Andy Burnham in pledge to renationalise railway network

[yorksrob]

I don't think anyone at all predicted the huge surge in passenger numbers that was going to happen.

They did seem to give the impression that they thought the railway was in permanent decline, which even without the recent growth seemed like a gross misjudgment.

 

[matt_world2004]

Regardless of the reasons why they got it so badly wrong, the fact remains that the Tory government promised rail privatisation would reduce taxpayer subsidies when in fact those subsidies rose by several hundred per cent. There are only two possible conclusions:

Either they failed to take into account the many and various factors that have demanded increased public funding since privatisation, which smacks of gross incompetence on their part,

Or, they knew along that subsidies would have to increase, making them liars. The fact that privatisations create opportunities for the Tories' friends and donors in the private sector to profit at taxpayers' expense is entirely coincidental of course.

My guess is that privatisation was a wheeze a short termist way of getting the railways off the governments book. A way of running down the railway without them getting the blame for it. However due to the expense of running a car increasing alongside the price of housing in many urban centres mean that it became the only commute option for many people. Suddenly that short termist solution to running down an under used public utility became a huge anchor, a black pit of money. If they believed that privatisation was better for the railway, why didn't they do it for the tube at the same time? At A guess four trains an hour going through westminister didn't look so appealing. There are very few national rail routes that people would travel for the mere leisure of travelling now and the railway needs to get back to that holdenesque principle of being a cheap method of public conveyance for those that travel long distances or cannot afford to run a car or do not have the ability to drive.

 

[Railsigns]

So £1.6 billion in 1993 (before privatisation started) is £3billion in todays money. Consider the fact that passenger numbers have more than doubled since then (and it is more difficult to run services on a cramped network) and the £5.7billion we now spend is in fact a reduction in subsidy per passenger.

But not a reduction in real terms, which is what was promised. This despite rising passenger numbers meaning more fares revenue, on top of which the fares are on average higher than BR's (another broken Tory privatisation promise).

That's not even mentioning the fact that the railways are now much safer

Why mention it when it isn't relevant to the discussion? Yes, the railways are safer now than they were twenty years ago. Similarly, the railways twenty years ago were safer than they were when they were nationalised in 1948. Conclusion: improving railway safety is an ongoing process. That this trend has continued post-privatisation is despite privatisation, not because of it: Fragmentation in the privatised rail industry makes safety more difficult to manage, a fact recognised and acknowledged right at the outset of privatisation in Railtrack’s safety case. Investment in TPWS fitment has brought about the biggest improvement to safety since privatisation and that was funded by public money, as well as needing legislation to compel the private rail companies to get on with implementing it. This investment would have happened without privatisation, just as it did on the publicly owned railways in Northern Ireland.

 

[matt_world2004]

I don't know where the idea that the railway is safer now than it was 20 years ago. There have been more major fatal accidents in the 20 years since privatisation than the 20 years before it.

EDIT: The above is incorrect

in the 20 years before privatisation there were 49 accidents resulting in 146 deaths. In the 20 years following privatisation there were 32 accidents involving 85 deaths

 

[Railsigns]

I don't know where the idea that the railway is safer now than it was 20 years ago. There have been more major fatal accidents in the 20 years since privatisation than the 20 years before it.

To be fair, the worst accidents of the last twenty years occurred in the early years of privatisation, during Railtrack's fatal cost-cutting era.

 

[bramling]

A large number of station upgrades were undertaken by NSE in the late 80s early 90s. Many stations which were upgraded at this time still have the NSE plaque commemorating the upgrade. NSE had a rolling programme of station refurbs and improvements for all stations in their area.

Plenty of new trains came along in the 90s including the Turbos and Networkers.

NSE's operational profit was £71 million in y/e March '94 and £5 million in y/e March '93.

EDIT: I should state that after 1991, NSE was responsible for the cost of all track maintenance in its area which makes its operational profit even more impressive.

Don't forget quite a few electrification schemes around that time as well.

 

[Jonny]

Is Andy Burnham coming up with well-intentioned but I'll thought out ideas just to cut off Jeremy Corbyn?.
I fear that this is one such idea.

That's why I don't like political nationalisation - it turns the railway into a political football (more than it is already).

 

[Aldaniti]

That's not even mentioning the fact that the railways are now much safer, and that compared to wage growth, the subsidy has dramatically fallen.

(using http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...tion-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html for inflation calculation)

Compared to road, the railways have always been a safer form of transport and I must concede that todays railway does seem to be at its safest, but I'm not sure how much of that is to do with privatisation. We've just had a very near miss involving a WCRC steam charter and a few years ago a Freightliner service very nearly smashed into a northbound East Coast service at Carstairs. Only a few days ago a report was published into an incident where a group of PW workers were almost killed by a TPE service on the WCML. There are quite a few other incidents in recent years and only an element of luck has prevented death and serious injury.

 

[yorksrob]

Is Andy Burnham coming up with well-intentioned but I'll thought out ideas just to cut off Jeremy Corbyn?.
I fear that this is one such idea.

That's why I don't like political nationalisation - it turns the railway into a political football (more than it is already).

Which is also why I dislike political privatisation, as would become clear, if but we had anything left in this Country to sell off.

 

[matt_world2004]

That's why I don't like political nationalisation - it turns the railway into a political football (more than it is already).

So it is better that the railway is a political and corporate football too? With tocs running it with just enough sustainability to cover their own franchise period

 

[Domeyhead]

I think anybody trying to compare expenditure, government subsidy and public purse costs from over 20 years ago until now is wasting everybody's time.

Yes,one of the ideas of privatisation was that there would be less public expenditure and that has clearly not been the case.

However, the railway, the demands upon it, the users of it and the whole costs of our infrastructure are totally alien to what would have been projected all those years ago.

Bearing in mind that the infrastructure is still a "national asset" ( some may say laibility ? ) the railway is STILL nationalised to some extent....

Agree with the sentiment above though I'd go further - THe railway is MORE nationalised now than it has ever been - thanks to government's obsession with centralised control. Any senior railway manager from BR days will tell you that they had a lot of freedom in where to allocate their (scarce) resources, and to make business decisions for their budget and their assets. Business sectors had control of trains and timetabling and could negotiate with their counterparts in the regions to integrate services - even after sectorisation. Today the Treasury, DfT and its unaccountable Qangos such as ORR exert direct control down to the timing of individual trains and even their lengths. SOmetimes it is overt sometimes it is covert through the cynical application of "targets" and "standards" giving TOCs virtually nothing to manage beyond day to day fulfilment of the timetable (specified by ORR) Central Government now has a giant trainset of its own to play with and the Treasury decides how long it can play. Why the heck people look at nationalisation as some kind of panacea beats me - it's still the Treasury running the show.

 

[B&W]

The answer to that would be to leave the EU!

Wrong - Protectionism is the last thing this nation (which survives on trade) needs.

Even if the UK left the EU it would still be bound into international fair trade and technical agreements


Brian

 

[physics34]

thing is.. without privatisation would we have got....

complete replacement of all slam door stock?

TPWS installed throughout the land?

More services running than pre privatisation

Best safety record ever..

 

[Railsigns]

thing is.. without privatisation would we have got....

complete replacement of all slam door stock?

This has not yet been achieved.

TPWS installed throughout the land?

More services running than pre privatisation

Best safety record ever..

All three have been achieved on the publicly owned railways in Northern Ireland, so the most likely answer is 'yes'.

 

[Jonny]

So it is better that the railway is a political and corporate football too? With tocs running it with just enough sustainability to cover their own franchise period

The current arrangement isn't ideal, but at least there is only limited scope for political interference with the railways. My view is that corporations seem to be interference-neutral and, on the whole, do a reasonable job.

 

[matt_world2004]

The current arrangement isn't ideal, but at least there is only limited scope for political interference with the railways. My view is that corporations seem to be interference-neutral and, on the whole, do a reasonable job.

There isnt there was less political interference in the railways during British rail. Which is why exotic ideas were allowed to flourish and things like the br film unit existed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

thing is.. without privatisation would we have got....

complete replacement of all slam door stock?

TPWS installed throughout the land?

More services running than pre privatisation

Best safety record ever..

TPWS was developed by British rail

 

[ac6000cw]

Agree with the sentiment above though I'd go further - THe railway is MORE nationalised now than it has ever been - thanks to government's obsession with centralised control. Any senior railway manager from BR days will tell you that they had a lot of freedom in where to allocate their (scarce) resources, and to make business decisions for their budget and their assets. Business sectors had control of trains and timetabling and could negotiate with their counterparts in the regions to integrate services - even after sectorisation. Today the Treasury, DfT and its unaccountable Qangos such as ORR exert direct control down to the timing of individual trains and even their lengths. SOmetimes it is overt sometimes it is covert through the cynical application of "targets" and "standards" giving TOCs virtually nothing to manage beyond day to day fulfilment of the timetable (specified by ORR) Central Government now has a giant trainset of its own to play with and the Treasury decides how long it can play. Why the heck people look at nationalisation as some kind of panacea beats me - it's still the Treasury running the show.

I agree completely.

With the recent change in the status of NR, we're already on the slippery downward slope to annual budgets (controlled by the Treasury), arbitrary budget cutbacks in times of economic need and all the other Treasury inspired stuff BR had to live with (like major projects having to be approved by the Treasury, one of the reasons why they tended to be pared back to the bone to get accepted).

Do people really want to go back to that situation just for political/idealogical reasons and throw away all the progress the railways have made in the last 20 years, at least in part due to the financial stability that multi-year budgetary planning has provided ?

 

[Railsigns]

Do people really want to go back to that situation just for political/idealogical [sic] reasons and throw away all the progress the railways have made in the last 20 years, at least in part due to the financial stability that multi-year budgetary planning has provided ?

Nothing that's been achieved on the railways in the last 20 years comes anywhere close to justifying the countless billions of pounds it has cost taxpayers.

Renationalisation has the support of the majority of the British public not for political or ideological reasons; it's a realisation that privatisation has failed to achieve the promised reductions in fares and subsidies but has increased inefficiency and political interference. A return to public ownership therefore isn't ideological; it's just common sense.

 

[misterredmist]

Nothing that's been achieved on the railways in the last 20 years comes anywhere close to justifying the countless billions of pounds it has cost taxpayers.

Renationalisation has the support of the majority of the British public not for political or ideological reasons; it's a realisation that privatisation has failed to achieve the promised reductions in fares and subsidies but has increased inefficiency and political interference. A return to public ownership therefore isn't ideological; it's just common sense.

I agree that it has support from most of the Public , however, I am not sure that it would be possible now to have a Nationalised Railway......there is a lot of "rose tintage" going on too..... despite there being some good people at BR, the nationalised railway suffered from very poor investment - APT being a classic example , and if the railway were to be re-nationalised , there'd be a whole host of "civil servant" jobs for the boys given out , it would become admin heavy, and I would hazard a guess that the public subsidy would increase two fold......

 

[physics34]

There isnt there was less political interference in the railways during British rail. Which is why exotic ideas were allowed to flourish and things like the br film unit existed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


TPWS was developed by British rail

not sure they wouldve installed it though.

 

[Railsigns]

not sure they wouldve installed it though.

No, they would have installed the much superior ATP system, had the Tory government not diverted the funds to pay for their ideological privatisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

despite there being some good people at BR, the nationalised railway suffered from very poor investment -

Yes, BR suffered from lack of investment but that is a separate matter from that of ownership.

Whether public or private, the railways are dependent on government funding. That's more true now than it ever was. BR was more efficient and could therefore achieve more with less. Taxpayers are getting a very poor deal out of rail privatisation but the government keeps on pouring in billions of pounds of our money (even in a time of supposed austerity) to maintain the illusion that privatisation is delivering results.

 

[sonorguy]

No, they would have installed the much superior ATP system, had the Tory government not diverted the funds to pay for their ideological privatisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes, BR suffered from lack of investment but that is a separate matter from that of ownership.

Whether public or private, the railways are dependent on government funding. That's more true now than it ever was. BR was more efficient and could therefore achieve more with less. Taxpayers are getting a very poor deal out of rail privatisation but the government keeps on pouring in billions of pounds of our money (even in a time of supposed austerity) to maintain the illusion that privatisation is delivering results.

Surely, it's basically impossible to say conclusively whether the railways are 'better' now than they were under BR as there aren't any sensible comparators. They're different now, rather than better or worse and the idea that BR would have managed this any better than the private sector/franchises etc is pure speculation.

Demographics, relative wealth and the use of rail (especially freight) has changed out of all recognition so wanting to re-nationalise is purely 'ideological' rather than following an accurate analysis of empirical data.

 

[Dave1987]

No, they would have installed the much superior ATP system, had the Tory government not diverted the funds to pay for their ideological privatisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes, BR suffered from lack of investment but that is a separate matter from that of ownership.

Whether public or private, the railways are dependent on government funding. That's more true now than it ever was. BR was more efficient and could therefore achieve more with less. Taxpayers are getting a very poor deal out of rail privatisation but the government keeps on pouring in billions of pounds of our money (even in a time of supposed austerity) to maintain the illusion that privatisation is delivering results.

You have said several times now that a nationalised railway would save billions of £'s but have failed to explain how. You most say people want the railways nationalised, but by that same token most of these people all berate Beeching for closing lines that were costing way more to run than they go in because they were poorly used. This shows the people you use as you justification probably don't actually understand how the railways work. The reason there are a lot of taxpayers subsidies is that there are a lot of services that cost more to run than they get in tickets. This would not change at all under nationalisation so I fail to see where your "billions of £'s of savings" are coming from. I watched a news article on the NHS the other day that said the various NHS trusts were paying around double the cost for simple things like gloves because they all order separately instead of having one big order that would mean they could get them much much cheaper. That was one example which is repeated all over the NHS. Just goes to show that Govt run does not mean more efficient and cheaper.

 

[yorksrob]

You have said several times now that a nationalised railway would save billions of £'s but have failed to explain how. You most say people want the railways nationalised, but by that same token most of these people all berate Beeching for closing lines that were costing way more to run than they go in because they were poorly used. This shows the people you use as you justification probably don't actually understand how the railways work. The reason there are a lot of taxpayers subsidies is that there are a lot of services that cost more to run than they get in tickets. This would not change at all under nationalisation so I fail to see where your "billions of £'s of savings" are coming from. I watched a news article on the NHS the other day that said the various NHS trusts were paying around double the cost for simple things like gloves because they all order separately instead of having one big order that would mean they could get them much much cheaper. That was one example which is repeated all over the NHS. Just goes to show that Govt run does not mean more efficient and cheaper.

In truth, those subsidised services were there before the railways were privatised, part subsidised by Government, and part subsidised by more profitable routes. The real mystery was how the Government of the day ever thought that splitting up the railway and disrupting those cross-subsidies was ever going to result in less subsidy from central Government.

 

[class26]

You have said several times now that a nationalised railway would save billions of £'s but have failed to explain how. You most say people want the railways nationalised, but by that same token most of these people all berate Beeching for closing lines that were costing way more to run than they go in because they were poorly used. This shows the people you use as you justification probably don't actually understand how the railways work. The reason there are a lot of taxpayers subsidies is that there are a lot of services that cost more to run than they get in tickets. This would not change at all under nationalisation so I fail to see where your "billions of £'s of savings" are coming from. I watched a news article on the NHS the other day that said the various NHS trusts were paying around double the cost for simple things like gloves because they all order separately instead of having one big order that would mean they could get them much much cheaper. That was one example which is repeated all over the NHS. Just goes to show that Govt run does not mean more efficient and cheaper.

Those wanting to nationalise I guess are mainly wanting to return to British Rail. I suspect that would never be the case. There would be layers of additional management put in place (as one poster made the comparison with the NHS). The days of BR are gone unfortunately.

 

[Haydn1971]

Whilst I'm a long time supporter of taking "services" like the railways back into public ownership, the only concern I have is how do you endure commercial performance and value for money. Whilst I accept that today's railways may simplistically be more expensive due to the middle man of Stagecoach, First etc, are they actually more expensive than they would have been had no competitive process been completed. Moving forward, removing that tendering process could possibly lead to railways becoming more costly - how can that be managed effectively and how can you take back the railways into public hands whilst ensuring the private sector benefits are retained ?

 

[ScotTrains]

Surely we need MORE competition not less! If we let the state run the railways solely for the benefit of the public rather than as a business as well, then over time it'll become so costly and inefficient that another Beeching like figure will need to be brought in to make it profitable again. let's not let that happen again.

 

[mikeg]

Not entirely sure it is a good idea to renationalise the railways, also has he pledged to renationalise the ROSCOs?

Put simply, it would be limiting the investment to the public sector funds, which is never a good thing as when spending is tight the government tends to cheap out on such things at the expense of service and a longer term vision.

Also BR wasn't the passenger friendly organisation people think it was, it seemed to have an attitude that it was providing you with a service and you had to be thankful, which isn't always a bad thing - but certainly isn't always a good thing either.

As a Labour member myself, I have to say I'd rather see more joined up thinking first and better privatisation before I'd rather see renationalisation. I shall be putting Mr. Burnham third preference , ahead of Mr. Corbyn.

 

[Railsigns]

Surely we need MORE competition not less!

Why? Putting the rail companies in competition with one another hasn't worked in passengers' favour. Competition is incompatible with cooperation. The real competition is, and always will be, with other forms of transport.

If we let the state run the railways solely for the benefit of the public rather than as a business as well,

A railway run for the benefit of the public? Is this a bad thing?

then over time it'll become so costly and inefficient that another Beeching like figure will need to be brought in to make it profitable again. let's not let that happen again.

Costly and inefficient is what we have now! The nationalised railway was far more efficient. BR was one of the most efficient railways in the world.

If government doesn't act to bring costs back down to pre-privatisation levels, then yes, there will be cuts. Let's not let that happen!

 

[NSEFAN]

Why? Putting the rail companies in competition with one another hasn't worked in passengers' favour. Competition is incompatible with cooperation. The real competition is, and always will be, with other forms of transport.

Competition between TOCs is quite rare on our railways, but there are examples where it does exist and work (see Birmingham - London fares for an example). More competition would probably mean allowing more open access operations, but this is not done because it would reduce the treasury's income from the franchised TOCs. It would also potentially be damaging to the "turn up and go" culture we would like to have with our trains, although booked-train-only and TOC-specific fares have been around for some time and most people seem to understand these now. With limited capacity the railways would struggle to make everyone happy regardless of who runs the show.

Costly and inefficient is what we have now! The nationalised railway was far more efficient. BR was one of the most efficient railways in the world.

It was only efficient because it had to be. Limited resources clearly focussed the minds of those involved as it gave us fantastic products like the HST. Meanwhile the public image of BR was generally awful and nobody would go anywhere near it with any money unless they had to. By the 1990s however the railways were growing in popularity again (for reasons outside the railway's control) and needed investment to undo the decades of managed decline. Unfortunately, as privatisation has shown us, with more money comes more people queueing up for their slice of the pie.

Even if you brought franchises back in-house, which could be done fairly easily by changing the law and putting good staff into DOR, a lot of the expensive technical side such as traction and signalling development is now done entirely by specialist companies, often part of multinational operations. The government is very unlikely to start buying up these companies at a time when they'd much rather do the very opposite. The only reason it was all brought in-house in the first place was because it was in tatters after WW2 and the Big 4 were broke. Back in those days everything was done in-house but that's not how the world works now (for better or worse). Although it would be nice, I just can't see us returning to the monolithic British Rail that would bring the economies of scale and efficiency we once enjoyed.