Are Britain’s railways costing too much? Perspectives \nbased on TFP comparisons with British Rail 1963–2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the Hatfield accident in October 2000, the cost of running Britain’s railways has \nincreased very sharply, leading to considerable debate about whether current cost levels are \nreasonable. This paper seeks to inform this debate by assessing post-Hatfield cost and TFP \nlevels against the historical precedents set by British Rail and the early experience of the \nnewly privatised industry. The results show that industry cash costs rose by 47 per cent \nbetween 1999/2000, the last financial year before Hatfield, and 2001/2002 — but, \nsurprisingly, with train operating costs accounting for 42 per cent of this growth. The \nresults also show that the post-Hatfield cost spike is unprecedented when compared \nagainst historical benchmarks. Analysis of long-term data on quality and safety measures \nindicates that an excessive focus on rail safety may offer part of the explanation for the \ncost growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".