Labour's Plan for Rail

[LNW-GW Joint]

Louise Haigh, shadow transport secretary, said this in a speech on the fringe of the Labour party conference today (from the Independent):

MSN

Ms Haigh said: “There is no point offering infrastructure announcements of investment unless we radically reform railways as well, because for too long decisions around investment and infrastructure have been made completely divorced from the reality of the way railways are run.
“I am here to confirm today that the next Labour government will radically overhaul our rail system and we will outline the detailed vision for that in the coming days, weeks and months.
“We are working in lockstep with unions, mayors and with local leaders and industry.
That means bringing our railways back into public ownership, where they have always belonged.”

The shadow transport secretary said Labour would deliver a “simplified, unified rail network with passengers at the heart”.
She added: “Achieving an affordable, accessible, integrated passenger focus will require a single, accountable, organising brain to break down barriers that have created cost and complexity.”

Labour's plan is clearly not yet detailed enough to publish, but it's "coming" - possibly in time for their election manifesto, but maybe not even then.
We get the oft-repeated but never clarified policy to "bring the railways back into public ownership", as if they weren't already.
Is the vision any different from the Tories' GBR (which looks like a dead duck now)?
How will it work in Wales and Scotland?
What about freight, open access and rolling stock? Not to mention HS2.

What is an organising brain that is any different from the DfT's current micro-management of the industry?
Do they actually have any more of a clue than the Tories?
What does "working in lockstep with unions, mayors and local leaders" mean? No DOO etc... (sorry, must wipe mouth out )?.

I don't see any vision here, beyond Labour keeping its supporters happy until real decisions about railway organisation and funding have to be made, post election.

 

[NoOldEngine]

Louise Haigh, shadow transport secretary, said this in a speech on the fringe of the Labour party conference today (from the Independent):

MSN

Labour's plan is clearly not yet detailed enough to publish, but it's "coming" - possibly in time for their election manifesto, but maybe not even then.
We get the oft-repeated but never clarified policy to "bring the railways back into public ownership", as if they weren't already.
Is the vision any different from the Tories' GBR (which looks like a dead duck now)?
How will it work in Wales and Scotland?
What about freight, open access and rolling stock? Not to mention HS2.

What is an organising brain that is any different from the DfT's current micro-management of the industry?
Do they actually have any more of a clue than the Tories?
What does "working in lockstep with unions, mayors and local leaders" mean? No DOO etc... (sorry, must wipe mouth out )?.

I don't see any vision here, beyond Labour keeping its supporters happy until real decisions about railway organisation and funding have to be made, post election.

Probably do whatever the civil servants have already planned. So if the plan is to do very little other than continue as present, then you can guess the Labour will do exactly that. Politicians are not known for having ideas.

 

[Mzzzs]

Dont trust anything a politician says until you see it and most likely we won't

 

[yorksrob]

I like the use of the phrase "affordable, accessible" which I take to mean aspiring to be affordable to passengers. A simple national railcard would be a good step towards this.

Considering how much effort the current administration puts into ensuring that the railways continue to be overpriced, it wouldn't be difficult for an opposition party to come up with something eye-catching and effective.

 

[JamesT]

I like the use of the phrase "affordable, accessible" which I take to mean aspiring to be affordable to passengers. A simple national railcard would be a good step towards this.

Considering how much effort the current administration puts into ensuring that the railways continue to be overpriced, it wouldn't be difficult for an opposition party to come up with something eye-catching and effective.

I think given how much Labour have been attacking the current government's profligacy, affordable to the Treasury is far more likely than cutting fares.

 

[yorksrob]

I think given how much Labour have been attacking the current government's profligacy, affordable to the Treasury is far more likely than cutting fares.

I'm not sure, given such a word wouldn't normally appear next to "accessible" in relation to the treasury.

Labour wouldn't even need to resort to the huge giveaway schemes as seen on the continent to put clear, red water between themselves and the current fiasco.

 

[alistairlees]

This is a good speech as people / organisations with entirely different goals can each interpret it as meaning that their aspirations will be met:

Affordable > Yorksrob > lower fares
Affordable > treasury > less subsidy

You can apply the same for ‘accessible’ or ‘organising brain’.

We will have to wait for more detail.

 

[12LDA28C]

I like the use of the phrase "affordable, accessible" which I take to mean aspiring to be affordable to passengers. A simple national railcard would be a good step towards this.

How would such a railcard work and who would be eligible for one? If it's everyone, then surely it's pointless and it would be better to simply reduce fares.

We get the oft-repeated but never clarified policy to "bring the railways back into public ownership", as if they weren't already.

And how would that be done? Are Labour prepared to provide the funds to purchase all rolling stock from the ROSCOs outright? I very much doubt it.

 

[farci]

'...How will it work in Wales and Scotland?'
Scotrail renationalised on 1 April 2022

 

[Sonik]

And how would that be done? Are Labour prepared to provide the funds to purchase all rolling stock from the ROSCOs outright? I very much doubt it.

It's worth noting that Rachel Reeves is proposing to introduce a new definition of government debt, to be offset against the value of publicly owned assets.

This allows government to borrow without nominally increasing debt to GDP etc. and it's a step change from the Brown era policy of minimizing national debt by moving everything off-balance sheet via private sector (e.g. PFI, ROSCOs)

So I wound't rule anything out. It would certainly be much cheaper overall for government to finance & own stock directly, vs ROSCOs at commercial loan rates.

 

[Thirteen]

I’m sure Labour will be better for the railways although I wonder if we will see TfL get annual funding even if there is a change of mayor

 

[Farigiraf]

'...How will it work in Wales and Scotland?'
Scotrail renationalised on 1 April 2022

So did TFW
link

 

[yorksrob]

How would such a railcard work and who would be eligible for one? If it's everyone, then surely it's pointless and it would be better to simply reduce fares.

Well, you could do that - and that's effectively what many of our Continental neighbours have done. However in doing that you lose:

- The marketing benefit of passengers getting the most out of their sunk cost - bought the thing, might as well use it.

- The revenue from all of those railcards, which in itself could be substantial.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

'...How will it work in Wales and Scotland?'
Scotrail renationalised on 1 April 2022

I'd say that's only a partial solution.
The main cross-border lines are in the hands of DfT TOCs and private freight companies.
The Transport Scotland solution is divergent from the DfT one (fares policy etc).
It's a different "organising brain".
Same-ish in Wales.

Labour has to cater for devolution which BR never had.

 

[urbophile]

'simplified, unified' is good. But as with everything else, how radical is Labour really going to be? I have me doubts.

 

[Thirteen]

I wonder if Labour will end up giving certain lines to TfL to manage? I know it was mulled years ago but denied by the DfT

 

[stj]

They had the chance in 1997 to stop privatisation.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Labour's problem is that it knows radical surgery is needed, but hasn't got access to the books to know how bad things really are.
Up till 2019, the railway was essentially a going concern, through fraying at some of the edges.
The collapse in revenue since Covid left the system in a helpless state financially, and I don't know if either main party knows what to do with it.
And now HS2 has driven a coach and horses through what was a long-term strategy on which other plans could be built.
Labour's vague policy seems much the same as in 2019, and will need more than a facelift to deal with the problems.
You can be sure "unions and mayors" won't have the answers.

 

[75A]

Should the words Labour and plan for even be in the same sentance?

 

[Sonik]

You can be sure "unions and mayors" won't have the answers.

Well to be fair TfL has transformed the Overground, and Merseyrail is the best performing TOC in the country.

So it's arguable that devolution does work for regional transport

 

[Bald Rick]

Worth remembering that “GBR” was essentially a Labour policy that the conservatives ’borrowed’; putting 2 and 2 together….

 

[zwk500]

They had the chance in 1997 to stop privatisation.

Railtrack was founded in 1994 and floated on the Stock exchange in 1996 so it wouldn't have been 'stopping' anything in 1997.

 

[yorksrob]

Labour's problem is that it knows radical surgery is needed, but hasn't got access to the books to know how bad things really are.
Up till 2019, the railway was essentially a going concern, through fraying at some of the edges.
The collapse in revenue since Covid left the system in a helpless state financially, and I don't know if either main party knows what to do with it.
And now HS2 has driven a coach and horses through what was a long-term strategy on which other plans could be built.
Labour's vague policy seems much the same as in 2019, and will need more than a facelift to deal with the problems.
You can be sure "unions and mayors" won't have the answers.

Well, the first thing they'll need to do is get the service running reliably and then build the business back.

It shouldn't be radical but compared to what's going on now it would be.

 

[Merle Haggard]

They had the chance in 1997 to stop privatisation.

Indeed and, even in opposition before that, they could have made it clear to would-be participants that it wouldn't end well for them. They carried on privatising after 1997.
Remember, too, that Labour promised to 'reverse Beeching cuts' if they got in power in 1964. They did, and far from reversing them, they closed lines Beeching thought should stay.
But the difference between 1964 (and possibly 1997) and now is that then Labour were very well financially supported by the T&G union, and it takes quite a few lorry drivers to replace one freight train... Maybe in the new world of possibly non-unionised 'logistics' companies things are different, though one of the major rail unions isn't aligned with the Labour party either.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Are Labour seriously proposing to bring the rail freight industry "back into public ownership where it belongs" while leaving a free-for-all in the private road freight industry? Renationalising rail freight would give existing customers no choice in which operator to select and no competition in rates and standards of service. It would only be fair if the entire UK road haulage industry were to be privatised and Labour wouldn't want to take that on. It is I believe disingenuous to suggest that all the work of GBRf, DRS, Colas, Freightliner and DB Cargo might be thrown away for the sake of political dogma.

 

[Deepgreen]

Sadly, the gist of Labour's concept - to bring back a national network without TOCs, etc., has been made almost impossible to achieve by the Tories' 'scorched earth' policies approach (it's just too expensive to buy everything back) - just like their HS2 pruning and deliberate lack of safeguarding will make it all-but-impossible to reverse.

 

[Sonik]

Are Labour seriously proposing to bring the rail freight industry "back into public ownership where it belongs" while leaving a free-for-all in the private road freight industry? Renationalising rail freight would give existing customers no choice in which operator to select and no competition in rates and standards of service. It would only be fair if the entire UK road haulage industry were to be privatised and Labour wouldn't want to take that on. It is I believe disingenuous to suggest that all the work of GBRf, DRS, Colas, Freightliner and DB Cargo might be thrown away for the sake of political dogma.

I doubt they would, there is no political incentive - freight trains don't carry voters. And it's arguable that the FOCs are the one bit of privatization that worked.

It should be perfectly possible for FOCs and OA to continue to exist on an otherwise publicly operated railway. NR and quite a few TOCs are effectively nationalized already.

 

[NoOldEngine]

Are Labour seriously proposing to bring the rail freight industry "back into public ownership where it belongs" while leaving a free-for-all in the private road freight industry? Renationalising rail freight would give existing customers no choice in which operator to select and no competition in rates and standards of service. It would only be fair if the entire UK road haulage industry were to be privatised and Labour wouldn't want to take that on. It is I believe disingenuous to suggest that all the work of GBRf, DRS, Colas, Freightliner and DB Cargo might be thrown away for the sake of political dogma.

The labour party statement is just political nonsense considering the infrastructure itself is owned by Network Rail which has been state owned since October 2002. Majority of the TOC's are state owned now. Only one freight operator is state owned and that is DRS. Majority of the rolling stock and locomotives is in private hands and leased to the freight companies. So all labour is doing is saying 'I promise to buy the rolling stock and locos'.

 

[Bayum]

Labour's problem is that it knows radical surgery is needed, but hasn't got access to the books to know how bad things really are.
Up till 2019, the railway was essentially a going concern, through fraying at some of the edges.
The collapse in revenue since Covid left the system in a helpless state financially, and I don't know if either main party knows what to do with it.
And now HS2 has driven a coach and horses through what was a long-term strategy on which other plans could be built.
Labour's vague policy seems much the same as in 2019, and will need more than a facelift to deal with the problems.
You can be sure "unions and mayors" won't have the answers.

This. How can they say they’ll reinstate HS2 when they don’t know the state of the finances which C, sorry, Hunt, says are as bad as they are? By the time Labour get in, Rishi will have salted the soil and permanently halt any plans for HS2.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm fairly agnostic about who owns the railways these days (whilst maintaining that the original privatisation was the wrong policy at the time).

There need to be real changes in how the railway is run around fares and rolling stock etc. The current edifice seems to have too many barriers to the sort of genuine improvements needed.