http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/09/why-britains-railway-privatization-failed/3378/
The whole idea of separating operations and infrastructure is stupid. People often suggest the idea even though it empirically doesn't work. the service wasn't privatized but rather franchised. Rail is an integrated model and needs to be integrated. Like other "privatizations" it wasn't really privatization. In terms of examples of successful privatization Conrail was broken up and sold to CSX and NS, Canadian national was privatized, and finally JR was privatized to the extent that anything can be private in Japan. Brtiain is also an example of a failure of "privatization with public schemes" that are a form of looting. British Rail needed to exist to begin with because early railroads were tightly regulated making it difficult to make a profit.
Railroad to Freedom
It didn't fail. It did entirely what it was designed to do, protect the rail system from special interests and politics.
Yes, it's more expensive to run at the moment, it's inefficient, and a single unified company would do a better job. However, the problems are:
1. That unified company would not make a profit anyway. So it would be dependent on the Treasury. So it would still need to lobby for funds.
2. Its ability to lobby would be greatly compromised.
Want to know what the worst thing to happen to BR was? Beeching. And Beeching happened only in part because the owner of a large trucking concern was made minister of transportation, who for entirely selfish and corrupt reasons wanted BR disemboweled. It also happened because BR was a state concern. It couldn't influence the newspapers, or MPs, or any other major groups. The oil companies could. The car companies could. The airlines could. They were all able to manipulate the "Very Serious People" (the high profile opinion formers) into supporting the idea that rail was obsolete, that Britain would turn into a car owning nation with everyone owning cars, and wanting to drive them all the time, and so on, and so forth.
And so when Beeching happened, there was outrage, but not enough to stop the cuts. The government changed to one that had opposed the cuts, and it too carried on with them. British Rail never recovered.
Margaret Thatcher was BR hostile and BR was in a very bad place when John Major took over. If it was anyone to the right of Major, the chances were relatively high that either BR would have been shut down by the end of the decade, or again suffered drastic, terrible, cuts.
Saying franchising is not ideal is stating the obvious. But it does change the political landscape. Suddenly the "airlines" and "bus companies" are lobbying for more, not less, cash to be spent on rail. Why? Because they're now train companies too. National Express, Stagecoach, Virgin, all BR's erstwhile rivals, are now running trains and making a mint doing it.
The result is that the British railway network is growing again, and there is absolutely no chance it'll be shut down in the next 50 years.
Taxpayers may not be overly happy about getting value for money. I can see their point. But describing it as a failure on that basis is ignoring political realities. Would taxpayers be happier seeing the road budget balloon as Britain's overcrowded highways clog up with traffic that has nowhere else to go? Because that really is the alternative.
Thanks for the article. It should be a must read for anyone who wants to privatize Amtrak.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, Lord Beeching was responsible for cutting a lot of deadwood out of BR's network. He forced the public to realize that BR could not maintain every last mile of track without increasing payouts from the Treasury.
Well, "Stupid" might be overstating it, but to some extent chopping up and reorganizing the rail enterprise is a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If you aren't providing any incentive for anything different to happen, you will have the same outcome, just parsed out differently.
The trick is to get the most efficient production of the desired outcome. In this case, we want passenger train service. The question to ask, then, is "are all the providers rewarded for providing passenger train service?" Or, is there some other thing they do that gets them rewarded?
If it's the latter, then the ship hits the ice berg and sinks.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I am astounded anyone could write this article without even mentioning the rail passengers at privatization totaled 800 million plus (and had been flat for decades) compared to over 1.5 billion today.
Since 2005, goverment subsidies have rapidly declined as passenger revenues have skyrocketed.
See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/142668/rail-trends-factsheet-2011-12.pdf
Before laughing too much at this idea, you may want to consider that 10 of 17 private railways in the UK are actually paying the Treasury a profit on above the rail operations. The ones that cannot are saddled with long track miles in sparsely populated territory. For example, ScotRail has 42% of the track miles serving 5% of the population. Doesn't come out too well on the railroad financial calculator. (I will resist making any US analogies). A more robust franchise, Virgin Trains (London-Glasgow on the West Coast) actually returns 4.5 pence per passenger mile but it costs the government 8.1 pppm to maintain and improve the infrastructure resulting in a net subsidy of 3.6 pppm.
A system that has the goverment maintain the infrastructure but expects the private operators to make a go of it on operations is not over the moon in my view. This article is primarily made up of anecdotes. BTW, since it was written last year Virgin did NOT lose the franchise to First Group. The bidding process was flawed and Virgin will be there another 4 years. I have experienced their service and if they represent failure, we need some in the US.
I will admit the jury is still out but the trends are very positive.
If British operational privatization failed, then Amtrak and the US public should be so lucky.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm If British operational privatization failed, then Amtrak and the US public should be so lucky.
You missed the point entirely. The point is that it wasn't really privatized and that more market reform should have been done. Freight railroads were deregulated and CN plus Conrail were privatized with great success. The point is that BR wasn't really privatized. Like wise free trade and deregulation often isn't really deregulating an industry.
ontheBNSF schlimm If British operational privatization failed, then Amtrak and the US public should be so lucky. You missed the point entirely. The point is that it wasn't really privatized and that more market reform should have been done. Freight railroads were deregulated and CN plus Conrail were privatized with great success. The point is that BR wasn't really privatized. Like wise free trade and deregulation often isn't really deregulating an industry.
The complaint is not with the service, although I see I cannot visit the Ravensglass and Ecksdale narrow gauge on Sunday except by bus, with no Sunday rail service on the vacation-ideal Cambrian Coast, something I could do in BR days.
The complaint is that with the permanent way company not able to recover costs of maintencance and control and requiring subsidy, and most operators subsidized for specific socially important money-loosing services, the total bill to the British taxpayer is lots lots greater than it was when BR ran the whole show, of course even after adjustments for inflation.
Seems that Great Britain went through a massive abandonemt process just like the US. I see pics of a former double track mainlines abandoned in the UK.
I'm assuming there's some British friends of ours following this thread. If so I've got a question, not rail related.
I've heard it's now illegal for British citizens to fly the Union Flag, what's popularly called the "Union Jack", hence the proliferation of flags with the "Cross of Saint George." Is this true? It's hard, if not downright impossible to believe. Flags are a hobby of mine so I am curious.
I do know the use of the Union Flag at sea is restricted to the Royal Navy, but it was my understanding that on land it's the flag of the UK and can be flown by anyone.
Privatization was a way to have indebted nations pay off there bonds by the World Bank by forcing the sale of infrastructure to private interests. Did not work in S America and third word nations but increased the sale of moter veicals even if its was buses. Great Britain is barley paying the intrest on its debt . The way its working is that you never pay off the principle you forever pay the interest was the invention of Maggie Thatcher
Maggie wanted to starve the railways and make everyone buy a car, thereby increasing employment in the car sector, the economy would improve and all the usual BS. I think she thought that everyone would rush right out and buy a new Austin, Morris, Wolseley, MG, Triumph,Humber, Riley, Alvis, Singer, Hillman, Sunbeam, Reliant, Bond, Marcos, AC, Lagonda, Gilbern or Bedford and the economy would just bloom! But they don't make those cars anymore.
54light15 Maggie wanted to starve the railways and make everyone buy a car, thereby increasing employment in the car sector, the economy would improve and all the usual BS. I think she thought that everyone would rush right out and buy a new Austin, Morris, Wolseley, MG, Triumph,Humber, Riley, Alvis, Singer, Hillman, Sunbeam, Reliant, Bond, Marcos, AC, Lagonda, Gilbern or Bedford and the economy would just bloom! But they don't make those cars anymore.
I did buy a succession of Triumph's - TR4a, TR250, TR6 & TR7. Two years after I bought the TR7 British Leyland went out of business. Too bad Maggie didn't work her 'magic' on Lucas Electrics.
I still have the TR7 34 years old and 56K miles, drive it with the top down in nice weather. Won several season championships when I competed with it in the sport of autocrossing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=8030
Randal O'toole the autoplanner offers an interesting perspective on it.
Randal O'Tool has definitely changed my opinion. I posted earlier that "privatization" so-called was a failure because the total cost to taxpayers increased. But if they are hauling lots lots more people, it is quite probable that those additional costs are far less than the costs of additional highway lanes and airports and runways that would otherwise have been needed. So, real privitization might have been better, and the word is might, what they did may very well have been good in the long run.
I have some more serious problems with British unions than discussed by Randal O'Toole!
Randal O'Toole has a lot of critics. Critics say he distorts statistics, claims statistics that cannot be found and even uses incorrect statistics. For example, he is reported to have written that Amtrak passenger cars are 5/6 empty.
Here is a link to one critical essay about Mr. O'Toole: http://www.uppitywis.org/my-tea-party-randal-otoole
And from Joseph Henchman of the Tax Foundation: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/response-randal-otoole-road-funding
Randall O'Toole is primarily an ideologue (Cato Institute), not a useful source for factual and critical analysis of transportation. His blog title says it all - "The Anti-Planner" - not as cited by the OP, "the auto-planner." His motto: "Dedicated to the sunset of government planning" is more ideology than serious transportation studies.
schlimm Randall O'Toole is primarily an ideologue (Cato Institute), not a useful source for factual and critical analysis of transportation. His blog title says it all - "The Anti-Planner" - not as cited by the OP, "the auto-planner." His motto: "Dedicated to the sunset of government planning" is more ideology than serious transportation studies.
Randall O'Toole may be an idealogue, he may (in your opinion) play fast and loose with the facts (as some people see them), he may be all of those things. But ignore him at your peril.
The way I see it is that the "Randall O'Toole's of the world" did not exist as a force influencing opinion back in 1971 at the founding of Amtrak. Sure, you had people who were skeptical of passenger trains, who could do without passenger trains. But by and large, "our" claims (the passenger trains advocacy community, and I speak of "our" since I have been "at this" since the late 1960's) have largely been accepted.
Passenger trains are energy efficient. Passenger trains are cost effective. Passenger trains will help alleviate congestion. Passenger trains, to the extent they are available, are a preferred mode of transportation. These things are all true, aren't they, and we accept these statement without question? In the 40+ years since the inception of Amtrak, people have started to question these self-evident truths. Maybe you disagree with their assumptions, maybe you question their numbers, but in these 40 years, people have started to "run some numbers" to question the assumptions underlying why we think passenger trains are a social good meritorious of a government subsidy.
I guess when a person vehemently denies that they are a "passenger train advocate" in the sense of seeking to influence public opinion in a positive direction to advance the available level of passenger train service, it is easy to post a laughing smiley face when discussing a person who comments on transportation policy and to be dismissive of who they are and what they stand for. I don't think that anyone who is serious about passenger trains has that luxury.
As to the charge that Mr. O'Toole is "an idealogue", Mr. O'Toole freely admits and discusses his idealogical perspective, that is, Libertarian and opposed to government planning and direction in markets of various kinds. But in that article, he reasons that were a person to support the idea of the government promoting passenger trains, the model that the UK has followed has much, much better outcomes in terms of increased passenger service and ridership than what we are doing in the U.S. Is this justification for calling him "an idealogue", dismissing everything and anything he has to say for being affiliated with the Cato Institute (one could say that we should dismiss anything said by someone who worked for the Federal Government as equally biased and idealogical in support of Federal involvement in transportation and trains?).
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul: The smiley face was for Mr."ontheBNSF" in reference to his humorous error in calling O'Toole the "auto-planner." Seemed much the lighter than your very funny but rather sarcastic portrayal of another forum poster who claims he is not a rail advocate. As to O'Toole, well, yes, IMO he is an ideologue [though not an "idealogue" whatever that is] and pretty much a One-Trick Pony ideologue at that. Other posters and analysts elsewhere have documented his numerous errors.As to the privatization of British Rail, it has been quite successful, IMO, but O'Toole says it hasn't because it isn't private enough in his desire for purity. If you wish to have Libertarian or even "Bring back King George!" views, that is your choice and I am glad you are happy with that perspective, though you must feel quite isolated sometimes in Madison..
Joseph Henchman of The Tax Foundation found:
Randal O'Toole confuses Federal Taxes with state and local revenue.
Randal O'Toole uses motor vehicle registration taxes without subtracting associated expenses.
Rahdao O'Toole double counts revenue.
Those are facts; not opinions.
John WR Joseph Henchman of The Tax Foundation found: Randal O'Toole confuses Federal Taxes with state and local revenue. Randal O'Toole uses motor vehicle registration taxes without subtracting associated expenses. Rahdao O'Toole double counts revenue. Those are facts; not opinions.
I confess to not knowing either gentleman. I further confess that I don't know how O'Toole's views on U.S. highway funding, irrespective of whether they are on point, fit into a discussion of whether privatization of Brit Rail is a failure.
One possible of why BR works somewhat better is that infrastructure & operations are separate and it is difficult to mix the money pots so each geets more ?
schlimm Paul: The smiley face was for Mr."ontheBNSF" in reference to his humorous error in calling O'Toole the "auto-planner." Seemed much the lighter than your very funny but rather sarcastic portrayal of another forum poster who claims he is not a rail advocate.
Paul: The smiley face was for Mr."ontheBNSF" in reference to his humorous error in calling O'Toole the "auto-planner." Seemed much the lighter than your very funny but rather sarcastic portrayal of another forum poster who claims he is not a rail advocate.
Nah it was not an error autoplanner is an appropriate discription.
schlimm If you wish to have Libertarian or even "Bring back King George!" views, that is your choice and I am glad you are happy with that perspective, though you must feel quite isolated sometimes in Madison..
If you wish to have Libertarian or even "Bring back King George!" views, that is your choice and I am glad you are happy with that perspective, though you must feel quite isolated sometimes in Madison..
Isolated? Not quite -- according to your analysis of the situation, and through the miracle of highways and automobile transportation, I have numerous friends starting at Highway 26 just south of Rosendale and continuing clear through the Fox River Valley to just south of Green Bay.
Nice territory, but kinda far from campus ( 70 + miles).
schlimm Nice territory, but kinda far from campus ( 70 + miles).
I have only passed through that territory for family visits some distance beyond. Ah, the automobile: on demand, leave-when-I-want, that take whoever and whatever of our belongings mode of transportation.
Many of our students travel by highway modes of transportation, some by bus, many by sharing rides in cars that kind of distance to be with their parents on weekends on a regular basis. Most of these trips will never be served by the rail mode even under the most ambitious construction program. I can see a role for trains in certain markets (I do, I do, I swear I do. I am not a Libertarian! Please, please, sir, I am not . . . aaaaaaarrrrggggggghhhhhhhh!), but in all of the criticism leveled at automobiles, people miss the limited potential for trains and the broad benefits people obtain from cars.
I have written on these pages more than once of growing up in Chicago with trains and transit, of Father moving the family from the city limits out to the near suburbs, not to commute to the city for a job but because the job had relocated out to the suburbs. I have commuted to a job on the pre-Metra C&NW. I have shared my account here of an exchange I had with Randall O'Toole, where he was gracious enough to answer my e-mail taking his transit load factor and equivalent highway lanes numbers to task in discussing the benefits of Metra serving 150,000 jobs (300,000 daily riders taking into account two direction to the daily commute -- people can correct me on the numbers, I don't want to get into one of these arguments that it is in reality 330 or 400,000 riders).
Mr. O'Toole begged the question on the freeway lane equivalency to Metra, pointing out to me that "twice that number of jobs" had been added over some recent time period in the Chicago metropolitan area, in what I call "the Toll Road suburbs."
As to the blanket discrediting of Mr. O'Toole, I don't remember even once around here that anyone dared to link to his writings, dispute his statistics, and have a reasoned discussion as to why they are right or wrong or may not even matter. All a person seems to need to do is say "idealogue" (or more correctly, ideologue -- dining/dinning, lose/loose, I guess I shouldn't cast stones as I am not immune from grammar and spelling errors). "Libertarian", "Cato Institute", and goodness forbid, "The Federalist Society", that certainly settles any further discussion of this topic around here.
So I dare suggest that for whatever his political warts that people take a more reasoned look at what Mr. O'Toole has to say to gain a perspective why not everyone is "on board with " we need to spend much more public money on trains. And I am sure he makes factual errors, much as the head of WisPIRG told a whopper in a letter-to-the-editor of the Journal Sentinel that "(passenger) trains are five times more energy efficient than cars" in the context of advocating for the Wisconsin Talgo. But Mr. O'Toole separated his political agenda from the pragmatic aspects of the gains in trains and ridership in the U.K., so like, what is the problem.
So I dare to suggest that we take a more careful look at what Mr. O'Toole and other train critics have to say, I am expressing Sympathy for the Devil. I am not only defending a Libertarian, I am a Libertarian, and I am wearing out my channel selection finger changing the TV in the Atrium of Engineering Hall from MSNBC to Fox News when no one is looking. I am wearing out my welcome in my adopted home of Madison, Wisconsin, and it is inferred that I am without friends.
Oh, I have friends, only we meet in private houses behind drawn curtains. "Mr. Milenkovic, are you or have you ever been a Libertarian, a member of the Libertarian Party, affiliated group, or any other organization with a bad attitude about government support for a decent train system?" Yes, the Highway 26-US 41 corridor, didn't someone who once asked that kind of question come from there?
Oh, and one more thing -- about my "avatar" that features an automobile. You probably know by now my lack of patience with glib tropes about matters transportation. One such trope is that "GM destroyed all of the electric cars (leased to customers, mainly in CA and AZ)" suggesting some kind of oil-lobby conspiracy. I actually believed that until I stumbled across this GM EV-1 in the portico of Engineering Centers Building where the WSOR passes by. Turns out many of these cars were donated to universities for evaluation much as done here; that portico is used by our Hybrid Vehicle Team for the public display of their active projects. I had one of the grad students on smoking break snap this photo of me "hamming it up" in a "who, me?" gesture.
Firelock76 I've heard it's now illegal for British citizens to fly the Union Flag, what's popularly called the "Union Jack", hence the proliferation of flags with the "Cross of Saint George." Is this true?
I've heard it's now illegal for British citizens to fly the Union Flag, what's popularly called the "Union Jack", hence the proliferation of flags with the "Cross of Saint George." Is this true?
Unlike O'Toole, who still thinks British rail privatization is coming up short, i believe it is working quite well. Passenger loads are up. The main reason why the subsidy per PM is lower than on the continent is that the fares per PM are much higher. To not mention that fact is an indication of why O'Toole is more interested in looking at rails as part of his ideological advocacy than impartially analyzing transportation.
As to your own views, etc., if you choose to promote them in a progressive bastion like UW Madison, a less than enthusiastic response is to be expected. When I was still faculty, i thought it wiser to remain silent about political views while on campus, since it was irrelevant to my field. It certainly seems irrelevant to engineering.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.