Why there are no longer any bargain fares (Radio 4 today)

[BachelorBoy]

12 minutes ago, 62613 said:

No! Passenger numbers were rising from about 1992, as the UK came out of the big bang - induced recession, which started in 1989 (the recession even affected my place of work at the time, as work on most investment projects was deferred). You have to take other factors into account, such as increasing congestion on the roads, increasing motor fuel costs, and so on.

 

 

 

[Pacific231G]

In the eighties and early nineties - under BR-  I used to have to make this calculation for my (standard class) business travel. If I was travellig alone it was always more cost effective to use the train. if there were two or possibly three of us travelling it tended to even out but we could generally get some work done on the train and were better rested. For four people it was generally cheaper to use the car but not for longer journeys when time costs kicked in. Under BR there were occasional glitches but far fewer than jams and crashes caused on the road network and it was of course safer. If I had to take (lightweight) filming equipment the equation shifted towards road but, when BR's RedStar parcels service was operating and I was working in a newsroom, it was often the fastest and most reliable way for our news crews to get their film back to us when they were going on to another story.

 

BR was actually a very lean (too lean) and efficient operation though nobody will believe that of a nationalised industry (any more than they would with the BBC that got about twice as much programme minutes out of each studio day than did any of the commercial  ITV companies)

It always seemed pretty obvious that passenger numbers were rising several years before nationalisation and the causes, apart from increased commuting, were the increasingly snarled up road network, the cost of fuel,  and the fact that BR had actually become very reliable.  What I lost after privatisation was the ability to pay a consistent standard fare and to be able to take a later train if meetings or productions ran over (or vice versa if meetings ended early) with yield management making it prohibitively expensive to use the train flexibly.

[The Stationmaster]

5 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

 

And you point is?  The first thing you need to do is get things into their correct context and take all factors into account,   Simply blaming things on nationalisation or improvement on privatisation  is little more than polemic with l no addressing of the various factors influencing passenger numbers.  

 

As far as post privytisation growth in passenger numbers is concerned the critical thing was the result of Robert Adley's amendment to the privatisation legislation.   Similarly you appear to have taken no notice whatsoever of the numerous changes post early 1950s which affected the way so many things in Britain changed - from working patterns, nature of employment, massive changes of mode to travel to work right through to where people took their holidays and how they got there.

 

Basically without proper qualification of the reasons for change that graph is totally meaningless.

[Mallard60022]

23 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

 

BR was initially profitable. But that changed after a few years of state management.

 

Nationalisation of the railways, the canals, buses, haulage, etc was supposed to create an integrated transport system. That never happened. The British Transport Commission was a failure.

 

The Big Four's plans for dieselisation and electrification were killed by Riddles. Riddles built one thousand steam locos that were scrapped long before the end of their working lives. A massive waste of public resources. 

 

1955 Modernisation Plan: BR squandered resources by commissioning loads of poor quality diesels. 

 

In 1968, the government wrote off £1.3bn of debt that BR had accumulated in its first twenty years. That's about £25 bn in today's money. BR's own accountant, Stewart Joy, estimated BR had absorbed about twice that amount of public cash as for a while, the Treasury simply wrote cheques to cover annual deficits.

 

APT.

 

Spending public money on patenting designs for flying saucers wasn't a great idea too.

 

Passenger numbers fell while the railways were nationalised, and only started to rise again (quite sharply) after privatisation. 

 

What is all this profitable stuff?

British Railways was supposed to be a public service. It was not run as a must make profit for Shareholders organisation, which is what happened with the Tory Scheme to Privatise. Your history is flawed.

Yes there was poor management and decisions made by old school and entrenched management, BUT the service was far more flexible in so many ways and also relatively inexpensive.

The new look Advanced Stock, (but not built in this Country) and some great Company Management from decent railway minded people made the 'new' Railway work quite well, initially. 

Then, unwise Types like Branson failed, as did many others that couldn't hack the rather badly thought out Franchises. 

As for your patronising bit about Flying Saucers...get a grip.

Passenger numbers may have risen 'sharply. Ask yourself why? Changes in working styles and the loss of the industrial areas that used to carry so many to work locally. People needed to travel further afiel, as many couldn't get on their Bikes.

It also became much quicker to take long distance Trains for both leisure and especially business, and peoples' travel pattern changed and the Electrification of many lines enabled far quicker and attractive services. Privatisation was NOT the sole reason things suddenly went well for the Railways. It was moving on from rather outdated systems  and different working Practices along with some shiuny new fast things and clever Marketing..

Finally, I am led to believe that LNER do actually make a 'profit' as an all but Nationalised TOC. The Staff haven't changed, the Trains have been updated and replaced and I say well done. Probably because real Rialway people like many on here, were and are involved.

What has happened in this Country is some sort of reluctance to set up a truly co-ordinated Transport System using both the Private and the State sectors to provide a really decent PUBLIC SERVICE. Look to many European Countries to understand that concept.

Sadly that is also what has happened in several other so Called Public Services, such as the NHS, Care, Commuity Services and Communications.

Again ask why this is? I could tell you, but would be breaking the RMW protocol.

Phil

[BachelorBoy]

19 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

And you point is?  The first thing you need to do is get things into their correct context and take all factors into account,   Simply blaming things on nationalisation or improvement on privatisation  is little more than polemic with l no addressing of the various factors influencing passenger numbers.  

 

As far as post privytisation growth in passenger numbers is concerned the critical thing was the result of Robert Adley's amendment to the privatisation legislation.   Similarly you appear to have taken no notice whatsoever of the numerous changes post early 1950s which affected the way so many things in Britain changed - from working patterns, nature of employment, massive changes of mode to travel to work right through to where people took their holidays and how they got there.

 

Basically without proper qualification of the reasons for change that graph is totally meaningless.

 

So what was the sudden change in all of those factors in the early 1990s that started the fastest rise in passenger numbers since the late 19th century?

 

 

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

So what was the sudden change in all of those factors in the early 1990s that started the fastest rise in passenger numbers since the late 19th century?

 

 

Not long after the M25 orbital was completed because traffic levels around the South East were so appalling and by early 2000s led to congestion charges to try and stem the volumes in central London.

 

Simply put, the roads could not cope with the volumes so people returned to trains, also the housing boom had led to people moving out of London and living further afield because they could get a train to London.

 

Meanwhile oop north, trans pennine services of locos plus coaches were being replaced by Sprinters.

[BachelorBoy]

15 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

What is all this profitable stuff?

British Railways was supposed to be a public service. It was not run as a must make profit for Shareholders organisation, which is what happened with the Tory Scheme to Privatise. Your history is flawed.

Yes there was poor management and decisions made by old school and entrenched management, BUT the service was far more flexible in so many ways and also relatively inexpensive.

The new look Advanced Stock, (but not built in this Country) and some great Company Management from decent railway minded people made the 'new' Railway work quite well, initially. 

Then, unwise Types like Branson failed, as did many others that couldn't hack the rather badly thought out Franchises. 

As for your patronising bit about Flying Saucers...get a grip.

Passenger numbers may have risen 'sharply. Ask yourself why? Changes in working styles and the loss of the industrial areas that used to carry so many to work locally. People needed to travel further afiel, as many couldn't get on their Bikes.

It also became much quicker to take long distance Trains for both leisure and especially business, and peoples' travel pattern changed and the Electrification of many lines enabled far quicker and attractive services. Privatisation was NOT the sole reason things suddenly went well for the Railways. It was moving on from rather outdated systems  and different working Practices along with some shiuny new fast things and clever Marketing..

Finally, I am led to believe that LNER do actually make a 'profit' as an all but Nationalised TOC. The Staff haven't changed, the Trains have been updated and replaced and I say well done. Probably because real Rialway people like many on here, were and are involved.

What has happened in this Country is some sort of reluctance to set up a truly co-ordinated Transport System using both the Private and the State sectors to provide a really decent PUBLIC SERVICE. Look to many European Countries to understand that concept.

Sadly that is also what has happened in several other so Called Public Services, such as the NHS, Care, Commuity Services and Communications.

Again ask why this is? I could tell you, but would be breaking the RMW protocol.

Phil

 

 

Do you really think filing a patent for a flying saucer was proper use of public money by BR?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_flying_saucer

[C126]

12 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

So what was the sudden change in all of those factors in the early 1990s that started the fastest rise in passenger numbers since the late 19th century?

 

 

 

Another factor I have heard quoted often is the explosion in the number of higher education students, when the Polytechnics were 'liberated'.

[BachelorBoy]

37 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

What is all this profitable stuff?

British Railways was supposed to be a public service. It was not run as a must make profit for Shareholders organisation, which is what happened with the Tory Scheme to Privatise. Your history is flawed.

 

 

The problem is BR, in effect, reinterpreted "not-for-profit" and "public service" as "it doesn't matter if we lose lots of money because the taxpayer will always bail us out". 

 

 

[RichardT]

12 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

Do you really think filing a patent for a flying saucer was proper use of public money by BR?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_flying_saucer

Employee of BRB Research. This how research institutions deal with IP generated by employees. Unless their contracts state otherwise you make damn sure that all patentable IP they generate is patented asap for the benefit of the employer. A lot will be junk, but some will be future moneyspinners.  Also, have a look at how much patent fees are. (Clue: tiny.)

 

 

[BachelorBoy]

40 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

 

Passenger numbers may have risen 'sharply. Ask yourself why? Changes in working styles and the loss of the industrial areas that used to carry so many to work locally. People needed to travel further afiel, as many couldn't get on their Bikes.

I

I have asked myself "why" many times. And the simplest explanation is privatisation. The change in the trend is so sudden, and so marked (numbers more than doubling to record levels in a decade or so) that all the other trends seem insignificant.

 

 

[BachelorBoy]

5 hours ago, MyRule1 said:

@BachelorBoythanks for a meaningless graphic so around 2019 nearly 2,000 something's happend. Presuming this is number of passengers, there are at least three major flaws in using this statistic.

 

It ignores freight which has everything to to with profit and loss and nothing to do with passengers.

 

Gross passenger numbers should be seen against the size of the population and to a lesser extent market share.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[4630]

22 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

And the simplest explanation is privatisation. 

 

 

 

So, if I've understood your post, it's your assertion that all those passengers decided that as the rail network had now been privatised they'd all start using it more? 

 

 

[C126]

I think we need to be aware here of the phrase, "correlation is not causation", among other things.  May I beg to suggest a single, simple explanation to such socio-economic questions is rarely the answer, in my limited experience.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

So what was the sudden change in all of those factors in the early 1990s that started the fastest rise in passenger numbers since the late 19th century?

 

 

Well if you haven't bothered to ask yourself that very question  I think that says it all.  Figures going into a graph change for reasons, all sorts of reasons.  The main reasons for that change would soon become fairly obvious if you'd bothered to look further than lines on a graph.  I'm not going to do your research for you.

[C126]

3 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I'm not going to do your research for you.

 

For example, on @BachelorBoy 's second graph, "Rail travel in Europe by country", makes no account of the starting 'bases' of the passenger journeys.  If Great Britain had far fewer pass.-kms travelled in the preceding period, this would make its growth appear much greater on an Index, than other countries', who were 'ticking along' at an inherently higher level for decades before.

[The Stationmaster]

47 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

I have asked myself "why" many times. And the simplest explanation is privatisation. The change in the trend is so sudden, and so marked (numbers more than doubling to record levels in a decade or so) that all the other trends seem insignificant.

 

 

If you can't get any further than that it's pretty clear that you haven;'t got a clue what you're talking about.

 

51 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

The problem is BR, in effect, reinterpreted "not-for-profit" and "public service" as "it doesn't matter if we lose lots of money because the taxpayer will always bail us out". 

 

 

Er no - Govt made it clear which was which through legislation and the subsidy system.  Something else you appear not to have bothered to look at.

 

As for the 'flying saucer nonsense (well it was a Wiki article so that tells us a lot - or rather doesn't tell us very much) it is pretty clear what that atent lik nks to asa few minutes of research - even on Wiki to pick up some leads - would have told you.  Why just spout stuff without looking into the background and wider explanations?

[woodenhead]

One of the big changes that took place in the 1990s was also that the Goverment started to throw money at the railways, despite being privatised the railways were still loss making in many places and are to this day - just because the TOCS extracted profit to their parent companies did not mean the companies were without major subsidy from the Government.

 

To quote the Labour party, and this has been fact checked;

“Government direct subsidy of the railways is around £5 billion per year, an increase of over 200% since privatisation… Fares across all operators are 20% higher in real terms than they were in January 1995.”

[62613]

2 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

The increase begins before privatisation. In fact, it was in 1993. There were fewer passenger journeys in 1947, when the railways were nationalised, than when the "Big Four" were formed, in a market, post - World War 2, that favoured rail travel (for various reasons) If that's not down to nationalisation, what caused it?

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by 62613
Additional information

[62613]

1 hour ago, C126 said:

 

Another factor I have heard quoted often is the explosion in the number of higher education students, when the Polytechnics were 'liberated'.

My first train journeys on my own were from my home to South Shields Technical college. In the 1970s. I then (mostly) used the train to get to or from various airports to fly off to join, or return on leave from, various ships.

 

[62613]

56 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

 

 

 

Again, in that last graph, there's an uptick occurring before privatisation kicked in

[Wheatley]

2 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

 

Do you really think filing a patent for a flying saucer was proper use of public money by BR?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_flying_saucer

 

Today it costs £60 to file a patent, I can't be bothered working out how many new pence that would have been in 1973.  If Mr Frederick thought he had discovered something worth patenting through access  to facilities, research or equipment only available to him by virtue of his employment at Derby Research then he was obliged to file the patent in BR's name even he did most of the actual work on his kitchen table, there was a similar clause in my contract. The inference that BR were actually designing flying saucers is nonsense.  

 

The converse of this  was that BR actually had a  really good Staff Suggestions Scheme ('On Winning Lines' in later years) to encourage staff to innovate and think outside the box (or solar system). If you came up with something which actually saved money and was put into production you got a  cut of the  savings. A couple of C&W lads  were reputed to have made a small fortune on the proceeds of some  widget designed on the back of a  fag packet which eliminated thousands of miles  a  year in empty wagon mileage; it was effectively a thingummyjig attached to a bottle jack which meant some suspension component or other could be changed in a  siding without even removing the wagon from the train, instead of trundling it back to a  wagon repair  shop with an overhead crane. 

[Mark Saunders]

13 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

Nationalisation was disastrous. The Big Four were profitable just before the state took over. 

 

The 1955 Modernisation Plan was botched. Etc, etc.

 

Wow the rose tinting on your glasses must be amazing and your accounting skills second only to Enron!

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

65% of people don't believe in statistics, and the other 45% aren't interested.

 

Mike.

[Mallard60022]

I find it rather sad that someone bangs on and on about something without accepting they may have not got their facts quite right for many reasons, lack of experience being the biggest culprit. This is especially true if  that person is probably 1/3rd the age of most of the experienced/ex Railway Staff that post on RMW and those on this thread. I do not fall into that group, BUT I do have a life long interest in the Railways and am old enough to have seen Nationalisation, change and so called Privatisation and the consequences and learned  a huge amount of Railway History on RMW, in real time.

If the 'someone' has completed a PhD with Honours on the pre and post Nationalisation of the Railways in GB and related statistics then say so, otherwise I suggest they use the following Ratio solution. 2 ears (or in this case eyes), 1 mouth; use in that proportion.

ATB

A.N. Alien