I do think there's something about like, the quality of train companies you get in different countries and the structural factors of that which I don't quite understand: like, most train companies are a bit shit in practice in this country (whoever runs them...) whereas Japan less so.
I mean I know there's a lot you can criticise, rightly, about Japanese workplace culture, but I do get the sense that there's at least an attempt to take pride in what the company does that frankly a lot of British businesses don't seem to have.
And actually parts of the public sector as well. Like you cannot tell me that departments like the DWP are proud of the work they do, right? I'm not sure there's much of an actual public service ethos.
The one thing that stands out to me in Japanese culture is a complete intolerance of things being half arsed, whereas the UK seems far too ready to accept “that’ll do”.
Yes I think that's well-put. And like I recognise it in myself too to be honest? But it's kind of because when that kind of culture develops you're a mug for striving for excellence.
Feels like so many scandals etc. in this country basically boil down to someone going "eh, it'll do". Including ironically the Fujitsu post office case though I have a suspicion that is a Fujitsu UK special.
That’s the problem, it’s a vicious circle. The expectation becomes the reality becomes the expectation until everyone both expects and delivers the minimum they can that’s considered sufficient.
Yeah, there's a data-driven but fatalistic 'the UK doesn't respect management and good railways are all about good management' take, which I don't really *buy* but I think it you know, sits up and works.
The world's three best railways are Japan (private), Hong Kong (nationalised) and Switzerland (it's complicated). And that last one sums up the issue, that frankly while there are some areas (water, I'm talking about you) where private or state really matters, rail is not one:
I'd agree *if* the ORR did its job, its powers were expanded and if at reletting contracts to TOCs there were conditions added. At the moment private and public interest are poles apart. On my line taxpayers helped fund platform extensions to 12 carriages; my TOC insists on operating trains with 8.
Hong Kong’s in particular works really well because they brilliantly monetise land around stations in a way in which we should very much learn from, especially in London
The key to the Hong Kong model is that the MTR gets the land at the 'before rail' price and leases it to developers at the 'after rail' price. It would be unjust to do this around most existing London stations, since the railway has been there for a century and a half. And it helps that the HK 1/2
government owns ~all land there & charges ground rent, so the 'before rail' price is known. HK model could be used for new lines though; this is how the early DLR was funded. Crossrail has gifted ~£20bn of land value increase to London landlords at TfL's expense, which is completely unfair. 2/2
They were! And indeed the Elizabeth line was being run by MTR until this year, MRT is the SG acronym. Either way I propose we nuke all zone 1 and 2 stations from orbit and build mixed use developments on all the freshly cleared sites
A deal which basically no-one has done well out of, because I know absolutely no-one who does business out of a railway arch who would not rather have the railway as their landlord rather than 'Slow, Corporate and Anonymous Inc.'
You're confusing two points: that the state owning railways isn't the most crucial element in them working doesn't mean it isn't also a prerequisite in them working.
Japan's railways (absolutely not the world's best) are reaching the point where their operating model no longer works. Otherwise: they are an exception in the high ranking railways of the world.
It's a solid case, I have always thought that the key difference between public and private in the UK is the efficiency of spend. Public seems to get more bang for back.
Quite so! In fact, I wrote a more verbose version. The only additional point I made that you haven't already covered more concisely is that small is beautiful, based both on UK and global experience. That's a worry if the future is a single national monolith. https://www.freewheeling.info/blog/public-v-private-isnt-the-most-important-question
You mention the privatised Japanese railways reinvesting profit, but don’t say whether they are prevented from massively leveraging their assets to fund dividends to shareholders (I’m thinking water here).
We have several versions of water ownership in the UK for a comparison: Scottish Water, Welsh Water, English Cos (not been through PE ownership) and English Cos (that have been through PE ownership). An opportunity for objective review.
The joy of building a lot in 1970 means you don't need to build as much (tho France's non city-to-city connections are where you really notice the infrastructure deficit).
Yeah, I feel like you can really tell that the skimping on infrastructure has really started to become tangible on DB services, not just in terms of intangible things like delays but it is starting to be physically obvious to everyone, like UK roads. And UK GP services. And [you get the picture].
I think the Spanish network is relatively recent, but they manage to spend a lot less per km, partly because their settlement patterns are very different from ours.
100% right that money for investment is the key, not the specifics of ownership. However Britain's railways have been terribly fragmented by privatisation, with no direction on the objectives of the railway combined with overbearing restriction and short-termism from government
Enjoyed that as usual. Any idea what the situation is with the land ownership around the current tracks in terms of what government could do with building alongside them when it takes over the franchise? I know one of the RMT’s main concerns with privatisation was it being used as a land grab
What I’m professionally curious about with nationalisation (even though I’m extremely unlikely to ever work for ASLEF) is if nationalisation does lead to consistent terms and conditions across the board, investment in training new drivers, and monopsony power used to curb wages
important evidence that you don’t give, Stephen, is investment as opposed to shareholder dividends, buybacks etc. OK, every time the names of franchisees changed stations & trains were repainted, but were any trains bought? Did any of the mainline north franchisees offer to contribute to HS2
It's not important evidence, though? It's important evidence in terms of 'what is one of many reasons why Japan's railways are better than England's'. But in terms of 'what is Labour's plan to make us more like Hong Kong or Switzerland', not really.
But in terms of whether private or public is the right place to start, I stand by its importance!
Oh, I appreciate problems in nationalised, long term investment, but that why conversations like this are important to influence the political agenda
One fundamental reason Swiss railways are so good is that they totally separate passenger and goods services. Run on different tracks. Not cheap to do, but works wonders.
It's hard to argue though that the current structure of however many operating companies (Inc dft) working in opposition to one another based on the model set out in 90s is something that requires reform. Of which the obvious is reducing complexity of separation of companies, track, stations etc
I've been thinking about this, and what comparably densely populated country in Europe does have good, sustainable and demonstrably successful policies on rail? Switzerland? The Netherlands? Deutsche Bahn is falling apart, France's trains are wonderful unless you actually want to catch one...
And how replicable on the UK scale? And crucially, do either of these involve just accepting that good railways cost a fucking fortune and will never make their money back, because if that’s the answer, we may as well shut the lot and sell the rails for scrap
Essentially what unites the highest-performing railways is that they are well managed, well-regulated and they are allowed to extract value from their surroundings (both Japan and Hong Kong rail companies run a lot of businesses around their areas).
One advantage Japan's railways have is that they are considered critical infrastructure. This means that lines can be built without endless legal reviews (you get a chance to object at the start, but after that, nothing). This cuts costs by quite a lot.
Excellent piece. What are ministers trying to achieve? If it’s cheaper, more comprehensive & more reliable services then it’s not obvious that public ownership is the answer (hello, Northern Rail). What is obvious is that not much will change without more money & changes in working practices.
It's IMO the best manifestation of 'in the absence of clear guidance from the centre, the UK has returned to proper Cabinet government', maybe even neater than the DfE/DHSC stuff (not least because there is not yet a lot of *substance* to what they're doing at DHSC).
Do you ever get the feeling even the political stories are repeating themselves? Have you asked eg George and Lucy what they wrote in eg 1997-2002? It would be quite fun to compare and contrast.
But I'm convinced by your thesis, and I just hope the owners of Crossrail sort it aht.
I can't wait to hear how the lobby will cover Reform UK in the next few months. They seem morally indefensible (some would say). Hope you enjoy this half of term.
I knew I should have checked her age!! Even the political journalists are getting younger these days.
PS The main difference between now and 1997-2004 (sorry, you know what's coming) is that Arsenal (sorry) were winning stuff back then. Did Declan Rice stand aside and let West Ham win yesterday??
So uh what does this mean for Grand Central, Hull trains etc who basically take up free slots in the rail timetable? If they're rationalised I wouldn't put it past the Treasury winding them up?
If that comment was directed at me; since when have I attempted to offer an opinion? All I said was that the article is behind a paywall. I wasn’t aware that I could register and see so many free articles the subscription page wasn’t clear. Perhaps I little less of the shit attitude would be good.
I can’t see the article but…. the current plans which are not only Labours as there is pretty broad agreement on them aren’t simply nationalisation. They go a good way to do what’s needed (yet to be seen) on extracting the DfT.
The answer is integration and coordination which has been lacking.
It’s a fairly good microcosm of the issues at large; most of the problems with public services (that this govt is so keen to rectify) are a lack of funding, and there seems no obvious plans to address that key issue.
Italy and Spain are great examples of countries with state-owned and private-owned companies competing with each other on routes. Something you don't see in the UK. They are also more comparable to the UK than Switzerland (they have similar size) or Japan (they are in Europe). Nice piece anyway!
Fair enough (I basically didn't want to get into 'competitors on the same track' because it's an email for generalist readers and also because I assume I will return to the topic repeatedly throughout the parliament). And thanks!
The railways are so heavily subsidised. Why should we help support private companies that use the antiquated network as a cash cow with delay minutes. What can they provide that nationalised rail couldn’t ?
They all would frankly. Like, I don't think there is a railway you can genuinely claim is all one thing or another, other than, you know, some that are run solely for tourists and hobbyists.
Comments
Imagine selling the fucking railway arches what the fuck
Oh, I appreciate problems in nationalised, long term investment, but that why conversations like this are important to influence the political agenda
But I'm convinced by your thesis, and I just hope the owners of Crossrail sort it aht.
I can't wait to hear how the lobby will cover Reform UK in the next few months. They seem morally indefensible (some would say). Hope you enjoy this half of term.
PS The main difference between now and 1997-2004 (sorry, you know what's coming) is that Arsenal (sorry) were winning stuff back then. Did Declan Rice stand aside and let West Ham win yesterday??
The answer is integration and coordination which has been lacking.
How do you get more money into these things?!