Trains in France are not vastly cheaper than the UK, but the service pattern is awful outside the very main routes. Often huge gaps in service for parts of the day and non-clockface timetabling. Seems to be very poor utilisation of rolling stock, with a lot of the stations having trains sitting for hours doing nothing (which should really be operated more intensely to give a better service pattern).
DB has horrendous reliability problems, basically the entire network gets something similar to TPE on time performance (the worst performing TOC in the UK). ICE/IC trains are also not particularly cheap for on the day travel.
Spain's high speed lines are excellent and very cheap. But outside that the network is incredibly limited and slow, so much so that buses will almost always beat the train in journey time.
Netherlands is good, affordable, frequent services and reliable. I think NL is the only country I've been to where the system is noticeably better than the UK across a lot of dimensions.
Do you really think people don’t know which continent the UK belongs to?
Do you think people are in danger of thinking the UK is actually in Africa or Asia when the colloquialism of ‘Europe’ is used?
Do you really think people don’t know which continent the UK belongs to?
As a regular train traveller in Germany, it averages out. It's almost exclusively the intercity connections which are delayed, but those usually run on an hourly clock. It's actually not that uncommon that I can save half an hour of travel time because I can catch a delayed ICE from the previous time slot instead of waiting 45 minutes for the next train ;)
(Of course when I say doesn't allow it, I mean they could, but it would be very impractical and require major tradeoffs.)
Most of these routes have about 1-2tph running on them max. The UK (and I'm sure many other countries) manages to run clockface timetabling (for the most part) with a lot of routes on 10tph++.
It's not the lack of clockface timetabling that is the problem per se, it's the constant huge gaps in service. Eg approx 1tph, then a big gap of 3 hours, then 1tph. It's all over the place.
But no, it's so easy for you to just shout "it doesn't make any sense" without first wondering if you had the complete picture. The French are incompetent and wasteful, that's obvious isn't it?
There's a lot of externalities around transit that aren't directly priced into costs vs ticket revenue.
If France decides "We want high speed national rail connectivity between cities", I'd look at it more of an entitlement / service than a profitable enterprise.
Nobody expects national healthcare services to be profitable.
(Also, both France and Germany's relatively recent experience with their national rail networks being the reason their countries are still independent sovereign states)
Germany and France were on the verge of collapse or being conquered but government trains saved them? Do tell.
But also, they're maybe not very sovereign when a foreign body drafts, ratifies, and enforces their laws
Public libraries don't run as profit centers, and yet everyone generally agrees they provide a social benefit and are worth funding.
Ref: world wars, part I and II.
So you're saying that if the Nazis didn't have subsidized train rides for tourists they would not have been able to collapse the Soviet Union in 1991 and regain East Germany? Interesting. Very interesting, sir.
You cannot possible rate the Netherlands good on comfort. It's cattle class, even on 'long' (for Dutch standards) haul routes. They _just_ started to operate carriages with power sockets! I rode better trains in Poland 10 years ago than in NL.
I take el cheapo French TGV (Ouigo) over any Dutch rolling stock any day.
from the handfull of times I've taken Ouigo, it's just normal TGV, just without first class and sometime less convenient train stations (like outside of Paris instead of close to the center)...
Haven’t been on regular TGV to compare, but it can’t be much worse than Ouigo…
Intercity trains have had sockets for a while, but YMMV if this wasn't on the most used tracks.
Short distance or trains that stop at towns (called sprinters) didn't. Haven't ridden a train in quite a few years so that might have changed.
The trains are mostly on time though, which is something most countries fail at. Granted Dutch people still complain about public transport, me included. Most people think it's too expensive and it takes too long to really get anywhere that isn't a direct connection. These days it is often cheaper to go by car too, especially if you are going somewhere with more than one person.
Depending on the article the Netherlands seems to be either high in the top 10 or low in the top 20.
Checked the latest WEF report I could find (2021), and it's ranked 14 on there. But that includes much more than just public transport. So not that useful. (Travel & Tourism Development or T&T index).
It's abysmal.
Compared to German stock — yes, the German stock is nicer (mainly has to do with different usage patterns, though — Netherlands train network has been said to resemble a country-sized metro network).
Outlets — who cares, just bring a power bank — again, compare to networks like London Overground or Paris RER.
* including ferries, busses, underground, but also has exceptions that don't matter for normal commuting such as "no intercity express" and "a seat isn't guaranteed".
not true. ICE trains for example (see pic in article) are not part of the deal.
Do you have a source? That's an extraordinary claim, the sort of thing I'd expect to find in Nigel Farage's bag of lies
I believe it's a little out of date now, as some of the lines have been renationalised due to failures of the private sector.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriva_UK_Trains : subsidiary of DB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C2c : subsidiary of Trenitalia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avanti_West_Coast : part owned by Trenitalia
And so on.
(Don't forget that the real profit ends up with the "train landlords", the ROSCOs: https://www.leasinglife.com/features/who-owns-the-trains-ros... ; all of them are parented in Luxembourg for tax reasons)
It isn't an EU thing, though it has at times been something Farage and his ilk have banged on about as if it is an EU thing, it is the way the Tories setup the privatisation of the railways (running them into the ground first as part of making the case for taking them away from the public purse (which it isn't as there are still significant subsidies involved)).
which they did to implement... EU Directive 91/440 ("First Railway Package")
yes, the UK tended to gold plate EU regs, but the spark was the EU
Everywhere you see very cheap train fares it's because they are subsidised.
Everywhere you see cheap road travel it's because they are subsidised.
The killer is that there are still significant subsidies involved, so we pay through the nose for bad service due to the way privatisation is arranged and also pay extra through indirect taxation too. In fact, even adjusted for inflation we pay more for the railways via taxation now than we did when they were a publicly funded industry. Funfunfun.
A quick reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financing_of_the_rail_industry...
I agree that the way privatisation has worked is poor, though.
The public purse should not be raided more after privatisation than before, surely?
In any case, railways are expensive and need significant investment. In terms of financing the question is then to find the the sweet spot between fares and public spending (i.e. taxes).
Neither privatisation nor nationalisation are silver bullets. As is often the case it is a question of good management and customer focus. That being said, it is hard to imagine a system with real competition because of the very nature of railways, which tend to be natural monopolies. That being the case, state ownership may make sense, with the caveat that it should be well managed along private sector standards.
As Boeing is finding out now with the 737 max and their Spirit subcontractor, every time you need to organise something across a contractual boundary, like who's responsible for making sure the doors don't fall off your aeroplane, it adds a lot of cost and time in contract negotiations, paperwork, inspections and inflexibility if you want to enforce what you have asked the other party to do and to understand what still remains your responsibility. Therefore when you go to a subcontractor for something you try to make sure it is very clearly defined what they are responsible for. For example, when an architect designs a skyscraper, they will try to design the cladding in a way that makes sure that watertightness is solely the responsibility of the one cladding subcontractor. If it leaks they are on the hook, simple. If you create complicated interfaces between systems then subcontractors can get out of responsibility for problems by blaming each other or the design of the interface.
So back to the railways. The government specifies where, when and how many seats a train service should have, they let contracts to train operating companies who then pay another (now government owned after it went bankrupt) company, Network Rail, to access the track. These train operating companies don't own the trains, they lease them from one of three other government created private (and now highly profitable) companies that provide all rolling stock. The train operating companies are generally responsible for light maintenance while the leasing companies are responsible for heavy maintenance. The train operating companies also provide staff for stations and branding but they don't own or maintain the stations although they are responsible for some maintenance and keeping them clean (or they used to be, it's complicated). All the money for this comes from the government as subsidy and from fare revenue paid to the train operating companies through a central clearing house. Train fares are for the most part dictated by government. Train operating companies have a little bit of freedom to sell discounted tickets to fill spare capacity, but there isn't really any on our main intercity routes and on commuter routes when people need to travel so most people are paying the government capped fares.
Here's an example of why this system is crazy. If we want to upgrade a rail line to electronic moving block signalling to increase the number of trains that can run per hour there are negotiations between the department of transport, the track owner, all the train operating companies that run on that route and their leasing companies about who is paying for the equipment to be fitted to the track and the trains, the specification to make it all compatible, when this will happen and who is responsible if things go wrong. On a complicated route like the West Coast mainline, this could involve multiparty negotiations between say 10 operators, 4 leasing companies, network rail and the department of transport. It could involve hardware and software modifications to more than 20 different types of train, some of which are up to 40 years old. Guess who is actually paying for all this anyway? The taxpayer and government dictated fares from rail passengers. There is no real free market incentive operating anywhere here to drive cost efficiencies in providing these modifications and all these negotiations need to be documented, have responsibility assigned and have procedures agreed. Guess who you need to do this? Lots of corporate lawyers... Guess how long this takes, fucking ages.
That is why we have a system where a ~350 mile journey from London to Glasgow takes more than twice as long and typically costs more than twice as much for half the legroom compared to a ~350 mile journey from Paris to Bordeaux.
A train network is like the mechanism of a clock, the trains are like the teeth on the cogs; they have a place they should be and they need to move in sync with perfectly with each other. We've designed a system that makes organising this insanely complicated with no overall coordinated strategy for improvements. A densely populated country like ours can't function properly without an efficient train network to allow its workforce to be flexible and move around easily and it affects our productivity and our ability to remain competitive globally.
</rant ends>
Edit: corrected missing word
Just for my own interest as an American, I can take a 350 mile journey on a train from where I live (Jacksonville, FL) to Miami. There are two trains a day, one of which takes 11 hours and costs $72, the other takes 9 hours and costs $94. Based on my experience, both of these trains are likely to be between 3 and 6 hours later than the scheduled time. How does that compare to the London to Glasgow cost and time?
Paris-Bordeaux takes 2h05m and is non-stop. If I go online now the next train is at 6:30pm and costs €60 2nd class. There is a non-stop train roughly every hour and there are also trains that stop 2-3 times that take about 3h but are a bit cheaper. The 2nd class seat is spacious your legs are about 5" from the seat in front and there is a table with enough space to comfortably use a laptop which has an individual socket and usb charging point per person. The ride quality is very smooth, you can easily use a laptop trackpad or mouse accurately enough to do CAD work, you wouldn't realise that you are travelling at 200mph. Edit: 1st class is available for €72 and did I mention that the train is double decker? it's just a lot cooler. Another edit: There are quite a few trains tomorrow with tickets for €29 and one train with a ticket for €12.50
The rail network was cut right back in the 60s by the then transport minister, who happened to have a large share in the corporation building out the motorway network.
And so on.
Completely dysfunctional politics. Utterly unsuited to the 21st century.
I have to go on a cross country journey this Sunday which would suit the use of the train, except there are none at all on my section of the main line early in the morning, so I shall drive all the way into London. The data may make it look as if no-one needs or wants to use the train early on a Sunday, except we might, if we had the option.
Looking at number of trips/head, surface rail was 13 in 2002, rose to a pre-pandemic peak of 22 in 2018 and fell back to 15 in 2022. Bus (London + non-London local + long-distance) was 74, 48, and 37 respectively; motoring (car driver + car passenger + motorbike + taxi) was 694, 614, 512. Overall was 1074, 986, 862. So rail had a modal share of 1.2%, 2.2%, and 1.7% in 2002, 2018 and 2022.
The distance measure looks similar for rail: 482, 683, 493, from 7193, 6530, 5373. Modal share 6.7%, 10.5%, 9.2%. (I haven't done separate sums for buses and motoring.
So at least since 2002, it looks like rail has had a small but growing modal share of a steadily declining travel market, until disrupted by Covid to a place below peak but still considerably ahead of where it started.
Caveats: I haven't included the tube, and these data don't disambiguate light rail systems from 'other' (including flights). Rail remains dominated (like bus travel) by London & South East commuting, at least in number of trip terms.
[1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb01-m...
This is all fine and dandy until enough people decide to travel by car, and eventually there are traffic jams making you virtually unable to travel (by car) at certain times as well.
The problem is that for whatever reason rail users ""don't count"" politically.
In order to make driving less attractive than mass transit outside of urban cores like Manhattan or London, driving would have to be made more costly via increased tolls, removal of parking spaces, and less road capacity in conjunction with mass transit being made more frequent (every 5 to 10 minutes) with more routes.
Point to point travel in an individual vehicle is just very hard to compete with, especially on amount of freedom.
For instance, Southern Railway is owned by Govia Thameslink Railway, which is part of Govia which also operates Gatwick Express, Great Northern and Thameslink services.
However, Govia is a partnership between the Go-Ahead Group and Keolis.
Keolis is a French transportation company owned by SNCF, the French national railway, and CDPQ (a crown company of Canada).
Go-Ahead is owned by Globalvia, a Spanish multinational transport infrastructure company, and Kinetic Group (formerly known as AATS Group) which is an Australian-based multinational bus company.
Globalvia are owned by OPTrust, one of Canada's largest pension funds; PFZW, the second-largest pension fund in the Netherlands; and USS, a large UK Pension scheme.
Kinetic Group are also owned by OPTrust, but also by Foresight Group Holdings plc a British private equity and venture capital business, supposedly focused on clean energy generation and associated infrastructure (*cough* Go-Ahead spends £100 million a year on Diesel *cough*).
Now, try to imagine how many small subsidiaries those companies have where transfer-pricing can occur and how many layers of profit are being extracted.
France's SNCF trains are run by SNCF (owned by the French Government) who also do all the track and maintenance.
Germany's Deutsche Bahn (owned by the German Government) runs Germany's trains.
Deutsche Bahn also own Arriva and were nearly banned by the UK government for how badly they ran the trains in the north of England (spoiler: they weren't).
Avanti West Coast are part owned by Trenitalia, who are mostly owned by the Italian Government. Trenitalia also owns c2c who run the London, Tilbury and Southend franchise.
The northern railways were run by a succession of similarly named companies before being returned to the UK Government as operator of fast resort.
The whole thing is a tangled mess of the worst kind of vampire capitalism: sucking up subsidies, bleeding companies dry by overloading them with debt, providing terrible service, then handing the drained husk back to the government once they've bled them to death.
I've concluded that the private companies that replaced the UK publicly owned companies are run to be a front for borrowing money and sucking up subsidies to pay to shareholders. The train companies are no better than the water companies, though they seem to be better at obfuscating what they are doing.
It's the same formula over and over again: you borrow; pay as much of it as you can out to shareholders; run a minimal service to bring in just enough money to pay the debt payments; invest the minimum to allow you to keep operating and if possible, you do it through transfer pricing with other companies in the parent companies' structure. When your creditors eventually catch up with you, you go cap in hand to the government looking for a bailout and if that fails, you hand the franchise back before forming a new company to bid again.
Southern Water, for instance, uses 1/3 each bill to pay debt payments. Even Network Rail, who are owned by the British Government, are paying 1/3 of their income to service their debts.
This is very similar to the "hollowed-out firms" of the UK who distribute more to shareholders than they generate in net income—1/5 of FTSE 350 paid out on average 178% of their net earnings after tax in 2010-1019.
It's all a con and we are chumps.
Further reading
This unfathomable financial overview of the rail system in England:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/A-financia...
This summary of who owns the British Railways:
https://weownit.org.uk/who-owns-our/railways
This article about water profits:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2023/...
Hollowed-out firms:
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-02/Tran...
Given passenger numbers increasing in the last couple of decades have given trains huge economies scale reducing their costs and yet fares go up, public subsides go up and train companies bust. The only answer I can think of is UK trains are expensive because we are really bad at running them.
Tbh I can't imagine it to be relaxing being cooped in your seat the whole day, with people around you. (1) https://int.bahn.de/en/bahnbusiness/offers/businesscards/bah...
That would be £6816 for a year, although (again) "You can use a BritRail Pass if you’re not a UK citizen and have not lived in the UK for the last six months or more.". I guess you'd have to go home before the end of the 6th consecutive month of using the passes otherwise you'd disqualify yourself.
https://www.thetrainline.com/trains/rail-passes/britrail-pas...
The All-Line-Rover would be the version for anyone who does live in the UK: http://www.railrover.org/pages/all-line.html and it is much more expensive.
i'm not from the uk