- a mess:UK Rail Privatisation
Benny, I have so far refrained from raising this troublesome subject.. The jury is still out on the the vexed question whether the privatisation of rail in the UK is a success or not. It is a very serious subject, as there were a series of fatal rail crashes- Southall and Potters Bar in recent years. For those who do not know, Privatisation split the ownership of the rail newwork- rail tracks, signals and stations from running the trains. The Rail network was sold to a private concern, and the trains were leased to rail companies that competed on providing service in regions by tender. The franchises were awarded for short term [7-10 years], public subsidy was slashed and fares had to be pegged to inflation. The rail network soon suffered from signs of neglect, as regular maintanance was somewhat cut back. Track and signal renewal was cut back on. Also, there soon arised a conflict between the rail network and the companies who run the trains. as the train comapnies were not repsonsible for the rail network, they were blamed for various shortcomes- like bottlenecks, service cancellations, engineering works, inadequate speed and the like- and they could not do anything about it. The route of the matter was of course money. Quite simply, the rail network company [railtrack] could not spend beyond what it had ,and,on the other hand, it had a statutory[legal[ duty to keep the railway safe. So,in the meanwhile, the rail companies did icrease services, which in turn could not be maintained and required a much heavier maintainance of the rail network, upgrading rails and signals. Legal and other disputes between Railtrack and the carriers soon started, and eventually when disaster happend- i.e. fatal accidents, the whole thing fell apart. Railtrack went into liquidation, and is run back as public company, with the taxpayer again paying for the rail network upgrades and routine work. The rail carrier companies did increase service levels, order new trains and generally the service levels are better than they were before privatisation. Pasangers numbers are up, but service reliablitly is lower, and the ticket prices are the highest in Europe. So, it is generally accepted that despite some improvements, the whole thing was a mess, and the seperation of the network from the operation comapnies was a mistake. Unfortunately, the same models has been forced on London Underground, and the process there will be completed by the 15/7/03, when the responisiblity for running the undeground will be passed on to TfL. At the root of the problem lies as ever the big question: who will pay for the rail? So far, in the UK, depsite all efforts, the answer has been:'The taxpayer'. No one other country that I am aware of copied the UK model for rail reform, and really outside places like HK there is no successul model for modern private non public subsidy rail network. Even in the USA, passanger rail services are subisidied! regards Yoram.
