Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[thenorthern]

While I was watching Question Time last night the Labour MP John Mann was going on about bringing the railways back into public ownership and last week Alan Johnson on BBC This Week was going on about the same thing which is odd because I don't recall them pushing for it when their party was in power for 13 years.

It made me wonder though why is there an obsession with it at the moment? I know part of it is down to Jeremy Corbyn but even now Labour MPs to the right of the party are calling for the railways to be brought back into public ownership. This is a stark contrast from 10/15 years ago when it was mostly only people like Bob Crowe calling for re-nationalisation.

I think part of it is also down to the fact that many millennials who are calling for re-nationalisation don't remember the days of British Rail and how British Rail wasn't as amazing as they think it was.

 

[Moonshot]

Railways already are nationalised , the DFT are specifying with the aid of taxpayers funding, and at the same time , contracting out services to the private sector and dictating t and C's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Railways already are nationalised , the DFT are specifying with the aid of taxpayers funding, and at the same time , contracting out services to the private sector and dictating t and C's.

They're nationally controlled, in the same manner as the bin-emptying services provided by your local Council are - i.e. specified by the Council but operated privately in most cases.

The next step is actual nationalisation, i.e. operating by a company wholly owned by the state (think Network Rail for trains).

 

[DenmarkRail]

Because people need a scapegoat, when things don’t work.

 

[XCTurbostar]

For those who were around before privatisation. Were people saying "The railways should be privatised" when things went wrong?

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

For those who were around before privatisation. Were people saying "The railways should be privatised" when things went wrong?

No , well I wasn't

 

[03_179]

For those who were around before privatisation. Were people saying "The railways should be privatised" when things went wrong?

Nope most in the industry knew it would end up like this and warned against it !

I worked under both in Passenger facing roles ... yes it could be bad at times but that was chronic underfunding but more money is pumped in to the railways now that ever before .. had the money that is pumped in now been available back then we'd have BREL, BR and be a world class railway.

 

[westv]

Just imagine what a mess RMT would make for passengers if the railways were re-nationalised.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Is it really surprising that people are calling for re-nationalisation of the railways? there are currently 2 large chunks of the network in meltdown, added to that the actions of successive ECML franchisees in handing back their franchise when they find they got their sums wrong... then there are the franchises that are owned by foreign governments... certainly when Arriva had the Welsh franchise there was a perception that all they were interested in was getting as much money from the taxpayer/ fare payer and handing as much of it as possible to the German government as profit without any investment in their network.

it all adds up to a public perception that the private operators haven't got the skills to run our rail services and that all they are interested in is milking the taxpayer for as much money as possible!

 

[Domh245]

I think @DenmarkRail has got hit the nail on the head, people are disillusioned & fed up with the current system, and want something different. Of course, we all know that it isn't as simple as re-nationalise and suddenly every train is super long, on time, clean, and the signals don't fail, but from the public's point of view, it can't be any worse.

 

[Moonshot]

They're nationally controlled, in the same manner as the bin-emptying services provided by your local Council are - i.e. specified by the Council but operated privately in most cases.

The next step is actual nationalisation, i.e. operating by a company wholly owned by the state (think Network Rail for trains).

Not going to happen. Imo selling off Network Rail has more chance of happening

 

[yorksrob]

For those who were around before privatisation. Were people saying "The railways should be privatised" when things went wrong?

It was a very niche interest put forward by the market wing of the Tory party.

The more widespread belief was that we should increase public investment and possibly subsidy to something more similar to contemporary European levels. The Government of the day wanted less public funding for the railway and thought that privatisation would achieve this (even though it turned out to have the opposite effect !)

Most people (myself included) thought it was an idiotic idea, particularly when half baked proposals such as only having through ticketing to other TOC´s available from main stations began to emerge. The memorable phrase "poll tax on wheels" was coined at around this time.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The problem is that after a generation of privatisation, the evidence doesn't all lie on one side.

The railway is carrying more passengers than ever before, so privatisation has been a huge success.

The railway is costing the government far more than ever before, so privatisation has been a calamity.

You pays your money, and you takes your choice....

 

[nw1]

Talking as someone who is a bit too old to be a millennial, I will say that the railways did seem to be more reliable, less overcrowded and cheaper (with inflation taken into account) in the 80s and very early 90s under BR days. There were issues with infrequent services on some lines but a pronounced movement towards regular-interval frequency came in under NSE, RR and IC under still-BR days in the late 80s/very early 90s.

Though I was not a London commuter under BR days I will say that peak-hour commuter services on the Portsmouth Direct never seemed to be overcrowded except in times of disruption. Severe delays and cancellations were also notable for their rarity (my regular commute was Haslemere-Guildford).

Not making an in-depth critical analysis of nationalisation vs privatisation, merely suggesting that my experience of nationalised railways in the 80s and very early 90s (though there were some nasty cuts c. 1991-92) was good.

If I had to suggest a golden age for the railways within my lifetime, I'd say 1988-90. A big sense of progress in that time, with regular-interval frequencies, stock renewal and electrification. But that might be my age speaking to a degree. Granted the cuts of 1991-93 or so were a bit depressing but at a guess were down to a lack of funding.

 

[Bromley boy]

I think @DenmarkRail has got hit the nail on the head, people are disillusioned & fed up with the current system, and want something different. Of course, we all know that it isn't as simple as re-nationalise and suddenly every train is super long, on time, clean, and the signals don't fail, but from the public's point of view, it can't be any worse.

I think it’s largely irrational, though, mostly based on a suspicion of big business of those on the hard left. What is it people think will be any better as a result of nationalisation?

I’m too young to properly remember BR, but from what I’ve heard and read the railways were largely in a state of managed decline and minimal investment during the eighties and early nineties - looking at the vastly increased passenger numbers and better reliability (generally) there is now, I think it’s a case of rose tinted glasses.

 

[Jamm]

I think it’s largely irrational, though, mostly based on a suspicion of big business of those on the hard left. What is it people think will be any better as a result of nationalisation?

I’m too young to properly remember BR, but from what I’ve heard and read the railways were largely in a state of managed decline and minimal investment during the eighties and early nineties - looking at the vastly increased passenger numbers and better reliability (generally) there is now, I think it’s a case of rose tinted glasses.

Both systems has different advantages and disadvantages. I don't think it's too bad if we switch one out for another as a long-term trial and see if we like it or not.

I'm of the belief that any idea, as long as it's not completely idiotic, should be tried out (with an honest intention to make the idea succeed).

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I think it’s largely irrational, though, mostly based on a suspicion of big business of those on the hard left. What is it people think will be any better as a result of nationalisation?

I’m too young to properly remember BR, but from what I’ve heard and read the railways were largely in a state of managed decline and minimal investment during the eighties and early nineties - looking at the vastly increased passenger numbers and better reliability (generally) there is now, I think it’s a case of rose tinted glasses.

why do people think nationalised railways are such a bad thing? French, German and many other European railways are nationalised.... and they are perceived to provide a far superior product to what is offered in the UK at much lower cost and significantly lower fares.... of course you have fallen into the trap that it is the hard left's suspicion of big business... but wasn't privatisation all about the hard right's suspicion of the unions? Certainly many of the commuters in the South East now calling for re-nationalisation cannot be called "hard left" considering they live in staunch Tory constituencies.

You say that BR was in a state of managed decline and minimal investment... but in what way does that suggest that being nationalised was at fault? Surely all that proves is that the Government of the day had, at best, no interest in investing in the railways... at my most cynical it suggests that said Government deliberately starved BR of funding knowing the service would collapse leading to people calling for privatisation.... strange how the government found the money to invest in railways after they had been privatised!

 

[Journeyman]

The problem is that after a generation of privatisation, the evidence doesn't all lie on one side.

The railway is carrying more passengers than ever before, so privatisation has been a huge success.

The railway is costing the government far more than ever before, so privatisation has been a calamity.

You pays your money, and you takes your choice....

You're absolutely right - it's very hard to say whether privatisation has worked or not, because so much has changed. We're seeing more people travelling and the most frequent services ever on many routes, and a lot of things have improved. Problem is, they're not improving quickly enough, hence overcrowding problems etc., and trying to get things done is monstrously complicated.

Renationalisation would create its own set of problems. I certainly think a lot needs to be streamlined and simplified in the way the industry is run - if it was down to me, I would...

• Reduce the number of franchises - re-create InterCity and Network SouthEast, have Welsh and Scottish networks, and split the rest up into just a few regional networks.
• Make franchises much longer to encourage investment, and provide them with proper commercial freedom
• Establish a public sector operator to bid for franchises, and award them to whoever can genuinely deliver the best service most cost-effectively
• Streamline processes and structures to make improvements and investments easier, simpler and cheaper

Easier said than done, but I think that could be done gradually over time without too much disruption.

 

[Domh245]

I think it’s largely irrational, though, mostly based on a suspicion of big business of those on the hard left. What is it people think will be any better as a result of nationalisation?

I’m too young to properly remember BR, but from what I’ve heard and read the railways were largely in a state of managed decline and minimal investment during the eighties and early nineties - looking at the vastly increased passenger numbers and better reliability (generally) there is now, I think it’s a case of rose tinted glasses.

Of course it's fairly irrational, I sincerely doubt that the majority of the public know all of the facts - they just see a service that is (in their view) expensive and unreliable. I don't think it can particularly be chalked up to "suspicion of big business of those on the hard left" when you have Conservative MPs representing areas served by Thameslink & Northern calling for franchises to be stripped, and an estimated 56% of conservative voters are also in favour of it.

As I've said before, in my view it's a bit like Brexit - people were disillusioned with the current system and figured "oh well, it can't be any worse than what it is now" and voted to leave (let's try to avoid turning this into another Brexit thread though)

 

[Journeyman]

why do people think nationalised railways are such a bad thing? French, German and many other European railways are nationalised.... and they are perceived to provide a far superior product to what is offered in the UK at much lower cost and significantly lower fares....

Perception is everything. Try speaking to a German person about Deutsche Bahn - it's considered a national joke. In any case, the Germans don't have a single nationalised network, a lot of it is privately run - much of it by National Express.

German peak fares are generally a lot cheaper than ours, but off-peak ones are often more expensive, and there's no tickets anywhere near as cheap as some of the Advance tickets you can buy here. Punctuality in Germany is more or less the same, safety is marginally worse. Long-distance trains are much faster but often nowhere near as frequent as they are here. Access for the disabled is somewhat better here.

It's apples and oranges. It seems to be popular to slag off Britain's railways and paint everything in Europe as wonderful, but it's not that simple at all. Many people will go on an ICE or TGV on holiday and think "gosh, isn't this wonderful?", but you need to use a system day-in, day-out before you really understand what it's like.

 

[The Ham]

I would suggest that one of the reasons for the much larger amount of money being spent on the railways is mostly down to the likes of Crossrail, HS2 and other major projects rather than the operation of the trains. As such a renationalised railway probably would bring the benefits that those are calling for.

However there are problems with the privatised system that we have. As such I'm not sure what should be done, probably try to make changes to what we have; possibly including allowing nationalised organisations to try and bid for services.

 

[87015]

Perception is everything. Try speaking to a German person about Deutsche Bahn - it's considered a national joke. In any case, the Germans don't have a single nationalised network, a lot of it is privately run - much of it by National Express.

Yes today’s “DB” is very much a shambles in alarmingly similar ways to our system. It’s been balkanised to death in the name of competition. Those who hold up the old DB are talking of a very different system that was far, far better - when it was all one that actually worked as a system.

 

[quantinghome]

The basic answer is that rail privatisation just hasn't worked. It's noticeable that no one (even on the left of the Labour party AFAIK) is campaigning to renationalise BT, National Express, British Airways or Rolls Royce. That's because these organisations are, by and large, successful in the private sector. By contrast the UK's railways have gone from one crisis to another since privatisation and need constant and high levels of funding from government. No one seems to be able to answer Christian Wolmar's question "what is franchising for" - himself included. Nationalised railways are the norm around the world, which probably tells us that's the sensible way to do it.

 

[XCTurbostar]

I still think the railways would have had increased in passenger growth regardless of privatisation. We're in a digital age and people are moving around move than ever before and that wouldn't matter who's running the service.

 

[TractiveEffort]

I can’t believe anyone who works on the railway would want to go back to crap pay and long hours, it was a dreadful culture and good riddance to it.

 

[03_179]

I still work on the railway and have done over 30 years and most that worked under BR would welcome a return to Nationalised railway.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Government hiding behind the TOC's and the industry being fragmented and scared to point the finger at Government induced problems has simply created a vaccum that the left has filled. Yes there are deep seated problems caused by fragmentation and franchising and costs escalating but we've known about it since the early 2000's but nothings been done so shouting about investment makes no difference. The door is not a jar but wide open.....

 

[TractiveEffort]

I still work on the railway and have done over 30 years and most that worked under BR would welcome a return to Nationalised railway.

I don’t know anyone who I work with or have worked with over the years that would want to return to the BR days, so my experience is 100% different than yours. I can remember working 10 or 12 hour days and most weekends just to make ends meet - that wasn’t uncommon.

 

[Journeyman]

I still work on the railway and have done over 30 years and most that worked under BR would welcome a return to Nationalised railway.

Nah, I've worked in both. BR was an absolutely lousy place to work, with poor pay and pressure to work long hours, and many of the stuff were a bunch of aggressive, lazy knuckle-draggers.

No way I'd go back to that.

 

[Warwick]

Why do people want the railways to be re-nationalised? Because most people don't know or are in denial at just how bad B.R. often was. (Mostly) rude and indifferent staff, (mostly) grotty stations, (mostly) clapped out rolling stock. Sure, there were good bits, but they were far outweighed by the bad bits.