The other key consideration is that they were responsible for their own infrastructure and rolling stock so didn't have too many extra interfaces (other than with each other which, to be fair, prior to 1923 were considerable in some areas). Due to European regulations that sort of structure would be difficult to get away with these days (thought not impossible as SNCF and DB demonstrate).
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
YouGov poll suggests most want British Rail back.
- Thread starter GrimsbyPacer
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
John Major's Cons rushed it through to get it passed before an Election.
deltic
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 3,495
But nationalisation didnt resolve the railways financial straits either just made channeling money into the sector easier. Govt could have provided direct support to the private sector rail industry or buy the services it wanted from it. The Govt expected privatisation to encourage more competition which was naive as it went the same way as the buses with rapid consolidation in many of the areas it was broken down into. But it is notable that 20yrs on the basics of the privatised industry remains - infrastructure/ROSCOs/TOCs/FOCs although we are now seeing some players in more than one segment. Given the way TfL has gone where it can in replicating the same structure with regard to London Overground there was some rationale behind the privatisation structure.
As mentioned before one way forward if nationalisation was to be reintroduced would be for GB rail to be the concessionaire setting fares etc, private sector companies operating the service, infrastructure works contracted out to the private sector with day to day maintenance kept in house.
67018
Member
Not really. I believe the relevant legislation went through in 1993, less than a year after the previous election.
One thing I've never quite understood is why the fragmented organisation is such a problem, given that many industries successfully operate global supply chains which, on the face of it, are far more complex - spanning dozens of companies operating in different locations, time zones and languages. What is it about the railway that makes it so difficult? (I'm not suggesting it isn't, am genuinely interested in hearing from someone who knows better how things operate.)
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Something like (for example) , running an extra train - in BR days it was done by picking the phone up and making arrangements verbally - now you have to a Track Access / Station agreement. The existing scenario stops simple common sense measures , thanks to Regulatory and "Commercial" protocols. Road industry does not need this for running say a new coach service up the M1.
Do not get me going on "performance regimes" .....
The Box Photter
Member
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 592
If your supplier fails to deliver the right product at the right time, you can sack that supplier and employ a new one, because you are the customer. In the rail industry the customer (i.e. the passenger) has no powers to sack the supplier (the TOC). This means that there is no commercial risk involved and therefore free-market forces do not apply.
In PrivateRailGB, the DfT is the customer, but has no way of sampling the "product" or "service" before granting the franchise. This means that Whitehall Mandarins have to believe the spin contained in each prospective TOC's pitch and choose their "supplier" for the next XX years based solely on the contents of the TOC's sales pitch.
If the TOC gets its sums wrong and isn't able to make enough profit for its shareholders, it can simply do a Sea Containers and "hand the keys back", leaving DOR and the DfT to pick up the pieces.
In a way its the same as the cosmetic surgery industry that promises the perfect body and when your implants start to leak or your tummy-tuck begins to fester its the NHS that saves your life and stitches you back up.
It's also notable that many statistics are still collected in terms of the business sectors, which suggests some logic in that form of organisation.
To the passenger, the current system appears to be incoherent.
Compare and contrast with Tfl.
One of the most repeated stories in the telling of the history of London Transport is Frank Pick's vision of creating a system that appeared coherent - from the logo on the vehicles, to the signs, to the ticketing.
In New York the MTA followed suit, harmonising a confusing system of three competing operators.
It isn't mere window dressing. To the customer, for UK Rail, if it looks like they are dealing with a sprawl of different entities, they will find it confusing.
No matter that some fares are set centrally, the industry strives to give the impression that they are not. That you should shop around - trudging from one fares website to another, from one user interface to an entirely different one, on false (implicit) suggestion that there are different deals to be had. And perhaps being skimmed for a pound, to help fund these "competitive" operations.
And, to the customer, the fact that the rails themselves are centrally run is of no apparent consequence. The customer's interface with system is not the rails. It's the TOCs.
Whether it be ticket selling, the variance of maps shown at stations or on trains, the signage or simply the colour of trains, it's a mess.
Frank Pick would have strong view on all of this, I suspect. Or maybe he'd just point and laugh - "you did WHAT?"
Compare and contrast with Tfl.
One of the most repeated stories in the telling of the history of London Transport is Frank Pick's vision of creating a system that appeared coherent - from the logo on the vehicles, to the signs, to the ticketing.
In New York the MTA followed suit, harmonising a confusing system of three competing operators.
It isn't mere window dressing. To the customer, for UK Rail, if it looks like they are dealing with a sprawl of different entities, they will find it confusing.
No matter that some fares are set centrally, the industry strives to give the impression that they are not. That you should shop around - trudging from one fares website to another, from one user interface to an entirely different one, on false (implicit) suggestion that there are different deals to be had. And perhaps being skimmed for a pound, to help fund these "competitive" operations.
And, to the customer, the fact that the rails themselves are centrally run is of no apparent consequence. The customer's interface with system is not the rails. It's the TOCs.
Whether it be ticket selling, the variance of maps shown at stations or on trains, the signage or simply the colour of trains, it's a mess.
Frank Pick would have strong view on all of this, I suspect. Or maybe he'd just point and laugh - "you did WHAT?"
Last edited:
I think if you took a poll in London on the subject, you would get significant support for the removal of the right to strike from all public sector employees. Whether that will get over-whelming support I do not know, but the current situation will not continue for much longer.
In terms of PS Pensions, we approaching the point were they will have to be closed to all new entrants anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Employees would have to negotiate with management as they do elsewhere in the private sector, and the right to strike is not universal. If you become a public sector employee that is a privilege, and you should expect to make sacrifices. I am also in favour of the public being able to sue unions for these wild-cat strikes - that would probably be more effective.
They would have to get their pension from private companies like everyone else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The right to strike must be withdrawn to protect the general public.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Spot-on; I see it as the other side of the coin if operations were to pass back under publicly owned corporations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
London Underground Christmas, Easter, and other Bank Holiday w/e strikes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think that ignores the problem we have with the National Debt; we will need to start on inflation running at about 2-3% points above wage growth to clear the debt down again, and that would be over a period of 10 - 25 years, so the pressures on teh workforce will be similar to those during the 60s and 70s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There was justification for the work forces having strong unions prior to the war, but from the 60s onwards it was increasingly apparent that militancy had taken hold in a number of unions and that is what moved public opinion against them. A lot of that history is forgot, but a lot was going on in teh 60s and 70s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think that is not the case; talk of nationalization is just wasted hot air; that opinion is also fair wide-spread out-side of Red-Ed's inner sanctum.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
... except BA, the steel industry, the car industry, the NHS, the shipping industry, the ports, the railways etc.
Last edited:
Actually, after arguing the toss for a few years, the privatisation of the infrastructure was rushed through, largely to prevent a future government from taking the system back into public ownership. Naturally this resulted in a long running fiasco.
The irony with these threads is that we're far more likely to be landed with another Railtrack than a return to BR. Ideologically focused politicians are incapable of learning from past mistakes.
If you see the "product" as rail travel then this is true. But that is not quite correct, though it is a view that is widely held, and has led to much confusion in discussing and running the railways. The "product" is actually "travel from A to B", with many alternatives available in all cases. The supplier can be "sacked" by choosing an alternative, and there is commercial risk
Again, that is only partly true, and that in teh case of a completely new entrant to the market. Most prospective TOCs have rail experience elsewhere, or, at least, have experience in other transport modes.
That is an interesting example, more complex than you imply, as it was the parent company that was in difficulty, but not the TOC (IIRC). [I do love the appearance of those evil "shareholders" whose sole purpose for some appears to be sitting waiting for other people's money to roll in to them]. And what happens if a line is unprofitable under "BR"? IIRC, it was closed.
67018
Member
If I understand your first and last points, what you are saying is that it's inherently difficult to have competition within the rail sector, and its importance means there's always a government guarantee of some sort as it's not acceptable for a rail service to just stop running.
This makes it very difficult to provide the right incentives for the various rail companies to provide what's required (even before considering the fact that demands on the service have a tendency to be contradictory - you can't please everyone). Result: the sort of performance regimes that drive ChiefPlanner up the wall!
Not sure I buy your other points though. What you describe is the same for any company contracting out a service to another party - which, these days, is done by every medium or large sized organisation to some extent. Suppliers are selected based on a pitch, and there's a chance that they fail to deliver or go under. When this happens, the supplier usually doesn't walk away unscathed - management lose their jobs and/or shareholders take a hit through a write-down in the accounts.
Is it so different on the railway, or is it just the political sensitivity causes such a hoo-ha when something happens that is just normal business in most other places?
That happened almost from the beginning of privitisation as in 1996 Stagecoach, owned Porterbrook and SWT
Last edited:
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Yep. Sea Containers went bankrupt and, as such, could no longer provide the bonds required by the DfT for the franchise. GNER was profitable and remained a going concern right up until the end; I seem to remember Christopher Garnett making a very strong argument for a management buyout but was refused.
A better example would have been National Express. The line should have been extremely profitable for everybody but National Express offered to pay too much for the franchise, meaning that the Government was making plenty of profit but they weren't. They were allowed to walk away from the franchise with barely a whimper, with all the costs of fixing their mess passing to the taxpayer. That was unacceptable.
As above, "profitability" is now defined by the franchisee's shareholders and not by the cost of the service. Northern Rail, for instance, receives huge subsidies yet the franchise is extremely profitable for Serco and Abellio, who skim upwards of £30m a year off the top of the subsidy. What "expert private sector innovation" we get for that money remains a complete mystery. Similarly the East Coast franchise was unprofitable because the franchisee overbid for it (the CrossCountry franchise is similar).
The main issues I have with the current system is the way franchisees can either walk away (National Express) or sue for extra funding (FGW, Virgin West Coast, SWT and EMT) when they get their numbers wrong. It simply becomes a case of privatising profit and nationalising risk.
67018 said:
The issue for me, as I've said above, is that this doesn't happen on the railways. When a franchisee gets the numbers wrong they either get loads of extra subsidy (Stagecoach got an additional £100m for East Midlands Trains) or they get to walk away without a financial penalty.
The only private company that's ever failed on the railways is Jarvis. Even Connex- the poster boy for TOC screw-up- is back and thriving after changing their name to Veolia and merging with Transdev.
GrimsbyPacer
Established Member
I must protest with some of those comments.
Remember union members have to vote to strike and they will therefor only strike if the situation is unacceptable.
And they like everyone else are also members of the public who have needs. If companies had it their way (private or public) people will be working in unsafe, underpayed conditions. If talks fail the only alternative is strike action.
Reading what some on here have said suggests that some think rail workers should lose the pension pot they've earned, get less money and lose their rights that they signed a contract for.
How would any of that be fair just because others like coppers can't strike?
I think that this has no relevance on nationalisation.
A national company can run like a TOC but without profit going to big business. Nothing else needs to be changed.
Last edited by a moderator:
History shows that, sometimes, what is unacceptable in a union meeting might be considered quite acceptable to the man in the street
If you base your IR on that assumption, no wonder you have trouble, especially as it does ignore some legislation.
Or possibly realise that the "issue" is not important enough to strike about, and handling it can be deferred until something else comes along. Striking rarely, if ever, achieves positive results.
Again, history shows otherwise. If a private company has a striking workforce, those running it can decide to close it down, move, sack everyone, etc etc. As a Nationalised enterprise is, by defintion, providing a public service that the state has deemed essential, the options open to it are different. In the past, some union leaders have behaved as if they had the Government "over a barrel", which has ultimately resulted in bad news for the unions.
(I just love the emotional naivety of the term "big business", but we will put that to one side!) No it can't, because of the nature of public finances and their source. Essentially a nationalised enterprise will not have its own capital to "invest" at the drop of a hat, nor will it be allowed to take risks. Of course it is debatable whether current TOCs do either of those, but they could if they wished, without having to argue that spending on welfare, defence or education should be reduced.
67018
Member
It would be interesting to see what sort of write off was booked when a franchisee did walk away - I'm not convinced it's a completely cost free process.
Even if it is, this sounds like the issue is over who carries the risk if things don't turn out as planned - for example where massive passenger growth fails to materialise (or happens when none is anticipated). If things are really that difficult to foresee, and the impacts are so great, that would suggest that a TfL/Overground model might be an answer since those large risks sit better in the public sector. It doesn't mean the whole lot has to be nationalised though.
Alternatively, if the TOCs have really been able to take liberties, someone in DfT ought to be looking at tightening up the contracts.
The question remains, though - are things really that uncertain, risks difficult to mitigate and circumstances hard to manage, compared to other industries, or is this just an excuse for not managing them properly? Or, just maybe, they are managed pretty well but any issues immediately become a political football and an opportunity to debate political points of view (like the merits of unions) rather than what can be done to improve things.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,677
Wow ! - so good to read plain common sense. Thank you.
GrimsbyPacer
Established Member
The man in the street isyn't that unlikely to be in a union. And it's easy for people in another situation to say other workers get a good deal.
History also shows striking works aswell, if the unions didn't exist many trains would have one man operation and some wouldn't have drivers. Discussions the union has with the company are very important to prevent a worse situation.
What's naive about the term ''big business"??
TOCs are run by DB, First, Stagecoach and Abellio.
They aren't any small operations. And the UK tax and fare payer subsidises TOCs profits.
Why can't the state operate more services like East Coast after more franchises run out?
What I'm saying is what most are, see post #1.
Are you saying 60% of the public are just wrong?
The DfT seem to invest in increasing profits for private companies on the rail network.
Is that an ideal position?
Last edited by a moderator:
'Fraid so
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And the man in the street, despite being in a union, is just as likely to think that a decision of another union is daft. Mass meetings have a dynamic all their own
I cannot think of many strikes that have turned out well for the workers. And, of course, some services are quite adequately provided as OMO or ATO.
Yes, and? Starting from teh assumption that the bosses are out to screw the workers helps no one.
It's like "big pharma" or "big government" - the term says nothing useful except about the attitudes of the person using it.
Because it is one thing to run a relatively simple service pattern in a limited area using relatively modern stock, and quite another to have to juggle investment and risk requirements over a mixed railway.
67018
Member
Taking a few points in turn:
The term 'big business' is usually used in a pejorative sense to imply there is something wrong with the companies concerned, without any attempt to explain why big is necessarily bad. It hence doesn't add much to the debate.
'The tax payer subsidises profits' is a nice sound bite but doesn't mean much. The taxpayer pays for the railways to charge fares at below cost price, for good reasons. The fare payer only 'subsidises' profits in the same way that any customer of a company does. Again profits seem to just be a diversion from a discussion about how to get the best rail service for our money.
The state could operate more rail services but successive governments from all main parties have declined to do so. It could be argued that the government would run services better then specialist transport companies, although experience of government's extensive intervention in the current arrangements suggest that's arguable at best.
98% of the public have little comprehension (or interest) in how the railways run now, let alone how they could be. Most of them would say 'yes' to any question that suggested they might get a better service - in fact 60% seems pretty low to me. Ask the public and they would suggest that fares should be cut and services increased at no cost to their taxes. Crack that one and you have it made!
NSEFAN
Established Member
Neither does the assumption that unions are out to screw over the employers.Oswyntail said:
Now we have H&S and basic employment laws in place, perhaps unions could be seen as redundant. Of course laws can always be changed, and I am wondering how the TTIP agreement will change this landscape.
GrimsbyPacer
Established Member
60% "sounds low" you need to remember...
It's the 20% that want it in TOC companies that is low.
(Edited: Sorry for that incorrect comment I made about your maths skill 67018).
Where'd you get the 98% figure?
Loads of people use trains, even where I live alot more than 2% use the train. If people didn't care they would have voted for the don't know option.
I wasn't using big business to moan at the companies, all I was saying is there's no competition to big firms.
I'm sure I could find their flaws if I looked though.
You're point about the political parties looks true, except the Greens want full nationalisation.
But surely the 3% pure profit from each ticket would be better staying in government hands? Some ends up in other state operations hands.
Northern Ireland Railways isn't bad and that's national.
It's the 20% that want it in TOC companies that is low.
(Edited: Sorry for that incorrect comment I made about your maths skill 67018).
Where'd you get the 98% figure?
Loads of people use trains, even where I live alot more than 2% use the train. If people didn't care they would have voted for the don't know option.
I wasn't using big business to moan at the companies, all I was saying is there's no competition to big firms.
I'm sure I could find their flaws if I looked though.
You're point about the political parties looks true, except the Greens want full nationalisation.
But surely the 3% pure profit from each ticket would be better staying in government hands? Some ends up in other state operations hands.
Northern Ireland Railways isn't bad and that's national.
Last edited by a moderator:
67018
Member
60% 'sounds low' as I'd expect more people than that to say 'yes' to a question that gives them a chance to moan about the railways. I'm quite good at maths, thanks very much, so can we avoid the personal comments.
I get the 98% figure from observation. Even journalists who are paid to write stories about railways frequently get things wrong - thinking that National Rail runs trains or sets fares, for example. Try asking around amongst non-enthusiasts and see how many can explain what a TOC or a ROSCO do.
Not sure what you mean by 'there's no competition to big firms'. Are they exempt from competition through being big? And if an industry is nationalised there is no competition at all!
The Greens want a lot of things - easy enough to say for a party with one MP that has never been in government.
It's not as simple as transferring 3% of profit - government would have to supply the capital which isn't free (anyone know the return on capital for a TOC?) and there are numerous ways that far more than 3% can be lost in a nationalised environment (e.g. politicised decision making, union pressure, poor managers that can't be fired by having their franchise withdrawn).
I'd much rather think about ways of making the best use of the other 97%.
Nationalisation got a bad name for a reason - many people fear going back to the conditions of the 1970s.
[Nationalisation was the solution of the 1940s whose limitations were evident by the 70s. Privatisation was the 80s solution to that problem, so no surprise that we are now experiencing the same thing. The question is, what next? - I don't think either the 1940s or 1980s solution works, something new is needed].
In that case, expect social unrest of similar or greater levels than the 60's or 70's.
I quite agree. I was responding to GP's somewhat Dickensian assertion from earlier.Neither does the assumption that unions are out to screw over the employers.
Big business is mistrusted because of the undue influence it brings to bear on the running of the Country.
Big banks and the financial crisis.
Big companies (of all sorts) and their taxation agreements.
Big energy suppliers and opaque billing practices.
Take your pick.
67018
Member
You've sort of made my point. Regardless of the alleged misdeeds of energy suppliers or Starbucks tax arrangements (which this is not the right place to debate), what have they to do with rail companies? Unless the logic is 'some big companies do bad things, therefore all big companies are bad'. The same logic that portrays all unions as militant destroyers led by reincarnations of Arthur Scargill.
Of course the press writes it up like this is the case, because that's what sells papers. But it tends to drag debate down to name-calling levels.
You may have a point that not all big companies are necessarily bad, but there is the whiff of power without responsibility about them.
It's also as a point that a lot of these were formerly public services over which, however nominally, they were in some way answerable to the public. This is not the case with private companies.
And how exactly has that legislation come about if not for union pressure . Would we see legislation in the workplace to protect workers health and safety , to protect workers right to a minimum break entitlement and a bucketload more rights but for unions ?
So what happened with the recent non management pay increase at Northern then . I must have imagined the part where after months of failed negotiations ASLEF got a successful ballot for strike action . They then also announced strike dates . Suddenly the TOC found the ability to offer a guarantee of at least an inflationary payrise to its staff bringing a swift resolution to something that they had attempted to settle for at least 6 months prior on the TOCS terms . That sounds like a positive result
- Status