Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming to power

[CdBrux]

At least from 2027/28 or thereabouts the accountability and responsibility for any issues with the railways will be clear: the government. As everyone blames them already then little change...

 

[Bow Fell]

I think from the inside, it’s something I think just how on earth is it going to work?!

It was one of Corbyn’s policies which I disagreed with even though I supported him. I think the “railway” as an entity is rotten to the core in some places and a “rip it up and start again” solution is needed in some areas.

There are many things we do really well in the UK, despite some recent events, our safety record is one to be extremely proud of.

Hopefully, industrial relations can be improved through this, something that have hit rock bottom in recent years.

One of biggest issues I think which is not in the interest of passengers, and that’s what we are all here for in some shape of form aren’t we?! The introduction of Train Operator Fleet Contracts, be that Hitachi, CAF or Stadler with the relevant TOC. You aren’t running a train service anymore, you’re operating a contract. I would love to know how this will work as part of renationalision. The likes of Hitachi/CAF now have such a huge say in unit availability, how the train service is managed to suit their maintenance required. It's a minefield now.

 

[The Planner]

You'd still have open access freight and the concessions so you will still need some kind of bid/offer process.

Not disagreeing with that, but Id certainly expect a lot of MK to be at risk.

 

[Gigabit]

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.

 

[slowroad]

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.

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.

 

[A0wen]

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.

That's a bit unfair as a criticism of GA - they inherited a real "Heinz 57" of a fleet - including the 30 x 379s which were 'non standard' in their fleet, so took a decision to streamline and standardise their fleet, which they've succesfully done onto 3 basic classes which will have made training, maintenance etc all much easier - and of course one of those selections was for a Bombardier product built at Litchurch Lane.

It feels a lot like 'damned if they had, damned if they hadn't' - the armchair experts on here constantly cry for standardisation, commonality claiming it will improve efficiency etc - then when a TOC does it, they criticise the TOC (who inherited a fleet with 6 different EMU classes 315,317,321,322,360,379) that they didn't consider what would happen with 30 EMUs which were non-standard on their fleet. Yet the benefit of leasing stock is that if you no longer have a need for it, you can simply hand it back (yes I'm aware it's not quite *that* simple, but if you've bought it you have an asset you potentially have to write off taking a large financial hit for doing so), and it becomes the leasing company's problem to find a new customer for it.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Amazing how the phrases "HS2" and "High Speed" don't appear anywhere in Labour's document...

 

[Horizon22]

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.

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.

 

[mike57]

Amazing how the phrases "HS2" and "High Speed" don't appear anywhere in Labour's document...

I noticed that as well, probably a wise move on their part.

Education and Health are going to be where the money goes, so HS2 is going to fall into 'folly of the previous government' category and will be left as the cut back shadow of the original plans. One wonders if it will even make it to Euston. I would imagine there will some wrangling with the Labour ranks if as seems likely they form the next goverment.

 

[A0wen]

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.

Bit in bold - you mean like BR did ? (Removes tongue from cheek).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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).
LNER won't need any extra trains having already placed its recent order with CAF.
Then there's the HS2 order, currently with HS2 Ltd and the DfT, not a GBR TOC.

 

[thenorthern]

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.

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.

 

[al78]

People will always moan about railways, it’s as British as complaining about the weather!

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.

 

[RailWonderer]

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 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 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.

 

[Gigabit]

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.

Eh?

South Western Railway were in such a mess because they basically bid for something completely undeliverable. If the system was any good they’d have been sacked years ago.

 

[VT118]

Believe it when I see it. Didn’t seem bothered last time they were in power.

As a Chiltern user, their service was fantastic between 1997-2010.

It was also very good between 2010-2015

Ever since though, it has been ran into the ground and the current Government/Arriva are just kicking the can down the road, refusing to do anything about it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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)?

If they get in for two terms, I think it will take that long.

Meanwhile the TOC/NR/DfT management will be on tenterhooks worrying about their place in the new structure.

Good!

 

[setdown]

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.

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.

 

[frodshamfella]

Id vote for it

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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.

Exactly my thoughts too!

 

[ainsworth74]

Bit in bold - you mean like BR did ? (Removes tongue from cheek).

Whilst you're not wrong I do think that BR did a far better job, by the 70s/80s anyway, of having a more unified fleet than we've had since. It was by no means perfect but it wasn't a million miles away. BR had its fleet of fairly standardised DMUs from 142 through 159 which could all operate together on Regional Railways, it had various fleets of EMUs in the South East which had varying degrees of inter-operability (even if that was just mechanical coupling to aid clearing the line of a failure rather than being able to operate in service), it had it's fleets of Mk1, 2 and 3 coaches which could operate flexibly, etc. Of course there were outliers such as the 165/166 fleets but in general it was doing a reasonable job of standardisation.

BR also seemed to have much better general idea of how to cascade older stock off premier routes when new stuff arrived. HSTs heading to the Cross Country and the Midland Mainline for example following ECML electrification. Of course it was not even remotely perfect but BR in its twilight years I think was doing a pretty good job of having, even if somewhat by accident, a relatively coherent rolling stock strategy. It was also good at having a, fairly, standardised service offer and interior fitout.

Compare the current total mishmash of units, services offers and interiors. You have TOCs procuring radically different trains, with radically different onboard services and interiors yet operating on comparatively similar routes and service groups. 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 this plan brings at least some sort of order to the current rolling stock chaos that would be a big win in my view.

 

[JonathanH]

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.

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.

A lot of the concerns about the railway have emerged because of the passenger downturn.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Private or Nationalised, will be winners and losers either way. Currently we have worst of both worlds, no incentives for making money i.e more passengers but on the other hand none of the benefits of public ownership (massive joined up thinking, rolling stock plans etc)

The biggest question I have is what are we trying to fix? If it's delays/cancellations it will be a case of put your money where your mouth is - being public industry you can have spare train crews sitting in the canteen just in case, its straight off the bottom line in private industry. If it's providing enough rolling stock for services again it will come back to money - private industry thought process is how often will we need to fill the extra train to make it worthwhile running, public industry just sees it as a cost to buy/lease.

I'm naturally inclined to go on the private side but currently I'm on the side of at least Labour have made a decision rather than this limbo. Having said that, I'm actually lucky my local TOC is Greater Anglia, so probably one of the best TOCs from a service point of view

 

[Krokodil]

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.

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.

The politicisation of the railways sounds pretty miserable to me.

Where have you been for the last decade?

I doubt there has ever been a time when the railway has directly employed everyone involved in its operation.

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.

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

That's what happened at Wales and Borders. Ex-Central drivers had a freeze until Ex-FNW drivers caught up.

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.

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.

 

[ainsworth74]

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.

I accept your point of order and apologise that I had missed that there was actually a planned home for them go to!

A lot of the concerns about the railway have emerged because of the passenger downturn.

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.

 

[Gigabit]

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.

 

[geoffk]

the same Labour Party that is planning no significant increases in taxes or spending? Good luck with that.

Surely the existing model of fragmentation is very inefficient and savings must be achievable.

 

[RailWonderer]

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.

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.

 

[geoffk]

surely the existing model is very inefficient.

 

[JonathanH]

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.

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.