YouGov poll suggests most want British Rail back.

[GrimsbyPacer]

http://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1536-Public-v-private

In the poll, about 60% were in favour of nationalisation while 20% were against, as shown in the graph above.

Although 78% of Labour supporters support nationalisation with only 6% against, Labour leaders will not openly back nationalisation because they are frightened of the reaction of the press in the run-up to the general election.

However, many young people do not read national newspapers – which are supporters of privatisation – and they are finding independent sources of news and comment, often online.

Even Conservative voters are evenly divided on whether the railways should be nationalised, while Lib Dem and UKIP supporters are strongly in favour of nationalisation.

The YouGov poll was taken in May 2014, just after Labour leader Ed Miliband said he was looking at options for returning the railway to public ownership.

The Government has since “privatised” passenger services on the East Coast main line

This Railfuture article features a YouGov poll which suggest 20% of the public are against renationalisation while 60% support the idea.

It also shows opinions from supporters of major political parties.
If this many people want it, shouldn't the subject be debated in parliament?

 

[Carlisle]

If it was fairly cheap and simple to renationalise it , many political parties would probably seriously consider committing to the idea, but as it could well be very expensive, complex and/or long drawn out it's probably far lower a priority than things like the NHS or Education

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

If it was fairly cheap and simple to renationalise it , many political parties would probably seriously consider committing to the idea, but as it could well be very expensive, complex and/or long drawn out it's probably far lower a priority than things like the NHS or Education

Would it be expensive? I assume letting the current franchise times run out and not getting another company involved would be free.

Anyone else have views on how renationalisation could be done?
Or does anyone feel privatisation was not a mistake despite this?

 

[Oliver]

People think this because they believe that, for instance, the recent chaos at Kings Cross was caused by private operators, whereas it was primarily the fault of Network Rail. NR is effectively a state owned (i.e. nationalised) company. People also believe that the rapid growth in rail usage over recent years occurred naturally, whereas the main driver was the realisation by private operators was that rail transport is a "bums on seats" business, and adapted services and fares to fill seats.

 

[whoosh]

People also believe that the rapid growth in rail usage over recent years occurred naturally, whereas the main driver was the realisation by private operators was that rail transport is a "bums on seats" business, and adapted services and fares to fill seats.

And the driver for growth on (publically owned) London Underground?

 

[NSEFAN]

People also believe that the rapid growth in rail usage over recent years occurred naturally, whereas the main driver was the realisation by private operators was that rail transport is a "bums on seats" business, and adapted services and fares to fill seats.

I'd disagree with that. BR began to operate as a business towards the end of its life (with Intercity and Network Southeast, at least), with special fares to help fill trains during the off peak. We also saw the start of simple yield management fares, which I suspect would have expanded given another decade.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Would it be expensive? I assume letting the current franchise times run out and not getting another company involved would be free.

Anyone else have views on how renationalisation could be done?
Or does anyone feel privatisation was not a mistake despite this?

Taking the franchises back into public ownership is simple enough however your stuck with the ROSCO's unless huge sums of compensation are paid and NR is still an organisation that contracts out any big infrastructure work to the private sector.

What many people don't know is that the debt that British Railways had in the early 60's that was used as the reason for Beeching was in part compensation payments to the Big 4 Shareholders which was more generous than any dividend they were getting. I wouldn't want a re run of embedded future problems just because of ideology heaven knows the railways have suffered enough from that.

The fragmentation is a greater problem in my opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People think this because they believe that, for instance, the recent chaos at Kings Cross was caused by private operators, whereas it was primarily the fault of Network Rail. NR is effectively a state owned (i.e. nationalised) company. People also believe that the rapid growth in rail usage over recent years occurred naturally, whereas the main driver was the realisation by private operators was that rail transport is a "bums on seats" business, and adapted services and fares to fill seats.

So there wasn't a huge increase in population, a sustained period of economic growth up to 2008, London Central labour market getting even more overheated, congestion charging in London and a renaissance of regional city centres in the last 20 years then? Not to forget then of cheap motoring and the under 30's starting to turn their back on driving. Let's face facts rail privatisation occurred at a time of many beneficial factors for rail growth. The real question is has the railway made the most of this gilt edge opportunity.

 

[Barn]

In an era when police forces, fire brigades, council services etc are being cut year on year, I would have thought it would be naïve to assume that rail services wouldn't be. At least with an arms' length Network Rail and private TOCs funding decisions are taken less frequently and with a longer-term view.

 

[AM9]

If it was fairly cheap and simple to renationalise it , many political parties would probably seriously consider committing to the idea, but as it could well be very expensive, complex and/or long drawn out it's probably far lower a priority than things like the NHS or Education

Both of which seem to be going the other way!

 

[Harpers Tate]

The fragmentation is a greater problem in my opinion.

That is the single biggest fault with the Privatised Railway. I don't believe it was ever the intention, in privatising, that there would be the degree of fragmentation, parochialism that we see (as evidenced by, for example "{x} only" fares, refusal by {operator 1} to refund or excess a ticket issued by {operatator 2} and so on). And I do not for one moment believe that (re-) nationalisation will reduce costs, even accounting for dividends that are paid away to shareholders. On the contrary - I would expect that those costs would be replaced by even greater costs of a different type - especially in the increased bureaucracy that is typical of most things that are state run.

 

[ajdunlop]

Surely the problem is that to the user the system has been complicated by privatisation. On most routes competition doesn't exist so why not regulate it better. Move towards an operated by model similar to London Buses, lots of different companies competing to run the service but to the user one coherent system.

 

[TUC]

People also believe that the rapid growth in rail usage over recent years occurred naturally, whereas the main driver was the realisation by private operators was that rail transport is a "bums on seats" business, and adapted services and fares to fill seats.

I'd disagree with that. BR began to operate as a business towards the end of its life (with Intercity and Network Southeast, at least), with special fares to help fill trains during the off peak. We also saw the start of simple yield management fares, which I suspect would have expanded given another decade.

And failed to spot key markets like Hull-London, didn't have any services on the ECML on Sundays until late morning ... The problem with a nationalised rail industry is that when it gets its judgements wrong there's no one to step in and fill the gap.

 

[Blamethrower]

The biggest problem is politics

This country is run entirely by the political and corporate elite, to make your business successful, you cozy up to the right person in office.

Let's be clear, no-one in whitehall wants to run a successful service for the country, they want kick backs for themselves and their friends due to owning shares in said company that gets awarded the contract.

We are stuck with this now, everything national is being fragmented and sold off. I don't know whether you've frequented ICU's at hospitals recently but they are criminally under-staffed outside of the main ward. There are many reasons why that doesn't work but I won't go into that now.

BR, like BL failed due to management strategy, old-fashioned managers that I see all the time in my industry, those who are now being marginalised due to their commitment to the old ways.

If a change in management style can be facilitated then perhaps it would be successful, but with the current system, not a chance

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The railway is already largely publicly owned and controlled.
Only freight, open access and rolling stock is fully in private hands, and even then the regime is pretty much dictated by government through ORR and NR.

What would "nationalisation" do compared to now?
The government already determines almost every aspect of the current system, including fares, timetables, capacity, infrastructure and performance.
There are frequent complaints of "government micro-management".
All that's left for the TOCs is a bit of liberty with some fares, marketing/branding, specific types of train, customer service and day to day management.

The passenger railway is not everything, and it is very unlikely freight would be nationalised.
That means retaining the access regime of ORR to regulate paths and entry to the market.
In reality, little would change except the government would have no-one to blame when things went wrong.
Does anybody seriously think rail fares will come down, or be "fairer" under direct DfT control?
They are the ones who have overseen the current system, after all (under both governments), with a "make the passenger pay more" policy.
The 3% TOC profit margin is peanuts compared to the cost control the DfT can exert through the franchise system.
It is just a management charge, which will soon be absorbed by a new layer of public sector management.
Who will keep the costs under control in a nationalised system?

I'm all for a more integrated and efficient railway system, but not a sclerotic centralised bureaucracy like BR was.
BR, like all massive corporations, was also a very secretive organisation that sprang decisions on everybody without consultation.
That wouldn't work in today's world.
I think the detail of nationalisation is a lot harder than writing the headline.

 

[ivanhoe]

Would the passenger see any benefit? I doubt it. Would the railways be run for the benefit of passengers first as opposed to the benefit of the railway? I doubt it. Finally, would it be cheaper to run in the Public Sector than the Private Sector? Not sure, but I would rather see better cooperation between TOCS and less fault attribution. These are changes in mindset which could be achieved, if Regulation allowed it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would the passenger see any benefit? I doubt it. Would the railways be run for the benefit of passengers first as opposed to the benefit of the railway? I doubt it.

But the privatised railway is run for the "benefit of the passenger"? Yeah right.

Finally, would it be cheaper to run in the Public Sector than the Private Sector? Not sure

Of course it would be cheaper to run it in the public sector.

Even if all you do is strip out the profit margin, you've got an instant saving of anywhere between 3 and 10%, depending on franchise.

If you then factor in the costs of actually running the franchising process- we know that the WCML debacle cost £100m- and multiply it across every franchise you're doing even better.

And then if you factor in efficiency savings from having centralised management and administration, you're doing even better again.

I don't understand why people think it will "cost too much" to nationalise the system. You simply let each franchise lapse, at no cost to anybody. The ROSCOs will still be a slight issue, but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant with the rise of build-and-maintain contracts issued to the likes of Siemens and Agility Trains.

 

[Howardh]

My two major groans are -
1. The lack of competition on some lines eg. NW to London. It's Virgin or get the bus. That's not right, one company having a monopoly over a line. How would magabus like it if the M6 was National Express only?
2. The completely bizarre and overwhelming array of ticketing. Splits, hours, advances, it's bad enough for the likes of me who speak english and can use a keyboard. Pity the poor Japanese tourist who's visiting London and fancies a couple of days in North Wales by train!
But, would a re-nationalised railway address the ticketing issue, or would we simply find that all the advance offers and split-ticketing would disappear?
But for me the priority must be to get two companies (at least) on the major routes.

 

[nuneatonmark]

The railway is already largely publicly owned and controlled.
Only freight, open access and rolling stock is fully in private hands, and even then the regime is pretty much dictated by government through ORR and NR.

What would "nationalisation" do compared to now?
The government already determines almost every aspect of the current system, including fares, timetables, capacity, infrastructure and performance.
There are frequent complaints of "government micro-management".
All that's left for the TOCs is a bit of liberty with some fares, marketing/branding, specific types of train, customer service and day to day management.

The passenger railway is not everything, and it is very unlikely freight would be nationalised.
That means retaining the access regime of ORR to regulate paths and entry to the market.
In reality, little would change except the government would have no-one to blame when things went wrong.
Does anybody seriously think rail fares will come down, or be "fairer" under direct DfT control?
They are the ones who have overseen the current system, after all (under both governments), with a "make the passenger pay more" policy.
The 3% TOC profit margin is peanuts compared to the cost control the DfT can exert through the franchise system.
It is just a management charge, which will soon be absorbed by a new layer of public sector management.
Who will keep the costs under control in a nationalised system?

I'm all for a more integrated and efficient railway system, but not a sclerotic centralised bureaucracy like BR was.
BR, like all massive corporations, was also a very secretive organisation that sprang decisions on everybody without consultation.
That wouldn't work in today's world.
I think the detail of nationalisation is a lot harder than writing the headline.

This man talks sense! The public have been misled into thinking the railways are privatised, they are not, so their expectations of what would happen if the were 'nationalised' are unlikely to be met. Maybe the answer is to fully privatise the railways and not have the mish-mash we have now?

 

[gordonthemoron]

SNCB (for one) rent at least some of their rolling stock. Would it be possible for DOR to take over all of the franchised TOCs at the end of their contract and run them like DB Regio/Fernbahn?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The public have been misled into thinking the railways are privatised, they are not, so their expectations of what would happen if the were 'nationalised' are unlikely to be met.

I don't think the public are quite as stupid as you make out.

The railways wouldn't be a great deal different under a nationalised operator. It would be roughly the same trains running on the same track. But what you wouldn't see so much of is the rampant price-gouging simply to pay the dividends to the greedy fat cat shareholders.

A 5% profit margin might be "peanuts" (which begs the question: if railway profits aren't worth the effort, why are the fat cats crawling each other to get a slice of the pie?) , but 5% off my season ticket is £20 a month back in my pocket.

 

[Clip]

I don't think the public are quite as stupid as you make out.

The railways wouldn't be a great deal different under a nationalised operator. It would be roughly the same trains running on the same track. But what you wouldn't see so much of is the rampant price-gouging simply to pay the dividends to the greedy fat cat shareholders.

A 5% profit margin might be "peanuts" (which begs the question: if railway profits aren't worth the effort, why are the fat cats crawling each other to get a slice of the pie?) , but 5% off my season ticket is £20 a month back in my pocket.

You reckon you would get a 5% reduction? I reckon even more burden would be put onto the passenger for their transport to reduce subsidy even more so youd probably get an extra 5% on your season ticket.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No I don't think the fares would come down. But my fares would solely be paying for the cost of running the railway network, and not for London Midland's bumper profits (up 60% I seem to recall). There would be an immediate 5% cut in taxpayer subsidy.

As for "cutting subsidy", bringing the execrable Northern Rail back under state control would knock £30,000,000 a year off the bill for starters.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Obviously, on a rail-interest website such as this, forum members see matters of rail as looming large in their thoughts, but if a list of 10 areas that concern public life were put forward as viewed by the general public at large (a large number of which see the car as the preferred mode of transport), I wonder what position "rail" would feature against matters as those of the N.H.S, Education, etc.?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Paul, I think it depends where one lives.

Around here, with huge numbers of people working in London, the cost of train travel is a big issue. I pay as much for my season ticket as I do for my rent; it's almost 25% of my take-home pay. Most people out here will be in a similar position. It is a big chunk of money and most people do use the train, given the lack of realistic alternatives. It's clear from repeated surveys that people do not think they are getting value for money.

Further north, train travel is less of an issue, as fewer people use public transport generally. There the cost of motoring is more important, but that (fortuitously for the Government) is dropping with the cost of oil going through the floor.

I'd say the cost of public transport was in the "top ten" issues. Definitely below the NHS, education and immigration, but above plenty of other issues.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

If British Rail was back it would be logical to assume the railways will be run as now but without money subsidising railways oversea and also the network should be more resilient and manageable.

The government pays for most of the costs anyway.
I haven't seen improvements thanks solely to TOCs.
A nationalised railway has great potential for new routes, large scale train orders and a passenger service which is more uniform.

A privatised operation has left service little changed and many TOCs unwilling to buy new trains or make new routes.
Remember BR services were cut back before privatisation to make it cheaper for companies to run, the Brigg line is a good example.

 

[gordonthemoron]

how much would be saved by losing the franchising process, dropping insurance (BR self-insured) and reduction/removal of legal fees (litigation)?

 

[khib70]

The railway is already largely publicly owned and controlled.
Only freight, open access and rolling stock is fully in private hands, and even then the regime is pretty much dictated by government through ORR and NR.

What would "nationalisation" do compared to now?
The government already determines almost every aspect of the current system, including fares, timetables, capacity, infrastructure and performance.
There are frequent complaints of "government micro-management".
All that's left for the TOCs is a bit of liberty with some fares, marketing/branding, specific types of train, customer service and day to day management.

The passenger railway is not everything, and it is very unlikely freight would be nationalised.
That means retaining the access regime of ORR to regulate paths and entry to the market.
In reality, little would change except the government would have no-one to blame when things went wrong.
Does anybody seriously think rail fares will come down, or be "fairer" under direct DfT control?
They are the ones who have overseen the current system, after all (under both governments), with a "make the passenger pay more" policy.
The 3% TOC profit margin is peanuts compared to the cost control the DfT can exert through the franchise system.
It is just a management charge, which will soon be absorbed by a new layer of public sector management.
Who will keep the costs under control in a nationalised system?

I'm all for a more integrated and efficient railway system, but not a sclerotic centralised bureaucracy like BR was.
BR, like all massive corporations, was also a very secretive organisation that sprang decisions on everybody without consultation.
That wouldn't work in today's world.
I think the detail of nationalisation is a lot harder than writing the headline.

This, 100%. Far too many people idealising a nationalised railway which they never actually experienced, and too many who experienced it touching up their old photos....

 

[WelshBluebird]

The real issues with the privatized railway IMO are:

1 - Its fragmented nature where passengers face the potential of their issues being ignored by staff because it is to do with a different ToC (A couple of years ago I got told by a member of ATW staff at Cardiff Central that it was tough luck cos my issue was with FGW and so they couldn't do anything about it).
2 - ROSCO's who rake in money for rolling stock that has already been paid for (think old BR era stock that in no way we should still be paying for).
3 - The money, time and effort wasted through delay attribution and trying to blame someone else for delays / mishaps etc.

 

[sonorguy]

My two major groans are -
1. The lack of competition on some lines eg. NW to London. It's Virgin or get the bus. That's not right, one company having a monopoly over a line. How would magabus like it if the M6 was National Express only?
2. The completely bizarre and overwhelming array of ticketing. Splits, hours, advances, it's bad enough for the likes of me who speak english and can use a keyboard. Pity the poor Japanese tourist who's visiting London and fancies a couple of days in North Wales by train!
But, would a re-nationalised railway address the ticketing issue, or would we simply find that all the advance offers and split-ticketing would disappear?
But for me the priority must be to get two companies (at least) on the major routes.

I don't think your idea of competition is ever what was envisaged when franchises started. The competition element is at the bidding stage, ie which proposal gives the best bang for buck, rather than allowing multiple operators on exactly the same routes.

Much was learned from the de-regulation of buses and some of the bus-war lunacy that followed that. I was never a fan of BR, and think that privatisation has dramatically improved customer service, but don't see how more than one operator on a specific route in the way you describe would solve anything at all.

The obvious examples are GC on the NE-London and West Riding services, but that's very low level competition for EC and those services serve very specific towns that otherwise wouldn't have a link, they aren't a direct EC competitor.

 

[67018]

And then if you factor in efficiency savings from having centralised management and administration, you're doing even better again.

So you can guarantee that centralised management by civil servants is guaranteed to provide substantially improved efficiency? That's a touching faith in the public sector. There are both well and badly run companies in both public and private sectors; it's just as likely that nationalisation would lead to much the same managers in charge but with more meddling from politicians.

The railways wouldn't be a great deal different under a nationalised operator. It would be roughly the same trains running on the same track. But what you wouldn't see so much of is the rampant price-gouging simply to pay the dividends to the greedy fat cat shareholders.

Ah yes, that tired old argument with a bit of unwarranted abuse thrown in. Most shareholders are pension and other institutional funds, but of course it's harder to deny pensioners the right to a decent return on their money to pay for their old age than conjure up some mythical and dated stereotype of evil rich people.

As has already been stated, many fares are regulated and the railway as a whole is heavily subsidised i.e. we are paying below cost price for the rail service. If you don't like the fares, complain to the DfT and be honest that you are just demanding greatewr subsidy from the taxpayer.