YouGov poll suggests most want British Rail back.

[LNW-GW Joint]

The real issues with the privatized railway IMO are:

1 - Its fragmented nature where passengers face the potential of their issues being ignored by staff because it is to do with a different ToC (A couple of years ago I got told by a member of ATW staff at Cardiff Central that it was tough luck cos my issue was with FGW and so they couldn't do anything about it).

In the BR era when InterCity and Network SouthEast existed, I well remember being told by NSE staff at Folkestone that they had nothing to do with the daily XC service to Liverpool (after it was cancelled).
It's run by a different company, they said.
No depay repay, of course.
Welcome to the nationalised railway.

 

[nuneatonmark]

I don't think the public are quite as stupid as you make out.

The railways wouldn't be a great deal different under a nationalised operator. It would be roughly the same trains running on the same track. But what you wouldn't see so much of is the rampant price-gouging simply to pay the dividends to the greedy fat cat shareholders.

A 5% profit margin might be "peanuts" (which begs the question: if railway profits aren't worth the effort, why are the fat cats crawling each other to get a slice of the pie?) , but 5% off my season ticket is £20 a month back in my pocket.

In the very short term you could be right that a fully nationalised rail service would be cheaper than what we have at present. However, it is highly doubtful that this 'advantage' would continue, any short term advantage would likely be swallowed up by increased bureaucracy and management overheads. Anyone who doesn't believe that state run companies do not have higher staff costs than private ones are deluding themselves. I am sure there have been lean, efficient public organisations but they are few and far between.

 

[sonorguy]

So you can guarantee that centralised management by civil servants is guaranteed to provide substantially improved efficiency? That's a touching faith in the public sector. There are both well and badly run companies in both public and private sectors; it's just as likely that nationalisation would lead to much the same managers in charge but with more meddling from politicians.

.

Indeed, you only have to compare some (not all) private health companies with the NHS to see this in action.

In a previous job I used to evaluate NHS tenders for very specialist mental health care provision.

In every case where the provider side of the NHS tendered for a contract their proposal was significantly more expensive, with worse outcomes and an overly large management structure.

When evaluating performance against contracts the private services nearly always had better outcomes than an equivalent NHS services in other areas and were more innovative.

There are some areas where the private sector can do it better, cheaper and leaner.

 

[Clip]

No I don't think the fares would come down. But my fares would solely be paying for the cost of running the railway network, and not for London Midland's bumper profits (up 60% I seem to recall). There would be an immediate 5% cut in taxpayer subsidy.

As for "cutting subsidy", bringing the execrable Northern Rail back under state control would knock £30,000,000 a year off the bill for starters.

Sorry but you think there would be savings of that much? Not a chance. You're just against private companies making a profit and you're letting that cloud your judgement that it will be run better without that. It simply wont happen.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Network Rail are definitely one of those highly efficient, low cost, high quality public sector bodies, an example to any fully nationalised rail network I think.

 

[yorkie]

And the driver for growth on (publicly owned) London Underground?

You won't get an answer to that
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the BR era when InterCity and Network SouthEast existed, I well remember being told by NSE staff at Folkestone that they had nothing to do with the daily XC service to Liverpool (after it was cancelled).
It's run by a different company, they said.

That is much more likely to happen now.

No depay repay, of course.

Delay Repay isn't offered voluntarily by TOCs. It is only in place at TOCs where the DfT insisted on it.

Welcome to the nationalised railway.

Nationalised East Coast has Delay Repay and I've never heard their staff (apart from the infamous Newcastle based guard PS) go on about "it's a different company".

On the other hand there are private companies running TOCs who do not have Delay Repay and their staff may be rather more likely to go on about "it's a different company", I can think of a few examples...!

 

[Spamcan81]

All this talk of competition on the railways is missing the point. The real competition is rai
l versus road and to some extent air as well.

 

[Oswyntail]

As has been said, the passenger railway is still publicly owned, with TOCs buying franchises. As is well known, this has led to fragmentation between TOCs, resulting in some additional costs, and, in some cases frustrations to passengers.
So who is responsible for this? In a regular franchise system, the central organisation (think McDonalds, for instance) takes great pains to ensure that universal standards are met, and that the service levels and brand standards are guaranteed throughout the "empire". Now consider who the equivalent is on British passenger railways - are they doing as efficient a job at maintaining standards as McDonalds? And these are the self-same organisation that advocates of renationalisation would have running the system, without even having the benefit of TOCs to challenge their attitudes. Improvement? Dream on!

 

[DarloRich]

I would love to see the Railway renationalised. It won’t happen of course. Labour had the ideal opportunity as the first franchises expired and didn’t take it.

It is funny how the corporate apologists seem keen to suggest the 3% profit margin on a TOC is "peanuts" - in that case one wonders why so many people seem very keen to gather up these "peanuts"!

In the very short term you could be right that a fully nationalised rail service would be cheaper than what we have at present. However, it is highly doubtful that this 'advantage' would continue, any short term advantage would likely be swallowed up by increased bureaucracy and management overheads. Anyone who doesn't believe that state run companies do not have higher staff costs than private ones are deluding themselves. I am sure there have been lean, efficient public organisations but they are few and far between.

You are naive - What do you think happens now? Do you think the privatised railway system is run on a streamlined basis? The level of man marking and role duplication across a plethora of companies is astonishing and costs the industry a fortune.

As has been said, the passenger railway is still publicly owned, with TOCs buying franchises.

But I would say TOCS aren’t true franchises in the normal manner. The TOC really buys a license to run trains. I don’t think the McDonalds type of franchise is a true comparison for the reasons you state.

 

[Clip]

It is funny how the corporate apologists seem keen to suggest the 3% profit margin on a TOC is "peanuts" - in that case one wonders why so many people seem very keen to gather up these "peanuts"!

Because everyone wants to get paid and make money whether its peanuts or not - isn't that obvious to you? Especially seeing how many companies also have bus divisions as well as other operations then all these peanuts add up to a coconut

 

[Bletchleyite]

But I would say TOCS aren’t true franchises in the normal manner. The TOC really buys a license to run trains. I don’t think the McDonalds type of franchise is a true comparison for the reasons you state.

They're more like contracted Council bin emptying, the difference being that this doesn't charge you directly (usually). Not really franchises at all - one key feature of a franchise is common branding, for instance - you can normally only tell a McD's is franchised rather than directly run by looking at the business ownership sign/plaque. Same with Subway, which is 100% franchised but provides a fairly consistent product and price (pricing used to be a franchisee matter but isn't so much now).

ScotRail looks a lot more like a franchise, largely because of the standard branding.

FWIW, there's one thing that true nationalisation (and giving "BR" a bit of independence) could likely do that heavier regulation wouldn't - heavier fare regulation won't, for instance, lead to any promotions, it'll just look like TfL, with a "here's how much it is, take it or leave it" pricing structure. I think a neo-BR would look a lot more like East Coast.

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

Most shareholders are pension and other institutional funds, but of course it's harder to deny pensioners the right to a decent return on their money to pay for their old age than conjure up some mythical and dated stereotype of evil rich people.

Pensions are an investment product primarily purchased by the wealthy.

They can go "invest" somewhere else. Why should I be paying out a fortune in train fares for someone else's pension? They can go buy some "rare wine" if they're that bothered. There is no "right to a decent return" on any investment product, as anyone who bought an Equitable Life product will tell you.

In the very short term you could be right that a fully nationalised rail service would be cheaper than what we have at present. However, it is highly doubtful that this 'advantage' would continue, any short term advantage would likely be swallowed up by increased bureaucracy and management overheads.

The WCML franchising fiasco taught us that the franchising process costs £100m a pop. There are 21 franchises up for grabs. That's £2.1bn in savings right there- or half the cost of the Insanely Expensive Project, to put it into perspective.

Each of the 21 franchises have their own HR, their own senior management, their own middle management, their own delay attribution managers. The duplication is immense.

Network SouthEast had one management structure for the whole of the south east. That sector's management has now been duplicated for each of the ten franchises that used to be part of NSE.

So much for "private sector efficiency", paying ten people to do the job one person used to do!

 

[Clip]

.
The WCML franchising fiasco taught us that the franchising process costs £100m a pop.

No it didn't.

and pensions are not only for the wealthy unless you have a very skewed idea of what is wealthy.

 

[Oswyntail]

....
But I would say TOCS aren’t true franchises in the normal manner. The TOC really buys a license to run trains. I don’t think the McDonalds type of franchise is a true comparison for the reasons you state.

The point remains that those who should be overseeing are not.

 

[nuneatonmark]

I would love to see the Railway renationalised. It won’t happen of course. Labour had the ideal opportunity as the first franchises expired and didn’t take it.

It is funny how the corporate apologists seem keen to suggest the 3% profit margin on a TOC is "peanuts" - in that case one wonders why so many people seem very keen to gather up these "peanuts"!



You are naive - What do you think happens now? Do you think the privatised railway system is run on a streamlined basis? The level of man marking and role duplication across a plethora of companies is astonishing and costs the industry a fortune.



But I would say TOCS aren’t true franchises in the normal manner. The TOC really buys a license to run trains. I don’t think the McDonalds type of franchise is a true comparison for the reasons you state.

I actually agree with you. I never said that the 'privatised' model was any better only that the 'nationalised' model was unlikely to be any better. There are parts of the franchised system that are probably run more efficiently but I do agree that it's very likely that a lot of roles are duplicated which leads to inefficiencies across the industry. The problem is that I haven't seen anyone provide a strong rational case for a fully nationalised system, what we have now or a fully privatised system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I actually agree with you. I never said that the 'privatised' model was any better only that the 'nationalised' model was unlikely to be any better. There are parts of the franchised system that are probably run more efficiently but I do agree that it's very likely that a lot of roles are duplicated which leads to inefficiencies across the industry. The problem is that I haven't seen anyone provide a strong rational case for a fully nationalised system, what we have now or a fully privatised system.

A fully privatised system would probably close vast swathes of lines to maximise their profit, and sell the land off. As for the other two, both work if done right, it's complex to work out which is better.

(I don't count DB AG as "fully privatised" even though the Germans often do, as the German Government owns it all and thus has a controlling share - it's a lot more like BR than that).

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

No it didn't.

I must have imagined the compensation claims that DafT had to cough up for then.

Silly me. Franchising is cost-neutral and all the experts on the bid teams work pro bono :roll:

and pensions are not only for the wealthy unless you have a very skewed idea of what is wealthy.

10% disposable income gives you more disposable income than many people in this country.

Not that that answers the question why I should give a stuff about a private pension provider's private investment portfolio.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I actually agree with you. I never said that the 'privatised' model was any better only that the 'nationalised' model was unlikely to be any better.

The railway network we have now isn't any better than what we had 25 years ago (my train to work actually has 25-year-old moquette, as if to hammer home the point), despite the fact that the railway gets far more Governmental investment than it ever did as British Railways.

If the current system is no better, but it is significantly more expensive, it makes one wonder what it is we are actually paying for and why we are paying for it.

I'm sure the repeated political donations from the likes of Souter and Lockhead have nothing to do with the current situation

 

[Bletchleyite]

The railway network we have now isn't any better than what we had 25 years ago (my train to work actually has 25-year-old moquette, as if to hammer home the point), despite the fact that the railway gets far more Governmental investment than it ever did as British Railways.

Judging by your stated location, you're taking one of the very few remaining trains a day worked by Class 321s, while the rest of us are enjoying our Desiros. (Worth noting that these have had a refurb in around 2002-2003 - they just didn't for some reason change the seat moquette).

Surely keeping older stock for peak use is exactly what BR would do?

That said the south WCML commuter services have improved beyond recognition - but part of that is the massive new demand that has built up from nothing in Milton Keynes since the 1970s.

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

Judging by your stated location, you're taking one of the very few remaining trains a day worked by Class 321s, while the rest of us are enjoying our Desiros. (Worth noting that these have had a refurb in around 2002-2003 - they just didn't for some reason change the seat moquette).

A good chunk of the off-peak stoppers out of Euston are worked with the 321s, usually split as 4-cars to spread the joy, not the Desiros.

There's nothing wrong with the 321s that a lick of paint and some new seat covers and carpet wouldn't sort (the 2002 "refurb" was purely external), but my point is that we're running the same trains on the same lines that we were 25 years ago. Quite what "enhanced service" and "investment" the likes of GoVia have brought to the table I don't know.

Just look at Thameslink for a better example of how the service has barely changed since NSE days. The current trains are the trains NSE were using. There are new trains coming, but they're being specified and paid for by the Government. Again, other than a lick of paint, I have no idea what First or GoVia have ever done for that franchise, other than strip out profit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's nothing wrong with the 321s that a lick of paint and some new seat covers and carpet wouldn't sort (the 2002 "refurb" was purely external)

No, it wasn't. The following internal changes were made:-
- Repanelling/panel repainting including wall carpets (losing the NSE vehicle-end art)
- New floor carpets
- New interior door handles including some but not all toilets
- Addition of lighting diffusers
- Painting of handrails from original colour (I forget what it was) to yellow
- Replacing of the tiny coffee cup tables with the larger triangular ones now present.

Which makes it all the more odd that the NSE moquette wasn't replaced!

but my point is that we're running the same trains on the same lines that we were 25 years ago. Quite what "enhanced service" and "investment" the likes of GoVia have brought to the table I don't know.

Have a look at the timetable for the entire south WCML commuter service and say that again?

Just look at Thameslink for a better example of how the service has barely changed since NSE days. The current trains are the trains NSE were using. There are new trains coming, but they're being specified and paid for by the Government. Again, other than a lick of paint, I have no idea what First or GoVia have ever done for that franchise, other than strip out profit.

Thameslink is a bit different - I genuinely don't see what scope for improvement there is other than new rolling stock (which is on the way).

Neil

 

[Robertj21a]

Would it be expensive? I assume letting the current franchise times run out and not getting another company involved would be free.

Anyone else have views on how renationalisation could be done?
Or does anyone feel privatisation was not a mistake despite this?

Privatisation was not a mistake but, like anything, it could be improved and the current arrangements have flaws. Re-Nationalisation is probably attractive to those who didn't experience it first time round - the 'grass must be greener' approach. I certainly don't want any return to the inefficiency of BR.

 

[Clip]

I must have imagined the compensation claims that DafT had to cough up for then.

Silly me. Franchising is cost-neutral and all the experts on the bid teams work pro bono :roll:

Well you must have done because every report around that time was £40Mn to be repaid to the 4 bidders more than Half the amount you claimed

The WCML franchising fiasco taught us that the franchising process costs £100m a pop. !

Oh and AFAIK losing bidders do not get their costs back just for losing so your further claim of

There are 21 franchises up for grabs. That's £2.1bn in savings right there-

Is a load of crap too.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well you must have done because every report around that time was £40Mn to be repaid to the 4 bidders more than Half the amount you claimed

The cost was £40m to the original bidders. This didn't include the costs incurred by DafT through the original competition, the legal dispute and the inquiry into what went wrong.

There was also the cost of running the competititon again- for convenience we'll decide this was £40m for the TOCs- and suddenly you're at £100m.

To be charitable we'll take £50m, in that case. Factored across 21 franchises, that's still 25% of the cost of the IEP. We're not talking about spare change down the back of the sofa.

Oh and AFAIK losing bidders do not get their costs back just for losing

The cost of losing is factored into all bids. The winner will recoup the cost of failed bids through their successful ones.

Unless you think the money for losing bids comes from the Magic Money Tree, it is clear that the costs of franchising are borne by the industry, regardless of whether a company wins or loses.

 

[SamYeager]

Pensions are an investment product primarily purchased by the wealthy.

Sigh! :roll: Pension funds investing in companies do so on behalf of the majority of current workers including local government workers. The main exceptions are central government employees and those with self invested pension plans (SIPPs).

 

[67018]

Not that that answers the question why I should give a stuff about a private pension provider's private investment portfolio.

It only got raised because of your repeated comments about 'fat cat' shareholders which are factually incorrect and appear to deny the legitimacy of people wanting a return on their money.
I don't see why I should pay more tax to subsidise your train fares either.

The railway network we have now isn't any better than what we had 25 years ago (my train to work actually has 25-year-old moquette, as if to hammer home the point), despite the fact that the railway gets far more Governmental investment than it ever did as British Railways.

Well, that's a matter of opinion, but the network carries massively more people than 25 years ago, to a substantially higher standard of safety.

What strikes me is that pretty much all the complaints about rail services today were being made 25 years ago. There was even the feeling that privatisation was worth a try because 'it couldn't possibly be worse' - unfair as that may have been.

This suggests that (a) people are never happy with rail services and (b) maybe the structure of the industry is less important than it's made out. I might even heretically suggest that restructuring is quite likely to cost another vast amount of money and lead to minimal benefit - and possibly even undermine the genuine improvements that are being made (not least the consensus that investment in rail is a good use of taxpayer's money, something that it took a generation to achieve).

 

[Bald Rick]

Network SouthEast had one management structure for the whole of the south east. That sector's management has now been duplicated for each of the ten franchises that used to be part of NSE.

One very big management structure. With a head office and a number of sub-sector directors, each of whom had their own executive management teams. At privatisation, the sub sectors became 'shadow' franchises and the new owners simply took on the structure of these sub-sector management teams. There was actually quite a saving in losing all the head office function.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There have been fewer accidents in the last ten years, but trying to claim that the privatised industry is "safer" is ludicrous. Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters Bar were all big accidents, primarily caused by the fragmentation of the railway industry and a culture of profit ahead of safety. Southall was probably the best example of it, with Great Western Trains cutting driving crew because of AWS and then deciding to not bother maintaining the equipment because it cost money.

More recently, they were very lucky at Grayrigg that the Pendolino was such a strong train.

I don't hark back to a utopia that never was. BR had its faults, many of them were the same as what we have now. But the fact is that the railways we have now are far more expensive than they ever were under BR, and we don't get anything else for our money. We're paying fat cats like Brian Souter (no doubt he's a "poor wee pensioner" who just wants "value for his retirement" too :roll: ) a fortune to run something we could do just as well for free.

A nationalised railway would be no "better", but it would be cheaper.

 

[gordonthemoron]

More recently, they were very lucky at Grayrigg that the Pendolino was such a strong train.

that wasn't luck, that was design

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

There have been fewer accidents in the last ten years, but trying to claim that the privatised industry is "safer" is ludicrous. Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters Bar were all big accidents, primarily caused by the fragmentation of the railway industry and a culture of profit ahead of safety. Southall was probably the best example of it, with Great Western Trains cutting driving crew because of AWS and then deciding to not bother maintaining the equipment because it cost money.

More recently, they were very lucky at Grayrigg that the Pendolino was such a strong train.

I don't hark back to a utopia that never was. BR had its faults, many of them were the same as what we have now. But the fact is that the railways we have now are far more expensive than they ever were under BR, and we don't get anything else for our money. We're paying fat cats like Brian Souter (no doubt he's a "poor wee pensioner" who just wants "value for his retirement" too :roll: ) a fortune to run something we could do just as well for free.

A nationalised railway would be no "better", but it would be cheaper.

Are you sure the railway's safer. In 2013 over 300 died on the rail network. I do agree that safety would be no different as Netwotk Rail is responsible for that and not TOCs luckily. I don't care if nationalisation worked out more costly which it won't. It'll make up for any possible problems by making travelling simpler and smoother than the huge changes seen between good and bad TOCs. And lets not discount the figures that 60% of the public are in favour as people who have no idea what they want.

 

[Robertj21a]

There have been fewer accidents in the last ten years, but trying to claim that the privatised industry is "safer" is ludicrous. Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters Bar were all big accidents, primarily caused by the fragmentation of the railway industry and a culture of profit ahead of safety. Southall was probably the best example of it, with Great Western Trains cutting driving crew because of AWS and then deciding to not bother maintaining the equipment because it cost money.

More recently, they were very lucky at Grayrigg that the Pendolino was such a strong train.

I don't hark back to a utopia that never was. BR had its faults, many of them were the same as what we have now. But the fact is that the railways we have now are far more expensive than they ever were under BR, and we don't get anything else for our money. We're paying fat cats like Brian Souter (no doubt he's a "poor wee pensioner" who just wants "value for his retirement" too :roll: ) a fortune to run something we could do just as well for free.

A nationalised railway would be no "better", but it would be cheaper.

This is just sounding like somebody who doesn't like Brian Souter, and is letting that bias cloud his wider views.

How exactly would you '.....do just as well for free' ?