Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming to power

[DynamicSpirit]

Flying doesn't have as much fixed infrastructure to pay for. Therefore, as distance is further, the cost of rail infrastructure is greater, while the cost of air infrastructure diminishes.

Add to that that most aircraft fly at something like 500+ mph - whereas very few trains average more than 100mph. That means that you can transport people maybe 5 times the distance in the same time. Since most of your costs (staff, rents, leasing, etc.) depend mainly on how long you are using the infrastructure and vehicles for, not how far the vehicles travel in that time, that means that faster speeds equate to more efficient infrastructure use.

Another factor is airlines don't really have a turn-up-and-go operating model, and they aren't expected to run planes half-empty in order to meet social obligations to communities - so they can focus entirely on commercial routes, and if they don't fill up their planes, they can quickly stop operating.

Then of course there is the tax regime, which is highly favourable o airlines, allowing them to do huge damage to the environment without ever worrying about paying for most of that damage.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I didn't see anything in the Labour paper about funding cycles for rail.
The current 5-year Control Period cycle funds Network Rail for 2024-29, pretty much the length of the next parliament.
GBR will have to muddle through CP7 with that settlement and the existing TOC contracts and subsidies.
Then for CP8 (assuming the CP cycle stays) DfT can set funding across the wider estate.
Somewhere in there will be Labour's Comprehensive Spending Review, which will set budgets and expectations for the next parliament (where rail competes with defence, health, education etc).
In some ways the absence of Tory planning (eg chopping back HS2 and not implementing its own version of GBR) has done Labour and the railway a favour in clearing the decks for their new plan.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One thing that does amuse me about Labour's plans... Usually whenever discussions come up about Labour making policy, someone raises a concern that Labour shouldn't produce very detailed policies because the Tories will nick them. Yet here, we have a very detailed policy - and in one key aspect - the plan to set up the Great British Railways body to oversee the railways, it appears to be nicking the Government's proposals!

(That's not a criticism btw - I think it's fine when parties are willing to adopt good ideas that other parties come up with, rather than insisting on doing something different just because it's different)

Overall, Labour's plans seem a bit unambitious to me, but it's good that they have been thought through in such detail. And perhaps, in the present circumstances, unambitious but achievable is better than overpromising.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair, there's probably a fair bit they could do with how the treasury/DfT operate that could make a difference.

 

[SuperNova]

One thing that does amuse me about Labour's plans... Usually whenever discussions come up about Labour making policy, someone raises a concern that Labour shouldn't produce very detailed policies because the Tories will nick them. Yet here, we have a very detailed policy - and in one key aspect - the plan to set up the Great British Railways body to oversee the railways, it appears to be nicking the Government's proposals!

(That's not a criticism btw - I think it's fine when parties are willing to adopt good ideas that other parties come up with, rather than insisting on doing something different just because it's different)

Overall, Labour's plans seem a bit unambitious to me, but it's good that they have been thought through in such detail. And perhaps, in the present circumstances, unambitious but achievable is better than overpromising.

Worth remembering that when GBR was announced, Labour sources said that was their policy which had been stolen… difference is that this government have had years to implement it and chosen not to.

 

[43066]

To be fair, there's probably a fair bit they could do with how the treasury/DfT operate that could make a difference.

Indeed. Christian Woolmer made the point on Newsnight the other day that simply adopting a different approach would be beneficial.

In particular resolving the industrial dispute by decoupling Ts and Cs from a modest pay rise would be a quick and easy win to improve morale within the industry. He made the comment “rail is a people business, bring the people with you and services will improve”, which I thought summed things up very well!

 

[norbitonflyer]

The press reports say that the franchises are all up for renewal (or break clauses) by 2029, but I can't see any due in that year.
According to Wikipedia, those not already run by DOR or the devolved governments are:
GTR (1/4/25 - break clause)
GWR (21/6/25- break clause)
SWR (28/5/25)
C2C (20/7/25)
WMT (20/9/26)
Anglia (20/9/26)
EMR (16/10/26 - break clause)
Avanti (18/10/26)
Cross Country (15/10/27)
Chiltern (12/12/27)


So it looks like GWR, who ran the first privatised service (even if it was a rail-replacement bus!) may well run the last one (possibly the Night Riviera on Sunday 25th June '28?)

Concessions:
Elizabeth Line (July 2025)
London Overground (13/5/2026)
Merseyrail (19/7/28)

Already in public ownership:
Caledonian, LNER, Northern, Scotrail, South eastern, Transpennine, TfW

EDIT: GTR and GWR break clauses added and clarification of concessions

 

[Sealink]

Didn't the last Labour government promise nationalisation?

 

[irish_rail]

The press reports say that the franchises are all up for renewal (or break clauses) by 2029, but I can't see any due in that year.
According to Wikipedia, those not already run by DOR or the devolved governments are:
SWR (28/5/25)
C2C (20/7/25)
WMT (20/9/26)
Anglia (20/9/26)
EMR (16/10/26 - break clause)
Avanti (18/10/26)
Cross Country (15/10/27)
Chiltern (12/12/27)
GTR (1/4/28)
GWR (25/6/28)

So it looks like GWR, who ran the first privatised service (even if it was a rail-replacement bus!) may well run the last one (possibly the Night Riviera on Sunday 25th June '28?)

Already in public ownership are:
Caledonian, Elizabeth Line, LNER, London Overground, Merseyrail, Northern, Scotrail, South eastern, Transpennine, TfW

Is there anything stopping the current Gov kyboshing the whole thing by merely handing out franchise extensions for another 4 years or so? Surely that would then be game over for the plan?
On another note, bit gutted us at GWR will be the longest wait to get nationalised. Hopefully Labour can persuade the owning groups to consider handing back the keys earlier?

 

[43066]

Didn't the last Labour government promise nationalisation?

I don’t believe it was ever promised by the 1997-2010 Labour government, no.

This time around Louise Haigh has said it will be in the Labour Manifesto, with legislation in the first King’s speech, so it’s very much being positioned as a flagship policy. That makes sense as it’s popular with voters, including many natural Tory voters.

 

[physics34]

The press reports say that the franchises are all up for renewal (or break clauses) by 2029, but I can't see any due in that year.
According to Wikipedia, those not already run by DOR or the devolved governments are:
SWR (28/5/25)
C2C (20/7/25)
WMT (20/9/26)
Anglia (20/9/26)
EMR (16/10/26 - break clause)
Avanti (18/10/26)
Cross Country (15/10/27)
Chiltern (12/12/27)
GTR (1/4/28)
GWR (25/6/28)

So it looks like GWR, who ran the first privatised service (even if it was a rail-replacement bus!) may well run the last one (possibly the Night Riviera on Sunday 25th June '28?)

Already in public ownership are:
Caledonian, Elizabeth Line, LNER, London Overground, Merseyrail, Northern, Scotrail, South eastern, Transpennine, TfW

GTR is actually 1/4/25 with up to 3 years extension on DfTs discretion.... wonder if GWR is the same.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. Christian Woolmer made the point on Newsnight the other day that simply adopting a different approach would be beneficial.

In particular resolving the industrial dispute by decoupling Ts and Cs from a modest pay rise would be a quick and easy win to improve morale within the industry. He made the comment “rail is a people business, bring the people with you and services will improve”, which I thought summed things up very well!

Indeed. Allowing the industry to grow and re-invest revenue would be another.

 

[HSTEd]

Indeed. Christian Woolmer made the point on Newsnight the other day that simply adopting a different approach would be beneficial.

In particular resolving the industrial dispute by decoupling Ts and Cs from a modest pay rise would be a quick and easy win to improve morale within the industry. He made the comment “rail is a people business, bring the people with you and services will improve”, which I thought summed things up very well!

Ofcourse, by doing that the government would essentially be conceding that T&C would remain unchanged forever. (EDIT: Or at least for the foreseeable future)

That is a potentially very expensive decision to make in the medium to long term.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The press reports say that the franchises are all up for renewal (or break clauses) by 2029, but I can't see any due in that year.
According to Wikipedia, those not already run by DOR or the devolved governments are:
SWR (28/5/25)
C2C (20/7/25)
WMT (20/9/26)
Anglia (20/9/26)
EMR (16/10/26 - break clause)
Avanti (18/10/26)
Cross Country (15/10/27)
Chiltern (12/12/27)
GTR (1/4/28)
GWR (25/6/28)

So it looks like GWR, who ran the first privatised service (even if it was a rail-replacement bus!) may well run the last one (possibly the Night Riviera on Sunday 25th June '28?)

Already in public ownership are:
Caledonian, Elizabeth Line, LNER, London Overground, Merseyrail, Northern, Scotrail, South eastern, Transpennine, TfW

The Merseyrail concession expires on 19 July 2028, so a few weeks later than any of the DfT-run contracts.
Apart from the concession, Merseytravel also expects to take over most of the infrastructure from Network Rail, already agreed in principle with DfT.
Like the LO and Elizabeth Line concessions, Merseyrail (Serco/Transport UK) is not (yet) in public ownership.
LO (Arriva) expires in May 2026.
EL (MTR) expires in 2025, and TfL has started the competitive bidding process for a new concession.
An incoming Labour government might choose to do deals with the existing private operators to leave early, but it might be costly.
TfL has a dilemma with EL - it may have to continue the bidding process until the new GBR is established, or possibly extend the MTR contract by a couple of years to bridge into the new regime (if the Tory DfT allows).

The concession operators will probably have more to grumble about than the DfT TOC owners.
They haven't done much wrong in their bailliwicks, and yet face the exit.

Time will tell if a Labour DfT has the ability to get GBR set up to take over more private TOCs by the due expiry dates - some extensions may be needed if not.
As an example, the EMR National Rail Contract is 527 pages long.
A new GBR-compliant contract, with a much wider scope, can't take shape before the election, so will Labour have the capability to take SWR into GBR by May 2025? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Goldfish62]

Is there anything stopping the current Gov kyboshing the whole thing by merely handing out franchise extensions for another 4 years or so? Surely that would then be game over for the plan?

Given that they usually wait until a few weeks before contracts expire before making a new direct award that would be instantly seen through by even the most blinkered voters as pure vandalism.

 

[Richardr]

Is there anything stopping the current Gov kyboshing the whole thing by merely handing out franchise extensions for another 4 years or so? Surely that would then be game over for the plan?

How many votes do you think they will gain by doing that? Unlike most things, it will be immediately reported on and noticed by voters.

 

[yorksrob]

How many votes do you think they will gain by doing that? Unlike most things, it will be immediately reported on and noticed by voters.

To be fair, they have form, in the sale of Railtrack.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That's not a criticism btw - I think it's fine when parties are willing to adopt good ideas that other parties come up with, rather than insisting on doing something different just because it's different.

Exactly. No party has the monopoly on good ideas.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly. No party has the monopoly on good ideas.

Although if another party steals and implements your idea, it may help them stay in power to implement all of their bad ideas.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Worth remembering that when GBR was announced, Labour sources said that was their policy which had been stolen… difference is that this government have had years to implement it and chosen not to.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don’t believe it was ever promised by the 1997-2010 Labour government, no.

Labour did effectively nationalise Railtrack into Network Rail in 2002, though it took until 2014 to be fully recognised as a DfT-financed body.
The change was forced on Labour because of the insolvency of Railtrack (ie it was not their policy intention).
Labour also imposed direct DfT micro-management of the TOCs when it abolished the arms-length SRA in 2006.
That was because the regulator forced extra funding out of the Treasury for NR, against DfT policy.
The Tories have used the same DfT model, with a few tweaks, since 2010.

 

[Energy]

Labour also imposed direct DfT micro-management of the TOCs when it abolished the arms-length SRA in 2006.

The SRA was somewhat micromanagerial (though not to the same level as the current DfT) and not particularly strategic. Cutting the class 185 order from 56 to 51 units comes to mind...

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The SRA was somewhat micromanagerial (though not to the same level as the current DfT) and not particularly strategic. Cutting the class 185 order from 56 to 51 units comes to mind...

Cut by one of the ‘industry experts’ mentioned earlier in the thread, the late SK Baker…

 

[AdamWW]

Time will tell if a Labour DfT has the ability to get GBR set up to take over more private TOCs by the due expiry dates - some extensions may be needed if not.
As an example, the EMR National Rail Contract is 527 pages long.
A new GBR-compliant contract, with a much wider scope, can't take shape before the election, so will Labour have the capability to take SWR into GBR by May 2025? Maybe, maybe not.

Would GBR need to write a huge contract between different bits of itself?

 

[HSTEd]

Would GBR need to write a huge contract between different bits of itself?

In large part yes.
Because this plan proposes that freight operators and open access will remain in private hands, the entire apparatus of the existing railway must be retained.

Very little will change.

 

[Energy]

Cut by one of the ‘industry experts’ mentioned earlier in the thread, the late SK Baker…

If I remember correctly, the same person behind the (not implemented) GWR IEP timetable and the overallocatioj of 5 car units?

In large part yes.
Because this plan proposes that freight operators and open access will remain in private hands, the entire apparatus of the existing railway must be retained.

Very little will change.

The aspiration is that it will be more vertically integrated but it will still need to provide paths were identified for freight and open access.

I presume the ORR replacement/Passenger body Labour are proposing would set the targets for GBR and would likely decide executives pay/bonuses.

 

[minimann]

The press reports say that the franchises are all up for renewal (or break clauses) by 2029, but I can't see any due in that year.
According to Wikipedia, those not already run by DOR or the devolved governments are:
GTR (1/4/25 - break clause)
SWR (28/5/25)
C2C (20/7/25)
WMT (20/9/26)
Anglia (20/9/26)
EMR (16/10/26 - break clause)
Avanti (18/10/26)
Cross Country (15/10/27)
Chiltern (12/12/27)
GWR (25/6/28)



Concessions:
Elizabeth Line (July 2025)
London Overground (13/5/2026)
Merseyrail (19/7/28)

Interestingly there appears to be some disconnect between the Mayor of London and Labour nationally on the proposals. In an article today South Eastern and Great Northern are again talked about as the first ones he would like to come under London Overground control, however, SWR and Southern Metro/Sutton Loop and indeed the two concession contracts provide an earlier opportunity. Is this likely due to work being more advanced on these two routes or is there more to it than meets the eye? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...ins-southeastern-great-northern-b1153978.html

 

[AdamWW]

In large part yes.
Because this plan proposes that freight operators and open access will remain in private hands, the entire apparatus of the existing railway must be retained.

Very little will change.

OK that puzzles me.

I appreciate that suitable accounting is needed along with some process for fairly allocating paths, but why do we still have to have multiple TOCs with one bit of the same organisation writing complex contracts to dictate what services other bits of it have to provide?

What am I missing?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Would GBR need to write a huge contract between different bits of itself?

It might not need 17 variations of the contract, but for sure the operating TOUs (TOU was the term BR used before the units were turned into TOCs) will need their delivery and performance managing.
It all depends how GBR sets up its Regions/Sectors or whatever, and how it relates to the NR structure.
But every piece will need its resources and outputs specified, including rolling stock and traincrew.
It will not be a blank sheet of paper, for sure.
BR never published its internal management processes (something else we have to thank privatisation for), but I'm sure they existed.
Somehow it will also have to be mapped onto NR's CP7 settlement and individual route plans.
It also has to reflect the fact that private TOCs with their own access contracts still exist.
Even the DOLR TOCs have voluminous contracts with almost as much detail as the private TOCs, just without the financial penalties.

 

[HSTEd]

OK that puzzles me.

I appreciate that suitable accounting is needed along with some process for fairly allocating paths, but why do we still have to have multiple TOCs with one bit of the same organisation writing complex contracts to dictate what services other bits of it have to provide?

What am I missing?

Open Access Operators and Freight Operators existing means that a level playing field will need to be created, so that the OAO et al cannot sue over unfair practices or whatnot.

For example, the entire apparatus associated with track access and revenue distribution, as well as the legal portions of the delay attribution apparatus will have to be retained.