Thread by @garius

So let's talk rail franchising and nationalization, and DfT vs TfL etc. Because I'm not QUITE sadistic enough to want to punch myself repeatedly in the face yet instead.

Let's get one thing clear: running a railway is fucking complex. It requires an insane level of expertise. THIS is the most critical factor that affects success, NOT whether the man at the top is a CEO or a Minister.

That knowledge is JUST AS CRITICAL when you're PLANNING what you do, as when you're OPERATING it. Because how you scope, predict and design can fuck you up just as easily as being short of train drivers

This is the thing that - over the last 15 years - TfL have got REALLY good at. This is why Overground is (generally) run so well. People increasingly wield it as an example of 'nationalization' but it isn't.

Pro tip: TfL sub-let the OPERATION of the Overground to a bunch of different companies. Sometimes even the people getting grief over running the wider network.

The difference is, TfL have built up the in-house knowledge (and a franchising model) that just works differently to a lot of the national network.

VERY BROADLY: They don't say to these companies 'tell us what you THINK you can run, and how much money you'll give us.'

They say: 'Our research says we need X trains per hour. Here are the trains. Go run it and we'll pay you Y'.

The big bonus: it means that they get what they pay for (and the companies are actually kinda happy because they know EXACTLY how much money they'll make).

The downside is that TfL (and London tax payers) carry the RISK. If they need MORE trains, then it's TfL who'll have to pay

They can do this model BECAUSE they are confident in their in-house planning expertise and ability to police it. The DfT have also tried it a bit, but they're not as good (so far). Because they bled rail planning talent for years and still haven't recovered.

The critical point being: if you nationalized the railways tomorrow, the TfL bits would still mostly be run well. Most of the DfT bits would still be shit. Because they BOTH franchise. TfL are just better at it right now.

Basically, TfL are KFC - they treat every shop as part of the same brand, set universal rules and judge performance against conformity.

DfT are the UK Association of Chicken Shops. Everyone is selling chicken and paying their fees, but has different ideas on how to do it.

Oh - and just as importantly, long distance/express and local services have VERY different passenger needs.

If you have franchises (or sub-units of a national service) that have to manage both at once, that's ALWAYS hard. Again here TfL have been a bit lucky/clever. They avoid trying to run the long distance bit - or at least don't put their operators in that position

DfT have traditionally been happy to lump in long distance with metro services - because they (and the operators that attracts) see the long distance as the super sexy and profitable bit, whereas metro is the shit you just have to do. Which is part of their problem, culturally.

Again, ALL THESE RULES AND PROBLEMS would still apply if you nationalized the railways tomorrow. Don't get me wrong - I fucking love the idea of getting it all back into public hands. But let's call a spade a fucking spade here:

The railways work when:

1) People who understand railways run them
2) Their employers funnel investment back into the railways
3) The above has been happening, without interruption, for at least ten years.

Meet those rules and we can have all the fucking BahnCards we want!

Britain's railways have a strategic planning and management issue, not a political one.

Unless Chris Grayling or Andy McDonald suddenly learn how to fart out spare passenger capacity, ideology won't fix them. WHATEVER way your politics fall.

Better Knowledge and logistics will.

Oh - and just to PLUG: If you like understanding rail things rather than do come read us over at londonreconnections.com or - if you're feeling generous - help us KEEP writing (and get our podcast going again!) by backing our patreon.com/lonrec