Andy Burnham in pledge to renationalise railway network

[Cheshire Rover]

https://youtu.be/8G3B6T4GRVM
For those of us that remember BR..

 

[Dave1987]

At the risk of repeating myself, massive savings for taxpayers as well as lower fares, by ending the inherent inefficiency of fragmentation. I'm struggling to convince myself that your defence of rail privatisation is anything other than ideological.

Yes yes I know, immediately you would save billions of £'s, but you have yet to say how this money would be miraculously saved. Suddenly billions of £'s would be pumped back into the railways, all the trains would be immaculate, signal failures would be a thing of the past etc etc. Yes I know in your eyes nationalisation is a bed of roses but in the real world ticket prices would not magically drop, and the money would not be pumped back into the system.

 

[JohnB57]

No airfield in the US is kept open if it is making a loss. In Los Angeles there is a local Municipal airfield called Rialto that was owned by the local authority that was making a huge loss. They closed it and sold off the land for redevelopment. Under a socialist system that would sacrilege, you would have to use taxpayers money to keep it open.

Airfields, or municipal airports, are different entities to international airports. The facilities they provide are completely different. Rialto was a general aviation airfield that didn't even have a tower, let alone any form of terminal facilities so maybe you should review your own example.

70% of the world's international airports run at a loss, but because the local economy benefits, they are subsidised either by local authorities or as in the case of Cardiff, the assembly government, which as you know also subsidises the WAG rail services and flights from Valley. There are thousands of examples of all sorts of public facilities being kept open through public funds by government of all types and colours, not just socialist ones.

 

[Railsigns]

Massive savings for taxpayers? Not sure where they'd be coming from; I don't think you have much of a clue as to what really goes on.

(I don't normally reply to someone who is so gratuitously insulting, so consider yourself lucky.)

http://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/0913a84d-b740-4111-b6f8-bf6470e2d7b7

Since the official ORR figures show an enormous rise in taxpayer funding to the railways since privatisation (the opposite of what was promised by the Tory government), it logically follows that a return to the unified publicly owned model we had under BR would eliminate the inefficiency, duplication and waste of the present structure. If you feel this isn't so, then the onus is on you to explain why, with all the figures to back it up.

Inherent inefficiency of fragmentation? Do you have any proof of this assertion? Bigger does not always mean more efficient.

The detail of where the savings will come from is included in "The Great Train Robbery" report, a thorough analysis of the shambolic and costly failure that is rail privatisation:

http://www.cresc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/GTR%20Report%20final%205%20June%202013.pdf

If you disagree with any of this report then the onus, once again, is on you to explain where its authors have gone wrong. In detail, please.

 

[suzanneparis]

If we are unhappy with our local TOC would it be a good idea to write to Andy Burnham supporting his idea of renationalising the railways?

Anyone got an opinion on this?

 

[Robert Taggart]

AMB = a stupid little boy.
On several public occasions he has been heard to utter where his loyalties really lie - "...it is the party that matters..." - not the country and certainly not the railways - just his beloved Liebore party !

 

[Railsigns]

Yes yes I know, immediately you would save billions of £'s, but you have yet to say how this money would be miraculously saved. Suddenly billions of £'s would be pumped back into the railways, all the trains would be immaculate, signal failures would be a thing of the past etc etc. Yes I know in your eyes nationalisation is a bed of roses but in the real world ticket prices would not magically drop, and the money would not be pumped back into the system.

That fact that you resort to misrepresenting those of us support a return to a publicly owned railway (the majority of the British public) as though we ever claimed it'll create a perfect railway speaks volumes about the strength, or otherwise, of your own position.

 

[Barn]

http://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/0913a84d-b740-4111-b6f8-bf6470e2d7b7

Since the official ORR figures show an enormous rise in taxpayer funding to the railways since privatisation (the opposite of what was promised by the Tory government), it logically follows that a return to the unified publicly owned model we had under BR would eliminate the inefficiency, duplication and waste of the present structure.

Far from being logical, you're using a non-sequitur as the basis of your argument. You are taking the fact that taxpayer funding has increased in the time since privatisation and reaching the unjustified conclusion that it has been caused by privatisation. This is the classic assumption that correlation means causation and is one of the oldest logical errors in the book.

Some of those increased costs might be due to inefficiencies. I have seen no evidence of the size of those inefficiencies (if indeed they exceed the size of efficiency savings) and absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they amount to billions which could be recovered.

Incidentally, are your figures net of the premiums paid by TOCs to the Government?

I am agnostic about ownership and see the benefit in public-sector challenger bids so that the private sector needs to demonstrate that it can deliver improvements despite a profit margin. I think many people on both sides of the argument are offended by dodgy use of statistics, however.

 

[ainsworth74]

To me I often think our problems are less to do with the railway being in state or private hands but more the fragmentation that has been introduced by the method that the network was privatised.

I've often thought, for example, that InterCity, Network SouthEast and ScotRail should have been privatised as complete organisations rather than being split into a twenty individual operators. Regional Railways is a bit tougher but probably best would have been to divide it up into regional operators and then run them on a concessionary basis like London Overground. Infrastructure could have been passed onto a Network Rail type organisation rather than attempting to make an actually properly private company like Railtrack.

So to me it's less about whether the railway is private or state operated and more about the basic structure of the railway. Right now it's simply to fragmented.

Far from being logical, you're using a non-sequitur as the basis of your argument. You are taking the fact that taxpayer funding has increased in the time since privatisation and reaching the unjustified conclusion that it has been caused by privatisation. This is the classic assumption that correlation means causation and is one of the oldest logical errors in the book.

That is rather akin to the DfT and various proponents of privatisation that trumpet the growth in passenger numbers since privatisation and claim that it is solely down to privatisation rather than a range of potential outside factors.

 

[HowardGWR]

I've often thought, for example, that InterCity, Network SouthEast and ScotRail should have been privatised as complete organisations rather than being split into a twenty individual operators.

Fair enough, but how would you have incentivised them? I assume privatising would involve that, otherwise why do it?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Railways have been an interest to politicians since they were invented and decisions are often made on political, rather than economic, grounds.

The idea of "value leakage" from the public to the private sector is something that one political party in this country believes is a good thing for the economy and consistently practises (see Royal Mail) but another party feels is short changing the public purse and giving presents to the other parties friends.

The faux privatisation of the railways is a mess rather than a disaster and one that, I rather suspect, this Government is going to tackle sooner rather than later. I dread to think what they will come up with later this year.

But the franchising system does need looking at. The value of putting highly specified and subsidised operations into the hands of private sector delivery units is dubious, to say the least, especially when the financial risk will always remain with the public sector, in one form or another.

As long as TOCs are just thinly capitalised cash flow entities, they don't have any real means to make the kind of investments needed on a railway system. They are always going to be spending someone else's money. So the question of "why franchises?" is still one that needs to be addressed.

 

[route:oxford]

(http://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/0913a84d-b740-4111-b6f8-bf6470e2d7b7

So overall, the average subsidy per passenger hasn't changed much over the time?

 

[matt_world2004]

So overall, the average subsidy per passenger hasn't changed much over the time?

Shouldnt the subsidy per passenger drop over time as economies of scale kick in ?

 

[Railsigns]

So overall, the average subsidy per passenger hasn't changed much over the time?

Does that make it all right? Twice as many passengers means twice as much revenue (actually more, because fares have consistently risen higher than inflation since privatisation, contrary to government promises). Any normal business where sales doubled would see its profits soar yet, on the privatised railway, it's dependence on public subsidy that soared. Something is clearly not working. There is also the point that rising passenger numbers means more crowded trains and fewer trains running around half empty, so increasing the average profitability per train.

Taxpayers (many of whom never use the railways) are more concerned about overall subsidy, not subsidy per passenger. The bottom line is that the overall subsidy is significantly higher following privatisation, even though we were promised it would be less.

 

[suzanneparis]

I wonder where all the money has gone.

Does anyone have any figures for the total number of rail employees paid more than £100k before privatisation and today. Just as a comparison.

 

[6Gman]

I wonder where all the money has gone.

Does anyone have any figures for the total number of rail employees paid more than £100k before privatisation and today. Just as a comparison.

I don't have figures but I suspect it has increased significantly (even allowing for inflation).

I'm not happy with that.

But the effect will be peanuts in the context of total expenditure.

 

[daccer]

With reference to the information contained in the ORR report I think I am right in making a couple of observations.

The numbers are not adjusted for inflation - there would be a natural increase over 30 years due to this.

Direct rail support is not categorised into sections i.e enhancements and renewals/maintenance are lumped together. I believe enhancements account for 12 billion of CP5 funding which is approx. 2.4 billion per year. Surely when comparing the numbers it is not correct to compare a system in the 80's which was being managed on a shoestring with minimal investments to keep it going with the one we see today.

The reality is that public expectation of what they expect to see at a station or on a train in the present era is v.different to what BR could get away with. There are very few equivalents to the massive projects which we have seen in the last decade in the years before privatisation.

 

[deltic]

I wonder where all the money has gone.

Does anyone have any figures for the total number of rail employees paid more than £100k before privatisation and today. Just as a comparison.

The railway of BR and the one of today are very different. A lot of money has gone in ensuring far higher standards of health and safety and welfare.

Pay levels in state owned Network Rail, TfL, Crossrail and HS2 are all far higher than would have been paid in BR's day.

 

[Dave1987]

I wonder where all the money has gone.

Does anyone have any figures for the total number of rail employees paid more than £100k before privatisation and today. Just as a comparison.

How many senior managers in the NHS earn more than the Prime Minister, how many civil servants earn more than £100k?

 

[deltic]

How many senior managers in the NHS earn more than the Prime Minister, how many civil servants earn more than £100k?

I hate this comparison to the PM's salary - his benefits are way more than his salary - rent free accommodation in central London and at Chequers, free travel to and from anywhere except when on holiday - an enhanced pension - staff at beck and call.

 

[matt_world2004]

How many senior managers in the NHS earn more than the Prime Minister, how many civil servants earn more than £100k?

Probably a lot less than the American healthcare system.

 

[suzanneparis]

The argument always seems to be that they claim they have to pay market rates. But there is only a very limited market. Hence you could easily advertise these jobs capped at £100k and still get some very strong candidates.

 

[matt_world2004]

The argument always seems to be that they claim they have to pay market rates. But there is only a very limited market. Hence you could easily advertise these jobs capped at £100k and still get some very strong candidates.

Tfl recently complained that it lost staff to overseas rail projects I don't know how true it is.

 

[ainsworth74]

Fair enough, but how would you have incentivised them? I assume privatising would involve that, otherwise why do it?

How do we incentivise them now?

 

[deltic]

How do we incentivise them now?

The argument was that in the public sector you got a job for life, an inflation proof pension, a knighthood and retirement at 60 - while in the private sector you got a large salary.

People are driven by different things - not convinced you have to pay sky high salaries - many people work in TfL and on the railways because they enjoy the work and as long as the salary buys a house and a reasonable life they are not too bothered by the absolute amount. Problem is to buy a house in London now requires a six figure salary!

 

[ainsworth74]

We we're talking about the companies not the people running them

I've often thought, for example, that InterCity, Network SouthEast and ScotRail should have been privatised as complete organisations rather than being split into a twenty individual operators.

Fair enough, but how would you have incentivised them? I assume privatising would involve that, otherwise why do it?

 

[NSEFAN]

Tfl recently complained that it lost staff to overseas rail projects I don't know how true it is.

Given the abrasive relationship between railway management and staff, is that possibly a case of "I'm not paid enough to deal with these people"?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I hate this comparison to the PM's salary - his benefits are way more than his salary - rent free accommodation in central London and at Chequers, free travel to and from anywhere except when on holiday - an enhanced pension - staff at beck and call.

Of course, in the days when European Communist leaders held sway, may I cite the name of a certain Nicolae Ceausescu and I feel that the benefits that he enjoyed were far in excess of what any British Prime Minister can expect.

 

[matt_world2004]

Given the abrasive relationship between railway management and staff, is that possibly a case of "I'm not paid enough to deal with these people"?

Well working in the sooty rainy **** of London it becomes awful tempting to think hmmn Barcelona Metro has some positions going.

Residential staff travel benefits are a good way of restraining wages. If you think someone working for First Great Western at paddington and they live in Reading. Free travel operated by the company they work for is worth about an extra £6 000 a year to them; as they would be paying tax on top of whatever the extra wages are to cover their travel costs. Also with smart card ticketing it can be increasingly used to identify attendance and punctuality issues.

 

[route:oxford]

Well working in the sooty rainy **** of London it becomes awful tempting to think hmmn Barcelona Metro has some positions going.

Residential staff travel benefits are a good way of restraining wages. If you think someone working for First Great Western at paddington and they live in Reading. Free travel operated by the company they work for is worth about an extra £6 000 a year to them; as they would be paying tax on top of whatever the extra wages are to cover their travel costs. Also with smart card ticketing it can be increasingly used to identify attendance and punctuality issues.

Is there no BIK on staff travel benefits?