by the regional power. Even still they're incredibly reliable and adds great support to their communities. I see a lot of people shitting on DSB, the state operator but I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about the private branch lines.
Its difficult to compare the nationalised railways of Britain and Japan. Post WW2, Britain was left with a worn out system built by the Victorians, which forms the basis for todays privatised network. Japan built a brand new network from scratch using all the latest technology incorporating lessons learned from the past
I recall being in high school years ago, and asked to provide an example of nationalism for my global history class. I had confused nationalism for nationalization, and wrote down the creation of the British railways as an example. My teacher thought it was a good example, and she pointed it out to me. But enough about me, the fact the British railways has gotten to this point is surprising. It's an entirely different system than the one depicted in Simon's work.
i absolutely love the bit from emperor of the north at 3:55, not gonna lie.
the suttle details chris puts into this is really extraordinary
TL;DR - railway leadership needs to stop bending over for state and shareholder interests, and start running business with a small-business mentality of helping customers.
Whichever way this country goes, there must be a major shift in the work culture within the railways. A large part of the reason for the success of public transportation in Hong Kong (my motherland) and Japan, amongst others, is the work ethic of the employees and the perpetuation of the reward/punishment system by management. You can see a similar dedication in the NHS, where many nurses and doctors put up with sub-par conditions and pay simply because they have a strong belief in what the NHS stands for. Personally, I think that full privatization here in the UK would lead to uneven results throughout the country, especially since the majority of passenger traffic (and hence the public face of transportation) goes by road nowadays, eliminating the demand for Big-Four-style brand imaging. This is not to say that the results will all be bad - in fact it's the opposite. However, if we can find the right program and management willing to force a higher standard and reward employees handsomely for bringing up the quality of service, then a state-run railway network would be better. Of course, this is subject to the whims of changing governments and could take much longer to implement than the private system, but I still believe it could become a national institution and a source of pride, much like the NHS is and has been since its inception.
it's interesting because just over a month ago I was in Tokyo and my first and lasting impression of the railways there was that this is what good investment in rail looks like. it's really good to see the facts proving this and I can definitely say that from what I saw, this video summed up JR very well
its that old phearse "you get what you pay for " :)
Britain just keeps on firing shots in the dark when it comes to railroads. They go from private hands to government and back to private hands with one hell of a complex system!! Still, operating short inefficient freight trains with only 30 or fewer freight cars aka wagons and people having to stand for a long time on passenger trains. I seriously doubt England will ever embrace bi-level trains nor fix their loading gauges. Sorry England you guys over there Never Get it Right!
ITS MR.SIMON
Another good one! Very refreshing to have someone make comments that actually understands how things work
Just throwing my tuppence into the ring. Fair warning, long probably multi-part comment incoming.
The biggest concern I see in this whole affair is actually nothing to do with the railways themselves at all, but with the management of them whichever way they go. If privatized a la JR East, that leaves the railways in the hands of private corporations who are under no obligation to offer any better service than government regulations allow. And said corporate interests have a long well-documented history of lobbying government officials to pass or repeal regulations to subvert the public interest. Furthermore, corporate railway operators don't always have the best history of operating railways either. JR East is one of the best examples of privatized railways in the world, but just a few hundred miles away JR West, operating around the Osaka/Kyoto area, might be one of the worst. Until recently their policy to maintain their ultra-high standard of service, which already borders on the limits of human capability throughout Japan but on JR West in particular, was to enact a system of employee disciplining called "nikkin kyoiku". Under this system even relatively minor offenses, such as a train arriving over a minute late, might see employees forced to endure weeks of menial, degrading labor as well as lengthy spells of verbal abuse by educators. This harsh punishment system has been cited as a major factor in the Amagasaki train wreck of 2005, in which a driver recently from nikkin kyoiku found his train running late through no fault of his own and tried to take a curve rated for 70 kph at 116, resulting in his train derailing and smashing into an apartment building with 107 deaths.
Now, this is an extreme example. I'm not meaning to be a scare-monger and sensationalize that "Full privatization will mean more crashes and blood on the rails!" No. That's bollocks and hopefully we all know it. What I will say though is that privatization does not mean an improvement of service. In fact, it can often mean quite the opposite. Left to their own devices corporations, especially European and American corporations, have a long track record of providing only the bare minimum of what is considered necessary while maximizing profits. Look at the airline industry as an example. How many bargain airlines are there that provide little more than an uncomfortably small seat for the price of a ticket, with everything else up to and including luggage space costing extra? Some European cheap carriers have even tried to eliminate bathrooms on aircraft. Do we really want the railway equivalent of Ryanair? I think not.
One more point about JR East before moving on: While Simon may be right about it being a marvel of privatization, I feel he has missed a major reason for *why* it is such a marvel. It was not that long ago, until 1987, that nearly all Japanese railways were operated under a single national organization: Japan National Railway, or JNR, and before that they had operated until 1949 as the Japanese Government Railway, JGR. This long tradition of nationalization runs deep in Japanese culture and business philosophy. To the private operates such as JR East, JR West, and others, they are carrying on that legacy, continuing to operate the nations railways as if they still are nationalized. They did not spring whole cloth from the hearts of good natured businessmen, but from a government who, like with the breakup of British Rail, was seeking to cut costs and relax government subsidies on a railway system that had been government-operated since its inception in 1871. Japan's railways were able to maintain that tradition of high quality reliable service that had been demanded in the days of JNR, while Britain's privatized railways did not, due both to the bizarre and nonsense way that Britain chose to break up its railways and the frankly poor example that the waning days of BR left for the new private operators.
To be continued...
I think that the biggest problem we have in this country is that we don't invest in our railways enough. The inefficient three-way of companies is a problem in and of itself, but we don't put in the money, we don't make the infrastructure. Labour suggested as such but in all honesty, that's not enough if they're not going to put in the legwork. Also, if they're kept private then the railways really need to eliminate these inefficiencies, and government put their backs into upgrading our trains.
I personally support the continued privatization of Britain's rail network. The thing that is so appealing about a truly private company is that it will profit when needed and go bankrupt when no longer needed, eliminating a drain on the economy. This is the problem that the US had (and still does have) with Amtrak. Profits have declined, services have been drastically reduced, and those that still are around are often low quality trips with little amenities. (I know that this isn't the case on all Amtrak services but it is on a lot of them.) Another appealing aspect is that private companies are motivated to improve their services and lower costs for consumers because if they don't, they know that their competitors will, slowly creating a chain of constantly improving services, and higher quality customer experiences. While I don't support monopolies, I think that it is fair that companies with the highest quality services should eventually come out on top. To use the Amtrak example again, the US government continued to give taxpayer dollars (Which could be used for actually useful things) to a failing business that was seeing less and less profit year after year. But instead of letting it die and be replaced with a private network, or several private networks, they continue to waste money. If Britain was to improve on their private rail networks by following in Japan's footsteps, they could even install goals that the companies would have to reach to earn incentives, chiefly financial. My point is, it's not that hard to improve on the system without letting the state control everything. Now that my angry rant is over, thanks for the great video Chris!
Here in The Netherlands, there are two companies running our track: NS (Dutch Railways) and Prorail. Former is the company who own the locomotives, stations, rolling stock and employees. Latter owns the track, and are the brains behind some of NS layout and planning. While NS and Prorail are state owned, they operate on their own. If the government messes up a financial dissision, NS takes a s*** all over that and does what it wanted to do anyway, or at least, that's what's happening. And although we have some private railways, mainly in the south and the north, they all follow NS' agenda. What's that, want to run a railway service which might cause a financial problem at NS? WELL, TOO BAD!!! NS shuts down the line. It's funny, to me at least, how we can have 'private running' railways, yet NS has a last word on these anyway. May I remind you the Dutch railtraffic is the busiest in the intire world? Almost everything, from tv's to food at your supermarket (in some form or another) has gone through Rotterdam Harbour at some point.
So my theory is, if you look at the way things are going from an economical point of view, you can get the best out of your railways. I'm most likely wrong, but it seems to work for us.
(Other Dutchies, please do correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm pretty sure I missed something of if it's not true. I'm just telling what I know about the state of things around here.)
And despite all the evidence my state owned railway company - SNCF - is busy cuttîng itself up into lots of little pieces. As an SNCF employee for over 20 years (and a British expat), it drives me nuts 😠. Will somebody beat please beat some sense into the French transport ministry and our board ?
As far as government funding is concerned, there is no incentive to invest. Projects like Crossrail give rise to local property booms all along the route, with land owners pocketing most of the value of the investment.
A study for TfL showed that the Jubilee Line Extension had generated an aggregate land value uplift of three times its construction cost.
The current "system" has so many interfaces between track, TOCs, Roscos, DFT, etc., that all the accountants, lawyers, management teams and so on have to be paid before any investment goes towards the public service. The cost of the franchising bids (in the millions of pounds) has to be paid for, as does the new paint schemes and uniforms at each franchise change. Possibly one of the most serious cost issues is down to the constant interference by the DFT in things that it knows nothing about like train procurement- think Thameslink and the IEP with their uncomfortable seats (passengers needs account for nothing) and apparently the franchising system itself where they keep franchising the East Coast and hoping to get a different outcome. Don't get me started on HS2, electrification or George Osborne's "High Speed 3"
In the United States, there is something called "anti-trust laws" to prevent companies from being so massive and efficient that they create a monopoly and exploit the consumer due to their business being too financially and politically powerful. You are describing the exact opposite problem. A company providing a service that is relied on by everyone and should be a monopoly is losing efficiency and failing to meet the full demand, and therefore profit margin because of a lack of inter-agency communication between several companies owning several different pieces of the operation that don't even compete with each other, but simply fail to rely on each other. Any solution that allows for future private control would call for the government stepping in and forcing corporate entities to merge INTO a monopoly, meaning that ownership of certain entities and other legal rights would have to be taken away from some private companies entirely and simply given to the remaining one with no strings attached. Given that that sounds insane, there is no legal precedence for anything like that happening, and there seem to be constitutional problems with all of it,(As an American, I don't know, but this would be a shitstorm to try to defend in an American court.) the only reasonable thing to do is to either wait for the companies to choose to reorganize themselves, or nationalize, and make the simplifications to the chain of command as a natural consequence.
You did a brilliant job running Network SouthEast and ScotRail, Chris!
I think the key difference between a private railway and a state owned railway is motive. A state owned railway would make investments based on what would benefit the public the most, whereas a private railway would make investments based on returns on said investment, to their shareholders. Aren't some railways in Europe (like say, DB) part privately owned? How well would that work out?
Anyways, I think the open access model of railway operation has some merit. Can't comment on the UK situation, but in Australia in the 1990's, the then National Rail Corporation decided to do away with LCL/boxvan haulage on their trains. So a certain freight forwarder stepped up to the plate and decided to run their own boxvan trains between Melbourne and Perth, to name a good example where open access arrangements can work.
I don't think that a return to nationalisation is the answer in our country. Repeated cuts to funding by subsequent conservative governments with a lack of interest in the railways was a contributing factor to the collapse of British Rail (based on reading, I was born in 92) and can be seen playing out with the NHS; even the latter has had chunks cut out and sold to private companies. This leads me to skepticism as to it's long-term efficacy.
That's not to say that maintaining a privatised network is the answer, either: there's insufficient regulation by government bodies and too much emphasis on pleasing shareholders.
The pandemic seems to have pushed in a new nationalised network; we'll have to keep an eye on how it pans out, but I still have my doubts.
According to Simon A.C Martin it's abuse to call him a red tory but it's alright to label people on the left of the Labour Party as 'Stalinists'. I like his BRWS stuff and he's a nice guy but he needs to have a long hard look at himself if he believes that language like that is acceptable and he's somehow above the 'Corbynistas' (another slur he's thrown around) that he constantly derides.
Wow. When did he say that?
He said it on Twitter a few months ago
and how is that relevant to this video?
Er - nope. I'm not going to apologise to the anti Semitic, hateful, abusive and malicious ultra left wing corbynistas that exist online for calling them corbynistas. Maybe those who support Corbyn but are not anti Semitic and abusive could reign in their more aggressive compatriots.
If you're complaining about me labelling people who act abysmally on line with an accurate description of their loyalties, maybe you've missed the point I was making then (and now).
It's really interesting to see another country's politics. You can see the issues without passion.
Also, don't worry, you're not as bad Amtrak. They have an amazing Northeast Corridor, that pays for all the slow, underfunded rest of Amtrak.
Those parts are slow because they don't own the track, but also because the money for trains is way down. Jets are faster, cars are cheaper. Train rides are generally only used for tourism or people who's schedules and locations line up well with the train.
I'm all for nationalisation though if if we could get a private company that is like the JRE system then I'll would be interested but if we did not get some thing like the DB would be a good system to follow.
here's an idea how about you just go to japan find all the laws that they have that pertain to the functioning on them and ctrl +c ctrl+v them into a new bill for parliament .. just twink out the word Tokyo and insert London and the word Osaka with Manchester and then invite jr east to run the thing ... why reinvent the wheel and their wheel works really well or do the same thing but with sncf or db :P
In terms of Privatization: JR system
In terms of Nationalization: DB, NS, and or ÖBB are all good models!
DB already runs a lot of Britain's freight (DB Cargo) and passenger (Arriva) trains and do not exactly inspire their customers and passengers
Banner at the beginning "Bring Back British Rail" uses the "Sealink" logo !
Perhaps they mean bring back wrong line working ? ? 👍
My understanding is that an enormous amount of money goes to the shareholders every year in the UK which is effectively wasted.
WE have lost BREL, BR Research etc. and now just buy in foreign designed trains, what a humiliation for a once great engineering nation, I feel that now we're somewhat of a `has been' nation.
Also the idea of privatisation encouraging competition on a railway doesn't work very well at all.
Off subject but I often wonder why the private railway doesn't make an effort in the Summer to run extra long special express trains from London Waterloo to Bournemouth & Weymouth with very few stops (they used to do this sort of thing back in the day but they don't appear to bother now (much longer platforms at all major stations should be implemented).
Bringing back this idea would help especially with the public holiday traffic jams.
The issue with the Japanese model is that the Government is paying a private company that makes a profit, i.e taxpayer money going into shareholders pockets. If a railway is to be private it must be fully private, there should be no government subsidy for an organisation that returns its profit to private individuals; otherwise it should be owned by the nation to provide a service to it's citizens.
Gotta love your videos if your a train fan, which I am, I'm an American train fan, but I love all steam trains. I love how you actually present facts rather than just rant (like I do). Keep up the good video work, love the steam locos in profile.
I follow Simon on twitter and I just listened to the LBC interview and while I'm not a huge fan of James O'Brien talking over his guests, I do feel that he actually got to the point unlike Simon who seemed more interested in showing off his superior knowledge of railways (despite getting his very first point completely wrong and then changing tack in order to cover for himself).
What I want to know is why should a railway company bother investing in improving its service if there is no punishment for failing, they still get all the revenue by having a monopoly over a service/line. There is little to no incentive on their part to invest in running a railway. They can rent strip us all they want to just by owning the thing and if they fail, it doesn't matter at all.
The demand argument that Simon uses doesn't cover the fact that many expensive services have lower demand. Demand is highest on London services yet the cross country services are incredibly expensive.
If we had a nationalised railway that was run by the government with a good level of investment surely that would be better for us all? No money paid to shareholders, all reinvested in the railway? I get what Simon is saying about Japan but why can't a publicly owned railway operate like that too? Right now, we just aren't getting that investment from the governmet and definitely not enough through private companies.
Although Simon avoided doing it in this instance he also loves to play off nostalgia of ''the big four' when most railway writers agree that their biggest achievement was marketing, as services only marginally improved for people during this period and were by no means a 'heyday'.
Nonetheless, well done to Simon for having the cajones to go on National Radio and take on somebody on his own show. It didn't go to plan but top marks to him for trying despite holding a different viewpoint to myself.
I hate to contradict, but James O'Brien kept cutting Simon off when he was trying to answer his questions. That doesn't "get to the point" about anything, it's just shown up his usual aggressive manner.
All James seemed to do was become defensive as soon as he was told a professional railway journalist with 37 years experience in this field was better informed on the matter than him. Anybody who calls him is lucky to get a word in edgeways while James continues to turn a debate into a fight.
It's difficult to talk about a privatised railway system in this country without mentioning it to that of other countries because we don't run them like other countries do. The Japanese model works simply down to being 100% self contained; instead of splitting up responsibilities of track, infrastructure, trains and operations across several companies. James saying "I'm not talking about Japan" implies that he's not interested in getting a clearer idea of why our railway system is failing compared to other countries.
Any system, state or private, can only work provided it gets the right co-operation, investment and management. Ours was nationalised for 46 years and was far from brilliant.
Either way, you don't win debates by cutting people off when they say what you don't agree with. That just shows your vulnerability. When O'Brien said "happy new year" and cut Simon off before having a chance to finish, he proved just that… as usual.
I agree that James O'Brien kept talking over him but Simon would often go off on a tangent and miss the point of the discussion. When he was asking about the change in ownership of the ECML franchise, it wasn't particularly clear with the way he phrased where he was going with it. This is particuarly frustrating on a radio programme where you've got to keep it to the point for listeners. James had to get him back on point at that point for the benefit of them.
I think James wasn't so much defensive, but leapt on the fact that Simon tried to say he was wrong about everything and then making a howler himself before backtracking. As I said, I largely don't like James O'Brien's manner on the radio so we do agree on that.
I can see what you're saying in relation to Japanese railways because they are very good but you've got to keep it fairly relatable to British Railways on the radio programme. I know that he was trying to get at but that wasn't too clear for most other people listening sadly. If he had done it in the way that you're describing to me now about it being 100% self-contained, encouraging investment, increasing subsidy he would have got a lot further.
However, when Simon starts talking about Japan after avoiding a few questions and asking one himself, he starts to look like he's just trying to change the topic of conversation which won't go down well with any radio host on their show. This is especially true if you're talking to someone not interested in railways like him or his listeners who will be less aware of what point he is trying to make.
The nationalised railway wasn't perfect, it needs to be done better when we try again. Although, our nationalised system in the late 70's was one of the best, if not the best in Europe. All it needed was further sustained investment but when you get governments cutting budgets and then pointing a finger at it and saying, "look how bad it is", it's destined to fail. It is a bit like the NHS being the 2nd most efficient health system in 2010 and now its falling apart.
A private system can work if there is an incentive for investment but what we have now is very little money spent on maintenance, too little investment from TOC's because they can rent strip us all they like by having a natural monopoly. It needs to run by one group though, not lots of little companies like it is now.
I do think James O'Brien has become a shock jock and I don't like his style but fair play to Simon, I don't agree with him on a lot of his politics but he gave it a go when the odds were against him and gave it a good go. I certainly don't have the balls to go on LBC and ring up Nigel Farage and argue with him but I think next time, I think he needs to get to the point much quicker and remember that although he knows a lot about railways, most people know very little. While I don't think the trainspotter jibe was really on, the way the question was being phrased I thought he was going to ask him something completely irrelevant about the history of the East Coast Main Line.
Continuing on...
Then there's the question of renationalization. Setting aside the question of what a diplomatic business headache it is going to be if the UK government decides to turn to the numerous private rolling stock operating companies and train operating companies and say "Hey, private enterprise? We've decided we'd like our trains back, please. So could you all bugger off and let us have them back to operate the railways our way and rake in all the money for ourselves, thus cutting off major parts of your business? Thanks.", one must also consider the questions of best interest when it comes to the government. Simply put, is the UK government trustworthy enough at present or for the foreseeable future to not make a total pig's ear of a renationalized railway system, to offer the level of service demanded by the UK people, i.e. the ones to whom the politicians count on for continued employment each election season, without either A. simply ballsing it up, or B. trying to subvert the railways for their own personal or political interests? Yes, this is an extremely cynical stance to take, but this is also a big job for anyone, one which proved too big the last time Britain tried to paint everything black with lions. And when the current government can't even agree whether to stay in the EU or not that raises more than a few questions over whether they A. are capable of, and B. can be bothered to run the railway system for the whole nation.
Breaking the renationalized railways up into regions might be a start, having different national sub-committees in charge of different parts of the railways. But that has the potential for a whole new host of worries. Where are the boundaries drawn to figure out who's in charge of what; could we see political tomfoolery on the ridiculous level of railway gerrymandering? How much independence would these regions have; would they answer to a central authority to ensure they're all marching to the beat of the same drum, or could we see regions adopting new train designs that they know won't work on a neighboring region's system? What about trains that cross regional borders, who's in charge of them? These were all serious concerns of the previous incarnation of British Railways, which in its early stages fell roughly along the lines of the old Big Four companies it took over, and inherited many of the Big Four's traits and problems. The Western Region in particular was famous for doing its own thing; continuing to operate ex-GWR locomotives that were too fat to run outside of its territory, adopting diesel-hydraulic power when the rest of the system had abandoned it, resisting the calls for electrification, even demanding their own livery rather than the standard Black for engines and Maroon/Carmine for coaches.
The nationalized model may have worked well for Switzerland, and for many other nations such as Austria, Germany, Italy, France, even China, but all of these nations also have a long history of having their railways run by the government almost right from the start. Britain does not have that. British railways were built by private interest, were taken over by the government not too long ago but were still run largely as they had been before, then were given back to private interest in a weird and unworkable way.
And let's not forget either that even Swiss railways aren't completely nationalized; the SBB must share responsibility with the BLS and SOB for their standard gauge lines and RhB and MGB for their narrow gauge lines, on top of DB, SNCF, and others operating international trains through their borders.
Im from switzerland and we do have high standarts of transportaition, but the is a big delay in maitenancework. This summer we had the so calld Sommerfahrplan in english it menans summertimetable becaus there was big maitenancework to do, the yourneys somtimes took morre then an houer longer then normal and on some lines wher you normaly have a train every half houer you had only one train an houer. Ouer railsystem was better a view years ago befor Andras Meier was the CEO of the SBB. And the SBB is actualy a staat ownd private company. Im sorry for my not perfect english but i hope it's understandable.
in the netherlands we have nearly identical tracks are owned by prorail and the traisn are owned by arive breng NS and if 1 train is delayed we have many trains not runing
To simon a.c. martin if you are reading this have you see the old japanese steam locomotive ? if so i like the c61
So which is best for Britain: Privatization or Nationalization?
Overall, the root of this whole mess seems to be the way Britain's railways are organized right now; Nationalized track and infrastructure, one set of companies in charge of building and maintaining the trains, and a different set of companies in charge of running the trains. The TOCs can't improve their service because they can't get more or newer trains for the RSOCs or improvements to the track from Railtrack. Not to mention the TOCs' and RSOCs' constant complaints that they can't turn a profit due largely to having to pay off the group above them. In short, at least one of these levels has got to go.
Potential short-term solution: Eliminate Rolling Stock Operating Companies. Make the Train Operating Companies directly responsible for their own rolling stock, rather than having to rent/lease it from someone else. Thus ends a major muck-up factor in the whole operation and everything is streamlined. TOCs, or simply "Railway Companies" as they would rightly be at that point, would also be responsible for, and would have the ability to order new rolling stock as and when needed rather than having to go through a third party.
I'll await any comments before carrying on, and no comments will be taken as an understandable sign for me to shut up.
When it comes to improving the service the barrier isn't ROSCOs it's the franchise agreement. We have one franchise Great Anglia which has just come in and plans to replace it entire fleet with brand new trains. It's in the franchise agreement and they will have a fair amount of years in which to operate the new stock before the next franchise starts to get their money back.
However take the old Northern and Arriva Trains Wales franchises they were let as no-growth franchises meaning they will finish the franchise with the same trains they started with, which meant that both companies were unwilling to spend the money on new trains as they would never get the money back and it wasn't in their agreements its only since the new northern franchise has come that new stock for the north and refurbishment of the existing stock has come about.
The normal rail franchise is about 7 years in length, the normal parliament 5 years, the working life of rolling stock 40 years, the working life of an employee 50 years. It is short term with little look at the long term, why bother looking 40 or 50 years down the road when my term in office is over in 5 years and this rail franchise finishing in 7 years and it'll be the next government's job then.
Any private of nationalised concern needs to have the long term use of the assets it owns. It needs to know that if it invests it will get its money back.
In the United States: Why can't we have as good of trains as the UK.
In the United Kingdom: Our Trains suck, we use to be soo good at them. We want the glory days back (But disagree on what those days where)
The US: um, at least your not us.
As an American, I am jealous your the UK's level of service which is superior (and more reliable) than our passenger service. Though I am comforted about our excellent freight service. Which I am going to take as the model to improve both our countries' rail services. Have 4-5 big private companies who own the tacks and trains. In the Us we have the Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX, and Norfolk Southern, with some smaller operators. In the UK, recreated the Big Four: LMS, GWR, LNER, and SR. Then have the stations owned by the Government. The National Network will then create routes and determine the level of service that each private company is obligated to maintain, though the private companies are allowed to offer additional services, but have a mandatory minimum level of service and will be fined if not provided. Subsidies are provided by the Government for track and infrastructure projects and improvements. The Government will also set fairs and rates for passenger services and will provide subsidies for services with low ridership. Also, the US should also electrify its whole rail network to increase environmental friendliness (as long as the electricity generation produces less carbon emissions than the diesel locomotives).
So, basically my solution is the old UK system of the Big Four, with government support and requirements.
Here is the difference between Japan's rails and British rails is it
Japan:ok quit your bickering and get working out between eachother
Britan: ok can we stop bickering ,you shut up you fool ,hey I make the rules not you
my fictional Railway (SeaSide Hills Railway) was a private Railway owned by Benny Co.
From the outside looking in as an American it seems that the way they were privatized in the first place was rather stupid. On that note I don't understand why they were nationalized in the first place, nor have I ever heard a good argument for nationalization after the war. It only seems that it was a socialist/Labour Party dream that they instated when they took power after the war along with nationalization of other industries.
I know that the war was hard on the UK but by 1942 or 43 the blitz was over and with US involvement the Nazis were unable to hit the UK like they did in the years past. I also understand that the V1 and V2 rockets were used late in the war but they were more of a terror weapon than an organized attack on infrastructure meaning that railroads, as infrastructure, were not the primary target. This means that there were at least 2 to 3 years to rebuild after things like the Battle of Britton and at a time where the railways would have access to money from war contracts they would be able to rebuild destroyed facilities. With this being said I assume that when people say that the railways took a beating during the war that meant that rolling stock and track were rode hard and put away wet and were in need of repair or replacement. Not that the system was a flaming wreck in 1945 due to Nazi bombings. If this is the case then the situation was not completely different from the situation of US railroads at the same time. If it was infrastructure and rolling stock that were worn out, the same happened in the US during the war, but that meant that the railroads took wartime profits and rolled them into improved infrastructure and new rolling stock. (side note here by 1960 all major railroads had switched over to diesel power and dropped their steam, the war was a major reason that happened so early) Why could the railways in the UK not have simply done the same or similar things then as their US counterparts? If I am missing something someone please tell me or give me a an explanation as to why the UK system was in such disrepair that only the government could fix it after the war.
Back to the modern day. The railroads need to own their own track and equipment in order to schedule trains and to have an incentive to maintain rolling stock and track. This is because the bottom line will suffer if it is uncomfortable or unreliable for passengers to ride or trains are unable to run due to repair or scheduling errors. Again there is an analogy to the US here, Amtrak the government organization that runs passenger rail in the US has a similar system to yours except that it is freight railroads that own most of the track it runs on, not just a holding company. This system in the US means that Amtrak usually suffers if there is a problem with track or another train because they do not own that track or train and thus are at the whims of a freight railroad that is usually carrying cargo that is much less time sensitive than people! There is one exception though, the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak owns the trains and the track. It is basically the only part of Amtrak that is efficient, has high speed rail, and it is on time MUCH more often than most of the rest of the system (excluding other heavily populated regions where Amtrak OWNS most or a lot of the track it uses like the Milwaukee to Chicago route and other regions like that). So what I'd recommend is that you privatize everything but have the railway that runs the trains also own the track. Also try to make duplicate services to the same places exist to ensure that the market is competitive and that many companies are competing to offer the lowest price and best service to the end consumer. The best part of this solution is that it requires little to no government funding, it is self supporting, if it is a service that people want. If it goes under then the public has spoken with its dollars that a railroad is no longer wanted or needed and that money is better allocated by the market in a more efficient method. What I'm saying is that if MASSSIVE public expenditures are needed it is likely that an industry should be left to die because the people/market have spoken and they think that they have found a better way of doing things.
Also in reading other comments it seems that people think that privet businesses only have an incentive to offer the worst product possible, economically that makes no sense. Just think if a business offers a crap service will anyone buy it? Logically the answer is no and due to that companies have an incentive to offer the best good or service because if the one they offer is crap a competitor will come in and do it better. That forces the original business to either improve its product or go out of business due to the better product and company existing. If you want more and or better arguments in this area try reading up on economics, it can be like the reading equivalent of watching paint dry but if ya can suffer through you'll get a better understanding of the argument I put forward.
One last thing, look you guys do what you think is right, it is your country after all and I'm just the ugly American here throwing my two cents, or is it pence in this case, into the conversation.
3:00 that's wrong, the first privatised service by British rail was Red Star Parcels in 1963.
So in short ... just vertically reintegrate the lines, equipment and operations.
After this is sorted, I have a new proposal: Upgrade major main lines to the Berne gauge. That would make it easier for trains to come from Europe, and allow double decker and non-British modified trains.
i have made a fictional Railway named SeaSide Hills Railway and from 1822 from this day hes been owend by the City (Sea Side) and havent jouin to the LNER or British railway
Hold on, you only covered passenger traffic, but you lumped EVERYONE in with privatisation. This would kill freight and the FOC's off, no doubt about it (speaking from the inside here). You'd end up having to make about 2 thirds of the current staff redundant because we are currently doubled up (particularly ground staff in different locations) where staff will only deal with their own companies trains.
Also, freight is cut throat. It's there for the sake of profit making trains. If you take away all the competition, there's nothing to keep prices down and rail freight dies off.
Not much mention of freight
Thank you For this Film two both of you I wish to thank you for you time on endceavor.I whish to make a Point South West Train Do not want to use class 700 But there Been Built and they are coming THIS MAKE Wast of Money So we need to pick System and Stick to it
Britain can look back in history to the problems France had with their rail network. in the 19th century, back when Britain's railways were making great accomplishments, France had a system in some ways similar to the UK's today. The government funded, owned, and built the infrastructure, and leased it out to private companies. but it was very inefficient in moving people and goods across the country and it was difficult to travel anywhere in the country without passing through Paris. It was also one of the reasons they lost the Franco-Prussian war in 1871. I don't know firsthand whether SNCF was an improvement (with WW2 and the postwar years it would be hard to see benefits), but from what I've read it played a hand into some of the advances they've made in railways and high-speed trains, although I could be wrong. I think that Simon A.C. Martin is right though. Whatever organization is there, it needs to control the infrastructure, employment & methods of transport.
00:23
‘Bring Back British Rail’
🆗 Why are you holding up the logo for SeaLink❓
i think you'd find JR IS a 'national' railway company: JR covers all of Japan ( Kyushu, Honshu and Hokkaido - via the now land rail linked Seikan tunnel ) But there are many other companies with private lines also serving regular and competitive public/freight carrying service.
Btw, if i had my way, the idiotic 4' 6" and a quarter anachronism would be done away with and replaced by the 'Cape' gauge........Japan runs superb services using this gauge over far greater distances than Britain at better overall timings and speed using less material resources - lower maintainance and kinder to rolling stock as well as tighter radius's achievable. Of course, the Shinkansen lines are 'standard' gauge, but the vast majority of lines - including the Tokyo metropolitan area are effectively and successfully run on 'Cape'.
The latest train ever was the old garn
A state owned railway is not the best idea in my opinion, since it doesn't have to rely on profits the government can produce whatever service they like. But with a private company which owns all its own stuff, it has to rely on making a profit so the service standards have to be better than other means so they can, this would be great for innovation and development of our rail network.
But who are they competing with? Both are still natural monopolies.
The state can't get away with a bad service either. The worse the service, the more money they lose, the more public pressure on them.
Lennon6412 yes. We need to move away from thinking only consumers can hold organisations to account. We can and should do this as citizens and prioritise quality and satisfaction over profit. We have a stake in our railways through subsiding private firms. They do not given offshore banking and tax avoidance etc.
Privatization is good till they go to PSR , and it sucks, includes so many derailments that the Pen Central looks better than the average class1
Hey it's Simon my boy
*all aboard Brtrak*
In my opinion, privatisation is the best way for the UK. All you have to do is compare the L&B to the Dartmoor Railway.
L&B own more or less everything, track, locos, rolling stock, platforms, sheds, bridges, stations. And even the land for the future development of the line.
The Dartmoor Railway however....they barely own the weeds in the ballast. From what i understand they own....a coach or two, a pilbox brakevan and...i think thats it. BARRS own everything else, and they just dont care. Same owners of the Weardale Railway far as i know. the DR had to ask BARRS permission to refit the Thumper unit 1132. Agregate Industries that used to own Meldon Quarry still own the class 08 Bluebell Mel.....and Falcon the...class 02...i think.
I havnt been a member for a number of years after the Meldon Modellers Group fell apart due to lack of intrest from anyone other than the group itself. So i dont know the full story, thats just what I knew before i gave up on the DR.
Private railways is the way to go, it worked before the war, and should have stayed after the war.
Name another country that’s just as bad? The Netherlands for sure! Nationalised after ww1, working fairly well. Privatised in the 90s, NS split off the network to Prorail, which doesn’t work properly, and then there was Fyra, and NS International, and many more companies owned by NS. And then it started giving lines to other companies, like Arriva, Blauwnet, Vechtdallijnen, Rnet, and so on. And so the Netherlands is probably complaining about public transport than ever before. It came to the news that there will be more traffic jams then ever in our country than ever, with after that he announcement that train tickets will become more and more expensive over the coming years. I can easily see what’s going wrong here, and I hope other Dutch people can see this as well.
Although I must say that their ICMm EMU’s are according to me the best in the world.
Well NS is more operating the main lines and some local services while for example Arriva operates the regional railways
Look on the bright side, at least it’s not as bad as the American railway
As an American, I thought I would gie my two cents:
Simply put, I think the Japanese model would be best for the US. Since the US is frankly too big for something like what Switzerland has.
1:18 is me right with my sister who gets to use the iPad in on know
Well my grandfather says that renationalising Britain's railways would be too expensive and mite put the government in a sticky spot if they tried,so I say give the T.O.Cs their own tracks,inferstrustor and rolling stock!
The problem there is that it's so fragmented even beyond just the companies themselves; they're all owned by a multitude of different umbrella companies and states; everyone from the German government to Chinese holding firms own different parts of Britain's railways. Any attempt to rationalise this system, say by reforming the Big Four and then letting them get on with things would be a gargantuan attempt and require either exceptional negotiation and/or an eyewatering amount of capital. And then, after it's all done, you've got to find people willing to buy and operate these networks. Just handing the track and locos to them wouldn't work either as the companies operating the franchises would baulk at the increased investment and risk at having to suddenly take on track maintenance, station management, locomotive upkeep and purchasing, etc. The same problem also applies to nationalisation; unless you seize the railways from private ownership, you'd have to go through the same process and if you do seize the railways, then goodbye any foreign and a good chunk of domestic investment, not just in railways but in any business in Britain.
1:41 (actual to scale)
Take a look at Japan's national debt in relation to its Gross Domestic Product and then have another think about the desirability of emulating that model.
um correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation
um government debt not caused by government spending? in what fairy tale is that merely correlation?
Then there's Australia, can't make up it's mind if the rail is Federal, State, Private or even City owned.......
In terms of freight transport, Im guessing USA reigns king for movement of freight.
Blame it on DFT
Ain't no way it's worse than America our passenger services suck
How so?
If you want a good example of the best state owned railways, just look at China. Perhaps the best rail system in the world.
Politicians get paid more money for debating and deliberating - not for making a decisions - hence You have what You have . lol ;) the ONLY solution to get moving forward with any progress (and that goes for ANYTHING in life) is to GET RID OFF POLITICIANS !
its the same with sport we create the sport we always loose at it!
Not always.
shut up
im trying to make a point
Socialism 101
You all in Europe focus Passenger do what america Does and mostly do freight you can see a Car from some California Railroad in Pennsylvania
Said in a nutshell.
HOLEY SHIT ENGLAND WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!