Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[al78]

Why is there an obsession with re-nationalisation (assuming there really is)?

The current system is seen as failing, so change is needed. Re-nationalisation is a change, and a change feels better than the status-quo. Same reason why Donald Trump became president.

 

[The Ham]

Not an obsession with re-nationalisation.

Merely an opinion, based on the passenger experience, that privatisation hasn't delivered and isn't delivering.

Northern and TPEs timetable debacle merely reinforced this. If you had travelled on the same trains as me for the past 27 years (and they are the same trains, just 27 years older and more decrepit than when I first started), then you too might wonder if a different way of operating the railways might work better than today's mess. You might also question what privatisation has actually delivered other than an expensive way of getting a worse service.

I suppose my Pennine backwater might be an exception, the only part of the network not to have benefitted from privatisation, but somehow I doubt it.

Although there's still a lot of BR era stock I would question if you are traveling on services run by the same number of units with the same frequency?

Not knowing where you are based I don't know. However, even if your rural backwater hasn't directly benefited chances are that services which you can connect to have improved, making long distance travel better.

However, can you be sure that BR (had it stayed in existence but given the extra resources that the railways assist to have been given) would have improved your trains?

Chances are the extra money would be spent on the projects that it had been spent on, Thameslink, Crossrail, GWML electrification, new trains for much of the southern region, replacements for the HST's and so on.

Maybe there could have been a few more projects but probably not. Given that most of the perceived "lost money" through profits is through TOC's which is a tiny amount compared to that provided to NR and new projects.

For example HS2 (or in previous years Crossrail) spent more than the gross amount that TOC's returned to the government.

Even if we assume that the rail companies are taking out 10% of the gross that they return to the government that's £76 million. Which isn't that much when the total net government support is circa £4 billion that's not a lot of extra.

However, look at what people complain when the government take a hands on approach. Add an example IEP, where the big complaint is that it is costing more than it should do. As such it's hard to be sure what the actual outcome would be in terms of costs.

It could be argued that the reason that the story under BR was so low was because it was too low compared to what it should be. With some of the extra spend since BR being to make up for that shortfall.

Either way, neither those who support returning to a nationalised railway or staying with some form of privatised system can prove that their system is actually better than the other.

Does that mean that I think that we should stay exactly as we are, certainly not. However we do need to think carefully about how can we make small changes (which are likely to be fairly cheap to do) which could get rid of some of the problems with the current system and try and get some of the benefits from other models that could be used.

 

[The Ham]

I worked for BR before we were transferred to SWT. (British Rail were always going on strike!); not true. I can only remember one minor strike when I was with them in about 1988. We always had spare staff and spare rolling stock, we ran relief trains when others were full, we held trains for connections and we had enough staff to help people. The pay was poor but we loved the job. On the upside - the railway is a lot safer now and probably the safest in the world.

The problem is that even if BR had continued chances are a lot of the positive things listed here couldn't have carried on.

Given that there's more more services running in the SWR area than under BR chances are that extra services wouldn't be possible now (as probably many of those extra services are now permanent services, likewise the extra rolling stock is used in daily services).

This also relates to holding connections, in that there isn't the space in the timetables to do this. However for a lot of people the extra services mean less of a delay if a connection is missed.

 

[B&I]

If it were nationalised, the debt on the borrowings etc would be added to the national debt, deficit, etc., worsening the UK's financial position. As it is, like PFI, by using the private sector, the debt is moved "off balance sheet" so doesn't hit government credit ratings etc. There is no way the government would have been able to borrow the billions spent on new rolling stock etc over the past 20 years.

The amounts in question are a drop in the ocean compared to the overall national debt. These expenses only come off the public sector balance sheet through accounting tricks anyway.

And I'm increasingly less convinced that paying off the national debt should be the sole priority of our economic policy, or that the means being adopted towards this end are sensible. Haven't we been told this week that, 8 years into austerity, our economy is still so unhealthy that there is no money for any new government spending without substantial rises in tax rates ?

 

[B&I]

Although there's still a lot of BR era stock I would question if you are traveling on services run by the same number of units with the same frequency?

Not knowing where you are based I don't know. However, even if your rural backwater hasn't directly benefited chances are that services which you can connect to have improved, making long distance travel better.

However, can you be sure that BR (had it stayed in existence but given the extra resources that the railways assist to have been given) would have improved your trains?

Chances are the extra money would be spent on the projects that it had been spent on, Thameslink, Crossrail, GWML electrification, new trains for much of the southern region, replacements for the HST's and so on.

Maybe there could have been a few more projects but probably not. Given that most of the perceived "lost money" through profits is through TOC's which is a tiny amount compared to that provided to NR and new projects.

For example HS2 (or in previous years Crossrail) spent more than the gross amount that TOC's returned to the government.

Even if we assume that the rail companies are taking out 10% of the gross that they return to the government that's £76 million. Which isn't that much when the total net government support is circa £4 billion that's not a lot of extra.

However, look at what people complain when the government take a hands on approach. Add an example IEP, where the big complaint is that it is costing more than it should do. As such it's hard to be sure what the actual outcome would be in terms of costs.

It could be argued that the reason that the story under BR was so low was because it was too low compared to what it should be. With some of the extra spend since BR being to make up for that shortfall.

Either way, neither those who support returning to a nationalised railway or staying with some form of privatised system can prove that their system is actually better than the other.

Does that mean that I think that we should stay exactly as we are, certainly not. However we do need to think carefully about how can we make small changes (which are likely to be fairly cheap to do) which could get rid of some of the problems with the current system and try and get some of the benefits from other models that could be used.

Nobody (sensible) pretends that nationalisation by itself is a panacea. However, if it is correct that a system remaining in the state sector would have seen broadly the same changes (fot good or ill) as the privatised system has seen, this raises the question of what specific benefits or disbenefits privatisation has brought about.

It seems to me that the benefits directly attributable to privatisation have been minimal, limited to a handful of franchises where the private operator has gone out of its way to drive up service standards to increase market share (Chiltern), or open access has (re-)created a number of previoously unavailable route (Grand Central, Hull Trains). In exchange for this, privatisation has created an enormously complex, bureaucratic, costly and ineffective organisational structure, into which an awful lot of money which could have gone on improving services has been diverted. A side effect of this has been to facilitate a culture of buck-passing, particularly by governments using TOCs to deflect blame for their failures. Ironically, at the same time, the abolition of BR has led to a mich higher degree of micromanagement by apparently clueless civil servants, in relation to matters once dealt with by experienced railway managers, leading to fiascos such as Timetableageddon this summer. It has also led to a form of legalised extortion in relation to rolling stock costs.

So on balance, apart from changes which (most of us seem to agree) could or would have happened regardless of privatisation, it seems to me that the net outcome has been negative.

 

[underbank]

And I'm increasingly less convinced that paying off the national debt should be the sole priority of our economic policy

No one is working towards "paying off" the national debt - it will/can never happen - it's trillions as it's the accumulation of years/decades of annual deficits, i.e. where were spend more than we earn each year. What is more sensible and achievable is to keep it under control and not let it keep getting higher - hence why the efforts are towards reducing/eliminating the deficit, i.e. the yearly yardstick of how much more we are borrowing each year. An annual deficit makes the national debt bigger - an annual surplus reduces the national debt. So it's common sense to control it and any increase should at least be manageable. When you're in a hole you don't keep digging, you stabilise it and if at all possible start to dig yourself out again.

 

[B&I]

No one is working towards "paying off" the national debt - it will/can never happen - it's trillions as it's the accumulation of years/decades of annual deficits, i.e. where were spend more than we earn each year. What is more sensible and achievable is to keep it under control and not let it keep getting higher - hence why the efforts are towards reducing/eliminating the deficit, i.e. the yearly yardstick of how much more we are borrowing each year. An annual deficit makes the national debt bigger - an annual surplus reduces the national debt. So it's common sense to control it and any increase should at least be manageable. When you're in a hole you don't keep digging, you stabilise it and if at all possible start to dig yourself out again.

You'd better have a word with Spreadsheet Phil, who is talking about eliminating the national debt by the middle of the next decade (unlike his predecessor, who thought he could do it by the middle of this decade). It has to be questionned whether austerity policies in pursuit of a goal which is probably unachievable are wise,, particularly when the price of then is nearly a decade of economic stagnation.

 

[yorksrob]

Is there any mature western economy (not recently developed, such as Singapore) which doesn't have some form of long term structural debt ?

 

[squizzler]

No one seems to be able to answer Christian Wolmar's question "what is franchising for" - himself included.

Franchising would be the obvious solution if individual regions or metropolitan areas were responsible for their local transport. Franchising would be the means by which your smaller system could buy national or international best practice and managerial expertise that it would be unlikely to have in house.

For the UK system where the franchising is determined at a national level, the DfT is neither fish nor fowl.

• It is neither a locally responsive organisation buying the expertise to make their transport service a reality, as would be a local authority.
• Nor big enough to possess the industry savvy needed to call out industry players (such as the mis-award of West coast franchise to First, or the unrealistic east coast growth forecasts of various operators).

 

[Matt P]

And it cannot happen until we're out of the EU (given open access freight is mandated by law, and open access or tendering of domestic passenger services is required from 2019).

Depending on the relationship we end up having with the EU, in particular regarding regulatory alignment, it may be necessary to retain EU rail directives in domestic legislation and/or parallel future directives. Personally Id prefer to have the organisational structure similar to the German railways and the planned reforms of the French. Keep tendering for PSO type services, but do it on a local or regional basis, keep freight private and keep open access passenger. As a token gesture towards the more ardent of nationalisers the exisiting intercity franchises could be handed over to a new limited company, shares owned by the government. The company could also be allowed to bit for regional franchises.

I see the advantages of the approach I advocate as being it would allow for a real comparison and choice between government owned and private operators and could be achieved via sensible evolutions of the structure we have now.

 

[158756]

You'd better have a word with Spreadsheet Phil, who is talking about eliminating the national debt by the middle of the next decade (unlike his predecessor, who thought he could do it by the middle of this decade). It has to be questionned whether austerity policies in pursuit of a goal which is probably unachievable are wise,, particularly when the price of then is nearly a decade of economic stagnation.

Both Hammond and Osborne promised to eliminate the deficit - whereby you spend more than you bring in. The debt is some ridiculous number that no chancellor could ever promise to pay off in full. I would question the wisdom of increasing that debt when we already owe nearly 90% of GDP.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm interested in how Manchester Airports Group operates.
It's a commercial company (owns Manchester, East Midlands and Stansted airports plus a property portfolio).
But it is 64.5% owned by the 10 Greater Manchester local authorities, with Manchester City Council having the largest share (35.5%).
The balance is owned by IFM Investors, an Australian investment company representing multiple Australian pension funds.
It is very much a commercial operation (they have even introduced "drop-off" charges for cars!), but is essentially publicly-owned, for the benefit of the GM region.
It is definitely not a "not for profit" operation, but is also a vital part of the country's transport infrastructure.
They have also been very successful in getting inward infrastructure investment (eg the Chinese involvement in Airport City).
I think this might be a useful model for future public-private investment in transport.
It would stop the "fat cats in Berlin" the rail unions so hate, when the fat cats actually live in Bury and Bolton, and at least some of the profits are going to local council tax payers.

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm interested in how Manchester Airports Group operates.
It's a commercial company (owns Manchester, East Midlands and Stansted airports plus a property portfolio).
But it is 64.5% owned by the 10 Greater Manchester local authorities, with Manchester City Council having the largest share (35.5%).
The balance is owned by IFM Investors, an Australian investment company representing multiple Australian pension funds.
It is very much a commercial operation (they have even introduced "drop-off" charges for cars!), but is essentially publicly-owned, for the benefit of the GM region.
It is definitely not a "not for profit" operation, but is also a vital part of the country's transport infrastructure.
They have also been very successful in getting inward infrastructure investment (eg the Chinese involvement in Airport City).
I think this might be a useful model for future public-private investment in transport.
It would stop the "fat cats in Berlin" the rail unions so hate, when the fat cats actually live in Bury and Bolton, and at least some of the profits are going to local council tax payers.

Does it not allow RMT representation........???


[Ok, no need to shout, it was a joke !!]

 

[yorksrob]

I think that there needs to be a clear distinction between the concept of "national" ownership and public control.

There clearly needs to be a major element of public control, in terms of service specification, fares regulation, but this needs to be regional public control, rather than national.

This should also extend to infrastructure decisions. Its not hard to see how much better Scotland and Wales are for developing the railway in their areas, rather than Westminster.

 

[Matt P]

I'm interested in how Manchester Airports Group operates.
It's a commercial company (owns Manchester, East Midlands and Stansted airports plus a property portfolio).
But it is 64.5% owned by the 10 Greater Manchester local authorities, with Manchester City Council having the largest share (35.5%).
The balance is owned by IFM Investors, an Australian investment company representing multiple Australian pension funds.
It is very much a commercial operation (they have even introduced "drop-off" charges for cars!), but is essentially publicly-owned, for the benefit of the GM region.
It is definitely not a "not for profit" operation, but is also a vital part of the country's transport infrastructure.
They have also been very successful in getting inward infrastructure investment (eg the Chinese involvement in Airport City).
I think this might be a useful model for future public-private investment in transport.
It would stop the "fat cats in Berlin" the rail unions so hate, when the fat cats actually live in Bury and Bolton, and at least some of the profits are going to local council tax payers.

How about a national Limited Company or Plc to operate long distance trains (maybe with a subsidiary company to bid for regional franchises/concessions) following this model. The shares could be held by the government - perhaps with the Scottish and Welsh Governments owning a minority of shares. However all thre governments would have the option to sell a certain percentage of their shares provided the net effect was that the publicly held shares always were the majority.

The only slight issue I see with what I have suggested is that the Welsh and Scottish governments would have a conflict of interest by owning a share in a railway company whilst being the transport authority that determines the operator of their local networks but I am sure there are safeguards that could address any potential bias. Alternatively only central government could be a shareholder.

 

[HowardGWR]

I've got news for some on here. The railways are nationalised already. The only items not owned, totally, are the passenger trains and the stuff owned by the freight companies. Most of the rolling stock is owned by financial institutions via leasing companies; not by the operators. Everything that the operators do is regulated to the nth degree by DfT or directly by ORR.

What are we on about?

 

[B&I]

Both Hammond and Osborne promised to eliminate the deficit - whereby you spend more than you bring in. The debt is some ridiculous number that no chancellor could ever promise to pay off in full. I would question the wisdom of increasing that debt when we already owe nearly 90% of GDP.

So, Japanese-style decades of economic stagnation it is then. Or perhaps we could re-examine whether our present policies are sensible, and whether they're even helping to meet the government's stated goals re deficit / debt reduction

 

[delt1c]

A joined up system with realistic through fares. Transport is the basis of an economy, this is an integral part of which the nations growth is based on

 

[jagardner1984]

For me the problem with privatised Rail is it's just too big to fail.

Why do we have an NHS ? Because ultimately the sight of people being ill and untreated because they couldn't afford care couldn't be stomached by a lot of the population. People wanted accountability and through the structures of the NHS and parliament, in some way or other they get it (mostly).

Why do we need a nationalised rail system ? Because ultimately, when X operator stops running a service due to industrial action, or through overrunning engineering works, or through poor planning, or through poor budgeting, the problem is the same. It is too big to rail entirely, so the taxpayer will always step in (sometimes with greater success, see DOR). People still need to get to work, to family, to other transport services. The illusion of choice is exactly that, for most people their primary train operator at their nearest station will be their only realistic choice of getting to work. People want accountability, and the examples of spectacular waste and incompetence by the combination of operators / government (as documented by "Signal Failures" in Private Eye, amongst others) just don't wash. They have no faith in the current system, and the current system shows no willingness to improve / learn from the errors they make so regularly.

I'm not sure the comparisons with BR are helpful, that was an entirely different era with different problems and vastly different network and passenger numbers. But ultimately, a customer having a ticket which is a commercial transaction with one company who employs the staff, fixes the points and is in charge of that big civil engineering project half way down the line, has to be an improvement to the myriad of finger pointing and blame apportioning that we have now ...

It also allows a much more honest conversation about what transport infrastructure we want to pay for as a country (through taxation), and what should be paid for by the travelling public without the confusion of how much a small collection of large corporations are skimming from the top for their own profits / dividends.

 

[Robertj21a]

If it was to be considered for nationalisation as '....people need to get to work, to family, to other transport services.....' I guess it could also be re-designated as an 'Essential Service', like the fire/police/army etc. In fact that might be the best way forward.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

For me the problem with privatised Rail is it's just too big to fail.

Why do we have an NHS ? Because ultimately the sight of people being ill and untreated because they couldn't afford care couldn't be stomached by a lot of the population. People wanted accountability and through the structures of the NHS and parliament, in some way or other they get it (mostly).

Why do we need a nationalised rail system ? Because ultimately, when X operator stops running a service due to industrial action, or through overrunning engineering works, or through poor planning, or through poor budgeting, the problem is the same. It is too big to rail entirely, so the taxpayer will always step in (sometimes with greater success, see DOR). People still need to get to work, to family, to other transport services. The illusion of choice is exactly that, for most people their primary train operator at their nearest station will be their only realistic choice of getting to work. People want accountability, and the examples of spectacular waste and incompetence by the combination of operators / government (as documented by "Signal Failures" in Private Eye, amongst others) just don't wash. They have no faith in the current system, and the current system shows no willingness to improve / learn from the errors they make so regularly.

I'm not sure the comparisons with BR are helpful, that was an entirely different era with different problems and vastly different network and passenger numbers. But ultimately, a customer having a ticket which is a commercial transaction with one company who employs the staff, fixes the points and is in charge of that big civil engineering project half way down the line, has to be an improvement to the myriad of finger pointing and blame apportioning that we have now ...

It also allows a much more honest conversation about what transport infrastructure we want to pay for as a country (through taxation), and what should be paid for by the travelling public without the confusion of how much a small collection of large corporations are skimming from the top for their own profits / dividends.

I can't disagree with much of that except that passenger numbers were on the rise under BR following the slump caused by John Major's recession. BR, in its final form after Sectorisation, was very good indeed. What was clearly lacking was investment in rolling stock. The present system is a complete hotch-potch of differing standards and non-compatibility between rolling stock and, where different TOCs are involved is often a sense of 'No connection with the firm next door'. The present set up is a total mess and is far too expensive in spite of the Tory blandishments of being 'good for the passenger and good for the taxpayers'. The fact is, it is neither of those things. The world has moved on since then and the devolved governments would need to be fully involved in any new State setup. Of course, Northern Ireland railway's still remain in the public sector so the precedent is already there. The railway's should return to full public ownership run by something like the BRB, but not subject to the whims of grandstanding politicians, and left to get on with the job. It could not be any worse than the present setup with so many years in the trough.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The key thing is that the passenger railway never left the public sector.
The DfT/TS/TfW are always in charge of the specification and the contract, and the regulated fares.
The "private" TOCs have very little influence beyond branding the stations and trains, selling the tickets and delivering the service.
They have to deliver the government contract against penalties for not doing so.
What is so different about a "nationalised" system?
There will still be directors, and profits, and performance targets, cost controls and even timetable meltdowns.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One difference ought to be in renumeration at the top - "inefficient" BR for example had a Divisional Director at say Anglia who controlled everything from infrasrtructure / budgets / train services etc. Big jobs - quite well paid and those doing it were not ones to succumb from stress.

These posts were ripped asunder , duplicated, if not triplicated , formally regulated in several directions - investment stopped due to bureaucracy.

Maybe going back to that "command and control" structure - minus ORR using £800 a day consultants to claw through "plans" might help. There is no doubt more.

 

[coppercapped]

One difference ought to be in renumeration at the top - "inefficient" BR for example had a Divisional Director at say Anglia who controlled everything from infrasrtructure / budgets / train services etc. Big jobs - quite well paid and those doing it were not ones to succumb from stress.

These posts were ripped asunder , duplicated, if not triplicated , formally regulated in several directions - investment stopped due to bureaucracy.

Maybe going back to that "command and control" structure - minus ORR using £800 a day consultants to claw through "plans" might help. There is no doubt more.

I don't understand why the ORR still exists. (Apart from the observation that the main driving force in any organisation is the Darwinian one of ensuring its own survival).

It was created to act as 'virtual competition' to keep the privately-owned monopoly infrastructure operator honest in its dealings with the TOCs. These were seen to be lightly capitalised organisations with a limited lifespan, whereas Railtrack was heavily capitalised and was in the business for the long term. ORR was to be the honest referee.

Now the infrastructure operator is owned by the State - it's finances are tightly controlled by the DfT and the Treasury. I can see nothing in the current charade of consultations about the funding of the next Control Period where the ORR adds value. The settlement for CP6 is a deal between Network Rail and its owner.

Train path allocation can be done between the TOCs, FOCs and Network Rail directly - there is absolutely no need for another party to be involved.

If one wants to cut costs - abolish the ORR. It costs more than all the profit being syphoned off to the foreign fat cat owners of the TOCs.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I don't understand why the ORR still exists. (Apart from the observation that the main driving force in any organisation is the Darwinian one of ensuring its own survival).

It was created to act as 'virtual competition' to keep the privately-owned monopoly infrastructure operator honest in its dealings with the TOCs. These were seen to be lightly capitalised organisations with a limited lifespan, whereas Railtrack was heavily capitalised and was in the business for the long term. ORR was to be the honest referee.

Now the infrastructure operator is owned by the State - it's finances are tightly controlled by the DfT and the Treasury. I can see nothing in the current charade of consultations about the funding of the next Control Period where the ORR adds value. The settlement for CP6 is a deal between Network Rail and its owner.

Train path allocation can be done between the TOCs, FOCs and Network Rail directly - there is absolutely no need for another party to be involved.

If one wants to cut costs - abolish the ORR. It costs more than all the profit being syphoned off to the foreign fat cat owners of the TOCs.

As there is anyway - an independant broker on Access Rights - there is really no need for the ORR ...so, agreed. In the early manic days of privatisation -they did protect all sorts of consumer benefits etc - but they are basically redundant now. Not in the real world anyway......

Lots of other places where savings could be made.

 

[Clip]

I've got news for some on here. The railways are nationalised already. The only items not owned, totally, are the passenger trains and the stuff owned by the freight companies. Most of the rolling stock is owned by financial institutions via leasing companies; not by the operators. Everything that the operators do is regulated to the nth degree by DfT or directly by ORR.

What are we on about?

Chiltern own warwick parkway and I'm sure there's a couple of others about owned outside of NR along with some rolling stock too so what would happen to those? CPO?

 

[The Ham]

The present set up is a total mess and is far too expensive in spite of the Tory blandishments of being 'good for the passenger and good for the taxpayers'. The fact is, it is neither of those things.

I would question if it is still more costly when comparing against BR when you strip out the money being invested in major infrastructure projects. (Although I don't know given that the level of detail isn't easily available).

Yes there had been a time when it was more costly.

However, would BR been able to stay the same even if it had stayed in existence? This is something that I would have doubted.

As others have suggested it could well have been subject to government cuts which given the current setup it has been somewhat protected from.

It's why I don't support a return to BR, however nor do I support it staying as it is. As such any such discussions about changes should be about small steps towards making improvements rather than whole scale change for political or nostalgic reasons.

It could well be that through a series of changes we could end up with something but a million miles away from what we could have ended up with if BR hadn't been privatised when it was. However to get there it may take time.

The problem with starting with what we had under BR would require a massive change to go back to that and then a load of change when it's realised that is not fit for purpose and part of the reason that for privatisation was to fix the problems there were there. Which could take longer and be more disruptive than starting from where we are.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't understand why the ORR still exists. (Apart from the observation that the main driving force in any organisation is the Darwinian one of ensuring its own survival).

It was created to act as 'virtual competition' to keep the privately-owned monopoly infrastructure operator honest in its dealings with the TOCs. These were seen to be lightly capitalised organisations with a limited lifespan, whereas Railtrack was heavily capitalised and was in the business for the long term. ORR was to be the honest referee.

Now the infrastructure operator is owned by the State - it's finances are tightly controlled by the DfT and the Treasury. I can see nothing in the current charade of consultations about the funding of the next Control Period where the ORR adds value. The settlement for CP6 is a deal between Network Rail and its owner.

Train path allocation can be done between the TOCs, FOCs and Network Rail directly - there is absolutely no need for another party to be involved.

If one wants to cut costs - abolish the ORR. It costs more than all the profit being syphoned off to the foreign fat cat owners of the TOCs.

I don't think I would trust TOC's, FOC's and NR to allocate paths effectively. The train companies wouldn't request anything beyond their profitable core service and NR wouldn't offer anything outside of their convenience.

I already know of one useful additional service included in a franchise specification which has been quashed by NR for its own operating convenience.

 

[yorksrob]

For me the problem with privatised Rail is it's just too big to fail.

Why do we have an NHS ? Because ultimately the sight of people being ill and untreated because they couldn't afford care couldn't be stomached by a lot of the population. People wanted accountability and through the structures of the NHS and parliament, in some way or other they get it (mostly).

Why do we need a nationalised rail system ? Because ultimately, when X operator stops running a service due to industrial action, or through overrunning engineering works, or through poor planning, or through poor budgeting, the problem is the same. It is too big to rail entirely, so the taxpayer will always step in (sometimes with greater success, see DOR). People still need to get to work, to family, to other transport services. The illusion of choice is exactly that, for most people their primary train operator at their nearest station will be their only realistic choice of getting to work. People want accountability, and the examples of spectacular waste and incompetence by the combination of operators / government (as documented by "Signal Failures" in Private Eye, amongst others) just don't wash. They have no faith in the current system, and the current system shows no willingness to improve / learn from the errors they make so regularly.

I'm not sure the comparisons with BR are helpful, that was an entirely different era with different problems and vastly different network and passenger numbers. But ultimately, a customer having a ticket which is a commercial transaction with one company who employs the staff, fixes the points and is in charge of that big civil engineering project half way down the line, has to be an improvement to the myriad of finger pointing and blame apportioning that we have now ...

It also allows a much more honest conversation about what transport infrastructure we want to pay for as a country (through taxation), and what should be paid for by the travelling public without the confusion of how a small collection of large corporations are skimming from the top for their own profits / dividends.

I would disagree strongly with the assertion that the railway network is "vastly different" from that under BR. One of the great dissappointments about privatisation is that the network remains depressingly similar, with most moves to network expansion and line reopenings having dried up or dissappeared altogether.

 

[B&I]

The key thing is that the passenger railway never left the public sector.
The DfT/TS/TfW are always in charge of the specification and the contract, and the regulated fares.
The "private" TOCs have very little influence beyond branding the stations and trains, selling the tickets and delivering the service.
They have to deliver the government contract against penalties for not doing so.
What is so different about a "nationalised" system?
There will still be directors, and profits, and performance targets, cost controls and even timetable meltdowns.

So what was the point of privatisation ? What has been achieved by private TOCs within this mostly-nationalised structure, to justify their state-subsidised profits ?