A Rich Man's Toy
Duncan Barkes wants a serious debate on the renationalisation of the rail industry.
3 Jan 2012, 13:00
Time to nationalise?
Last year the then Transport Secretary, Phillip Hammond, claimed that the railways were becoming a rich man's toy. He wasn’t kidding. Today, as fares are once again increased, tens of thousands of rail users have forked out more than ever before for their peak time rail tickets.
As they sit (if they are very lucky) in cramped carriages, listening to yet another announcement apologising for the delay to their service, I dare say they are wondering exactly where the extra money is going.
The average fare increase is 5.9%, but some tickets have gone up by a whopping 9%. In these belt-tightening times it's a bitter pill to swallow for those of us who have no alternative but to use the trains.
I spend much of my week going up and down to London on the train. The journey time in rush hour traffic, not to mention the congestion charge, parking costs and the scandalous price of fuel means that driving is not a viable option.
A coach service that meets my requirements does not exist. The only solution is to take the 07.28 from Chichester to London Victoria.
Before I continue, this is certainly not a dig at the staff on the ground. I have encountered nothing but excellent service by the frontline staff of Southern Railway.
No, my wrath is directed at those further up the hierarchy, and at the Government who continue to allow train companies to fleece their customers.
Michael Roberts, Chief Executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), has said that the increased fares are used to pay for new trains, faster services and better stations. Really? Maybe the red mist of rage at the outrageous ticket price hikes is clouding my vision, but I’ve seen no evidence of anything better, faster, newer or cleaner on my daily journey.
It seems to have escaped the notice of the train operators that many of us are feeling the pinch.
Some businesses have cottoned on to this. The supermarkets, for example, are constantly cutting their prices. Even the BBC has been forced to acknowledge that times are hard and has frozen the licence fee this year.
But at Choo choo HQ, no such luck. And to add a kick in the backside to gums already sore from paying through the teeth, the increases are above the rate of inflation.
The ATOC chief also has the brass neck to say that more of us are voting with our feet and wallets; that last year the network carried an extra one hundred million passengers. That many of us have absolutely no choice has been conveniently overlooked.
So, maybe the time has come for a serious debate about renationalising the rail network? After all, the only people benefiting from the current system are the operators and their shareholders.
Comments (8)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
We have no intergrated system. The surplus is going to shareholders instead of taxpayers which it should do. No rail service in Europe is run privately.
The railways get 5 times as much subsidy now than when they were British Rail.
We need expansion of the railways to get more freight of the roads.
The problem isn't just the railways it's the buses outside London. Private operators run it for profit not as a service.
As a Labour supporter I view the previous govt as a missed opportunity to sort out and expand the rail network/
03/01/2012 13:50I don't doubt the extent of the problem, but look at TFL - as unaccountable and miserly (and unionised) as any of the rail operators and i assure you, routinely disappointing as many paying customers with no alternatives.
03/01/2012 13:56Doesn't the government have the final say on the BBC licence fee and ordered it frozen rather than the BBC?
03/01/2012 14:25Doesn't the government have the final say on the BBC licence fee and ordered it frozen rather than the BBC?
03/01/2012 14:26TBH I am not sure that renationalization is the answer to this - BR were (aside from a small period in the 1980s when they were merely bad) uniformly awful in running the rail network. Beeching (and the near-criminal closure of many lines that would be viable today and were probably viable then) happened under their watch, after all.
Whats needed is to reintegrate the railways, so that firms own and operate the track as well as at least some of the trains that run on them. This would reduce much of the waste (currently spent on contracts), many of the delays, would almost certainly finally result in someone actually building trains again and should (though it would require passenger and political vigilance to make sure the companies dont just pocket the difference) bring direct and indirect costs to us all down.
03/01/2012 15:37I think renationalisation (and ownership of the railways) is something of red herring - why should the Government make payments to the train operating companies to buy them out of their franchises on top of having to pay the substantial subsidies that are necessary in order to keep the railways running. The real issues relate to management and control of the railways, rather than their ownership, and who should bear the cost of their upkeep. Given that the Government is in effect picking up the tab - it is the one which has the power to control and direct the management of the railways should it wish to do so. Because it doesn't it is just allowing the rail operators to get away with murder and by reducing the level of the subsidy it is just increasing the burden on the poor traveller.
What the Tories don't realise because of their ideological blinkers is that there are some services which can be provided at a higher quality and lower overall cost when they are done so collectively rather than through the market - the BBC (just look at the cost and quality of Sky vs the licence fee), Railways and Health. They do seem to accept the argument for Roads, Police and Defence - but then Tories have never been strong on ideological consistency have they.
Regarding transport - nearly all Western European countries have recognised that railways need substantial state subsidies because of the benefits they provide to the rest of the economy and because the market mechanism just doesn't work well enough to provide the infrastructure provided. As to who should pay - perhaps the Govt should perhaps rather than trying to soak the poor individual commuters look to the corporate sector to make more of a contribution to the cost of getting its workers to work in an efficient and pleasant manner. And which part of the corporate sector benefits the most from subsidised railways at present - it couldn't be the City of London? Strangely enough its political wing the Tory Party has rather ignored this angle.
05/01/2012 11:521. Renationalise the network, at no premium - shareholders get wiped out. Tough. It happens.
05/01/2012 12:522. Re-integrate the train and the track - so that both can be run as a single entity. Simples.
3. Save a huge amount of time and lawyers' fees involved in creating, contracting and monitoring 'franchises' - there's no real choice for consumers anyway on any route so face up to it and admit that privatisation was a huge, ideology-led mistake.
4. Reduce fares across the board and simplify the fares system to a manageable and comprehensible system.
5. Create jobs by ordering new trains, track, signalling etc. That's a productive use of taxpayers' money.
6. Build HS2. Just do it. Then HS3 to the West and South West. Again, just do it. People will get over it. Learn from the French (and swallow pride).
I think much of the problem is that rail companies are allowed to get away with spending whatever they feel like, so they don't care about value or efficiency. Really, we need a change of attitude: they should have said no to both increased subsidies and increased fares, finally demand a bit of cost-cutting instead.
I understand Scotrail had to be dragged kicking and screaming into installing ticket barriers - and when they did, increased overstaffing still further, rather than eliminating the now-redundant on-train ticket checks. They install ticket vending machines - but only enable a subset of tickets to be bought that way.
I'd say a significant headcount reduction, an extra carriage or two on all the shorter trains to reduce overcrowding and a fare freeze should be perfectly achievable - and for long-term investment, I'm told our construction costs are 60% higher than even Germany (not noted for either cutting corners or having cheap labour), so plenty of room for savings there too.
Or stick to the standard civil service approach: throw money at it and hope nothing goes too badly wrong apart from wasting lots of money...
07/01/2012 22:57