The Rail industry.
Rail industry Investigation:
General reading:
- The govt is in the process of renationalising the railways. This might be inspired by the European and Swiss models.
- High performing systems have common characteristics. The time table is seen as the core product, infastructure spending is planned on a multi decade base,
- Govt funding for rail was £11.9bn in 2024/25, accounting for about 46% of total rail income
- The amount of subsidies given to the natural monopoly was above pre-pandemic level
- Rail fares have risen by 5.1% this year, and the revenue gained has increased by 12bn from apr 24 to march 25.
- In 2023, parts of the railway industry was brought back in the public sectors hand due to repeated service failures...
Why do we Economists care about rail?
- Labour mobility - the UK is known for a low geographical mobility especially when it comes to London vs other parts of the country
- Potential externalities? Reducing pollution?
The current (though expiring) set-up of the UK railways.
- TOCs (Train operating companies)
- Private companies contracted to run passenger services on the national rail network. These are under
- ROSCO:
- Private firms that own trains and lease them to TOCs.
- 3 dominate the market- generate profits even as the networks is heavily subsidised
- Network Rail,
- government owned infrastructure manager responsible for tracks, signalling and major stations. It reinvests income into the rail network.
Open Access Operators
-
A company that operates services using track access rights but without a state contract, taking full revenue risk.
-
Competition for the market--->
-
Privatisation hoped that TOCs bidding for franchises would create dynamic competition and efficiency gains. But this didnt rally happen...
Contestability
-
What they did was to add open access services, to provide some actual market competition on selected routes, though formally limited.
But we know that the natural monopoly has a flaw:
-
Rail infrastructure is a natural monopoly because high fixed costs and indivisibilities (tracks, signalling, stations) make multiple competing track owners inefficient.
-
Competition was mostly in bidding stages, not in daily operations.
What the result would look like??
-
Real-term fare increases above inflation and persistent subsidies suggest limited competitive pressure on costs and pricing.
Franchises & operators
-
Many TOCs were owned by the same few parent companies reducing genuine rivalry.
-
Some franchises failed or were taken into public ownership due to poor performance,
High fee charged by TOC and also high cancellation rates
Principle agent problem??? Instead of satisficing
Open access competition
-
Evidence from the East Coast Main Line suggests that where open access operators compete against incumbents, prices can be lower and passenger growth higher
-
However, open access remains a small share of the network and is not a comprehensive competitive force.
You could argue that there is a rail trilemma lol:
you can’t have all three simultaneously:
-
high quality, reliable services
-
Low fare
-
Minimal subsidies, which we as the taxpayer have to pay BTW,
Sources used:
https://catchingmice.substack.com/p/were-getting-worried-about-great
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvSnvNj9M7Q
Comments
Post a Comment