Not disagreeing with that, but Id certainly expect a lot of MK to be at risk.You'd still have open access freight and the concessions so you will still need some kind of bid/offer process.
Bond holders do sometimes lose out in the private sector. Losses cannot be “absorbed” but must be borne by someone - bearing the risk of losses in the public sector is an implicit subsidy. And it encourages poor cost control.Well delivery failures in the private sector still get paid for by the taxpayer, albeit indirectly.
That just causes leasing (and other) charges to be higher so that the providers can insure against those losses.
There is no free lunch.
Insuring against a failure, as a private company must do to avoid existential losses, will always be more expensive on average than simply absorbing the losses (as the state always can).
Otherwise, the insurer wouldn't take the contract!
EDIT:
But noted we are going off topic so I will stop now.
Nearly all of that list was delivered by (nationalised) Network Rail, not the TOC
The one thing entirely down to the TOC was replacement of the entire fleet, (including the ten-year old Classs 379s, with no plans for their redeployment), which has contributed to the boom-and-bust, feast-and-famine, of rolling stock orders which has now left Litchurch Lane facing closure.
Nearly all of that list was delivered by (nationalised) Network Rail, not the TOC
The one thing entirely down to the TOC was replacement of the entire fleet, (including the ten-year old Classs 379s, with no plans for their redeployment), which has contributed to the boom-and-bust, feast-and-famine, of rolling stock orders which has now left Litchurch Lane facing closure.
I noticed that as well, probably a wise move on their part.Amazing how the phrases "HS2" and "High Speed" don't appear anywhere in Labour's document...
Indeed, Network Rail has delivered a lot of this. Also as you say hopefully a nationalised industry will have some form of unified rolling stock strategy, however dealing with ROSCOs which will remain privately owned will be complicated to navigate.
Presumably GBR will have control over fleet procurement for Northern, TPE and Southeastern after the election (if the Tory DfT has not approved them beforehand).Indeed, Network Rail has delivered a lot of this. Also as you say hopefully a nationalised industry will have some form of unified rolling stock strategy, however dealing with ROSCOs which will remain privately owned will be complicated to navigate.
I think the thing I struggle to understand is what private operators really deliver especially under the new "London Overground" style arrangement. I am not opposed to private companies at all but I can't see how they can deliver anything different to what the Government could? Isn't that what Labour are tacitly acknowledging here.
There are things that a joined up approach could do, for example it's batty that the coverage on the railways is so spotty. But as a singular company they could provide access wholesale which would probably provide a significant revenue source. With the current structure it is so fragmented they cannot.
With England and Wales having just experienced the wettest consecutive 18 month period on record (since 1766), and with the weather this year continuing to sink to the level of poorness of a lot of things from government to public services to toxic public attitudes in the UK, people have every justification to complain.People will always moan about railways, it’s as British as complaining about the weather!
What worked about the private franchise setup was that TOCs were measured on how well they provided the service and had directives to increase the number of seats, coaches, frequencies per hour, routes etc and needed to improve the service to keep the contract. If they failed, they lost the franchise. There was an incentive, even if some of it was down to NR's infrastructure improvements, the DfT would have to pay out subsidy if private TOCs were in losses in order to achieve their franchise obligations. When they lost, another one came in.It's a matter of opinion about what private companies can achieve vs state owned.
The private companies in theory can compete for franchises offering a better service. Also private companies by definition want money so they will work harder to get passenger's money by making them want to use the trains more. Rail passenger numbers let's not forget are more than double what they were at the time of privatisation partly because the railway companies are trying to attract more passengers.
The railways though are a very very regulated industry so they don't have anywhere near as much freedom and most industries. For example I regularly have got a first class ticket on the 22:28 departure from St Pancras to East Midlands Parkway for £16. The only reason that train is so cheap is because the government tells EMR they have to run that train so EMR run it at a loss to try and get as least some passengers using it. In a completely free market that train wouldn't run.
What worked about the private franchise setup was that TOCs were measured on how well they provided the service and had directives to increase the number of seas, coaches, frequencies per hour, routes etc and needed to improve the service to keep the contract. If they failed, they lost the franchise. There was an incentive, even if some of it was down to NR's infrastructure improvements, the DfT would have to pay out subsidy if private TOCs were in losses in order to achieve their franchise obligations. When they lost, another one came in.
It was a better system even if some TOCs preferred to cascade rather than order new, and some like NX certainly cut costs. A direct govt system is obsessed with cost and has nobody to report to other than bean counters and all you will end up with is a consistently poor quality product, knee high litter, cancelled trains and more TSRs from lack of maintenance budget. Standards will fall slowly.
Believe it when I see it. Didn’t seem bothered last time they were in power.
If they get in for two terms, I think it will take that long.Labour will have to get GBR legislation through parliament to set up its intended ownership structure, which will take at least a year.
How quickly will a single brand emerge from all this (if indeed it does)?
Meanwhile the TOC/NR/DfT management will be on tenterhooks worrying about their place in the new structure.
Previously yes, but I don't think the regulation argument holds up much weight now, alas. Look at LNER getting rid of super-off peak fares on a whim. I doubt they would have got away with that as a fully-privatised TOC, but as they're being run by the government (pretty much), now anything goes.The railways though are a very very regulated industry so they don't have anywhere near as much freedom and most industries. For example I regularly have got a first class ticket on the 22:28 departure from St Pancras to East Midlands Parkway for £16. The only reason that train is so cheap is because the government tells EMR they have to run that train so EMR run it at a loss to try and get as least some passengers using it. In a completely free market that train wouldn't run.
Exactly my thoughts too!There's a lot of negativity on this thread about these proposals. I never realised that so many people were satisfied with the current state of the railways.
Or maybe it's just negativity without any counter-proposals.
Bit in bold - you mean like BR did ? (Removes tongue from cheek).
On a point of order, the 379s only didn't go straight to Great Northern because of the unprecedented downturn in passengers from 2020 onwards. The 360s went to EMR. There were outlets for the units which survived the mass extinction.You have total fleet extinctions (such as on GA) which in general do bring significant benefits that outweigh the negatives but because there's no joined up thinking mean that comparatively young fleets of EMUs (the 379s) end up homeless in the prime of their service life.
If traincrew depots are amalgamated and route/traction knowledge merged then the new-found slack can be taken up by bringing Sundays inside (where it isn't already) and by not replacing the large generation of staff who are nearing retirement age. That's RMT/ASLEF happy. Management and clerical grades have always been rather precarious, with periodic clearouts of Directors of Paperclips when economy drives happen. They're usually represented by TSSA (if they're unionised at all) who are known as "Total Surrender, Straight Away" for a reason.What about the job losses that this presumably will entail as duplication is expected to be removed? I can imagine unions being conflicted over that element.
Where have you been for the last decade?The politicisation of the railways sounds pretty miserable to me.
Damned near it, the railway used to grow its own vegetables, make its own bricks. I'm sure that you can find something somewhere that was outsourced in 1910 but it would have been extremely exceptional.I doubt there has ever been a time when the railway has directly employed everyone involved in its operation.
That's what happened at Wales and Borders. Ex-Central drivers had a freeze until Ex-FNW drivers caught up.Would be interesting to see if they expected the higher paying toc’s like mine to have no pay rise until the other toc’s caught up with them
Nothing that couldn't have happened under BR. If the Government had wanted BR to follow a set of targets, they need only have set them. Of course to achieve those targets the government would have had to fund BR properly - imagine what BR could have done with the funds thrown at the privatised railway.What worked about the private franchise setup was that TOCs were measured on how well they provided the service and had directives to increase the number of seas, coaches, frequencies per hour, routes etc and needed to improve the service to keep the contract.
I accept your point of order and apologise that I had missed that there was actually a planned home for them go to!On a point of order, the 379s only didn't go straight to Great Northern because of the unprecedented downturn in passengers from 2020 onwards. The 360s went to EMR. There were outlets for the units which survived the mass extinction.
Agreed, a lot of spinning plates that are currently either crashing or in danger of doing so have been dislodged by that downturn in traffic and, perhaps more importantly, downturn in revenue.A lot of the concerns about the railway have emerged because of the passenger downturn.
Surely the existing model of fragmentation is very inefficient and savings must be achievable.the same Labour Party that is planning no significant increases in taxes or spending? Good luck with that.
It could have but it didn't. What we need is a best of both worlds scenario, an arms-length GBR with block funding and service targets reviewed by the DfT that subsidises BR additionally if they really mess up. As has been said the problem is govt has no incentive if it sets its own targets.Nothing that couldn't have happened under BR. If the Government had wanted BR to follow a set of targets, they need only have set them. Of course to achieve those targets the government would have had to fund BR properly - imagine what BR could have done with the funds thrown at the privatised railway.
surely the existing model is very inefficient.
Flying doesn't have as much fixed infrastructure to pay for. Therefore, as distance is further, the cost of rail infrastructure is greater, while the cost of air infrastructure diminishes.Can somebody just explain to me how it can possibly be that flying can be cheaper than taking a train. I just cannot conceive how that can be possible.