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

[fowler9]

May I invite you to view the most excellent "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch.

Ha ha, Paul that is one of my favourite bits of comedy ever.

 

[47802]

What would you classify as the left-wing press ? Do you ever remember the Reynolds News and its original link to the Co-operative movement ?

I still think that the wrong Miliband was made the leader of the Labour Party.

I think many people think that, he has the Neil Kinnock factor not the nessesary Statesman like quality to be Prime Minister.

In any case we need to see what the Scots do, If the Scots vote for Independence Its likely to be a short Government, plus it may also change the way they vote, I'm not a big fan of the Tories but if Scotland Split I want a Government that will play Hardball in the Divorce Talks and you wont get that from the Labour party.

 

[David Barrett]

The way people talk about the 70s it sounds like it was like Mad Max.

From discussions with people alive at the time it appears to have not actually been as bad as people seem to think today.

I recall a report published a few years ago in which an attempt was made to establish overall levels of contentment amongst the population. A gradual increase was registered over time until a peak was reached in 1976 after which, despite increasing levels of wealth, the graph reversed direction.

 

[Deerfold]

But best of all, close down everyone of the "Bingo" organisations who advertise on TV that are specifically aimed at women. A £10 down input seems to be the par for the course...I am sure that £10 would be better spent on food.

Presumably you'll also include all the poker sites that are generally aimed at men but seem to have similar business models?

 

[muz379]

Presumably you'll also include all the poker sites that are generally aimed at men but seem to have similar business models?

not to mention the ridiculous number of bookmakers that have opened up in recent times as well

 

[yorksrob]

You can tell the state of the Nation through its television adverts, and the fact that they all seem to be for payday lenders, online casino's and ambulance chasers tells you all you need to know about the depth of our "eeconomic recovery".

 

[David Barrett]

The 1946 production "It's a Wonderful Life" with James Stewart has a certain ring about it even now, perhaps even more so now.

 

[jon0844]

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.

Yes they do. Not sure why, but they do. I guess it's a case of people hating the current Government, and thinking BR was fantastic because it was long enough ago now that people will have forgotten, or never known, what it was like.

But would it be an election issue that would influence votes on the day? I'm not so sure.

Could be a major disaster for Labour if it decided to make this policy, as it would then mean the PR machines would kick in and point out that the BR days weren't perfect.

I am not sure what the main election issue will be next year. Labour is saying it won't continue paying out loads in benefits, so that's a lot of voters now stuck. Does the EU affect most people? Will it be about immigration? Will it be about the NHS? Or will it be about a nationalised railway?

 

[DownSouth]

Yes they do. Not sure why, but they do. I guess it's a case of people hating the current Government, and thinking BR was fantastic because it was long enough ago now that people will have forgotten, or never known, what it was like.

It's because the natural reaction to something being unsatisfactory is to make some sort of change.

If railways were to be nationalised for the second time, it wouldn't be long before the lack of improvement in some areas (and the inevitable worsening of standards in others) would become more prominent than the areas where things had improved, and people would be calling for privatisation again.

 

[The Decapod]

Well, the collapse of Railtrack during Labour's time meant that the physical railway reverted to effective public ownership.

Hasn't this current Tory government has just fully nationalised Network Rail, within the last week or two, by changing its status from a commercial company that's wholly owned by the state into a state-run corporation?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Presumably you'll also include all the poker sites that are generally aimed at men but seem to have similar business models?

When I made reference to the "bingo" media advertisements aimed specifically at women, in which the £10 base is seen as the norm minimum spend, it is that amount of money that the women in the poorer area normally use to buy food that is being targeted in the most cynical way by those television advertisements by the use of "happiness" on the faces of the actresses portrayed in these.

The poker and associated gambling sites aimed at men are both cynically and specifically targeted at those who could well have a gambling problem. The actors and actresses seem to inhabit most strange abodes. In one such advertisement, the man goes to the tap to fill his glass only for what appears objects the size of dice to be dispensed.

 

[jon0844]

not to mention the ridiculous number of bookmakers that have opened up in recent times as well

Bookmakers that were also allowed to install those nasty Fixed Odds Betting Terminals that the Government at the time said should be regulated, or even banned, but allowed to be kept in use while they decided.

I am not sure they ever did decide did they?

And now we have people able to spend ridiculous sums of money in seconds. Machines that should be reserved for casinos, not a shop next door to your local convenience store that you pass every day.

At least before that, you mostly had fruit machines with 25p stakes (then) that limited the speed at which you could throw away your money. You could still spend a lot on those, but nowhere near as much as you can now.

When I made reference to the "bingo" media advertisements aimed specifically at women, in which the £10 base is seen as the norm minimum spend, it is that amount of money that the women in the poorer area normally use to buy food that is being targeted in the most cynical way by those television advertisements by the use of "happiness" on the faces of the actresses portrayed in these.

The poker and associated gambling sites aimed at men are both cynically and specifically targeted at those who could well have a gambling problem. The actors and actresses seem to inhabit most strange abodes. In one such advertisement, the man goes to the tap to fill his glass only for what appears objects the size of dice to be dispensed.

The companies are doing the same to both sexes, but playing on stereotypes. Women are happier when they gamble and have great fun along the way, while men will be more powerful (and all the women love that) through their success.

Total nonsense of course.

That said, I've got an account with an online slot machine company - which has many of the slot machines I enjoyed in Las Vegas (I think they have many of them in UK casinos too, but I don't go to them). I have set myself a limit of £30 per month.

I don't even play every month, but if I do then it's £30 that I've decided I can afford to lose. And they are fun to play, and when I lose it's not possible for me to think of just adding another £30 to try and win back my losses.

Another thing I will usually do is refuse the offers that come from time to time to get 10% free play, or to cover losses, as these come with ridiculous terms that mean I might have to play through any winnings a number of times. So, while I get 'free money' to bet with - my chances of winning and cashing out are actually vastly reduced.

But this is way off topic so I'll shut up now!

 

[HH]

Passenger numbers are also rising in Northern Ireland, where the railways remain in public ownership. It's funny how you always cite the rise in passenger numbers as "proof" of privatisation's success but fail to mention the massive increase in subsidies that taxpayers are contributing to the privatised railway (contrary to Tory promises that subsidies would fall).

And what are the subsidies like in Northern Ireland? They added 20 new trains to 26 existing - you would hope for some increase in passenger journeys...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There was something of a boom in passenger numbers in the second half 1980s associated with the increase of economic activity at the time, followed to an extent by freight. I hadn't realised that we were privatised as long ago as 1986!

Cause and correlation are two different things altogether and the observation of one does not necessarily imply the other.

Rather than rely on hearsay, here's the official graph.

From what I can see the second half of the 80s is just a temporary recovery from the first half, that was then followed by a dip in the first half of the 90s.

 

[Simon11]

Looking at the graph, I wonder when we will reach the peak in 1910s!

 

[HH]

The Rebuilding Rail report.

And that was completely unbiased... :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looking at the graph, I wonder when we will reach the peak in 1910s!

Quite soon it looks like, and that's despite the fact that the network was shrunk massively by Beeching. Remind me, was the railway privatised or nationalised at that point?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hasn't this current Tory government has just fully nationalised Network Rail, within the last week or two, by changing its status from a commercial company that's wholly owned by the state into a state-run corporation?

They have, but it was because of EU law. The reason for pretending it wasn't state-run was so they could keep NR's debts off the books.

 

[yorksrob]

Rather than rely on hearsay, here's the official graph.

From what I can see the second half of the 80s is just a temporary recovery from the first half, that was then followed by a dip in the first half of the 90s.

We should remember that rail passenger transport had been in decline in response to the dominance of the motor car from the late 1950's, which included the "you've never had it so good" era of the 60's as well as the economic malaise of the 1970's. Against this background, the passenger boom of the 1980's should be seen as rather more than a temporary "blip" and infact the beginnings of the era of success we see today.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quite soon it looks like, and that's despite the fact that the network was shrunk massively by Beeching. Remind me, was the railway privatised or nationalised at that point?

It's certainly no surprise that the worst of railways post war decline occured when the Beeching philosophy was at its height.

 

[HH]

We should remember that rail passenger transport had been in decline in response to the dominance of the motor car from the late 1950's, which included the "you've never had it so good" era of the 60's as well as the economic malaise of the 1970's. Against this background, the passenger boom of the 1980's should be seen as rather more than a temporary "blip" and infact the beginnings of the era of success we see today.

It's possible that is the case, but the numbers don't offer any evidence to support your premise. You haven't explained the dips either side, or why growth has been constant since privatisation, unlike the somewhat cyclical nature under nationalisation (despite the downward trend). And before you bring up the recent decline in young drivers, I can tell you that there are a lot more cars on the roads today than there were in the 80s (or even 1995).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's certainly no surprise that the worst of railways post war decline occured when the Beeching philosophy was at its height.

Exactly. My point is that such philosophy is highly unlikely today. Would it still be unlikely if the government was completely running the railway and needed to save a few bob?

 

[jon0844]

Such a philosophy is unlikely, but not impossible.

Let's say we finally crack the electric car, and can generate energy to drive about that is incredibly cheap and renewable. And then we have cars that are so much more intelligent, it's near impossible to have an accident (I do believe that before we'll get true driverless cars, we'll need to make roads more contained - so that's not going to happen for some time).

Suddenly the railway might once again seem like an old, antiquated, transport system for only the people who can't afford a car. And there might be very cheap, efficient, buses, trams etc to replace a lot of other railway lines. It will be like the 1960s all over again.

I don't really wish to rank roads over railways, or vice versa. They're both essential and complement each other perfectly in most cases.

 

[HH]

When we arrive at that dystopian future then rUK will probably have 100m population, and the nationalised, driverless cars will be gridlocked for 18 hours a day. Meanwhile I'll be sitting on my driverless (but guarded!), privatised train going 200mph into London.

 

[HSTEd]

You haven't explained the dips either side, or why growth has been constant since privatisation, unlike the somewhat cyclical nature under nationalisation (despite the downward trend).

Because since privatisation until about 2008 there was unlimited money thrown at the railways in a way that British Rail could never dream of?
British Rail was denied ~£750m for IC250 but then ten billion was thrown at a Virgin/Railtrack project with the same aims but with arguably fewer benefits.

The subsidy in the last year of British Rail operation was something like £900m.

The subsidy is now rather larger than that even in real terms - despite the fact that the drastically increased passenger numbers should lead to titanic economies of scale. Especially considering the drastically increased overcrowding and enormous fare increases.

Despite this the cost of running the railway in real terms per passenger mile remain effectively what they were at privatisation.

The Railway may not haved moved as many people, but it is also cost far less for the taxpayer and the users of it.

And before you bring up the recent decline in young drivers, I can tell you that there are a lot more cars on the roads today than there were in the 80s (or even 1995).

Expanding population swamps the reducing propensity for young people to drive, especially considering we now have the healthiest and most wealthy class of pensioners that has ever existed and is now ever likely to exist which continue to drive in a way that previous generations simply could not.

Exactly. My point is that such philosophy is highly unlikely today. Would it still be unlikely if the government was completely running the railway and needed to save a few bob?

The Government does completely run the railway.
When was the last time a major operational decision was not taken by the DfT?
WIth the exemption of some minor blips immediately after privatisation the last time this took place continuously for a significant period was the Sectorised British rail.

Many rant that Beeching is a symbol of how BR was evil, but noone has ever explained why we would need a railway between Grantham and Lincoln, and between Newark and Lincoln when one can easily reach Newark from Grantham in not very long at all.
They had far too much track and no way of anticipating it would ever be needed again (and it most cases it will never be needed again despite what many claim).

And it wasn't BR that killed Woodhead, it was this concept of 'Social Neccessity' that saved Hope Valley and left the Woodhead as the route, out of the two, that could be closed.
There was no need for two routes from Sheffield to Manchester and there still isn't. One route was untouchable so they closed the other.

 

[Wolfie]

The only note of cution I'd raise with this is where this process has been carried out in other public sector organisations (the NHS is an example where I've been involved in the process) the public sector (on tender) are nearly always more expensive, less efficient and with less clear goals and outcomes. Actual performance tends to reflect that as well.

If DOR can avoid this then the Labour process would be a good thing as long as the judgement criteria were equitable and not skewed one way or the other.

You are correct in many ways. Of course the public sector often bids for what is actually currently being done whereas the private sector bids for what has been specified.... and then charges an arm and a leg for anything not explicitly included (and things always seem to get left out...)....

 

[Oswyntail]

You are correct in many ways. Of course the public sector often bids for what is actually currently being done whereas the private sector bids for what has been specified.... and then charges an arm and a leg for anything not explicitly included (and things always seem to get left out...)....

Almost. When I was involved in bidding, both public and private, the public sector produced detailed specifications that exactly matched what was wanted. The private sector then bid to do what their standard package did, then charged an arm and a leg for the differences between that package and the original specification.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Many rant that Beeching is a symbol of how BR was evil, but noone has ever explained why we would need a railway between Grantham and Lincoln, and between Newark and Lincoln when one can easily reach Newark from Grantham in not very long at all.

This, of course, will be the very same Lincoln whose "very regular" () 7-days a week service by train is such a shining example of rail progression in the 21st century.

 

[HH]

Because since privatisation until about 2008 there was unlimited money thrown at the railways in a way that British Rail could never dream of?

British Rail wasted much of the money it did have, although to be fair DfT do the same today (but with much less directly under their control thankfully). Public Sector just doesn't know how to manage a budget; starve for 11 months and splurge for 1. It happens everywhere; my wife works in Local Government and it's the same there.

The subsidy in the last year of British Rail operation was something like £900m.

Yes, because at the end it was being starved for funds. The government didn't want to spend money on something they were selling off.

...the fact that the drastically increased passenger numbers should lead to titanic economies of scale. Especially considering the drastically increased overcrowding and enormous fare increases.

Despite this the cost of running the railway in real terms per passenger mile remain effectively what they were at privatisation.

You don't understand this very well do you? Economies of scale don't just happen because numbers increase. Why don't you explain exactly what economies of scale you would expect to have happened?

Expanding population swamps the reducing propensity for young people to drive, especially considering we now have the healthiest and most wealthy class of pensioners that has ever existed and is now ever likely to exist which continue to drive in a way that previous generations simply could not.

And pray, what in the above explains the increase in rail passengers?

...noone has ever explained why we would need a railway between Grantham and Lincoln, and between Newark and Lincoln...

Where did Newark, Lincoln, etc. come from? There were railways that needed closing. That doesn't impact on the mindset at the time. I recall it. Do you?

 

[HSTEd]

British Rail wasted much of the money it did have, although to be fair DfT do the same today (but with much less directly under their control thankfully). Public Sector just doesn't know how to manage a budget; starve for 11 months and splurge for 1. It happens everywhere; my wife works in Local Government and it's the same there.

And the private sector works differently?
My experience on the inside of various manufacturing and other firms finds the same there.
THis is inherent in any large organisation.
But of course the private sector is magical and perfectly efficient.

Yes, because at the end it was being starved for funds. The government didn't want to spend money on something they were selling off.

Even the previous years including numerous electrification projects were only ~£1300m or so.
To say that BR haemmorhaged money on anything like the same scale as the privatised railway does now is absurd.
Also note that there were significant infrastructure expenditures over the last few years of Britsih rail. For instance the Heathrow Airport electrification project and so on.

While rolling stock orders may have stopped it was hardly a railway that did absolutely nothing for years.

And I didn't realise we spent ~£2bn or more every year on rolling stock procurement.

You don't understand this very well do you? Economies of scale don't just happen because numbers increase. Why don't you explain exactly what economies of scale you would expect to have happened?

I'm sorry I didn't realise a full train requires twice as many staff as a half full one.
Since new trains are no longer being added to the system railway costs should be static in real terms, considering that no additional significant staffing or maintenance costs have appeared considering that the same stock and staff are now required to do more.

The only costs that increase as passengern umbers increase when train numbers remain stack (as has essentially occured since the mid 2000s) should lead to progressive drops in costs per passenger.

A half full Class 153 does not cost half as much to operate as a full Class 153, rather more in fact.

And pray, what in the above explains the increase in rail passengers?

The fact that there are more trains, motoring costs in real terms continue to climb (in the 90s this was triggered by the fuel duty escalator). The annihalation of many bus routes that competed with trains.

And did I mention the ridiculous sums thrown at more trains?

Where did Newark, Lincoln, etc. come from? There were railways that needed closing. That doesn't impact on the mindset at the time. I recall it. Do you?

Find me a route closed by Beeching that you can make a convincing case for saving.
I am pretty sure people will struggle to do so.
People act like the railwaymen in BR went around destroying the railway for no other reason than because they could.

And don't think the "private" sector (as exists today) would not have wielded the axe as well

 

[muddythefish]

Find me a route closed by Beeching that you can make a convincing case for saving.
l

There are many lines that should never have closed and significant towns and communities cut off from the rail network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

British Rail wasted much of the money it did have, although to be fair DfT do the same today

BR was run on a shoestring and had been cut to the bone in the run-up to privatisation. It wasted hardly anything.

The franchising process is a colossal waste of money by comparison.

 

[David Barrett]

but noone has ever explained why we would need a railway between Grantham and Lincoln, and between Newark and Lincoln when one can easily reach Newark from Grantham in not very long at all.

Shouldn't need explanation as it was never possible to make the two "parallel" journeys. Lincoln to Newark was Midland between St. Mark's and Castle, Lincoln to Grantham was Great Northern and never the twain did meet. Lincoln to North Gate commenced in 1965 with the opening of the Newark Curve upon which the direct Grantham line closed, and a whole raft of other closure proposals followed in due course.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rather than rely on hearsay, here's the official graph.

From what I can see the second half of the 80s is just a temporary recovery from the first half, that was then followed by a dip in the first half of the 90s.

Looks like a rising trend to me during the Lawson Boom years followed by a fall during the following economic slowdown. Likewise there is another peak in the early/mid 1970s in the aftermath of the 1973 oil price rises followed by a sharp decline into the following recession. As for heresay I quite clearly recall the statistics and events from the time and whilst my memory is not at all as good as it once was it's not that bad as to have to rely on rumour. We must attempt to understand the context of the rise and subsequent fall rather than misinterpret the trends for dogmatic reasons.

 

[yorksrob]

It's possible that is the case, but the numbers don't offer any evidence to support your premise. You haven't explained the dips either side, or why growth has been constant since privatisation, unlike the somewhat cyclical nature under nationalisation (despite the downward trend). And before you bring up the recent decline in young drivers, I can tell you that there are a lot more cars on the roads today than there were in the 80s (or even 1995).

Whilst it's true that rail passenger usage was cyclical during (as well as before nationalisation), there are a couple of things the figures show up that you've noticed.

• After the early 1980's there is a clear long term upward trend, in spite of the cycle. Crucially, when the numbers went down after this point, they always bottomed out at a higher point then the previous dip.

• 
  If anything, the recession during the early 1990's is the statistical blip and there's a lot to suggest that this had something to do with the London commuter market being hit by recession, something which hasn't happened to the same extent this time around (remember the total route modernisation of Kent Link services, which would have introduced 12 carriage trains to South East London, but due to the recession, the extra two carriages weren't needed.

• Also, note that during the boom years of the 1980's, passenger numbers increased at as high a rate as during the post privatisation period. A case of potential being released.

To an extent, you have a point in that the TOC's have been required to continue filling up trains, rather than cutting back, however, the fact that this didn't happen during earlier periods has more to do with a lack of imagination on the Government of the day's part than anything else.

Exactly. My point is that such philosophy is highly unlikely today. Would it still be unlikely if the government was completely running the railway and needed to save a few bob?

Be wary. The recent consultation on Northern Rail, whilst not spelling out closures outright, has some very worrying undertones.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Many rant that Beeching is a symbol of how BR was evil, but noone has ever explained why we would need a railway between Grantham and Lincoln, and between Newark and Lincoln when one can easily reach Newark from Grantham in not very long at all.
They had far too much track and no way of anticipating it would ever be needed again (and it most cases it will never be needed again despite what many claim).

And it wasn't BR that killed Woodhead, it was this concept of 'Social Neccessity' that saved Hope Valley and left the Woodhead as the route, out of the two, that could be closed.
There was no need for two routes from Sheffield to Manchester and there still isn't. One route was untouchable so they closed the other.

I rant at Beeching, however, there was a lot more to BR than this one man's legacy. When it comes to discussing the Doctor, I always come back to the worked examples in the report. It outlines a route from York to Beverley via Market Weighton which was clearly borderline, so much so that they had to assume that all the end to end travellers would transfer to the slower service via Selby to make the sums add up. There was also scope for savings, but because of the Beeching ideology, these weren't even investigated and the axe was swung. I wonder how many closed routes were in a similar position.

 

[David Barrett]

I rant at Beeching, however, there was a lot more to BR than this one man's legacy. When it comes to discussing the Doctor, I always come back to the worked examples in the report. It outlines a route from York to Beverley via Market Weighton which was clearly borderline, so much so that they had to assume that all the end to end travellers would transfer to the slower service via Selby to make the sums add up. There was also scope for savings, but because of the Beeching ideology, these weren't even investigated and the axe was swung. I wonder how many closed routes were in a similar position.

A most unfortunate case really as, whilst much of the North Eastern Region was deemed, largely by itself, as being uneconomic, this particular route was regarded as not being beyond redemption with a certain amount of attention, notably: singling, automated level crossings and centralised signalling. Some preparatory work had been undertaken and equipment ordered until the Reshaping Report directed otherwise. Sadly there was a preparedness to accept closures but not productive enhancement at the time although it rather does seem to be an attitude of officialdom throughout history from the Sacking of the Monastaries to railway closures that the solution to a problem involves smashing something to pieces.

 

[yorksrob]

A most unfortunate case really as, whilst much of the North Eastern Region was deemed, largely by itself, as being uneconomic, this particular route was regarded as not being beyond redemption with a certain amount of attention, notably: singling, automated level crossings and centralised signalling. Some preparatory work had been undertaken and equipment ordered until the Reshaping Report directed otherwise. Sadly there was a preparedness to accept closures but not productive enhancement at the time although it rather does seem to be an attitude of officialdom throughout history from the Sacking of the Monastaries to railway closures that the solution to a problem involves smashing something to pieces.

Indeed. A clear case of blinkered, heavy handed top down management.