|
Post by mrsonde on Feb 26, 2018 15:11:54 GMT 1
Renegade Inc are lobbying very hard to see the renationalisation of this country's railways, and trot out the usual factoids to buttress their case - the failure of Stagecoach on the East Coast Line being the latest. There's no question the privatisation process was a dog's dinner, and it could be reorganised on a much better basis, but I've always been at something at a loss to understand what the real problem is with this industry. It strongly appears to me that the main problem is nothing to do with privatisation or the alleged failings of the free market. On the contrary, the fundamental problem seems to be State interference in the market mechanism of fair pricing, demanding enormous public subsidies which for some mysterious reason are still being indulged in, despite the undeniable fact that this country can't afford such vote-buying indulgence in "free stuff" any longer.
By Renegade Inc's own figures, the total Government subsidy to the rail industry - mainly Network Rail, but in all the other ways, including to failed franchisees - is £4 billion a year. Not an insignificant amount - about half the total student fees bill, for example. And yet there are now a record 1.7 billion rail journeys a year (and that's just the passenger variety.) So to eliminate all public subsidy would mean a paltry £2.50 extra on each journey. So what's the big deal? Add another quid or so to that ticket, and the railway companies would be in a very decent profit - take that much in tax, if you want, and give it to Network Rail for further expansion, or, over the thirty years projected project time, to pay for HS2.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Feb 26, 2018 17:35:47 GMT 1
I am not advocating nationalisation, but can you explain why in the UK we have the most expensive rail travel in Europe, for which we get a very mediocre service?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 26, 2018 17:42:22 GMT 1
No railway anywhere operates without subsidy. That’s because they’re in competition with road transport - which also receives plenty of subsidy, only it’s never recognised as that.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 26, 2018 18:52:22 GMT 1
I am not advocating nationalisation, but can you explain why in the UK we have the most expensive rail travel in Europe, for which we get a very mediocre service? Well, here are the subsidy figures for various years for various nations in Europe: subsidy in Euro billions - is shown in the first row under the country in Eurro billions next row - year of subsidy next row passenger bilion km, the last row is the subsidy in euro per passenger km Germany 17 2014[8] 79.3 0.21 France 13.2 2013[9] 83.9 0.16 Italy 7.6 2012[10] 39.7 0.19 Switzerland 5.8 2012 18.4 0.31 Spain 5.1 2015 24.5 0.21 UK 4.4 2016 65.1 0.07 Probably explains why UK railways fares are so expensive
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Feb 27, 2018 1:32:35 GMT 1
Would you like to explain, Nay?
Maybe I'm baffled by your non-chart - but have you rejoined the Labour Party?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 27, 2018 8:31:00 GMT 1
Would you like to explain, Nay? Maybe I'm baffled by your non-chart - but have you rejoined the Labour Party? Compared to the UK Germany gets thrice the subsidy for every passenger travelling 1km, France twice the subsidy I have nothing against natinalisation in principle - there were nationalised companies prior to 1979 that provided excellent service and made a healthy profit (albeit in a competitive market), but in general nationalisation seems to lead toward irresponsibility (both fiscal and in service provision) and is best avoided
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 27, 2018 11:26:21 GMT 1
I think you'd better tell Nick that, nay - he has clearly misunderstood the level of subsidy available to our rail services.
Thank you for your recalibrated table, but I still don't understand what the figures in square brackets denote.
I'm surprised that the passenger mileage figure for Italy is so low.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Feb 28, 2018 9:36:27 GMT 1
I think Nick's statement of £4 billion a year subsidy is about right. Pro A's figures show 4.4 billion euros which is about the same amount. This can be compared with that of France, £12 billion, Germany, £15 billion. Less than 10% of all journeys are done on trains, yet rail passengers are given billions in subusidy. So why are railways subsidised at all? Road travel isn't, motorists pay about 75% of the price of their fuel in tax.
I suppose a national transport policy should be aimed at allowing people to travel as much as they want as fast as possible, on the understanding that they do so safely and pay their own travel costs, and also don't damage the environment.
The average motorist suffers considerable delays because of traffic. If it could be shown that, by subsidising railways and thus encouraging people to use trains, some 5% of the cars he sees clogging the roads he uses, would disappear, which would make a marked improvement in his journey time, then the average motorist would probably be willing to see a part of the fuel duty to go to subsidise rail travel. Of course, many motorists would just demand that wider roads, and more flyovers etc should be built, but maybe most would agree that we don't want our country buried in tarmac. But can it be shown that subsidising the railways DOES lead to reduction in road traffic? My answer would be "not convincingly".
What I would like to know is, why are the railways so costly to make and operate?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 28, 2018 10:15:42 GMT 1
So why are railways subsidised at all? Road travel isn't, motorists pay about 75% of the price of their fuel in tax. You're forgetting the highway network drivers need to drive about on. Because this is built and maintained out of general taxation, the huge subsidy it provides to drivers is never recognised.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Feb 28, 2018 10:27:57 GMT 1
I'm not forgetting that at all. I think that the cost of maintaining and improving the highways (about £9 billion) is more than covered by the revenue collected (£27.6 billion a year) from road fuel taxes.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Feb 28, 2018 16:25:47 GMT 1
I think you'd better tell Nick that, nay - he has clearly misunderstood the level of subsidy available to our rail services. Thank you for your recalibrated table, but I still don't understand what the figures in square brackets denote. I'm surprised that the passenger mileage figure for Italy is so low. We have both travelled a lot on Italian trains Jean. Maybe I am different but when I go to Italy, usually on business I have the choice of hiring a car or going on the trains and I nearly always go by train, and of course bus. They are cheap efficient and generally not to bad. The same in France. I booked a friend on a journey from Hampshire through to southern France and the most expensive part of the trip was from Hampshire into London. On the contrary if I travel within the UK just about my last choice is train. They are expensive and journeys can be pretty convoluted. I really don't want to go into London and then out again to perhaps a town in the North. And don't misunderstand me, I really like travelling by train. I am not against nationalisation as some political ethos but at the moment our railways are not fit for purpose. They used to be. I used to travel with a friend from Bristol into London to do a days work and as long as we left after 9, coming back at any time after 6 it was dirt cheap.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 4, 2018 9:23:39 GMT 1
From the passenger's point of view it doesn't really matter who owns the railway system, since only one train at a time can use the track. If you need to travel from London to Birmingham and arrive at 10.00 there can be no competition for your custom. And there being only a limited number of people needing to make any particular journey on an average day, there's no point in Company B offering to get you there at 10.05 for a pound less than A, because the operating costs of both are similar and they will only get half as many passengers each.
So what is the point of private ownership? It reduces the number of people on public payrolls, and hence the future tax burden to pay their pensions, and it offers subsidies from present taxpayers to the sort of people who think this is a Good Thing and are likely to vote for the party that privatised the system. In other words, it uses taxes to buy votes.
There is no reason in principle why an integrated, publicly-owned transport system cannot be at least as efficient as a private one, nor why public sector pensions need to be protected from the market to a greater extent than private ones.
The collapse of Carillion (with most of its subcontractors having to be bailed out by the public sector) is just the tip of a very unpleasant iceberg.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 4, 2018 13:54:58 GMT 1
Why do people who object so strongly to the State running things appear have no problems when our privatised rail services are in the hands of the nationalised transport systems of other countries?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 4, 2018 16:19:10 GMT 1
From the passenger's point of view it doesn't really matter who owns the railway system, since only one train at a time can use the track. There are multiple tracks If you need to travel from London to Birmingham and arrive at 10.00 there can be no competition for your custom. there can be and is And there being only a limited number of people needing to make any particular journey on an average day, there's no point in Company B offering to get you there at 10.05 for a pound less than A, because the operating costs of both are similar and they will only get half as many passengers each. ? So what is the point of private ownership? None if there is no competition and the private operator is subsidised It reduces the number of people on public payrolls, and hence the future tax burden to pay their pensions, and it offers subsidies from present taxpayers to the sort of people who think this is a Good Thing and are likely to vote for the party that privatised the system. In other words, it uses taxes to buy votes. oh, it was a rhetorical question There is no reason in principle why an integrated, publicly-owned transport system cannot be at least as efficient as a private one, nor why public sector pensions need to be protected from the market to a greater extent than private ones. agree The collapse of Carillion (with most of its subcontractors having to be bailed out by the public sector) is just the tip of a very unpleasant iceberg. This reauires exposition
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 5, 2018 9:02:29 GMT 1
From the passenger's point of view it doesn't really matter who owns the railway system, since only one train at a time can use the track. There are multiple tracks Not between, say, Paddington and Bristol, nor Euston-Birmingham. You may find a few bits that Beeching missed, and spend a pleasant day wandering around the countryside, but when people talk about the Great Western or the East Coast Main Line, there is only one feasible track in each direction between cities. That's part of the problem: stringent rationalisation has required freight and passenger traffic to share the same lines. I will admit that there is "competition" to arrive in Birmingham at 10.00. One service takes nearly twice as long as the other and is indeed a bit cheaper because it is a stopping commuter train run by another company at your expense. But we had stopping and express trains in the bad old days of nationalisation too - there's no reason why they should carry twice the managerial overhead at your expense.
|
|