This page represents only my own views, and not those of any university or other body.
Posted Monday 2nd January 2012 at 12.29pm
Trains
I basically have no problem with trains in the UK. Prices are higher than I would like, but that's true of most things! Sometimes trains are overcrowded, but that's the exception rather than the rule and I understand that it's difficult to micro-manage timetables to avoid this problem when you have such a complex system that must have reliability as its prime concern.
However, I have been travelling on trains in the UK regularly for over a decade. I understand the system better than probably 99% of people in the UK. I know when cheaper fares are likely to be available, I know that I should try buying tickets for different parts of my journey separately because they may be run by different operators whose fare systems don't interact well, and I know that, even if I buy an advance ticket that specifies which train I have to travel on, if I turn up in time for an earlier train and it's not too busy then I can ask the guard nicely and I stand a good chance of being allowed to travel. I also know that different websites charge different booking or delivery fees, but that the East Midlands Trains site is easy and quick to use and charges no fees. Most people in the UK don't know all of these things, and people from outside the UK - who are visiting as tourists or on business - are very unlikely to know any of them.
I don't know the full story about the privatisation of British Rail - it happened in the mid-90s, when neither politics nor rail travel was a large concern of mine, and is not such riveting subject that I have ever been tempted to read up on it since. But it seems to me that the main reason behind privatisation is usually to introduce competition, thus spurring at least one of innovation or value for money. And privatisation of the rail network, at least in the way it was introduced, was never likely to introduce competition. Say I'm in Nottingham and I want to travel to Bath. It's not like I can say "oh, Virgin Trains' prices are too high, I'll travel with East Coast Trains" or "First Great Western's service is often delayed, I'll travel with London Midland". Virgin cover part of the route, First Great Western another, and if I want to make that journey I have no choice but to travel with them. So there is barely any competition between the rail companies. They're competing against car, bus and plane travel, of course, but the same would be true of one centralised company, be it state-run or private.
I imagine one centralised company would also be able to offer a more consistent pricing structure and would find it easier to manage the network. Personally I think the state-run option is a clear winner here, since the other option would be a government-subsidised monopoly, but at least a central government-subsidised monopoly might be better than a piecemeal and inconsistent government-subsidised monopoly.
I have no idea how much it would cost to renationalise the railways, or whether there are better options, but it might be a good idea to have a study looking at the possibilities.
This blog post was inspired by the letter G, the number 8, and the article "Help fight fare rises and push for rail renationalisation" from the Guardian, which is badly referenced and misses (what I think is) the main point.
Return to blog
Comments
Write a new comment: