Andy Burnham in pledge to renationalise railway network

[6Gman]

Surely, it's basically impossible to say conclusively whether the railways are 'better' now than they were under BR as there aren't any sensible comparators. They're different now, rather than better or worse and the idea that BR would have managed this any better than the private sector/franchises etc is pure speculation.

Demographics, relative wealth and the use of rail (especially freight) has changed out of all recognition so wanting to re-nationalise is purely 'ideological' rather than following an accurate analysis of empirical data.

The above post hits a very important nail on its head. The whole framework within which the railway operates is now so different from what it was 20+ years ago that direct comparison is at least very difficult and probably impossible.

 

[suzanneparis]

Excellent. Clearly the current system is a complete failure.

I was told that if I buy two tickets to get to Glasgow and the first train is late then I must buy a new ticket for the rest of my journey. A complete failure of integration.

Additionally, if you live in a town without a ticket office you cannot buy cheap tickets unless you plan a long time in advance and have them sent to you.

 

[jon0844]

Who told you that you'd need to buy a new ticket if the first train was delayed?

 

[westv]

Who told you that you'd need to buy a new ticket if the first train was delayed?

The Daily Mail?

 

[Morgsie]

This is political posturing to appeal to the Left and capture the Corbyn voters

Labour promised renationalisation in the 97 Election yet they kept current system. Also Labour Conference in 2004 voted for renationalisation but the Leadership rejected it on cost grounds.

The debate should not be about Private/Public but the debate should be how to improve the railways

 

[jon0844]

I think management contracts are the way forward. More like a TfL style way of managing things, which I think is better than outright private control or outright state control.

 

[yorksrob]

Also BR wasn't the passenger friendly organisation people think it was, it seemed to have an attitude that it was providing you with a service and you had to be thankful, which isn't always a bad thing - but certainly isn't always a good thing either.

I can't say that was my experience generally.

I think the relatively simplistic ticketing system (certainly in the South) tended to mitigate against problems. You bought a cheap day return, a guy clipped your ticket at the gate, another one did on the train, if you asked someone something, they generally told you. Not particularly exciting in terms of customer service, but it didn't need to be.

The one occasion I do remember running into some difficulty on BR was on an occasion when we used Gatwick Express having bought our tickets with a railcard. I think we had to pay a supplement which we weren't happy about, but then again I understand that such things aren't uncommon on the privatised railway !

 

[dviner]

I think management contracts are the way forward. More like a TfL style way of managing things, which I think is better than outright private control or outright state control.

^^ What he says.

No "vertical integration" though - infrastructure under one organisation.

 

[matt_world2004]

You have said several times now that a nationalised railway would save billions of £'s but have failed to explain how.

Nationalising the railway would mean:

• A single universal branding department to work on liveries, maps diagrams signage, advertising etc,etc. Rather than having these roles duplicated across TOC's
• Lower administrative burden on sorting out things like ticket acceptance and emergency transport for stranded passengers
• Single customer communications team, social media- contact centres rather than having these roles duplicated across TOC's
• RPI's, CSA's station staff, station cleaners would work over a geographical area rather than only on routes operated by their TOC. This would require less of them to achieve the same standard of service and allow greater flexibility to deal with special events, together with reducing travel time for staff if a FGW ticket inspector living in say west drayton, They could under a nationalised system do RPI related duties on the chiltern line at say west Ruislip, or the SWT mainline between feltham and waterloo instead of being sent, potentially quite far out for RPI related duties along the Great Western Mainline,
• The complete eradication of delay attribution teams. All delay refunds would be processed by a single department and refunded to the customer, without the administrative burden of working out who is responcible for which delay.
• Rolling stock could be moved around more quickly, routes could be changed more quickly to cope with changes in demand and short term special events.
• Less of a reliance on expensive contractor maintenance teams as the network would be large enough to require a full time permenant in house maintenance team ( The staff would also benefit too, as they would get a regular salary and more guaranteed hours)
• Management would no longer need to be duplicated across TOC's
• Rolling stock maintenance could be done across TOC's meaning there is no duplicate maintenance staff across TOC's It would also allow staff to specialize in certain classes of rolling stock an SWT train could be sent to Old oak common for example if needed without the administrative burden of working out who to charge
• duty related staff travel could be across network, rather than on the TOC's own line This would mean you wouldn't get bizarre situations where it is cheaper for staff to fly than take the train. as the duty related staff travel would be done using excess capacity in already running services. It would effectively cost nothing to travel to where they need to be. The current bizarre situation is that if a member of staff needs to travel on another TOC's services as part of their duty. One TOC has to pay the other TOC for the privilege and the expense has to be approved by the accounts department. and this creates an administrative burden on both TOC's that would all be unnecessary under a nationalised system whereby there would be cross network duty related staff travel.
• Staff welfare, training occupational health, HR, issuing of ID cards etc etc, would not need to be duplicated across TOC's
• Easier for new technologies (particularly ticketing ) to be rolled out across network rather than the administrative burden of having this duplicated across TOC's
• A unified voice for the rail network which would allow it to have a greater influence and not be cajoled by government policy or the policy of regional transport executives.This greater voice would have allowed the nationalised network to have a greater impact over the development of Oyster (for example). A greater say in the development of crossrail, HS1 and HS2. Together the network would have been stronger.
• profit being reinvested back into the network

Every little would help

 

[6Gman]

Incidentally Burnham appears to be backpedalling on this - it seems it now means DOR being allowed to bid.

Which is scarcely renationalisation.

 

[jon0844]

Nationalising the railway would mean:

• A single universal branding department to work on liveries, maps diagrams signage, advertising etc,etc. Rather than having these roles duplicated across TOC's
• Lower administrative burden on sorting out things like ticket acceptance and emergency transport for stranded passengers
• Single customer communications team, social media- contact centres rather than having these roles duplicated across TOC's
• RPI's, CSA's station staff, station cleaners would work over a geographical area rather than only on routes operated by their TOC. This would require less of them to achieve the same standard of service and allow greater flexibility to deal with special events, together with reducing travel time for staff if a FGW ticket inspector living in say west drayton, They could under a nationalised system do RPI related duties on the chiltern line at say west Ruislip, or the SWT mainline between feltham and waterloo instead of being sent, potentially quite far out for RPI related duties along the Great Western Mainline,
• The complete eradication of delay attribution teams. All delay refunds would be processed by a single department and refunded to the customer, without the administrative burden of working out who is responcible for which delay.
• Rolling stock could be moved around more quickly, routes could be changed more quickly to cope with changes in demand and short term special events.
• Less of a reliance on expensive contractor maintenance teams as the network would be large enough to require a full time permenant in house maintenance team ( The staff would also benefit too, as they would get a regular salary and more guaranteed hours)
• Management would no longer need to be duplicated across TOC's
• Rolling stock maintenance could be done across TOC's meaning there is no duplicate maintenance staff across TOC's It would also allow staff to specialize in certain classes of rolling stock an SWT train could be sent to Old oak common for example if needed without the administrative burden of working out who to charge
• duty related staff travel could be across network, rather than on the TOC's own line This would mean you wouldn't get bizarre situations where it is cheaper for staff to fly than take the train. as the duty related staff travel would be done using excess capacity in already running services. It would effectively cost nothing to travel to where they need to be. The current bizarre situation is that if a member of staff needs to travel on another TOC's services as part of their duty. One TOC has to pay the other TOC for the privilege and the expense has to be approved by the accounts department. and this creates an administrative burden on both TOC's that would all be unnecessary under a nationalised system whereby there would be cross network duty related staff travel.
• Staff welfare, training occupational health, HR, issuing of ID cards etc etc, would not need to be duplicated across TOC's
• Easier for new technologies (particularly ticketing ) to be rolled out across network rather than the administrative burden of having this duplicated across TOC's
• A unified voice for the rail network which would allow it to have a greater influence and not be cajoled by government policy or the policy of regional transport executives.This greater voice would have allowed the nationalised network to have a greater impact over the development of Oyster (for example). A greater say in the development of crossrail, HS1 and HS2. Together the network would have been stronger.
• profit being reinvested back into the network

Every little would help

Some of those things wouldn't be practical, such as just moving staff around all over the place - from cleaning staff to maintenance staff. I am not sure even BR did this, although there was perhaps more standard stock so drivers could perhaps work on different routes more easily (subject to the usual route knowledge).

But there are some good and valid points amongst them. Arguably some things could and should be done now, and don't require renationalisation to happen.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Matt, no nationalised concern could ever operate on such a centralised basis, not with the geographical spread the UK rail system has. Even in BR days you had to have either Area, Divisional, Line or Regional offices to carry out some of the functions you listed. It is just too big a system to manage centrally.

Nationalisation has one major issue - the Treasury. You are on strict cash limits (as NR is now finding out), your investment strategy is subject to review, change (often at short notice) and cancellation, as NR is also now finding out.

You also can't avoid having costing systems, whether you are private or public. The key is to make it automatic so nobody has to work who has the charge for maintenance and that is largely how it has worked even since the days of BR and it's much missed AXIS financial system.

Privatisation has allowed the railway to expand and not have its excess demand priced off on Treasury dictat. But the question now is what benefit the existing franchise system is going to bring in the next few years as compared to overt and explictly defined delivery contracts with the public body taking the revenue risk. I'm not sure franchises as we know them are the answer for heavily subsidised and closely specified services.

Whenever a politician says he/she has the answer to the railways problems, I shudder. It usually means grief.

 

[Domh245]

Nationalising the railway would mean:
A single universal branding department to work on liveries, maps diagrams signage, advertising etc,etc. Rather than having these roles duplicated across TOC's

Half of that seems to be controlled by the DfT anyway, and I suspect that most of the jobs would still get sent out to external consultants

Lower administrative burden on sorting out things like ticket acceptance and emergency transport for stranded passengers

I agree for ticket acceptance points, but emergency transport - not so much, unless under this new BR there is going to be a fleet of buses (and drivers) stationed in a disused tunnel?

Single customer communications team, social media- contact centres rather than having these roles duplicated across TOC's

That would be a backwards step IMO, Northern are currently setting up multiple accounts to give more localised information, and there is definitely an argument for keeping information provision as local as reasonably practical. Put one way, asking a (for example) scottish social media team about alternative travel methods in Exeter would probably not get a detailed response

RPI's, CSA's station staff, station cleaners would work over a geographical area rather than only on routes operated by their TOC. This would require less of them to achieve the same standard of service and allow greater flexibility to deal with special events, together with reducing travel time for staff if a FGW ticket inspector living in say west drayton, They could under a nationalised system do RPI related duties on the chiltern line at say west Ruislip, or the SWT mainline between feltham and waterloo instead of being sent, potentially quite far out for RPI related duties along the Great Western Mainline

Good point

The complete eradication of delay attribution teams. All delay refunds would be processed by a single department and refunded to the customer, without the administrative burden of working out who is responcible for which delay.

Because of the need for Infrastructure and Train operation to be seperate, you would still end up with delay attribution teams, you would still end up with debates about whether the bird that the train hit was a pheasant or a partridge

Rolling stock could be moved around more quickly, routes could be changed more quickly to cope with changes in demand and short term special events.

You may still potentially have issues with route/stock training, as well as clearance.

Less of a reliance on expensive contractor maintenance teams as the network would be large enough to require a full time permenant in house maintenance team ( The staff would also benefit too, as they would get a regular salary and more guaranteed hours)

I believe that there is a benefit to having the manufacturer carrying out maintenance, as there is more in-depth understanding, as well as better ability for (properly done) mods, and replacements

Management would no longer need to be duplicated across TOC's

Again, centralisation isn't really the way forward. You could definitely trim away a few managers, but the majority would still need to be retained

Rolling stock maintenance could be done across TOC's meaning there is no duplicate maintenance staff across TOC's It would also allow staff to specialize in certain classes of rolling stock an SWT train could be sent to Old oak common for example if needed without the administrative burden of working out who to charge

This is already done in a number of places (eg Hull Trains and Great Western at Old Oak Common, Northern, EMT & VTEC at Neville Hill)

Duty related staff travel could be across network, rather than on the TOC's own line This would mean you wouldn't get bizarre situations where it is cheaper for staff to fly than take the train. as the duty related staff travel would be done using excess capacity in already running services. It would effectively cost nothing to travel to where they need to be. The current bizarre situation is that if a member of staff needs to travel on another TOC's services as part of their duty. One TOC has to pay the other TOC for the privilege and the expense has to be approved by the accounts department. and this creates an administrative burden on both TOC's that would all be unnecessary under a nationalised system whereby there would be cross network duty related staff travel.

The reason why NR staff fly over the country was well documented in a recent thread. Basically, it's not just the headline price, it's the time cost and all the associated costs that come with it. Going from Milton Keynes to Edinburgh by train would also require a hotel stay if you want to get anything done, whilst flying there will allow you to skip that.

Staff welfare, training occupational health, HR, issuing of ID cards etc etc, would not need to be duplicated across TOC's

Again, centralisation isn't the answer! I'm sure that TOC staff would prefer their admin stuff to be available locally.

Easier for new technologies (particularly ticketing ) to be rolled out across network rather than the administrative burden of having this duplicated across TOC's

In some way, yes but ATOC already go quite a way towards centralising roll-outs of things like DARWIN, and ITSO ticketing

A unified voice for the rail network which would allow it to have a greater influence and not be cajoled by government policy or the policy of regional transport executives.This greater voice would have allowed the nationalised network to have a greater impact over the development of Oyster (for example). A greater say in the development of crossrail, HS1 and HS2. Together the network would have been stronger.

This is already starting to happen with organisations like Transport for the North

profit being reinvested back into the network

I don't think that even skimming out all these "evil money sucking corporations" will stop the system haemorrhaging money enough for it to become profitable

 

[matt_world2004]

Half of that seems to be controlled by the DfT anyway, and I suspect that most of the jobs would still get sent out to external consultants

Which is a waste of money especially as those external consultants would specialise in probably only rail liveries

I agree for ticket acceptance points, but emergency transport - not so much, unless under this new BR there is going to be a fleet of buses (and drivers) stationed in a disused tunnel?

There have been cases on this board where emergency transport has not been arranged for passengers because the station is managed by a different company to the train operator and that is a dereliction of responcibility

That would be a backwards step IMO, Northern are currently setting up multiple accounts to give more localised information, and there is definitely an argument for keeping information provision as local as reasonably practical. Put one way, asking a (for example) scottish social media team about alternative travel methods in Exeter would probably not get a detailed response

The local Northern rail accounts are probably all run out of one building with a staff picking up incidents from their incident database and customizing their tweets on a line by line and station by station basis. Certainly TfL doesnt have seperate premises and social media teams for each London Underground line. they all communicate out of one building with tweets sent from different accounts corresponding to what the incident effects (Thats is not to say that they might have a member of staff for each line or group of lines however).

I have a friend who works at GTR's social media team he has practically no knowledge of what services GTR run. Routing requests are put through some kind of journey planner and reports of faults are retrieved from an incident database.

Currently there are in the range of 16 social media teams split between the train operating companies of the united Kingdom, A similar number of websites, on different servers. and a similar number of TOC run ticketing engines. You could provide the same quality of information to passengers using Three larger social media teams, One website, and one ticketing engine. At night passengers would only need to be served by one social media team across the UK (to correspond with lower passenger demand)

Because of the need for Infrastructure and Train operation to be seperate, you would still end up with delay attribution teams, you would still end up with debates about whether the bird that the train hit was a pheasant or a partridge

Although it would be a lot simpler to work out who caused the delay with one TOC and One track maintenance company than with three TOC's and one track maintenance company

I believe that there is a benefit to having the manufacturer carrying out maintenance, as there is more in-depth understanding, as well as better ability for (properly done) mods, and replacements

I was talking more about small maintenance tasks that are usually done by night teams at depots.

Again, centralisation isn't the answer! I'm sure that TOC staff would prefer their admin stuff to be available locally.

According to the internet , First Great Westerns HR department is based in Swindon 59 miles from Paddington. First Great Westerns HR director is listed as being in Aberdeen (542 miles from paddington) I am sure there are local HR support teams but I would hardly call their main HR team local.

In some way, yes but ATOC already go quite a way towards centralising roll-outs of things like DARWIN, and ITSO ticketing

We have had NFC based ticketing technology for 12 of the 21 years we have had a privatised railway. Outside of london what percentage of stations have had NFC ticketing facilities installed?. it has taken ATOC a longer amount of time to roll out smart card ticketing than it took BR to phase out steam trains that is a damning indictment of the privatized railways. Especially when you consider the relative complexity of each of both tasks.

 

[Aictos]

The reason the HR Director is listed as being at Aberdeen is because the main First Group HQ is based there, no other reason why.

Renationalisation will never happen, Labour promised it in the 97 election campaign and as soon as in power went back on it so when a Labour candidate promising it I be taking it with a pinch of salt and believe it when it does actually happen.

 

[matt_world2004]

The reason the HR Director is listed as being at Aberdeen is because the main First Group HQ is based there, no other reason why.

Renationalisation will never happen, Labour promised it in the 97 election campaign and as soon as in power went back on it so when a Labour candidate promising it I be taking it with a pinch of salt and believe it when it does actually happen.

But their hr director is still fairly far away from FGW operations. And under a British rail system instead of having 16 HR directors you have one.

 

[Aictos]

But their hr director is still fairly far away from FGW operations. And under a British rail system instead of having 16 HR directors you have one.

I disagree, you might not have 16 HR Directors but you would have had HR director for each BR sector plus at a regional level you would have have a senior HR manager for each route.

In BR times, Network SouthEast alone had 18 routes the only difference is nowadays a lot of the routes have been merged with each other.

 

[matt_world2004]

If privatisation is so good. Why does the private company charge £30.00 between Heathrow airport and London Paddington. While the nationalised rail operator charges 5.10.the nationalised rail operator has to fund concessionary travel in those costs whereas the private one doesn't.

 

[yorksrob]

If privatisation is so good. Why does the private company charge £30.00 between Heathrow airport and London Paddington. While the nationalised rail operator charges 5.10.the nationalised rail operator has to fund concessionary travel in those costs whereas the private one doesn't.

That is a fair point. The mark up is way in excess of what is justified by the time saving.

I suppose at least the private operators operate the far more reasonable Heathrow Connect. Not that they want anyone to know. When catching the train from Heathrow last year, we had to wait to see one tiny poster at the ticket office before seeing any mention of Heathrow Connect, in spite of the express service being advertised along several minutes of tunnel

 

[Dave1987]

You see for those who believe nationalisation is the key to unlocking the perfect railway only have to look at the state Network Rail are in at the moment to realise how untrue that is. The worst thing possible that could happen would be for the railways to come back under the remit of the treasury. Yes the franchise model could be improved immeasurably, but most of that is caused by the DFT.

 

[yorksrob]

You see for those who believe nationalisation is the key to unlocking the perfect railway only have to look at the state Network Rail are in at the moment to realise how untrue that is. The worst thing possible that could happen would be for the railways to come back under the remit of the treasury. Yes the franchise model could be improved immeasurably, but most of that is caused by the DFT.

One might conclude from current headlines that the railways are already under the remit of the treasury.

 

[Aldaniti]

You see for those who believe nationalisation is the key to unlocking the perfect railway only have to look at the state Network Rail are in at the moment to realise how untrue that is. The worst thing possible that could happen would be for the railways to come back under the remit of the treasury. Yes the franchise model could be improved immeasurably, but most of that is caused by the DFT.

And from the private sector I raise you Railtrack, GNER and National Express. You have a point about treasury funding, but as Yorksrob and others have said, the railway is not a true private sector operation at the moment. When it boils down to it, the government are paying rather large sums of money to private operators to take public criticism of operations, along with personnel responsibility, away from them.

 

[Barn]

If privatisation is so good. Why does the private company charge £30.00 between Heathrow airport and London Paddington. While the nationalised rail operator charges 5.10.the nationalised rail operator has to fund concessionary travel in those costs whereas the private one doesn't.

Err, because they built the link privately and paid for the access rights over the GWML and sufficient people are willing to pay that price for the service provided?

 

[matt_world2004]

Err, because they built the link privately and paid for the access rights over the GWML and sufficient people are willing to pay that price for the service provided?

That doesn't take away from the fact that the service offers monstrously bad value for money and apart from for trips to a few stations around the Paddington area doesn't actually save on journey times because of the low frequency of service. The only reason it exists is to rip off tourists and the expense accounts of business travellers.

And guess what the lul tunnels at Heathrow did not come into existence by magic. They were built too

 

[Domh245]

It may be bad value for money when compared to similar services, but remember that Heathrow Airport Holdings own the infrastructure from Airport Junction to the airport, which doesn't pay for itself, and they also own the trains (no ROSCO involved in either the 332s or 360s), and have to cover all the costs themselves, as well as making a profit. If you want your nationalised railway to be self sufficient, you may have to have a lot more of these high fares!

And its worth pointing out that the LU tunnels weren't built by BAA (as they were then) but were built for LU by a contractor (standard) but with government funding, and with the rest of the network to prop up the costs.

 

[matt_world2004]

It may be bad value for money when compared to similar services, but remember that Heathrow Airport Holdings own the infrastructure from Airport Junction to the airport, which doesn't pay for itself, and they also own the trains (no ROSCO involved in either the 332s or 360s), and have to cover all the costs themselves, as well as making a profit. If you want your nationalised railway to be self sufficient, you may have to have a lot more of these high fares!

And its worth pointing out that the LU tunnels weren't built by BAA (as they were then) but were built for LU by a contractor (standard) but with government funding, and with the rest of the network to prop up the costs.

Yes but in a debate about what provides the best value to the public through fares and subsidy comparing a service that runs from between two of the same stations one run by a private company and another by a public one is entirely appropriate.

 

[Dave1987]

That doesn't take away from the fact that the service offers monstrously bad value for money and apart from for trips to a few stations around the Paddington area doesn't actually save on journey times because of the low frequency of service. The only reason it exists is to rip off tourists and the expense accounts of business travellers.

And guess what the lul tunnels at Heathrow did not come into existence by magic. They were built too

You do realise the railways were originally built by private companies? If people weren't prepared to pay that money for the Heathrow Express then they would have no passengers. Whether or not you believe it "monstrously bad value" does not detract from the fact that it was paid for with private money.

 

[matt_world2004]

You do realise the railways were originally built by private companies? If people weren't prepared to pay that money for the Heathrow Express then they would have no passengers. Whether or not you believe it "monstrously bad value" does not detract from the fact that it was paid for with private money.

For the London underground to be worse value for money than the Heathrow express then 75% of its revenue would have to have come from the taxpayer. That has never been the case even at the height of fares fair.. I don't know why you think it is inappropriate for a comparison between a publically run and privately run railway that runs between the same two stations in a debate about what provides the best service for customers and taxpayer

 

[Domh245]

Having gone back to see what we were arguing about when Heathrow came up, you may need to check you figures.

Heathrow Connect - Airport to Paddington: £10.10 single
Heathrow Express - Airport to Paddington: £21.50 single

Both of these tickets can be purchased online and are the cheapest single I could find.

Also note that Heathrow connect isn't a nationalised operator, it is a bit of a weird one with it being a HEX train between Hayes&Harlington and Heathrow, but a FGW train East of it. Also note that they are staffed by Heathrow Airport Holdings. I can't see how you can claim that it is a publicly operated/owned company!

 

[matt_world2004]

Having gone back to see what we were arguing about when Heathrow came up, you may need to check you figures.

Heathrow Connect - Airport to Paddington: £10.10 single
Heathrow Express - Airport to Paddington: £21.50 single

Both of these tickets can be purchased online and are the cheapest single I could find.

Also note that Heathrow connect isn't a nationalised operator, it is a bit of a weird one with it being a HEX train between Hayes&Harlington and Heathrow, but a FGW train East of it. Also note that they are staffed by Heathrow Airport Holdings. I can't see how you can claim that it is a publicly operated/owned company!

so a private operator charges between 100% and 400% more than what a publicalllly owned operator does


A 140 bus is also quicker than the Heathrow connect between Heathrow and Hayes and Harlington because of the HC's low frequency