A lot of popular media seems to be giving privatised rail a real bashing, especially when it comes to the likes of Govia, Virgin, First etc etc. Has anyone else noticed a change in public opinion on a private railway?
If franchising had never happened, would we have had less variety of units (and coupling types, heights and orientations)?
Franchising can work well if done properly (see Chiltern). Short franchises however just end up turning into money-grabbing schemes for the holding company, as there's no sane economic reason to invest and improve the service.
Although the public do respect certain brands like Virgin, it's popular in public opinion to say "renationalise", especially for commuter railways where the customers have "no choice" but to use the train. However, given the way things are on GTR at the moment, I'd rather have a semi-private railway run by railwaymen and not civil servants who've never had a railway job...
NSE would have used the same as the others, just wired differently so no one could nick their stockErr... no.
In answer to the question posted by the title of this thread, my own personal response is that I am not tired of franchising.
The main things that are wrong (IMO) with the privatised Railway isn't franchising per se but rather the manner in which it has been, and is being, done. The significant issue I see is the resultant fragmentation with non-promotional* fares being increasingly restricted to certain routes and/or TOCs to ensure (what the TOCs see as) proper revenue allocation; and with situations where some ticket office refuses to attend to a ticket upgrade or similar for the sole reason the ticket was bought from another company. Similarly, the inability of one TOC to quickly deploy rolling stock that is idle yet belongs to another in order to satisfy some contingency issue is also symptomatic**.
An integrated yet franchised railway would see a single system with all aspect of fare and ticket issue, and of rolling stock (and so on) completely independent of the various operators. Each franchisee would supply the service on its specified routes, including operation of stations and network-wide ticket issue as appropriate, but only as part of an integrated whole; the same model (more or less) used by London buses.
(* I don't have a problem with Advance fares as these are intrinsically TOC specific (for the "main" element of the journey) nor with promotions such as ATW's Club 55 and Northern's £10 deals - as long as it's more than 100% clear in timetables and and on websites which actual trains one may use - and I make that point because it presently isn't always true.)
(** Example: A few years ago on a Sunday morning at Sheffield, a London-bound train failed at Derby depot prior to its empty stock run to Sheffield. Thus "they" had at least 30 minutes warning before the scheduled departure that this train would not operate. What happened was a bus was laid on to Derby. What would have happened in all probability in nationalised days - and should be the case now - is a spare DMU would have been fired up for the trip to Derby. Why this did not happen was because the spare DMUs belong to another TOC.)
Privatisation is a scam to divert taxpayers' money into the pockets of the Conservative Party's friends and donors, and they get away with it because too many people are willing to believe without question the narrative that tries to convince them that it's all done in their best interests.
I don't remember any of the Blair administrations being elected with a manifesto promise of renationalising the railways. :roll:
Corbyn has made such promises, but then he'll never be Prime Minister.
Privatisation is a scam to divert taxpayers' money into the pockets of the Conservative Party's friends and donors...
In answer to the question posted by the title of this thread, my own personal response is that I am not tired of franchising.
I don't remember any of the Blair administrations being elected with a manifesto promise of renationalising the railways. :roll: Corbyn has made such promises, but then he'll never be Prime Minister.
It must be great to be able to post such utter tripe with no worries about nasty things like facts. Please feel free to point to any donations made to the Conservative Party by any of the owning groups. The only large contributor I'm aware of is Brian Souter (in his personal capacity) to the SNP.
the inability of one TOC to quickly deploy rolling stock that is idle yet belongs to another in order to satisfy some contingency issue is also symptomatic**
(** Example: A few years ago on a Sunday morning at Sheffield, a London-bound train failed at Derby depot prior to its empty stock run to Sheffield. Thus "they" had at least 30 minutes warning before the scheduled departure that this train would not operate. What happened was a bus was laid on to Derby. What would have happened in all probability in nationalised days - and should be the case now - is a spare DMU would have been fired up for the trip to Derby. Why this did not happen was because the spare DMUs belong to another TOC.)
I don't remember any of the Blair administrations being elected with a manifesto promise of renationalising the railways. :roll: Corbyn has made such promises, but then he'll never be Prime Minister.
The 1997 Labour manifesto contained just such a promise.
Railways
The process of rail privatisation is now largely complete. It has made fortunes for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer. It has fragmented the network and now threatens services. Our task will be to improve the situation as we find it, not as we wish it to be. Our overriding goal must be to win more passengers and freight on to rail. The system must be run in the public interest with higher levels of investment and effective enforcement of train operators' service commitments. There must be convenient connections, through-ticketing and accurate travel information for the benefit of all passengers.
To achieve these aims, we will establish more effective and accountable regulation by the rail regulator; we will ensure that the public subsidy serves the public interest; and we will establish a new rail authority, combining functions currently carried out by the rail franchiser and the Department of Transport, to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the development of the railways so that passenger expectations are met.
The Conservative plan for the wholesale privatisation of London Underground is not the answer. It would be a poor deal for the taxpayer and passenger alike. Yet again, public assets would be sold off at an under-valued rate. Much-needed investment would be delayed. The core public responsibilities of the Underground would be threatened.
Labour plans a new public/private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers.
I think you've read that the wrong way round, to me it reads as money from the taxpayer/government to the companies, which wouldn't be without merit, rather than paying off the government.
Our current system is around 20 years old. Indeed there is a whole generation of rail users who have no memory of the nationalised BR, which may mean that they accept the current arrangements as the norm.