Andy Burnham in pledge to renationalise railway network

[jon0844]

We can argue about the pros and cons, but I feel that bringing an airport express train into the discussion smacks of desperation.

Would we have had the tunnel built without private funding? Would fares have been lower? Wasn't Gatwick Express always a premium service before privatisation? Aren't they around the world where the state still runs services?

Wouldn't the state charge a premium and use that to help subsidise other routes?

And, finally, the trains are usually well used so people clearly don't have a problem. I've used HEX countless times for the convenience, knowing full about the tube and HC alternatives.

The only thing I didn't know until there were problems one evening was the ease of getting off the HC at Hayes and Harlington and taking a bus from there.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Because the comparison between the operators is a false one. They are in the same downstream market (taking punters between Padd and Heathrow) but their upstream market is completely different.

Heathrow Express is a premium service - that is its business model. It has never wanted to be the common carrier for all Heathrow traffic. If you want a reasonably priced and quickish service to Heathrow from Padd, you get the Connect.

Now if you don't want premium services on the network and you want everyone to have the same standard of accomodation, then I suppose Nationalisation is your thing. But it can lead to the lowest common denominator in terms of service offer.

 

[matt_world2004]

We can argue about the pros and cons, but I feel that bringing an airport express train into the discussion smacks of desperation.

Would we have had the tunnel built without private funding? Would fares have been lower? Wasn't Gatwick Express always a premium service before privatisation? Aren't they around the world where the state still runs services?

.

Since it was first proposed by British rail. Yes a rail tunnel would have likely have been built by British rail. The Heathrow express and connect was brought up because Heathrow Paddington route is the only route in the entire country served by both a completely private and public rail operator.

Heathrow connect is not reasonably priced compared to the Piccadilly line its 100% more expensive than its peak price.

 

[Dave1987]

Since it was first proposed by British rail. Yes a rail tunnel would have likely have been built by British rail. The Heathrow express and connect was brought up because Heathrow Paddington route is the only route in the entire country served by both a completely private and public rail operator.

Heathrow connect is not reasonably priced compared to the Piccadilly line its 100% more expensive than its peak price.

You sound like someone who would be willing for a private investor to pay for something to be built to then take it over if you didn't like the price they asked for users to use it and expect the investor to be out of pocket.

 

[matt_world2004]

You sound like someone who would be willing for a private investor to pay for something to be built to then take it over if you didn't like the price they asked for users to use it and expect the investor to be out of pocket.

Nope however the price of Heathrow connect and Heathrow express is relevent to a discussion on what provides better value for money for the customer as we can compare it to the price offered by publically run rail services. .

 

[Domh245]

Tell me who the public operator is?

Also note that Heathrow connect isn't a nationalised operator, it is a bit of a weird one with it being a HEX train between Hayes&Harlington and Heathrow, but a FGW train East of it. Also note that they are staffed by Heathrow Airport Holdings. I can't see how you can claim that it is a publicly operated/owned company!

Nationalised, publicly operated, same thing! If you want to compare it to a public service, compare it to the tube (except now instead of apples and pears, it's chalk and cheese)

What you are doing is about the same as arguing that govia should run all services with 350s because LM fares and Cheaper than Virgin fares!

 

[matt_world2004]

Tell me who the public operator is?



Nationalised, publicly operated, same thing! If you want to compare it to a public service, compare it to the tube (except now instead of apples and pears, it's chalk and cheese)

!

That's what I am comparing it to hence the regular references to the Piccadilly line. :roll: unless the Heathrow connect is also called the Piccadilly line.

 

[Domh245]

Ah ok. Apologies, I was misled by the 'rail operator' phrasing, I wouldn't normally associate that with the tube. But I stand by the chalk and cheese comparison. Tubes can be operated cheaper on account of lighter trains with a lack of power hungry hotel features, a pretty substantial farebox, as well as grants from government and the GLA to the tune of about £2.7bn.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded

 

[ChiefPlanner]

So how come a train fare from Schipol to Amsterdam in a new(ish) air con double decker running about every 10 mins is about £2.70 full fare. ..?

Surely not a privatised service ...

 

[matt_world2004]

Ah ok. Apologies, I was misled by the 'rail operator' phrasing, I wouldn't normally associate that with the tube. But I stand by the chalk and cheese comparison. Tubes can be operated cheaper on account of lighter trains with a lack of power hungry hotel features, a pretty substantial farebox, as well as grants from government and the GLA to the tune of about £2.7bn.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded

All the passenger cares about is a service that can get them from a-b comfortably and quickly how heavy the rolling stock is is not going to factor into their calculations.My understanding is that the tube operationally made a small profit last year and that most of the 2.7 billion subsidy was for the procurement of rolling stock and infrastructure renewal something that doesn't effect the 17 year old hex lines as much.

 

[yorksrob]

So how come a train fare from Schipol to Amsterdam in a new(ish) air con double decker running about every 10 mins is about £2.70 full fare. ..?

Surely not a privatised service ...

Excellent, lets see it here and we can have an opinion.

 

[Domh245]

Granted, the passenger may not give a toss, but lighter rolling stock = less force needed to accelerate it = less energy used = less money spent on buying electricity = (potentially) cheaper fares. Compare the weight of the 73TS, at 145.2 tonnes per train, to the 332's weight of either 188.4 or 233.6 tonnes per train, and then remember that the 332s are going at more than double the top speed of the 73TS, and also having to power air conditioning systems, and you can probably start to appreciate that the HEx service costs more to run just in terms of energy consumption

The 2.7bn grant (as well as the rest of their funding) will have gone into a variety of different schemes across TfLs network, including (but not limited to) tube upgrade work, staff wages, property upkeep, new vehicles, refurbishments, covering loss making schemes such as the Emirates Air Line, and subsidising fares to some extent. The existing infrastructure (such as the heathrow tunnels) will have had their costs met up front, in a similar way to how crossrail was funded, part government, part bank loans, and part businesses agreeing to pay for parts of it, so TfL don't need to worry about recouping their infrastructure costs, as it is not a debt that is on their books.

Also, HEX = Heathrow Express. The Piccadilly line doesn't use the HEX tunnels, although it does use tunnels that go to Heathrow

 

[matt_world2004]

Granted, the passenger may not give a toss, but lighter rolling stock = less force needed to accelerate it = less energy used = less money spent on buying electricity = (potentially) cheaper fares. Compare the weight of the 73TS, at 145.2 tonnes per train, to the 332's weight of either 188.4 or 233.6 tonnes per train, and then remember that the 332s are going at more than double the top speed of the 73TS, and also having to power air conditioning systems, and you can probably start to appreciate that the HEx service costs more to run just in terms of energy consumption

The 2.7bn grant (as well as the rest of their funding) will have gone into a variety of different schemes across TfLs network, including (but not limited to) tube upgrade work, staff wages, property upkeep, new vehicles, refurbishments, covering loss making schemes such as the Emirates Air Line, and subsidising fares to some extent. The existing infrastructure (such as the heathrow tunnels) will have had their costs met up front, in a similar way to how crossrail was funded, part government, part bank loans, and part businesses agreeing to pay for parts of it, so TfL don't need to worry about recouping their infrastructure costs, as it is not a debt that is on their books.

Also, HEX = Heathrow Express. The Piccadilly line doesn't use the HEX tunnels, although it does use tunnels that go to Heathrow

But farebox revenue can be compared to the actual operating costs of the tube. To work out whether the tube is making a profit or not. I would imagine that most of that 2.7 billion covers rpads,traffic lights and other services which provide no farebox income.

And Heathrow airport holdings did have a choice of rolling stock for their network. Probably more so than the tube which is constrained by tunnel size.

 

[jon0844]

I still think that the Government would continue to charge a premium for an airport express train. And people wouldn't be upset, or shouldn't be, if the profit went back to fund other less profitable services.

I do wonder if we might have had different rolling stock, or seen the same interior (both original and post refurb).

 

[Clarence Yard]

If the Government had provided Heathrow Express the service offer would have been different and the price lower. It would have been a universal service, not a premium one. The rolling stock would have probably been less generous in layout, to cope with the demand.

It would still have been more expensive than the tube because, as a BR service, it would've had to make a higher contribution to costs. It wouldn't have been authorised otherwise.

But that is all presuming BR would have had the access to the capital required.

 

[suzanneparis]

A good question, how much do the chief execs of the TOCs get paid each year? (including share bonus packages etc).

Anyone know?

Thanks

 

[route:oxford]

Isn't Burnham seeking to bring back "British Rail" just to wind up the Welsh and The Sturgeon? If he was honest about this, even the Conservatives might support it!

Return commuter, local, lifeline and congestion-busting services back under the "British Rail" umbrella across Great Britain. Leave Inter-City services under a franchise scheme.

As to the Heathrow argument - there aren't many other airports in the world that are so well served by different modes and routes of public transport. If HEx was as cheap as the tube, it would be just as rammed as the tube.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If the Government had provided Heathrow Express the service offer would have been different and the price lower. It would have been a universal service, not a premium one. The rolling stock would have probably been less generous in layout, to cope with the demand.
It would still have been more expensive than the tube because, as a BR service, it would've had to make a higher contribution to costs. It wouldn't have been authorised otherwise.
But that is all presuming BR would have had the access to the capital required.

It was, actually, a joint BAA/BR project.
BAA built the branch and bought the trains, BR electrified the route out of Paddington and operates the whole route to the airport (from Didcot now, was Slough until recently).
The service is operated jointly. Heathrow Connect is also a joint service.
BAA owns the rights on the branch, and it is not a franchise.

DfT provided BR with a large amount of capital to upgrade the line as far as Stockley (including resignalling and the remodelling of the Paddington layout).
It also kick-started the current GW electrification scheme by wiring the first 12 miles out of Paddington.

Pricing and terms for travelling on Heathrow Express are nothing to do with DfT and are not regulated.
The premium pricing model on Heathrow Express is common round the world for dedicated services to major airports.
Stockholm Arlanda for one, Paris CDG for another.
Sydney even charges $5.80 (£3) for inter-terminal transfers within the airport using the train, whereas at Heathrow it is free.

 

[jon0844]

If the Government had provided Heathrow Express the service offer would have been different and the price lower. It would have been a universal service, not a premium one. The rolling stock would have probably been less generous in layout, to cope with the demand.

And in this modern day of social media, we'd have been ridiculed for having such a basic service compared to the airport express trains abroad (for major city airports) - and may well have found some people resorted to using taxis instead.

HEX serves a purpose and has a market. The fact that people pay for first class (lovely as it is, for 15 minutes + time at Paddington, it's still pointless) says it all.

 

[suzanneparis]

Whilst over in Russia the Aeroexpress service from Moscow to the three airports (Domodedovo, Vnukovo and Sheremetyeva) are all priced at £4-30.

https://aeroexpress.ru/en/

 

[Dave1987]

All this all reminds of Cardiff Airport, was due to close because it was losing money hand over fist but the Welsh Assembly didn't want it to close so "nationalised" it (or something along those lines) and I believe it now runs at a loss at the expense of the Welsh taxpayers. Classic socialism in action!

 

[route:oxford]

All this all reminds of Cardiff Airport, was due to close because it was losing money hand over fist but the Welsh Assembly didn't want it to close so "nationalised" it (or something along those lines) and I believe it now runs at a loss at the expense of the Welsh taxpayers. Classic socialism in action!

Just the same as The Sturgeon did with Prestwick!

Handy for her mum too...

Why don't the Labour Party pledge to nationalise private parking companies, mobile phone operators or shopping centres?

 

[class26]

Just the same as The Sturgeon did with Prestwick!

Handy for her mum too...

But there are hardly any flights from Prestwick. It must be loosing more and more money as time goes on...............

 

[Dave1987]

Just the same as The Sturgeon did with Prestwick!

Handy for her mum too...

Why don't the Labour Party pledge to nationalise private parking companies, mobile phone operators or shopping centres?

Why don't they pledge to nationalise airlines, bus companies, supermarkets etc etc all essential to the economy but no that would be considered communist. I mean why would you even consider nationalising an airport that is losing money?

 

[matt_world2004]

Why don't they pledge to nationalise airlines, bus companies, supermarkets etc etc all essential to the economy but no that would be considered communist. I mean why would you even consider nationalising an airport that is losing money?

Most large airports in that communist country the USA are nationalised .

 

[Clarence Yard]

My comments were aimed at a theoretical situation where the whole works would have been funded and operated solely through BR, rather than through a "joint" project.

There was a bit of resentment at the time, within rail, that the future of the GW route in the London area was being driven by the airline industry.

Having said that, HeX has proved to the rail industry that there are more models of service offer than just providing a lowish standard universal one.

 

[suzanneparis]

I sincerely hope Andy Burnham has a look at the franchising situation and at the very least forces competition onto all of the TOCs. Though preferably renationalising the whole lot.

 

[Dave1987]

Most large airports in that communist country the USA are nationalised .

Well for a start they are owned by the local authority not the national government. The US governance system is totally different to ours so it is a poor comparison. Secondly the airports that have been taken over by the Welsh and Scottish authorities are both hemorrhaging money which is why they were going to be closed but they are now being propped up by Welsh and Scottish taxpayers cash. No airfield in the US is kept open if it is making a loss. In Los Angeles there is a local Municipal airfield called Rialto that was owned by the local authority that was making a huge loss. They closed it and sold off the land for redevelopment. Under a socialist system that would sacrilege, you would have to use taxpayers money to keep it open.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I sincerely hope Andy Burnham has a look at the franchising situation and at the very least forces competition onto all of the TOCs. Though preferably renationalising the whole lot.

What exactly do you expect to be achieved by "renationalising the whole lot"? From another thread your issue seems to be ticket prices on different services. As has been pointed out ticket prices vary to ensure demand is spread out. Not sure what you feel will change if its all nationalised.

 

[Railsigns]

What exactly do you expect to be achieved by "renationalising the whole lot"?

At the risk of repeating myself, massive savings for taxpayers as well as lower fares, by ending the inherent inefficiency of fragmentation. I'm struggling to convince myself that your defence of rail privatisation is anything other than ideological.

 

[HH]

At the risk of repeating myself, massive savings for taxpayers as well as lower fares, by ending the inherent inefficiency of fragmentation. I'm struggling to convince myself that your defence of rail privatisation is anything other than ideological.

Massive savings for taxpayers? Not sure where they'd be coming from; I don't think you have much of a clue as to what really goes on.

Inherent inefficiency of fragmentation? Do you have any proof of this assertion? Bigger does not always mean more efficient.