UK Railways

[Policenaut]

Just returned from a business trip to NYC, and had to get myself to and from Newark Liberty Airport. Took the NJ Transit this time – it was very convenient and reasonably cheap, but on the other hand you don’t have to mind sitting in a dirty carriage on ripped seats. On a previous trip I took an Amtrak train on the same route, and was seriously impressed by the standard of both the accommodation and the timekeeping (departed and arrived almost to the second). Expensive, though, cf UK prices.

Also thought the arrangements at Penn Station NYC a bit primitive – the train arrives, the “track” (platform) is announced, and there is a mad dash to the staircase/escalator. You are elderly, disabled, burdened by heavy luggage: you are going to be at the back of the queue. Is there some reason we can’t be waiting on the platform? (doesn’t seem to cause a problem in UK).

I love trains - always have, always will - from earliest memories of seaside and countryside excursions from the city. Even enjoy my daily journey to work - which only goes to prove that I’m a sad, sad individual.

Like I said NJ Transit is upgrading their cars. The old ones are not great but still better than the old SEPTA cars if you go into Philly. You're basically sitting on an aluminum bench with no padding. The new NJT double deckers are great and there are no bench seats. They're all bucket-like seats. Comfortable and clean. Most going into NY and Trenton during busy hours are the new cars. Also as mentioned very cheap. You can get from Philly to Atlantic City on NJT for $8. That's over a two hour ride.

Amtrak has always been pretty nice and fast (the main reason is they have very few stops) but multiple times as expensive as another option (if another option is available). If you have to get somewhere fast like from NY to DC then yea it's your best and cheapest way. Have you gone on an Acela? I've only felt the wind of them passing by me on a track but they seem to be pretty luxurious and of course hella fast.

And finally I agree with Penn Station. The lobby where everyone waits becomes a stampede when then announce the track. Also the stairs are way too cramped.

 

[malbui]

Also thought the arrangements at Penn Station NYC a bit primitive – the train arrives, the “track” (platform) is announced, and there is a mad dash to the staircase/escalator. You are elderly, disabled, burdened by heavy luggage: you are going to be at the back of the queue. Is there some reason we can’t be waiting on the platform? (doesn’t seem to cause a problem in UK).

I was surprised to see something similar when I took a train from Madrid to Segovia during the summer. Superb new high-speed line and excellent trains, but two minutes to get down the stairs, through security, and along the platform to find your carriage.

On a more general note, I work in Switzerland and I appreciate the quality of the rail network every single day. Apart from the Pendolino service up towards Basle which is known as the Vomito around here.

 

[bobrayner]

I blame it on privatisation.

I recoment rasing car and fuel taxes to pay for more and free public transportation.
That should help on the congestion in the cities too.

That's already being done. There are big taxes on private transport, and big subsidies for public transport. So why is privatisation so bad?

For decades the nationalised railway stagnated; there was a modal shift from rail to cars. With privatisation, the modal shift abruptly reversed, and the railways are now carrying more and more passenger-km. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[The Don]

That's already being done. There are big taxes on private transport, and big subsidies for public transport. So why is privatisation so bad?

Whether privatisation per-se is bad is not clear to me (at least with respect to railways - for other industries it seems to have done the trick) but the way in which the privatisation was conducted in the UK seems to have been counterproductive.

The relatively short-term nature of the franchises means that there is a disincentive for companies to make long-term capital investment and if the franchises are made longer term then it'd be more difficult to get rid of a n underperforming franchisee.

The several layer model seems not to work (given that the infrastructure has had to revert to government control). You could argue that the original model which built the railways (private companies owning everything) did work to the extent that the railways got built. It resulted in duplication and waste and it could be argued that the only reason they made money was chronic underpayment of railway employees and shocking (by modern standards) working conditions.

For decades the nationalised railway stagnated; there was a modal shift from rail to cars. With privatisation, the modal shift abruptly reversed, and the railways are now carrying more and more passenger-km. Isn't that a good thing?

But finally governement has provided sufficient subsidy and changes in policy have encouraged investment in public transport. Left to their own devices, private companies without subsidy would probably have ended up with something resembling Beeching 2

I'm not an expert on railways, and I'm certainly not an expert on international railways, but is there a successful privately owned railway out there ? The usual examples of success (France, Switzerland, Germany, The Netherlands) either have a high degree of subsidy and/or public ownership

 

[Soapy Sam]

I blame it on privatisation.

I recoment rasing car and fuel taxes to pay for more and free public transportation.
That should help on the congestion in the cities too.

When I am World Dictator, I promise you will have your very own unicycle.

Anyway, Denmark's too small to have a decent traffic jam anyway.

 

[bobrayner]

Whether privatisation per-se is bad is not clear to me (at least with respect to railways - for other industries it seems to have done the trick) but the way in which the privatisation was conducted in the UK seems to have been counterproductive.

The relatively short-term nature of the franchises means that there is a disincentive for companies to make long-term capital investment and if the franchises are made longer term then it'd be more difficult to get rid of a n underperforming franchisee.

I'd agree with that; the privatisation was bodged.
The then-opposition didn't help, by making shrill claims about how they'd renationalise no matter what. And so on...

The several layer model seems not to work (given that the infrastructure has had to revert to government control).

Certain EU rules require operations to be separated from infrastructure. There are good reasons for this; one is to make it easier for third parties to provide services without a monolithic national railway blocking their path (which would be tempting, in principle, because sometimes the monoliths seem deeply inefficient). However, in practice the slightly-less-monolithic national train operator can still erect very high barriers to entry.

But finally governement has provided sufficient subsidy

There have been changes in operating subsidy, but increases haven't been all that big, once you account for inflation (a 2008 pound is worth a lot less than a 1988 pound) and the fact that we're getting more deliverables, ie. those subsidies are paying for more passenger-km.

Left to their own devices, private companies without subsidy would probably have ended up with something resembling Beeching 2

I'm not sure this would be a fair comparison since the nationalised railway certainly got subsidies. We could compare a hypothetical unsubsidised nationalised railway to an hypothetical unsubsidised privatised railway, but I suspect it'd be a waste of time

I'm not an expert on railways, and I'm certainly not an expert on international railways, but is there a successful privately owned railway out there ? The usual examples of success (France, Switzerland, Germany, The Netherlands) either have a high degree of subsidy and/or public ownership

That's a good question.

But what do you mean by "successful"? Delivering good value (ie. lots of passenger-km per unit of public funding)? Or perhaps modal shift? (Or something else?) The last time I checked, both were correlated with liberalisation scores for European railways. If you confine yourself to Europe, things are more comparable, and there's lots of good stats available from sources like Eurostat. I can't find my old spreadsheet now and it'd be out-of-date anyway. Might try a fresh comparison whenever I had time... unless there are any other volunteers?

There's lots of statistics out there.

Also, privatisation isn't boolean. For instance, in the UK the railways are superficially privatised but the DfT has a remarkable degree of control over day-to-day activities, and it tinkers with risks and rewards &c for operators. Other countries have reformed their railways in all kinds of different ways; some changes move towards a functionally privatisated railway whilst still keeping the appearance of nationalisation, and vice versa.

 

[Toke]

When I am World Dictator, I promise you will have your very own unicycle.

Thank you.

Anyway, Denmark's too small to have a decent traffic jam anyway

We drive small cars, it´s no problem whatsoever.

Our state railroad is currently some kind of state owned seperate company and turn a nice profit.
The rails are owned by a seperate company, and that gives some inflexibility, as the contract specifies train sice´s and they can´t just put on a few extra wagons if they know there is something coming up.

I would prefer lower ticket prices to profit. Tax the cars instead of train passagers.

 

[bobrayner]

I would prefer lower ticket prices to profit. Tax the cars instead of train passagers.

Rail transport in Denmark are already subsidised, just like in every other European country that has a rail network. Car users in Denmark already pay various taxes.

DSB makes a "profit" by getting a subsidy greater than the difference between passenger revenue (ie. tickets) and operating costs.

Banedanmark is subsidised too, of course.

If Danish railway passengers actually had to pay for the full cost of their journey, tickets would be a lot more expensive.

 

[The Don]

But what do you mean by "successful"? Delivering good value (ie. lots of passenger-km per unit of public funding)? Or perhaps modal shift? (Or something else?) The last time I checked, both were correlated with liberalisation scores for European railways. If you confine yourself to Europe, things are more comparable, and there's lots of good stats available from sources like Eurostat. I can't find my old spreadsheet now and it'd be out-of-date anyway. Might try a fresh comparison whenever I had time... unless there are any other volunteers?

I guess I'm talking about success from the perspective of a frustrated train user. When I first started commuting to London from Bristol about 15 years ago, there were a number of trains which took less than 1h:25m and one which took 1h:09m (the 07.00 which allowed me to be at my desk at Temple comfortably by 09.00). Punctuality (with the benefit of rose tinted hindsight) was seldom a problem and consequentially I was content to take that train (which was comparatively uncrowded) and typically would catch the 18.15 return which would enable me to be home by 19.45. For this, if memory serves, the monthly season ticket was just under £200. I also used to get an in-seat trolley service and due to the relative unpopularity of the trains, I invariably got a seat.

Now, to be sure of arriving by 09.00 I take the 06.00, the 06.30 would just get me there in time but has a poor punctuality/cancellation record. The 07.00 is almost too full to take early in the week. On the return journey, the 18.25 now takes 21 minutes longer than it did (its first stop used to be Bristol, it now stops at Reading, Didcot and Swindon), I usually stand at least until Reading, sometimes all the way and even if it could make its way through the jammed carriages, there is no at seat service. For this I pay £900 a month (for standard class - it wold be more but there's a 10% discount due to the poor performance)

So for my 10% year on year increases I've:

- Lost nearly 1h 30m out of my day to spend the same amount of time at work
- Usually had to stand for at least half an hour
- Lost the ability to enjoy a beer/coffee in my seat (without walking to the buffet)

Success for me would entail:

- Having the same service I used to have
- With a cost that had increased in line with inflation

 

[CrikeyBobs]

Does a rail ticket being more expensive than a single occupant car doing the same journey (which makes no sense to me at all) actually hold true across the whole UK?

If you're willing and able to commit to an advance ticket purchase, then you can get very good value. After the new year, I travelled home 300km (as the crow flies) for £11. I bought the ticket a couple of months in advance of travel. If I had wanted a "walk-on" fare then it would have cost me from £70-£140, depending on the time of day, but because I was willing to commit to a specific service, on a specific day, I could grab a much cheaper fare. The main "inter-city" part of my journey was on a new, high-speed train, and I shared the carriage with no more than 6 others.

So, in answer to your question: no, it doesn't hold true -- from a certain perspective.

 

[Toke]

Ok, so I should not take the train steward too litteraly.

Now, how can it be more expensive to transport people by train than by cars?
Rails should be cheaper to build and maintain than roads?

 

[bobrayner]

Ok, so I should not take the train steward too litteraly.

Now, how can it be more expensive to transport people by train than by cars?
Rails should be cheaper to build and maintain than roads?

Perhaps, but railways have lots of other equipment apart from the rails themselves. Cars are mass-produced, which brings economies of scale, and competition among carmakers is stronger, which means that uncompetitive manufacturers are weeded out.

Also, railways need lots of staff, who have to be paid. People drive their cars unpaid.

Railways are also more tightly regulated, in many ways.

Cars can actually cover people's entire journey door-to-door with a single vehicle. Trains can't do that; they would need a complex (expensive) network of trains, buses, trams &c and even that is only a partial solution.

 

[cj.23]

If you're willing and able to commit to an advance ticket purchase, then you can get very good value. After the new year, I travelled home 300km (as the crow flies) for £11. I bought the ticket a couple of months in advance of travel. If I had wanted a "walk-on" fare then it would have cost me from £70-£140, depending on the time of day, but because I was willing to commit to a specific service, on a specific day, I could grab a much cheaper fare. The main "inter-city" part of my journey was on a new, high-speed train, and I shared the carriage with no more than 6 others.

So, in answer to your question: no, it doesn't hold true -- from a certain perspective.

Hi CB - in the past certainly one could - I did Cheltenham to York for under a tenner. However in the New Year rail fare rationalizations came in, and now i find it hard to find any cheap advances - well cheaper, but still can't get to Edinburgh for less than £118 return!

cj x

 

[CrikeyBobs]

Hi CB - in the past certainly one could - I did Cheltenham to York for under a tenner. However in the New Year rail fare rationalizations came in, and now i find it hard to find any cheap advances - well cheaper, but still can't get to Edinburgh for less than £118 return!

I bought my ticket in November 2008. Checking for the same fare on Virgin Trains I can get the same trip for £14.50. As I am wedded to public transport, I've learnt to dedicate much time and perseverance to tracking down the cheapest fare.

Don't give up - cheaper tickets are out there if you are willing to be flexible. Look at buying two singles instead of a return. Another trick that sometimes works is to split your journey into segments and purchase individual tickets for each segment. As long as the train actually calls at the stations at the start/end of each segment, you can do this quite legally, even if you don't actually change trains. Although this a somewhat convoluted way of doing things, you can actually end up paying less by finding bargains covering just a part of your journey.

The fare system can be bizarre (although attempts have been made to streamline it). A recent example for me: I had to attend a friend's funeral at short notice. It ended up being cheaper to buy discounted 1st class tickets than the available standard class tickets. Go figure!

 

[volatile]

On the return journey, the 18.25 now takes 21 minutes longer than it did (its first stop used to be Bristol, it now stops at Reading, Didcot and Swindon)

Oooh! You get the same train home as I do!

A day return from Reading to London at peak time works out at about £1 per minute of travelling time.