Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[GRALISTAIR]

Personally, longer franchises and integrated infrastructure is the way ahead.

Yep - I would agree with this -still wading through all the posts on this thread.

 

[DarloRich]

Personally, longer franchises and integrated infrastructure is the way ahead.

Yep - I would agree with this -still wading through all the posts on this thread.

personally I would go for an true alliance type approach. TOC's don't want to manage the track, engineers don't want to run trains and the government would have a great deal of bad public comment to wade through if a private company were to "own" the track.

I think the work NR is/has done to change its focus ( which may not be visible to everyone here) is important and gives a pointer for the future. Scotrail is the template which should evolve as the SE competition develops.

 

[Railsigns]

Personally, longer franchises and integrated infrastructure is the way ahead.

Wow! It's as though you want the worst form of rail privatisation possible.

 

[B&I]

Because if the railways were renationalised, the DfT, Network Rail and the Treasury would have the whip hand completely, with no privately owned and irreverent TOC to challenge them and expose their gross incompetence. Plus, once the railways ceases to be a gravy train for the select few, no British Government will chuck taxpayers' money into the bottomless pit in the way Governments have since privatisation. It's not by chance, by coincidence, by some freak of circumstance that since privatisation successive Governments have poured taxpayers' money into the railways without bothering to ensure the money was spent wisely.

1. Where TOCs oppose the government (VTWC & VTEC), rather than cravenly doing its bidding (Southern), they do so in their own interests, as would-be profit-making private companies, not in the interests of the passenger.

2. I'm not sure what your second point is. Why has privatisation alone led to increased spending on railways that would not have happened otherwise? Unless you are saying this is becuase the privatosed railway is inefficient.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

personally I would go for an true alliance type approach. TOC's don't want to manage the track, engineers don't want to run trains and the government would have a great deal of bad public comment to wade through if a private company were to "own" the track.

I think the work NR is/has done to change its focus ( which may not be visible to everyone here) is important and gives a pointer for the future. Scotrail is the template which should evolve as the SE competition develops.

Odd to recall that NSE Divisonal Managers used to be entirely responsible for both track , stations , train services - and rolling stock. (ditto Regional and Inter City Managers) - they seemed to manage all right - for a lot less money in real terms than today's managers - but then BR was supposedly "deeply inefficient" - but then - I belong to the old school of integrated management.

 

[DarloRich]

Odd to recall that NSE Divisonal Managers used to be entirely responsible for both track , stations , train services - and rolling stock. (ditto Regional and Inter City Managers) - they seemed to manage all right - for a lot less money in real terms than today's managers - but then BR was supposedly "deeply inefficient" - but then - I belong to the old school of integrated management.

But your alliance head would hold , essentially, the same role. Underneath that role you would have your chief engineer ( mech and civil), operations manager, service delivery manager etc

The real issue is how you facilitate all of that. There are so many differing fingers to place in differing pies these days!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

But your alliance head would hold , essentially, the same role. Underneath that role you would have your chief engineer ( mech and civil), operations manager, service delivery manager etc

The real issue is how you facilitate all of that. There are so many differing fingers to place in differing pies these days!

Potentially - could happen - with the right sort of DfT blessing ....

 

[DarloRich]

Potentially - could happen - with the right sort of DfT blessing ....

Developing the Scotrail model into the SE franchise contest then EC might be the start.

 

[AndrewE]

A vertically-integrated railway system would be more efficient though.

As it stands, every single layer has its own privatised business running it, and each of them takes their cut for their trouble. The TOC takes their cut, the ROSCO takes their cut, the engineering contractor takes their cut, the manufacturer of the trains takes their cut. The cleaning company takes a cut, the catering company takes a cut, etc etc etc. And that's before we consider the vast sums spent on things such as delay allocation that are only necessary because one private company a) doesn't want to pay for another's mistakes and b) wants to profit from another's mistakes.

The effect of this is that astonishingly huge amounts of cash get salami-sliced out of the industry in profit every year. The headline profit margin of 4% on a TOC (much as I am firmly of the opinion it is money for old rope) isn't the main issue and is just the tip of the iceberg.

People rail against the cost of engineering increasingly exponentially, but the inflation is the perfect example of this salami-slicing in action. A project funded by BR and managed by BR, with trains built by BR's own factory and hardware forged in BR's own factory, is inevitably more efficient than the current situation where each item is made by a different private company, all taking their cut of the fee.

As we've seen with the water industry and, to a lesser extent, with telecommunications, this level of vertical integration cannot be managed by private businesses because they cannot be trusted to not ruthlessly exploit their monopoly position. Even with regulation, water company profits are genuinely obscene. And even with regulation, BT through their Openreach subsidiary regularly take the Mickey out of non-BT companies.

I agree with all of this, and would add the interest on working capital paid to the banks , insurance premiums etc etc.

The HS2 service in question is expected in 2026. Looking at how long it takes to do anything on the railway, I think it's highly improbable that any extension of Derby-Crewe could happen until two or three years before that - and probably not worth the bother if it has to be taken away so soon.

...which is another argument against the current structure. Franchise Contracts, plus rolling stock leases make everything so inflexible (and change so expensive when compensation is expected) that sensible, useful and otherwise perfectly-practicable changes are just written off as impossible.

 

[Thunderer]

British Rail got a lot of things right in the 1980's and the 1990's, even though successive governments continued to severely under invest. Now us (the public) pay more for what I would call a worse service. High fares lining the pockets of foreign investors. Investment? Yes, but look at the awful and in some cases, woefully inadequate stock (voyagers) we have got, and the IEP project so far has been nothing short of a disaster and the trains themselves are over complicated, and after travelling on them both first and standard class, I can safely say they are a truly inferior successor to the HST. Say what you want about our railways now, but the bottom line is its all about making money first, not providing a comfortable, affordable service for us, the paying passenger. I would certainly favour renationalisation as long as it was governed and run properly. The ECML proved recently that it can be done while in public hands and ask any true Railwayman or woman from the BR era still working on the railways now, and they will tell you its a logistial nightmare, over complex and far more difficult and expensive to run now than ever before.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

1. Where TOCs oppose the government (VTWC & VTEC), rather than cravenly doing its bidding (Southern), they do so in their own interests, as would-be profit-making private companies, not in the interests of the passenger.

2. I'm not sure what your second point is. Why has privatisation alone led to increased spending on railways that would not have happened otherwise? Unless you are saying this is becuase the privatosed railway is inefficient.

Follow the money. Work out who is really profiting from the present arrangement. Ask why the DfT gives franchises to TOCs promising entire new train fleets instead of to TOCs promising to run longer trains with far more seats.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

British Rail got a lot of things right in the 1980's and the 1990's, even though successive governments continued to severely under invest. Now us (the public) pay more for what I would call a worse service. High fares lining the pockets of foreign investors. Investment? Yes, but look at the awful and in some cases, woefully inadequate stock (voyagers) we have got, and the IEP project so far has been nothing short of a disaster and the trains themselves are over complicated, and after travelling on them both first and standard class, I can safely say they are a truly inferior successor to the HST. Say what you want about our railways now, but the bottom line is its all about making money first, not providing a comfortable, affordable service for us, the paying passenger. I would certainly favour renationalisation as long as it was governed and run properly. The ECML proved recently that it can be done while in public hands and ask any true Railwayman or woman from the BR era still working on the railways now, and they will tell you its a logistial nightmare, over complex and far more difficult and expensive to run now than ever before.

Most people who lived with British Rail know that it did pretty well with inadequate finances. There is no reason to believe that a renationalised railway would be allowed by Government or the Civil Service to be run sensibly with a long-term strategy. The fact that Labour at present is concentrating on taking franchises away from TOCs instead of concentrating on the really big problems facing the railway indicates how little interest politicians have in an efficient, cost-effective railway.

 

[NSEFAN]

Most people who lived with British Rail know that it did pretty well with inadequate finances. There is no reason to believe that a renationalised railway would be allowed by Government or the Civil Service to be run sensibly with a long-term strategy. The fact that Labour at present is concentrating on taking franchises away from TOCs instead of concentrating on the really big problems facing the railway indicates how little interest politicians have in an efficient, cost-effective railway.

This is an important point. Just because the former BR was allowed to manage itself at an arm's length doesn't mean that a re-created BR would have the same luxury, especially not if it gets as much money thrown at it as today's railway does. BR was strangled, seemingly directly by the treasury and not government per se. Ironically, this is probably why it was rated as one of the more efficient railways in the world just before privatisation, simply because it had to be in order to operate! Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever see the golden combination of enough funding and high efficiency, because when money is sloshing around the leadership is less focussed on efficiency and less keen to rattle cages to get rid of bloat.

 

[aylesbury]

Perhaps regional franchises would work ie. Eastern, midlands ,Scottish, western oops its BR but a privatised system like this might work or not who knows but worth a try?

 

[Gareth Marston]

The crux of the matter is Government and what type relationship with the railways you want Government to have. The numbers of posters on here who fail to realize that nearly everything is determined by Govt anyway is unbelievable. DfT have been specifying services and the number of carriages on franchises and even the minutes past each hour InterCity trains leave London termini. Screaming oh my god Government will interfere if its nationalized as a reason not to is just plain dumb as they already do!

The current system sees Government try and absolve responsibility by hiding behind the TOC's, the fragmented structure is handy in passing the buck. The inefficiency and perversity are acceptable as long as they don't take the blame. The responsibility line will lead straight back to Government once nationalization occurs. That's a huge bonus for the traveling public and taxpayers.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

The crux of the matter is Government and what type relationship with the railways you want Government to have. The numbers of posters on here who fail to realize that nearly everything is determined by Govt anyway is unbelievable. DfT have been specifying services and the number of carriages on franchises and even the minutes past each hour InterCity trains leave London termini. Screaming oh my god Government will interfere if its nationalized as a reason not to is just plain dumb as they already do!

That's not really the point, though, is it? If the government is responsible for so many of the perceived negative issues we're seeing at the moment, in terms of franchise spec, cutting subsidies, limited infrastructure investment etc, why would you want to give them more control over it? It's one thing letting the DfT making big decisions - it's quite another letting them make all the decisions

And yes, I know some of that is party political - Labour wouldn't necessarily be as aggressive with some of those aspects than the Tories. But you have to accept that the Tories will be back in power eventually after Labour nationalise it, be it 5, 10 or 20 years. Even as someone in favour of nationalisation, I'd much rather Labour running a privatised railway than the Tories running a nationalised railway, because while the former in the past had its issues (mainly around those no-growth franchises), it was nothing compared to the 80s

 

[FQTV]

The current system sees Government try and absolve responsibility by hiding behind the TOC's, the fragmented structure is handy in passing the buck. The inefficiency and perversity are acceptable as long as they don't take the blame. The responsibility line will lead straight back to Government once nationalization occurs. That's a huge bonus for the traveling public and taxpayers.

This. Exactly this.

The public mood in favour of 'nationalisation' is surely far more about a desire to hold those responsible for the service that they receive to account, rather than some sort of resurgent noble desire for public ownership for the public good.

History shows that, when those in positions of authority and power seek to sideline, disenfranchise or otherwise distract and confuse others, the seeds for populism are ultimately sown. In this specific case, it's hardly surprising that such a reportedly large number of railway passengers and taxpayers support 'nationalisation' as it's the only clear and understandable concept of what others might describe as a route to a vertically-integrated, economically and socially valuable, naturally monopolistic and capacity-constrained network operation.

 

[ole17]

This. Exactly this.

The public mood in favour of 'nationalisation' is surely far more about a desire to hold those responsible for the service that they receive to account, rather than some sort of resurgent noble desire for public ownership for the public good.

Exactly why network rail bosses have to come out in-person during bank/christmas holiday works and show people that he cares about 'on-time' infrastructure works, when just a few years ago this never happened. The public (most) know who to complain when infrastructure works are delayed, now they want the same with train services.

I would love if the public could give 10 min of their time in understanding the structure of the railways with the TOC and government, that the TOCs are run with a contract of a length of many pages dictating many parts of their operation, not just running a train. Add to that the media stop spreading not factually-based news when they have absolutely no interest in researching the details of whats going on (see the use of 'bailouts' regarding VTEC). It reminds me of the Grenfell tower fire last year. No mention was there initially in the news that the americans had already 'restricted' the use of the same type of flammable cladding to only low rise bulldings until the Times reported it I believe. Surely the public does have an interest in in-depth news research not just in social, human rights problems, but also in many other topics be it science or even transport issues?

 

[Gareth Marston]

This. Exactly this.

The public mood in favour of 'nationalisation' is surely far more about a desire to hold those responsible for the service that they receive to account, rather than some sort of resurgent noble desire for public ownership for the public good.

History shows that, when those in positions of authority and power seek to sideline, disenfranchise or otherwise distract and confuse others, the seeds for populism are ultimately sown. In this specific case, it's hardly surprising that such a reportedly large number of railway passengers and taxpayers support 'nationalisation' as it's the only clear and understandable concept of what others might describe as a route to a vertically-integrated, economically and socially valuable, naturally monopolistic and capacity-constrained network operation.

Herein Wales even mild legitimate constructive criticism is met with hostility denial and attempts to blame others fromWelsh Government it's an invidious poison on all our life's as Government then becomes incapable of learning from its mistakes. The fragmentation is the real big problem with the Torys 19993 Railways Act howeverprecious little is done to address this for fear of being seen to be wrong.

 

[Gareth Marston]

That's not really the point, though, is it? If the government is responsible for so many of the perceived negative issues we're seeing at the moment, in terms of franchise spec, cutting subsidies, limited infrastructure investment etc, why would you want to give them more control over it? It's one thing letting the DfT making big decisions - it's quite another letting them make all the decisions

And yes, I know some of that is party political - Labour wouldn't necessarily be as aggressive with some of those aspects than the Tories. But you have to accept that the Tories will be back in power eventually after Labour nationalise it, be it 5, 10 or 20 years. Even as someone in favour of nationalisation, I'd much rather Labour running a privatised railway than the Tories running a nationalised railway, because while the former in the past had its issues (mainly around those no-growth franchises), it was nothing compared to the 80s

How can the railway be privatised if A Labour Government are running it?

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

How can the railway be privatised if A Labour Government are running it?

They already have, from 1997 to 2010. They didn't privatise it themselves but they were running a privatised railway

 

[ChiefPlanner]

They already have, from 1997 to 2010. They didn't privatise it themselves but they were running a privatised railway

Quite - and despite the hot air and blustering from Prescott (who comes from a family whose father was I think a Controller at Crewe or Chester) about the railway being a national disgrace , did the square root of nothing. Fast forward a little while to Tony Blair enthusiastically chumming up to Beardie at Euston for the launch of the 390's. Yes - nice one chaps. Los of hot air - zero delivery on deliverables.

 

[AndrewE]

That's because Blair was a closet Thatcherite whose first action on getting elected was to go to Downing St to assure Thatcher that her policies were safe in his hands. And Prescott was widely recognised as the token trade unionist in a token job to keep traditional Labour party supporters on board.
So most Labour voters were bitterly disappointed when Blair slavishly did nothing to reverse the policies that were so unpopular, even though he got in with a landslide having pretended he was going to be a breath of fresh air.
They even reneged on the promise to introduce lined pint glasses to guarantee full measure!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

That's because Blair was a closet Thatcherite whose first action on getting elected was to go to Downing St to assure Thatcher that her policies were safe in his hands. And Prescott was widely recognised as the token trade unionist in a token job to keep traditional Labour party supporters on board.
So most Labour voters were bitterly disappointed when Blair slavishly did nothing to reverse the policies that were so unpopular, even though he got in with a landslide having pretended he was going to be a breath of fresh air.
They even reneged on the promise to introduce lined pint glasses to guarantee full measure!

To quote Private Eye , I once had Prescott in my cab - a 313 Euston to Willesden to launch the ill fated Royal Mail Trailer Train. I really , really wanted to engage - but all I did was tell him off for almost delaying a punctual start as he got talking to some random member of the public. Not as impressive as you might think in the round - and quite aggressive - (till I said the press might be watchng) - however he enjoyed his ride and we parted amicably. A great dissapointment.

Whereas Madam May seems to think a great vote winner is the issue on foxhunting. ........

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The crux of the matter is Government and what type relationship with the railways you want Government to have.

I assume you are aware that if the railways are renationalised, the type of relationship we want the Government to have will not count for anything.

Two things are certain: a Tory Government will be at first suspicious of and later hostile towards a nationalised industry; a Labour Government will sooner or later run out of money, and will not be able to finance anything adequately, least of all the railways.

 

[Railsigns]

a Labour Government will sooner or later run out of money, and will not be able to finance anything adequately, least of all the railways.

If that's true, then it's another good reason to renationalise. The nationalised railway managed with a level of public subsidy that was about a third of what's thrown at the privatised railway today.

 

[Bromley boy]

If that's true, then it's another good reason to renationalise. The nationalised railway managed with a level of public subsidy that was about a third of what's thrown at the privatised railway today.

But isn't that comparing apples with oranges when you compare ridership under BR with today's passenger figures?

Nationalisation is not the panacea many make it out to be. Most people who remember BR don't have great things to say about it. An amended version of privatisation with longer franchises, so that TOCs have an incentive to invest for the long term, would be a better bet than renationalisation, in my view.

 

[Bromley boy]

ask any true Railwayman or woman from the BR era still working on the railways now, and they will tell you its a logistial nightmare, over complex and far more difficult and expensive to run now than ever before.

Then ask them if they want to go back to earning BR style salaries .

 

[absolutelymilk]

the IEP project so far has been nothing short of a disaster and the trains themselves are over complicated, and after travelling on them both first and standard class, I can safely say they are a truly inferior successor to the HST.

So the train which you pick out as being the worst new stock in the modern era is the one procured by the government not the TOCs?

ask any true Railwayman or woman from the BR era still working on the railways now, and they will tell you its a logistial nightmare, over complex and far more difficult and expensive to run now than ever before.

You don't think the rapidly rising passenger numbers and far more stringent health and safety has anything to do with that?

 

[AndrewE]

it's a logistial nightmare, over complex and far more difficult and expensive to run now than ever before.

...or the Balkanisation of operations, with each TOC (and all the other players) focussing on their own bottom lines?