Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming to power

[A0wen]

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.

Except whilst there were over 500 Class 47s, there were almost 200 Peaks, 200 Class 40s, 50 Class 50's, 71 Warships and 74 Westerns - all Type 4 diesel locos, all designed for a mix of passenger and freight.

That's before you then roll in the Type 3s which were often used interchangeably with Type 4s.

 

[dk1]

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.

Or a very decent offer from the train operator. Anything less is never going to get through as no driver group is going to give up the pick of their T&Cs.

 

[Krokodil]

Or a very decent offer from the train operator. Anything less is never going to get through as no driver group is going to give up the pick of their T&Cs.

I think that was the approach GWR took. Offer to bring the two lesser-paid groups of drivers up to the same pay as the higher-paid ones, provided that they agreed to harmonise with each other. The HSS section (which already had higher pay, and has kept its conditions because the cost of buying them out would have been too great) will eventually become extinct through natural wastage.

 

[Energy]

No it isn't. Other countries manage it.

Please provide an example of a railway company that will freely give anyone access. In the UK you'd have BT, Sky/Easynet, Vodafone, Neos Networks, CityFibre, Colt, Glide... and more all wanting access along the major routes. Deutsche Bahn provides a dark fibre network with interconnections at the railway land boundary.

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.

Changes to permitted development should not be taken lightly, the changes to allow poles on streets have not been popular with many, and allowing new 4G/5G masts without planning permission is very likely to be similar.

The Brighton Mainline approach is not a bad model to follow for this.

The Brighton Mainline and the London Underground rollout provide antennas and dark fibre, this is realistic and should happen elsewhere. Allowing any telco to build on NR land is not.

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?

IEP units (800s and 801s) just need to return to a home depot in a certain amount of time, I believe 36hrs. Hiring in 802s should be doable.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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?

The problem there is that the IEP fleets are tied to specific Hitachi maintenance regimes and are not in GWR/LNER gift to switch around.
The 802 fleet may be on more flexible terms.
If the IEP contracts become GBR contracts, ie the sole "customer", maybe there is scope there, but who knows.
You can be sure Hitachi will want paying for any variation order.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Labour have finally confirmed that they do not now intend to renationalise DB Cargo, GBRf, Freightliner, DRS and Colas which would have been disastrous for the rail freight industry.

 

[dk1]

I think that was the approach GWR took. Offer to bring the two lesser-paid groups of drivers up to the same pay as the higher-paid ones, provided that they agreed to harmonise with each other. The HSS section (which already had higher pay, and has kept its conditions because the cost of buying them out would have been too great) will eventually become extinct through natural wastage.

XC did something similar when taking over the Central Trains routes much to the elation of that group although those that went to EMT saw it a little differently

 

[Gigabit]

Please provide an example of a railway company that will freely give anyone access. In the UK you'd have BT, Sky/Easynet, Vodafone, Neos Networks, CityFibre, Colt, Glide... and more all wanting access along the major routes. Deutsche Bahn provides a dark fibre network with interconnections at the railway land boundary.

Changes to permitted development should not be taken lightly, the changes to allow poles on streets have not been popular with many, and allowing new 4G/5G masts without planning permission is very likely to be similar.

The Brighton Mainline and the London Underground rollout provide antennas and dark fibre, this is realistic and should happen elsewhere. Allowing any telco to build on NR land is not.

IEP units (800s and 801s) just need to return to a home depot in a certain amount of time, I believe 36hrs. Hiring in 802s should be doable.

It is irrelevant if it's popular or not, it's vital infrastructure. The fact they "cause cancer" or "look ugly" is a nonsense argument, especially in the context of where these things are sited.

You strike me as another NIMBY.

I am glad we can agree that our connections on our railway network are well behind our peers and hopefully Labour can bring this into the 20th Century. It is crazy that this is still such a problem in 2024.

In order to solve the most complex routes, there will HAVE to be access given to Network Rail land, e.g. for leaky feeders inside tunnels and cuttings. I am saying this should be provided to MNOs who want to use it. Sell it wholesale if they want to get a revenue source to Cellnex etc as per the Brighton Mainline. But the current disjointed approach is unworkable and hopefully a unified system could make a network wide plan possible.

 

[willgreen]

Labour have finally confirmed that they do not now intend to renationalise DB Cargo, GBRf, Freightliner, DRS and Colas which have been disastrous for the rail freight industry.

DRS is of course already nationalised

 

[Thirteen]

The Heathrow Express I imagine would become a joint venture with GBR or TfL since it's a management contract. I wonder if they'd keep sub brands like the Gatwick Express and the Stansted Exptess.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

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?

Crikey, GWR can’t even operate their own Class 800/802 fleet in multiple, not a chance it’s happening with stock from another operator.

 

[class ep-09]

Crikey, GWR can’t even operate their own Class 800/802 fleet in multiple, not a chance it’s happening with stock from another operator.

I think it can but for ECS or rescue ( happy to be corrected ).

 

[Dan G]

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.

100%.

The principle of privatisation is that a private company can deliver a contracted service – specified by a regulator – and make a <5% profit for less cost than the public sector can. If contractor and regulator do a good job, it works, rather well.

 

[Krokodil]

Crikey, GWR can’t even operate their own Class 800/802 fleet in multiple, not a chance it’s happening with stock from another operator.

Exactly the sort of issue I was thinking of. At the very least we need to standardise on coupler heads/heights (for rescue as a minimum) and on the electrical interface, even if that's just enough standardisation to allow degraded operation.

 

[ATS3]

Labour have finally confirmed that they do not now intend to renationalise DB Cargo, GBRf, Freightliner, DRS and Colas which would have been disastrous for the rail freight industry.

Shock horror

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Except whilst there were over 500 Class 47s, there were almost 200 Peaks, 200 Class 40s, 50 Class 50's, 71 Warships and 74 Westerns - all Type 4 diesel locos, all designed for a mix of passenger and freight.

That's before you then roll in the Type 3s which were often used interchangeably with Type 4s.

Exactly - extremely versatile.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Exactly - extremely versatile.

Yes, but not electric, not capable of 125mph and not capable of hauling 2,800-tonne freights.
That was the 1960s railway. We need more ‘tailored’ traction these days, generally multiple units/fixed formation for passenger.

 

[physics34]

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.

On the same note.. theres no reason why Sprinter drivers say at York, couldnt also drive Azumas along the same route (after training). There are so many chances for cross cooperation if everything is put together....

 

[Nick82]

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.

As it's been mentioned, what about the Tyne and Wear Metro. That's partially operated over NR infrastructure. Would this come under the plans?

 

[Krokodil]

On the same note.. theres no reason why Sprinter drivers say at York, couldnt also drive Azumas along the same route (after training). There are so many chances for cross cooperation if everything is put together....

Or what's the difference between a TPE driver at Newcastle and an LNER one? They both sign 80x, they both sign Edinburgh-Newcastle-York.

 

[jamieh27]

If I was in charge of this policy in Labour I'd have held off announcing this until the election is called and parliament is dissolved. This is something the Tories could very easily sabotage while in government (i.e. extend all the TOC contracts beyond the end of the next parliament) and force Labour to u-turn simply for being undeliverable.

And yet Privatisation was scrapped in 2020 but yet they keep getting extended many more times apart from TPE, NT and SE being in Public Ownership.

 

[Yew]

Typically private sector capital rates are much higher than the debt on government bonds as the state is almost certainly not going to default. Whatever the Treasury notionally charges other public undertakings through the PWLB (Public Works Loan Board) isn't really important

(EDIT: The real rate of return on index linked UK government debt is 1% or below for terms of up to 20+ years)

The real reason leasing is popular is because it allows politicians to spend tomorrow's money today. It reduces apparent public borrowing today at the cost of much higher borrowing after the next election.

I'm always suprised that nobody has coined the idea that ROSCOS are the PFI of trains.

 

[Silverlinky]

On the same note.. theres no reason why Sprinter drivers say at York, couldnt also drive Azumas along the same route (after training). There are so many chances for cross cooperation if everything is put together....

Yet a Bletchley driver upon arriving at Northampton and finding no relief because the Coventry driver is running late, can't drive the same train that they've just driven on to Rugby to be relieved by that same late running Coventry driver!

 

[jadmor]

Judging from the tenor of the last few dozen posts, renationalising is going to be about as easy as ringing back the holy Roman Empire.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

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.

This is basically how things were until the Thatcher government decided that the BR DM&EE had to transfer it's design capability to BREL, and then BREL was privatised; in the Sale of BREL Agreement, BR contracted not to design and build any more trains, and therefore a return to the situation you describe might not be possible. Through sales and takeovers, the beneficiary of the undertaken given by BR is now Alstom, but I've no idea who BR's undertaking not to design and build now rests with; my guess is that it will have passed through BRB Residual to the DfT, but as I said, that's just a guess. If it is with the DfT, I expect it will be transferred through a Transfer Scheme to GBR

 

[Thirteen]

In regards to rolling stock, sometimes it can be cheaper to lease then rather than to buy outright. TfL buys most of their rolling stock but some are leased like the Elizabeth Line trains and I think the 1995 stock.

Building rolling stock is a bit of a risk for a Government nowadays, there is a reason companies like Siemens and CAF exist

 

[43066]

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.

Agreed, although the idea of the separate GBR entity is they decisions can (in theory at least) be taken by people who aren’t politicians.

Yet a Bletchley driver upon arriving at Northampton and finding no relief because the Coventry driver is running late, can't drive the same train that they've just driven on to Rugby to be relieved by that same late running Coventry driver!

Why not? They sign the route AIUI.

If you mean they wouldn’t because they are due a PNB, there’s no reason why that situation would change under the new regime for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

I doubt we’ll be seeing a move back to massive route and traction cards of BR, simply because they weren’t particularly efficient, and standards of training, requirements for competence retention etc. are far higher now.

 

[ComUtoR]

Judging from the tenor of the last few dozen posts, renationalising is going to be about as easy as ringing back the holy Roman Empire.

Some of us see it as nothing more than political hot air.
Some see it as Labour capitalising on the current state of the Railway and promising something as nothing more than a political pledge to garner votes.
Some want it to happen for their own reasons
Some of us couldn't give a flying proverbial
Some of us see the reality of what needs to happen.
Some just like to believe in the Fae

 

[Energy]

The Heathrow Express I imagine would become a joint venture with GBR or TfL since it's a management contract. I wonder if they'd keep sub brands like the Gatwick Express and the Stansted Exptess.

HEx would likely remain as is, with the contract with GWR passing to GBR. Removing GatEx is not popular with the airport, and I suspect the DfT like the money.

It is irrelevant if it's popular or not, it's vital infrastructure.

It does matter, changes to permitted development go through Parliament and are voted for by MPs.

You strike me as another NIMBY.

I am glad we can agree that our connections on our railway network are well behind our peers and hopefully Labour can bring this into the 20th Century. It is crazy that this is still such a problem in 2024.

I don't mind cell sites but I don't agree with quick changes to bypass planning laws when it suits the civil service. We live in a democratic society and GSMR poles have been allowed on the promise that they are only for the railway, any change to this promise should go through planning permission, or Parliament if all were done at once, like everyone else.

Providing dark fibre and cell sites (like the Brighton main line) would be good and would be feasible, but I still believe that you're initial 'allow access to all assets' is unreasonable. This is doable without GBR, the infrastructure is all owned by NR after all...

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm surprised no-one else appears to have mentioned what seems quite a significant shake up in the passenger rights side of things! We appear to be getting a new organisation, the Passenger Standards Authority, which will take on the roles of Transport Focus, the Rail Ombudsman and some of the ORRs regulatory functions:

ii. The role of a passenger voice

Great British Railways will not be marking its own homework. Alongside the accountability measures available to the Secretary of State to drive improvements for passengers, and continued safety regulation by the Office of Rail and Road, a powerful new passenger watchdog – the Passenger Standards Authority – will independently monitor standards and champion improvement in service performance against a range of measures.

The new watchdog will consolidate the customer-focused regulatory and other functions of the Office of Rail and Road, Transport Focus and the Rail Ombudsman to bring a relentless focus within one independent body in the interests of rail passengers, alongside its responsibilities for other parts of the transport system.

In terms of rail, it will have the power to demand service improvement plans, inspect the performance of Great British Railways with information gathering powers and assess performance fairly and transparently against published data.

The functions that will be transferred and absorbed into the new watchdog include:

Office of Road and Rail

• Passenger assistance
• Passenger information
• Complaints and compensation codes of practice, monitoring and compliance
• Consumer law and investigation and enforcement

Transport Focus (in its entirety)

• Insight, surveys and reporting
• Consumer campaigns and advocacy
• Passenger rights and advice

Rail Ombudsman (in its entirety)

• Complaints resolution (alternative disputes resolution).

By bringing these functions and expertise together, passengers will have a one-stop- shop where their interests are protected, where they can get advice, have unresolved complaints addressed and where rights and standards are monitored and reported publicly and transparently.

Feels like quite a substantial change from what we have currently, potentially quite significant seeing as it takes a few bits of the ORR's remit that they've never seemed to really care about out of their hands into a body whose focus is supposed to passengers. Wonder if they'll be interested in potentially dodgy prosecutions and penalty fares...