Why the UK’s railways were privatised


I came across this interesting piece from the FT some time ago, that looks into the decision to privatise British Rail back in the 1990’s. Given the recent debate about re-nationalisation, it is perhaps worth watching.

During the video, ex-Tory minister Michael Portillo tries to argue that people’s desire for re-nationalisation is based on a miss-placed nostalgia. That they forget just how bad British Rail service was. Well, as this vlog post discusses, that’s not entirely true. I know people who remember travelling on British Rail and while they’ll agree the service wasn’t exactly 1st class, it worked, you got where you wanted to go, eventually.

Indeed if anything by saying such things Portillo simply demonstrates how out of touch he is with the realities of British rail travel. How bad are British trains right now? Let me put it this way, if you are not from the UK, here’s my advice as regards travelling on British trains DON’T. Find another alternative way to get around the country (buses, lift share, car sharing, etc.), yes that’s not easy (or in some cases impossible), but its going to be cheaper and a lot less hassle than using the train.

If you do use the train, book tickets well in advance (ideally using ticketing services such as split ticket websites, avoid the UK rail company websites) and make sure you get a seat reservation (don’t ever rely on an open return, chances are they’ll find some excuse to stop you boarding or try to get you to buy another ticket). Allow plenty of time (a hour at least) for any change of trains or change of stations (services are frequently late). If you are flying into the country you’d be well advised to fly as close to your destination as possible (and again buy train tickets well in advance). For example, let’s suppose you want to get to Birmingham, you might be tempted to get a cheaper flight to Gatwick or Stansted. However keep in mind that a rail journey from those airports to Birmingham will take about 3 hrs and cost between £300 to £70 and, as it will involve a change in London, there’s a risk of missing a connection (in which case you are screwed!), so you’re probably better off just getting the more expensive flight to Birmingham.

The staff on UK railways will be of no help whatsoever. Its their job is to basically screw the customers over and look out for the company’s interests. They will lie to you or try to deceive you (or they’re just so incompetent that they’re making it up as they go along), or just fob you off (so they can get back to playing minecraft), so take anything they say with a pinch of salt. Finally, when booking a seat avoid window seats (many trains have no window blinds and no air-con so if its a hot day you’ll be roasted), avoid table seats (less leg room) and avoid seats near their ends of coaches (you’ll be near the loo and be smelling urine the whole journey, a smell that will steadily stronger the longer the journey lasts).


Much to the annoyance of many, pacers are still in use on some routes

And if anything services seem to be getting worse (which I didn’t realise was actually possible). There’s been chaos in the north due to timetable changes and in the south due to repeated strikes and staff shortages. Several UK rail companies are planning to re-introduce British Rail era Mark 3 trains (rolling stock forty years old!). And Pacers, another obsolete train type (actually just a bus on top of a freight car) introduced as a stop gap by BR in the 80’s, are still in use, despite repeated promises to phase them out. The other week, there was a row because a UK train company compared themselves to Poundland…..and Poundland objected!


People pay several thousand pounds a year for this!

So given these day to day realities, is anyone really going to tell me that BR was that bad? What did they do? make you get out an push! Was there a guy at the back with a big drum and you had to row? And crucially what I do hear from those who used to use BR, is that its saving grace was that it was cheap. Since privatisation, ticket prices have risen an average of over 100%, but by up to 200% on some routes. And as I discussed in a prior post the UK’s railway’s are now some of the most expensive in the world, which is not reflected in the dreadful quality of service.


UK rail fares have, on average, risen twice as fast as inflation

Those outside the UK need to understand that for some people rail travel is kind of essential. Its the only practical way for them to get to work. Travelling by car would take too long (as many UK cities just aren’t designed for cars in the way North American towns are) and there’s a distinct lack of parking spaces. So they end up having to pay these ridiculous travel costs, leaving them with a yearly bill in the order of thousands of pounds a year (ten times the cost of similar season tickets in other parts of Europe), just to get into work. This is leading to “transport poverty” in some cases.


Season ticket prices are much higher in the UK than in many other European countries

However Portillo (and a number of his ministerial colleagues in the aforementioned video), do let slip the real reason why BR was privatised. Money. The UK’s train network is still basically the same network the Victorians build in the late industrial revolution era. There’s been only a handful of major additions to the network since then and of course the Beeching’s axe eliminated large parts of the network. So arguably the Victorians had a better service than the present one. This is perhaps best highlighted by a visit to the Railway museum in York. Here you’ll find a Japanese bullet train from the 1970’s. Which despite being a museum piece is still faster than many of the “express” trains passing the museum! That’s how far behind the UK railway network has fallen in terms of investment.

So the Tory government under John Major was faced with a Victorian era network, which needed significant upgrading, which would cost tens of billions of pounds that they didn’t have, nor wanted to spend. So instead they decided to simply sell the whole thing off, cross their fingers and hope for the best. Some of the cabinet may well have deluded themselves with a lot of neo-liberal BS about how the magic of the markets would wave a magic wand and fix everything. But in reality, given how the system was privatised, it was highly unlikely that was ever going to happen. For the seeds of the failure of privatisation were sown in how it was undertaken.

Firstly they allocated the rail franchises on the basis of a bidding system. Inevitably many of those who won the bids did so by simply writing a blank cheque for whatever sum they thought would ensure they won. Then on the first day of the new railway company’s formation, this sum of money became part of the company’s debt. This meant that all of the UK rail companies started off with basically the same creaky infrastructure that had existed the day before, but with a debt of several million to the banks. So inevitably the new owners chose to invest as little as possible and push up ticket prices as quickly as they could.

Another factor is that the railways were split up into different elements. The track and track maintenance was handled by a separate company (with various construction firms subcontracted to do the actual maintenance work). Another company actually owned the trains and so on. This was probably undertaken by the Tories fearful that labour would immediately re-nationalise the network after the next election, so they needed to make that as difficult as possible to unpick. However, it created a system where capitalist competition became impossible and inefficiency grew exponentially.

My own personal view is that the Tories just didn’t care. They weren’t thinking that far ahead. Few of them used the train anyway, who cares if a few plebs can’t get to work anymore. They no doubt assumed that it would decline and be replaced by something else, much as how cars had largely superseded rail in North America. Of course that had only happened because it was directly encouraged by the US government. And, with long daily commutes stuck in bumper to bumper traffic, American are now paying the price for those decisions.

However, despite it all, railways in the UK didn’t die, in fact passenger numbers increased (likely because the roads just hit peak capacity). And rather than saving money, its now costing the UK more money. The last year before privatisation it was costing the UK about £1 billion to subsidise the railways (closer to £1.6 billion in today’s money). Now its roughly £4 – 5 billion, on top of those massively inflated rail fares. In short, its difficult to avoid the conclusion that the UK rail network is now less efficient than it was in the last days of BR.


While the cost of government subsidy to the railway’s fluctuates, its clearly a lot higher than during the day’s prior to British rail

This of course raises the question of how to fix it. The knee jerk reaction of Corbynites would be to say, renationalise it. But hold on. Firstly, how are you going to re-nationalise it? The assets are owned by private companies, they’ll have to be bought out, which isn’t going to be cheap. You could wait for their contracts to expire and then simply not tender them again, but that would take a long time. And obviously in the meantime, knowing they’re going to get run out of town, they’ll have even less of an incentive to invest in the network. Things will in short get a lot worse before they get any better.

Support for nationalisation

Support for re-nationalisation is strong, although not quite as strong as for RM and the energy industry being re-nationalised

Secondly, we need to return to the 1990’s. Again, the whole reason why the Tories privatised the network was because they baulked at the likely costs of upgrading the network to 20th century standards. Unless Corbyn (or whoever is in power after Theresa May’s reign of error runs its course) is prepared to put the necessary funds into such a project (and we are talking about tens of billions of pounds, probably at least £100 billion or more I’d estimate), there’s not a lot to be gained.

And to be clear, there’s a need for a lot more than HS2 and a few high speed lines, indeed there’s some who argue that HS2 would be counter productive. As noted, many of the UK’s trains are still vintage BR-era trains and need to be replaced. Electrification of the network is incomplete. Signalling is archaic (In some cases we still have guys in boxes pulling levers!). Many stations are in a poor state of repair and need some significant upgrading. The whole point of HS2 is that the mainlines are overcrowded, so additional lines of rail, tunnels or viaducts are needed at key bottlenecks. Most notably there is a lack of direct connections between certain northern cities. So the requirements are multiple.

This is not to say that re-nationalisation is impossible (some good reports on that here). The point I’m making is that the devil is in the detail. A blast and grab populist raid, of the type the hard left prefer, probably won’t work. Instead a longer term national strategy is needed, which should ideally have cross party support (notably with minority parties such as the Greens, lib dems and SNP involved, as if such a plan is in their manifesto it likely to stay the course). This might involve a certain level of horse trading. e.g. keep the rail companies but gradually buy out the private share holders (by the government investing in rail infrastructure). Longer term they could be merged and live on as a not-for profit quango, nominally owned by the government (and in receipt of subsidies) but otherwise independent.

Incidentally, one of that hard left justifications for leaving the EU is so that the UK can re-nationalise the railways. However, there is no reason why the UK can’t do that while in the EU. The EU’s competition rules would merely require that the track network be opened up such that if someone wants to set up their own private rail company (e.g. such as Italo in Italy) on their own dime, they can do so (given the current state of the UK network I consider this highly unlikely). And any kind of trade deal the UK strikes with the EU, will almost certainly include such provisions anyway.

And speaking of the EU, many of the UK’s rail franchises are owned by European rail companies. In theory, if the UK was still in the EU it might be possible to negotiate with these governments a deal, whereby they cede control. So leaving the EU actually makes re-nationalisation harder.

One also has to raise the question as to whether the UK rail network has already declined to a point where its simply not worth saving. While there’s probably a case for renationalising the commuter routes around major cities, one could argue against building new inter-city lines and perhaps even scrapping those that still exist. Previously this would have meant a spike in pollution due to a rise in motorway traffic and air travel. However, progress with electric cars and electric planes means that this isn’t necessarily the case anymore.


Railways could be replaced by a combination of air travel and dedicated bus corridors

That said, you’d need to expand the motorway network (although using the route of old railway lines would certainly make that a lot easier). 138 million long distance rail journey’s were made last year, so assuming a significant number of those transfer to air travel, that’s potentially a 50% jump in passenger numbers across the UK. Not only would projects like expansion of Heathrow and Stansted have to go ahead, but pretty much every airport in the UK would need upgrading. This plan would also mean the demolition of many iconic buildings (e.g. King’s Cross would have to go to make way for replacement road, parking and charging infrastructure).

I would note that I’m not necessarily advocating this option, what I’ll call the Beeching’s II option (like a horror movie, Beeching’s II: mainline blood bath). However, I think its important that we acknowledge just how run down the UK rail network is and just how much trouble and time it would take to fix it. Hence radical options like this do have to stay on the table.

There are in short, no easy solutions. But that’s kind of my point, if there was an easy solution here, someone would have already implemented it. Any successful plan must involve understanding how we go here in the first place and just how difficult it is going to be to fix it. But equally, understanding that the status quo is not an option.

Posted in aviation, cars, economics, environment, history, politics, subsidy, sustainability, sustainable, technology, transport | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

While I was away….


Just back from Holiday, thought I’d catch up on a few stories that came up while I was on my travels….

When in Rome do as the Romans do….stay away from burning buses

43701639_303 The 5 Star movement remain committed to good public transport….with heating!

One of my stops on holiday, was Rome, where they’ve a bit of a wee problem with buses that keep catching fire. The locals blame the new Five Star major and cutbacks on maintenance, which is merely one of a host of scandals she’s gotten caught up in. Which given that 5S are now part of the government in Italy, is hardly a good sign.

While there was a few things in the joint NL/5S manifesto I agreed with, e.g. ending austerity, a national citizens income, better public transport (you might want to focus on stopping buses catching fire first!), they also promised to…

View original post 5,314 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A good day for solar


A cold war airfield in the UK turned into a solar farm, literally spears into ploughshares!

I happened to be watching the status of the UK grid the other day and I noticed how solar power was a one point running at just short of 9 GW’s, which given the grid was drawing about 30 GW’s at the time meant solar was supplying just over a quarter of the UK’s power for some good proportion of the day. This also meant that solar alone was for part of the day outperforming natural gas output.

At the same time, wind and other renewables weren’t adding a further 15-20%, meaning the UK grid was meeting about half its demand from renewables. Nuclear’s not been doing so well the last few months, Hunterston (in Scotland) is shut down (cracks in its core, fixing it might push the operator into negative equity, hence its not clear if it will ever restart). So nuclear has been running at about 20%. So this means that for a good proportion of the day, the UK was 70% powered by low carbon energy sources, with the balance met by either gas fired stations and imports. No coal was running, but then again coal is on death’s door, in the UK right now.

Now okay, this was only for a few hours and yesterday was a very sunny day, so its only to be expected solar would do well. However, I noticed the same sort of thing starting to happen in Scotland a couple of years back (but with wind being the driver rather than solar). Renewables would hit +50%, the naysayers would say, oh that’s just a one off, so what. Well nowadays “only” getting 50% from renewables in Scotland would be considered sub-par. The latest figures suggest the average is running closer to 68% renewable for 2017.

The Scottish government has a target of 100% renewable electricity by 2020 and 30% of all energy use to be renewable by then as well. Currently there’s enough in the pipeline that its possible they’ll hit that target. But even if they don’t, its not going to be off by much. Indeed, once you factor in Scotland nuclear plants (running at about 33% of power, although closer to 20% recently due to the aforementioned issues), Scotland’s already more or less met its target from low carbon sources. Although that said, relying on nuclear is probably not a good idea, given the age of the reactors. Even if Hunterston manages to dodge the bullet this time, sooner or later its going to have to shut, as will Torness and the end for both will almost certainly come within the next ten years. But like I said, there’s plenty of capacity in the pipeline to pick up the slack.

My point is that the naysayers who said that getting anymore than X amount of the UK’s power from solar/renewables is impossible, well you’ve been proven wrong. But isn’t it all horribly expensive and going to make the grid less reliable? Well not necessarily so, indeed, as Blomberg point out, solar can have the effect of reducing peak demand (from fossil fuel plants), which will ultimately reduce overall electricity prices (helping to offset the cost of installation of all those solar panels).


Granted, there’s still quite a bit to go. Its not sunny right now for example (but it is a bit breezy), so we’re probably going to need to add more energy storage at some point (but, as I’ve pointed out before, you don’t necessarily need to add as much as the naysayers claim). Alternatively, reinforce the grid, add more powerlines and interconnectors with neighbouring countries, manage the load side a bit better (to avoid sudden un-predicted jumps in demand), or just diversify your renewable load. As yesterday proved, solar works fine in the UK, so adding more of PV would help. Having a range of sources helps, particularly when it comes to the likes of tidal, biomass and hydro which are more predictable.

But my point is that there are solutions. Never mind Scotland getting 100% of its electricity from renewables, a UK that is 100% renewable is certainly a possibility. Its just a matter of the political will being there to do so.

And keep in mind that while Scotland’s government has been supportive of renewables, the opposite is very much true down in England, where the Tories have gone so far as to start taxing solar power, while bending over backwards to encourage fracking, diesel farms and massive subsidies to Hinkley C (despite every independent expert they’ve asked telling them its a terrible idea).

So what’s perhaps most surprising is that solar and renewables are doing in well in the UK not thanks to lots of government support, but despite Tory attempts to kill the industry off.

Posted in clean energy, climate change, economics, energy, fossil fuels, news, nuclear, power, renewables, subsidy, sustainability, sustainable, technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The trump whispering warmongering yahoo


Israeli president Netanyahu released a dodgy dossier, which accuses Iran of breaking the terms of its nuclear deal. Now there might be some substance to it yes, some investigation might be necessary, indeed one or two experts pointed out this is the whole reason why the Iran deal existed. However, call me sceptical, but I’d be little suspicious of the words of a president who has an ulterior motive to provoke a war. And it is more than a little ironic Israel lecturing Iran, when its an open secret that Israel has an arsenal of nuclear weapons.


The style of the presentation however indicated that it was directed at an audience of one. With prop’s and cue cards, this was clearly all laid on for the benefit of Trump. Netanyahu knows that Trump want to have a war to help deflect from the whole Russia investigation. His original…

View original post 735 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

News roundup


Windrush amnesty

The Tories have been distracted from the brexit trainwreck, by a scandal involving the Windrush generation. These were immigrants, most from the Caribbean, who were invited to come to the UK in the 1950’s. Unfortunately, many got caught up in the so-called hostile environment” set up by Theresa May (as Home Secretary at the time) to help appease the bigot brigade.


And its not just the Windrush who’ve been effected. With box ticking officials chasing targets, people from other commonwealth countries (such as Canada) also suffered under this “hostile environment”, losing access to health care, their jobs, pensions, being unable to leave the country (for fear they’d be denied re-entry permission) or even deported. And its now feared that EU citizens too could face similar problems after the UK leaves the EU.

Naturally this has left the Tories in full back pedal mode. After…

View original post 2,498 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Not going out


5616 The great outdoors, Rannoch Moor Scotland, with the mountains of Glencoe in the background

You may, or may not, have heard the story that Penn State university has banned their outdoor recreation club, because its too dangerous for their students to be let out in public. Which from a PR point of view doesn’t exactly send out the right message. Come to Penn state and you’ll be so hopeless at everything you can’t be trusted to go outside.

Let’s be clear this has little to do with “elf & safety”. I cannot help but notice that the American football team, water sports (generally anything involving water carries a certain level of risk), skiing (who tend to be more at risk from avalanches than hikers) and boxing clubs aren’t being closed down, even though some of these would be much more risky. And any contact sports is where…

View original post 939 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The bursting of the London property bubble



Property prices in the UK are now clearly on a downward trend, notably around London. Since the brexit vote, they’ve fallen by 15%. With Europeans being attacked on the London underground for daring to speak a foreign language, and even some of the windrush generation, who came to Britain over fifty years ago being told to go home by the government, its perhaps no surprise that this will have a knock effect on house prices. The expectation is that this is not a blip but we’ll see a slump in prices lasting at least five years.

At face value this would appear to be the one bit of good news you could draw from brexit. Property prices in London are massively inflated, largely because of investors (from home and abroad) who’ve been buying up London properties and using them as gambling chips in a casino. In some cases…

View original post 1,199 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment