Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[pt_mad]

Well, anyone who supports that crowd and is not a multi-millionaire, really

Good point. I suppose there's a certain aspiration and way of thinking put across by the current government that it's it's economy economy business corporate success owning things and having a good job title and prosperity first etc etc. Being caring or conducting business in an ethical way, does seem to be second place atm. There's some way that they make us feel rich when we are poor. As we own a tonne of gadgets and can travel around and go on holidays and nights out. They are good at it too. But we can't get homes and if we can our kids can't. And the jobs for anyone not highly skilled cant pay a half decent living. But things haven't quite sizzled over yet as those who can't access housing are still mainly in their 20s. When they get into their mid to late 30s and are still stuck then things could bubble up and perhaps the direction of the country politically with change. Philosophical there but just putting some ideas into the mix based on your quote.

 

[cjmillsnun]

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

Oh great! Railtrack the second. It will probably end up the same way too.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Politics in Northern Ireland is nothing like the rest of the UK. One's beliefs on abortion or flags don't necessarily correlate with economic policies.

Wasn't the decision to keep Translink state controlled a Westminster one ? - expedient for the government of the day perhaps ? it would certainly look that way if the decision were made today.

 

[pt_mad]

I suppose we should wonder how many in the population support the Labour Party's socialism principles of nationalisation but are supporting the Conservatives because they support Brexit above all else.

I would imagine resolving Brexit with success is closer to the top of people's current agendas than nationalisation of the railways and so the status quo remains with the current political landscape ATM. And they (current party) happen to support capitalism and privatisation as a main principal.

 

[Robertj21a]

You're quite right, I meant to type 'against nationalisation' but was too busy being a smart Alec to notice (as per usual)

Indeed, a rare admission.......

 

[Robertj21a]

I suppose we should wonder how many in the population support the Labour Party's socialism principles of nationalisation but are supporting the Conservatives because they support Brexit above all else.

I would imagine resolving Brexit with success is closer to the top of people's current agendas than nationalisation of the railways and so the status quo remains with the current political landscape ATM. And they (current party) happen to support capitalism and privatisation as a main principal.

I wouldn't mind guessing that any thoughts of nationalising the railways will probably wither and die once the current problems on Thameslink and Northern are better resolved.

 

[pt_mad]

I wouldn't mind guessing that any thoughts of nationalising the railways will probably wither and die once the current problems on Thameslink and Northern are better resolved.

Until the next problem arises though? The VTEC situation seemed to bubble up some of the same suggestions. If another TOC gets into financial trouble the whole question arises again. Or another similar timetabling saga.

 

[Moonshot]

Oh great! Railtrack the second. It will probably end up the same way too.

Not if it's done properly, with all interests aligned. I daresay in 2 years time when VTEC comes back up as a franchise, it will come as a package with the LNER part of Network Rail also sold to the private sector

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Not if it's done properly, with all interests aligned. I daresay in 2 years time when VTEC comes back up as a franchise, it will come as a package with the LNER part of Network Rail also sold to the private sector

that would be interesting... seeing as the "LNER" part of NR includes all lines out of Liverpool St. Also GN/ TL running over the metals in South East... Scotrail in Scotland and TPE/ Northern in the middle... I wonder how those franchises would react to suddenly having to pay a competitor for the right to run?

 

[Moonshot]

that would be interesting... seeing as the "LNER" part of NR includes all lines out of Liverpool St. Also GN/ TL running over the metals in South East... Scotrail in Scotland and TPE/ Northern in the middle... I wonder how those franchises would react to suddenly having to pay a competitor for the right to run?

No idea, but the infrastructure on its own could be sold to a non toc operation ( possibly as a concession without the freehold )

 

[B&I]

Indeed, a rare admission.......

Yes, some of us do occasionally experience self-awareness. But not all of us

 

[Robertj21a]

Yes, some of us do occasionally experience self-awareness. But not all of us

Fortunately, it seems that some of us are just naturally more self-aware than others.......

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Wasn't the decision to keep Translink state controlled a Westminster one ? - expedient for the government of the day perhaps ? it would certainly look that way if the decision were made today.

The railways in England, Wales and Scotland would not have been 'privatised' without the votes of the Northern Ireland MPs who were rewarded by having their own railways kept in state hands. Once again we are left with a Tory government kept in office by a right wing fringe.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The railways in England, Wales and Scotland would not have been 'privatised' without the votes of the Northern Ireland MPs who were rewarded by having their own railways kept in state hands. Once again we are left with a Tory government kept in office by a right wing fringe.

Quite , along with a shedload of other subsidies to the Northern Ireland diaspora . Can anyone please explain to me the positive economic contribution to the UK economy of Northern Ireland......

 

[pt_mad]

No idea, but the infrastructure on its own could be sold to a non toc operation ( possibly as a concession without the freehold )

Why?

Sell off our railway infrastructure? Why would we want to do that??

 

[Randomer]

Surely a common theme here is the need to nationalize the most cost inefficient aspect of the railways where private companies making profit isn't necessarily conductive to passenger and TOC needs. Management based contracts for fixed fees are a feature of most European systems currently (see regional trains in Germany or Sweden) and not necessarily a bad thing but are we confident in the ability of DFT to write them effectively?

I'm sure I might have read it here at some point but would a gradual transfer to a government owned ROSCO not make sense if it then reduced costs for rolling stock for TOCs. If the DFT are going to have so much involvement in train specification (see IEP although the leasing cost is eye watering) and take on some of the financial risk why not have an arms length company to become cost neutral or at least not for profit, reducing costs as the units have been paid for?

 

[pt_mad]

It doesn't make a lot of sense. In one hand they are doing away with corporate brands on the railways as the franchises come up. Generic long term route entitled brands that stay with the region. And since 2014 I believe they began to refer to Network Rail as a nationalised company. All this says we are closer to a government controlled railway than were perhaphs we were under private Railtrack and a range of corporatly identified railway companies.

And at the same time they are talking about the possible privatisation of Network Rail and 'combining track and train' in franchises. All sounds quite bizarre. Why would we want to combine the track into franchises it's perfectly fine now owned and managed by Network Rail owned by the taxpayer?

 

[158756]

It doesn't make a lot of sense. In one hand they are doing away with corporate brands on the railways as the franchises come up. Generic long term route entitled brands that stay with the region. And since 2014 I believe they began to refer to Network Rail as a nationalised company. All this says we are closer to a government controlled railway than were perhaphs were under private Railtrack and a range of corporatly identified railway companies.

And at the same time they are talking about the possible privatisation of Network Rail and 'combining track and train' in franchises. All sounds quite bizarre. Why would we want to combine the track into franchises it's perfectly fine now owned and managed by Network Rail owned by the taxpayer?

The problem is that Network Rail isn't perfectly fine now. It has massive debt and is totally incapable of delivering on time or on budget. I don't think privatisation would fix it, but something has to change.

 

[The_Engineer]

Why would we want to combine the track into franchises it's perfectly fine now owned and managed by Network Rail owned by the taxpayer?

I think that perfectly fine and Network Rail are term that don't go together from evidence of recent events. Everything they do is overbudget and late. Not a good example for wider government ownership and control...….

 

[pt_mad]

The problem is that Network Rail isn't perfectly fine now. It has massive debt and is totally incapable of delivering on time or on budget. I don't think privatisation would fix it, but something has to change.

Surely that means efficiencies. The railway is safe, the safest. So it's a success in that sense. It wouldn't be any good having a private Railtrack who made profits, cut debt but there were serious accidents. Surely safety had come at a cost hence the debt but hence we have the safest railway in the world?

If the NHS was in debt (it probably is) I don't think there'd be much support for privatising it to franchises to solve the issues. Solutions would have to start at home within the organisation.

Could it not be bad management at Network Rail that's the problem rather than the fact it's owned by the taxpayer?

 

[pt_mad]

I think that perfectly fine and Network Rail are term that don't go together from evidence of recent events. Everything they do is overbudget and late. Not a good example for wider government ownership and control...….

Over budget, late but safe? Does any country deliver under budget, early and the safest railway in the world?

 

[matacaster]

Surely that means efficiencies. The railway is safe, the safest. So it's a success in that sense. It wouldn't be any good having a private Railtrack who made profits, cut debt but there were serious accidents. Surely safety had come at a cost hence the debt but hence we have the safest railway in the world?

If the NHS was in debt (it probably is) I don't think there'd be much support for privatising it to franchises to solve the issues. Solutions would have to start at home within the organisation.

Could it not be bad management at Network Rail that's the problem rather than the fact it's owned by the taxpayer?

One problem with a nationalised institution (any, not just rail), is that in general there is no or little competition in the same field. So, you are lets say a supervisor or manager or even director in Network Rail, if you get sacked, where might your next job be at the same sort of salary, benefits and job security? So just like in Government, town councils, health service etc, the people in the organisation stick together, inflate their departmental sizes to justify increases, hide problems, cover up bad news and work hard to ensure any blame is spread, so no one loses their job. Indeed you might even get a title from Her Majesty just when the sh&t has hit the fan on countless failed projects.

 

[Moonshot]

Why?

Sell off our railway infrastructure? Why would we want to do that??

Saves the need for taxpayers funding.....private investment is not dictated by government. It's been done before.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Saves the need for taxpayers funding.....private investment is not dictated by government. It's been done before.

yeah it was, wasn't it.... anybody remember Rail Track?

 

[matacaster]

Over budget, late but safe? Does any country deliver under budget, early and the safest railway in the world?

Absolute safety on the railways is, of course, a desirable aim, but will never be achieved. However, if in achieving an unparalleled level of safety the cost is so high that no one can afford the tickets, people vote with their feet and get in their cheaper cars, buses, trams, motorbikes, planes. This of course means that overall, safety is made WORSE because there is a much greater risk of injury or death in most other transport modes. So excellent safety is good, but reasonable cost and implementation timescale need to be factors in safety investment decisions. Railway safety costs are generally badly skewed compared to other transport modes as the level of safety expected (or even achievable) on other modes is allowed to be much lower. eg - There are no or very few barriers on most roads stopping people stepping onto that road from the pavement - yet the railway is expected to fence off most of its infrastructure in the vain hope of stopping determined suicides and trespassing kids without adult supervision. Is it any wonder rail infrastructure is so expensive when HSE want pallisade fencing all over the place?

 

[Busaholic]

Quite , along with a shedload of other subsidies to the Northern Ireland diaspora . Can anyone please explain to me the positive economic contribution to the UK economy of Northern Ireland......

I have a feeling you'll be waiting an awful long time for that one.

 

[Moonshot]

yeah it was, wasn't it.... anybody remember Rail Track?

And of course HS1 , the infrastructure of which is owned by a Canadian Pension Fund.

The idea of selling off assets is nothing new , and the topic came up at a TSC enquiry not that long ago. It's kicking around in the grass, and as I mentioned before , it may well pop up when the East Coast franchise is next tendered to the private sector in a couple of years

 

[JamesT]

And of course HS1 , the infrastructure of which is owned by a Canadian Pension Fund.

The idea of selling off assets is nothing new , and the topic came up at a TSC enquiry not that long ago. It's kicking around in the grass, and as I mentioned before , it may well pop up when the East Coast franchise is next tendered to the private sector in a couple of years

Not quite. We still own HS1, we've merely sold a 30 year concession to operate it.

 

[pt_mad]

Absolute safety on the railways is, of course, a desirable aim, but will never be achieved. However, if in achieving an unparalleled level of safety the cost is so high that no one can afford the tickets, people vote with their feet and get in their cheaper cars, buses, trams, motorbikes, planes. This of course means that overall, safety is made WORSE because there is a much greater risk of injury or death in most other transport modes. So excellent safety is good, but reasonable cost and implementation timescale need to be factors in safety investment decisions. Railway safety costs are generally badly skewed compared to other transport modes as the level of safety expected (or even achievable) on other modes is allowed to be much lower. eg - There are no or very few barriers on most roads stopping people stepping onto that road from the pavement - yet the railway is expected to fence off most of its infrastructure in the vain hope of stopping determined suicides and trespassing kids without adult supervision. Is it any wonder rail infrastructure is so expensive when HSE want pallisade fencing all over the place?

I understand what you're saying but I just don't think the public would accept another Hatfield with the reasoning that budgets need to be reduced slightly so safety standards may have to be a little lower than they are currently.

One fatal crash and everything goes into question again.


Regards the high fencing presumably the reason this is required in populated areas is because the trains travel a lot faster than cars on the roads. Road safety is taught at school and death isn't an absolute certain if you are involved in a accident. In residential areas you'd hope they were travelling at 30 or lower and chances are the person would keep their life.

I guess the reason why the trains can do 125 in the first place without any chance of stopping short of a sudden obstruction is because the railway is segregated from pedestrians especially in populated areas.

 

[EM2]

Quite , along with a shedload of other subsidies to the Northern Ireland diaspora . Can anyone please explain to me the positive economic contribution to the UK economy of Northern Ireland......

Buses!