Sir Nick Clegg

[Tunney]

And outside of London, where the economics of public transport are completely different?

East Coast was successfully run by the public sector between 2009 and 2015. It’s private successor has just folded, resulting in £2bn of lost premiums to the treasury.

Both Manchester and Nottingham have publicly-owned and successful tram systems.

And that’s before you look abroad at countries like Germany.

Privatisation was the right decision for many industries but it’s a poor fit for public transport. There’s no genuine consumer choice and the government is forced to bail out private companies when they fail to maintain service.

 

[doodah]

If renationalising is so bad (it was back then) - what has privatisation offered/improved? Where is the touted competition?

"I see no reason why fares should increase faster under the new system than they do under the present nationalised industry structure," Transport Secretary John MacGregor told the House of Commons in February 1993. "In many cases, they will be more flexible and will be reduced."

If something was awful decades ago - must it never be tried again/improved/reimaged?

Edit - it seems that season tickets have roughly kept in line with inflation but singles typically have risen considerably faster.

 

[Tunney]

If renationalising is so bad (it was back then) - what has privatisation offered/improved? Where is the touted competition?

Services have improved since privatisation but that’s more to do with the amount the government has invested in the railways since the mid-90s.

Despite privatisation, the treasury spends 4-6x more now than it did when the railway franchises were last in public hands.

 

[doodah]

I thought the whole point was to shift the burden and balance off the tax payer?

Edit - also does someone have a break down of this supposed 'bailout'? One side say it is, and the government say it isn't and all commitments will be met. Someone is telling porkies.

 

[Christmas themed thank]

Objectives of privatising the railways:

Reduced subsidies - fail
Reduces prices - fail

So it has failed on all of the Government's own terms.

Can echo re TfL. The tube is incredibly reliable and efficient. All profits get reinvested back into the system as it should be.

 

[silvagti]

I'm feeling frustrated by the state of my local bus route. The company has massively reduced the number of buses and the frequency despite them being constantly full to the point they often drive past my stop due to lack of room.

The problem, as I see it, is that a single bus service bids for a route and when they have it there's no competition and no incentive to improve the service of the buses are running full. it's no skin off their nose if they fail to pick up a few commuters who are consequently late to work nor if people are dangerously crammed into standing room only buses for an hour's commute.

The private sector generally provides a better service than a public one however not when there's a monopoly.

There needs to be a better way to play these companies off against each other on various routes to drive competition and improvements ?

I've reached a point where I'm about to start driving to work as it's more convenient, reliable and will save me an hour a day.

As Thatcher said "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure"

I think this sentiment also extends to the Tory view on rail travel to this day as well

 

[Dolph]

East Coast was successfully run by the public sector between 2009 and 2015. It’s private successor has just folded, resulting in £2bn of lost premiums to the treasury.

Both Manchester and Nottingham have publicly-owned and successful tram systems.

And that’s before you look abroad at countries like Germany.

Privatisation was the right decision for many industries but it’s a poor fit for public transport. There’s no genuine consumer choice and the government is forced to bail out private companies when they fail to maintain service.

The East coast mainline was successful precisely because it didn't have to fulfil the requirements of a crazy franchise agreement, and the failure of stagecozch was due to, yes, the terms of the franchise agreement.

The problem was the conversion of a state run monopoly into a privately run but regulated to the point of virtual state control, monopoly.

Privatisation didn't work because the railways were not really privatised in terms of decision making, only in terms of direct provision of a mandated service.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

"Crazy franchise agreement"? Like what, exactly?

You mean that license to print money for 25 years? There is no obligation for the TOCs to invest or improve the infrastructure or rolling stock. In fact there is nothing for them to do beyond their initial bid. Every single improvement rolled out to the rail network is funded by DfT, because shock horror the TOCs refuse to invest.

 

[Johno please?]

Well earned, congrats

huh? Nick Clegg uses OcUK?

 

[Dolph]

"Crazy franchise agreement"? Like what, exactly?

You mean that license to print money for 25 years? There is no obligation for the TOCs to invest or improve the infrastructure or rolling stock. In fact there is nothing for them to do beyond their initial bid. Every single improvement rolled out to the rail network is funded by DfT, because shock horror the TOCs refuse to invest.

Well, the quoted £2bn in premiums for a start, combined with the complete inflexibility of the arrangement, it tries to shift the risk without shifting the ability to adapt to it, and we then wonder why the TOCs bail out.

As for rolling stock etc, like I said the franchising arrangements are nonsense. No company is going to make a long term investment without guarantees of payback. Rolling stock is an investment that requires far longer to become cost effective than the average TOCs franchise, and the TOCs don't own the infrastructure...

 

[Tunney]

Well, the quoted £2bn in premiums for a start, combined with the complete inflexibility of the arrangement, it tries to shift the risk without shifting the ability to adapt to it, and we then wonder why the TOCs bail out.

Why did Stagecoach/Virgin bid if the franchise agreement was “crazy”? Isn’t it their fault for entering a bad deal?

Most franchises are already 20-25 years in length. Surely that’s long enough to invest in rolling stock (which is normally leased anyway).

 

[doodah]

It seems with this government tendering contracts - they're are either deficiencies in the tendering process or the company pulls out.

Regarding why, I wonder if it's like the Olympics? Under bid and then the actual price is much higher, and in these cases - pull out.

Will this bailout not set a precedent? And others claim they have been unfairly treated?

 

[Mr Jack]

I draw the line at the point where there is no alternative of less intervention to the issue, same as I do on all issues of the state having to violate the rights of the individual, and combine that position with an absolute commitment to equal treatment under the law.

So, in other words, you consider your ideological position more important than real outcomes such as health and happiness.

 

[Eurofighter]

nationalise the railways.

I voted for Clegg, not sure he deserves knighting though.

 

[Dolph]

So, in other words, you consider your ideological position more important than real outcomes such as health and happiness.

I don't believe the state should mistreat one person to appease another.

Happiness is far too subjective and manipulatable to consider as a valid measure at any rate.

Health is a different matter, but you don't need to treat people unfairly to improve healthcare outcomes.

 

[dowie]

Because they subsidise them more. Do you want to pay more tax so other people can get discounted fares?

absolutely not, fares should increase to cover costs, I make use of trains I should pay for it... it was my choice to live further out in zone 3 and commute in, it is my choice not to cycle and I don't think someone who does make the effort to cycle or decides to save money by using the bus etc.. ought to subsidise my travel

 

[Christmas themed thank]

The East coast mainline was successful precisely because it didn't have to fulfil the requirements of a crazy franchise agreement, and the failure of stagecozch was due to, yes, the terms of the franchise agreement.

The problem was the conversion of a state run monopoly into a privately run but regulated to the point of virtual state control, monopoly.

Privatisation didn't work because the railways were not really privatised in terms of decision making, only in terms of direct provision of a mandated service.

If the Government had no input all the railways in most of Wales and the North would have closed. Why do you think we have subsidies?

 

[Dolph]

If the Government had no input all the railways in most of Wales and the North would have closed. Why do you think we have subsidies?

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

There is nothing efficient or environmentally friendly about nearly empty trains (and buses etc) running backwards and forwards.

 

[ubersonic]

If the Government had no input all the railways in most of Wales and the North would have closed.

O.o

That's an actual thing that actually happened thanks to government input back in the 60s/70s, people are still annoyed about it to this day lol.

 

[Roar87]

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

There is nothing efficient or environmentally friendly about nearly empty trains (and buses etc) running backwards and forwards.

There's more to it than that. It's a public access service, not just a business. If you remove transport from areas then they'll either not be able to develop because people won't want to move there, or they'll decline quicker than they already are. That'll force people to move into already crowded areas like London and the South East just to get access to basic infrastructure and jobs. Then people in those areas will complain about house prices being higher and infrastructure being over crowded.