Hacker News Reader

Comment by mytailorisrich | Hacker News Reader

Because the government decided to stop subsidising the railways.

Everywhere you see very cheap train fares it's because they are subsidised.

Nah, because of the awful way the privatisation is managed. Not that I think it should be privatised anyway, but really had to be it is hard to imagine it being setup in a way that benefits the passengers less.

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...

The subsidies go mostly to the infrastructure and currently that number is high because it includes the cost of the shambolic HS2. Indeed, Network Rail is still a state-owned company. But the majority of the expenses (trains, staff, etc) are borne by the operators and paid for by the fares.

I agree that the way privatisation has worked is poor, though.

But the way it should work is that the franchises pay in to maintain the infrastructure that they use, which is itself privately owned. The subsidies were well above pre-privatisation levels long before HS2, largely due to a couple of major incidents in 2000 or soon after (showing that the claims privatisation could fund a safe rail system was at best grossly incorrect and at worse an outright lie by those bidding for the franchises).

The public purse should not be raided more after privatisation than before, surely?

Well no, the infrastructure is not really privately-owned since Network Rail is owned by the government. But I agree that in an actual privately-run system franchises should cover all those costs. Of course that would mean even higher fares.

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.

> 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.

muh roads

Also in the UK the way the railway system is set up is incredibly inefficient and bureaucratic so it costs us a lot more to run our system and build improvements than comparable EU countries. The railways were privatised for ideological reasons seemingly by people who didn't actually understand free markets. The privatisation was done in way that generated a lot of complicated contractual interfaces between a network of various private companies most of which can only make a profit with government subsidy.

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

>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.

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?

Don't come across many Jacksonvillians around these parts. I use this train between Charleston and Jacksonville somewhat frequently and can second your experience with it.

That's not far off the same cost as to get to Glasgow from London, looking for tomorrow it's between £55 and £70. Significantly longer though for yourself, the train here is around 4 hours 45 mins (give or take). It's also generally close to on time, and we have delay repay for anything over 15 minutes.

London-Glasgow takes about 4h45m typically with about 7 stops. There's a train every hour between from 5am until about 6pm. Today the 5:30pm train is full, the 6:30 is £119 (€140) for a single ticket 2nd class. If you are more than 6'2" tall your knees will be wedged against the seat in front of you like on a budget airline, the ride quality on the train is too bumpy to be able to use a mouse or trackpad accurately with a laptop, you will struggle to select paragraphs of text. There is not really enough room to use a laptop anyway if you haven't booked a table. If you need to work, it will be necessary to upgrade to 1st class this costs £270 (€315). There is also a persistent fault with the toilets on this type of train that means sometimes there is a strong toilet smell.

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

Thanks for the reply. For what it's worth if you're ever in the US, Amtrak does offer very spacious seating and often enough you'll have your part of the row to yourself. Probably comparable to flying first class, I'd say.

Yes American trains are great, I've only used regional trains from New York but they were spacious and comfortable. Your Miami - Jacksonville pairing is interesting, I was thinking about it and I think the big difference between the US and the UK is that if you couldn't take the train in the UK all those people would be on the road and it would cause a traffic meltdown. Whereas in the US most people are going to either drive or fly between regional cities like that and the whole country is criss-crossed by freeways and flights that link cities together in a big mesh so you can drive or fly quite directly to your destination. I get the impression that most freeways outside of big cities have relatively predictable journey times in traffic. You can fly Glasgow/Edinburgh - London but it is also a busy route and there is no capacity in the London airports for more regional flights. Likewise pretty much all North-South car journeys in Britain are on two motorways which are very busy. The drive will currently take anywhere between 7-10+ hours depending on what time of day you travel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com