Rail nationalisation: ideas, suggestions, predictions etc

[Gigabit]

Why?
Richer people gain more from subsidised rail travel. Why should the lower paid people subsidise their leisure trips?
If you want to help the lower paid you spend available money on buses.

I assume you think the rich should pay for healthcare too do you?

Which will change absolutely nothing. It will be the same people in DfT running the railway, doing what the Treasury instructs them to do and say.

The industry will lose some good people in senior positions in the TOCs.

Network Rail is a great example of the dead hand of the Treasury stopping progress as soon as any opportunities to reduce spending (eg GWML electrification).

I think it will at worst change absolutely nothing. But I cannot see what private companies offer over just the government running the TOCs. What do the TOCs bring?

It still needs to cover its costs.



This isn't a 'subsidy' the Government will bear the entire cost of the railway. They will not get value for their services because there is no incentive to compete for a contract and we all know what happens when the Gov contract anything.

How much should the taxpayer 'subsidise' the railway ? Every penny that those evil private companies pay will now transfer over to being part of the public purse. Spending money and filtering that to private companies will still happen because almost every aspect is contracted out to someone.

Should the railway run at a loss ? Will ticket between Beckenham Junction and Kent House be overpriced because Taunton and London runs as a loss ? Who will get the investment into their local route ? Ones with a strong commuter flow or some backwater village with 5 passengers a day ?



How should a public service be run ? How is it funded ?



Which I believe is a genuine concern. Are they too high ? Maybe but price isn't always as clear as we think it is. I think intercity prices are shocking but I also loathe paying £2.50 for a local bus that goes a less than a mile but at the same time takes 20 minutes to do it.

Whatever pricing model you want to use will go horribly wrong and be very unbalanced. The current model needs and overhaul but nationalisation isn't needed to implement that.

It doesn't need to cover its cost though, we just accept it won't ever make a profit and we subsidise it to the degree that it needs to keep fares low. Or do you think the NHS should make a profit too?

 

[JonathanH]

That assumes that lower income people never need to travel medium or longer distances, or indeed for leisure.

If you want to help the lower paid, you ensure that all public transport is affordable.

It would be better to help the lower paid, and make it easier for them to afford what they need, which may or may not be travel over medium or longer distances.

 

[yorksrob]

It would be better to help the lower paid, and make it easier for them to afford what they need, which may or may not be travel over medium or longer distances.

Ultimately public services have to be to be affordable to the public to be a public service.

 

[Gigabit]

Ultimately public services have to be to be affordable to the public to be a public service.

We need some kind of a commission that basically decides what "affordable" is. Whether the rich are being subsidised or not is just something we accept on a public service, it should not distinguish based on background. I.e. the NHS is the same whoever uses it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We need some kind of a commission that basically decides what "affordable" is.

Which should probably look first at housing rather than train fares, as in most places "affordable housing" is anything but (it's just a little less outrageously expensive than that sold on the open market) and having a roof over your head is rather more important than going long distances from said roof.

 

[ComUtoR]

I think it will at worst change absolutely nothing. But I cannot see what private companies offer over just the government running the TOCs. What do the TOCs bring?

Accountability and competence. This may be a bias against the Government but I don't have any faith they could run a proverbial in a proverbial. HS2 just went up the Swanny. Giving them national control just makes me nervous.

It doesn't need to cover its cost though, we just accept it won't ever make a profit and we subsidise it to the degree that it needs to keep fares low.

This is economic suicide. It needs to cover its cost. It needs investment and needs to make qualitative improvements. Low fares are a magical dream of faeries and unicorns.

Or do you think the NHS should make a profit too?

You are avoiding the questions posed to you. The NHS is an entire different entity. I have some small issues in the way that it is provided but overall I support it. I am happy to take the tax hit and in general I believe in the welfare state.

Transport is slightly different as much of it comes down to choice. I have a decent motor and I am taxed accordingly. I pay for various toll's around the country because I make a choice to travel by car. I have some issue with "public" transport because I know that in reality it isn't provided as a public service or owned by the public in any way. I think the real question is that. Would I be happy to pay more tax and increased fares to provide a true public service ?

I am not happy to bleed the country dry. That leads to disaster. As has already been said. There needs to be a balance between taxpayer and the passenger. What that is I don't know but I am not naive enough to believe it should run at a loss, be propped up by the taxpayer, or part of the political money-go-round.

 

[The Planner]

I assume you think the rich should pay for healthcare too do you?

Id wager a significant amount do anyway via private healthcare. Its a benefit in kind for a lot of management grades in many industries.

 

[Gigabit]

Accountability and competence. This may be a bias against the Government but I don't have any faith they could run a proverbial in a proverbial. HS2 just went up the Swanny. Giving them national control just makes me nervous.



This is economic suicide. It needs to cover its cost. It needs investment and needs to make qualitative improvements. Low fares are a magical dream of faeries and unicorns.




You are avoiding the questions posed to you. The NHS is an entire different entity. I have some small issues in the way that it is provided but overall I support it. I am happy to take the tax hit and in general I believe in the welfare state.

Transport is slightly different as much of it comes down to choice. I have a decent motor and I am taxed accordingly. I pay for various toll's around the country because I make a choice to travel by car. I have some issue with "public" transport because I know that in reality it isn't provided as a public service or owned by the public in any way. I think the real question is that. Would I be happy to pay more tax and increased fares to provide a true public service ?

I am not happy to bleed the country dry. That leads to disaster. As has already been said. There needs to be a balance between taxpayer and the passenger. What that is I don't know but I am not naive enough to believe it should run at a loss, be propped up by the taxpayer, or part of the political money-go-round.

I absolutely would, yes.

It's not bleeding the country dry, or do you think every European country is bankrupt?

Accountability and competence? Have you ever been on a SWR train?

Id wager a significant amount do anyway via private healthcare. Its a benefit in kind for a lot of management grades in many industries.

But that's a choice. I.e. on a train you can choose to go in First Class if you want to. But the basic offering should be affordable for anyone, reliable, comfortable. Every other country manages this. Only the UK is so feckless we can't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is economic suicide. It needs to cover its cost. It needs investment and needs to make qualitative improvements. Low fares are a magical dream of faeries and unicorns.

Twenty quid Anytimes from Taunton to Paddington probably are up there with the faeries, but the principle of affordable* rail travel subsidised for the public good is a well established principle in some form in basically all European countries plus the normally rather capitalist USA, so if you think the system shouldn't receive operating subsidy at all you're in a tiny minority.

* My benchmark for this would be "not more expensive than a marginal car journey for one in an average family car", i.e. fuel and parking. Mass transport really should be able to achieve this by way of economies of scale, and if the system can't at present capital investment to massively increase capacity (e.g. HS2 in full) should help to achieve it.

 

[Gigabit]

Twenty quid Anytimes from Taunton to Paddington probably are up there with the faeries, but the principle of affordable rail travel subsidised for the public good is a well established principle in some form in basically all European countries plus the normally rather capitalist USA, so if you think the system shouldn't receive operating subsidy at all you're in a tiny minority.

I don't want to get stuck on "it should be £20", it was just an example, happy to accept it's a silly number. But my argument I stick by.

 

[ComUtoR]

I absolutely would, yes.

Would you make the railway free at the point of use ? Or what percent spilt should it be for passenger/taxpayer ?

 

[Gigabit]

Would you make the railway free at the point of use ? Or what percent spilt should it be for passenger/taxpayer ?

As above, I'd figure out what is "affordable" and set the fares accordingly. Then the taxpayer subsidises the shortfall. That excludes infrastructure investment which always pays for itself.

I can't see how making it free in practice would work - but I am not opposed to it in principle. But I have always believed in pragmatism over blind ideology.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would you make the railway free at the point of use ? Or what percent spilt should it be for passenger/taxpayer ?

I would personally look more at what the fare should be (not more expensive than the marginal cost of driving, which HMRC believes to be 25p per mile so for ease we can go with that) and look at what subsidy would achieve that.

For Taunton that's £38 single by the way. You might not want to just price the Anytime at that because it gives you no scope to price up/down, but that probably does indicate an Anytime Return of around £100/single of £50 and the use of Advances to smooth loadings below that.

Curiously the Super Off Peak Return is near enough bang on £100, so this just says that the Anytime (£300ish) is just grossly overpriced, and does point to the ScotRail model somewhat.

However if capital expenditure would reduce operating subsidy significantly by massively increasing ridership so making the best value out of the infrastructure (as demonstrated by the likes of Metrolink, which pretty much I believe breaks even operationally) we should certainly look towards that. LNER's fare increase trial does demonstrate that they are basically having to price people off - if there's demand for five 400m trains per hour from London to Edinburgh (slight exaggeration, but there probably is for four at certain times of day/year) then we should invest to enable that, not just crank up fares/operating subsidy.

 

[ComUtoR]

I can't see how making it free in practice would work - but I am not opposed to it in principle. But I have always believed in pragmatism over blind ideology.

Making it free is probably the easiest thing to do. Imagine the cost saving. No more Delay attribution teams, no more ORCATS, no more ticket offices, TVMs, ticketing websites, revenue sharing, court summons, revenue protection teams, railcard confusion, Zip cards, oyster cards, railcards, gatelines... it would be utopia.

I would personally look more at what the fare should be (not more expensive than the marginal cost of driving, which HMRC believes to be 25p per mile so for ease we can go with that) and look at what subsidy would achieve that.

However if capital expenditure would reduce operating subsidy significantly by massively increasing ridership so making the best value out of the infrastructure (as demonstrated by the likes of Metrolink, which pretty much I believe breaks even operationally) we should certainly look towards that. LNER's fare increase trial does demonstrate that they are basically having to price people off - if there's demand for five 400m trains per hour from London to Edinburgh (slight exaggeration, but there probably is for four at certain times of day/year) then we should invest to enable that, not just crank up fares/operating subsidy.

Again, how much are you prepared to pay in taxes to pay for it all ?

 

[yorksrob]

We need some kind of a commission that basically decides what "affordable" is. Whether the rich are being subsidised or not is just something we accept on a public service, it should not distinguish based on background. I.e. the NHS is the same whoever uses it.

Which should probably look first at housing rather than train fares, as in most places "affordable housing" is anything but (it's just a little less outrageously expensive than that sold on the open market) and having a roof over your head is rather more important than going long distances from said roof.

There probably should be more consideration given to these rather than relying solely on what revenue the railway managed to bring in before the pandemic to determine an arbitrary maximum permissable level of subsidy.

Also it's worth noting that the government will have a lot more ability to influence train fares than the vaguaries of the housing market.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, how much are you prepared to pay in taxes to pay for it all ?

I am willing to pay a LOT more tax for high quality public services as one experiences in the Netherlands and Switzerland (for two examples). A figure is difficult to come by without costing it all up which requires data I don't possess, but the UK at present seems to be firmly in the "cheap rubbish" category, i.e. we pay relatively low taxes in European terms but our public services as a result are utter garbage. I'd rather pay more for them to work - and then I'd save on other things, such as perhaps not needing to run a car or pay for private dentistry.

 

[JonathanH]

But the basic offering should be affordable for anyone, reliable, comfortable. Every other country manages this. Only the UK is so feckless we can't.

What is to say it isn't already affordable though?

Does someone who lives 140 miles away from London need to be able to afford to go there every week, once a month, or once in a while?

If travel were made cheaper, some other form of rationing would be needed to manage who could travel at the times of highest demand.

 

[yorksrob]

Transport is slightly different as much of it comes down to choice. I have a decent motor and I am taxed accordingly. I pay for various toll's around the country because I make a choice to travel by car. I have some issue with "public" transport because I know that in reality it isn't provided as a public service or owned by the public in any way. I think the real question is that. Would I be happy to pay more tax and increased fares to provide a true public service ?
.

So your complaint is that the railway isn't owned by the public or run as a public service, yet you don't want the railway to be owned by the public or run as a public service ?

 

[Gigabit]

What is to say it isn't already affordable though?

Does someone who lives 140 miles away from London need to be able to afford to go there every week, once a month, or once in a while?

If travel were made cheaper, some other form of rationing would be needed to manage who could travel at the times of highest demand.

I don't think it is affordable for the average person. I don't think it's good value for the average person.

 

[JonathanH]

I don't think it is affordable for the average person. I don't think it's good value for the average person.

Yes, but there are other things and pastimes which some might consider unaffordable that people still make it possible to afford by saving on other aspects of their life.

 

[Gigabit]

Yes, but there are other things and pastimes which some might consider unaffordable that people still make it possible to afford by saving on other aspects of their life.

What's that got to do with anything?

Do you think the current costs of train tickets justify the crap performance passengers receive?

 

[JonathanH]

What's that got to do with anything?

Leisure travel is generally a choice, and rarely a distress purchase. That makes it something to budget for against other things to spend money on. Should the railway take a lower share of people's disposable income so people can afford other things?

 

[Gigabit]

Travel is generally a choice, and rarely a distress purchase. That makes it something to budget for against other things to spend money on. Should the railway take a lower share of people's disposable income so people can afford other things?

I think if you need to get from A to B, then we should have a way to get there that means you don't need to spend a lot of money.

 

[JonathanH]

I think if you need to get from A to B, then we should have a way to get there that means you don't need to spend a lot of money.

Yes, but the debate is about how far A should be from B to need to be affordable. Most people who live 140 miles from London don't need to be able to afford to travel there for leisure every week.

 

[Gigabit]

Yes, but the debate is about how far A should be from B to need to be affordable.

I kind of think it's irrelevant. It should be a cost per mile that makes it affordable for all to use.

 

[ComUtoR]

So your complaint is that the railway isn't owned by the public or run as a public service, yet you don't want the railway to be owned by the public or run as a public service ?

I have no complaint. I genuinely don't care either way.

However, I do believe in the reality of what happens on the ground and what they are promising.

 

[yorksrob]

Leisure travel is generally a choice, and rarely a distress purchase. That makes it something to budget for against other things to spend money on. Should the railway take a lower share of people's disposable income so people can afford other things?

"Leisure" is an unhelpful phrase as it seems to lead to a lazy political assumption that anything not involving commuting is entirely discretionary.

In reality people might need to see relatives, go for job interviews, attend medical appointments etc.

 

[Energy]

I kind of think it's irrelevant. It should be a cost per mile that makes it affordable for all to use.

Cost per mile isn't a perfect metric though.

Track maintanence can be done reasonably well as per mile per passenger, with more complicated layouts with more track junctions being compensated with longer trains. However rolling stock is on a per time basis.

Staff is more complicated, they are paid for their time but the driver costs the same whether they've got a GWR 9 car 802 to spread the cost over, or a 2 car 150. Length isn't a perfect indicator, while a pendolino has a 4+ staff onboard a 12 car 350 is typically only has a guard and driver.

A fair way to do it might be basing fairs on a cost per mile + cost per time. Drivers would be costed at a flat rate and longer trains would indirectly subsidise short trains.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think if you need to get from A to B, then we should have a way to get there that means you don't need to spend a lot of money.

But there must be limits to that, surely. If I need to get to the local shops, then it makes sense to have an ambition that I should be able to get there without spending a lot of money. But if for some reason I need to go from London to Tokyo, it would be crazy to demand that I be able to make that trip without spending lots of money. So where does Taunton to London lie in that scheme? Well it's the kind of long distance journey that most people are only going to occasionally, either for special business purposes (in which case their employer would probably pay) or for leisure purposes - in which case it's not an essential. I can't see any sensible argument that Taunton to London should be a super-cheap journey, although I'd concede that £100 for an off-peak fare seems a little on the high side..

 

[WAB]

My prediction is the end of rail staff travel. No way will it go from being allowed to use trains operated by one owning group to just being a free for all on all trains. Far more likely to get rid of it altogether.

Depends on the setup. For a sectorised model, it could be your own subsector and one of the other subsectors in your area of your choice - e.g. LNER staff in Leeds could get free travel on Northern or TPE as well. For regions, it'd probably be your own region.

It isn't wise to underestimate the costs involved in splitting operations. It is odd that people are calling for one nationalised operator and less confusion, yet a view is also taken that services could be hived off to TfL. What could more easily happen is for TfL to take a closer degree of control in specifying the service levels and for some branding to change, but for the operations to remain integrated within the nationalised operator.

They could encourage Great Northern to boost the off-peak and weekend service on the GN inners... something that has been promised by every set of management since WAGN, but never properly delivered...