Labour could be planning to allow public sector to bid for franchises

[David Barrett]

There's no such thing as the money fairy, despite what Gordon Brown believed. You need money to make things happen. Without it, they don't.

A statement that a substantial number of people be they sick, unemployed or both could probably attest to.

 

[Manchester77]

What an odd thing to say.

If you have NO MONEY how can you care for sick or give help to the unemployed?

There's no such thing as the money fairy, despite what Gordon Brown believed. You need money to make things happen. Without it, they don't.

Not really it's a sad phrase that can be used to sum up how the world works now. Money shouldn't be a barrier to care for the sick or unemployed yet it unfortunately is. I don't really think any party is willing to increase taxes in fear of losing votes yet really we should have higher taxes for the very wealthy to allow us to improve people's quality of lives and to fund the NHS and a welfare state.

It's more Osbourne who believes in the money fairy with UK government borrowing increasing rapidly under this government but hey ho!

All I'm trying to say is that it's sad people have to suffer due to numbers which act as a barrier to improving quality of life.

 

[Oliver]

The Private Companies are immune as well. They can just hand the keys back if it doesn't make any money, q.f. East Coast.

Yes, they handed back the keys after they had lost a fortune.

 

[Deerfold]

Yes, they handed back the keys after they had lost a fortune.

Even though they'd signed a contract to run it for longer.

 

[Bill Stanier]

Not really it's a sad phrase that can be used to sum up how the world works now. Money shouldn't be a barrier to care for the sick or unemployed yet it unfortunately is.

Having no money is a barrier to doing anything. Helping the disadvantaged can't be done for nothing.

I don't really think any party is willing to increase taxes in fear of losing votes yet really we should have higher taxes for the very wealthy to allow us to improve people's quality of lives and to fund the NHS and a welfare state.

The very wealthy pay far more tax than most already. Not a lot of people know that. Look at a breakdown of who pays most tax in UK to see that.

It's more Osbourne who believes in the money fairy with UK government borrowing increasing rapidly under this government but hey ho!

Oh, now you really are taking the whatsit! It was the last government that took a healthy economy from Ken Clark and turned it into a massive deficit as Gordon Brown spent and spent and spent believing the growth of the economy would pay for it (remember "no more boom or bust"? What an idiot!). When the 'bust' inevitably came in the form of world depression UK was totally exposed and left with a massive deficit (difference between what we earn and what we spend) and the biggest peacetime debt this country has ever had. This is what the present government inherited - an absolutely wrecked economy of unprecedented debt and unprecedented deficit (Maggie also inherited the wrecked economy from Callaghan on the previous Labour administration. It's something Labour always do hence my horror at the thought of them getting in next time).

Osbourne has reduced the deficit considerably, but of course as long as we run a deficit of any size at all the debt will increase (deficit is spending more than we earn). If Osbourne reduced spending to the level required to eliminate the deficit and start reducing the debt things would be very unpleasent indeed, and his party would be immediately voted out of office by those who think there's a money fairy who'll come in the night and make everything OK.

All I'm trying to say is that it's sad people have to suffer due to numbers which act as a barrier to improving quality of life.

How can one improve quality of life for anyone if we don't generate the wealth to fund it? It doesn't come free. Nothing in life does!

 

[Latecomer]

This is perhaps getting a bit off topic, but as a 40% taxpayer now I'm happy to contribute to the welfare state that supported the person I was for a year of my life when I needed it and I'm happy to contribute to the pot that may support my needs if I become ill and frailas I age. Wealth and poverty can be a transient thing.

 

[Greenback]

This is perhaps getting a bit off topic

You're right, it is. Please keep the thread on topic, or posts will be deleted.

 

[yorksrob]

There's no such thing as the money fairy

Unless you're a bank of course.

Getting back to the original subject, It strikes me that there is plenty of excellent practice all over the network. Southern's well looked after stations, FGW's local services in Cornwall, SWT's well maintained and presented rolling stock, East Coast's attentive first class service, Grand Central's ability to find a pricing niche.

Going on service alone, I don't think the private sector TOC's have anything in particular to worry about from this proposal as DOR seems to act pretty much like any other TOC. This is one of the reasons why it was nonsensical to boot it out so soon after that franchise had already undergone upheaval when there were plenty of other franchises which were due refreshing.

 

[8H]

It is an ineffective policy proposal because it keeps the mad process of franchising wholly entrenched. This merry go round requires very many accountants, economists, lawyers, modellers, consultants and Uncle Tom Cobley and all variety of parasitic "partners" draining the public purse. Of course they also thereby prevent more direct expenditure going to improve the operational railway at the same time. The most successful European railways are simple state models with reliable partners such as regional and local authorities. European law also provides for competition and open access style operations if the private sector is really that keen to take real risk on running trains.

 

[Bill Stanier]

8H. So how come the railway is so much better today in every respect than it ever was under BR? Faster, safer, cleaner, more comfortable. The only downside is it's now so good that it's often overcrowded!

 

[Railsigns]

So how come the railway is so much better today in every respect than it ever was under BR?

Because the fares are higher than ever before and because taxpayers contribute several times more in subsidies than ever before.

 

[yorksrob]

8H. So how come the railway is so much better today in every respect than it ever was under BR? Faster, safer, cleaner, more comfortable. The only downside is it's now so good that it's often overcrowded!

Progress. Todays railway is more safer than BR in the same way that BR was safer than the railway that preceeded it.

As for comfort, I've travelled on a lot of BR built stock and a lot of post BR stock and I have to say, I've yet to find a new built train that was more comfortable than the one it replaced.

 

[daccer]

The Nationalised railway had two major chances during the second half of the twentieth century to reinvent itself and to also make a step change in the way it was viewed and was run. The first was the modernisation plan of 1955 and the second was the opening of the Channel Tunnel which opened up new rail opportunities. Both of these events brought about a temporary change in mindset and opened up the purse strings. In both cases expenditure was vast and in many ways wasted due to short sighted projections and the inability to grasp an opportunity by a generation of managers used to frugility and penny pinching.

This is what the private sector can do. It is designed around growth and driving growth. A listed company who reports static profits is viewed as failing - management would be castigated and possible fired if growth is not in line with expectations. A nationalised company simply does not have that ethos. I worked for BR in the late 80's and it was flabby - it might have looked lean but it was not. It was not customer focused and the whole entity was jogging along. a private company would not have behaved in such a way.

The problems with the current franchising system come about because it is just that. It is a franchise - it is heavily prescribed and regulated. Private companies like freedom and the ability to drive profit growth through increasing revenues and cutting costs. However I don't see this friction as being such a bad thing. It makes both sides drive a hard bargain sure, the recent agreements seem to see the Dft doing well on premiums etc, but it does also allow the Dft to tap into that private sector mentality whilst still securing the 'social' aspect of the railway through prescribing services levels. The TOC's profits are 2.5% of turnover - is this such an issue?

DOR will be used a stick to beat franchise applicants into better offers. I am sure the Dft will not award to DOR if they can get what they want from the private companies. However it doesnt hurt to have a runner in the race, even if it is a longshot, just in case every one else falls over.

 

[muddythefish]

8H. So how come the railway is so much better today in every respect than it ever was under BR? Faster, safer, cleaner, more comfortable. The only downside is it's now so good that it's often overcrowded!

Fares are higher and it is costing the taxpayer billions more a year than it ever did under BR.

Plus the system is more centralised and run by Whitehall than when it was a nationalised railway.

Safer after Hatfield and Potters Bar etc etc ? Faster and cleaner is debatable.

The stations are better - but the private sector didn't pay for those improvements either.

I'm afraid you're way off the mark as usual.

 

[yorksrob]

The Nationalised railway had two major chances during the second half of the twentieth century to reinvent itself and to also make a step change in the way it was viewed and was run. The first was the modernisation plan of 1955 and the second was the opening of the Channel Tunnel which opened up new rail opportunities. Both of these events brought about a temporary change in mindset and opened up the purse strings. In both cases expenditure was vast and in many ways wasted due to short sighted projections and the inability to grasp an opportunity by a generation of managers used to frugility and penny pinching.

This is what the private sector can do. It is designed around growth and driving growth. A listed company who reports static profits is viewed as failing - management would be castigated and possible fired if growth is not in line with expectations. A nationalised company simply does not have that ethos. I worked for BR in the late 80's and it was flabby - it might have looked lean but it was not. It was not customer focused and the whole entity was jogging along. a private company would not have behaved in such a way.

The problems with the current franchising system come about because it is just that. It is a franchise - it is heavily prescribed and regulated. Private companies like freedom and the ability to drive profit growth through increasing revenues and cutting costs. However I don't see this friction as being such a bad thing. It makes both sides drive a hard bargain sure, the recent agreements seem to see the Dft doing well on premiums etc, but it does also allow the Dft to tap into that private sector mentality whilst still securing the 'social' aspect of the railway through prescribing services levels. The TOC's profits are 2.5% of turnover - is this such an issue?

DOR will be used a stick to beat franchise applicants into better offers. I am sure the Dft will not award to DOR if they can get what they want from the private companies. However it doesnt hurt to have a runnerin the race, even if it is a longshot, just in case every one else falls over.

I'm afraid I don't see how the channel tunnel could be seen as some massive opportunity to "reinvent" the railway. Whilst it was indeed a very large investment (and as someone living in Kent at the time, some of the infrastructure improvements were very noticeable locally), this would only have been very peripheral to the vast majority of jurneys in the UK at the time. The changes brought about by NSE were certainly a lot more relevant to me as a traveller and the channel tunnel investment, whilst laudable in its own rtihht, was simply in the wrong place to impact most of the country.

Ultimately, what the railway (and the country) needed was the sort of public investment that Government has stumped up since the "nervous breakdown" fifteen years ago, otherwise where are you going to put your new passengers.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm afraid I don't see how the channel tunnel could be seen as some massive opportunity to "reinvent" the railway. Whilst it was indeed a very large investment (and as someone living in Kent at the time, some of the infrastructure improvements were very noticeable locally), this would only have been very peripheral to the vast majority of jurneys in the UK at the time. The changes brought about by NSE were certainly a lot more relevant to me as a traveller and the channel tunnel investment, whilst laudable in its own rtihht, was simply in the wrong place to impact most of the country.

Ultimately, what the railway (and the country) needed was the sort of public investment that Government has stumped up since the "nervous breakdown" fifteen years ago, otherwise where are you going to put your new passengers.

There's certainly an argument that the railway we have today is because government invested in it after the private sector failed Railtrack etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Nationalised railway had two major chances during the second half of the twentieth century to reinvent itself and to also make a step change in the way it was viewed and was run. The first was the modernisation plan of 1955 and the second was the opening of the Channel Tunnel which opened up new rail opportunities. Both of these events brought about a temporary change in mindset and opened up the purse strings. In both cases expenditure was vast and in many ways wasted due to short sighted projections and the inability to grasp an opportunity by a generation of managers used to frugility and penny pinching.

This is what the private sector can do. It is designed around growth and driving growth. A listed company who reports static profits is viewed as failing - management would be castigated and possible fired if growth is not in line with expectations. A nationalised company simply does not have that ethos. I worked for BR in the late 80's and it was flabby - it might have looked lean but it was not. It was not customer focused and the whole entity was jogging along. a private company would not have behaved in such a way.

The problems with the current franchising system come about because it is just that. It is a franchise - it is heavily prescribed and regulated. Private companies like freedom and the ability to drive profit growth through increasing revenues and cutting costs. However I don't see this friction as being such a bad thing. It makes both sides drive a hard bargain sure, the recent agreements seem to see the Dft doing well on premiums etc, but it does also allow the Dft to tap into that private sector mentality whilst still securing the 'social' aspect of the railway through prescribing services levels. The TOC's profits are 2.5% of turnover - is this such an issue?

DOR will be used a stick to beat franchise applicants into better offers. I am sure the Dft will not award to DOR if they can get what they want from the private companies. However it doesnt hurt to have a runner in the race, even if it is a longshot, just in case every one else falls over.

Government recognises the importance of rail to the economy and the furore it would cause if the private sector was allowed a complete free hand hence the specification and regulation - we will never see the full benefits of what the private can do positively but conversely services are protected from what the private sector would do negatively.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

One of the unintended consequences of franchising is the focus it gives route by route, at renewal every 7-15 years.
BR did a lot of good things, but it never had a systematic view of how to develop its services.
To be fair, the government didn't have a view either, other than cost reduction.
BR tended to jerk from one lot of hard-won investment to another on favoured main lines, and most of the rest was left to crumble away (which is why we got such poor services in the north and elsewhere).
These days, things are more open and focussed, with both NR and the franchise bids required to target investment for growth, in each area.
Abandoning franchises, whether public or private, would just bring back the amorphous unmanageable blob that the BR railway was.

 

[Gareth Marston]

One of the unintended consequences of franchising was the focus it gives route by route, at renewal every 7-15 years.
BR did a lot of good things, but it never had a systematic view of how to develop its services.
To be fair, the government didn't have a view either, other than cost reduction.
BR tended to jerk from one lot of hard-won investment to another on favoured main lines, and most of the rest was left to crumble away (which is why we got such poor services in the north and elsewhere).
These days, things are more open and focussed, with both NR and the franchise bids required to target investment for growth, in each area.
Abandoning franchises, whether public or private, would just bring back the amorphous unmanageable blob that the BR railway was.

Just about everything is an unintended consequence!
Personally I'd like to see a UK wide consistent InterCity operation which should in theory be profitable, Network South East concession directly funded and influenced by Local authorities in its area and the replication of this model around the existing PTE's and new ones covering local services out to around 50 miles from city region centre and a proper community rail focus on the remainder.

 

[Philip]

And an awful lot of new rolling stock and infrastructure work has been introduced under the present government, so quite honestly that means nothing whatsoever, in fact should we all give Maggie Thatcher a big cheer for being in power when the two sides of the Channel Tunnel met ?, what wasn't introduced under the previous Labour government however, was any type of reform of the privatisation that Labour were supposedly so much against and were going to put right as soon as they took power

Under the Labour government and in the first half of the term we had many new rolling stock orders including Classes 175 and 185 predominantly for the North West, North Wales, Yorkshire and the North East and then the Turbostar, Voyager, Desiro and Pendolino fleets all mainly used for services between London, the South West, the Midlands, the North and Scotland. This balanced out across the whole of the UK very fairly and vastly improved rail travel particularly across the North of England and Wales where it was needed.
Under the coalition government would I be right in thinking the only new stock around these parts are the ten 350s (reducing capacity in other areas nearby don't forget) and the couple of extra Pendolinos to bolster the Euston services?

 

[fowler9]

Under the Labour government and in the first half of the term we had many new rolling stock orders including Classes 175 and 185 predominantly for the North West, North Wales, Yorkshire and the North East and then the Turbostar, Voyager, Desiro and Pendolino fleets all mainly used for services between London, the South West, the Midlands, the North and Scotland. This balanced out across the whole of the UK very fairly and vastly improved rail travel particularly across the North of England and Wales where it was needed.
Under the coalition government would I be right in thinking the only new stock around these parts are the ten 350s (reducing capacity in other areas nearby don't forget) and the couple of extra Pendolinos to bolster the Euston services?

Not arguing with you really but for the Tour De France the vastly improved service provided by the 185'S is replaced by old local hauled coaching stock on some trains.

 

[yorksrob]

Although, realistically, the mk2s couldn't be said to have represented a deterioration of the passenger environment.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What will be the day when the matter referred to in the OP as "next week" comes to pass ?

 

[Oscar]

One of the unintended consequences of franchising is the focus it gives route by route, at renewal every 7-15 years.
BR did a lot of good things, but it never had a systematic view of how to develop its services.
To be fair, the government didn't have a view either, other than cost reduction.
BR tended to jerk from one lot of hard-won investment to another on favoured main lines, and most of the rest was left to crumble away (which is why we got such poor services in the north and elsewhere).
These days, things are more open and focussed, with both NR and the franchise bids required to target investment for growth, in each area.
Abandoning franchises, whether public or private, would just bring back the amorphous unmanageable blob that the BR railway was.

I don't think there is a very systematic view of how to develop services now either. By thinking in terms of routes for fares and timetabling rather than a network we may make the network very attractive for people who want to make certain journeys but not others. There's also no strategic plan for rolling stock. Political pressure becomes more important than what is good for the network. Surely we need to start by analysing travel flows by all modes and creating a targeted long-term (10 year?) investment plan for infrastructure and rolling stock based around a timetable plan? This would require a steady and reliable flow of money from government, more like what Network Rail receives now than anything BR had.

Going back to the topic of this thread, how much could the potential savings be if DOR delivered a better bid than a private company compared to the costs of lots of wasted bids?

 

[HSTEd]

So this is backpeddling from nationalisation to continuing the absurd current system?

So labour essentially abandoning the idea of anything being in public ownership - wonderful.

 

[yorksrob]

So labour essentially abandoning the idea of anything being in public ownership - wonderful.

I think that bird flew twenty years ago with clause 4.

 

[Squaddie]

So this is backpeddling from nationalisation to continuing the absurd current system?

So labour essentially abandoning the idea of anything being in public ownership - wonderful.

Today's Observer is reporting that Ed Miliband is under pressure to adopt renationalisation of the railways as official Labour party policy.

The Observer has learnt that more than 50 local Labour parties, as well as the London and Wales regions and all the main unions, are planning to vote to bring all rail franchises back under national ownership when they expire, at a key meeting of the National Policy Forum this month.

Full story.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Today's Observer is reporting that Ed Miliband is under pressure to adopt renationalisation of the railways as official Labour party policy.

Full story.

The Conservatives will earnestly hope that this will be the case, as the "Communist under the bed" adage will be milked for all it is worth.

Just as much as they hope that the current Labour Leader of the Opposition will stay in power.

 

[Squaddie]

The Conservatives will earnestly hope that this will be the case, as the "Communist under the bed" adage will be milked for all it is worth.

Just as much as they hope that the current Labour Leader of the Opposition will stay in power.

A sizeable majority of the British public wants to see the railways back in public ownership; if this were adopted as official Labour party policy then I think it would actually increase their chances of winning the next election. Not that a manifesto "promise" is even worth the paper it's written on, of course.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A sizeable majority of the British public wants to see the railways back in public ownership; if this were adopted as official Labour party policy then I think it would actually increase their chances of winning the next election. Not that a manifesto "promise" is even worth the paper it's written on, of course.

Manifesto promises are indeed something that are written which at the same time also have the excuses of why they cannot be fulfilled also written.

Incidentally, in an idle moment recently, I decided to "channel-hop" by the use of the TV remote control and then stopped as on what I took to be an American programme called "Everyone loves Raymond", I was amazed to see what I thought was Ed Miliband in the lead role, until the character began to talk.

 

[muz379]

A sizeable majority of the British public wants to see the railways back in public ownership; if this were adopted as official Labour party policy then I think it would actually increase their chances of winning the next election. Not that a manifesto "promise" is even worth the paper it's written on, of course.

Have you got any stats for the size of this majority ? , I was under the impression the majority of the public didn't care enough or understand fully the way the railways are run to make such a statement but I am open to be shown otherwise .

Incidentally even if this manifesto promise was made , labour did win the next election and did begin along the path of renationalisation I dont think that anything would change for the key issues the public see as being wrong with the railway which is late ,dirty,expensive and old trains . As somebody said in the DOO thread the railways are a key piece of public infrastructure which benefit us all even if we dont travel on it and so as such need massive amounts of investment to keep running . This is something that successive governments in this country have not quite grasped the same way some of our European partners on the continent have and invested heavily in the railways .