Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[Teflon Lettuce]

Why do people want the railways to be re-nationalised? Because most people don't know or are in denial at just how bad B.R. often was. (Mostly) rude and indifferent staff, (mostly) grotty stations, (mostly) clapped out rolling stock. Sure, there were good bits, but they were far outweighed by the bad bits.

good bits.... like the trains actually ran? I'm sure those trying to get to work on TL at the moment would prefer a situation where they were spoken rudely to but manage to get to work on time rather than the current situation where they are politely told the system is in meltdown and the TOC is using a calendar rather than a timetable!

 

[DarloRich]

It made me wonder though why is there an obsession with it at the moment? I know part of it is down to Jeremy Corbyn but even now Labour MPs to the right of the party are calling for the railways to be brought back into public ownership. This is a stark contrast from 10/15 years ago when it was mostly only people like Bob Crowe calling for re-nationalisation.

I think part of it is also down to the fact that many millennials who are calling for re-nationalisation don't remember the days of British Rail and how British Rail wasn't as amazing as they think it was.

because people are sick and tired of being ripped off and think this might be a solution. I have some sympathy with that view. And yes I remember BR.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I still think the railways would have had increased in passenger growth regardless of privatisation. We're in a digital age and people are moving around move than ever before and that wouldn't matter who's running the service.

The digital age was supposed to reduce travelling, but that hasn't happened. Same as the paperless office hasn't happened and we don't travel by jetpacks

 

[al78]

The railway is carrying more passengers than ever before, so privatisation has been a huge success.

This statement seems to come up a lot on here, and there is no way you can correlate increased passenger numbers with the success of privatisation without further information. Firstly, you have to normalise for population changes to get an accurate estimate of the increase in rail usage. Secondly, soaring house prices forcing many people to live far away from where the jobs are and commute in will very likely have caused some increase in usage (i.e. increase in usage is not necessarily related to improved performance). Thirdly, people don't use the railways because it is enjoyable, they use it because it is the most practical for their journey. This doens't mean the railways are wonderful, merely that they are not as bad in some situations as the alternatives, in the same way that being punched in the face is not as bad as being shot and killed. Finally, there is no way of being certain that passenger numbers wouldn't have increased anyway if privatisation didn't happen.

 

[bramling]

While I was watching Question Time last night the Labour MP John Mann was going on about bringing the railways back into public ownership and last week Alan Johnson on BBC This Week was going on about the same thing which is odd because I don't recall them pushing for it when their party was in power for 13 years.

It made me wonder though why is there an obsession with it at the moment? I know part of it is down to Jeremy Corbyn but even now Labour MPs to the right of the party are calling for the railways to be brought back into public ownership. This is a stark contrast from 10/15 years ago when it was mostly only people like Bob Crowe calling for re-nationalisation.

I think part of it is also down to the fact that many millennials who are calling for re-nationalisation don't remember the days of British Rail and how British Rail wasn't as amazing as they think it was.

It’s certainly a complex issue. The early days of privatisation brought some good things, but equally there was bad as well. A lot of today’s fiascos seem to be more related to the DFT than individual TOCs, which is a cautionary note towards nationalisation.

The biggest problems nowadays are the fragmented nature of the industry, and the loss of a lot of experience / expertise. The PPP on London Underground has done exactly the same damage. Politicians and “people managers” with no specialist expertise trying to fix railway problems - the result is messes like the ThamesLink/ timetable fiasco or the SSR “third time lucky” resignalling.

Nationalisation *could* help in the long term, but only if these structural issues are addressed. That’s if nationalisation can actually be afforded, which in itself is a question.

I think if we were to have time again then most people would choose a different path post 1994. But from where we are now there is no magic way forward IMO.

 

[The Ham]

good bits.... like the trains actually ran? I'm sure those trying to get to work on TL at the moment would prefer a situation where they were spoken rudely to but manage to get to work on time rather than the current situation where they are politely told the system is in meltdown and the TOC is using a calendar rather than a timetable!

Given the jokes about BR's reliability it would be interesting to actually see some comparison. I'm young enough to only have ever commuted under the current system, but old enough to have been aware of some of the satire during the late 80's early 90's.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Given the jokes about BR's reliability it would be interesting to actually see some comparison. I'm young enough to only have ever commuted under the current system, but old enough to have been aware of some of the satire during the late 80's early 90's.

to be fair, I used to commute short distance on TL when the railways were still nationalised, and have since used railways once privatised... and can honestly say I have only once ever suffered a train cancellation... and I'd say, at a rough guess, approx 90% of the trains I have been on have been no more than 5 minutes late... maybe I have a guardian angel when travelling?

 

[Barn]

The biggest issue with direct state operation for me is that it would be subject to annual cuts from the Treasury. With the MOJ and local government suffering huge cuts at short notice, it is fanciful to think that the railways wouldn't. The best part about the current system is that it forces the Government to think long-term.

 

[Eagle i-Thrust]

Nationalisation won't solve anything, it will still be run by the same people doing the same job.

In my opinion changing how the railway is privatised would be the best way forward, such as adopting the Japanese model where it's split into regions and everything is managed by the private company responsible for said region.

 

[DarloRich]

The biggest issue with direct state operation for me is that it would be subject to annual cuts from the Treasury. With the MOJ and local government suffering huge cuts at short notice, it is fanciful to think that the railways wouldn't. The best part about the current system is that it forces the Government to think long-term.

that is a big issue for me. it is one of the reasons BR was not good. BTW 5 year control periods are hardly long term!

 

[3141]

There's a widespread belief that reorganisation will lead to improvement. As there's clearly a need for improvement in several aspects of today's railways, some people are arguing that nationalisation would provide the answer. But what are the questions?

Someone said above that when he travelled from Portsmouth in BR days there was no overcrowding. Of course - because there weren't so many travellers. Now there are, so we need more trains or longer trains. Well, SWR have plans for four trains per hour instead of three. Longer trains? - in that case, we need longer platforms as well, and probably adjustments to signalling. Which costs money.

In Thameslink we have a good example of a scheme to provide more trains at greater frequencies. So far it isn't working. Would a new form of BR have been more successful in getting enough drivers trained to run the latest timetable? No-one can possibly know. Advocates of nationalisation may say "yes, they would", but that's just a case of wishful thinking.

When a major reorganisation takes place, it becomes the biggest demand on the time and attention of large numbers of those involved in the industry. Other things get relegated to the margins. Do you remember that over three years went by without a single order for new trains, till Chiltern ordered the first of their 168s - just 12 coaches to start with (I think), later increased to 20. So we can think about what wouldn't be planned or implemented while renationalisation of the railways was being worked on. All kinds of issues would come up that needed sorting.

And not all the outcomes would be to the benefit of everybody.

What we need are improvements. In various places, more services, new services, more trains, longer trains, new signalling. In some case, new lines, like Crossrail and HS2. So more money would need to be spent. And some efficiencies and economies made. Let's imagine the railways are nationalised: will we get better services if fares are reduced and even more people want to travel? If the government increases taxes in order to fund Crossrail 2 and a new line through the Pennines, or a lot more electrification so as to speed up some routes and get more trains on them, will that receive a cheerful welcome nationwide?

I don't know the answers to all of this. But changing the ownership arrangements won't provide them either.

 

[aylesbury]

The franchise system as used at the moment is not working as will nationalisation ,the DFT are not fit to set them up and are not open to inquiry as to what they are doing.The idea of regional companies could work after all it did happen before (younger members might not remember the big four) but with different ways of cooperation ie cross country and freight would be have to be integrated.

 

[quantinghome]

It's not ownership per se; it's the ridiculous structure created as a result of privatisation. Railways are technically complex - lots of different disciplines which need to be integrated well for the thing to work, and splitting it into different companies connected by labyrinthine contracts makes it very difficult just to keep the show on the road, let alone make major improvements. There is a reason why few countries have chosen to emulate the structure of our railways. Nationalisation will not solve these problems in and of itself, but it will give the railways a better chance of succeeding. For those concerned about government funding, well, it already is government-funded.

 

[Master29]

I still think the railways would have had increased in passenger growth regardless of privatisation. We're in a digital age and people are moving around move than ever before and that wouldn't matter who's running the service.

Precisely. I`ve certainly never met anyone who said "I`ll use trains now because they`ve been privatised". More people were bound to be using rail. It didn`t take a genius to work that one out as you say. Whoever placed the Voyager order for Virgin XC must have been comatose. Infant school children would have known that and not some tin pot overpaid consultant.

 

[Moonshot]

Nah, I've worked in both. BR was an absolutely lousy place to work, with poor pay and pressure to work long hours, and many of the stuff were a bunch of aggressive, lazy knuckle-draggers.

No way I'd go back to that.

Absolutely totally bang on the money.........and that is the view of a lot of staff myself included. As an example, train drivers do a lot more of a professional job nowadays and get paid well for their efforts, and rightly so. Absolutely no way staff would be getting paid what they do now if BR still existed......

 

[The Ham]

Absolutely totally bang on the money.........and that is the view of a lot of staff myself included. As an example, train drivers do a lot more of a professional job nowadays and get paid well for their efforts, and rightly so. Absolutely no way staff would be getting paid what they do now if BR still existed......

Striking would be different, in that they would impact the whole country/region rather than just one franchise. Making it more effective at making a point but upsetting more people. Which would likely result in a lot less public support.

 

[driver_m]

Why do staff automatically assume we would go back to the days of working like old old BR if it were renationalised? For one the railway won't suddenly go back to poverty pay overnight, the culture on the railway has changed massively due to the clubs and canteens all going, the knuckle draggers would end up in the nick thanks to mobile phones everywhere now and the railway is more micromanaged and more expensive now. I've never been BR and would like it nationalised. Because I think our country deserves a chance to run it, as the market has let it down badly.

 

[The_Engineer]

Absolutely totally bang on the money.........and that is the view of a lot of staff myself included. As an example, train drivers do a lot more of a professional job nowadays and get paid well for their efforts, and rightly so. Absolutely no way staff would be getting paid what they do now if BR still existed......

Totally agree with that! Having lived through most of the old BR, and experienced it first hand, it suffered badly from underinvestment, constant closures and rationalisation and resultant bad staff morale. Add in the prevalent union attitudes of those days it really was quite dismal. Quite frankly, they really were the bad old days...….

 

[thenorthern]

It's not just the railways someone I know who is in his early 20s was going on about how the Electricity and gas networks need to be nationalised as it would work out better. I mentioned how under James Callaghan during the Winter of Discontent the state-owned electricity network used to shut off regularly and the lights would go out because of strike action and also how the refuse collection workers strikes meant trash piling up in the streets which meant the Army being called in to clear it up. I think because of a lot of millennials didn't have to live through the winter of discontent, the miners strike and other things they don't realise state-owned enterprises aren't always brilliant.

As others have pointed out a state-owned railway wouldn't have prevented the Southern strikes it would have meant national strikes.

With the railways as well I think there is a lot of fake news with nationalisation and other things. My favourite one was when Virgin Trains lost their franchise in 2012 some people were worried that it would mean the Pendolinos being withdrawn and replaced with HSTs and Pacers "because that's what First Great Western use".

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

It's not just the railways someone I know who is in his early 20s was going on about how the Electricity and gas networks need to be nationalised as it would work out better. I mentioned how under James Callaghan during the Winter of Discontent the state-owned electricity network used to shut off regularly and the lights would go out because of strike action and also how the refuse collection workers strikes meant trash piling up in the streets which meant the Army being called in to clear it up. I think because of a lot of millennials didn't have to live through the winter of discontent, the miners strike and other things they don't realise state-owned enterprises aren't always brilliant.

As others have pointed out a state-owned railway wouldn't have prevented the Southern strikes it would have meant national strikes.

With the railways as well I think there is a lot of fake news with nationalisation and other things. My favourite one was when Virgin Trains lost their franchise in 2012 some people were worried that it would mean the Pendolinos being withdrawn and replaced with HSTs and Pacers "because that's what First Great Western use".

hmm.... considering that during the Callaghan years it wasn't just the nationalised industries that were crippled by strikes I don't think you can claim that Nationalisation was the root cause of the winter of discontent. Striking was a way of life back then. Certainly there were inefficiencies with the nationalised industries, but they could have been solved without privatisation.

I also think that the general public are now calling for nationalisation not out of political dogma, but because they have seen their bills rocket, whilst costs have fallen, staff have been cut, and the big fat cats have now got bulging back pockets!

I, for one, resent the fact that when wholesale costs go up, my electricity bill goes up... when those same costs fall... guess what... the energy companies somehow convince the regulators that they need to put their prices up again to allow for "investment"

It's nothing to do with millenials or any other grouping. In short, the British public are fed up of being ripped off and conned by big business.

Privatisation was a Tory con which we all fell for hook line and sinker!

 

[Mag_seven]

Privatisation was a Tory con which we all fell for hook line and sinker!

Yes we were told that BR was deeply inefficient and incompetent and that the "private sector" would the land of milk and honey.

 

[quantinghome]

I mentioned how under James Callaghan during the Winter of Discontent the state-owned electricity network used to shut off regularly and the lights would go out because of strike action.

The Winter of Discontent is somewhat of a myth created by the tabloids. Former Fleet Street editor Derek Jameson later recalled of press coverage of the "crisis", "we pulled every dirty trick in the book; we made it look like it was general, universal and eternal, when it was in reality scattered, here and there, and no great problem". I can't find any reference to there being regular electricity shut offs due to strike action in 1978-79 - perhaps you are throwing in the early-70s 3 day week for good measure?

Back to the railways, I've used them regularly since the early 1990s. I've not found post-privatised railways any more reliable, comfortable or value for money than under BR.

 

[takno]

It's not just the railways someone I know who is in his early 20s was going on about how the Electricity and gas networks need to be nationalised as it would work out better. I mentioned how under James Callaghan during the Winter of Discontent the state-owned electricity network used to shut off regularly and the lights would go out because of strike action and also how the refuse collection workers strikes meant trash piling up in the streets which meant the Army being called in to clear it up. I think because of a lot of millennials didn't have to live through the winter of discontent, the miners strike and other things they don't realise state-owned enterprises aren't always brilliant.

As others have pointed out a state-owned railway wouldn't have prevented the Southern strikes it would have meant national strikes.

With the railways as well I think there is a lot of fake news with nationalisation and other things. My favourite one was when Virgin Trains lost their franchise in 2012 some people were worried that it would mean the Pendolinos being withdrawn and replaced with HSTs and Pacers "because that's what First Great Western use".

Nobody is saying that state-owned enterprises are always brilliant. What everyone is all too aware of is that the privatised ones are not much better and possibly a little worse, and the costs are astronomical both in terms of the direct cost of buying the product and in the time wasted on petty bureaucracy switching tariffs and suppliers so that exactly the same damn energy can come down the same wires into the same meter. The power cut I suffered last night in the middle of a major city was every bit as irritating as the ones in the miners strike, only the privatised company can't even be bothered to come up with an excuse for it.

 

[Goldfish62]

For those who were around before privatisation. Were people saying "The railways should be privatised" when things went wrong?

Yes (not me, incidentally).

 

[jon0844]

It's clear on social media that the Corbyn Labour supporters and Momentum groupies are all in favour. They've never known what BR was like. They're likely all too young.

It's probably why you now have so many far right groups getting support and older people seeing similarities to the rise of Hitler. Nobody would think it possible for history to repeat itself, but it can when people haven't experienced something and believe what they want to believe.

I don't have fond memories of BR from my travels in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Of course new technology would have come to the railway regardless, but I'm certain each Government (especially Tory) would have reduced funding to the bare minimum.

 

[tbtc]

While I was watching Question Time last night the Labour MP John Mann was going on about bringing the railways back into public ownership

I watched that too – dreadful episode – bringing Oakshot onto the programme and not asking her about being at the centre of one of the biggest stories of the week was shameful.

Railways already are nationalised , the DFT are specifying with the aid of taxpayers funding, and at the same time , contracting out services to the private sector and dictating t and C's.

Totally agreed – why would the Government want to change a situation where they control all of the levers but the gullible press/public always blame someone else?


For example, the Government decided that inflation (RPI) would be the level at which fares would rise, fares rise in line with RPI, everyone blames Richard Branson/ the German government.


What we need is *better* Government, not *more* Government. Like a Network Rail that delivered the projects it promised to on time and on budget, a DfT that was more flexible, a Westminster who didn’t blow so hot and cold. About the only bit of Government that comes out of things well are TfL (and the Mayor of London). I’m not sure I’d trust the rest though.

Is it really surprising that people are calling for re-nationalisation of the railways? there are currently 2 large chunks of the network in meltdown, added to that the actions of successive ECML franchisees in handing back their franchise when they find they got their sums wrong... then there are the franchises that are owned by foreign governments... certainly when Arriva had the Welsh franchise there was a perception that all they were interested in was getting as much money from the taxpayer/ fare payer and handing as much of it as possible to the German government as profit without any investment in their network.

In today’s simplistic Canary/Brietbart world, it’s not surprising that people are jumping on simplistic solutions to bigger problems, no.


Two large chunks of the network in meltdown? Government are responsible for the problems on TSGN, the delayed infrastructure, the decision to remove Guards. Everything the TOC has done has been in line with what the Government asked them to (using a private company as a useful Trojan Horse for removing Guards).


Government are responsible for the delays to Manchester – Blackpool electrification too.


In both cases, the Government agreed the paths, the Government felt that the timetable was robust enough. It’s not like bus companies who set their own timetables and deadlines – the Government set the paths for trains and the Government staff the signal boxes and maintain the infrastructure. You can blame Arriva for the lack of Rest Day Working in Lancashire, but the vast majority of the problems on TSGN and Northern/ Trans-Pennine are the delays to infrastructure upgrades and the flimsy timetable that the Government promised to deliver.


The ECML franchise got their sums wrong? Well, yes, since they inherited dodgy data from the (Government) franchise that previously ran the service and were unable to fully implement the improvements they wanted due to Government cuts to promised infrastructure improvements. Stagecoach kept their side of the bargain, paying the premiums (higher ones that DOR managed), but if the Government weren’t going to remove the bottlenecks they promised to tackle then you can’t be surprised if that gave Stagecoach a handy excuse to walk away.



ATW wouldn’t invest in the franchise over and above what they had committed to when they signed up to the franchise? I’m not surprised. It was a heavily loss making arrangement that required massive subsidy, so any operator were never going to start paying for additional improvements (over and above the franchise commitments) without more subsidy. Blame the Government for the lack of additional subsidy – easy for Welsh politicians to complain that Arriva won’t put their hands in their pockets and fund more services to places like Fishguard but if the franchise required something like forty pence per passenger mile in subsidy, the onus is on Government to pay if they want a better service. Arriva were a great scapegoat for Welsh politicians (Plaid and Labour), who could moan about the lack of additional improvements whilst ignoring that they weren’t paying for those improvements. If Welsh politicians weren’t prepared to pay for things then they shouldn’t be blaming Arriva for not paying for those things.



(for the sake of argument, “Government” can be Westminster, DfT, Network Rail, Cardiff Bay, ORR, DOR etc – it’s all different arms of the same beast – I’m not against state control of the railways in theory but the majority of problems in recent years have been the fault of one arm of Government or another – do I trust the people behind the decision to cancel MML electrification to run the MML TOC?)

The biggest issue with direct state operation for me is that it would be subject to annual cuts from the Treasury. With the MOJ and local government suffering huge cuts at short notice, it is fanciful to think that the railways wouldn't. The best part about the current system is that it forces the Government to think long-term.

Excellent points.

A lot of people don't realise how luck the railway has been to avoid the austerity that has hit other public services (because the Government can defeat librarians and other public servants but daren't challenge the likes of Stagecoach?)

 

[quantinghome]

I'm certain each Government (especially Tory) would have reduced funding to the bare minimum.

Let's get one thing straight - funding for the railways comes from a combination of fare revenue and government. Privatisation has not changed that, it's just made it much more complicated. If there has been an increase in investment in the railways, it is only because the government has decided to make that investment. The only significant private sector spending on the railways is on rolling stock, which is then paid for through the TOCs - so the government ends up paying for that as well just not as direct, up front spending.

 

[yorksrob]

Why do people want the railways to be re-nationalised? Because most people don't know or are in denial at just how bad B.R. often was. (Mostly) rude and indifferent staff, (mostly) grotty stations, (mostly) clapped out rolling stock. Sure, there were good bits, but they were far outweighed by the bad bits.

I don't share this recollection of how terrible BR was. I caught many trains in the 1980´s and early 90´s and like now, some trains were late, some were overcrowded and there was an occasional cancellation. That said, It was, as now, generally a pleasant way to travel.

Of course, the closure programme in the 60's and 70's was a national disaster, but that was politically motivated and before my time.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

A lot of people don't realise how luck the railway has been to avoid the austerity that has hit other public services (because the Government can defeat librarians and other public servants but daren't challenge the likes of Stagecoach?)

The government daren't challenge Stagecoach? I think you should read a bit about the history of Stagecoach.... it hasn't had a very happy of history with the MMC during periods of Tory rule!

 

[jon0844]

Let's get one thing straight - funding for the railways comes from a combination of fare revenue and government. Privatisation has not changed that, it's just made it much more complicated. If there has been an increase in investment in the railways, it is only because the government has decided to make that investment. The only significant private sector spending on the railways is on rolling stock, which is then paid for through the TOCs - so the government ends up paying for that as well just not as direct, up front spending.

The Government wants to reduce taxpayer funding and put it on fares. Nationalisation will somehow cost less AND allow fares to fall too. I'm not sure how that can be done without cuts somewhere.

Unless CEO bonuses are so high that axing these will cover it. And that's assuming someone running BR and those heading up the various sectors (basically the franchises as they are today more or less) won't be earning loads.