Although it is by no means a simple issue I believe that British Rail privatisation was a failure.

Not a simple issue?

No, not really.  There were pluses along with the minuses.  And lots of things changed over the years.  It wasn’t as if the state just stood by and let things resolve themselves for better or worse.

So, the pluses?

• The wider availability of cheap tickets
• Cheaper tickets for pre-peak travel (in some cases)
• New trains (although there are some stinkers and there have been other problems like delays and poor reliability)
• National Rail Enquiry Service.  Yes, I know it gets things wrong (not entirely surprising given the huge complexity of the timetable and fare system) but bear in mind that before privatisation there was barely anything at all.
• The emergence of online ticketing (yes, I know the internet didn’t exist before privatisation but at least they did it).
• Better customer information.  Announcements seem to be much more frequent than they used to be and dot-matrix screens have popped up everywhere.  Many was the time in the 1980s when you could find yourself stood in front of a train unsure whether it was the one you wanted or not.

There were a few minor improvements that ought to be mentioned:

• Introduction of WiFi on GNER.

And the minues?

• Punctuality and reliability fell.  It was about 90% all told.  It is now about 85%.
• Subsidy increased.  Last time I looked subsidy (minefield as it is, see Roger Ford’s comment) had increased from about £1bn a year in the last few years of nationalisation to something like £7bn now.  For that sort of money we ought to have an absolutely top of the range system.  We don’t.
• Debt increased (from nothing).  Network Rail has (last time I looked) managed to burn through £20bn in four years.
• Graffiti and vandalism got worse.  So, presumably, did crime.
• The West Coast Route Modernisation.  This was the plan to rebuild the West Coast Mainline and increase speeds for a knock down price.  They rebuilt it and increased speeds but costs went through the roof.  See here And lots of people don’t like the new trains.
• Ever grottier stations
• Trains stopping short of their destination

But you don’t mention the increased passenger numbers.

Well, who is that good for?  Generally speaking I prefer emptier trains. Of course, it could mean that more trains were being run (which, indeed, they were) but yet again it doesn’t make much difference to me other than having a greater selection of trains to choose from.  Actually, come to think of it, that is a benefit.  There are more trains and they do seem to be more frequent.  But still, that is a long way from increased passenger numbers.

You also don’t mention safety.  What about all those accidents?

Safety didn’t change all that much (see Christian Wolmar).  Sure, there were some well-publicised crashes but there were crashes before privatisation.  It is difficult to know where the trend line is going because crashes are, thankfully, rare events.  It only takes one crash to completely change the figures.  But even if you take into account the crashes, the figures are about the same.

So, NRES is much better than what went before.  Doesn’t that prove that state regulation is a good thing?

So, the state did not stand idly by?

No, it forced Railtrack into insolvency before effectively renationalising it.  It also set up the Strategic Rail Authority before abolishing it.  It appointed a much more interventionist Regulator and encouraged him to fine the rail companies.  It vastly expanded the powers of the Health and Safety Executive.  It also launched a hugely long and expensive enquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash.

So, why did it fail?

See here.

Permalink • Rail • Last Updated: 08 October 2006

Nothing yet but you never know...