I have to say that I completely agree with you here, a man that promises he has a plan but hasn't shared it potentially less than four months before an election is worthy of deep mistrust to my way of thinking. I would say the same regardless of political partyA Starmer promise isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. This will not happen.
Too true I think we'll end up with a hung parliament. Kier just doesn't light my fire and he reminds me a bit of John Major grey and boring.I have to say that I completely agree with you here, a man that promises he has a plan but hasn't shared it potentially less than four months before an election is worthy of deep mistrust to my way of thinking. I would say the same regardless of political party
That asside, the last couple of labour election manifestos have mentioned re-nationalisation of the railways without fleshing out a huge amount of detail and whilst it looks like we might get slightly more on this front this time, I can't imagine it having mass appeal to anyone outside of their core voters and probably many of the Union bosses
And on a final note, I have absolutely no time for starma or that sidekick of his reyna
Have they said they will do that?It will be interesting to see, under a nationalised railway, how Labour proposes to harmonise pay rates across the various ex-TOCs.
They may not. It's greatly possible that sub-divisions remain, such as Intercity, Southern, Western, Northern and Midlands (and Wales and Scotland will almost definitely be too stubborn to consider partaking in whatever nationalised company comes for English TOCs now they have their own locally managed operations, so you may be sure ScotRail and the disastrous TfW will remain) with pay differentials between these sub-divisions.It will be interesting to see, under a nationalised railway, how Labour proposes to harmonise pay rates across the various ex-TOCs.
Was pay harmonised across BR? I think I read that it wasn't?It will be interesting to see, under a nationalised railway, how Labour proposes to harmonise pay rates across the various ex-TOCs.
Worth remembering though that this isn't BR. That's not me being patronising, I'm just saying things are likely to be done very differently thirty years on. Some are likely to react to that loudly and noisily, whereas others may appreciate benefits from the more modern approach.Was pay harmonised across BR? I think I read that it wasn't?
Have they said they will do that?
They may not.
I would very much hope that they are done differently and I look forward to the detail. I asked out of curiosity, not as sign of a possible direction of travel. Any change (or lack of change) is unlikely to make everyone happy...Worth remembering though that this isn't BR. That's not me being patronising, I'm just saying things are likely to be done very differently thirty years on. Some are likely to react to that loudly and noisily, whereas others may appreciate benefits from the more modern approach.
Thanks, that was the answer to my question.And perhaps not for all grades or roles, but pay was the same for most across BR (apart from London Weighting), eg a Clerical Officer Grade 2 at say Bournemouth was paid exactly the same as one in Glasgow; Which I doubt is the case now!
"Private input" has to be paid for, though - they don't invest for social benefit, they require paying back, albeit a little later (and at whatever rate of interest). It just adds another raft of inflated cost to the process.I gathered the gist of it was bringing network rail and the TOCs together... similar to the failed GBR plan but a fully nationalised version.
Correct about 1997, although after so much under investment i do thing we needed some kind of private input. 4000 slam door carriages had to be replaced.
Such a short-term review won't tell much - the network is going to need a long time to recover from its disastrous fragmentation in order to realise the benefits of a cohesive and national-level strategic approach to rolling stock, fares, etc. It'll take a couple of decades at least to undo the damage done by dogmatic Tory policy.Are the "nationalised" OLR TOCs performing notably better than the private ones?
Are industrial relations any better?
You're referring only to TOCs.Labour were in power for 11 years and apart from getting rid of the loony tunes that was Railtrack what else did they do. Weren't franchises only five years? If so they had plenty of opportunity. The longer it was left the more the organised structure that BR had built was lost.
I never said it could be done easily. But my point was it would have been easier in the late 1990's than now. Labour sold rail workers out in 1997 and a more workable system could have been implemented. As someone who went through privatisation I know how bad it was. BR wasn't perfect far from it but it was so much better than it is now. If they had the subsidy and freedoms allowed now who knows what they would have achieved.You're referring only to TOCs.
What about freight?
What about the infrastructure?
What about the maitnenance facilties?
The ROSCOs?
The R&D?
The land?
The commercial elements?
Marketing?
Where do all the people required to run and manage the "new" BR come from given most of the experienced people will remain with all these other organisations when you take a few TOCs back into public ownership/control?
Once you demolish something it's demolished and it's a massive task to rebuild. Doesn't matter if it's been demolished a day or a decade. It would have been impossible to recreate the BR that was broken up and privatised.
Labour made a stupid declaration that they would renationalise the railways once elected. But it wasn't in their manifesto as it was just a sound bite to appeal to the left wing rabble, exactly the same as this pronouncement which I bet will not be seen in their manifesto.
I'm not saying privatisation was the right answer, certainly not in the way it was done. But the say it could just be undone easily is fantasy.
I'm not quite sure how thirty years can be seen as the blink of an eye. But anyway, can you comment on how many different organisations 'your' work was fragmented to back in 1994? Is there still a full range of freight, maintenance (presumably 'ballast'/engineering trains?), sandite and loco-hauled passenger trains to be driven at your location? Presumably there have been at least some savings from not having to train you and your colleagues on MPVs, Class 66s, Class 68s or whatever?My depot for example did passenger EMUs, DMUs, freight/maintainence, sandite, loco hauled passenger trains until 1994. Now it just signs 1x EMU type and 1x DMU type. So much traction and route knowledge just lost in the blink of an eye. Of course u wont be able to completely reamalgamate everything, but there would certainly be room for some cost saving reorganisation
Either already in government hands or something Labour have not shown interest in renationalising.You're referring only to TOCs.
What about freight?
What about the infrastructure?
What about the maitnenance facilties?
The ROSCOs?
The R&D?
The land?
The commercial elements?
Marketing?
You would still have links. So not every link would sign MPVs, but the main traction (at say Plymouth) would be 80x and Voyagers which everyone would sign. Immediately you would need fewer drivers as less spare coverage needed. Certain less common routes and traction would be in specific links. You would also put everyone into one staff accommodation, and do away with duplication of management too. Across the country there is a lot of money to be saved.I'm not quite sure how thirty years can be seen as the blink of an eye. But anyway, can you comment on how many different organisations 'your' work was fragmented to back in 1994? Is there still a full range of freight, maintenance (presumably 'ballast'/engineering trains?), sandite and loco-hauled passenger trains to be driven at your location? Presumably there have been at least some savings from not having to train you and your colleagues on MPVs, Class 66s, Class 68s or whatever?
They haven't got the money to full renationalise but maybe an intent that train operators will be internalised in future but they need to rid themselves of an OLR approach that was supposed for short term only.
If history is anything to go by, there are always differences between what gets promised/said before an election and what actually happens post election. For all parties.
I wonder if we might see transport authorities such as TfL get long term funding. With a Labour Government and a likely Labour Mayor, it wouldn't surprise me especially things like rolling stock upgrades in order to keep the Siemens factory in Goole open.
Too true I think we'll end up with a hung parliament. Kier just doesn't light my fire and he reminds me a bit of John Major grey and boring.
Not Corbyn time again, surely.If we do, a left wing coalition is the likely outcome, which is more, not less, likely to want to nationalise.
Something like £2.5bn five year agreement with TfL would be something I could see and indeed that sort of money would pay for the various upgrades and renewals.Difficult to say, in regards London I don't think there will be much change if Labour wins as Labour's focus at the next election will be outside London. Areas such as Mansfield, Carlisle, Stoke-on-Trent and Worcester I think will be the areas Labour focuses on as they are winnable areas. Conversely the Conservatives may do the same in order to hold onto these areas. In particular Stoke-on-Trent, the Potteries and Staffordshire as a whole I think will be the biggest focus for Labour as in 2005 Labour had 9 of the 12 Staffordshire constituencies while in 2019 they didn't win any.
Actually it did all occur in a short space of time. And yes the requirement for loco hauled trains has virtually gone.. but we could easily have passenger train drivers driving sandite, deicer or engineers trains aswell.I'm not quite sure how thirty years can be seen as the blink of an eye. But anyway, can you comment on how many different organisations 'your' work was fragmented to back in 1994? Is there still a full range of freight, maintenance (presumably 'ballast'/engineering trains?), sandite and loco-hauled passenger trains to be driven at your location? Presumably there have been at least some savings from not having to train you and your colleagues on MPVs, Class 66s, Class 68s or whatever?
ExactlyYou would still have links. So not every link would sign MPVs, but the main traction (at say Plymouth) would be 80x and Voyagers which everyone would sign. Immediately you would need fewer drivers as less spare coverage needed. Certain less common routes and traction would be in specific links. You would also put everyone into one staff accommodation, and do away with duplication of management too. Across the country there is a lot of money to be saved.
Re 'no compensation' - the article is behind a paywall so I can't see what this means.
Are they scrapping delay repay/PRO reimbursements etc. please? I imagine not, but wanted to check as that'd be ridiculous.
Thank you
Why is it mischief making? It simply states that no compensation is due at it will happen when contracts end.