YouGov poll suggests most want British Rail back.

[muz379]

Im not suprised at the results of this poll , the operation of the railway is a lot more complex than majority of the general public understand . Thats not a dig at the general public by any stretch of the imagination . I work in the industry and some of it is a mystery to even me at times . Unless you have a forensic understanding of the industry it is easy to just blame the TOC for any issues you have using their services .

Shiny nice red white and silver intercity train delayed because of points failure . Must be something to do with Virgin and their incompetence .

Blue white and purple liveried train turns up and it is actually a railbus of 1987 design . Must be something to do with Northern being too cheap to buy trains .

The real thing that bugs me working in the industry is the Rosco's . How they can charge TOCS like Northern what they do to lease out life expired trains that have already been paid for multiple times over without actually investing any of their hefty profits back into the railways .

I dont want to see renationalisation of the railway as a whole . I think it would be bad news for passengers if the purse strings for the railway where at the whim of the government for the day . I mean look at the current government (without commenting on my personal views or getting into that kind of debate ) can anybody honestly say given the ferocity of cuts that the rest of the public sector has had . The railway would have been saved from those cuts ? .

For me dealing with the supposed 11p out of every pound that goes on the cost of leasing trains should be a bigger priority and could actually do something to benefit the passenger . Rather than those who acknowledge that privatization would probably not result in cheaper tickets for them but then go on about getting rid of the 3p out of every pound that goes on shareholder profits just because they despise the thought of anybody anywhere making a profit from providing a service .

 

[36270k]

I worked and travelled on BR in the 1970's and 1980's and would definately not want to turn the clock back.

 

[Greenback]

I don't think the results of the poll suggest that people want to turn the clock back to the 70's and 80's. The results suggest that the majority of those polled want a better system than we have now. If anything, people would probably want to turn the clock back to just before privatisation, when BR was very efficient, customer service had improved and was still improving, ad there was no fragmentation as we know it today.

We can never compare what would have happened under BR to what did happen under privatisation, so the arguments will continue and neither 'side' can ever prove they are right!

 

[NSEFAN]

We can never compare what would have happened under BR to what did happen under privatisation, so the arguments will continue and neither 'side' can ever prove they are right!

What would have happened to BR would be determined what kind of mood the treasury was in that day. In our current situation, I suppose that the political fallout from having to renationalise would be so damaging, that today's "privatised" railway will be guaranteed to be propped by the state up whatever the cost! I guess that's a better scenario than a culture of managed decline.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Now it is quite likely that all these improvements would have happened without privatisation - given the right political will of course. But they would still have cost money.

There is certainly something to be said for the argument that there wouldn't have been the political will without privatisation. I think that says more about the politicians involved than it does about the merits of privatisation. But there is probably a fair chunk of truth in that.

Talking of the cost of safety, I believe that the changeover from state to private ownership, and the failure of that private ownership, has made the cost of safety much higher than it needs to be. The experienced staff at BR were lost from the industry under Railtrack. Railtrack was essentially interested in only doing the bare minimum required to meet their obligations- "providing shareholder value", in corporate speak- and I truly believe we are still paying for the backlog (and the resultant deaths) that developed in their short life. For one thing, Network Rail are reliant on contractors because the in-house expertise was all lost.

It's the same with the costs of rolling stock. Even leaving aside the cost of renting trains from the ROSCOs- trains that were bought outright initially- the cost of new trains is much higher than it needs to be. We lost the skills and experience we'd developed in places like York and Derby during the freeze on rolling stock, and that's something that will never be replaced. Knowing this, the private companies charge more for the work now than they ever used to. And for all the criticisms of BR reliability, BR-designed and BR-built trains like the Networker and MkIII EMUs are still the mainstay of our network.

 

[67018]

Talking of the cost of safety, I believe that the changeover from state to private ownership, and the failure of that private ownership, has made the cost of safety much higher than it needs to be. The experienced staff at BR were lost from the industry under Railtrack. Railtrack was essentially interested in only doing the bare minimum required to meet their obligations- "providing shareholder value", in corporate speak- and I truly believe we are still paying for the backlog (and the resultant deaths) that developed in their short life. For one thing, Network Rail are reliant on contractors because the in-house expertise was all lost.

Now this is an argument I do have some sympathy with. It's also a reminder that the system we have now is not the one that was introduced in the 1990s, but the result of some fairly major subsequent reorganisation in the early 2000s - the nationalisation of Railtrack being the most obvious change.

Going back to the original post, a poll suggesting most people 'want British Rail' back isn't likely to be reliable given the evidence that most people don't actually understand who does what on the railway now. So it's really people wanting 'improvement' giving a misleading result thanks to a question that's been framed to support the view of the pressure group that commissioned the poll.

And, by the way, many thanks to Bald Rick for a very informative and thought provoking post.

 

[Chris Wallis]

Going back to the original post, a poll suggesting most people 'want British Rail' back isn't likely to be reliable given the evidence that most people don't actually understand who does what on the railway now. So it's really people wanting 'improvement' giving a misleading result thanks to a question that's been framed to support the view of the pressure group that commissioned the poll.

But that isn't what the question was, or what the results suggest.

At no point is BR mentioned in the article linked in the opening post.

 

[Greenback]

What would have happened to BR would be determined what kind of mood the treasury was in that day. In our current situation, I suppose that the political fallout from having to renationalise would be so damaging, that today's "privatised" railway will be guaranteed to be propped by the state up whatever the cost! I guess that's a better scenario than a culture of managed decline.

That's one way of looking at it! We can speculate forever on what might have happened under the new government in 1997 as well, but we'll never know!

 

[Chris Wallis]

The change in subsidy levels is an interesting one, and one that I very nearly wrote a Masters dissertation on. But life got in the way.

There is no doubt that some of the increase in the running cost of the railway has been down to the fragmentation - ie the cost of the contractual boundaries, and privatisation, which put bluntly is profit.

However there is also a strong case that some - indeed most - of the increase has been down to us now having a much better railway. To take four examples:

But it's supposed to be a 'Privatised' Railway, so there should be no subsidy at all.

The whole idea is that the Private Sector carries burden, and funds these 'improvements', not the tax payer.

Now it is quite likely that all these improvements would have happened without privatisation - given the right political will of course. But they would still have cost money.

Very true......but at least it would have been the investor, the British Tax Payer, who benefited from any profits these improvements created, and not others!

 

[ainsworth74]

Very true......but at least it would have been the investor, the British Tax Payer, who benefited from the improvements, and not others!

I thought I did benefit from these investments. Certainly I feel I've benefited from the refurbished Kings Cross... But perhaps I'm mistaken?

 

[Carlisle]

Talking of the cost of safety, I believe that the changeover from state to private ownership, and the failure of that private ownership, has made the cost of safety much higher than it needs to be. The experienced staff at BR were lost from the industry under Railtrack. Railtrack was essentially interested in only doing the bare minimum required to meet their obligations- "providing shareholder value.

To be fair it wasn't only Railtrack, that messed up ,under BR during the early to late 80s safety suffered quite possibly due to pressure to save money, for example lines were singled without any kind of ATP or trap points fitted leading to accidents like Cowden and traditional gated level crossings were replaced by automatic open crossings ending up with tragedies like Lockington

 

[Chris Wallis]

I thought I did benefit from these investments. Certainly I feel I've benefited from the refurbished Kings Cross... But perhaps I'm mistaken?

I've corrected my poorly worded statement.....

 

[67018]

But that isn't what the question was, or what the results suggest.

At no point is BR mentioned in the article linked in the opening post.

Fair point, I stand corrected. Although the original question gives no indication that rail insfrastructure is already nationalised.

But it's supposed to be a 'Privatised' Railway, so there should be no subsidy at all.

Why? 'Privatised' doesn't necessarily mean 'unsubsidised'. Virtually all the bus industry is privatised but there are still many routes that receive subsidy. Private companies receive subsidies for operating things like wind farms.

'Which organisations should provide the services?' is a different question to 'should services be subsidised?'. There doesn't seem to be much debate about the latter question as hardly anyone believes a 'no' answer is sensible or viable for railways, so this sounds like a 'straw man' argument.

 

[Mike@Raileasy]

The real thing that bugs me working in the industry is the Rosco's . How they can charge TOCS like Northern what they do to lease out life expired trains that have already been paid for multiple times over without actually investing any of their hefty profits back into the railways .

Why don't the TOCs or the Govt get into this "market", seems to be plenty of money in it?

 

[bavvo]

Why don't the TOCs or the Govt get into this "market", seems to be plenty of money in it?

The TOC's would probably love to, but are not allowed to under the terms of the privatisation. I think First group did sneakily get some stock for themselves but were rapped on the knuckles for doing so.

This government won't touch it for obvious idealogical reasons.

I always felt the ROSCO's were the very worst aspect of the experiment, as they were pretty much given all the rolling stock assets for an undervalued price, and then guaranteed a market via the legal setup. If we had a proper free market there, rather than this cosy cartel, we might have seen far more new rolling stock over the last 20 years.

TOC's should have been able to lease/buy their own rolling stock from anyone from the start.

Instead we have this crazy situation where we need new trains, but can't get them at all, except by government intervention. So despite massive demand, TOC's can't even buy the rolling stock they need.

 

[The Box Photter]

How many new trains have the ROSCOs actually bought and paid for using entirely their own funds?

It is tantamount to criminal that stock and locomotives that were commissioned, bought and paid for by the British taxpayer under BR's auspices were doled out to the embryonic ROSCOs (many of which were arms of large banks).

I find it to be an unfortunate allegory for the state of the nation that TOCs such as Northern Rail are willing to hire clapped out (and surely fully written down by now in the accounts) Pacers so they can gouge ever increasing season ticket prices out of people who have no alternative means of travel if they want to get to work.

Frankly I'm surprised Bright House hasn't set itself up as a ROSCO, their business model seems to be spot on for the kind of railway our current set of politicians are happy to see prevail.

 

[deltic]

In all the discussion to date I have not really seen what a newly nationalised industry would look like. Given the way TfL have gone with London Overground it is likely that the state controlled GB Rail would have a strategic role and look after the infrastructure but rail services themselves would be contracted out to the private sector and rolling stock would be leased from a finance house. New infrastructure will be built by private sector contractors. GB rail would set fares which would remain at present levels and increase in line with present Govt requirements. Railway connection policy would generally remain as now - the infrastructure and rolling stock is to intensively worked to allow much change.

One of the big benefits of rail privatisation - which is one of the reasons for the high level of subsidy and debt - is that we have had enormous stability in rail services and investment through rail franchises and network rail 5 year control periods. I recall in BR days along came a downturn and passenger services were cut and investment plans cancelled. Now the railway services continue as if nothing has happened and infrastructure plans carry on. Bizarrely all of the railways electrification programmes have effectively been announced and gone ahead during a massive recession while virtually nothing happened during the boom times. In BR days all investments would have been put on old from 2008 onwards.

Rail unions probably have had far more power since privatisation than in BR days and would lose power under nationalisation. Its easier to get a concession from a private sector company desperate to make a profit over a short term franchise than a state owned concern that will probably claw back the cost from cut backs elsewhere.

Any cost saving arising from nationalisation (if there were any) would go to the Treasury not the railway or passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps it's time for a reminder of some truths which defenders of rail privatisation don't want us to know:

In the years immediately preceding privatisation, British Rail had become one of the most efficient railways in the world. It took an annual subsidy of around £1 billion from the taxpayer and, thanks to Treasury rules which prevented it from borrowing, it had no debt.

This is not correct at 31 March 1994 'capital liabilities to the Secretary of State' ie its debt had reached £2,445.6 million, (BRB 1994 accounts , page 58).

 

[Olaf]

Would those in favour of renationalisation also support the withdrawal of the right to strike for public sector workers, along with a requirement that staff do not expect a public sector pension to go with the job?

 

[Greenback]

Would those in favour of renationalisation also support the withdrawal of the right to strike for public sector workers, along with a requirement that staff do not expect a public sector pension to go with the job?

I wouldn't support a withdrawal of the right to strike, no. For the second part I can't see any problem with the continuation of the RPS as it is currently.

 

[Andrewlong]

A return to a BR like structure would probably see a return to collective bargaining by the unions and sorting out of the different rates paid by the various TOCs. Also BR would be subject to public sector wage restraint policy - no nasty profits to pay for those nice pay rises!

Another reason I imagine last Labour government lost its bottle with re-nationalisation.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Would those in favour of renationalisation also support the withdrawal of the right to strike for public sector workers, along with a requirement that staff do not expect a public sector pension to go with the job?

Taking away peoples rights will cause more strikes.
Everyone needs that right to ensure they aren't forced to work under extremely poor conditions. Anyway strikes have happened under private TOCs, probably more so than BR. What will happen to rail workers when they get older with no pension???
How can anyone be expected to live without money during this period?

 

[Greenback]

GrimsbyPacer, I don't think the suggestion was that rail workers would have no pension at all.

There were also plenty of strikes under BR down the years, many of them national disputes rather than being confined to local areas, though there were a fair few of the latter as well, as I recall!

Some public sector employees don't have a right to strike, such as the police and armed forces. I'm not in favour of other industries and occupations being added to the list, whether that be rail workers, teachers or fire fighters.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would those in favour of renationalisation also support the withdrawal of the right to strike for public sector workers

What's "the right to strike" got to do with the price of fish? There have been just as many strikes under private ownership.

 

[Greenback]

What's "the right to strike" got to do with the price of fish?

The only thing I can think of would be that it would make it more palatable to the politicians and commuters who are against nationalisation!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The only thing I can think of would be that it would make it more palatable to the politicians and commuters who are against nationalisation!

I find myself smiling at people who rant about how nationalisation will lead to "union bosses" "holding the country to ransom". Railway staff are paid far more now than they were under BR, with better terms and conditions, and there are no fewer industrial relations disputes.

If people can come up with more concrete examples of the country being "held to ransom" than something that happened 36 years ago, I'm all ears...

 

[Greenback]

Many current rail staff appear to be opposed tor ail privatisation because they fear they will get lower pay rises, or even none at all.

Those that I know personally state that they wouldn't be prepared to strike for higher pay rises in the public sector, as they feel it would be more difficult to achieve a victory!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yep. The fragmentation means staff can play TOCs off against each other. Northern Spirit drivers out of Leeds got a very nice pay rise back in the early 2000s (which was what sparked the guards' strike) because Freightliner opened a new depot there and head-hunted drivers.

If there's one employer- BR- then you don't get that. And as the NHS strikes are proving, it is really hard to secure concessions from the Government on pay, even where the Government (as in the NHS) have blatantly broken promises (and an independent pay review) made to staff.

Railway staff are the one group of people who I can understand objecting to nationalisation!

 

[Greenback]

In my experience, a majority of public sector staff don't want to strike at all, and it must be a serious issue indeed to make them seriously consider withdrawing their labour and losing pay. In the case of the NHS, it's been a five year period of either no or tiny pay increases, and it's this that has angered staff of all levels sufficiently to join in with the strikes. Even then, a lot of staff have continued to work either from principle or in agreement with local union reps and management in order to cover essential services.

I simply can't see a return to 'the old days', no one want to go back to wildcat strikes and those who fear it don't seem to have the knowledge or experience to realise this. The desire to return to 1979 only exists in the fevered imaginations of some of the most extreme union activists. There's no appetite for it amongst the rank and file in any of the occupations I've spent time in, including service as a union rep and on the railway!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Quite. I'm in the most militant trade union in my field- we've been on strike when others have not- but even our leaders and members do not want a return to 1978; nor do we want to harm the people we work with. We just don't want yet another 0% pay rise, and yet another attack on our pension, whilst our industry leaders pay themselves half a million quid a year each. I don't work in the public sector either...

Dr Troll is angry that the Government have broken their promises on pay- she gets paid less than when she worked in Ireland, with a 0% increase this year- but doesn't want to harm her patients.

 

[Greenback]

I agree that few people want to be militant, but no one wants be walked over either. Even when I was a union rep, I wanted constructive and reasonable dialogue to find a resolution rather than industrial action. Others on my committees were a bit more militant than me, but I never really encountered more than one or two individuals who were anywhere enar approaching the 'Everybody Out!" stereotypes of the past.

In my view, using union action as a reason for opposing renationalisation of the passenger railway is unfounded and misguided.