Will there be no private train companies (eg Greater Anglia) after Great British Railways takes over Network Rail (like in the 1980s)?

[Andy was Taken]

Will there be no private train companies (eg Greater Anglia) after Great British Railways takes over Network Rail (like in the 1980s)?

 

[zwk500]

At the moment we simply do not know. The proposal seemed to be that private TOCs would still exist but would have a very different role, closer to how London buses are operated. However the plans are still to be finalised by whichever party manages to get it through parliament.

 

[Goldfish62]

Will there be no private train companies (eg Greater Anglia) after Great British Railways takes over Network Rail (like in the 1980s)?

The government has made it clear that they see the private playing a pivotal role in the industry.

It's highly likely there will be more private sector involvement than there is currently because the government, should it be re-elected, will doubtless privatise all the operators currently under Operator of Last Resort.

It's clear that the proposed set-up will bear absolutely no resemblance to British Rail.

If Labour gets elected we don't know what will happen, but railways are unlikely to be a priority.

 

[GWVillager]

If Labour gets elected we don't know what will happen, but railways are unlikely to be a priority.

They have been in Wales?

 

[JonathanH]

If Labour gets elected we don't know what will happen, but railways are unlikely to be a priority.

Given yesterday's rhetoric from the Labour about bringing the rest of the passenger operations under the OLR framework following the moves on TPE, it seems policy will be to move the running of the railway away from private companies to a situation where the OLR consortium runs the railway.

 

[43066]

If Labour gets elected we don't know what will happen, but railways are unlikely to be a priority.

It’s pretty clear that the Labour leader is lukewarm, at best, about the idea of wholesale re-nationalisation of the railway.

 

[dan4291]

The private open access operators will still exist after GBR so, to answer the OP's question, yes.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Labour will move the remaining TOCs with management contracts into publicly run status (probably by moving them into OLR entities) prior to GBR taking them on at a later date or dates to be determined, once some GBR legislation has been passed.

You can do that at the Core Term Expiry Date of each NLC or shortly after, by giving three periods notice.

That is the easiest and cheapest way of doing it and it could all happen relatively quickly.

 

[43066]

Labour will move the remaining TOCs with management contracts into publicly run status (probably by moving them into OLR entities) prior to GBR taking them on at a later date or dates to be determined, once some GBR legislation has been passed.

You sound very certain of that. Have they made a statement to that effect?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Nobody knows. Least of all the DfT.

If this government come back in then I’d expect a concession model to be in place. The DfT would pay a private company a big fat management fee then do all the micro-management themselves.

If Labour come in, it’s less clear. The Welsh franchise is in-house but only because KeolisAmey handed the contract back three years into a fifteen year concession, having made a complete Horlicks of it. Keolis being late of the TPE parish. Truthfully, I would expect Labour to also follow the concession model, and the DfT would pay a big fat management fee to a private company then do all the micro-management themselves.

I think we’re going to be in the position where the DfT buys a dog then barks itself for a long time to come. It’s worked so well up to press, after all.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There is no plan, by any party, to eliminate private freight, open access or rolling stock companies, or preventing new entrants to the rail sector.
What happens with GBR TOCs will depend on what legislation, if any, gets passed before the next election; and if Labour wins, whether they accept that legislation (as in 1997) or decide to change it.
We'll know (maybe) when election manifestos are produced.
None of this can happen quickly, especially with so many other government priorities.
It's unlikely Labour will interfere with any longer-term contracts already let by the time they take power (all of them are currently short-term).
It's worth noting that Kier Starmer is currently on a "business friendly" campaign, which somewhat clashes with a rail nationalisation agenda.

 

[Goldfish62]

They have been in Wales?

Comparing the current Welsh government with any incoming UK Labour government is like comparing chalk and cheese.

It’s pretty clear that the Labour leader is lukewarm, at best, about the idea of wholesale re-nationalisation of the railway.

Agreed. And he has far more pressing priorities, such as the NHS.

You sound very certain of that. Have they made a statement to that effect?

We heard some waffle from the rather unimpressive Shadow Transport Secretary about "public ownership" at the last party conference, but Starmer didn't endorse that and there's been silence ever since.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Comparing the current Welsh government with any incoming UK Labour government is like comparing chalk and cheese.

Perhaps, but even that Welsh government awarded a 15 year deal to KeolisAmey in 2018. That went well, the deal collapsing within three years. Covid killed it, but it was already on skid row before the pandemic.

And because KeolisAmey had to use Welsh government branding, it is the Welsh government who are blamed by many for the spectacular incompetence shown by KeolisAmey.

 

[Goldfish62]

Anyone on this thread who purports to know what an incoming Labour government would do with the railways had better contact the likes of Christian Woolmar and Roger Ford, because they're as much in the dark as the rest of us!

 

[matt_world2004]

Wouldn't devolved rail operators still continue as well , with the respective local authority deciding whether to operate the railway in public or private hands.

 

[Goldfish62]

Labour will move the remaining TOCs with management contracts into publicly run status (probably by moving them into OLR entities) prior to GBR taking them on at a later date or dates to be determined, once some GBR legislation has been passed.

Which will do absolutely nothing to resolve the fundamental issues of fragmentation of the industry and micro-management by the DfT.

 

[Clarence Yard]

You sound very certain of that. Have they made a statement to that effect?

Louise Haigh said it yesterday. Under current legislation, that is the only way they can do it.

What is unclear is how Labour will set up GBR and what it’s relationship with the DfT will be.

 

[Goldfish62]

Louise Haigh said it yesterday. Under current legislation, that is the only way they can do it.

What is unclear is how Labour will set up GBR and what it’s relationship with the DfT will be.

It needs to have nothing to do with the DfT!

If it's set up like the erstwhile British Railways Board, with independence to run the railways as it sees fit, subject of course to Treasury approval for major investment decisions, then we may actually be getting somewhere.

 

[JonathanH]

It needs to have nothing to do with the DfT!

Where is the funding going to come from? Direct from Treasury?

If people want the railways funded by the taxpayer, and nationalised, that is the remit of DfT.

Even if it isn't the DfT, it would be DfT officials who form part of the staffing of the GBR operation.

 

[Goldfish62]

Where is the funding going to come from? Direct from Treasury?

If people want the railways funded by the taxpayer, and nationalised, that is the remit of DfT.

Even if it isn't the DfT, it would be DfT officials who form part of the staffing of the GBR operation.

I can forgive people for forgetting how nationalised industries work given there haven't been many around for decades.

Nationalised industries work in the same way as private ones. They have a board and senior management that the take independent decisions on the running of the organisation, and as and when required seek funding and investment from their shareholder(s), in this case the Treasury

In answer to your question, yes. The relationship should be direct between GBR and the Treasury. That's how it worked in BR days. Cut the DfT out completely. They don't then have to pretend that they're not really Department of Roads.

 

[A0]

As ever, the discussion revolves around passenger operators - but a large amount of rail traffic is freight and I see no proposal for bringing the likes of GBRF, Freightliner, DRS or Colas in to state hands - nor should there be, they're all profitable !

 

[zwk500]

I can forgive people for forgetting how nationalised industries work given there haven't been many around for decades.

Network Rail has been nationalised since 2004. The GBR-DfT relationship will be very similar to the NR-DfT relationship at an executive leve.

Nationalised industries work in the same way as private ones. They have a board and senior management that the take independent decisions on the running of the organisation, and as and when required seek funding and investment from their shareholder(s), in this case the Treasury

In answer to your question, yes. The relationship should be direct between GBR and the Treasury. That's how it worked in BR days. Cut the DfT out completely. They don't then have to pretend that they're not really Department of Roads.

Politicians won't let go of the operational decisions they can make to aid their re-election campaigns. GBR will still have a strong relationship with the DfT going forward.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The relationship between GBR and the DfT is the key one. The Shapps proposal for GBR had the DfT still wielding considerable power over what GBR could do. Which is why I am interested in what Labour will come up with.

Even in the days of the BRB the Ministry wielded power over what the BRB could do but, in the main, it was far more high level.

 

[GWVillager]

As ever, the discussion revolves around passenger operators - but a large amount of rail traffic is freight and I see no proposal for bringing the likes of GBRF, Freightliner, DRS or Colas in to state hands - nor should there be, they're all profitable !

That is possibly one of the main arguments for having them under GBR though, they’d bring in valuable revenue to subsidise essential passenger operations.

 

[A0]

That is possibly one of the main arguments for having them under GBR though, they’d bring in valuable revenue to subsidise essential passenger operations.

Except British Rail was monumentally lousy at developing freight - whereas the Freight Operators have actually been quite good at it.

Why do you think the management who have developed these businesses would want to work for the government ? I wouldn't - I'd be off safe in the knowledge that one of the other transport or logistics companies would pay far more than the government would.

 

[DanNCL]

I've seen a short version of Labour's latest transport policy, which as things stand should be in their 2024 manifesto. Labour's plan remains to renationalise each of the DFT managed TOCs when the existing contracts expire. On that basis, if we for now ignore anything expiring before 1st January 2025 (C2C, XC and Avanti), we'd see renationalisation of operators as follows: SWR on 25/05/2025, Greater Anglia on 20/09/2026, Chiltern on 12/12/2027, GTR on 01/04/2028, GWR on 25/06/2028, and finally EMR on 16/10/2030. Operators that are devolved (TFW, ScotRail, Caledonian Sleeper, London Overground, Crossrail and Merseyrail) will remain the responsibility of the relevant authorities and it'd be up to them what they do with the contracts, nothing would change. Open access would also remain unchanged, as would freight.

Doesn't matter what the Tories plan for GBR and announce in the meantime, Labour are intending to rip up the Tory plans for GBR and implement their own policy in the likely event they win the next general election. Labour's rail policy is likely to be little changed in the event of a Lib Dem coalition too, the transport policies of the two parties aren't that different.

 

[Clarence Yard]

You are quoting the Expiry Dates (ED) - the ones you need to look at are the Core Term Expiry Dates (CTED)

If you look in an NRC and go to the Duration Clause (2.2a), the DfT can give three periods notice for an NRC to expire between the CTED and the ED.

For example, the GWR NRC could be terminated as early as 22/6/25.

Moving the existing NRC operators into OLR status, prior to being absorbed by GBR will therefore be relatively easy for an incoming Labour Government. The latest CTED I can find is EMR expiring on 18/10/26 but I suspect we will find out that XC will have a CTED expiring in October 2027.

 

[Dr Hoo]

This is all fine as far as it goes. Any new government could stop the policies of the one that it replaces, scrap the formation of GBR and effectively 'nationalise' the rest of the non-metropolitan 'English' operators (probably not including open access) in fairly short order.

It is what the actual 'positive' policies are that most people are interested in; e.g. fares reform, electrification/de-carbonisation programme, future of HS2, Takt timetabling, integration with buses and staffing levels.

I've seen a short version of Labour's latest transport policy

Any clues on those sort of things @DanNL?

 

[zwk500]

This is all fine as far as it goes. Any new government could stop the policies of the one that it replaces, scrap the formation of GBR and effectively 'nationalise' the rest of the non-metropolitan 'English' operators (probably not including open access) in fairly short order.

It is what the actual 'positive' policies are that most people are interested in; e.g. fares reform, electrification/de-carbonisation programme, future of HS2, Takt timetabling, integration with buses and staffing levels.


Any clues on those sort of things @DanNL?

Labourlist has the draft policies: https://labourlist.org/2023/05/labour-manifesto-2024-election-what-policies-npf-party/

The summary that they give is here:

Deliver 21st century transport​

• Bring our railways into public ownership as contracts with existing operators expire, consistent with our fiscal rules, putting passengers at the heart of our railways and investing in a world–class network
• Deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail and High Speed 2 in full…Deliver a long–term strategy for rail…give communities a greater say in local rail services
• Reform our broken bus system…Give communities the ability to take on powers to franchise local bus services… lift the ban on municipal bus ownership
• Support the principle of Clean Air Zones…However, they must be phased in carefully…and should be accompanied with a just transition plan
• Encourage more people to walk and cycle wherever possible by supporting local authorities to provide safe, accessible walking routes and cycling infrastructure

 

[islandmonkey]

I would welcome any private competition against a state operator in the form of open access services continuing to operate.