YouGov poll suggests most want British Rail back.

[Oswyntail]

... members do not want a return to 1978;....

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

Absolutely. Mainly because of the necessary reforms to working law carried out after 1979 under some little remembered PM. (stir, stir). In terms of IR, this is a very different, more co-operative world then even the last days of BR.

 

[RichmondCommu]

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?

Way before you were born there was a strike in the mid 1980's over the introduction of the class 317's which almost brought the entire network to its knees. During that time it was very rare to see trains being run, certainly in the East Midlands.

 

[Greenback]

There's no need to stir, Oswyntial! I absolutely agree that some form of reform was necessary, and also that the world has changed, though perhaps I wouldn't go so far as to say it's more co-operative!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Absolutely. Mainly because of the necessary reforms to working law carried out after 1979 under some little remembered PM. (stir, stir).

Oh no stirring, many of the reforms she carried out were absolutely required.

And are very much the reason why talking about the Winter of Discontent is about as relevant as talking about the Corn Laws.

 

[muz379]

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.

Northern dont actually get a choice over what stock they lease , Im sure if they had a choice they would hire sufficient amounts of appropriate stock to keep passengers happy and possibly even encourage more people to use trains .Rather than not hiring enough trains so they have to cancel and short form services .

Forget about bright house , Im suprised wonga has not set up a Rosco

 

[Oswyntail]

... the world has changed, though perhaps I wouldn't go so far as to say it's more co-operative!

... talking about the Winter of Discontent is about as relevant as talking about the Corn Laws.

I think we can all agree! Besides, we are where we are. Which suggests putting the question the other way round: is there such a problem with the railways at the moment that nationalisation is the only sensible answer? It arguably was in the aftermath of WW2, but today?

 

[Robertj21a]

Oh no stirring, many of the reforms she carried out were absolutely required.

And are very much the reason why talking about the Winter of Discontent is about as relevant as talking about the Corn Laws.

Really encouraging to hear such sensible comments.

 

[island]

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.

1. Of course there are options. LM runs to Liverpool. You can get EMT via Chesterfield. Or take XC to Reading and then FGW.
2. As compared to Japan, where online ticketing doesn't exist, reservations are mandatory on many popular routes, prices vary depending on the name of the train, and advance purchase fares are limited to non-existent?

Pensions are an investment product primarily purchased by the wealthy.

Balderdash. All but the smallest companies are legally obliged to enrol most of their employees into a pension scheme now, and the few excluded will be brought into scope over the next few years.

The elimination of slam-door stock being an example.

You'd better tell FGW that all of their long-distance stock has been eliminated. I think they might have missed that.

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

No, that does not follow.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

I don't think you will find many to disagree on here that subsidy is necessary for the railway. However, reduced/eliminated subsidy was one of the many 'straw man' arguments used to justify privatisation in the first place.

 

[Greenback]

I think we can all agree! Besides, we are where we are. Which suggests putting the question the other way round: is there such a problem with the railways at the moment that nationalisation is the only sensible answer? It arguably was in the aftermath of WW2, but today?

From the perspective of many members of the public, it does appear to be the case that nationalisation would be better than what we have now. I understand that view, as I agree that what we have at the moment is a bit of a dogs dinner.

Whether that perception is actually true, is another matter. While I may agree that nationalisation is a better option than this mess of franchising, ROSCO's, NR, etc. I don't think at this point in time it's necessarily the best option, and that is, I think where a more interesting discussion lies.

 

[Robertj21a]

From the perspective of many members of the public, it does appear to be the case that nationalisation would be better than what we have now. I understand that view, as I agree that what we have at the moment is a bit of a dogs dinner.

Whether that perception is actually true, is another matter. While I may agree that nationalisation is a better option than this mess of franchising, ROSCO's, NR, etc. I don't think at this point in time it's necessarily the best option, and that is, I think where a more interesting discussion lies.

I think one fear of any future re-nationalisation is that, after a honeymoon period, some of the best, innovative managers will inevitably move on, the efficiencies will creep back down to the lowest denominator and the Government and Unions will return to their old attitudes towards massive nationalised operations.

 

[Greenback]

I think one fear of any future re-nationalisation is that, after a honeymoon period, some of the best, innovative managers will inevitably move on, the efficiencies will creep back down to the lowest denominator and the Government and Unions will return to their old attitudes towards massive nationalised operations.

I don't think that's a general feeling amongst those that voiced their support for a return to a nationalised railway system, though it probably reflects the unfounded fears of those who strongly object to such a move on ideological grounds.

My view is that part of what you state happened when the railways were privatised. Most of the innovation in the industry in the first few years of privatisation came from the small number of ex BR managers that remained with the railway. Many of them moved on, though, and a lot of the newcomers to the railway had no idea at all of how things worked, as people like Mr Fearnley soon found out to their cost.

 

[67018]

You'd better tell FGW that all of their long-distance stock has been eliminated. I think they might have missed that.

I should have been clearer that the statement was intended to imply 'most' not 'all' slam door stock has been eliminated. (And, from a safety point of view, what remains has central door locking. No jumping on and off moving trains, as was the norm when I went to school on them).

From the perspective of many members of the public, it does appear to be the case that nationalisation would be better than what we have now. I understand that view, as I agree that what we have at the moment is a bit of a dogs dinner.

Rewind to circa 1992: 'From the perspective of many members of the public, it does appear to be the case that privatisation would be better than what we have now. I understand that view, as I agree that what we have at the moment is a bit of a dogs dinner.' Certainly an opinion I heard bandied around at the time.

That's the trouble - a lot of the public opinion is just 'we want it to be better'. And use of the dreaded 'n' word brings in a whole load of ideological baggage. Maybe discussing what it might look like would be more enlightening - I quite like the look of this as a starting point:

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.

 

[Greenback]

Rewind to circa 1992: 'From the perspective of many members of the public, it does appear to be the case that privatisation would be better than what we have now. I understand that view, as I agree that what we have at the moment is a bit of a dogs dinner.' Certainly an opinion I heard bandied around at the time.

That's the trouble - a lot of the public opinion is just 'we want it to be better'. And use of the dreaded 'n' word brings in a whole load of ideological baggage. Maybe discussing what it might look like would be more enlightening - I quite like the look of this as a starting point:

It's true what you say about public opinion, but I don't recall there being much of a demand from the public for privatisation in 1992. I don't believe that the government of the day was elected that year because they were going to privatise the railways.

When privatisation was announced, particularly with the original plans to have multiple ticket offices at station just like airlines have ticket desks at airports, and with no interavailability between operators required by law, I recall that there was a groundswell of opposition that forced these ideas to be abandoned.

Any support that there was at the time that wasn't ideologically driven was based, in my view, on the fact that previous privatisations like BT and British Gas had been regarded as a success. However, many who regarded those as a success story, like myself, shared the same misgivings as Margaret Thatcher of railway privatisation being a step too far.

Certainly, as far as I'm concerned, the form of the privatisation that was ultimately chosen was a mistake, and largely Treasury driven. I believe to this day that competition for the railways is with the car, coach, and air travel, so I would have preferred Br to have been sold off as a single entity if it had to be privatised at all. There are other models available, though, and I think that these are very worthy of discussing here rather than the old chestnut of a state run BR v Franchising.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Rewind to circa 1992: 'From the perspective of many members of the public, it does appear to be the case that privatisation would be better than what we have now.

I don't recall many people saying that, even in 1992. I know the Tory tub-thumpers were, but not many others were. The list of concessions, all of which served to make the system more complicated, were all because of political and public opposition to a completely free market on the railways.

As Greenback says, many who supported previous privatisations of BT, British Gas, Rover and BA were concerned that the privatised railway network would be an unworkable mess because of the method chosen. And it was.

 

[alexl92]

From what I understand, Mrs Thatcher always believed, right until the very end, that the privatisation of the railways was a step too far. She only signed it off very reluctantly at the end under very great pressure from other members of her party and government. Can't remember the specifics right now.

 

[Yew]

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...

I never understood the 'enemy within' picture painted about the big unions. Surely those 'holding the country to ransom' where the managers of companies that refused to pay their workers enough, or provide safe enough conditions, that their staff where actually willing to go to work.

 

[SWTCommuter]

I don't recall many people saying that, even in 1992. I know the Tory tub-thumpers were, but not many others were.

Quite. I can recall Sir Peter Parker getting a laugh and a round of applause on Radio 4's Any Questions when he made a remark along the lines of:
'The good news is that only half-a-dozen people think rail privatisation is a good idea. The bad news is that they are all members of the government.'

 

[67018]

It's true what you say about public opinion, but I don't recall there being much of a demand from the public for privatisation in 1992. I don't believe that the government of the day was elected that year because they were going to privatise the railways.

I don't recall many people saying that, even in 1992. I know the Tory tub-thumpers were, but not many others were. The list of concessions, all of which served to make the system more complicated, were all because of political and public opposition to a completely free market on the railways.

As Greenback says, many who supported previous privatisations of BT, British Gas, Rover and BA were concerned that the privatised railway network would be an unworkable mess because of the method chosen. And it was.

So it was more of a case that there were a lot of complaints about the railways (plus ca change!) and privatisation was seen as a solution to many problems with nationalised industries - you make a good point that it was viewed much more positively then (when the benefits were just starting to be evident) than now (when the benefits have been 'banked' and forgotten and we are stuck with the disadvantages/failures). As ever, one generation's solution becomes the next generation's problem.

The exact form of privatisation was a subject that seemed pretty arcane and went over the heads of most of the public, as it still does. Probably why debates now are often framed as about nationalisation - which people understand and can rely on some support on ideological grounds - rather than changing the roles, ownership and purpose of NR, TOCs, ROSCOs.... zzzzzz

From what I understand, Mrs Thatcher always believed, right until the very end, that the privatisation of the railways was a step too far. She only signed it off very reluctantly at the end under very great pressure from other members of her party and government. Can't remember the specifics right now.

Youa re correct about Mrs Thatcher's reported views but mistaken on the outcome - she was long gone by the time rail privatisation was enacted by John Major's government elected in 1992. Major replaced Thatcher in 1990.

Interesting to think that, if Thatcher hadn't been booted out, rail privatisation probably would never have happened. Either she'd have blocked it or, more likely, Labour would have won the 1992 election under Neil Kinnock, not known for his enthusiasm for privatisation!

 

[Greenback]

So it was more of a case that there were a lot of complaints about the railways (plus ca change!) and privatisation was seen as a solution to many problems with nationalised industries - you make a good point that it was viewed much more positively then (when the benefits were just starting to be evident) than now (when the benefits have been 'banked' and forgotten and we are stuck with the disadvantages/failures). As ever, one generation's solution becomes the next generation's problem.

I don't want to over simplify or over complicate things, but from memory that attitude of most of the people I knew with at the time was that they weren't really interested in whether the railways were privatised or not. Many were fed up wiht the Conservative government for whatever reason, some just that they'd been in power for thirteen uninterrupted years.

The feeling I got at the time (just by talking to people not through any scientific sample) was that anyone with any knowledge of railways were more likely to be totally against it, while those who knew or cared little about it were mostly against it, but not that storngly as they were hoping that should it happen they'd ether gain something from it personally, or just hoped/thought it wouldn't affect them at all. Though it has to be said that there were undoubtedly some commuters and regular travellers who honestly believed that nothing could ever be as bad as BR, and I suspect those are the sort of people you were referring to when you mentioned public opinion being a bit fickle earlier!

The exact form of privatisation was a subject that seemed pretty arcane and went over the heads of most of the public, as it still does. Probably why debates now are often framed as about nationalisation - which people understand and can rely on some support on ideological grounds - rather than changing the roles, ownership and purpose of NR, TOCs, ROSCOs.... zzzzzz

I have a strong suspicion that government proposals and legislation are deliberately designed to be arcane and tedious, so as to prevent a lot of people from knowing what is actually going on. Those in charge than then use spin and sound bites to present what they think people want to hear, in order to atry and achieve the result they want.

To some extent we get the decisions that we deserve.

Youa re correct about Mrs Thatcher's reported views but mistaken on the outcome - she was long gone by the time rail privatisation was enacted by John Major's government elected in 1992. Major replaced Thatcher in 1990.

Interesting to think that, if Thatcher hadn't been booted out, rail privatisation probably would never have happened. Either she'd have blocked it or, more likely, Labour would have won the 1992 election under Neil Kinnock, not known for his enthusiasm for privatisation!

That's all very true. Again, who knows what might have been!

 

[67018]

Though it has to be said that there were undoubtedly some commuters and regular travellers who honestly believed that nothing could ever be as bad as BR, and I suspect those are the sort of people you were referring to when you mentioned public opinion being a bit fickle earlier!

Spot on.
Also recall that the Conservatives had (rather surprisingly) just been re-elected and the opposition were suffering the indignity of having lost four elections in a row. So they had some credibility and needed a 'big idea' to breathe some life into their rather stale administration.

I accept my recollections may not be fully representative of public opinion country-wide - there was probably a lot of variety depending on location and political persuasion - or maybe my memory of 20+ years ago is just up the creek. I drank much more beer back then compared to now.

I have a strong suspicion that government proposals and legislation are deliberately designed to be arcane and tedious, so as to prevent a lot of people from knowing what is actually going on. Those in charge than then use spin and sound bites to present what they think people want to hear, in order to atry and achieve the result they want.

I suspect you are right, although since starting to read this forum it's become quite clear that railways are extermely complex beasts and it might be beyond anyone's capabilities to explain things. Maybe that's why we need politicians to convert all that complexity into spin and soundbites!

 

[Carlisle]

I get the impression the only pretty much universally agreed success story of rail privitisation was the freight sector

 

[yorksrob]

So it was more of a case that there were a lot of complaints about the railways (plus ca change!) and privatisation was seen as a solution to many problems with nationalised industries - you make a good point that it was viewed much more positively then (when the benefits were just starting to be evident) than now (when the benefits have been 'banked' and forgotten and we are stuck with the disadvantages/failures). As ever, one generation's solution becomes the next generation's problem.

I'm not sure that the population did view things particularly positively back then. On the Southern Region, for example, projects such as the introduction of new trains and electrification pretty much ground to a halt. Other areas such as Chiltern, which had had recent investment fared better, but then we had the notorious "nervous breakdown" after Hatfield.

IMO, public opinion only started to turn in favour of privatisation (to an extent) after Governments started spending serious cash to put this right (which is arguably what they should have done from the start - except that the Government the Gmt that introduced privatisation wanted public investment to fall as a result of it).

 

[Greenback]

I accept my recollections may not be fully representative of public opinion country-wide - there was probably a lot of variety depending on location and political persuasion - or maybe my memory of 20+ years ago is just up the creek. I drank much more beer back then compared to now.

I agree with all of that! My memory may not be as fresh as it once was, and it may be hard for me to differentiate now between the debates I had down the pub with my mates and what I read about in newspapers and magazines, but I've tried to present a bit of both!

I suspect you are right, although since starting to read this forum it's become quite clear that railways are extermely complex beasts and it might be beyond anyone's capabilities to explain things. Maybe that's why we need politicians to convert all that complexity into spin and soundbites!

You may well have a point. Some of the technicalities of the railways leave me feeling completely lost, but I'd rather a non politician explained them to me, and someone with an open mind at that!

 

[TheKnightWho]

I never understood the 'enemy within' picture painted about the big unions. Surely those 'holding the country to ransom' where the managers of companies that refused to pay their workers enough, or provide safe enough conditions, that their staff where actually willing to go to work.

You can't just turn the argument on its head and claim it's just the poor workers.

Strikes work both ways.

 

[PHILIPE]

Without even going into the pros and cons of privatistation, because of it's function and structures it was just a completely unsuitable industry for privatisation to work.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I get the impression the only pretty much universally agreed success story of rail privitisation was the freight sector

You mean those things that are always breaking down on the Marches delaying passenger trains?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Without even going into the pros and cons of privatistation, because of it's function and structures it was just a completely unsuitable industry for privatisation to work.

Would anything have "worked" being broken up and structured like the railways were in 1993?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would anything have "worked" being broken up and structured like the railways were in 1993?

To a certain extent the railway was broken up in 1992, under BR and the OfQ reorganisation. Most of the TOC organisations we know and love now were born in that re-org, and the infrastructure maintenance / projects teams were distinct parts within those businesses. The Profit Centres, as they were known, were trying to take each others' business, and give each other their costs.

To demonstrate, in early 1993 I spent a month of my life surveying trains to prove that Intercity West Coast deserved a higher share of Anglo- Scots revenue than Intercity East Coast. (As it happened, it didn't).

I suppose the main difference was that when profit centre 'A' fell out with profit centre 'B', it was all sorted out by someone at BR Board (who probably then sent a P45) and not by endless trips to the Regulator or Dft.

 

[deltic]

Without even going into the pros and cons of privatistation, because of it's function and structures it was just a completely unsuitable industry for privatisation to work.

the railways survived for nearly a 100yrs in the private sector with various degrees of success or otherwise - any business can operate in the private or public sectors - I cant think of any sector of the economy that has hadnt worked reasonably well in both.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Indeed - but the railways were in dire strategic financial straits before WW2 - we were one of the last to formally nationalize.

Whilst BR had many issues , breaking it up into so many contractual entities was not really properly thought out.