Nationalisation - how does it benefit the passenger?

[tbtc]

I think that the most important two factors in the quality of service that passengers experience are

• the amount of funding from the Government (in terms of subsidising loss making services, investing in infrastructure etc)
• the long term security (whether the railway is at the mercy of spending cuts, elections, private operators “handing the keys back” etc)

Based on those two parameters, the current hybrid system may be the “least worst” option.

We’ve got a generous subsidy (with no realistic chance of even the most pathetic stations closing), we’ve got five year plans that aren’t dependent upon elections (compare the relative stability of Network Rail to the reorganisations we’ve seen in health/ education/ armed forces etc every few years). There’s a clear idea of where we want things to be in twenty years time (HS2, Crossrail 2 etc), the railway isn’t going to get clobbered by “austerity”. It doesn’t look like regulated fares are going to be more than RPI for the foreseeable future. Believe me, it could be a lot worse.

Even if you assume that a “public” railway will be just as efficient as a “private” railway, if you honestly think that the money saved on repainting trains/stations at the start of each new franchise and the money that goes in shareholder dividends is going to make a significant difference to tickets then I think you are a little naive.

(remember that BR were fairly keen in their final years of regularly repainting things – how many different versions of Intercity did we have – and that many things need repainting/ revinyling/ replacing every few years anyway – I think that Stagecoach repaint their buses every three years or so even if the livery in unchanged due to wear and tear – the idea that the “private“ railway wastes a lot of money on paint jobs is a strange one which a lot of enthusiasts seem fixated on)

Even if you’ve found some ways to save money (e.g. if it costs five million pounds every time a franchise is tendered – IIRC it cost over a million pounds per bidder at the WCML one?) then what difference will that make overall? We have around 1.65 BILLION journeys a year (http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/em...record-high-of-1.65-billion-between-2014-2015), so even if you find a way to save a billion pounds a year from the current set up then that translates as less than a quid off every journey. It’ll take more than a few pots of paint to make those kind of savings!

And what kind of BR would we have, if we had one today? One that had to deal with much more expensive operating practices (the reason for increased railway costs is replicated on things like road building/ maintenance – as a modern BR would have to live with modern H&S/ compensation culture/ working time directives etc). A modern BR would still have people sat there apportioning “blame” for delays between different sectors (including Open Access) and micromanaging things.

I certainly don’t think that a “public” BR would be able to do all of the things that enthusiasts want (departures up until midnight, minimal closures for engineering, Guards not quibbling about what a “valid” route is) and I don’t think that many people would really want the “simpler” railway that they often claim to want (e.g. we could just have a handful of ticket options, but that would mean some eye watering increases for certain people) – be careful what you wish for!

One controlled by the DFT? Funny how many enthusiasts moan and moan about the “DafT” but want nationalisation... do they honestly think that the Government will just give BR a bucketload of cash once a decade and tell them to get on with it (without any interference)? They'll have their grubby fingers all over the railway, whether you like that or not.

Like the old version, a modern BR would have to meet Government targets on spending/ borrowing etc – hence the “public” BR that we had closing lines/stations (even in the 1980s when national passenger numbers were growing) and introducing cost cutting measures (e.g. we’d have a lot more DOO if BR had continued). A “public” BR wouldn’t operate in a bubble away from financial/ political pressures.

Please don’t tell me that we’d have “one railway” again. It’d be impossible to operate such a large organisation like that – even in the 1980s we had sectorisation within passenger and freight operations. I don’t buy into the idea that you could run such a big operation without bureaucracy/ duplication, and I don’t accept that BR had no such bureaucracy. It had its share of “bean counters” and a modern BR would need that too – I know some enthusiasts like to believe in a Thomas The Tank Engine operation where there’s just one bureaucrat (top hat optional...) and everyone else is “a proper railwayman”, but it’d never work like that in the real world (whether “public” or “private”).

And don’t tell me that connections were always held in BR days (even if you remember the times that they occasionally were, on a railway with lots of spare capacity, the idea that you could easily do so nowadays on such a congested railway seems a tad optimistic!), or that services always connected neatly at “interchange” stations back then. At the moment, some connections are held, some aren’t (even when it’s the same company operating both trains – e.g. FGW in Cornwall/ Devon). Someone has to balance the convenience to the handful of people on a branchline Pacer (who may have to wait an hour for the next “main line” service) against the hundreds of people on the Intercity service who’ll be delayed five minutes to wait for a late running Pacer. Sometimes it’s worth holding a connection (esp on lines with only a handful of services a day), sometimes it isn’t. I find it disingenuous to pretend that BR “always” held them and the modern railway “never” holds them. (also, as a practical point – would you give a Penzance – Paddington HST fifteen minutes of padding at Reading, to give scope for discretionary delays to allow connections to be held, to ensure that the train was right on time for the busiest section of the route?)

Yes, a “public” BR could do things at short(er) notice, but they had a surplus of redundant stock sat in sidings with plenty of spare paths to run “FootExs” etc on – beyond some daft ideas about “future uses for 442s” , does anyone honestly expect a “public” BR to have all that kind of redundant capabilities for a few “just in case” days? Things were different back then (e.g. just one train an hour from London to Manchester/ Sheffield/ Nottingham/ Leeds, so plenty spare paths).

I’ve put “public” in inverted commas because there’s different levels of “public” railway that we could have. Is it okay that a nationalised Network Rail uses private contractors like Balfour Beatty? Or do you want to bring everything in house? Did it matter that BR bought trains from private manufacturers? Did anyone complain in the 1980s about the profits made by such organisations being money that was “leaving the industry that could be used to lower fares”? Does a “nationalised” BR need to include bringing all HR/ pensions/ accountancy back “in house”? What about train design/ manufacture, what about design/ promotion/ advertising? Do you stop private websites from selling train tickets, or is it okay for The Train Line to get their 10% off the value of tickets?

Where do you draw the line? Should a “nationalised” BR operate its own shops at stations, employ all cleaners directly, operate a chain of take aways on platforms? All of these see profits “leave the industry”, so how pure a form of “nationalisation” do you want? A “public” BR kicking out Upper Crust, Burger King and WH Smith to provide its own directly owned alternatives? Would a “public” BR take over operation of all station pubs? Or is it okay for private operators making a profit as long as a railway appears to be publically branded as far as passengers are concerned (London Overground, ScotRail)? It’s easy to complain about the many flaws of the current set up, but what credible alternative do you have?

I dunno. There are some obvious problems with the way things are now, but any alternative has some obvious downsides too. We’ll have cost centres/ accountants etc regardless – you’ll never run any bureaucracy the size of “British Rail” without elements of duplication/ waste/ internal politics.

As I said above, the status quo may be the “least worst” option, despite its flaws. What matters is the amount of Government funding and the medium/ long term stability (not your political ideology).

 

[HH]

Great post tbtc. You've nailed it. There is no going back to the 1980s, because UK plc is no longer in the 1980s.

Upper Crust (along with many other marques on stations) is part of the SSP Group, who are basically a privatised BR station catering - most brands that you don't see outside stations are theirs, plus they have rights to use brands like M&S and Burger King. They have grandfather rights at most stations, which is one reason that station catering hasn't moved on as fast as it might.

 

[Robertj21a]

By the time of its demise, wasn't BR the most effcient railway system in Europe? Not quite the massed ranks of bureaucrats sat on their arses waiting to collect their pensions that you seem to imagine.

Who claimed BR was the most efficient ?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Who claimed BR was the most efficient ?

Various studies on comparative European networks did - in terms of passenger journeys and costs per wagon moved , - easily shown.

The 1994 Act effectively doubled the costs of train service provision at a stroke by such superb initiatives by making "free" (i.e paid for stock) - subject to contracts , ditto "Track Access" charges and trebled the bureuacracy.

Ask any retired lags at the old PTE's for confirmation. Subsidy went up - outputs stagnated. Flexibility went out the window.

The old DfT was fairly hands off pre 1994 - as the running of the railways was delegated to competent staff at all levels.Remember the "Route Directors" on say NSE were entirely responsible for train services AND infrasructucture , for about half the real wages that a NR / TOC manager earns now.

 

[Greenback]

ChiefPlanner speaks the truth. The saddest thing of all for me is that BR was broken up just as it had found the best structure it had ever had. As we see often on here, we can only speculate at how it may have improved further. Or not!

 

[FenMan]

Great post tbtc. You've nailed it. There is no going back to the 1980s, because UK plc is no longer in the 1980s.

Upper Crust (along with many other marques on stations) is part of the SSP Group, who are basically a privatised BR station catering - most brands that you don't see outside stations are theirs, plus they have rights to use brands like M&S and Burger King. They have grandfather rights at most stations, which is one reason that station catering hasn't moved on as fast as it might.

One benefit of re-nationalisation would surely be the re-appearance of the much missed Casey Jones burger outlets at London termini.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One benefit of re-nationalisation would surely be the re-appearance of the much missed Casey Jones burger outlets at London termini.

Missed? I remember them being utterly vile.

 

[Greenback]

Missed? I remember them being utterly vile.

My feelings as well, but they were, at least, an attempt to break away from the railway catering image of the time, and all the associated jokes about stale sandwiches!

 

[eisenach]

In these parts, there is good communication between ATW and FGW, and trains are often held for a few minutes to maintain connections between south west Wales and the rest of the world at Swansea!

Not at Newport for the Marches Line. I can't count the number of times my wife has missed a Newport connection to Leominster when coming on FGW from Reading.

 

[DT611]

There is a part of the United Kingdom with state owned railways already called Northern Ireland.

Compared to the railways in Great Britain are the ones in Northern Ireland better? I would say no as they are slower and less frequent

in fairness, they were hanging on the edge for a very long time. its a wonder NI has a railway at all, but thankfully it still does and hopefully will. a bit more should have survived but whats done is done. considering what the network has been through, its not surprising it is slow and not so frequent. in time with infrastructure upgrades which i hope will happen, i'm sure things will improve.

I am sure a private sector company would improve services there to try and gain more passengers.

i'm sure a private sector company wouldn't improve anything, as they would only be doing what they get payed to, operate the trains. improvements would be coming from the relevant authorities

At the same time until 10 years ago I doubt any private sector operator would want to operate services in Northern Ireland.

if they were payed enough to do so, i see no reason why they wouldn't have. in saying that, they still wouldn't want to operate services there unless they were payed enough (just like anywhere)

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Gentlemen (and Ladies) - private operators basically do what they have to meet the contract.

(and meet their shareholders aspirations)

Naive individuals think that within the contract the private operators will add value and be innovative. (not just railways - think utilities)

Discuss , in a 2000 word essay (quoting examples) -- the stresses involved "pro bono public" - and "public utility" versus private return. Extra marks for strategic vision.

 

[450.emu]

Perhaps a London Buses - style, one basic 'National Rail' livery, though all private operators on tenders with a realistic fare structure could be a possibility - I know it's a simplistic view or idea but realistically getting rid of the TOC's would be disastrous.

For instance Arriva operate some of London buses in the same plain red livery (and small company logo) as Abellio London do - both operators (plus 9 more IIRC) are all under the same fare structure.

A uniform livery (or varying regional ones) would save painting trains into a variety of different colours every few years a franchise changes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My feelings as well, but they were, at least, an attempt to break away from the railway catering image of the time, and all the associated jokes about stale sandwiches!

Oh, I agree, it was the right thing to do at the time, but I definitely think modern station catering is to a far higher standard. Pricey, yes, but it always was.

The most welcome recent addition is the mini-supermarkets, be they M&S, Sainsburys or whatever.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A uniform livery (or varying regional ones) would save painting trains into a variety of different colours every few years a franchise changes.

That, indeed, is what Scotland has done.

 

[Greenback]

Not at Newport for the Marches Line. I can't count the number of times my wife has missed a Newport connection to Leominster when coming on FGW from Reading.

I can only speak of where I spend a lot of my time. I'm rarely at Newport!

Oh, I agree, it was the right thing to do at the time, but I definitely think modern station catering is to a far higher standard. Pricey, yes, but it always was.

The range of retail units is far wider now than it ever was, and that's what makes tbtc's point about where the line would be drawn as to what would be nationalised, so pertinent and interesting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The range of retail units is far wider now than it ever was, and that's what makes tbtc's point about where the line would be drawn as to what would be nationalised, so pertinent and interesting.

Indeed. It's maybe also relevant that Nederlandse Spoorwegen operates a big chunk of its own station catering, and indeed has brought it in in the form of the "Kiosk" branding on Abellio Greater Anglia stations.

Of course, "BR" could take on franchises for the various SSP outlets, but is there any point when a private company does it reasonably well without really annoying anyone?

 

[yorksrob]

I can only speak of where I spend a lot of my time. I'm rarely at Newport!



The range of retail units is far wider now than it ever was, and that's what makes tbtc's point about where the line would be drawn as to what would be nationalised, so pertinent and interesting.

Yes indeed.

Catering has definitely been a success - particularly where the SSP monopoly has been broken. I would probably draw the line at rolling stock, where I increasingly feel that this should be owned and maintained along with the infrastructure, which should not be privately owned.

 

[Greenback]

I would like to see a vertically integrated railway whatever the model of ownership, but I wouldn't like to see it extend as far as station catering.

While public transport doesn't really lend itself to internal competition that isn't the case for the retail sector.

 

[Senex]

I think that the most important two factors in the quality of service that passengers experience are

• the amount of funding from the Government (in terms of subsidising loss making services, investing in infrastructure etc)
• the long term security (whether the railway is at the mercy of spending cuts, elections, private operators “handing the keys back” etc)

I agree with both your points, but I'd like to see the investment, both for infrastructure and for operations, for regional services being dealt with at a regional level, at is now in various European countries. There is far too much evidence that Whitehall does not know best, despite its love for centralising control.

..... we’ve got five year plans that aren’t dependent upon elections (compare the relative stability of Network Rail to the reorganisations we’ve seen in health/ education/ armed forces etc every few years). There’s a clear idea of where we want things to be in twenty years time (HS2, Crossrail 2 etc), the railway isn’t going to get clobbered by “austerity”.

I think you're being too optimistic there, given recent developments.

One controlled by the DFT? Funny how many enthusiasts moan and moan about the “DafT” but want nationalisation... do they honestly think that the Government will just give BR a bucketload of cash once a decade and tell them to get on with it (without any interference)? They'll have their grubby fingers all over the railway, whether you like that or not.

I am in favour of nationalisation, but it doesn't have to be the British Labour Part version in which government and Whitehall get to poke their sticky fingers into every aspect of what an industry gets up to. There are much better models of nationalised industries to follow from mainland Europe.

A “public” BR wouldn’t operate in a bubble away from financial/ political pressures.

Absolutely correct. And it shouldn't.

As I said above, the status quo may be the “least worst” option, despite its flaws. What matters is the amount of Government funding and the medium/ long term stability (not your political ideology).

Although I disagree with your first sentence because I think there are just too many flaws in the present franchising/ROSCO model, I agree very strongly with your second sentence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with both your points, but I'd like to see the investment, both for infrastructure and for operations, for regional services being dealt with at a regional level, at is now in various European countries. There is far too much evidence that Whitehall does not know best, despite its love for centralising control.

For Scotland and Wales that makes sense, and it is just about being done. For English regions it makes little sense, as Counties are too small, and does "the North" as a region really have enough cohesion?

There's also the fact that, like buses in the UK, regionalising rail service provision would make cuts much easier politically. Germany has had Beeching-esque cuts over the past few years, all achieved via a very quiet "nichts bestellt".

 

[Greenback]

It may help to define both regional services and regional level.

 

[DT611]

[/LIST]
I agree with both your points, but I'd like to see the investment, both for infrastructure and for operations, for regional services being dealt with at a regional level, at is now in various European countries. There is far too much evidence that Whitehall does not know best, despite its love for centralising control.

so set up regional transport authorities who will take control of transport from councils? that might be a good idea?

 

[Bletchleyite]

so set up regional transport authorities who will take control of transport from councils? that might be a good idea?

There is to me little case for having local bus services controlled at a wider level.

 

[Senex]

For English regions it makes little sense, as Counties are too small, and does "the North" as a region really have enough cohesion?

So how would you deal with the problem of England to try to sort out the wild imbalance of money being spent in the various regions (as currently defined) and the sort of rolling stock issues we're currently seeing with Northern and TPE (and probably in other regions that I personally don't know about). Or is rule by Führererlaß from Great Marsham Street perfectly good enough for the North of England but not for Scotland or Wales? The catastrophic political non-settlement once again ....

 

[Bletchleyite]

So how would you deal with the problem of England to try to sort out the wild imbalance of money being spent in the various regions (as currently defined) and the sort of rolling stock issues we're currently seeing with Northern and TPE (and probably in other regions that I personally don't know about).

Northern needs more rolling stock, so some needs to be acquired, be it D-trains or otherwise. That does not need a significant change in the political structure of England.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Northern needs more rolling stock, so some needs to be acquired, be it D-trains or otherwise. That does not need a significant change in the political structure of England.

But it's coming, whatever it does to the railway. Devolution at every level.
You could end up with a "nationalised" railway, but still split into autonomous PTE-type regions (plus Scotland, Wales and...Cornwall?) to the detriment of any central planning.

More generally, the reason the government interferes so much is because "the railway" (BR and its successors) is not trusted by Whitehall to manage a budget at arms length for more than a few years at a time.
This dates back to the modernisation plan in the 1950s, and roughly every decade since then railway finances have imploded leading to sudden increases in subsidy and embarrassment in Whitehall.

 

[Senex]

Northern needs more rolling stock, so some needs to be acquired, be it D-trains or otherwise. That does not need a significant change in the political structure of England.

So there we must agree to differ. I think the Blair/Brown political settlement for the United Kingdom severely disadvantages England (as it was intended to do) and in the long term is unsustainable, that some form of home rule for England will have to come, and that because of the size and population that will have to be coupled with some form of regional devolution (whether based on city-states or simple geographical areas or both I don't know). And that must have an impact on the organisation of the railway.

As for the D-Stock, to send more antiquated stock from the south to the north would just be another typical slap in the face for the north.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

More generally, the reason the government interferes so much is because "the railway" (BR and its successors) is not trusted by Whitehall to manage a budget at arms length for more than a few years at a time.
This dates back to the modernisation plan in the 1950s, and roughly every decade since then railway finances have imploded leading to sudden increases in subsidy and embarrassment in Whitehall.

All completely true. The railways still suffer from the disastrous decisions made by the Sir Brian Robertson management in the 1950s and the loss of credibility that followed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So there we must agree to differ. I think the Blair/Brown political settlement for the United Kingdom severely disadvantages England (as it was intended to do)

I agree with that.

that some form of home rule for England will have to come

And that.

and that because of the size and population that will have to be coupled with some form of regional devolution (whether based on city-states or simple geographical areas or both I don't know).

But not that (and it was comprehensively laughed out in a referendum).

While I can see the argument for federalism of the UK as a means of keeping it together, and for London as a capital city state, I see no problem at all with England (possibly except London) being a single entity, perhaps governed from Birmingham.

As for the D-Stock, to send more antiquated stock from the south to the north would just be another typical slap in the face for the north.

It's rolling stock. I'd accept any rolling stock that would allow all my commuter trains to be 12-car, I don't care what it is (which is why, unlike some, I'd welcome some more 319s to LM). Why won't the North?

 

[Senex]

But not that (and it was comprehensively laughed out in a referendum).

And rightly so, just like the electoral reform referendum. In both cases the politicians chose to try and foist off on to the people the bare minimum they thought they could get away with and the people saw through the ploy and laughed the proposals out, as you so rightly put it.

When will the politicians learn that it's our constitution, not theirs? Never, I suppose, because they're all (both parties) far too eager to hang on to power for themselves.

 

[matt_world2004]

What could happen is that regional transport authorities take over the metro and commuter lines in their juristiction, then based on their performance they are awarded Intercity franchises that serve their juristiction and another town. So if transport for birmingham had a higher performance rating than transport for London, they would run the routes between London and Birmingham. That way you have the competition of the franchises together with the positive effects of nationalisation. and if the commuter and metro are run by a transport authority and are crap the constitutents of that authority have the power to elect someone else.

 

[Gareth Marston]

But it's coming, whatever it does to the railway. Devolution at every level.
You could end up with a "nationalised" railway, but still split into autonomous PTE-type regions (plus Scotland, Wales and...Cornwall?) to the detriment of any central planning.

More generally, the reason the government interferes so much is because "the railway" (BR and its successors) is not trusted by Whitehall to manage a budget at arms length for more than a few years at a time.
This dates back to the modernisation plan in the 1950s, and roughly every decade since then railway finances have imploded leading to sudden increases in subsidy and embarrassment in Whitehall.

The big myth with the modernisation plan is that the railway "blew it" having been the beneficiary of Government largesse. Blaming the railway alone was very convenient for the road lobby and Treasury but the truth of the matter was the British Transport Commission drew up plans for marshalling yards and diesel hauled pick up freight trains because that was the direction it got from the Ministry and Churchill's government who still wanted a common carrier railway governed by Victorian legislation. Type 1 & 2 diesels were all merrily signed off by officials when it had been obvious for years that this sort of operation was no longer commercially viable in a world with mass motor transport. The Big 4 spent the 1930's kicking against the chains the BTC under retired General Sir Brian just meekly followed orders from the Government of the day.