Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming to power

[yorksrob]

I presume that it’s a reference to the withdrawal of the HSTs in (belated) compliance with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations introduced under, err, Labour, in 2010.

Did the scrap metal get exported to Turkey?

I'm glad they're addressing the premature withdrawal of rolling stock.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

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.

Not strictly true, BR could have been set targets but if they fail to achieve them what's the stick? Fine them, oh the government fining itself.. terminate the contract Ahh privatise.. all the time there's targets in the NHS and it fails to meet them but they just carry on.

 

[RailWonderer]

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.

It isn't always. First or last Ryanair of the day with no baggage may be but a midday flight with baggage allowance plus costs of getting to and from the airport can be drastically more than the train, especially in the wrong week or month. Train fares are a lot more consistently priced but this debate has been burned into the ground.

 

[yorksrob]

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

Passengers will want fares "fixed" i.e. lower or at least controlled.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm glad they're addressing the premature withdrawal of rolling stock.

Are they?
We are out of the zero interest rate decade so the new inflation regime will determine the affordability of new trains vs keeping the old ones.
And sweating the assets longer means fewer orders for the likes of Derby.

 

[yorksrob]

Are they?
We are out of the zero interest rate decade so the new inflation regime will determine the affordability of new trains vs keeping the old ones.
And sweating the assets longer means fewer orders for the likes of Derby.

You can build new trains, keep old trains on or get rid of them without replacing them.

The first two options are both better than the last one, which we've had too much of recently.

 

[Topological]

Passengers will want fares "fixed" i.e. lower or at least controlled.

A cynic would say lower fixed fares would mean more delays and less investment to reduce delays (and associated costs). This would be like my experience with nationalised industry.

I cannot see how fares would rise by a different amount to the present formula.

Whether Labour would take the chance to target some discounts is up for debate, but I cannot see any of this leading to lower fares.

You can build new trains, keep old trains on or get rid of them without replacing them.

The first two options are both better than the last one, which we've had too much of recently.

Again though, are we actually going to see both.

Surely keeping the older trains means no new ones?

Are we really going to see the public stomaching more trains when there are other spending priorities?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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.

Even class 47s- there were over 500 of them - ubiquitous- so route cleared and most drivers anywhere in GB could drive them were trained on them. That has to simplify and reduce costs. If they required repair, spare parts were again mostly standardised.

 

[yorksrob]

A cynic would say lower fixed fares would mean more delays and less investment to reduce delays (and associated costs). This would be like my experience with nationalised industry.

I cannot see how fares would rise by a different amount to the present formula.

Whether Labour would take the chance to target some discounts is up for debate, but I cannot see any of this leading to lower fares.


Again though, are we actually going to see both.

Surely keeping the older trains means no new ones?

Are we really going to see the public stomaching more trains when there are other spending priorities?

Well at the moment, we have the high fares and the delays. Even if labour manage to resolve the industrial disputes it will be a step forward.

In terms of new trains, we might not get both option one and option two, but either are better than option 3.

 

[Howardh]

Would Eurostar come under nationalisation, and if not, who pays to maintain their tracks etc? What about Merseyrail, is that classified as being under British Rail or it's own local Metro service (like Metrolink)?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Would Eurostar come under nationalisation, and if not, who pays to maintain their tracks etc? What about Merseyrail, is that classified as being under British Rail or it's own local Metro service (like Metrolink)?

Eurostar is not owned even partially by the government - effectively it is open access controlled by SNCF.
HS1 is government-owned but its capacity is sold to a private consortium of mostly foreign pension funds until I think 2040, when it reverts to HMG.
NR maintains HS1 under contract to the owners.

Heathrow Express (the branch off the GWML and terminal stations) is owned by Heathrow Airport, with infrastructure managed by NR under contract to them.
Rolling stock provision is contracted out to GWR (DfT)/Elizabeth Line (TfL).
Service at other airports (eg Manchester, Stansted) is, I think, provided by the regular DfT TOC/NR system.

Merseyrail is let as a concession to Serco/Transport UK until 2028, and is not under the purview of DfT though it is a railway TOC (as is eg TfW).
The infrastructure is part of NR, the rolling stock is owned by Merseytravel and maintained by Stadler.
Unpick that lot if you will!
Metrolink, like other tram systems in the UK, is not a DfT TOC, being run by TfGM, and its infrastructure is not part of NR.

 

[Gigabit]

IMHO Labour should setup a new company to buy and build future rolling stock and then long term the pointless third party companies can disappear.

 

[CyrusWuff]

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.

Chiltern's essentially just been coasting since the start of the Oxford services, which was the final condition for keeping the full 20 year franchise.

The only thing of note that's happened since then (Covid aside) is the opening (and extension) of Banbury Depot, and future operation of the next stage of East West Rail.

 

[Horizon22]

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.

The air costs nothing, railway infrastructure does (I accept airports are infrastructure, but its not comparable). That's on example.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

IMHO Labour should setup a new company to buy and build future rolling stock and then long term the pointless third party companies can disappear.

I hope so. ROSCOs are part of the problem imho not part of the solution. But it is a longer term aspiration - it could not happen immediately.

 

[Energy]

IMHO Labour should setup a new company to buy and build future rolling stock and then long term the pointless third party companies can disappear.

Buy and build? I can't see much point to a government-owned-but-not-subsidised ROSCO over GBR buying trains in cash. What future GBR should do is vary its financing methods depending on what makes sense for each order. TfL already regularly does this with the recent 378 refinancing.

From an organisational point of view, let finance handle sourcing capital, and let procurement and operational teams specify stock.

Eurostar is not owned even partially by the government - effectively it is open access controlled by SNCF.
HS1 is government-owned but its capacity is sold to a private consortium of mostly foreign pension funds until I think 2040, when it reverts to HMG.

I wouldn't think about HS1 too much, it'll hurt your brain.

To fund HS1, the government provided bonds to LCR. The bonds were government-backed so would pay out even if LCR went bankrupt, as such the government took on LCR's liabilities and in exchange had a 'golden share' which would allow it to take over the company. Around 2009 the government used its 'golden share' of LCR to fully acquire it and HS1. Later, the government let out a concession that would allow the concession holder to charge usage fees in exchange for an immediate upfront payment to the government. At the end of the concession ownership of HS1 reverts to the government.

Would Eurostar come under nationalisation, and if not, who pays to maintain their tracks etc?

No and Eurostar would continue to pay HS1 ltd. access fees.

What about Merseyrail, is that classified as being under British Rail or it's own local Metro service (like Metrolink)?

Unlikely to change, a Labour government would likely leave it up to Merseytravel to decide what to do.

The pledge of internet connections is reasonable but basically meaningless.

They should as part of this, allow wholesale access to the entire network for MNOs to deliver 5G. That includes all of Network Rail’s existing assets.

All of NR's assets would not happen. GSMR towers were put up without need for planning permission as their purpose was for only railway communications. If these were reused for 4G/5G each tower would need its own planning permission application.

Allowing track access to every telco who wants it is also unreasonable, it's still a live railway, and telco activity needs to be coordinated. NR providing, or partnering with another company to provide, dark fibre and mast access is more realistic.

 

[Howardh]

Eurostar is not owned even partially by the government - effectively it is open access controlled by SNCF.
HS1 is government-owned but its capacity is sold to a private consortium of mostly foreign pension funds until I think 2040, when it reverts to HMG.
NR maintains HS1 under contract to the owners.

Heathrow Express (the branch off the GWML and terminal stations) is owned by Heathrow Airport, with infrastructure managed by NR under contract to them.
Rolling stock provision is contracted out to GWR (DfT)/Elizabeth Line (TfL).
Service at other airports (eg Manchester, Stansted) is, I think, provided by the regular DfT TOC/NR system.

Merseyrail is let as a concession to Serco/Transport UK until 2028, and is not under the purview of DfT though it is a railway TOC (as is eg TfW).
The infrastructure is part of NR, the rolling stock is owned by Merseytravel and maintained by Stadler

Unpick that lot if you will!
Metrolink, like other tram systems in the UK, is not a DfT TOC, being run by TfGM, and its infrastructure is not part of NR.

Thanks, must admit I didn't know Heathrow Express was a separate body. Yes it certainly does need unpicking and as a layman it shows how difficult it will be to return all the bits to nationalisation. Reckon the most complicated of all the above would be Merseyrail!

I would imagine a lot of the still-used BR lines are now run over by trams and light rail so would be outside of nationalisation.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Current legislation means Merseytravel (LCR) would plan to run a competition to replace Serco/TUK in 2028.
With the Labour GBR legislation in place they are almost certainly going to run the operation themselves, much as the Welsh Government has done with TfW.
TfL also faces the same dilemma on what to do with London Overground and Elizabeth Line when their contracts expire.
In all of the above cases Network Rail maintains the infrastructure, not Merseyrail/TfL (except the EL core, maybe).

 

[The Middle]

merging the operations of Northern, TPE and LNER, pooling route and traction knowledge at every depot,

Which T&Cs will these depots be on?

 

[Krokodil]

Not strictly true, BR could have been set targets but if they fail to achieve them what's the stick? Fine them, oh the government fining itself.. terminate the contract Ahh privatise.. all the time there's targets in the NHS and it fails to meet them but they just carry on.

The reason that the government never set targets was that the government knew that doing so would put the government on the hook for the money required to achieve them. So when the railway was privatised and targets were set, guess who ended up forking out? It wasn't generally the private sector, it was the government who had to pick up the pieces when Railtrack fell apart or when Network Rail failed to get its improvement work done and Virgin handed back the ECML keys.

 

[dk1]

Which T&Cs will these depots be on?

They would all stay on separate conditions just like Northern East & West of the Pennines are now I would imagine. What else can they do?

 

[Krokodil]

They would all stay on separate conditions just like Northern East & West of the Pennines are now I would imagine. What else can they do?

GWR managed to start the process of amalgamating its T&Cs. They offered the two lower-paid sets of drivers a pay rise in return for conditions such as DOO, and the higher-paid (ex-GWT) drivers will slowly be whittled down through natural wastage.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Which T&Cs will these depots be on?

It's much too early to say how the TOCs will be managed and integrated.
Those TOCs were named as they are OLR-run already and have a geographic proximity.
But the model chosen might be quite different to current practice.
Sorting out a regional structure, and aligning marketing, HR and financials from DfT/RDG/NR/TOCs will be a tough job.
Actual TOC operations (trains, stations, crew, ticketing) might well come right down the priority list until the basics are sorted.

507020 says GBR will not need access agreements for its services.
I'm afraid it won't be as simple a that, as the current regulatory framework will have to continue with freight and open access operators vying for space with GBR.

 

[dk1]

GWR managed to start the process of amalgamating its T&Cs. They offered the two lower-paid sets of drivers a pay rise in return for conditions such as DOO, and the higher-paid (ex-GWT) drivers will slowly be whittled down through natural wastage.

Here in Anglia land we have gone through two long term franchise holders and two short term ones and exactly 20 years later we are all still on 3 totally separate terms & conditions. Harmonisation has been overwhelmingly rejected twice.

 

[Dan G]

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.

I'm pretty happy with the railways, ticket prices aside. I don't like the effect the DfT is currently having.

So the idea of *greater* control for politicians, putting the railway at the mercy of short-term vote-chasing decisions, fills me with dread.

I can remember BR. It was awful.

 

[Gigabit]

Buy and build? I can't see much point to a government-owned-but-not-subsidised ROSCO over GBR buying trains in cash. What future GBR should do is vary its financing methods depending on what makes sense for each order. TfL already regularly does this with the recent 378 refinancing.

From an organisational point of view, let finance handle sourcing capital, and let procurement and operational teams specify stock.

I wouldn't think about HS1 too much, it'll hurt your brain.

To fund HS1, the government provided bonds to LCR. The bonds were government-backed so would pay out even if LCR went bankrupt, as such the government took on LCR's liabilities and in exchange had a 'golden share' which would allow it to take over the company. Around 2009 the government used its 'golden share' of LCR to fully acquire it and HS1. Later, the government let out a concession that would allow the concession holder to charge usage fees in exchange for an immediate upfront payment to the government. At the end of the concession ownership of HS1 reverts to the government.

No and Eurostar would continue to pay HS1 ltd. access fees.

Unlikely to change, a Labour government would likely leave it up to Merseytravel to decide what to do.

All of NR's assets would not happen. GSMR towers were put up without need for planning permission as their purpose was for only railway communications. If these were reused for 4G/5G each tower would need its own planning permission application.

Allowing track access to every telco who wants it is also unreasonable, it's still a live railway, and telco activity needs to be coordinated. NR providing, or partnering with another company to provide, dark fibre and mast access is more realistic.

No it isn't. Other countries manage it.

 

[Falcon1200]

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.

Although BR did obtain, for the Great Northern Suburban electrification, two fleets of totally incompatible EMUs, Classes 312 and 313. And then, when the Argyle Line in Glasgow was re-opened, 16 additional EMUs, Class 314, were obtained; Incompatible again with the existing Class 303/311 fleets! And it could be argued that the various IET types in service with several operators are in effect a standardised long distance type (how desirable that particular type is may be another thing....)

 

[officewalla]

Most of the chat on here has been about rolling stock and back room functions. It is obvious with only a few seconds of thought that the most important asset is almost ignored; the people are the most valuable asset any company has. There is no mention in the ideological statements made here and in other places of how piecemeal nationalisation resolves and settles the very different T&Cs that the ToC employees currently enjoy. Is driver A for Chiltern going to accept that nationalisation ie working for the same employer does not mean that their salary is immediately raised to that of LNER driver B? Sundays in the working week? Harmonisation of pay and conditions across the industry will need to be agreed before nationalisation can take place or else there will be TROUBLE ahead. Furthermore, if you are on the board of an English ToC (it is only English ToCs that will be affected by this) how interested are you going to be in the last couple of years towards the end of your contract in maintaining anything remotely positive and worthwhile? And as for keeping the thieves that are the ROSCOs out of the plan.....rolling stock hire is one of the highest profit making enterprises ever invented. Going to be really hard to get this of the ground whether you think it is a good idea or not (and I do not but believe that change is long overdue). HMG want to dumb everything down and the unions want to keep asking for more until there is a level playing field across the industry. This simple fact is not going to change when the government changes as Louise Haigh has made clear so prepare for a lot more strife next year and beyond.

 

[Gigabit]

We should have had full 4G and 5G connectivity on every line years ago, the comments from some are why we are in such a mess in this area. Totally unambitious.

Figure out where the holes are, patch them with new masts. This is something not difficult to do with changes to the planning system and under a unified single operator network this could be done efficiently. The Brighton Mainline approach is not a bad model to follow for this.

 

[Krokodil]

Here in Anglia land we have gone through two long term franchise holders and two short term ones and exactly 20 years later we are all still on 3 totally separate terms & conditions. Harmonisation has been overwhelmingly rejected twice.

Contrast with Wales & Borders where aside from a couple of differences with Valley Lines (New Years) conditions between ex-FNW, ex-Central, ex-W&W and ex-Valleys were harmonised a long time ago. It can be done, but needs a bit of give and take from both sides.

And it could be argued that the various IET types in service with several operators are in effect a standardised long distance type

If GWR were short of IETs, could they hire an 800 from LNER or an 802 from TPE/Hull Trains in the same way that VXC used to hire HSTs on Summer Saturdays? Or would you run into the issue of software compatibility?