Snap General Election called

[Puja]

I think he is missing the point here in that the issue is state investment, not necessarily ownership. the state could subsidise rail travel and force companies to reduce ticket prices accordingly. If the state nationalised rail travel then either it would charge customers the full price of travel or it would subsidise it and then have to find investment via taxation for improvements. BR wasn't known for its efficiency or comfort as I recall.

Fair point, but are the current franchises any better? BR gets remembered as a failure after years of underinvestment brought it to its knees, but the franchises are also currently offering shit and inefficient service with massive public subsidies, while still finding the ability to pay significant profits to shareholders (again, some of which goes to benefit European nationalised rail providers, which is just galling).

I think rail is one of those things that the market is ill-equipped to do efficiently. In a pure free-market, most British railway services would not exist - they're expensive to run and maintain, carry significant risks, and don't produce a worthwhile profit, if at all. They're not something that is economically viable. However, from a holistic national perspective, they're hugely important - economic benefits from people commuting to jobs, economic benefits from reducing the strain on publically-owned road infrastructure, economic and social benefits from providing transport to poorer people without cars, green benefits from a carbon-efficient form of transport, etc. All these externalities that make it a great idea for the nation to have a train service, but offer bog-all profit to a company.

As such, given that it's not something that the market would provide as a profit-making industry and is only needed as a public good, I find it bizarre that it's something we've been chucking money at trying to fit to a free-market model, especially since it's an industry in which there can be no competition because it's not like I can jump on an East Anglian Rail train if First Great Western fail me.

Puja

[Stom]

I think he is missing the point here in that the issue is state investment, not necessarily ownership. the state could subsidise rail travel and force companies to reduce ticket prices accordingly. If the state nationalised rail travel then either it would charge customers the full price of travel or it would subsidise it and then have to find investment via taxation for improvements. BR wasn't known for its efficiency or comfort as I recall.

Fair point, but are the current franchises any better? BR gets remembered as a failure after years of underinvestment brought it to its knees, but the franchises are also currently offering shit and inefficient service with massive public subsidies, while still finding the ability to pay significant profits to shareholders (again, some of which goes to benefit European nationalised rail providers, which is just galling).

I think rail is one of those things that the market is ill-equipped to do efficiently. In a pure free-market, most British railway services would not exist - they're expensive to run and maintain, carry significant risks, and don't produce a worthwhile profit, if at all. They're not something that is economically viable. However, from a holistic national perspective, they're hugely important - economic benefits from people commuting to jobs, economic benefits from reducing the strain on publically-owned road infrastructure, economic and social benefits from providing transport to poorer people without cars, green benefits from a carbon-efficient form of transport, etc. All these externalities that make it a great idea for the nation to have a train service, but offer bog-all profit to a company.

As such, given that it's not something that the market would provide as a profit-making industry and is only needed as a public good, I find it bizarre that it's something we've been chucking money at trying to fit to a free-market model, especially since it's an industry in which there can be no competition because it's not like I can jump on an East Anglian Rail train if First Great Western fail me.

Puja

As an aside, there is Free market competition on the train line between Oradea and Cluj in Romania. A private entity runs trains to supplement the state rail, and gets passengers. They compete on price, which is saying something as the prices are dirt compared to sky high British rail prices.

And on another point: I knew a lot of people who didn’t get the train in and around London because it’s too expensive. Poorer people get the bus, not the train. I know that was the case in north Wales, too. At least back when I was there.

[Sandydragon]

I think he is missing the point here in that the issue is state investment, not necessarily ownership. the state could subsidise rail travel and force companies to reduce ticket prices accordingly. If the state nationalised rail travel then either it would charge customers the full price of travel or it would subsidise it and then have to find investment via taxation for improvements. BR wasn't known for its efficiency or comfort as I recall.

Fair point, but are the current franchises any better? BR gets remembered as a failure after years of underinvestment brought it to its knees, but the franchises are also currently offering shit and inefficient service with massive public subsidies, while still finding the ability to pay significant profits to shareholders (again, some of which goes to benefit European nationalised rail providers, which is just galling).

I think rail is one of those things that the market is ill-equipped to do efficiently. In a pure free-market, most British railway services would not exist - they're expensive to run and maintain, carry significant risks, and don't produce a worthwhile profit, if at all. They're not something that is economically viable. However, from a holistic national perspective, they're hugely important - economic benefits from people commuting to jobs, economic benefits from reducing the strain on publically-owned road infrastructure, economic and social benefits from providing transport to poorer people without cars, green benefits from a carbon-efficient form of transport, etc. All these externalities that make it a great idea for the nation to have a train service, but offer bog-all profit to a company.

As such, given that it's not something that the market would provide as a profit-making industry and is only needed as a public good, I find it bizarre that it's something we've been chucking money at trying to fit to a free-market model, especially since it's an industry in which there can be no competition because it's not like I can jump on an East Anglian Rail train if First Great Western fail me.

Puja

A key point here is that not all the franchises are failing. Some are woeful, no arguments there. Others are actually pretty good - Virgin was very good.

[Sandydragon]

I think he is missing the point here in that the issue is state investment, not necessarily ownership. the state could subsidise rail travel and force companies to reduce ticket prices accordingly. If the state nationalised rail travel then either it would charge customers the full price of travel or it would subsidise it and then have to find investment via taxation for improvements. BR wasn't known for its efficiency or comfort as I recall.

Fair point, but are the current franchises any better? BR gets remembered as a failure after years of underinvestment brought it to its knees, but the franchises are also currently offering shit and inefficient service with massive public subsidies, while still finding the ability to pay significant profits to shareholders (again, some of which goes to benefit European nationalised rail providers, which is just galling).

I think rail is one of those things that the market is ill-equipped to do efficiently. In a pure free-market, most British railway services would not exist - they're expensive to run and maintain, carry significant risks, and don't produce a worthwhile profit, if at all. They're not something that is economically viable. However, from a holistic national perspective, they're hugely important - economic benefits from people commuting to jobs, economic benefits from reducing the strain on publically-owned road infrastructure, economic and social benefits from providing transport to poorer people without cars, green benefits from a carbon-efficient form of transport, etc. All these externalities that make it a great idea for the nation to have a train service, but offer bog-all profit to a company.

As such, given that it's not something that the market would provide as a profit-making industry and is only needed as a public good, I find it bizarre that it's something we've been chucking money at trying to fit to a free-market model, especially since it's an industry in which there can be no competition because it's not like I can jump on an East Anglian Rail train if First Great Western fail me.

Puja

As an aside, there is Free market competition on the train line between Oradea and Cluj in Romania. A private entity runs trains to supplement the state rail, and gets passengers. They compete on price, which is saying something as the prices are dirt compared to sky high British rail prices.

And on another point: I knew a lot of people who didn’t get the train in and around London because it’s too expensive. Poorer people get the bus, not the train. I know that was the case in north Wales, too. At least back when I was there.

The price of the fare is far too high - but the only way to reduce that is for the government to subsidise by some means. The current model means that the railways cost the government nothing (or very little in the great scheme of things).

[Which Tyler]

The price of the fare is far too high - but the only way to reduce that is for the government to subsidise by some means. The current model means that the railways cost the government nothing (or very little in the great scheme of things).

£5.3 Billion p.a. (higher currently with HS2)
https://fullfact.org/economy/how-much-d ... -railways/

[Puja]

Fair point, but are the current franchises any better? BR gets remembered as a failure after years of underinvestment brought it to its knees, but the franchises are also currently offering shit and inefficient service with massive public subsidies, while still finding the ability to pay significant profits to shareholders (again, some of which goes to benefit European nationalised rail providers, which is just galling).

I think rail is one of those things that the market is ill-equipped to do efficiently. In a pure free-market, most British railway services would not exist - they're expensive to run and maintain, carry significant risks, and don't produce a worthwhile profit, if at all. They're not something that is economically viable. However, from a holistic national perspective, they're hugely important - economic benefits from people commuting to jobs, economic benefits from reducing the strain on publically-owned road infrastructure, economic and social benefits from providing transport to poorer people without cars, green benefits from a carbon-efficient form of transport, etc. All these externalities that make it a great idea for the nation to have a train service, but offer bog-all profit to a company.

As such, given that it's not something that the market would provide as a profit-making industry and is only needed as a public good, I find it bizarre that it's something we've been chucking money at trying to fit to a free-market model, especially since it's an industry in which there can be no competition because it's not like I can jump on an East Anglian Rail train if First Great Western fail me.

Puja

As an aside, there is Free market competition on the train line between Oradea and Cluj in Romania. A private entity runs trains to supplement the state rail, and gets passengers. They compete on price, which is saying something as the prices are dirt compared to sky high British rail prices.

And on another point: I knew a lot of people who didn’t get the train in and around London because it’s too expensive. Poorer people get the bus, not the train. I know that was the case in north Wales, too. At least back when I was there.

The price of the fare is far too high - but the only way to reduce that is for the government to subsidise by some means. The current model means that the railways cost the government nothing (or very little in the great scheme of things).

The government actually pays more in subsidies to railways than British Rail used to cost. There are a few things muddying the waters there, including HS2, greater use in some areas, the fact that British Rail was chronically underfunded before its demise, but railways definitely don't cost the government "very little in the great scheme of things".

Ref: https://fullfact.org/economy/how-much-d ... -railways/

Personally, I would be in favour of the government subsidising tickets and eating the cost - yes, it'd be an upfront cost in an already strained budget, but I believe the research is there to show that it would earn a large chunk of it back in greater economic activity from people being able to travel easier.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I suppose the research on whether a socialist/leftish manifesto is popular is nearly half a century of one not being voted into govt. The longest suicide note in history etc
As numerous commentators have pointed out, people will always like socialist policies in isolation - who doesn’t want more for less - but when put together with how they need to be paid for people tend to be less favourable.
I don’t see the logic behind calling capital investment, eg Crossrail and HS2, a subsidy. I suppose we could always go back to the Victorian model of letting private companies build the infrastructure? I make this last point as someone not wholly sold on the railways being privatised as I think the first rule of privatisation should be to provide competition, ie choice to the consumer.
On which note, and with a similar viewpoint, saying privatised utilities etc are flawed isn’t a bullet proof argument that they should be nationalised. As Sandy points out there’s a weight of history of evidence showing that nationalised provision has a myriad of its own problems. I currently work in the public sector and its slow moving and makes some terrible and illogical decisions based on party politics but also has numerous plus points. Ultimately, no system is perfect, just have to choose your poison. As Churchill possibly said, democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others that have been tried.

[Sandydragon]

The price of the fare is far too high - but the only way to reduce that is for the government to subsidise by some means. The current model means that the railways cost the government nothing (or very little in the great scheme of things).

£5.3 Billion p.a. (higher currently with HS2)
https://fullfact.org/economy/how-much-d ... -railways/

How much of that is provided to rail track (ignore in HS2 which is an investment project)?

From Wiki

The financing of the rail industry in Great Britain is how rail transport in Great Britain is paid for. Most of the industry's income comes from passengers, with the government also providing rail subsidies, and income from property and freight also providing a small proportion. The majority of the expenditure (£12.1 billion) is spent by train operating companies on leasing/maintaining trains, paying staff, and purchasing fuel. Network Rail spends the other £6.6 billion on maintaining and upgrading track, stations, tunnels, signals and bridges.

So half of the total spend is provided by government, to its ALB Railtrack, and the rest is the spend from the franchises, probably with a small government overhead along the way to manage the franchise system.

[Which Tyler]

I suppose the research on whether a socialist/leftish manifesto is popular is nearly half a century of one not being voted into govt. The longest suicide note in history etc.

Only if you ignore the elephant in the room that's already been mentioned.

"leftist policies are popular, leftist people aren't" has more than 4 words.

[Mellsblue]

I suppose the research on whether a socialist/leftish manifesto is popular is nearly half a century of one not being voted into govt. The longest suicide note in history etc.

Only if you ignore the elephant in the room that's already been mentioned.

"leftist policies are popular, leftist people aren't" has more than 4 words.

You’ll have to tell me which elephant/excuse that is as there’s so many.
I don’t even know what your second sentence means. I’m guessing it’s another excuse as to why left policies taken in the whole just aren’t popular.

[Puja]

The price of the fare is far too high - but the only way to reduce that is for the government to subsidise by some means. The current model means that the railways cost the government nothing (or very little in the great scheme of things).

£5.3 Billion p.a. (higher currently with HS2)
https://fullfact.org/economy/how-much-d ... -railways/

How much of that is provided to rail track (ignore in HS2 which is an investment project)?

From Wiki

The financing of the rail industry in Great Britain is how rail transport in Great Britain is paid for. Most of the industry's income comes from passengers, with the government also providing rail subsidies, and income from property and freight also providing a small proportion. The majority of the expenditure (£12.1 billion) is spent by train operating companies on leasing/maintaining trains, paying staff, and purchasing fuel. Network Rail spends the other £6.6 billion on maintaining and upgrading track, stations, tunnels, signals and bridges.

So half of the total spend is provided by government, to its ALB Railtrack, and the rest is the spend from the franchises, probably with a small government overhead along the way to manage the franchise system.

You're framing that in terms of the government saving money by half of the expenditure being provided by the train operating companies, but that's not really the case as that expenditure is being funded by ticket sales (which would go to the government to cover that expenditure in a nationalised system) and by government subsidies directly to the franchises.

The real question of any privatised vs nationalised system is, "Does competition/capitalism increase the value provided by enough to make up for the profits that are being paid out to shareholders?" I don't see that it does in railways, but I am aware that I don't have all of the information at hand.

Puja

[Zhivago]

On the subject of our railways. It became apparent recently to me just how bad our railways are. My wife is Ukrainian and we live in Netherlands. We recently took a trip to Sheffield via Manchester Airport, and then down to Cardiff. She complained profusely to me about the horrible stink of the train stations. Lots of oil and horrible diesel smell. She said that it's worse than in both Netherlands (which is obviously true), but also, shockingly, worse than in Ukraine.

If I look on openrailwaymap.org, there is a view for electrification. We are one of the worst countries in Europe for this. You can see this from the map clearly. For comparison Amsterdam - Rotterdam was electrified in 1927... that's almost a 100 years ago. We are in general far behind. A chronic lack of investment in our rail infrastructure. Before we do fancy stuff like HS2, we need to carry out more basic infrastructure improvements.

Also, the cost of travelling by rail. In Netherlands, if you want to travel by train, it roughly costs about 10 EUR per hour. It is calculated based on how many km you go. You don't need a ticket, you can just use your public transport card. The rate is fixed and does not differ based on time of day. It is a breeze, and reasonable price. Compare again to Britain - despite these shitty rail network and shitty trains, we have to pay much more. I think in the UK it cost us about 3x the price we pay in Netherlands for a comparable journey.

So where does all this money go? It's certainly not going into our trains or rail network.

[Sandydragon]

On the subject of our railways. It became apparent recently to me just how bad our railways are. My wife is Ukrainian and we live in Netherlands. We recently took a trip to Sheffield via Manchester Airport, and then down to Cardiff. She complained profusely to me about the horrible stink of the train stations. Lots of oil and horrible diesel smell. She said that it's worse than in both Netherlands (which is obviously true), but also, shockingly, worse than in Ukraine.

If I look on openrailwaymap.org, there is a view for electrification. We are one of the worst countries in Europe for this. You can see this from the map clearly. For comparison Amsterdam - Haarlem was electrified in 1929... that's almost a 100 years ago. We are in general far behind. A chronic lack of investment in our rail infrastructure. Before we do fancy stuff like HS2, we need to carry out more basic infrastructure improvements.

Also, the cost of travelling by rail. In Netherlands, if you want to travel by train, it roughly costs about 10 EUR per hour. It is calculated based on how many km you go. You don't need a ticket, you can just use your public transport card. The rate is fixed and does not differ based on time of day. It is a breeze, and reasonable price. Compare again to Britain - despite these shitty rail network and shitty trains, we have to pay much more. I think in the UK it cost us about 3x the price we pay in Netherlands for a comparable journey.

So where does all this money go? It's certainly not going into our trains or rail network.

The government spends 6 billion on rail track which is responsible for managing the actual infrastructure. That sounds a lot but in reality its chickenfeed and is just keeping the lights on. We have deprioritised the railways since the 1960s and now have a very poor network. Other countries are far better served.

Your ticket fares go to the rail companies running the franchise who then pay staff, trolling stock hire and I also believe they make contributions to Network Rail.

I totally agree that HS2 is a joke and money would be better spent on upgrading existing networks to vaguely modern standards. Some of the trains in the North West are (or certainly were pre-covid) running carriages which are based on 1960s coach models. The fares aren't any cheaper for the sore arse that results from prolonged exposure.

[Puja]

On the subject of our railways. It became apparent recently to me just how bad our railways are. My wife is Ukrainian and we live in Netherlands. We recently took a trip to Sheffield via Manchester Airport, and then down to Cardiff. She complained profusely to me about the horrible stink of the train stations. Lots of oil and horrible diesel smell. She said that it's worse than in both Netherlands (which is obviously true), but also, shockingly, worse than in Ukraine.

If I look on openrailwaymap.org, there is a view for electrification. We are one of the worst countries in Europe for this. You can see this from the map clearly. For comparison Amsterdam - Haarlem was electrified in 1929... that's almost a 100 years ago. We are in general far behind. A chronic lack of investment in our rail infrastructure. Before we do fancy stuff like HS2, we need to carry out more basic infrastructure improvements.

Also, the cost of travelling by rail. In Netherlands, if you want to travel by train, it roughly costs about 10 EUR per hour. It is calculated based on how many km you go. You don't need a ticket, you can just use your public transport card. The rate is fixed and does not differ based on time of day. It is a breeze, and reasonable price. Compare again to Britain - despite these shitty rail network and shitty trains, we have to pay much more. I think in the UK it cost us about 3x the price we pay in Netherlands for a comparable journey.

So where does all this money go? It's certainly not going into our trains or rail network.

The government spends 6 billion on rail track which is responsible for managing the actual infrastructure. That sounds a lot but in reality its chickenfeed and is just keeping the lights on. We have deprioritised the railways since the 1960s and now have a very poor network. Other countries are far better served.

Your ticket fares go to the rail companies running the franchise who then pay staff, trolling stock hire and I also believe they make contributions to Network Rail.

I totally agree that HS2 is a joke and money would be better spent on upgrading existing networks to vaguely modern standards. Some of the trains in the North West are (or certainly were pre-covid) running carriages which are based on 1960s coach models. The fares aren't any cheaper for the sore arse that results from prolonged exposure.

I will note as well that arguments about "British railways compared to European ones, why can't we do that" ignore two things - 1) that Britain has the oldest rail network in the world since we had the first rail network in the world, and 2) that we are one of few countries that didn't have two hugely destructive land wars rolling through them in the last century. It is always more difficult to upgrade and improve something existing than it is to start from a clean sheet, not least because penny pinchers will always opt for the cheaper smaller tweak rather than the big structural rebuild that would save in the long run. Plus taking a line out of action for X months is rarely a viable option, so any improvements have to be done piecemeal on weekends, at which point everyone complains about rail-replacement bus services.

It isn't comparing apples with apples at all.

Puja

[Zhivago]

On the subject of our railways. It became apparent recently to me just how bad our railways are. My wife is Ukrainian and we live in Netherlands. We recently took a trip to Sheffield via Manchester Airport, and then down to Cardiff. She complained profusely to me about the horrible stink of the train stations. Lots of oil and horrible diesel smell. She said that it's worse than in both Netherlands (which is obviously true), but also, shockingly, worse than in Ukraine.

If I look on openrailwaymap.org, there is a view for electrification. We are one of the worst countries in Europe for this. You can see this from the map clearly. For comparison Amsterdam - Haarlem was electrified in 1929... that's almost a 100 years ago. We are in general far behind. A chronic lack of investment in our rail infrastructure. Before we do fancy stuff like HS2, we need to carry out more basic infrastructure improvements.

Also, the cost of travelling by rail. In Netherlands, if you want to travel by train, it roughly costs about 10 EUR per hour. It is calculated based on how many km you go. You don't need a ticket, you can just use your public transport card. The rate is fixed and does not differ based on time of day. It is a breeze, and reasonable price. Compare again to Britain - despite these shitty rail network and shitty trains, we have to pay much more. I think in the UK it cost us about 3x the price we pay in Netherlands for a comparable journey.

So where does all this money go? It's certainly not going into our trains or rail network.

The government spends 6 billion on rail track which is responsible for managing the actual infrastructure. That sounds a lot but in reality its chickenfeed and is just keeping the lights on. We have deprioritised the railways since the 1960s and now have a very poor network. Other countries are far better served.

Your ticket fares go to the rail companies running the franchise who then pay staff, trolling stock hire and I also believe they make contributions to Network Rail.

I totally agree that HS2 is a joke and money would be better spent on upgrading existing networks to vaguely modern standards. Some of the trains in the North West are (or certainly were pre-covid) running carriages which are based on 1960s coach models. The fares aren't any cheaper for the sore arse that results from prolonged exposure.

In NL ProRail's revenue is about 1.2bn GBP. For 4-5 times less track. I don't think 6bn GBP is too low. Maybe more the question, again, where is the money going?? and ofc London & S.East get special treatment...

[Zhivago]

On the subject of our railways. It became apparent recently to me just how bad our railways are. My wife is Ukrainian and we live in Netherlands. We recently took a trip to Sheffield via Manchester Airport, and then down to Cardiff. She complained profusely to me about the horrible stink of the train stations. Lots of oil and horrible diesel smell. She said that it's worse than in both Netherlands (which is obviously true), but also, shockingly, worse than in Ukraine.

If I look on openrailwaymap.org, there is a view for electrification. We are one of the worst countries in Europe for this. You can see this from the map clearly. For comparison Amsterdam - Haarlem was electrified in 1929... that's almost a 100 years ago. We are in general far behind. A chronic lack of investment in our rail infrastructure. Before we do fancy stuff like HS2, we need to carry out more basic infrastructure improvements.

Also, the cost of travelling by rail. In Netherlands, if you want to travel by train, it roughly costs about 10 EUR per hour. It is calculated based on how many km you go. You don't need a ticket, you can just use your public transport card. The rate is fixed and does not differ based on time of day. It is a breeze, and reasonable price. Compare again to Britain - despite these shitty rail network and shitty trains, we have to pay much more. I think in the UK it cost us about 3x the price we pay in Netherlands for a comparable journey.

So where does all this money go? It's certainly not going into our trains or rail network.

The government spends 6 billion on rail track which is responsible for managing the actual infrastructure. That sounds a lot but in reality its chickenfeed and is just keeping the lights on. We have deprioritised the railways since the 1960s and now have a very poor network. Other countries are far better served.

Your ticket fares go to the rail companies running the franchise who then pay staff, trolling stock hire and I also believe they make contributions to Network Rail.

I totally agree that HS2 is a joke and money would be better spent on upgrading existing networks to vaguely modern standards. Some of the trains in the North West are (or certainly were pre-covid) running carriages which are based on 1960s coach models. The fares aren't any cheaper for the sore arse that results from prolonged exposure.

I will note as well that arguments about "British railways compared to European ones, why can't we do that" ignore two things - 1) that Britain has the oldest rail network in the world since we had the first rail network in the world, and 2) that we are one of few countries that didn't have two hugely destructive land wars rolling through them in the last century. It is always more difficult to upgrade and improve something existing than it is to start from a clean sheet, not least because penny pinchers will always opt for the cheaper smaller tweak rather than the big structural rebuild that would save in the long run. Plus taking a line out of action for X months is rarely a viable option, so any improvements have to be done piecemeal on weekends, at which point everyone complains about rail-replacement bus services.

It isn't comparing apples with apples at all.

Puja

1) NL's first intercity line was 1839 vs 1830 for UK. Not a great delay.
2) Not a lot of damage in WWII, didn't particpiate in WWI

lame excuses

[Sandydragon]

On the subject of our railways. It became apparent recently to me just how bad our railways are. My wife is Ukrainian and we live in Netherlands. We recently took a trip to Sheffield via Manchester Airport, and then down to Cardiff. She complained profusely to me about the horrible stink of the train stations. Lots of oil and horrible diesel smell. She said that it's worse than in both Netherlands (which is obviously true), but also, shockingly, worse than in Ukraine.

If I look on openrailwaymap.org, there is a view for electrification. We are one of the worst countries in Europe for this. You can see this from the map clearly. For comparison Amsterdam - Haarlem was electrified in 1929... that's almost a 100 years ago. We are in general far behind. A chronic lack of investment in our rail infrastructure. Before we do fancy stuff like HS2, we need to carry out more basic infrastructure improvements.

Also, the cost of travelling by rail. In Netherlands, if you want to travel by train, it roughly costs about 10 EUR per hour. It is calculated based on how many km you go. You don't need a ticket, you can just use your public transport card. The rate is fixed and does not differ based on time of day. It is a breeze, and reasonable price. Compare again to Britain - despite these shitty rail network and shitty trains, we have to pay much more. I think in the UK it cost us about 3x the price we pay in Netherlands for a comparable journey.

So where does all this money go? It's certainly not going into our trains or rail network.

The government spends 6 billion on rail track which is responsible for managing the actual infrastructure. That sounds a lot but in reality its chickenfeed and is just keeping the lights on. We have deprioritised the railways since the 1960s and now have a very poor network. Other countries are far better served.

Your ticket fares go to the rail companies running the franchise who then pay staff, trolling stock hire and I also believe they make contributions to Network Rail.

I totally agree that HS2 is a joke and money would be better spent on upgrading existing networks to vaguely modern standards. Some of the trains in the North West are (or certainly were pre-covid) running carriages which are based on 1960s coach models. The fares aren't any cheaper for the sore arse that results from prolonged exposure.

In NL ProRail's revenue is about 1.2bn GBP. For 4-5 times less track. I don't think 6bn GBP is too low. Maybe more the question, again, where is the money going??

Well quite a bit of it is, and Network Rail is government owned so no shareholders there.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-conten ... 019-20.pdf

[Which Tyler]

I suppose the research on whether a socialist/leftish manifesto is popular is nearly half a century of one not being voted into govt. The longest suicide note in history etc.

Only if you ignore the elephant in the room that's already been mentioned.

"leftist policies are popular, leftist people aren't" has more than 4 words.

You’ll have to tell me which elephant/excuse that is as there’s so many.
I don’t even know what your second sentence means. I’m guessing it’s another excuse as to why left policies taken in the whole just aren’t popular.

Erm, really?

OK, the original point was "leftist policies are popular, leftist people aren't"

That's the discussion you've entered into.
It's a point that contains more than 4 words.

It's that simple.

leftist people aren't [popular].

Electoral performance includes both of those things, claiming at as evidence that leftist policies are unpopular is... missing the elephant in the room (AKA leftist people aren't popular).

Better?

[Zhivago]

The government spends 6 billion on rail track which is responsible for managing the actual infrastructure. That sounds a lot but in reality its chickenfeed and is just keeping the lights on. We have deprioritised the railways since the 1960s and now have a very poor network. Other countries are far better served.

Your ticket fares go to the rail companies running the franchise who then pay staff, trolling stock hire and I also believe they make contributions to Network Rail.

I totally agree that HS2 is a joke and money would be better spent on upgrading existing networks to vaguely modern standards. Some of the trains in the North West are (or certainly were pre-covid) running carriages which are based on 1960s coach models. The fares aren't any cheaper for the sore arse that results from prolonged exposure.

In NL ProRail's revenue is about 1.2bn GBP. For 4-5 times less track. I don't think 6bn GBP is too low. Maybe more the question, again, where is the money going??

Well quite a bit of it is, and Network Rail is government owned so no shareholders there.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-conten ... 019-20.pdf

Subcontractors?

[Puja]

The government spends 6 billion on rail track which is responsible for managing the actual infrastructure. That sounds a lot but in reality its chickenfeed and is just keeping the lights on. We have deprioritised the railways since the 1960s and now have a very poor network. Other countries are far better served.

Your ticket fares go to the rail companies running the franchise who then pay staff, trolling stock hire and I also believe they make contributions to Network Rail.

I totally agree that HS2 is a joke and money would be better spent on upgrading existing networks to vaguely modern standards. Some of the trains in the North West are (or certainly were pre-covid) running carriages which are based on 1960s coach models. The fares aren't any cheaper for the sore arse that results from prolonged exposure.

I will note as well that arguments about "British railways compared to European ones, why can't we do that" ignore two things - 1) that Britain has the oldest rail network in the world since we had the first rail network in the world, and 2) that we are one of few countries that didn't have two hugely destructive land wars rolling through them in the last century. It is always more difficult to upgrade and improve something existing than it is to start from a clean sheet, not least because penny pinchers will always opt for the cheaper smaller tweak rather than the big structural rebuild that would save in the long run. Plus taking a line out of action for X months is rarely a viable option, so any improvements have to be done piecemeal on weekends, at which point everyone complains about rail-replacement bus services.

It isn't comparing apples with apples at all.

Puja

1) NL's first intercity line was 1839 vs 1830 for UK. Not a great delay.
2) Not a lot of damage in WWII, didn't particpiate in WWI

lame excuses

First line in 1839, sure. The actual currently used rail network in Netherlands was mostly built between 1880 and 1922 with substantial rebuilding after WW2. The majority of the British railway network that is still in use today was constructed between 1830 and 1870.

Should we have done more on infrastructure over the last 150 years? Hells yes. Doesn't take away from the fact that we built first, we expanded nationwide first and, as such, a lot of our network is bodges, built on bodges, built on bodges, built on bodges, built on an experiment because no-one had ever tried that before, and thus upgrading it is a pain in the arse without ripping up and laying it anew, which isn't politically feasible.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Only if you ignore the elephant in the room that's already been mentioned.

"leftist policies are popular, leftist people aren't" has more than 4 words.

You’ll have to tell me which elephant/excuse that is as there’s so many.
I don’t even know what your second sentence means. I’m guessing it’s another excuse as to why left policies taken in the whole just aren’t popular.

Erm, really?

OK, the original point was "leftist policies are popular, leftist people aren't"

That's the discussion you've entered into.
It's a point that contains more than 4 words.

It's that simple.

leftist people aren't [popular].

Electoral performance includes both of those things, claiming at as evidence that leftist policies are unpopular is... missing the elephant in the room (AKA leftist people aren't popular).

Better?

I entered in to a convo based on many issues. None was the leftist polices and leftist personalities argument. Other than the point that is just another in a long line of, IMO, baseless excuses.

[Zhivago]

I will note as well that arguments about "British railways compared to European ones, why can't we do that" ignore two things - 1) that Britain has the oldest rail network in the world since we had the first rail network in the world, and 2) that we are one of few countries that didn't have two hugely destructive land wars rolling through them in the last century. It is always more difficult to upgrade and improve something existing than it is to start from a clean sheet, not least because penny pinchers will always opt for the cheaper smaller tweak rather than the big structural rebuild that would save in the long run. Plus taking a line out of action for X months is rarely a viable option, so any improvements have to be done piecemeal on weekends, at which point everyone complains about rail-replacement bus services.

It isn't comparing apples with apples at all.

Puja

1) NL's first intercity line was 1839 vs 1830 for UK. Not a great delay.
2) Not a lot of damage in WWII, didn't particpiate in WWI

lame excuses

First line in 1839, sure. The actual currently used rail network in Netherlands was mostly built between 1880 and 1922 with substantial rebuilding after WW2. The majority of the British railway network that is still in use today was constructed between 1830 and 1870.

Should we have done more on infrastructure over the last 150 years? Hells yes. Doesn't take away from the fact that we built first, we expanded nationwide first and, as such, a lot of our network is bodges, built on bodges, built on bodges, built on bodges, built on an experiment because no-one had ever tried that before, and thus upgrading it is a pain in the arse without ripping up and laying it anew, which isn't politically feasible.

Puja

The war damage argument is a pathetic excuse

Also most major lines already complete by 1880... see...
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand ... ds1880.PNG

[Mellsblue]

So not enough investment for over a century. Are we saying neither public nor private ownership is the promised land?

[Sandydragon]

In NL ProRail's revenue is about 1.2bn GBP. For 4-5 times less track. I don't think 6bn GBP is too low. Maybe more the question, again, where is the money going??

Well quite a bit of it is, and Network Rail is government owned so no shareholders there.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-conten ... 019-20.pdf

Subcontractors?

Entirely possible, Im not close enough to the operating model to know which or how many but its a safe assumption theres a few in there. I don't expect that Network Rail is carrying out its own building works, although I do think it has its own staff to do actual railway and specialist repairs (could be wrong).

So a safe bet that contractors are involved a fair bit - after all most government departments and ALBs make use of them somewhere.

[Sandydragon]

So not enough investment for over a century. Are we saying neither public nor private ownership is the promised land?

Id suggest that until the government takes it seriously, then we are stuck with outdated infrastructure and ever more congested roads.