htafc
Member
Hello all, the poll will close tomorrow. If anyone else would like to vote, please do so by then 
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should the railways be nationalised?
- Thread starter htafc
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bartsimho
Member
Just throwing my idea in there. The current tracks should be publically-owned and managed. New tracks will have split ownership between the public and whose project it is (This will mean the price to run over is then split with half to the builder and half to the public body).
A backbone of Nationalised services but with Private competition as the interests of a Private company and of the Pubic align quite well (You make money by serving the public with what they want to use).
If a Private company wants to make a change to the network they work with the National Body to facilitate this but as a Private operation they can contract who they want to do this (Standards for all improvement types laid out by the national body in a Public Document and an agreement has to be reached before any work can commence).
A backbone of Nationalised services but with Private competition as the interests of a Private company and of the Pubic align quite well (You make money by serving the public with what they want to use).
If a Private company wants to make a change to the network they work with the National Body to facilitate this but as a Private operation they can contract who they want to do this (Standards for all improvement types laid out by the national body in a Public Document and an agreement has to be reached before any work can commence).
We pretty much already have this.
So a franchised operator?
So an open access operator?
Bartsimho
Member
Open Access but Track is Nationalised and a fee is paid for timetabling it's use. Newly built tracks/infrastructure is jointly managed
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
I can't comment really, because I can only view the question from an enthusiasts perspective ie "what looks the best when standing on the platform?" So I would like more uniformity in branding which means yes, "British Rail". How that is run I don't know, but anything is better than privatisation which as created an enormously soulless railway, reducing a "railway" down to nothing more than contracts on wheels.
I think nowadays the most important question is how to generate more custom post-COVID rather than how the railway is managed.
I think nowadays the most important question is how to generate more custom post-COVID rather than how the railway is managed.
Track is nationalised today - Network Rail are owned by the government. Newly built infrastructure is owned by the funder and maintenance/management contracted out. East London Line, HS1, Crossrail are all not owned by NR, neither will HS2. Not sure about EWR.
Bartsimho
Member
I think a model like this is good. Maybe some slight oversight of it from a regulator so Open-Access can be maintained but use of the infrastructure is charged by the owner
So a Rail regulator then? Maybe we could also let them regulate some aspects of Road travel and call them the Office of Rail and Road, or ORR?
Home page | Office of Rail and Road
Maybe we should also have an expert body to rule on safety and standards and call it the Rail Safety and Standards Board, or RSSB; https://www.rssb.co.uk/en
What are the alleged benefits of nationalisation?
If you are ideologically against capitalism I can understand why you dont like profits but the idea that the taxpayer will get all those profits (conveniently forgetting all the losses - if it really was so profitable why have the DfT struggled for bidders?) relies on the assumption that those profits will still exist.
Take the competition out (the competition is between bidders so the monopoly of services isnt really relevant) and where is the pressure to be efficient. Didn't the German local authorities get what they wanted rather than what DB could be bothered to offer, and for 20-30% lower cost; and aren't the French regions desperate to be able to tender rail services to escape the dead hand of SNCF?
If you are ideologically against capitalism I can understand why you dont like profits but the idea that the taxpayer will get all those profits (conveniently forgetting all the losses - if it really was so profitable why have the DfT struggled for bidders?) relies on the assumption that those profits will still exist.
Take the competition out (the competition is between bidders so the monopoly of services isnt really relevant) and where is the pressure to be efficient. Didn't the German local authorities get what they wanted rather than what DB could be bothered to offer, and for 20-30% lower cost; and aren't the French regions desperate to be able to tender rail services to escape the dead hand of SNCF?
Technically we already have a publicly owned freight operator in DRS, albeit owned by the Nuclear Decomissioning Authority rather than, as is the case with most EU state owned operators, who own a freight subsidiary.
The DFT struggles for bidders because most companies don't want the Government dictating their actions, and actually want this thing called a free market.
More nationalised that it is so far, at least - there needs to be some national planning ( especially of stock procurement ), and passenger operations need to be managed by a publically owned company ala NR, one step removed from government, rather than in-house in the civil serivce. Sound oddly familiar? if nothing else then ROSCOs should go.
Capitalism that requires public investment is already broken - all it is is a method of filtering out tax contributions into private hands which the taxpayer has no control over ( is that not a central pillar of capitalism? ). Capitalist markets have their place, and effective monopolies of critical public transport operations is not one of them.
Capitalism that requires public investment is already broken - all it is is a method of filtering out tax contributions into private hands which the taxpayer has no control over ( is that not a central pillar of capitalism? ). Capitalist markets have their place, and effective monopolies of critical public transport operations is not one of them.
Nationally planned stock procurement has a strong whiff of 'careful what you wish for'. "You might well think new trains would bring lots of passengers to your line, but we have these old bangers spare so that is what you are going to get"
The franchises aren't monopolies - they are competed for, and compete against other modes of transport/lifestyle.
Bringing in private money frees (partially) the railway from Treasury spending limits and timescales - doesn't matter how good your business case is if the Treasury are currently not spending money due to wider issues.
"Capitalism that requires public investment is already broken". That is a bit backwards - the theory is that the taxpayer gets more for their money by getting the private sector to compete for the business. If that hasn't happened that is largely due to the incompetence of the DfT.
Bartsimho
Member
With the Franchises I would say they are half monopolies. They are competed for who runs them but after they have been won the routes they are allowed to run creates Monopolies. Look at how bad Avanti West Coast have been. If someone else could run London-Glasgow up the WCML they would either be outcompeted or get their act together. Having a base operator which is Government run but allowing for free competition with it would be my preferred option.
Currently a Private Operator isn't allowed to stop certain places as that would place them "in competition" (Lumo can't stop at Peterborough, Doncaster or York for this reasoning as they would be competing with LNER)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The competitor is the car.
The reason Avanti can't manage to respond to that is that they're micromanaged and incompetent. Another operator on the WCML wouldn't make them any less so.
LNER, a nationalised operation, seems to be quite good at marketing and designing services to compete with the car and air. Lumo do fill a small niche, but with a few 5 car trains a day they're pretty insignificant.
Bartsimho
Member
Yeah it's just how can you create a system that helps reduce the chance of an Avanti while being able to promote the service of LNER. I chucked them and Lumo in as they are the only truly Private rail company I could think of who have some restrictions written in.
I would hope a bit of competition for Avanti would force them to improve from their Incompetence and Micromanagement. Through people choosing someone else to go hurting the bottom line and maybe an internal review not just waiting for it to be stripped from them.
The TOCs got subsidies. They were not running loss-making franchises out of the goodness of their heart.
My own view is, it never got the investment in the network and rolling stock, If it was still in public ownership it would the last to get public funds.
The railway has almost all new trains now, would never have happened if had not been privatised.
I worked at brb in late 80’ mid 90’s
To me the system was running well with NSE and Inter-City.
But saw a lot of waste, reluctant to change. And unable to get investment.
The railway has almost all new trains now, would never have happened if had not been privatised.
I worked at brb in late 80’ mid 90’s
To me the system was running well with NSE and Inter-City.
But saw a lot of waste, reluctant to change. And unable to get investment.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The micromanagement is from the DfT.
It doesn't hurt their bottom line because DfT bail them out! Plenty of people are switching to car, air and coach, most Avanti trains I've used recently have been empty.
Bartsimho
Member
The question comes then how is the West Coast so poor yet the East Coast so much better despite 2 larger population centres to serve on the West Coast route
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
LNER has good senior management, a good culture and is left by DfT to largely get on with it?
The East coast is also fundamentally a simpler route. It has a clear core and simple branches. Even the diverts are relatively simple. The West Coast route has multiple routes to each city with different traffic pairs to serve (E.g. Scotland direct and via Brum, Manchester via Stoke or Crewe). Which means diverting can get complicated, especially keeping route knowledge up.
Bartsimho
Member
I guess this might get easier once HS2 is a thing especially Phase 2a but that's a fair way off
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
That is brilliant - may I use it please?
Sure thing. Mind if I ask what for? Just out of curiosity, nothing more.
The term nationalisation and public ownership are used interchangeably but whilst nationalisation is a form of public ownership it isnt the only one. A rail network could be comprised of multiple publicly owned companies. In fact in the UK, this already is true with the likes of LNER.
I personally dont think the railways should be nationalised in the sense of there being a single state owned operators. The lesson from many EU countries is that this need not be the case.
The Polish regional division of Poland's state operator was handed over to the ownership of regional government. In a number of EU countries regional governments own rail operators.
Equally in EU countries like Germany, local rail services are effectively owned by local and regional government and bought from a provider of their choice, which may be the state owned operator.
I think the problem with privatisation in the UK is that BR was deliberately smashed to smithereens, primarily for political reasons.
The lesson from much of Europe is that it need not have been that way. The private sector and public sector could have coexisted. Competition could have been introduced and operators kept on their toes via competitive tendering of regional services.
The frustrating thing is that the structure of BR in the early 1990s was in many ways ready made for introducing private sector operators in a similar way to they have been introduced in Europe whilst also retaining publicly owned operators as well. What we lacked at the time was political leaders who were prepared to be more pragmatic when approaching rail reform.
I personally dont think the railways should be nationalised in the sense of there being a single state owned operators. The lesson from many EU countries is that this need not be the case.
The Polish regional division of Poland's state operator was handed over to the ownership of regional government. In a number of EU countries regional governments own rail operators.
Equally in EU countries like Germany, local rail services are effectively owned by local and regional government and bought from a provider of their choice, which may be the state owned operator.
I think the problem with privatisation in the UK is that BR was deliberately smashed to smithereens, primarily for political reasons.
The lesson from much of Europe is that it need not have been that way. The private sector and public sector could have coexisted. Competition could have been introduced and operators kept on their toes via competitive tendering of regional services.
The frustrating thing is that the structure of BR in the early 1990s was in many ways ready made for introducing private sector operators in a similar way to they have been introduced in Europe whilst also retaining publicly owned operators as well. What we lacked at the time was political leaders who were prepared to be more pragmatic when approaching rail reform.
Last edited:
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Not sure yet to be truthful/ just thought it was a brilliant phrase.
East Coast has direct competition from the open access operators?
What are industrial relations like on the East Coast - considering the unions political aims it would make sense for them to go easy on the employer they want to highlight as "its much better when state owned"?
Bartsimho
Member
The 3 Open Access Operators on the ECML appear to be running a full service today. Grand Central, Hull Trains and Lumo do state there is industrial action on their website but that it doesn't effect them.
- Status