Bring back british rail!

Malderon · 30 Dec 2011

I havent had time to read the entire thread so I apologize if I'm going over ground that has already been covered. I would also like to add that I'm not sure whether I'm in favour of renationalisation or not but I wanted to talk about the comments that say it would be an organisational nightmare.

What is wrong with just doing it quite gradually? As Franchises are up for renewal they are just not put out to tender and pass automatically into a government controlled body. This could either be further subcontracted just for operations (for instance LOROL) or operated directly. I know perhaps there are political problems with changing governments on that long term approach, as until a majority of franchises pass back it is vulnerable to being re-franchised but I don't think it would be very messy or difficult.

As for ROSCO its really just a form of finance lease (note that the ROSCOs originally were just divisions of Banking Groups) What I mean by this is that ROSCOS dont just speculatively buy rolling stock and then find people to lease it, they simply provide the capital for specific requests from DFT / TOC. In this way its not that different to some other ways the government finances public spending while keeping the borrowing off the government statistics. (Note its not just governments that do this, many companies use finance leases instead of mortgages to make themselves look less geared) In fact theres no reason the ROSCOS couldn't continue - stock could of course gradually be replaced as it need to be renewed, or they could just be used as they are now as a method of financing which is essentially what they are.

Anyway just my feelings about how nationalisation could be pursued if someone had the desire.

RailUK Forums

districtline · 30 Dec 2011

Does no-one remember the fact that BR didn't order any stock for 1064 days in the 1990s? It was the private sector that finally ended this and introduced new stock.

150222 · 30 Dec 2011

districtline said:
Does no-one remember the fact that BR didn't order any stock for 1064 days in the 1990s? It was the private sector that finally ended this and introduced new stock.

That was only because they knew they were being privatised!

districtline · 30 Dec 2011

150222 said:
That was only because they knew they were being privatised!

Money doesn't grow on trees and the government didn't have any available, at the time there was a recession on. Without the private sector there would have been no new stock.

WestCoast · 30 Dec 2011

Although, of course some TOCs are still operating British Rail stock from the 1980s (and before). Northern Rail uses a fully ex-BR DMU fleet.

districtline · 30 Dec 2011

WestCoast said:
Although, of course some TOCs are still operating British Rail stock from the 1980s (and before). Northern Rail is 100% BR DMU fleet.

Thanks to the DfT's control of rolling stock orders.

WestCoast · 30 Dec 2011

districtline said:
Thanks to the DfT's control of rolling stock orders.

That's the main issue here. The DfT certainly micro-manages the railways, so in effect we still have a 'BR-style body', even if the network itself is operated privately.

Minilad · 30 Dec 2011

districtline said:
Does no-one remember the fact that BR didn't order any stock for 1064 days in the 1990s? It was the private sector that finally ended this and introduced new stock.

Yeah and all those new trains are wonderful aren't they

sheff1 · 30 Dec 2011

313103 said:
i would like to know what you Guys and Girls expect from TOCs and their staff with regards 'CUSTOMER SERVICE'. Also are their different levels ie would you expect the same treatment in standard as in First class?

For me, it is about politeness and being treated with respect as a paying customer rather than a nuisance.

If something goes wrong, then I would expect to be kept informed as to what was being done to rectify matters and the progress. If staff have no info concerning the length of a delay they should say so and promise an update in 'xx' minutes. That promise should be kept, even if it is just to say 'no further info yet - another udate at xx'. Once things do get moving I would expect advice on connections etc and/or an empowered person(s) present on arrival to arrange onwards transport.

In First Class I would expect a dedicated 'host' on long distance services (as an aside I do not really see the point of First Class on local services).

On ticketing, I do not expect staff to make up their own rules/restrictions if they do not like the real ones or are unable/unwilling to look them up.

If a train is cancelled at a major station I would expect proper announcements/guidance on alternatives, not just an automated 'apology' with no useful info at all. The latter happened at Cheltenham the other day when the 1100 to Paddington was cancelled. Would it have been quicker to travel via Bristol Parkway - who knows, no one told us. If waiting for the 1202 to Swindon was the best option, a free hot or soft drink from the buffet would have been good whilst we waited.

ainsworth74 · 30 Dec 2011

districtline said:
Does no-one remember the fact that BR didn't order any stock for 1064 days in the 1990s? It was the private sector that finally ended this and introduced new stock.

BR stopped ordering rolling stock because it knew is was going to be privatised and no one was willing to spend money during such an uncertain period. If privatisation had not happened I'm fairly confident BR would have continued ordering rolling stock throughout the 1990s.

150222 · 30 Dec 2011

Jeremy Clarkson once wrote an articule about how awful his experiance of BR was in the late 1980's. Even complaining about the train going faster than the car on the M1!

Morgsie · 30 Dec 2011

WestCoast said:
That's the main issue here. The DfT certainly micro-manages the railways, so in effect we still have a 'BR-style body', even if the network itself is operated privately.

This pretty much, add awarding Franchises (The Railways Act 2005)

87015 · 30 Dec 2011

districtline said:
Thanks to the DfT's control of rolling stock orders.

So how would a totally private TOC have raised the capital to put hundreds of millions into new stock that would never earn a penny in profit because the lines loose money hand over fist?

lincolnshire · 30 Dec 2011

We had the discussion, s before how wonderful Virgin on west coast was etc, but none fails to mention that Virgin only own 51% of virgin trains , what about the other 49% partner Stagecoach? What if they had won the franchise themselves , what would there service been like then?

Also while the West Coast rebuilding was going on, did n,t the franchise get suspended and Virgin trains was paid by Network Rail to run the Service for the duration of rebuilding?

In B.R. days they could n,t go out and lease trains like the TOC,s can now, so all trains had to be purchased.

Its the same as all the Network Rail road transport its all on lease, another thing that B.R. was not allowed to do, that's why all our vehicles in end of B.R. was all clapped out and just about fit for scrap.

Remember when the motor industry was having a hard time? Rootes Group was in a bad way with orders etc, so the Government of the day placed a large order for vehicles from them for the railways and the post office, what did we get a new Commer Van , it was the biggest pile of **** you did see.
So with the Government still holding Networks Rails purse strings the same can and will still happen.

So all the experts on here can you please tell me why is the subsidy paid to Toc,s for running services and not direct to Network Rail? as this is where the biggest cost of running the service is going to. But there again the Toc, will lose out on the handling fee for receiving the money and passing on to Network Rail in track access charges.

route:oxford · 30 Dec 2011

kylemore said:
SSR - "Scottish State Railways" has a ring to it! And RER "Royal English Railways" ((they do love their Royals you know(and welcome to them!)).
Wales is a bit more problematical since their network is effectively split in two.

Brenda will be the head of State in Scotland, so Royal Scottish Railways would be better. Not sure if "Salmond State Railways" is a good idea.

Wales isn't so hard. Just have "North Welsh Railways" and "South Welsh Railways". Or open a domestic through line for the sake of it - surprises me they haven't done it already.

90019 · 30 Dec 2011

kylemore said:
SSR - "Scottish State Railways" has a ring to it!

Nah, too much of a mouthful.
I think cut it down a bit, maybe just by using the first syllables of the first and third words and combining them into one word.

Zoe · 30 Dec 2011

lincolnshire said:
So all the experts on here can you please tell me why is the subsidy paid to Toc,s for running services and not direct to Network Rail?

Network Rail do get direct subsidy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

lincolnshire said:
We had the discussion, s before how wonderful Virgin on west coast was etc, but none fails to mention that Virgin only own 51% of virgin trains , what about the other 49% partner Stagecoach? What if they had won the franchise themselves , what would there service been like then?

Virgin sold the 49% in 1999 though, not at the time of the original bid.

HH · 30 Dec 2011

How about a counter-proposal? Instead of trying to re-nationalise the railways, how about completing the job of privatising it?

After all it seems that many agree that many of the current problems stem from:

a) Government interference from DfT and Treasury;

b) Ability of owning groups to walk away from bad franchises; and

c) Funding peculiarities with regard to Track Access.

What we have at the moment is a very limited privatisation designed simply to reduce the government's financial risk. Part of the additional cost of the railways is paying for others to take those risks.

Zoe · 30 Dec 2011

HH said:
How about a counter-proposal? Instead of trying to re-nationalise the railways, how about completing the job of privatising it?

How would this be done then? Float Network Rail on the stock market and allow TOCs to bid directly for paths?

SS4 · 30 Dec 2011

HH said:
How about a counter-proposal? Instead of trying to re-nationalise the railways, how about completing the job of privatising it?

After all it seems that many agree that many of the current problems stem from:

a) Government interference from DfT and Treasury;

b) Ability of owning groups to walk away from bad franchises; and

c) Funding peculiarities with regard to Track Access.

What we have at the moment is a very limited privatisation designed simply to reduce the government's financial risk. Part of the additional cost of the railways is paying for others to take those risks.

Private enterprise does not care about it's social obligations where it gets in the way of profit. On the railways this means huge swathes of the country would not get a service.

Your points b and c can be solved by full nationalisation. Point a is trickier of course

HH · 30 Dec 2011

Zoe said:
How would this be done then? Float Network Rail on the stock market and allow TOCs to bid directly for paths?

Vertical integration would be one method.

Of course there would need to be checks and balances, just like there are in the communications and utility industries.

But my point is that we don't have privatisation now, we have some mish-mash of public & private, with public being the larger part.

Zoe · 30 Dec 2011

HH said:
But my point is that we don't have privatisation now, we have some mish-mash of public & private, with public being the larger part.

At the end of the day the companies actually running the trains are private though except where an operator of last resort takes over like with East Coast. Even if there was vertitical intergration there would still need to be some regulation or lines could end up closing if the companies didn't think they would make a profit. Of course it could be argued that if a line isn't making a profit then it should close but that is certainlly not my opinion.

WestCoast · 30 Dec 2011

I'm convinced that many rail passengers don't really understand how the system works, they just see 'big bad profit-making private company' as the service operator. People don't realise that it's the DfT behind the scenes 'dealing' with the services and National Rail on the tracks, both public institutions.

The Government is then not seen as the villain.

Zoe · 30 Dec 2011

WestCoast said:
both public institutions.

Network Rail is in the private sector.

WestCoast · 30 Dec 2011

Zoe said:
Network Rail is in the private sector.

Sorry, I meant Network Rail there, not National Rail.

It's state owned, although strictly in the private sector being an Ltd. I believe the term is a statutory corporation.

Zoe · 30 Dec 2011

WestCoast said:
It's state owned, although strictly in the private sector being an Ltd. I believe the term is a statutory corporation.

No it isn't, the "private" in terms of limited companies has nothing to do with what sector they are in but refers to the fact that shares can't be sold to the public. Network Rail is in the private sector.

HH · 30 Dec 2011

Zoe said:
Network Rail is in the private sector.

Nominally. To assert anything else is either naive or disingenuous.

Zoe · 30 Dec 2011

HH said:
Nominally. To assert anything else is either naive or disingenuous.

It may well be under government control but this isn't the same as ownership. If you try running a Freedom Of Information request on Network Rail then it will be refused as it doesn't apply to the private sector.

HH · 30 Dec 2011

Zoe said:
It may well be under government control but this isn't the same as ownership.

It's the same as a Quango - Quasi-autonomous. As I said in another thread, it's merely a method to get rail capital expenditure off the government balance sheet.

Just how independent NR really is can be seen from the fate of Railtrack, which enjoyed a great deal more (theoretical) independence, being stock-exchange quoted.

Ownership is not what counts here.

WestCoast · 30 Dec 2011

We're getting into technicalities here though. Yes, it's structured as a private limited company, but it has no shareholders and is a company limited by government guarantee. It acts as a statutory corporation.

It may as well be state-owned! It's not a private for profit business like the TOCs or Railtrack was. And it's not a charity either...

Bring back british rail!

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member