Question about NI Railways

[WelshZ]

I am wondering why are the railways in NI not privately run and are run by the state? Shouldn't the Railways act have privatised it seeing as NI>part of UK

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not entirely sure why they weren't privatised, however it's worth remembering that they were never part of BR. This dates from before direct rule from Westminster was restored in 1974, so NIR would have been "run" by a different governing body before that time.

I suspect a lot of it had to do with the UK Government not wanting to get too closely involved in Northern Irish politics before the troubles appeared to have been resolved by the Good Friday agreement - particularly with a highly controversial policy.

 

[yorkie]

I am wondering why are the railways in NI not privately run and are run by the state? Shouldn't the Railways act have privatised it seeing as NI>part of UK

Should they?

Well I am sure some people will say £millions "should" have been wasted with another 10 different liveries over the past 19 years, we "should" have seen the introduction in NI of Super Duper Off Peak at the price of previously more flexible tickets, and the introduction of new more flexible tickets at a much higher price.

I am sure the likes of the obnoxious Souter and co would say we "should" have been sending more taxpayers cash to the likes of him and his ilk, and allowed NI passenger rights to be eroded in underhand ways, and being forced to plan all your journeys in NI over about 40 miles at least 8 weeks in advance in order to get "value".

But my view is that they should not have been.

In fact, I'd turn the question round

With apologies, that I understand that isn't what you were asking, but I just had to get that off my chest!

I suspect yorksrob is right, perhaps the likes of MattE2010 and 4srkt may have some ideas too.

 

[tbtc]

Same applies to buses - the only place outside London not affected by deregulation in 1986.

I suppose, to go off at a tangent, if you take the view that Norn Iron should be treated the same as the rest of the UK in terms of transport then there's the argument that the road network should be subject to the same numbering that applies in England, Scotland and Wales (e.g. there's an M1 from Belfast to Dungannon which uses the same number that the motorway from London to Wetherby uses).

 

[Cyberbeagle]

If the Conservatives had stayed in power in 97, NIR probably would've been privatised in some shape or form.

However, thank goodness events changed. But it does raise its ugly head every so often, like this Monday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24807062

Historically, the main reason for the BR/NIR split was that in 1948 Northern Ireland had a devolved government, and so the transport remit was a 'local' issue.

In fact, Stormont had to buy the NCC lines from the fledgling BR. If NI had been under direct rule since 1921 and not devolved, given how integral the NCC lines and York Road were with the rest of the LMS, it's not inconceivable that there would've been a BR(NI) region.

 

[MK Tom]

Also there isn't enough of a network in NI to have more than one operator. So all you'd be doing is handing one company a complete monopoly.

 

[W-on-Sea]

I think it may well have been quite a challenge drumming up interest in getting private companies to tender for NIR back in the days when the troubles were in full effect - not just because they were an obvious major terrorist target (to an extent not really comparable with anything in Great Britain), but also because of the generally dire state of the NI economy. A couple of non-railway illustrated illustrations: even Belfast city centre could be extremely quiet as early as 7pm on a Saturday evening (even some years post-Good Friday): while the British supermarket chains did not generally operate at all in NI until well into the 1990s (or even 2000s). And even today the % of the economy accounted for by the state sector in NI is much higher than in Great Britain. And the railway network is pretty small, and (like NI itself) essentially rural: there is a small commuter sector around Belfast, but the main "inter-city" route (ie Belfast - London-/Derry) is indirect, slow, and the station at London/-Derry is hardly central or particularly convenient for the city: in any case the journey between those two cities is always going to be quicker and easier by road: finding a way to make a commercial profit out of all that would be quite some challenge. (I suppose the current Arriva Trains Wales network would be the nearest point of comparison in GB - but even that is substantially larger, and has more of a mix of different types of services.)

So, in short....even if one takes the view that privatization has benefited railways in Great Britain, the economic, political and social situation in Northern Ireland was (an in many ways still is) substantially distinct to mean that arguments in support of that which might hold sway in GB, really would not apply in NI.

 

[route:oxford]

Perhaps there was a certain fear that either Iarnród Éireann would win the contract to operate the network - or another operator would win the contract then subcontract it to Iarnród Éireann...

 

[Railsigns]

Also there isn't enough of a network in NI to have more than one operator. So all you'd be doing is handing one company a complete monopoly.

How does that differ from, say, Scotland, where First ScotRail has a complete monopoly of all internal Scottish services?

In fact, the remainder of the GB franchises aren't much different, in that they each operate a near monopoly within their own geographical area, with few exceptions.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps there was a certain fear that either Iarnród Éireann would win the contract to operate the network - or another operator would win the contract then subcontract it to Iarnród Éireann...

That might have been a cause for concern for Ulster Unionists, however, given the propensity for European state owned railway companies to take over British railway franchises in Great Britain, I doubt it would have unduly worried the UK Government of the day.

 

[Cyberbeagle]

Also there isn't enough of a network in NI to have more than one operator. So all you'd be doing is handing one company a complete monopoly.

So much the same as what happened to NIE in 1992 and what was going to happen to NI Water later... I doubt that that would've worried them.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

The irony remains that if it weren't for the votes of the Ulster Unionists, in Westminster, the 'privatisation' of BR would have failed to pass into law.

 

[DT611]

i wonder would their have been more or less closures in NI had BR been in charge instead of the UTA?

 

[WelshZ]

These answers have got me thinking. The Assembly and the Scottish Parliament (If Scotland remains part of the UK) want to have a similar set-up to NI for rail, that is state owned company running the services. If the DfT try and object to that both can point to the example of NI as precedent, admittedly that is unlikely to happen. Also looked at wiki and surprised to find there isn't a NI Rail infrastructure company ala Network Rail. Hypothetically the EU could demand a infrastructure company be formed through legal action as NI is in breach of that directive mandating separation.

 

[Carlisle]

I guess Northern Ireland is a kind of devolved government situation vaguely similar to Isle of Man and Channel Islands even though they are British

 

[Oliver]

I guess Northern Ireland is a kind of devolved government situation vaguely similar to Isle of Man and Channel Islands even though they are British

NI is quite different constitutionally from IoM and CI. The latter have no MP's in (London) Parliament, and are not (at least in political terms) part of the UK.

 

[Cyberbeagle]

I guess Northern Ireland is a kind of devolved government situation vaguely similar to Isle of Man and Channel Islands even though they are British

Err, no... they are Crown Colonies.

Northern Ireland is constitutionally more like Scotland or Wales.

 

[Gathursty]

I am quite glad that NI railways are distinct from Network Rail.

 

[Monty]

I think the real reason that NIR stayed in state ownership is the fact it's a small, isolated system that utilises a different track gauge than the rest of the UK. I doubt there was any real insentive to privatise it. The same could be said about IE south of the border where there have been no real efforts to privatise the network while the rest of Europe does so.

 

[Railsigns]

I think the real reason that NIR stayed in state ownership is the fact it's a small, isolated system that utilises a different track gauge than the rest of the UK.

I would submit that the gauge of the track is of no relevance whatsoever.

I doubt there was any real insentive [incentive] to privatise it. The same could be said about IE south of the border where there have been no real efforts to privatise the network while the rest of Europe does so.

Do they really?

 

[Monty]

I would submit that the gauge of the track is of no relevance whatsoever.

My point is that NIR is an isolated network that is of little relevance to the rest of the UK's railways from a management and operational point of view, I would also submit it's size is another important factor.

Do they really?

Germany, France, Belgium, Danemark, Holland, Poland, Hungary & Bulgaria are a few countries that I can name off the top of my head where railway operations have either been put out to tender, sold off and/or privateoperators have been allowed to run services so I would say so yes.

 

[Carlisle]

Err, no... they are Crown Colonies.

Northern Ireland is constitutionally more like Scotland or Wales.

Thanks for pointing out major differences, I made the comparison mainly because all 3 places have had a type of devolved government for many years, NI from 1921-74 plus the present assembly whereas wales and Scotland are far more recent administrations so I would think less important in a historical sense to the origional question on this thread

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Err, no... they are Crown Colonies.

Northern Ireland is constitutionally more like Scotland or Wales.

They are not Crown colonies but Crown Dependencies. In Crown Dependencies, the head of state is the British monarch, who is represented by a Lieutenant-Governor. Each dependency has a parliament, of sorts; a government and prime or first minister to make laws. They do not send representatives to Westminster and each have their own currencies.

Defence and foreign affairs are looked after by the British Government. However, the British government in London has no power in the dependencies, unless the government of the dependency agrees.

 

[Cyberbeagle]

They are not Crown colonies but Crown Dependencies. In Crown Dependencies, the head of state is the British monarch, who is represented by a Lieutenant-Governor. Each dependency has a parliament, of sorts; a government and prime or first minister to make laws. They do not send representatives to Westminster and each have their own currencies.

Defence and foreign affairs are looked after by the British Government. However, the British government in London has no power in the dependencies, unless the government of the dependency agrees.

My bad! Wrong term...

It does seem a bit of a constitutional oddity. But then again we've never really had a proper look at our constitution. Maybe after 2014 the Scots will be more like the IoM???

Thanks for pointing out major differences, I made the comparison mainly because all 3 places have had a type of devolved government for many years, NI from 1921-74 plus the present assembly whereas wales and Scotland are far more recent administrations so I would think less important in a historical sense to the origional question on this thread

Not particularly, as at the time there was no prospect of devolved government returning to NI.

And I have heard from people that privatisation was being looked at before the 97 election by the Direct Rule ministers.

 

[Garmoran]

They are not Crown colonies but Crown Dependencies.

And from the point of view of the Channel Islands, they colonized England in 1066.

 

[Cyberbeagle]

And from the point of view of the Channel Islands, they colonized England in 1066.

This wins the thread

 

[Carlisle]

My bad! Wrong term...

It does seem a bit of a constitutional oddity. But then again we've never really had a proper look at our constitution. Maybe after 2014 the Scots will be more like the IoM???



Not particularly, as at the time there was no prospect of devolved government returning to NI.

And I have heard from people that privatisation was being looked at before the 97 election by the Direct Rule ministers.

I'm sure your correct on the above but as you pointed out yourself in an earlier post it was down to history of devolved government that we did not have a BR NI region that would have been privatised with the rest of BR so I think my point is fairly relevant

 

[Gwenllian2001]

I'm sure your correct on the above but as you pointed out yourself in an earlier post it was down to history of devolved government that we did not have a BR NI region that would have been privatised with the rest of BR so I think my point is fairly relevant

Stormont or no Stormont, Northern Ireland has always sent MPs to Westminster as does Wales and Scotland. Despite devolution, the government in Cardiff has no control over the railways in Wales and, at the time of privatisation, the railways of Northern Ireland were the responsibility of Westminster.

 

[4SRKT]

It's a political issue. Mrs Thatcher never privatised anything in Northern Ireland, due to the knowledge that it caused unemployment, and that unemployment causes (in Northern Ireland particularly, but also elsewhere) social unrest. In NI 'social unrest' can mean a hell of a lot more than setting fire to a furniture store. It was a very interesting tacit admission by the Tories that privatisation is NOT good for the people who actually work in the industries concerned. Making people redundant in an unstable area that had some characteristics of a war zone was a step too far. The region has been referred to as 'The Independent Keynesian Republic of Northern Ireland' by commentators.


Now that railway privatisation has been so thoroughly discredited, at least in the form Johns Major and McGregor did it, Translink and the people of Northern Ireland are safe from its evils.

 

[TUC]

I would have thought though that EU law would at least have required track/ operator separation and the allowance of open access rights in NI?