Nationalisation - how does it benefit the passenger?

[iwearahalo2]

Quite, there are no British TOC's operating in Germany.... Oh hang on a minute yes there are:
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2015/06/16-national-express-wins-two-more.html

Ah I see, they'll be skimming off the top and sending it back to Blighty then?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Many Northern Rail passengers I speak to reckon that if the railways were re-nationalised they would get newer better trains and more improved services but in reality I don't think its the case as given the company is by far the most subsidised and the cheapest the government would want the fares to increase to make sure the taxpayer is getting a better deal before investing in new rolling stock for Northern Rail.

Well it depends. If it turned out that a nationalized network cost less to run than the current setup, that would presumably mean that more money would be available for new trains and other investment. Especially if investing in the railway became cheaper with nationalization (which is very plausible - because nationalization would mean that improving services becomes simpler - fewer organizations involved and no complicated franchise legal agreements to work around). Of course that doesn't guarantee we would have new trains though.

 

[redbutton]

I don't believe that public infrastructure should be run for profit, especially when that profit is extracted from the national economy by foreign concerns.

This is compounded by the fact that (at least for commuter services) demand is mainly inelastic, since most people can't easily move home or change job.

I don't know much about the market forces for intercity leisure travel, but I do see how the commuter TOCs (TfL concessions excepted) operate using a model that assumes a free market where none exists. Ideally, if fares are too high or the service too poor, then the market won't bear it. But that doesn't work when commuter demand is so high and so inelastic. If the trains run at all for any price then there will be butts in the seats. That breaks the privatised model, at least for commuter rail.

I do like the TfL model, but renationalisation looks better to me since the profits would be reinvested.

 

[backontrack]

With nationalisation you have a rail system that is run for what it's designed for: a service. It is not a business where it only serves fat cats and foreign companies at the expense of the ordinary passenger.

I agree with this, but the problem is that whatever happens, there will still be someone, somewhere, making profits from it and exploiting it for all it's worth. I've had enough of Richard Branson and Brian Souter figures; while the commercialised corporate branding of TOCs would disappear, the fact would remain that a nationalised railway network would still be run by someone, and that someone may not want electrification and the reopening of key links, but whatever gets them the most money.

I'm all for scrapping HS2 and spending more on our current network, though. I do want nationalisation, but I want it to be effective, not just a puppet TOC. It needs to be the railway for the people and not for the pockets of the bosses.

 

[HH]

...renationalisation looks better to me since the profits would be reinvested.

Or not.

 

[Dave1987]

Christ another nationalisation thread with the same old arguments about the profits being reinvested in the system blah blah blah.....

Until someone can provide proof that the money will be reinvested that argument holds no truth.

 

[thenorthern]

Another question which may seem strange but still important is how far would you want nationalisation to go. Most of the time with nationalistation the thing that is discussed is returning the operation of trains to public ownership. But things such as train building, train maintenance, rolling stock ownership, new track construction, on train catering, train cleaning and management of some stations, freight operations and charter train operations are in some or all cases privately operated by franchises or private contracts agreements and other arrangements. If the railways were to return to public ownership I have no doubt that not all of these would return to the public sector.

In the early days of British Rail nearly every part of the corporation was self produced everying from quarries that mined the stone for the ballast to the notorious British Rail Sandwiches which were not bought in like the Ginsters ones we see today.

 

[Dave1987]

With nationalisation you have a rail system that is run for what it's designed for: a service. It is not a business where it only serves fat cats and foreign companies at the expense of the ordinary passenger.

Yes yes the same old argument that the railways are run for the greedy shareholders and not for the passengers, even though most of those shareholders are British pension funds.....

If it wasn't run for the benefit of the passenger then all loss making services wouldn't run. Good business would say you don't run loss making services.

 

[6Gman]

The ways nationalisation benefits the passenger changes depending on who you speak to.

Rail fares may go down if the railway was re-nationalised it would probably be easier to introduce new services as the abstraction of revenue clause wouldn't be there. As others have pointed out it may mean better connections at bigger stations.

There would be no competition though between operators which would mean routes with multiple operators such as London to Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester, Leeds to York e.c.t would probably loose their Virgin/London Midland/Chiltern/Northern only tickets causing a rise in restricted rail fares.

Overall though if the railways were re-nationalised it may be of benefit to certain passengers but it may make it worse for other passengers.

Several nails firmly hit on the head there!

There would be winners and there would be losers.

You can rest assured that the losers would kick up a fuss, and the winners would stay very quiet!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whether to hold a connection or not is a difficult decision and will often depend on circumstances. There was certainly a lot of criticism of BR back in the day for not holding trains. In general, I support not holding connections where there will be more people disadvantaged than are advantaged.

The difficulty often lies in determining whether this is the case, or the reverse.

Another nail hit on the head!

 

[meridian2]

Yes yes the same old argument that the railways are run for the greedy shareholders and not for the passengers, even though most of those shareholders are British pension funds.....

If it wasn't run for the benefit of the passenger then all loss making services wouldn't run. Good business would say you don't run loss making services.

The 'Huffington Post' article recently would belie that assertion, and do you really think that the 'pension funds' are somehow propping up our TOCs?

 

[NSEFAN]

do you really think that the 'pension funds' are somehow propping up our TOCs?

It's the other way round. Money is syphoned off the railway to prop up pension funds for our increasingly elderly population. Railways give a low rate of return in profit but with demand rising it's extremely unlikely that the monopoly of a franchised TOC would ever be unprofitable, so such an investment is quite attractive to pension funds looking for long-term security.

 

[6Gman]

With nationalisation you have a rail system that is run for what it's designed for: a service. It is not a business where it only serves fat cats and foreign companies at the expense of the ordinary passenger.

Some would argue that "with nationalisation you have a rail system that is run for the unions ..."

 

[muddythefish]

Some would argue that "with nationalisation you have a rail system that is run for the unions ..."

The unions have done very well out of privatisation too. Good luck to them in protecting the living standards of the workers they represent.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Christ another nationalisation thread with the same old arguments about the profits being reinvested in the system blah blah blah.....

Until someone can provide proof that the money will be reinvested that argument holds no truth.

So are you happy with the level of specification and control by civil servants and politicians on today's privatised railway compared to the arms length model that BR operated under?

 

[yorksrob]

Absolutely! No fat cats, and no to fat cats!

It's clear as diesel that we want a peoples' railway, run by the people, for the people!

What's more, no need to re-invent the wheel!

It's already been tried, in the USSR, DDR, China and North Korea.

Oh, wait a minute .... perhaps it's not that simple?

We shouldn't forget that many prosperous countries, notably our Western European partners, managed to run 'peoples' railways very successfully for many decades.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The unions have done very well out of privatisation too. Good luck to them in protecting the living standards of the workers they represent.

One of the great ironies as the architects of privatisation thought that it would dismiss the unions influences and fares were to come down too!

 

[deltic]

How will the average passenger benefit from nationalisation?

Correct me if I'm wrong or missed anything from the following list of what we, as an industry, are attempting to deliver to the average passenger;

1. The average passenger wants to depart and arrive at a clean, well lit, well eqippped station in a state of good repair?
   
2. The average passenger wants to feel that stations are a secure enviroment at all times of the day?
   
3. The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest information regarding the state of the service at the station and a clear and easy to understand timetable?
   
4. The average passenger wants their ticket to be as cheap as possible and for the pricing structure to be consistent, fair and easy to understand?
   
5. The average passenger wants a service that is affected as little as possible by seasonal conditions?
   
6. The average passenger wants a punctual and reliable service, with the journey taking as short a time as possible and seeing any timetable changes for the betterment of journey times?
   
7. The average passenger wants a service that is running whenever they want to travel and they want to wait for a train for as short a period of time as possible?
   
8. The average passenger wants to get a seat for the whole of their journey?
   
9. The average passenger wants to travel in a modern, clean, well equipped train?
   
10. The average passenger wants to feel secure on the train they are travelling on at any time of the day?
    
11. The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest on-train information about the service, in general and the train they are travelling on?
    
12. The average passenger wants service disruption to be as brief as possible and for the information and advice they are given during disruption to be accurate, honest and consistent?

If it is the case that the current railway does not deliver all of the above - and in some areas, such as fares structure and consistency, I don't believe it currently does - how will nationalisation better the current state of the 12 deliverables on the list above?

..[/SIZE]

I would suggest none of the above are impacted by who runs the railway. They are in many cases determined by the financial viability of services. BR's fare structure was not consistent and many complained it was confusing. I am not sure what a fare fair is. BR was never really a uniform entity. It was only in the 1980s that you could get a single all system timetable, each region had its own idiosyncrasies in terms of services (still apparent today in issues such as first and last trains from the various London terminals although not as pronounced as it once was) - then came sectorisation and again different parts of the railway were run differently.

There have been a few mentions of attitudes to connections. BR once had clear rules on whether trains should be held and for how long (set out in station working books) - a rule of thumb often was if passengers on the incoming train could see their connection departing it should be held. But towards the end of BR the rules were changed and it was made clear that many trains should not be held at all - pressure to improve punctuality and the knock on impacts on other services became more important. Its the age old issue - should 100 people be delayed 5 minutes to save 10 people having to wait 30 minutes. The answer should be no - the cost in terms of delay is greater if the train is held.

 

[Agent_c]

I've worked on the railway, in rolling stock engineering for builders, maintainers, operators and consultants, for over 20 years now. I never worked for a part of British Rail, my work in the operational part of the business was post privatisation.

I'm neither pro or anti public or private ownership.

The obvious desire of the Labour party leadership candidates to curry public favour by planning on nationalising the railway confuses me (I'm a mechanical engineer - if I can't hit it with a hammer, or watch someone else hit it with a hammer and then tell them they've done it wrong then I'm at a loss....).

How will the average passenger benefit from nationalisation?

Correct me if I'm wrong or missed anything from the following list of what we, as an industry, are attempting to deliver to the average passenger;

1. The average passenger wants to depart and arrive at a clean, well lit, well eqippped station in a state of good repair?
   
2. The average passenger wants to feel that stations are a secure enviroment at all times of the day?
   
3. The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest information regarding the state of the service at the station and a clear and easy to understand timetable?
   
4. The average passenger wants their ticket to be as cheap as possible and for the pricing structure to be consistent, fair and easy to understand?
   
5. The average passenger wants a service that is affected as little as possible by seasonal conditions?
   
6. The average passenger wants a punctual and reliable service, with the journey taking as short a time as possible and seeing any timetable changes for the betterment of journey times?
   
7. The average passenger wants a service that is running whenever they want to travel and they want to wait for a train for as short a period of time as possible?
   
8. The average passenger wants to get a seat for the whole of their journey?
   
9. The average passenger wants to travel in a modern, clean, well equipped train?
   
10. The average passenger wants to feel secure on the train they are travelling on at any time of the day?
    
11. The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest on-train information about the service, in general and the train they are travelling on?
    
12. The average passenger wants service disruption to be as brief as possible and for the information and advice they are given during disruption to be accurate, honest and consistent?

If it is the case that the current railway does not deliver all of the above - and in some areas, such as fares structure and consistency, I don't believe it currently does - how will nationalisation better the current state of the 12 deliverables on the list above?

It seems to me that the desire for nationalisation is driven by the moral imperitive - the railway should not make money for private company shareholders - and a nostalgic harking to times past*, not one of bettering the lot of the average passenger.




* I'm involved in motorbike racing and the desire to return to nationalisation reminds me of the adage that the longer a bike racer has been retired the faster he was....

I think its pretty simple.

At the moment resources are spent on non productive persons. People who take up railway funding, but don't benefit the railway.

Shareholders, Multiple boards, Multiple HR departments. Waste, Waste, Waste, waste.

Lets get those snouts out of the trough.

 

[Barn]

I think its pretty simple.

At the moment resources are spent on non productive persons. People who take up railway funding, but don't benefit the railway.

Shareholders, Multiple boards, Multiple HR departments. Waste, Waste, Waste, waste.

Lets get those snouts out of the trough.

Let's replace them respectively with HM Treasury short-termist politically motivated decisions, consultants paid by the day and nationwide strikes rather than local ones. Yay!

 

[deltic]

I think its pretty simple.

At the moment resources are spent on non productive persons. People who take up railway funding, but don't benefit the railway.

Shareholders, Multiple boards, Multiple HR departments. Waste, Waste, Waste, waste.

Lets get those snouts out of the trough.

They existed in BR days - each part of BR had its own Board etc. The number of support staff is generally related to the number of employees - 100 staff - 1 IT staff , 10,000 staff - 100 IT staff - may be some economies of scale but I suggest they are not large.

 

[Bevan Price]

I would suggest none of the above are impacted by who runs the railway. They are in many cases determined by the financial viability of services. BR's fare structure was not consistent and many complained it was confusing. I am not sure what a fare fair is. BR was never really a uniform entity. It was only in the 1980s that you could get a single all system timetable, each region had its own idiosyncrasies in terms of services (still apparent today in issues such as first and last trains from the various London terminals although not as pronounced as it once was) - then came sectorisation and again different parts of the railway were run differently.

There have been a few mentions of attitudes to connections. BR once had clear rules on whether trains should be held and for how long (set out in station working books) - a rule of thumb often was if passengers on the incoming train could see their connection departing it should be held. But towards the end of BR the rules were changed and it was made clear that many trains should not be held at all - pressure to improve punctuality and the knock on impacts on other services became more important. Its the age old issue - should 100 people be delayed 5 minutes to save 10 people having to wait 30 minutes. The answer should be no - the cost in terms of delay is greater if the train is held.

The latter point arises only because of the nonsense about having to make assorted compensation / penalty payments for late running. True, BR did not always connections, but on average they were better than the current system. And they generally made special efforts to hold "last train of the day" connections.

Also they would sometimes insert "special stops" in some services, to substitute for cancelled or late running trains - that no longer happens, for example if it meant a TPE train covering stops of a cancelled Northern train.

Regardless of ownership, today's railway is a fragmented, expensive mess.


As for BR fares - they were once quite simple - "x" pence for mile single journey, double the fare for return journey, but a lower fare for "cheap day returns" between selective stations. Also, no afternoon peak restrictions anywhere; morning peak ended at 09:30 (indeed, until the mid 1960s, outside "London commuterland", many areas had no morning peak restrictions.

And BR did not have nonsense whereby trains could be plundered from TOCs by train rental companies more interested in their own finances than in providing a good service for passengers.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think its pretty simple.

At the moment resources are spent on non productive persons. People who take up railway funding, but don't benefit the railway.

Shareholders, Multiple boards, Multiple HR departments. Waste, Waste, Waste, waste.

Lets get those snouts out of the trough.

Yes, your view is certainly 'pretty simple'. Shame about what it would all lead to.

 

[deltic]

The latter point arises only because of the nonsense about having to make assorted compensation / penalty payments for late running. True, BR did not always connections, but on average they were better than the current system. And they generally made special efforts to hold "last train of the day" connections.

Also they would sometimes insert "special stops" in some services, to substitute for cancelled or late running trains - that no longer happens, for example if it meant a TPE train covering stops of a cancelled Northern train.

Regardless of ownership, today's railway is a fragmented, expensive mess.


As for BR fares - they were once quite simple - "x" pence for mile single journey, double the fare for return journey, but a lower fare for "cheap day returns" between selective stations. Also, no afternoon peak restrictions anywhere; morning peak ended at 09:30 (indeed, until the mid 1960s, outside "London commuterland", many areas had no morning peak restrictions.

And BR did not have nonsense whereby trains could be plundered from TOCs by train rental companies more interested in their own finances than in providing a good service for passengers.

The point on connections is nothing to do with compensation payments - the question is why would you delay 100 passengers 5 minutes each to save 10 passengers a 30 minute delay. By holding the train the total delay incurred is greater than letting it go. That's before the issue of knock on effects etc. Even with last trains of the day BR would not always hold them but would provide alternative transport depending on location and the nature of the service - not an issue for branch lines but long distance services carrying mail were subject to strict rules on timekeeping.

Special stops are still made today but I agree not to the same extent.

It has been a long time since BR fares were based on pence per mile - market pricing was introduced a long time ago and higher fare increases were introduced when services were upgraded. Fares were certainly simpler in the past but BR introduced a wide range of tickets to fill up spare capacity at off peak times and these often varied from region to region and special offers applied at certain times. There is no doubt BR would have a much more complex fare structure now if it had continued as computers and the internet would have allowed it far greater ability to develop its yield management.

 

[3270]

So are you happy with the level of specification and control by civil servants and politicians on today's privatised railway compared to the arms length model that BR operated under?

They definitely micro-manage too much but there are one or two advantages. The fact that franchise agreements specify the train service to be run means that it is harder than it used to be to cut services. I remember back in the early 1990s British Rail axed the direct Darlington-Hartlepool service (a train every 2 hours) and cut the Whitby line back to 4 return journies per day. And there were probably more cuts elsewhere. All of this was done with just a few weeks notice before a new timetable started. In fact the GBTT timetable book had been printed and showed the normal service, the cuts only appeared in the Supplement of late changes! I think the Government had turned off the money tap due to the economic conditions at the time so cuts had to be made. And they were.

 

[southern442]

I think that the main motive for nationalisation is that under government ownership, the railway would (should) be operated as a public service rather than a business, so the main motive would (should) be to serve people rather than to make money. Also the fares could go down and the railway would still make a sensibe profit, with money to re-invest, as there will be no overseas shareholders to pay off.

 

[Hadders]

Let's not go all gooey-eyed over British Rail!

Sure they did some really good things, but there were also some pretty poor things too.

When I was a lad British Rail was ridiculed by practically everyone, and people looked back and said it was far better before nationalisation when we had the Big-4.

Personally, what we've got now is far from perfect but the last thing we need is another massive structural change in the industry.

And as for connections being held remember that there are far more trains running now than under BR. Sometimes it just isn't feasible to hold connections.

 

[deltic]

I think that the main motive for nationalisation is that under government ownership, the railway would (should) be operated as a public service rather than a business, so the main motive would (should) be to serve people rather than to make money. Also the fares could go down and the railway would still make a sensibe profit, with money to re-invest, as there will be no overseas shareholders to pay off.

British Rail operated as a business with profit targets set by the Treasury - a nationalised railway would still have to operate to financial targets. The question that no-one can really answer is - can competition for franchises and the need to make profits lead to greater efficiency savings in the private sector so that the savings made are greater than the profits retained. If not then the railways would be better off in state hands.

Nationalisation is unlikely to lead to the recreation of BR as was - rather it will be more like a TfL - state owned infrastructure (as already applies with Network Rail) and state setting fares and services. Services run by third parties under contract and rolling stock leased from manufacturers who would retain responsibility for maintenance. Freight would continue to operate as now.

 

[daikilo]

I've worked on the railway, in rolling stock engineering for builders, maintainers, operators and consultants, for over 20 years now. I never worked for a part of British Rail, my work in the operational part of the business was post privatisation.

I'm neither pro or anti public or private ownership.

The obvious desire of the Labour party leadership candidates to curry public favour by planning on nationalising the railway confuses me (I'm a mechanical engineer - if I can't hit it with a hammer, or watch someone else hit it with a hammer and then tell them they've done it wrong then I'm at a loss....).

How will the average passenger benefit from nationalisation?

Correct me if I'm wrong or missed anything from the following list of what we, as an industry, are attempting to deliver to the average passenger;

1. The average passenger wants to depart and arrive at a clean, well lit, well eqippped station in a state of good repair?
   
2. The average passenger wants to feel that stations are a secure enviroment at all times of the day?
   
3. The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest information regarding the state of the service at the station and a clear and easy to understand timetable?
   
4. The average passenger wants their ticket to be as cheap as possible and for the pricing structure to be consistent, fair and easy to understand?
   
5. The average passenger wants a service that is affected as little as possible by seasonal conditions?
   
6. The average passenger wants a punctual and reliable service, with the journey taking as short a time as possible and seeing any timetable changes for the betterment of journey times?
   
7. The average passenger wants a service that is running whenever they want to travel and they want to wait for a train for as short a period of time as possible?
   
8. The average passenger wants to get a seat for the whole of their journey?
   
9. The average passenger wants to travel in a modern, clean, well equipped train?
   
10. The average passenger wants to feel secure on the train they are travelling on at any time of the day?
    
11. The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest on-train information about the service, in general and the train they are travelling on?
    
12. The average passenger wants service disruption to be as brief as possible and for the information and advice they are given during disruption to be accurate, honest and consistent?

1. 
   
   If it is the case that the current railway does not deliver all of the above - and in some areas, such as fares structure and consistency, I don't believe it currently does - how will nationalisation better the current state of the 12 deliverables on the list above?
   
   It seems to me that the desire for nationalisation is driven by the moral imperitive - the railway should not make money for private company shareholders - and a nostalgic harking to times past*, not one of bettering the lot of the average passenger.
   
   I worked on the pre-privatisation railways in the 1970s and we were working hard to change the public impression. I even spent strike days working trains to get the message across. I left when I understood that there was no identified future.
   
   The desire for nationalisation had absolutely no basis in public interest, it was pure perceived financial value (and maybe a bit of union bashing, but not sure). You now have what your elders gave you, some of the most volatile fares in Europe, but that is liberalism.
   
   You want to nationalise, Europe will immediately say no so you're ... don't even think of it, it won't happen. Now what you can elect is a tribe who thinks that even private companies need to meet public service obligations such as discount fares up to e.g. 24h before departure.

 

[NSEFAN]

I think that the main motive for nationalisation is that under government ownership, the railway would (should) be operated as a public service rather than a business, so the main motive would (should) be to serve people rather than to make money. Also the fares could go down and the railway would still make a sensibe profit, with money to re-invest, as there will be no overseas shareholders to pay off.

Why on earth would you reduce the fares? The trains are overcrowded enough as it is. Reducing the fares will never happen because it will only make this worse and actually reduce the chance of new stock being bought, in either a public or private system.

 

[Groningen]

In my eyes those 12 points have nothing to do with nationalisation.

The average passenger wants to depart and arrive at a clean, well lit, well eqippped station in a state of good repair?
Try to arrive shortly for departure and leave as soon as possible on arrival.

The average passenger wants to feel that stations are a secure enviroment at all times of the day?
Hey; you are not travelling alone. There can be that 0,1 % that makes your ride miserable.

The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest information regarding the state of the service at the station and a clear and easy to understand timetable?
That is why we have a standard timetable with same times every hour expect early and late hours.

The average passenger wants their ticket to be as cheap as possible and for the pricing structure to be consistent, fair and easy to understand?
It is here 100 % or with a discount of 40 % after 9 am. Maximum price is 25 euro.

The average passenger wants a service that is affected as little as possible by seasonal conditions?
Of course, but trees can still fall on electric wires.

The average passenger wants a punctual and reliable service, with the journey taking as short a time as possible and seeing any timetable changes for the betterment of journey times?
Of course.

The average passenger wants a service that is running whenever they want to travel and they want to wait for a train for as short a period of time as possible?
How shorter the time of change with a connection; the greater the delay with a late arriving train.

The average passenger wants to get a seat for the whole of their journey?
Than do not travel to London.

The average passenger wants to travel in a modern, clean, well equipped train?
What do you mean with well equipped? Free Wifi? Sockets? Modern? I do not care as long there is a train.

The average passenger wants to feel secure on the train they are travelling on at any time of the day?
Repeat from above.

The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest on-train information about the service, in general and the train they are travelling on?
One is not a novince when on the train. So often it does not go wrong.

The average passenger wants service disruption to be as brief as possible and for the information and advice they are given during disruption to be accurate, honest and consistent?
A suicide, incident or crash takes time.