2024 election and party Railway policies

[Watto1990]

A Starmer promise isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. This will not happen.

 

[Blindtraveler]

A Starmer promise isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. This will not happen.

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

 

[Trestrol]

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

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.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I suppose this thread matter will not impinge upon the joint mayoral plans of Birmingham and Manchester to resurrect the HS2 section between Birmingham and Manchester that has an aspiration to have the whole project funded by the private sector....or will it?

 

[Falcon1200]

It will be interesting to see, under a nationalised railway, how Labour proposes to harmonise pay rates across the various ex-TOCs.

 

[JonathanH]

It will be interesting to see, under a nationalised railway, how Labour proposes to harmonise pay rates across the various ex-TOCs.

Have they said they will do that?

A nationalised railway doesn't mean a harmonised railway.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I just hope Labour will properly think this through with regard to Rail Freight. Renationalisation of their businesses would be a disaster for GBRf, DB Cargo UK, Freightliner, DRS and Colas, eliminating competition and removing customer-choice.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

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.

 

[Facing Back]

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?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Was pay harmonised across BR? I think I read that it wasn't?

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.

 

[Falcon1200]

Have they said they will do that?

They may not.

Whether Labour will or will not may be irrelevant if the Unions decide that pay rates should be harmonised. 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!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Are the "nationalised" OLR TOCs performing notably better than the private ones?
Are industrial relations any better?

 

[Facing Back]

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.

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...

I did note that the proposals from the current government, however clumsy, do look to harmonise both pay increases and terms and conditions and I projected from that an intent to harmonise (I have no evidence, its just supposition).

Pay arbitrage amongst drivers would appear to be one of the factors which have historically led to significant pay increases from their starting points, and would be an obvious thing to address if the goal is ongoing cost containment.

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!

Thanks, that was the answer to my question.

Do you happen to know if that applied to drivers too?

 

[Deepgreen]

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.

"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.

Are the "nationalised" OLR TOCs performing notably better than the private ones?
Are industrial relations any better?

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.

 

[trebor79]

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.

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.

 

[Trestrol]

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 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.

 

[Dr Hoo]

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

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?

 

[lordbusiness]

Stand by for a whole raft on NRC extensions in the next few months.

 

[winks]

I doubt that very much. All the NRC contracts (or not) will be up for renewal within 5 years and Labour will just allow then to default back to public ownership. No compensation is therefore required.

 

[eldomtom2]

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?

Either already in government hands or something Labour have not shown interest in renationalising.

 

[irish_rail]

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?

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.

 

[thenorthern]

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.

Also the next government will last until 2029 at the latest and the last franchise due to expire I think is the East Midlands Franchise in 2030. There is also Hull Trains which is due to expire in 2032 although not sure how open access operators would would with a state owned network. Realistically I think Labour go for a similar policy to what they pledged in 2015 which was that a state operator would be able to bid on the same basis as private companies.

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.

Particularly with the railways, how many times have parties pledged to reopen the Ivanhoe Line between Leicester and Burton-on-Trent. At every election since 1997 I think.

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.

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.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Now this is known, surely some TV presenters should take this opportunity to discuss the matter with members of the top echelon of the Labour Party, seeing we are in the final year running up to a General Election.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

If we do, a left wing coalition is the likely outcome, which is more, not less, likely to want to nationalise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If we do, a left wing coalition is the likely outcome, which is more, not less, likely to want to nationalise.

Not Corbyn time again, surely.

Noting the wording of the thread title,as there are Labour-Co-op MPs, will the supermarkets be next on the nationalise agenda....

 

[Thirteen]

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.

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.

 

[800Travel]

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

 

[physics34]

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?

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.

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.

Exactly

 

[Clarence Yard]

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

It means they don’t have to pay the Owning Group for bringing the TOC back into public ownership. It is a long held legal position that if the UK Government nationalises anything, the owner has to be compensated. But as this nationalisation will take place at contract end or contract break point (the Core Term Expiry Date of an NRC), the Government can take the TOC back at no cost.

It doesn’t have anything to do with passenger compensation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why is it mischief making? It simply states that no compensation is due at it will happen when contracts end.

Because, although the full text makes it clear that Labour will simply allow contracts to end, the headline doesn't. The headline is 'Labour to renationalise train operators with no compensation' - and that evokes the bad old days of decades ago when the left of the Labour Party was pushing a 'nationalization without compensation' policy in which the Government would simply commandeer industries it wanted to nationalize, ignoring basic property rights. The Labour Party no longer believes in doing anything like that, and hasn't done for some decades, but the headline looks to me like it's designed to make people think Labour is proposing that. Remember, 'nationalization' usually means, the Government actually taking over companies: Historically, it's quite unusual to hear the word 'nationalization' used when all you mean is that the Government will allow private contracts to lapse at the end of their normal terms.

It's basically a classic case of a headline that gives a misleading impression of something, where you have to read the full story to discover things aren't what the headline implies.