Should the government renationalise once things are back to normal?

[yorkie]

Firstly, see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-suspended-for-6-months.202509/#post-4498728

So the question is, once things return to normal, what should happen then?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Vest all operators in the OLR and create "Rail England" (I don't think Scotland or Wales would want to, or should be, included).

 

[Djgr]

Vest all operators in the OLR and create "Rail England" (I don't think Scotland or Wales would want to, or should be, included).

Yep. Agreed.

 

[paddington]

(I don't think Scotland or Wales would want to, or should be, included).

The Scotrail network is relatively separate from south of the border, from a passenger service perspective. But several lines and stations in England around Shrewsbury are only or mainly served by TfW.

I can't be the first person to have raised this issue so can someone point me to any previous discussion about this "anomaly"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Scotrail network is relatively separate from south of the border, from a passenger service perspective. But several lines and stations in England around Shrewsbury are only or mainly served by TfW.

I can't be the first person to have raised this issue so can someone point me to any previous discussion about this "anomaly"?

I don't see that that has any bearing on any nationalisation of the English TOCs as it wouldn't change anything with regard to those stations.

 

[Ianno87]

Given that passenger numbers are going to take a considerable length of time to recover to the levels required to meet franchise agreements, perhaps a golden opportunity for re-letting of every franchise progressively, on new more sensible terms.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Vest all operators in the OLR and create "Rail England" (I don't think Scotland or Wales would want to, or should be, included).

Politically, I don't agree. It's just further fragmentation of the UK. Granted, Scotrail was a brand name since the BR days, but wouldn't all these new devolved rail organisations need some sort of umbrella to come under? I.e, British Rail? After all, we're not going to devolve ownership of the tracks (I presume).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Politically, I don't agree. It's just further fragmentation of the UK. Granted, Scotrail was a brand name since the BR days, but wouldn't all these new devolved rail organisations need some sort of umbrella to come under? I.e, British Rail? After all, we're not going to devolve ownership of the tracks (I presume).

I think we indeed will in due course.

 

[squizzler]

I think the OP is premature, and the title of the thread is loaded to favour a chosen outcome When the management contracts come up for renewal in six months we will have the findings of the Williams Review and be in a position to decide where we go from here.

 

[Ianno87]

I think the OP is premature, and the title of the thread is loaded to favour a chosen outcome When the management contracts come up for renewal in six months we will have the findings of the Williams Review and be in a position to decide where we go from here.

Is probably the correct answer.

 

[Meerkat]

Nationalisation is a terrible idea. Though happy for the Scots to give it a go!
Heavily subsidised metro and rural services probably should be concessions run by devolved authorities, but the Intercity services should be more privatised, not less.

 

[Djgr]

Politically, I don't agree. It's just further fragmentation of the UK. Granted, Scotrail was a brand name since the BR days, but wouldn't all these new devolved rail organisations need some sort of umbrella to come under? I.e, British Rail? After all, we're not going to devolve ownership of the tracks (I presume).

But the fragmentation as you call it simply reflects the truth of the ongoing political trajectory of the various countries within the United Kingdom.

 

[AndyCK]

So the question is, once things return to normal, what should happen then?

A very difficult question to answer or speculate on in my opinion; we have nothing like this to draw experience from in modern times.

People have posted that nationalisation would be a bad idea - OK, but what if there aren't enough companies in a good financial state willing or able to take on/continue to run franchises or run Open Access services once things are back to normal? Government intervention in some form or another might be inevitable.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

But the fragmentation as you call it simply reflects the truth of the ongoing political trajectory of the various countries within the United Kingdom.

It's a tricky topic, way outside the scope of this thread. But I believe if there is fragmentation-there is no point exacerbating it. It doesn't help that devolution is currently the "in" topic politically, which just pulls apart the threads of the country without any intellectual thought about what these threads are or how to tighten them whilst devolving.

 

[Djgr]

It's a tricky topic, way outside the scope of this thread. But I believe if there is fragmentation-there is no point exacerbating it. It doesn't help that devolution is currently the "in" topic politically, which just pulls apart the threads of the country without any intellectual thought about what these threads are or how to tighten them whilst devolving.

Can you tighten them whilst devolving?

 

[Vespa]

East cost mainline franchises failed 3 times amongst others that was taken back by the government's operator of last resort.

Apparently they performed better under government control.

Personally I think Sectorisation was the best period of the BR days and that could be used as a model of how to do it.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Can you tighten them whilst devolving?

Well historically its worked in some cases and been a disaster in others. In the case of the UK, devolving any other the constituent nations was likely to cause constitutional trouble because well, they're nations after all-not just regions or cities and making them more autonomous will likely breed nationalism over time. What should have been done was to create an English Parliament and a Scottish Parliament. Creating a more constitutionally balanced country instead of having England's government also rule over areas that are largely accountable to itself.

I feel deindustrialisation has done a lot to destory the feeling of belonging and Britishness in this country-but I won't get into that here.

 

[Chester1]

Vest all operators in the OLR and create "Rail England" (I don't think Scotland or Wales would want to, or should be, included).

Definitely not a "Rail England"! I would prefer Northern to become a TfN concession. WMR (minus LNWR) would be another obvious local concession. I am not opposed to having a nationalised Intercity operator but I want central government to have less control over my local services, not more!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Definitely not a "Rail England"! I would prefer Northern to become a TfN concession. WMR (minus LNWR) would be another obvious local concession. I am not opposed to having a nationalised Intercity operator but I want central government to have less control over my local services, not more!

The problem with that is that lines and stations could be closed on the quiet without making national news and services would become far more susceptible to local authority cuts as buses have.

 

[43096]

the Intercity services should be more privatised, not less.

That ship sailed at privatisation. The IC sector should have been sold/floated as a fully commercial operation back then. A privately owned version, effectively, of what DB Fernverkehr is in Germany now.

Thing is now, those services are now too interwoven with everything else such that splitting them out again would be a nightmare.

 

[PG]

The problem with that is that lines and stations could be closed on the quiet without making national news and services would become far more susceptible to local authority cuts as buses have.

Exactly! If we bemoan DfT for micromanaging things, well local authorities would be leaving things to the very last minute as well as their councillors all trying to score political points leading to some totally joined up thinking NOT!

Plus central government would be able to effectively impose cuts by playing with the allocation of local authority funding while having a cop out - 'not our fault blame your local council for how they prioritised spending their funds'.

 

[squizzler]

The problem with that is that lines and stations could be closed on the quiet without making national news and services would become far more susceptible to local authority cuts as buses have.

When was the last time a line or station was closed? More likely to be the other way round.

I am dead set against a "hard" nationalisation of the 1947 mould. "Soft" nationalisation, basically what just happened where private firms compete for management contracts, with or without national branding, I could live with. This is similar to my understanding of how the London Transport bus services are contracted out, and indeed a successful model for EU 'local' rail networks.

Of course it must always be pointed out that the worst performing part of the rail ecosystem is the already-nationalised network Rail, and this an equally legitimate thread could be started: "Should the government privatise once things are back to normal?"

 

[Tobbes]

Let's see what the Williams Report has to say, but an integrated passenger system with a single, not-for-profit operator is my preferred option. This could be a completed out management contract or it could be BR Mk 2. But let's see what Williams says.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That ship sailed at privatisation. The IC sector should have been sold/floated as a fully commercial operation back then. A privately owned version, effectively, of what DB Fernverkehr is in Germany now.

Thing is now, those services are now too interwoven with everything else such that splitting them out again would be a nightmare.

They always were. For instance, the local service between Warrington and Wigan is provided solely by Avanti, nee ICWC.

 

[Meerkat]

Let's see what the Williams Report has to say, but an integrated passenger system with a single, not-for-profit operator is my preferred option. This could be a completed out management contract or it could be BR Mk 2. But let's see what Williams says.

The very last thing we want is a single operator! Look at the huge waste of money and guesswork spent trying to benchmark Network Rail - we at least need regions so there is benchmarking and competition between them.

 

[Geoff DC]

From a Cornish perspective not Rail England, BUT British Rail would be fine in my view

 

[Tobbes]

From a Cornish perspective not Rail England, BUT British Rail would be fine in my view

Why not Rail England? Rail policy will remain devolved in Wales and Scotland (and NI is all about working with CIE), so a single nationwide operator seems unlikely.

 

[BigCj34]

Would Rail England be an appropriate name for a body administering multiple routes going from England to Wales or Scotland?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would Rail England be an appropriate name for a body administering multiple routes going from England to Wales or Scotland?

Yes, because it's controlled from England.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

Would Rail England be an appropriate name for a body administering multiple routes going from England to Wales or Scotland?

Off the top of my head pretty much every national operator for nearby countries on the continent runs services into other countries, and most (all?) of their names contain that of their country.