Fantasy: If National Rail was renationalised, how would YOU run it?

[185143]

I'd scrap the 37s, 20s and HSTs and replace everything with 4 car 220s and pacers just to **** everyone off

 

[BR Class 1.618]

Do as you wish to the 20s and HSTs, but never the 37s.

 

[Bodiddly]

I'd scrap the 37s, 20s and HSTs and replace everything with 4 car 220s and pacers just to **** everyone off

Damn you to hell troll!
Seriously, after our railways were re-nationalised, the first thing that should happen is to open a private operating company in every other country of the world and run their railways for them, thus sucking out any profits out of the said country and swelling the UK coffers.
Let's face it, they are doing it to us are they not?

 

[muz379]

Id leave the franchising and TOC structure as it is now because that leads to competition to run the franchises and actually get at the profits that are to be had running a franchise .

The biggest change I would do would be to take the rolling stock back under state ownership , so that the TOC's are not paying 100k a year for a train that is life expired . If they are paying 100k a year then that is going towards investment rather than the massive obscene profits the Rosco's are turning over leasing out stock that has been paid for multiple times already . This would then lead to either a reduction in subsidy that is required for TOC's or a massive investment in new rolling stock leading to shiny new trains for passengers .

And that is different to what we have now how? We have massive role duplication. For instance each TOC has a group of directors. How many finance directors, say, do you really need?

Even under the regional structure that BR had and any future nationalised railway would most likely have there was massive duplication with each region having senior management teams similar to how TOC's are organized now .

 

[Chris Wallis]

And yes, you are right that BR also had to pay out dividends to the big 4's shareholders. Big 4 shares were converted into government railway bonds with a guaranteed dividend at nationalisation, which was paid by BR.

The railway bond dividend was fixed in perpetuity at far in excess of the share dividend ever paid out by the big 4 railway companies, to buy off opposition to nationalisation, and because it was expected (for dogmatic reasons) that the nationalised company would be far more efficient and profitable. It was a massive albatross round BRs neck and the railways were only relieved of this at privatisation.

Do you know, I wasn't aware of this. Did something similar happen in the other Nationalised industries?

 

[gith]

I'd probably scrap multiple units for modern loco-hauled, non-fixed form sets: if you need another carriage to ease overcrowding; "here have a carriage"

 

[jopsuk]

Ooh, a way of working that almost never happened...

 

[yorksrob]

Across my sectorised railway, I would introduce a bonus scheme based on meeting targets for passenger km and journeys made to incentivise growth.

 

[Emyr]

I'd probably scrap multiple units for modern loco-hauled, non-fixed form sets: if you need another carriage to ease overcrowding; "here have a carriage"

Good luck with the leaves, your LHCS will struggle to move at this time of year on a lot of lines.

 

[GatwickDepress]

If I were in charge, I'd spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a swanky oak-panelled boardroom with shark tanks under each board member's seat: "ah, PPM for the South Central Division is below expectations, Mr. Smith. Perhaps we could discuss this over a... bite to eat."

But honestly, from reading Gerald Fienne's I Tried To Run A Railway, I'd have a nervous breakdown and retire before I did anything.

Perhaps introduce an independent Passenger Ombudsman, a drive to find ways to improve communication during disruption to both passengers and staff, and bring back Travellers Fare so introduce a new generation of passengers learn to love (sic) the British Rail sandwich.

Oh, and bring back the NSE route brands.

 

[colchesterken]

Appoint Chris Green as railway dictator for England, Let Scotland and Wales do their thing with agreements in force for running on each others lines

 

[Busaholic]

Appoint Chris Green as railway dictator for England, Let Scotland and Wales do their thing with agreements in force for running on each others lines

Absolutely, make him an offer he can't refuse - the nearest thing to a genius in the railway industry in the past 30 years. Actually, the nearest thing by about the distance between Venus and Mars. He actually listened to passengers too, without patronising them, and wasn't of the opinion that the industry would be perfectly OK if it could just be left to the so-called 'experts', or politicians for that matter. Anyone with an interest in modern railways should read his book on Network South East.

 

[Bodiddly]

Appoint Chris Green as railway dictator for England, Let Scotland and Wales do their thing with agreements in force for running on each others lines

Good call. Mr Green, the railway oracle, would be a brilliant start for a re-nationalised railway. Has a fantastic track record with everything railway he touched. I would install Gerald Corbett as his number 2 (or would it be number 1, going with the shark boardroom) another great railway oracle who was cut short well before his time. I'm also sure there are fantastic managers working in the industry at the moment who could be pesuaded to assist in the revolution. Then there are us at the coalface willing to serve our new masters with a renewed vigour!

 

[nuneatonmark]

So you are happy with the vast sums of money leeching out of the industry into the pockets of shareholders and directors emollients? What about the inefficiency built into the privatised industry through so many duplicate jobs?

So were you happy with the vast waste, inefficiencies and lack of innovation under British Rail? Or are you pretending it was some kind of nirvana where everything worked just fine? No one can tell whether the profits generated by the private companies would offset the inefficiences of a public railway but to pretend that it would all be better if it was nationalised defies common sense, reason and the lessons learned from 50 years of nationalisation. The railways are not privatised anyway, they are franchised, probably the worst of both worlds.

 

[yorkie]

I wouldn't do anything....

Then this thread isn't for you

Please stick to the topic: If you were to run a renationalised railway, what would you do?

We have had countless debates on whether or not we are more efficient now, than under BR. If you really want another debate, where we can go round in circles again and again, make a new thread please. Thanks!

 

[Emyr]

So were you happy with the vast waste, inefficiencies and lack of innovation under British Rail?

Inefficiency by employing excess staff isn't that bad at a national scale.

Inefficiency by creaming off profits to people who already have plenty of money, probably not that healthy for the economy.

 

[EM2]

So were you happy with the vast waste, inefficiencies and lack of innovation under British Rail? Or are you pretending it was some kind of nirvana where everything worked just fine?

Inter-City and Network South-East were both profitable before privatisation. British Rail became one of the most efficient railway systems in Europe.
We had the fastest diesel services in the world (a record still held), more services that ran over 100mph than any other country, the first train with active tilt in the world (the technology of which was bought by the makers of the Pendolino).
Yeah, a real lack of innovation there...

 

[Yew]

I think the big question comes down to this, Sectorisation or Regionalisation? Do we go for Intercity, NSE RR etc, or geographical regions?

Personally, I would sectorise Intercity services off, and Long distance, but low speed services off (Liverpool-Norwich, crosscountry 170 runs etc). And a sector for all london commuter services, ala NSE.

Regional railways would be sectorised, but split by regions, probably roughly Midlands (taking the area covered by Central Trains, North West, East Coast, South Coast (taking those services in The south/norfolk that are not full of london commuters) and the west country (SWT/FGW's non intercity services)

There would be a rolling program of refurbishments, bringing dilapidated stock up to standard with mod-cons, and fresh interiors. The IEP would be paused, and three trains brought into squadron service, so that interior changes can be made to ensure a good passenger environment. The nationalised Rolling stock industry would then begin creating tilting EMU's/LHCS for the MML, designed with comfort and safety in mind. And a set of electro-diesel sprinter replacements, which could later be converted to pure EMU's upon electrification.

Regarding Liveries,

Intercity would be a stylised version of IC swallow/Executive
Long distance Regional services would be in a modified BR Blue
Regional services would take influence from their local 'big 4' member

 

[yorksrob]

I would also introduce a National network card of course. And develop a standard all purpose DMU to tide things over between the expiry of various 2nd gen DMU's and widespread electrification.

 

[HowardGWR]

snip
Personally, I would sectorise Intercity services off, and Long distance, but low speed services off (Liverpool-Norwich, crosscountry 170 runs etc).

Why should Liverpool to Norwich be slow speed? Why are people in London entitled to high speed but the rest of the country have to make do with low speed? Why is Bristol to London not 'cross country' but Manchester to Leeds a toddle-along service?

Edit -all the above are cities.

 

[w0033944]

Id leave the franchising and TOC structure as it is now because that leads to competition to run the franchises and actually get at the profits that are to be had running a franchise .

Eh? Offering a franchise is the best way of offering a franchise as it...offers a franchise? Or am I missing something? Surely competition is an inherent part of franchising anyway?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Regional railways would be sectorised, but split by regions, probably roughly Midlands (taking the area covered by Central Trains, North West, East Coast, South Coast (taking those services in The south/norfolk that are not full of london commuters) and the west country (SWT/FGW's non intercity services)

Norfolk included in South Coast rather than East Coast?:?

 

[Senex]

Why should Liverpool to Norwich be slow speed? Why are people in London entitled to high speed but the rest of the country have to make do with low speed? Why is Bristol to London not 'cross country' but Manchester to Leeds a toddle-along service?

Edit -all the above are cities.

Good question, which can be extended to quality. Why should Liverpool to Newcastle be inter-urban/outer-suburban rolling stock whilst Reading to Newcastle is inter-city stock. Likewise Manchester to Edinburgh as opposed to Birmingham to Edinburgh. Etc.

 

[Emyr]

I would also introduce a National network card of course. And develop a standard all purpose DMU to tide things over between the expiry of various 2nd gen DMU's and widespread electrification.

You could make that stopgap cheaper by basing it on an existing non-rail design.

 

[21C101]

Do you know, I wasn't aware of this. Did something similar happen in the other Nationalised industries?

I'm not sure what happened with private utiltities, coal and Steel companies, but in the case of most of the utlilities and the NHS, the answer is No. They were confiscated from their owners, the ratepayers of local councils up and down the land without a penny of compensation.

Local councils owned most of the water and much of the electricity and gas providers and also most of the health service. London County Council was the worlds biggest health provider (and UK hospital treatment was free at the point of use for those who couldn't afford it). This infrastructure had all been paid for out of the rates levied on local residents and businesses.

Labour basically confiscated it and transferred the infrastructure and land to the government creating unweildy leviathans which became more and more inefficient over the years and subject to constant political interference.

There were problems. Councils such as the LCC and Somerset did a pretty good job, others (eg Rutland) were far too small to do this properly. What was needed was reform of the utilities and health service through grouping the smaller councils in the same way as the railways were grouped.

That wasn't what happened though.

 

[yorksrob]

You could make that stopgap cheaper by basing it on an existing non-rail design.

Hmm. Where have I heard that before !

 

[21C101]

You say "for dogmatic reasons" but if what you say about an operating profit is correct, they were right that the nationalised railway would be more efficient and profitable.

Still, it confirms my belief that the case for privatisation was based entirely on lies that the railway was "deeply inefficient".

On day 1 the organisation would be far more efficient. Unfortunately nationalised companies tend to be far more weakly led and subject to constant interference. The result over time is that legions of non jobs are created and those in real jobs do less work and get paid more resulting in bloated inefficiency.

It was ironic that privatisation of BR came after several years of very little political interference during the Thatcher years. She set the subsidy for five years ahead, stuck to it, and appointed competent businessmen rather than political placemen to run it. The result was that huge amounts of inefficiency was stripped out, far more than in the 60's and a very lean and efficient railway, which was promptly privatised in the most inefficient way possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hmm. Where have I heard that before !

 

[yorksrob]

Labour basically confiscated it and transferred the infrastructure and land to the government creating unweildy leviathans which became more and more inefficient over the years and subject to constant political interference.

There were problems. Councils such as the LCC and Somerset did a pretty good job, others (eg Rutland) were far too small to do this properly. What was needed was reform of the utilities and health service through grouping the smaller councils in the same way as the railways were grouped.

Actually, for it's first few decades, BR kept a structure based on Regions that was remarkably similar to the Big 4 it replaced, rather than a "leviathan" . This became a lot more efficient when reorganised along business lines - afterall, a traveller on a four hour journey has fairly different needs from someone on their half hour commute.

As for political interference, might I remind you that we currently have a department in Whitehall dictating what evening fares in West Yorkshire should be and what trains should run on the Cumbrian Coast.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The so called "deeply inefficient" BR was far from inefficient in the best Sector days of the mid to late 1980's - plenty of proof of that. Subsidy was less than 100K a day for the whole lot. A public service - delivered by competent management (as BR was - and I add myself to that tally in freight and passenger roles in that time) could have continued to deliver an ever better service (albeit with some private cash coming in and protection for the deeply social services) - put it this way - you could get things done an awfully lot quicker then -

 

[21C101]

The so called "deeply inefficient" BR was far from inefficient in the best Sector days of the mid to late 1980's - plenty of proof of that. Subsidy was less than 100K a day for the whole lot. A public service - delivered by competent management (as BR was - and I add myself to that tally in freight and passenger roles in that time) could have continued to deliver an ever better service (albeit with some private cash coming in and protection for the deeply social services) - put it this way - you could get things done an awfully lot quicker then -

I know. I did say at the end of that post.

"It was ironic that privatisation of BR came after several years of very little political interference during the Thatcher years. She set the subsidy for five years ahead, stuck to it, and appointed competent businessmen rather than political placemen to run it. The result was that huge amounts of inefficiency was stripped out, far more than in the 60's and a very lean and efficient railway, which was promptly privatised in the most inefficient way possible."

 

[Bodiddly]

The so called "deeply inefficient" BR was far from inefficient in the best Sector days of the mid to late 1980's - plenty of proof of that. Subsidy was less than 100K a day for the whole lot. A public service - delivered by competent management (as BR was - and I add myself to that tally in freight and passenger roles in that time) could have continued to deliver an ever better service (albeit with some private cash coming in and protection for the deeply social services) - put it this way - you could get things done an awfully lot quicker then -

BR survived because of the staff, that I have no doubt about. In the end, the staff were pulling out daily miracles to have the service run. Thatchers government at the time was hell bent on privatisation but just missed out. The Tories then, quite unexpectedly, won another term. The writing was then on the wall for BR. After chronic under funding for years and years, we are lucky to still have a railway network.
Private companies did not cause a resurgence for the railways, that happened due to several things including a booming economy and chock o' block roads. All they have done is get very rich without actually doing much. Let's face it, if I had the funds and the go-ahead, I could lease a trainset and some on train staff, send it out each day to make money, bring it back in and service it for tomorrow. A very simplistic view I know, but this is actually what they do. Take the Sleeper contract. Serco won this with a tonne of fancy promises, but all they boil down to is an outsourcing of just about everything to other companies. Maintenance, hospitality, food & drink etc etc are all being farmed out to what they call 'our industry partners'. Serco take all the plaudits, but are in fact running the service with other sub contractors who are possibly paying a lot less to the staff than the going rate, although this of course, is pure speculation on my part.
This is business, pure and simple. Make money for everybody involved, especially the fat cats who broker the deals in the first place. The rich get richer and the Tories keep all their wealthy mates swelling the party funds to keep them in.
It absolutely stinks!