-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Nationalisation and privatisation
- Thread starter kkid
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
starrymarkb
Established Member
Don't you mean Nationalised?
Personally I'd rather have something like the Dutch and German model. Intercity work is unsubsidised and open access while regional work is done under contract to the region. If say Berlin is not happy with DB they can put a route out to tender* for private operators to run on a 'cost +n%' basis (fares go to the region and quality is done similarly to Transport Scotland and First Scotrail with fines for poor standards)
*As they are currently doing as the city is not happy with DB's running of the S-Bahn at all!
Personally I'd rather have something like the Dutch and German model. Intercity work is unsubsidised and open access while regional work is done under contract to the region. If say Berlin is not happy with DB they can put a route out to tender* for private operators to run on a 'cost +n%' basis (fares go to the region and quality is done similarly to Transport Scotland and First Scotrail with fines for poor standards)
*As they are currently doing as the city is not happy with DB's running of the S-Bahn at all!
haha yeah. Sorry :P
I believe there are already quite a few threads along these lines (sic) already!
I will say that my personal opinion is to adopt something akin to the TfL model, similar I suppose to that mentioned by starrymarkb above.
Let private operators run things but more 'behind the scenes' so we get a national network more akin to BR in the way it looks. That would mean losing the competition as we have it today, but you could still offer discounts for using slower trains/routes and pay a premium for faster Intercity services.
I will say that my personal opinion is to adopt something akin to the TfL model, similar I suppose to that mentioned by starrymarkb above.
Let private operators run things but more 'behind the scenes' so we get a national network more akin to BR in the way it looks. That would mean losing the competition as we have it today, but you could still offer discounts for using slower trains/routes and pay a premium for faster Intercity services.
Can I suggest that you search previous threads in future? You've started a lot of threads about things that we've discussed at length. The site has a search feature, and you can also use Google to search the site by searching for site:www.railforums.co.uk followed by what you're searching for. Here is a sample search query.
As it happens, I believe that the customers contact should be with a nationalised entity, but don't care if the running of various services is done by contractors (similar to what jonmorris0844 said).
As it happens, I believe that the customers contact should be with a nationalised entity, but don't care if the running of various services is done by contractors (similar to what jonmorris0844 said).
Last edited:
All those threads are locked as they are old. In theory nationalisation would be great, in practice it really would not work. TOCs struggle to harmonise conditions between depots let alone trying to harmonise them nationally. Plus people seem to think that nationalisation would mean all money goes back into the system for improvements but it simply wouldn't. Money would be siphoned off to fund other govt departments just like hardly any road tax money actually goes into maintaining the roads. The grass is always greener on the other side.
PermitToTravel
Established Member
I'm pretty sure that paying customers (yup, the c word) would prefer this to the money being siphoned off to pay TOC shareholders!
Furthermore, renationalisation would end examples of blatant profiteering, such as advances 10p cheaper than walk up tickets, to facilitate automatic selection by journey planners, unprotected singles rising to 10p less than the cost of protected returns, or Southeastern slowing down classic services to encourage people to pay the premium to use HS1!
Last edited:
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
In recent years the TOCs have been posting combined profits in the region of £400m, and lets not ignore how much could be saved with fewer people in upper management.
Morden Via CHX
Member
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 177
Groundhog day anyone?
Such as?
Let's say we take out the £400m as mentioned above for TOC profits. What savings come next?
gordonthemoron
Established Member
I thought ROSCOs were the primary culprit?
Don't bet on it! I'm not anti nationalisation but its just people seem to think that the same money that goes to the shareholders currently (about 3%) would go back into the system for improvements but I it really wouldn't. The amount of investment you get in the railways currently is far far higher than you will get or did get under a nationalised system. Franchises can be held to account to what they promised and can lose it if they don't fulfill it. Nationalisation is great in theory but not really in practice.
Here are a few
The cost of insurance - Network Rail and all the TOC's all insure in the Market, BR used to self insure,
Rosco's - Each has to make at least 7-8% return on capital otherwise the banks would not bother.
Costs of Franchising - have a look at what the bidders spent on the west coast franchise spent and then multiply that by the number of franchises.
Delays - For each delay it is worked out who caused the delay and one party claims from another, this process takes staff time to administer and is therefore a cost in the system.
Staff Costs - It costs money to train drivers, therefore some TOC's ( usually towards the end of their franchise ) don't train enough drivers, the new franchise holder will suddenly be short of staff and have to offer higher wages to recruit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The amount of investment you get in the railways currently is far far higher than you will get or did get under a nationalised system.
That is because the government are putting in more money.
Franchises can be held to account to what they promised and can lose it if they don't fulfill it.
This is a fallacy - See the money National Express took out of the Anglia franchise.
Surely the TOCs spend that money on franchise bids and then get it back from that £400m they make (I am only quoting the above figure, not actually basing that on any exact data)? So money perhaps wasted, but not money that would be saved if you see what I mean - it's already accounted for in that above profit figure.
Rosco's - yes. However, I suspect that any Government today would seek some private investment in rolling stock and we'd still see someone else needing to make a profit. I am not sure the Government would buy it direct?
Delays - the delay attribution setup does seem to be a mess. But doesn't the EU still require infrastructure and operations to be kept separate? So wouldn't that still continue, if only to balance budgets, even if they were managed separately?
Staff costs - maybe there's something there. Good luck when the Government tries to take on the unions though!
I would say that in the very first instance, the Government would seek to make savings purely to make savings, not to cut costs and then use the money better somewhere else. Well, unless somewhere else equals using it to fund other budgets, like the NHS, welfare etc.
Rosco's - yes. However, I suspect that any Government today would seek some private investment in rolling stock and we'd still see someone else needing to make a profit. I am not sure the Government would buy it direct?
Delays - the delay attribution setup does seem to be a mess. But doesn't the EU still require infrastructure and operations to be kept separate? So wouldn't that still continue, if only to balance budgets, even if they were managed separately?
Staff costs - maybe there's something there. Good luck when the Government tries to take on the unions though!
I would say that in the very first instance, the Government would seek to make savings purely to make savings, not to cut costs and then use the money better somewhere else. Well, unless somewhere else equals using it to fund other budgets, like the NHS, welfare etc.
So passengers would lose the cheaper fares on fast routes that exist from competition. In what way would the passenger gain from that?
There's no reason you couldn't continue to have advance tickets on Intercity services.
Yes, you'd lose some of the TOC specific tickets that give some people discounts, where they're fortunate enough to use stations where there are multiple TOCs. There are a lot of people that only have the one operator and no such luxuries.
But if you look at TfL pricing in London, I expect we'd actually be better off most of the time anyway.
One day there's going to be massive change to ticketing, whether we like it or not. I have no idea when, but we won't be using paper tickets forever.
Yes, you'd lose some of the TOC specific tickets that give some people discounts, where they're fortunate enough to use stations where there are multiple TOCs. There are a lot of people that only have the one operator and no such luxuries.
But if you look at TfL pricing in London, I expect we'd actually be better off most of the time anyway.
One day there's going to be massive change to ticketing, whether we like it or not. I have no idea when, but we won't be using paper tickets forever.
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,753
The amount of infrastructure investment since privatisation looks impressive, though I wonder how many people realise that it's largely being funded by borrowing. Network Rail currently has debts of around £28 billion. British Rail wasn't allowed to have any debt, though the government could have changed that had they wanted to.
Much of what's happened on the railways since privatisation gives an illusion of success - a high level of investment and increased passenger numbers - but when you actually look into it, you soon realise that British Rail could have performed equally well, but at considerably reduced cost to both taxpayers and passengers. Sooner or later, the government is going to have to admit they got it badly wrong.
You're confusing two different things. TfL prices are to do with the amount of subsidy they offer, not the number of operators on a line.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
We don't live in a nationalised world except for defence, health, education and local government (and even there services are increasingly being outsourced).
Transport has moved decisively out of the public sector.
The government owns no ships, aircraft, coaches or trucks (or ports or airports), so why should it own railways?
No government is going to employ huge armies of staff to run trains again.
It still wants to control the strategy however, largely because of the huge public funds going into rail.
Most of the comments so far are about passenger services.
Don't forget freight is completely privatised, and they wouldn't want to go back to a government-owned structure.
Added to which most other countries are busy privatising their railways, to a greater or lesser degree.
Do any of British Gas/Airways/Steel/Electricity/Water etc want to be renationalised? No. Not even their unions.
I'm not pretending all is well with the current structure, but re-nationalisation is not the answer. The world has moved on.
In my view a setup with fewer interfaces and higher integration would be better, but that is easier said than implemented.
Transport has moved decisively out of the public sector.
The government owns no ships, aircraft, coaches or trucks (or ports or airports), so why should it own railways?
No government is going to employ huge armies of staff to run trains again.
It still wants to control the strategy however, largely because of the huge public funds going into rail.
Most of the comments so far are about passenger services.
Don't forget freight is completely privatised, and they wouldn't want to go back to a government-owned structure.
Added to which most other countries are busy privatising their railways, to a greater or lesser degree.
Do any of British Gas/Airways/Steel/Electricity/Water etc want to be renationalised? No. Not even their unions.
I'm not pretending all is well with the current structure, but re-nationalisation is not the answer. The world has moved on.
In my view a setup with fewer interfaces and higher integration would be better, but that is easier said than implemented.
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,753
Meaningless waffle.
Because all evidence shows that the railways were run far more efficiently in the public sector than they are now in the private sector. It's as simple as that. The privatised rail industry requires about five times as much in subsidy from taxpayers as British Rail did and the fares are higher on average. A responsible government would do what actually works best for the British people instead of being driven by dogma.
If the government has control (as it should) then it should also have ownership; otherwise, it's not full privatisation.
Most? Really? Can you back that up?
What about the countries that privatised their railways only to renationalise them a few years later?
And I don't see any great rush by the UK government to privatise the railways in Northern Ireland which, incidentally, are thriving today in the public sector.
Their customers might, however.
It might well be the answer.
More meaningless waffle. Where's the substance?
Nationalised British Rail had fewer interfaces and higher integration and was indeed better.
The Barlow Boy
Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 696
Yep, let's re-nationalise the system. Wasn't it great when the dead hand of the treasury was on top. Next time that you're about the rail system have a look at all of the station improvements that are being made. Have a look at the new trains. See the amount of electrification work being carried out. The frequency of the service in many places has improved immeasurably. Even the staff look smarter.
Gosh but some of you have rose tinted spectacles.
Gosh but some of you have rose tinted spectacles.
And of course, the railway didn't manage any station rebuildings, electrification schemes or new trains in the eighties and early nineties did it .........
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,753
That could be convincing but only if you overlook the extra billions of pounds of public money needed to keep Britain's railways running each year since privatisation, as well as Network Rail's £28 billion debt. Why not take a look at Northern Ireland's railways and discover that it's possible have new trains, station improvements and record passenger numbers on a state-owned UK rail system?
Metrailway
Member
Just to be picky, I'd like to point out that the state owns Direct Rail Services.
dcsprior
Member
I think there's a lot to be said for the parts of the above which are natural monopolies to be nationalised: Transco / National Grid. Similarly, the OpenReach part of BT; presumably the parallel in the rail industry would be Network Rail
When it comes to the things mentioned as benefits of nationalisation, which would still apply to more integration? For instance, if Scotrail were to own / maintain tracks (excl ECML south of Edinburgh, and WCML), stations and trains directly, would this be better, or worse, or the same?
- Status