Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

Xenophon PCDGS · 20 Aug 2016

Answer me this. In a totally nationalised railway, would there ever be a rail dispute that would entail the "One out, all out" mantra, effectively subjecting passengers from ALL areas to a loss of rail services?

If so, thank God we have franchised rail, so if one area suffers from a dispute, other areas are not affected.

RailUK Forums

richieb1971 · 20 Aug 2016

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Answer me this. In a totally nationalised railway, would there ever be a rail dispute that would entail the "One out, all out" mantra, effectively subjecting passengers from ALL areas to a loss of rail services?

If so, thank God we have franchised rail, so if one area suffers from a dispute, other areas are not affected.

Works both ways. You might have scenario 1 where they all agree to strike and it affects everyone. You could have scenario 2 where the subjects are in much larger numbers so can't agree so easily on what action to take.. therefore no action taken at all.

Its no consolation to passengers that are currently being let down by Southern to know those travelling from St Pancras or Kings Cross are doing ok.

Harbornite · 20 Aug 2016

richieb1971 said:
I never said anything about nationalizing the railways would cause an upturn in freight. I simply said 60's are sitting idle as a result of privatization. If DBs didn't own those locos another sector would have taken them under BR and utilized them for specialized duties of where they could be used as spare standing locos at localized areas. Just like the BR days.

As it stands DBs is holding the 60's on competition grounds. They won't sell them because they have value as spares and won't sell them because they may lose business. But other FOC's might want them, but can't have them. That wouldn't happen under BR.

I must have imagined it when DB sold 10 class 60s to Colas. It is a shame what has happened to the class 60s but it's tough titty I'm afraid. Recently there was a good article about Toton TMD in the railway magazine, they do a good job over there.

Thing is there isn't that much demand for new freight locomotives. If the FOCs want more motive power, they can either buy them off preserved railways or do what DRS have done and order new machines. This all depends on demand and the state of the economy.

Railsigns · 20 Aug 2016

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Answer me this. In a totally nationalised railway, would there ever be a rail dispute that would entail the "One out, all out" mantra, effectively subjecting passengers from ALL areas to a loss of rail services?

If so, thank God we have franchised rail, so if one area suffers from a dispute, other areas are not affected.

With the present industry structure, a signallers' dispute could paralyse the entire network.

There's nothing positive to be said about franchising.

richieb1971 · 20 Aug 2016

Harbornite said:
I must have imagined it when DB sold 10 class 60s to Colas. It is a shame what has happened to the class 60s but it's tough titty I'm afraid. Recently there was a good article about Toton TMD in the railway magazine, they do a good job over there.

Thing is there isn't that much demand for new freight locomotives. If the FOCs want more motive power, they can either buy them off preserved railways or do what DRS have done and order new machines. This all depends on demand and the state of the economy.

Id like to see that article about toton. In 1988 i walked around it, was amazing in them days.

Philip Phlopp · 20 Aug 2016

Paul Sidorczuk said:
If so, thank God we have franchised rail, so if one area suffers from a dispute, other areas are not affected.

Thank God indeed, what ever would we do without a new livery, logo and a de-branding exercise every five minutes on the railway.

orpine · 20 Aug 2016

I'm surprised that it's a pretty even 50/50 split of yes/no.

Arriva (Owned by DB) have a partial or full stock in the following rail brands/companies (from wikipedia):

Alliance Rail Holdings
Arriva TrainCare (formerly LNWR)
Arriva Trains Wales
Chiltern Railways
CrossCountry
Grand Central
London Overground Rail Operations (50/50 joint venture with MTR Corporation)
Northern
Tyne & Wear Metro

SNCF own a 70% chunk of Keolis who in turn own 35% of Govia who run::

Southeastern
Thameslink
Southern
London Midland

(Not an exhaustive list)

So given we have a sizeable chunk of the rail network "nationalised" already, I'm unclear how having it properly nationalised would be worse. We'd get rid of several layers of abstraction and middle-men, and the "lets rebrand again" disease that must cost at least hundreds of thousands a year. Done properly (ha!) I don't see why it would have to be subject to the whims of the politicos or civil servants.

southern442 · 20 Aug 2016

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Answer me this. In a totally nationalised railway, would there ever be a rail dispute that would entail the "One out, all out" mantra, effectively subjecting passengers from ALL areas to a loss of rail services?

If so, thank God we have franchised rail, so if one area suffers from a dispute, other areas are not affected.

I suppose it is possible, but highly unlikely. The conditions would be that:

every staff member in the affected department would have to belong to the same union
almost every staff member would have to agree (highly unlikely)
there would have to be a time and date that would suit everyone striking

In addition, it would be a very severe blow to the government in charge for allowing it to happen, and the union affected would lose any sort of public sympathy, so it would be a lose-lose situation in my opinion.

A way around this would be for sectorisation, so each area of the country would operate under a different name and have a more localised management, so decisions to drastically reduce jobs would affect a smaller area.

Xenophon PCDGS · 20 Aug 2016

Railsigns said:
There's nothing positive to be said about franchising.

What positives have been taken from the current bout of rail industrial disputes and strikes in England.

Here's a new adage for you...
"A strike a day keeps the TOC at bay"....

najaB · 20 Aug 2016

southern442 said:
A way around this would be for sectorisation, so each area of the country would operate under a different name and have a more localised management, so decisions to drastically reduce jobs would affect a smaller area.

If they are operating under different names, then you've lost much of the benefit of nationalisation - i.e. reduced/no duplication of non-operational staff. If there are four trading names, then that means four (or five) HR, finance, executive teams, etc.

southern442 · 20 Aug 2016

najaB said:
If they are operating under different names, then you've lost much of the benefit of nationalisation - i.e. reduced/no duplication of non-operational staff. If there are four trading names, then that means four (or five) HR, finance, executive teams, etc.

Having one person to do each job for the whole network might turn out to be a bit of a problem anyways though. And I'm only talking 7 or 8 sectors, not like the many franchises we have at the moment.

najaB · 20 Aug 2016

southern442 said:
Having one person to do each job for the whole network might turn out to be a bit of a problem anyways though.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that there would be a single HR person - it would be whole departments being duplicated. My employer used to be monolithic but is now broken down into separate trading units. Hence we have a *lot* of otherwise unnecessary duplication of function simply because each unit has its own CEO, board, CFO, etc.

DT611 · 21 Aug 2016

richieb1971 said:
66's are supposed to be extremely reliable, 60's not much so but only 20+ in operation. Considering what Toton was like in the BR days they must have their feet up quite a bit of the time.. Unless of course the employment level has decreased drastically with the number of locos they are maintaining.

Or more likely, they are maintaining a number of classes of loco. I would find it hard to think it's only 60s maintained at that depot. And 66s are surely rather reliable. They are after all, good old GM/EMD tech.

richieb1971 said:
I never said anything about nationalizing the railways would cause an upturn in freight. I simply said 60's are sitting idle as a result of privatization. If DBs didn't own those locos another sector would have taken them under BR and utilized them for specialized duties of where they could be used as spare standing locos at localized areas. Just like the BR days.

As it stands DBs is holding the 60's on competition grounds. They won't sell them because they have value as spares and won't sell them because they may lose business. But other FOC's might want them, but can't have them. That wouldn't happen under BR.

But they did sell some 60s. So are they really holding the rest on competition grounds, or is it nobody is interested in them due to either the current downturn or other reasons? If the former, then sadly they are their assets to do with as they see fit i'm afraid. If the later, then that's just how it is, nothing anyone can do about it.

Xenophon PCDGS · 21 Aug 2016

DT611 said:
But they did sell some 60s. So are they really holding the rest on competition grounds, or is it nobody is interested in them due to either the current downturn or other reasons? If the former, then sadly they are their assets to do with as they see fit i'm afraid. If the latter, then that's just how it is, nothing anyone can do about it.

A standard commercial practice where company assets are concerned.

Muttley · 21 Aug 2016

Harbornite said:
... If the FOCs want more motive power, they can either buy them off preserved railways...

Honestly, do you think this is progress ???
Raiding the NRM or preserved lines for traction.

richieb1971 · 21 Aug 2016

DT611 said:
Or more likely, they are maintaining a number of classes of loco. I would find it hard to think it's only 60s maintained at that depot. And 66s are surely rather reliable. They are after all, good old GM/EMD tech.

But they did sell some 60s. So are they really holding the rest on competition grounds, or is it nobody is interested in them due to either the current downturn or other reasons? If the former, then sadly they are their assets to do with as they see fit i'm afraid. If the later, then that's just how it is, nothing anyone can do about it.

DBs have put them up for sale quite a few times. The earlier attempts failed to get any buyers due to one reason or another. I'd guess that they offered the shabby ones on a policy of "what you see is what you get".

However once the super 60 project got underway I think there was renewed interest. DBs offered up for sale a few that were harboured at Crewe Diesel works under a roof. So these were obviously the best examples that were not currently in service.

Once Colas showed an interest a deal was struck with DBs I believe even offering a service agreement on them. The problem was as soon as Colas got totally refurbished class 60's x10 they did something what could be considered by some a bit below the belt. Which was to fight for DBs contracted work, on which I believe they won on at least 2 accounts.

So now we have a situation (I can't confirm this) where Colas are running paths that previously DBs ran, with ex DBs locos which are maintained by DBs. Even the drivers at Colas were trained by DBs.

So overall, it was definitely a business decision at DBs that involved a lot of shooting of the foot.

No wonder they are shy now.

Heartland · 21 Aug 2016

There is a theme that reflects concern for industrial action in a nationalised network, but that is happening in a franchised network. Who controls what is a key facet of this discussion and no doubt cost and benefits are in this mix too.

I do not believe franchises work for the benefit of the public in the long term. To give an example. On Saturday 20th August, the 0925 Arriva off New Street for Holyhead was a two coach train (it had been 4 coaches on Monday). It was full and standing! A return working from Shrewsbury at 16.33 Arriva was also full and standing with many passengers waiting on Shrewsbury station moving across to the 1647 a stopping train operated by London Midland.

Virgin now also run to Shrewsbury- nice to see competition- but I have told that their Voyagers have to return to Wolverhampton empty. Why?

najaB · 21 Aug 2016

Heartland said:
I do not believe franchises work for the benefit of the public in the long term. To give an example...

Why would the right stock have been in the correct place under nationalisation?

matt_world2004 · 21 Aug 2016

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Answer me this. In a totally nationalised railway, would there ever be a rail dispute that would entail the "One out, all out" mantra, effectively subjecting passengers from ALL areas to a loss of rail services?

If so, thank God we have franchised rail, so if one area suffers from a dispute, other areas are not affected.

Considering BR was under different business units and regions it is likely that the strike would only effect the business unit involved.

But likewise just because there are multiple private companies there would not be a nationwide strike on the railways. There have been several London wide bus strikes even though those buses are driven by different companies. If ATOC withdrew ptacs for example there would be a nationwide strike on national rail.

AlterEgo · 21 Aug 2016

matt_world2004 said:
If ATOC withdrew ptacs for example there would be a nationwide strike on national rail.

It would be the stupidest strike ever, because it's not in anyone's contract and the public would finally twig that staff get a large discount (even on season tickets to get to work).

matt_world2004 · 21 Aug 2016

AlterEgo said:
It would be the stupidest strike ever, because it's not in anyone's contract and the public would finally twig that staff get a large discount (even on season tickets to get to work).

It was just an illustrative example, really under a franchised system there are going to be some conditions that are pretty universal across the board any change in those conditions would cause strikes. I would say if zac goldsmith got rid of nominee passes there would have been a London wide strike on all tfl modes of transportation.

Harbornite · 22 Aug 2016

Muttley said:
Honestly, do you think this is progress ???
Raiding the NRM or preserved lines for traction.

I said in my other post that FOCS can purchase new locomotives if they want to, but sometimes this isn't feasible. Older locomotives can still be used effectively as they often have better RA and it can be cheaper for the operator to use them. If it made no sense to use older traction then we wouldn't see the likes of UK rail leasing overhauling Class 56s.

Heartland · 22 Aug 2016

Of course railway stock ended up in the wrong place during the days of British Rail, but those in the operating department did their best to reduce that factor. The point made about Arriva is that a Saturday in August is often a busy travelling time and one where passenger numbers are considered.

Having a fragmented system means separate control offices for each separate franchise office. The competition for track space is a factor, unit (or locomotive & stock) repair and maintenance is another.

Late running trains all add to the complex control arrangements, especially as there are more services now.

The term "on time" is another wonderful hiding of the truth as it has come to allow additional minutes in one form or another

Flamingo · 22 Aug 2016

I was on a train yesterday that was delayed by what appeared to be a poor signaling decision.

I had a thritysomething moaning at me that this was due to the fragmentation of the railways due to privatisation, and the sooner the whole thing was renationalised the better, as the service would improve, and fares would go down.

I moved down a vestibule where a sixtysomething said to me that worse happened under BR, and that despite everything, the railway system had come on leaps and bounds since privatisation in terms of quality and service.

Were they both right? After all, the customer is never wrong...

Deepgreen · 22 Aug 2016

I would support any regime which ensured proper vertical integration on the network - something which is desperately lacking today and has been since privatisation took hold.

najaB · 22 Aug 2016

Deepgreen said:
I would support any regime which ensured proper vertical integration on the network...

How is vertical integration objectively better? We're perfectly happy with a road transportation network that has no vertical integration.

EAD · 22 Aug 2016

Harbornite said:
Possibly referring to the EU guidelines on the separation of infrastructure and train operations.

Yes, I presume so. It is quite worrying the number of people that think the EU banned state ownership - I suggest they look a bit more closely to our near neighbours. The key requirement was accounting separation of infrastructure and operations. Each country has taken a slightly different approach, with most going for a separate company as part of the national railway group e.g. DB with DB Netz, or a government entity under the same umbrella e.g. SNCF and RFF (now SNCF Réseau).

The question of competition is separate and comes in stages through the various railway packages. This does not stop national feet dragging of course (here is looking at you France). That consists of freight and more recently international passenger traffic. The aim is to open up other services as well and many countries effectively go further and do that.

Ironically, Britain chose the most liberal approach on privatisation copying the Swedish model. It has since trimmed it back a bit. What you see in other countries is an essentially open network like ours, but with tendering for local rail services e.g. in Germany that is the responsibility of the states/local PTEs to offer out to tender. Staying with Germany you get open freight competition and competition for local tenders (let out as local networks with full cross ticketing). In theory there is nothing stopping long distance domestic passenger competition, but in practice competitors have it is hard to make it work absent a network like DB.

najaB · 22 Aug 2016

EAD said:
It is quite worrying the number of people that think the EU banned state ownership...

It's quite worrying how many myths people believe about Europe and the EU. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Deepgreen · 22 Aug 2016

najaB said:
How is vertical integration objectively better? We're perfectly happy with a road transportation network that has no vertical integration.

A different case altogether. The vast majority of road transport is private (cars, etc), with personal options for diversions away from blocked routes, virtually no service connection issues, no compensation/inter-body claims culture that affects the users, no timetabling issues, no rolling stock/route interface issues, etc, etc. Essentially - it's a true open-access system that requires no permissions to use (apart from driving licenses and the rare tolls) and which has a completely different safety culture/regime to the railway.

The rail network has the passengers being reliant on its operators working together to provide a joined-up service, which the roads don't to anything like the same degree. Interfaces between local/district and county Councils, the Highways Agency and other road space provision authorities are far less critical than is the case with the rail network's approximate equivalents.

Railsigns · 22 Aug 2016

najaB said:
How is vertical integration objectively better? We're perfectly happy with a road transportation network that has no vertical integration.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that there's a fundamental difference in the way that roads and railways operate. Roads are essentially a free for all, whereas railways need a signalling and control system with the power to regulate and prioritise some services over others. Those decisions made by the infrastructure controller directly affect the business of the train operators. That's why vertical integration is better.

Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

Do you think the railways should be renationalised?

Yes

No

Not sure

Don't care

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member