The 'N' word - Nationalise

[IanBanks-Jones]

All these forums are full of people referring to 'them' and 'they'. But these days 'they' are toc's, network rail, contractors, rolling stock manufacturers (often in far flung countries), and of course, those wonderful leasing companies.

Look, I'm just going to say it. Nationalise. Now.

Each of the companies above are run either for profit or for subsidy from the government. Each has admin and management that overlaps. Pure sense says that to run an efficient, effective and economical railway, you don't get each individual aspect dealt with by a different company.

What I suggest is that rather than do it overnight, as each franchise comes up for renewal, they should be withdrawn and returned to the (still government owned) Network Rail, which incidentally should be named British Network Rail.

The lease companies would be the only area of major extra outlay, but in the long term, these costs could be offset by bringing manufacture of new rolling stock back in house. Again, rather than being set up to make profit, this would mean that rolling stock would be available for cost price.

Maintenance and construction could be brought in house, thus reducing the cost per mile of laying or repairing track. Standard types of station building, bridge, pylon etc could be used network wide.

Any political party willing to implement such a plan would be on to something.

 

[caliwag]

I'll drink to that chief...it's not a vote winner mind, nobody cares really.

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

Imagine a Lab government that could say it could create jobs, improve transport infrastructure, increase manufacturing and re-nationalise something, all while saving money then they'd landslide the next election

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Imagine a Lab government that could say it could create jobs, improve transport infrastructure, increase manufacturing and re-nationalise something, all while saving money then they'd landslide the next election

If anyone cared to remember what Labour did between 1997 and 2010 then I doubt they would get back in, even on the promise of that!

 

[Smudger105e]

I am not a supporter of privatisation, but one argument for it is that competition between companies could be seen as a good thing.

 

[Yew]

I am not a supporter of privatisation, but one argument for it is that competition between companies could be seen as a good thing.

Competition? Whats that?

 

[Bevan Price]

Competition? Whats that?

A licence to increase fares at way above the inflation rate ?

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

But they rarely compete with each other in real terms. If you want to get from a-b, then you go to station A, buy a ticket to station B and catch whichever train gets there quickest. (well, that's how normal people use the railway). If we're honest, all the toc's are owned by a small number of parent companies. They don't (for the most part) run at a profit either. They don't own the trains they use, the track they run on, and in some cases the stations they call at.

 

[Nonsense]

Pure sense says that to run an efficient, effective and economical railway, you don't get each individual aspect dealt with by a different company.

Whats the alternative? A government monopoly? Because the public sector has efficiency written all over it?

Pure sense says that competition drives efficiency, and specialist activities require specialists.

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

If anyone cared to remember what Labour did between 1997 and 2010 then I doubt they would get back in, even on the promise of that!

It doesn't matter what they've done before. If the present CON/DEM situation carries on, then I'm all for giving Labour the chance to screw up!

 

[WatcherZero]

They are competing against each other not so much in operating the franchises but in the bidding for them in the first place. Now you could say well why dont they just compete for one single franchise then but think about it, it costs £20m takes years and requires hundreds of millions in credit guarentees to bid for a existing franchise. No one could afford to bid for a unified franchise or rather the ones with the financial muscle would face very little competition. Bad enough on the National Lottery franchising competition!

 

[starrymarkb]

Isn't it Network Rail that is hoovering up most of the subsidy... IIRC that around half of each fare is paid to NR as track access fees. Public or Private Network Rail's costs need to be brought under control (which is easier said then done)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It doesn't matter what they've done before. If the present CON/DEM situation carries on, then I'm all for giving Labour the chance to screw up!

Screw up again you mean. I dread to think what the future holds when Labour come in again (which will hopefully be around about the year 2135).

Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I'm not sure where I've heard this but isn't their a clause in a European Act or similar that disallows any state ownership of railway networks? I know RENFE etc exist, so I'm not sure if I've imagined that or not...

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

Pure sense says that competition drives efficiency, and specialist activities require specialists.

If there was proper competition, then I'd agree, but British railways don't really lend themselves to it. Beeching saw to that. And what's wrong with having specialists in house?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I'm not sure where I've heard this but isn't their a clause in a European Act or similar that disallows any state ownership of railway networks?

What about DB. They run German railways, and much of ours too!

 

[YorkshireBear]

Nationalisation would cost jobs not make them. Make loads of companies one and all of a sudden there is loads of overlapping thus redundancies.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Nationalisation would cost jobs not make them. Make loads of companies one and all of a sudden there is loads of overlapping thus redundancies.

Indeed. I was told once by a staff member that there's the best part of 70 dispatchers at Manchester Piccadilly (this was a while ago). It' obvious that under one body significantly less of them would be required!

 

[tbtc]

Imagine a Lab government that could say it could create jobs

Create jobs?

Our wonderfully inefficient railways have more jobs than ever. Admittedly loads of them are people who count delay minutes and other minor (but critical) things, rather than manufacturing jobs...

 

[sprinterguy]

What about DB. They run German railways, and much of ours too!

DB is a private company, that is subdivided into a few role specific divisions very similar to the BR business units, plus a further division responsible for the infrastructure like Network Rail is. So you can have a single umbrella organisation responsible for the rail network but there still needs to be a division between infrastructure and trains.

SNCF is entirely state owned though, but once again with a separate company looking after the infrastructure.

 

[starrymarkb]

Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I'm not sure where I've heard this but isn't their a clause in a European Act or similar that disallows any state ownership of railway networks? I know RENFE etc exist, so I'm not sure if I've imagined that or not...

No there isn't. However Infrastructure and Operations must be accounted for separately with Operations paying Infrastructure for access to the track. The track is available for any company to use at the same rate as the incumbent (subject to paths/licences etc).

Most countries have therefore split their national companies into two parts under common ownership. If privatisation didn't happen you'd see something much like the BR sectors. BR Infrastructure would maintain the track and BR Trains would pay BRI for access. BRI would then use this to fund repairs etc. If GenericOpenAccessTrains (GOAT) wanted to run their own freight or passenger services then GOAT would pay the same rates to BRI as BRT.

This is how France, Switzerland and Italy are working things.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If the government proposed renationalising the railways (ie buying all the private assets), the banks (IMF etc) would do a runner, our credit rating would be cut and there would be a run on the £.
Network Rail's £30Bn overdraft would get added to the public debt.
Rail investment would be cut, and you would be dependent on annual crumbs from the Treasury rather than 5-year protected funding plans.

The EU only mandates separation of accounts between infrastructure and operations
It regulates cross-border transport, but not domestic.
It also mandates technical standards (eg interoperability - ETCS etc).

TOCs must function as commercial entities, but the government can own them (eg as in Germany) and subsidise them (as everywhere).
In case you had forgotten, the government still owns the UK passenger railway, it just chooses to franchise out its operation.

Renationalisation is an absolute dead duck.
That's not to say the current structure is fit for purpose.

 

[PinzaC55]

Imagine a Lab government that could say it could create jobs, improve transport infrastructure, increase manufacturing and re-nationalise something, all while saving money then they'd landslide the next election

It can of course say exactly that. Prior to the 1997 election Bliar said he would renationalise the railways and promptly reneged on that promise. It has been many years since the Tories, Labour and the LibDems merged into a pasitiche of each other.
I still feel ashamed that I voted for Bliar but I have come to terms with it.

 

[HYPODERMIC]

It's good that we're finally having a debate about renationalisation. This is something that has never happened before on this forum before. You are the first person who has ever raised this important topic, and I look forward to discussing it in both this thread and the one that somebody will inevitably create next week too.



(But my teasing sarcasm aside, my vote would be to renationalise by retaining each franchise as it expires. It needn't be the massive cost that pro-privatisation people argue it would be by instantly purchasing the whole lot.)

 

[WatcherZero]

NR does issue its own bonds though, non government backed. And the three credit ratings agencies rate them AAA.

 

[KA4C]

Create jobs?

Our wonderfully inefficient railways have more jobs than ever. Admittedly loads of them are people who count delay minutes and other minor (but critical) things, rather than manufacturing jobs...

Bang on the money there!

 

[PR1Berske]

No, no, no, no, no.

As people have said numerous times on this forum in the past, nationalisation would be an utter disaster.

The public purse could not afford a nationalised railway

Privatisation has brought more lines, more services, modern rolling stock (to the South :roll and service expansions British Rail could not afford


The only people who want a nationalised railway are the vested interests - the Unions who hold the country to ransom at a whim. I know that £40K must be a struggle to live on but those of us who earn a quarter of that do as well as we can.

Nationalisation isn't even on the Labour Party's agenda, which says all it needs to on the subject.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the government proposed renationalising the railways (ie buying all the private assets), the banks (IMF etc) would do a runner, our credit rating would be cut and there would be a run on the £.
Network Rail's £30Bn overdraft would get added to the public debt.
Rail investment would be cut, and you would be dependent on annual crumbs from the Treasury rather than 5-year protected funding plans.

The EU only mandates separation of accounts between infrastructure and operations
It regulates cross-border transport, but not domestic.
It also mandates technical standards (eg interoperability - ETCS etc).

TOCs must function as commercial entities, but the government can own them (eg as in Germany) and subsidise them (as everywhere).
In case you had forgotten, the government still owns the UK passenger railway, it just chooses to franchise out its operation.

Renationalisation is an absolute dead duck.
That's not to say the current structure is fit for purpose.

Brilliant post. Puts the specific meat on the bones of my autorant pretty well.

 

[NSEFAN]

A nationalised network would be innefficient and be starved of the money it needs, which is what happened under BR and still happens in public-owned bodies like the NHS. The privatised system has different kinds of waste in it (the never-ending delay minutes battle, for example), but at least it gets the money it needs to run a better service (albeit from extorionate fares!)

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If we want a good railway, it's going to cost more, which is what we've seen in privatisation. It matters not who owns it, more who's going to pay for it.

 

[Rugd1022]

It doesn't matter what they've done before. If the present CON/DEM situation carries on, then I'm all for giving Labour the chance to screw up!

It does matter what they've done before... I've no idea how old you are but have you lived under previous labour governments, ie: back in the 70s? Labour always leave the country in a right old mess. I doubt I'll ever vote for that inept hypocritical shower again in my lifetime, and it pains me considerably to admit that as a lifelong railwayman.

They are still unrepentant for the almighty mess they left behind after their thirteen year tenure in Downing Street, why should I give them another chance...?

Mild rant over....

 

[Schnellzug]

it's without a doubt far too complicated, with endless contracts and unnecessary amounts of money being paid from someone to someone else for something that under BR no one had to pay for at all. But where would the scenario outlined leave the freight companies? I do think competition on different routes between cities (e.g. London and Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Scotland, & c), where alternative routes are, or should be, feasible would be beneficial for the Public, where a single nationwide monopoly would result in a situation like Beeching, where duplicate routes were removed as an unnecessary luxury. I think it would be much, much simpler if train companies were allowed to buy their own stock (which might be more expensive initially than leasing, but then they're paid for and done, and they don't need to keep paying Leasing companies for ever after), and franchises were all awarded for set periods (preferavely, say, 10 years), or if they were shorter term, then they were automatically renewed as long as performance was up to par; in other words, just the opposite to how they are now, when (apparently), past performance is not taken into account and it's all about what brave & heroic promises they make (which I suppose is why it's popular with Politcians, since that's just what they hope we'll do).

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

DB is a private company, that is subdivided into a few role specific divisions very similar to the BR business units, plus a further division responsible for the infrastructure like Network Rail is. So you can have a single umbrella organisation responsible for the rail network but there still needs to be a division between infrastructure and trains.

SNCF is entirely state owned though, but once again with a separate company looking after the infrastructure.

technically, DB Schenker, Personenverkehr and DB Netz are separate companies, under the ownership of the parent company Deutsche Bahn AG. And DB does, of course, have a lot of competition for tendered regional services and in the Freight sector.

 

[Zoe]

If anyone cared to remember what Labour did between 1997 and 2010 then I doubt they would get back in, even on the promise of that!

Some people have very short memories of the Tories between 1979 and 1997. It's these people that tend to decide elections, not people that will always vote for a specific party.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

DB is a private company

DB is still fully state owned, the term private here is used in terms of joint stock rather than ownership.

 

[jon0844]

Nationalisation would cost jobs not make them. Make loads of companies one and all of a sudden there is loads of overlapping thus redundancies.

But the unions wouldn't accept that, so you'd either suffer months of strikes - or the tax payer would have to continue to employ people with no real job to do.

I am sure the tax payer would love something akin to how things are done in France. The Government looking after its own, and a seemingly bottomless pit of money and no questions asked. Not just rail, but any other state-owned business. They'd be less keen when they find that fares don't go down, and possibly go up.

If we want to have jobs created simply to have people working, and not on the dole, then I'm not necessarily against that idea. But to lower fares, you'd then have to get it from increased Government subsidies - not less. Again, suddenly the tax payer goes off the idea a little. You'll get people coming out saying 'Why should I have to pay? I hardly use the trains. Let the people who use them pay for them!' and we're back to square one.

No doubt, we'll hear the assumptions that anyone who commutes is probably rich enough to afford it and should have thought about things like that before they got a job that required a commute etc.