YouGov poll suggests most want British Rail back.

[HarleyDavidson]

This really did make me laugh out loud !

Why on earth would staff who have been successful in private companies, who are on good salaries, enjoy their work and earn the respect of their management (and reciprocate accordingly) want to get themselves involved with Unions ?

Any time that someone dares criticise Unions there's the shrill calls of 'envious', jealousy' and now 'sour grapes'. Get a life.

If anybody ever needed evidence of how little progress has been made in some industries.......

Because the way the private sector works. No morals, no scruples, no thought, just a soulless place, full of dissatisfied, demoralised & unmotivated workers, unless of course they're in the avaristic overpaid city, where because of their disgraceful level of pay they really couldn't give a t0$$ about anyone else.

Being part of a union, helps you when you get the microwave managers who are ruthless & vindictive and harass & harangue employees for no good reason and believe me some do. They can take things a lot further on the behalf of the victim and get it dealt with properly. Get good deals for sick pay, redundancy and so on, even help with legal things too.

Those in the private sector with representation, have to do all of that themselves & put up with poor pay rises and T&Cs.

 

[sadgit]

This really did make me laugh out loud !

Why on earth would staff who have been successful in private companies, who are on good salaries, enjoy their work and earn the respect of their management (and reciprocate accordingly) want to get themselves involved with Unions ?

Let me ask you a question in return; why does their being happy with their lot mean that unions have to go away or be defanged for everyone, rather than just them not electing to be in one?

Unions are (and should be) there to assist those who aren't on good salaries and who get no respect from management no matter how much work they put in, and to bargain collectively with management on matters that concern all employees. Your argument is literally "I'm alright Jack", and complete nonsense. If someone does not want to bargain collectively, fine, they can stay out; but the people who do want to do so should have that ability and the means to back it up.

For what it's worth, while I am a union member it's in the private sector, in financial services.

 

[al.currie93]

Is there any reason why we couldn't still allow open access operators (I'm guessing you're talking about Hull Trains here) to run on a nationalised rail network?

East Coast has been doing well running as a government owned company on a line where they compete with Hull Trains and Grand Central.

East Coast in my mind has operated the best of both worlds. It was owned by the government so all the profits went back to the taxpayer but they didn't act like some here would say a nationalised company would.

They invest more than most private operators in promoting their services (you have ads on billboards, TV, tube and Metro services as well as a Sky TV show which will raise their profile), they're active in social media to further promote their offers and also run competitions like 'bid for a seat' to generate further interest.

They have the best loyalty scheme of any operator (which sadly Virgin is replacing with Nectar).

Their booking system highlights if you book an advance ticket but it turns out another ticket (e.g. super off-peak) is actually cheaper for your journey. I think they were the first TOC to offer online seat selection. They're one of the few TOCs that has a staffed first class on all services, I believe all services always have a buffet service when many TOCs close theirs at quieter times.

In the British Rail days the technology wasn't there to offer the range of cheap tickets that are available now. Most people book cheap tickets online and collect from a machine (or print at home) so staff costs required to service these tickets are very low, improvements in technology has meant that searching for these fares is very easy.

Before this was all possible buying an advance ticket either involved a long queue at the 'tickets for advance' section of a ticket office or being on hold on the phone. This wasn't British Rails fault (until recently it was the same with private operators) it was the technology available at the time.

A renationalised railway isn't suddenly going to take the online booking systems down, replace the computers in ticket offices with APTIS machines (which all the private operators, except GNER, seemed to take an absolute age to replace) and reintroduce slam-door commuter trains (unless Boris is PM and someone convinces him it'd be a nice vanity project).

I was hoping the success of East Coast proved that nationalisation didn't necessarily mean a return to the stone age and most of the private 'innovations' were due to advances in technology rather than because of the way the railway was run.

Completely agree there, you've captures everything I have to say on this matter, such a shame it's gone to Virgin... who I despise for a number of reasons!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Because the way the private sector works. No morals, no scruples, no thought, just a soulless place, full of dissatisfied, demoralised & unmotivated workers, unless of course they're in the avaristic overpaid city, where because of their disgraceful level of pay they really couldn't give a t0$$ about anyone else.

Being part of a union, helps you when you get the microwave managers who are ruthless & vindictive and harass & harangue employees for no good reason and believe me some do. They can take things a lot further on the behalf of the victim and get it dealt with properly. Get good deals for sick pay, redundancy and so on, even help with legal things too.

Those in the private sector with representation, have to do all of that themselves & put up with poor pay rises and T&Cs.

I'm a bit worried if that's what people really think the private sector is like.

It's not like the old days, where if you don't work at the local company you won't have a job. It is possible to move around, and in fact people do it a lot.

Unions are useful, sure, but demonising the private sector isn't helpful to anyone. It just creates an idealistic idea about the public sector, and frankly fails to address the real problems in the private sector.

 

[sadgit]

I'm a bit worried if that's what people really think the private sector is like.

It's not like the old days, where if you don't work at the local company you won't have a job. It is possible to move around, and in fact people do it a lot.

Unions are useful, sure, but demonising the private sector isn't helpful to anyone. It just creates an idealistic idea about the public sector, and frankly fails to address the real problems in the private sector.

I have to agree with this. The private sector is profit-seeking, that much is obvious, but employers are not entirely devoid of morals as they are, after all, still run by humans who possess some level of decency (in most cases).

However, that still doesn't change that unions are necessary as a counterbalance, and for those cases where profit does come before humanity.

 

[HowardGWR]

I'm a bit worried if that's what people really think the private sector is like.

Why?

Is it not time we discussed railways?

 

[londiscape]

Because the way the private sector works. No morals, no scruples, no thought, just a soulless place, full of dissatisfied, demoralised & unmotivated workers, unless of course they're in the avaristic overpaid city, where because of their disgraceful level of pay they really couldn't give a t0$$ about anyone else.

Being part of a union, helps you when you get the microwave managers who are ruthless & vindictive and harass & harangue employees for no good reason and believe me some do. They can take things a lot further on the behalf of the victim and get it dealt with properly. Get good deals for sick pay, redundancy and so on, even help with legal things too.

Those in the private sector with representation, have to do all of that themselves & put up with poor pay rises and T&Cs.

Do you honestly believe that ruthless, vindictive managers who harass and harangue employees are the sole preserve of the private sector? I've worked as an employee in both public and private and can testify that managerial bullying (often going hand-in-hand with managerial incompetence) can often be much worse in the public sector. This is exacerbated by sclerotic personnel (sorry, Human Resources) policies, implemented with union agreement, which mean that disputes often take years to resolve and chew up thousands of man-hours of productivity, with no guarantee that the outcome either represents a common-sense resolution or is fair to either party.

Your anti-private sector rant looks just as extreme, tribal and partisan as the content of Olaf's post about which you were complaining, just on the other extreme, so it makes you no better. I should like to point out that the "private sector" which you demonise consists of millions of SMEs, representing almost 60% of total private sector employment. I concede that there is a "critical mass" upon which organisations become so large that the connection between manager and worker becomes ever more distant, leading to a potential for the injustice you describe and a massive imbalance of bargaining power (which could be abused in some situations). I will further concede that in the railway industry TOCs are generally large companies, so there is the potential for this but by no means will it be universal.

However, in the SME scenario the whole success of the business relies on the employees being satisfied, moralised (not sure that's a word) and motivated, otherwise the whole business will fail. There is no need for unionism in the SME market - if employees have a problem they can go straight to the MD and discuss it, and if they are good at their job then only the stupidest MD would refuse to even attempt to negotiate the matter, in which case the employee would be much better off looking for another job.

Please don't tar everyone in the private sector with the same brush, we're not all evil fatcats bent on world domination.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

In response to Howard. We are to an extent.

 

[DT611]

Sorry, but the no-strike agreement is essential for all operations returning into state ownershi[ due to the abuse of the current arrangements.

no its not. no strike agreements are against workers rights and will lead to the winding back of workers rights pay and conditions. such contracts must be faught against and eradicated for the greater good. there is no abuse of the current arrangements

Public subsidy for the railways is being steadily reduced

debatible.

the policy has been to shift the balance in the financing of the railways back to the user from the tax payer, and in the case of London and SE operations have or are close to being self financed. So the overall burden of the railways is being reduced.

i doubt its being reduced at all apart from london. the lot is still extremely expensive with all those in the mix.

Value for money is improved by eliminating operating costs, which will be harder to achieve under state control due to coercion, but is necessary in order to scale-up activities.

like BR operating on a lot less yet being able to bring innovations to the railways? and even bringing potential ones that sadly didn't make it but would have made a huge difference? yet with privatization the railway only seems to be getting the basic things done that may have been done years ago under BR.

Dribble.

no . fact

If you feel the need to strike, you should probably go and find another job, or perhaps retire to a monastery.

or, one can improve their working conditions pay and so on
and people like yourself will have to except it

The problem is that the unions are made up of Luddites that are living in the past;

one or to members maybe. but unions in general are not living in the past. workers need protectors where possible as some employers cannot be trusted.

the world has changed for the better

it has in many ways. but workers who have protection need it and should do what they can to hold onto it.

but a number of the unions are still peddling the gospel of the Cold War.

rubbish. no they aren't. that is absolute untrue nonsense.

That is all it is.

it isn't one bit.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I have to agree with this. The private sector is profit-seeking, that much is obvious, but employers are not entirely devoid of morals as they are, after all, still run by humans who possess some level of decency (in most cases).

However, that still doesn't change that unions are necessary as a counterbalance, and for those cases where profit does come before humanity.

I couldn't agree more. But my main worry with the demonisation of the private sector is that it hides the real problems with it. It's very easy to forget that the unregulated private sector can fail to provide a living wage or always do a socially optimal job when you're bickering over the evil capitalists screwing over their workers.

I'd much rather solve its real problems than argue about imagined struggles evoking 19th century class conflict.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Because the way the private sector works. No morals, no scruples, no thought, just a soulless place, full of dissatisfied, demoralised & unmotivated workers.

I remember reading about a similar situation in George Orwell's book "1984" and in the 1927 Fritz Lang film "Metropolis".

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I remember reading about a similar situation in George Orwell's book "1984" and in the 1927 Fritz Lang film "Metropolis".

Are you a Vulcan? Logical to last.

The problem is these days is that companies no longer truly value an employee, you're just a number & name. Nothing else matters.

 

[jon0844]

The point is, with more passengers using the network, and paying more in fares, railways as a high fixed cost business should have needed less subsidy, not more.

In theory you're right, but those extra passengers are presumably wanting to travel mostly at the same time.

If we were filling the existing trains off-peak, that would be a nice bit of extra profit.

But if these people want to travel in the peak, suddenly we need to fund track upgrades, signalling upgrades, platform lengthening, train strengthening and so on.

And then you end up with loads of trains sitting empty for a lot of the day, and 12 carriage length platforms that cost a fortune to build for only a handful of services.

My main issue with privatisation in its current form is that for little improvement it is costing the tax payer eye watering amounts of money for little improvement, little choice and zero reduction in train fares. As for TOC's paying ROSCOs to use life expired 142's, it would be like me paying a mate to drive his 30 year old Lada Riva when he would get about a tenner for it for scrap.

I doubt a nationalised network would do much different with regards to financing rolling stock. We'd still finance/lease the trains most likely, and end up paying for them for 30-40 years. Given that's the expected lifespan of a modern electric train, that should be factored in at the outset.

No doubt a Government today would prefer to pay less for a new train even if it meant paying loads more in the long run, as that's 'someone else's problem'.

I doubt we'd get much better value for money. Even less so if we ever decided to try and have just one company to build trains (let's say we left the EU and changed the law so we didn't have to go out to tender).

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I remember reading about a similar situation in George Orwell's book "1984" and in the 1927 Fritz Lang film "Metropolis".

I've seen that film. The workers revolted and won but flooded the town.

 

[bavvo]

In theory you're right, but those extra passengers are presumably wanting to travel mostly at the same time.

If we were filling the existing trains off-peak, that would be a nice bit of extra profit.

But if these people want to travel in the peak, suddenly we need to fund track upgrades, signalling upgrades, platform lengthening, train strengthening and so on.

And then you end up with loads of trains sitting empty for a lot of the day, and 12 carriage length platforms that cost a fortune to build for only a handful of services.



I doubt a nationalised network would do much different with regards to financing rolling stock. We'd still finance/lease the trains most likely, and end up paying for them for 30-40 years. Given that's the expected lifespan of a modern electric train, that should be factored in at the outset.

No doubt a Government today would prefer to pay less for a new train even if it meant paying loads more in the long run, as that's 'someone else's problem'.

I doubt we'd get much better value for money. Even less so if we ever decided to try and have just one company to build trains (let's say we left the EU and changed the law so we didn't have to go out to tender).

What a hypothetical government would do today is arguable, as all shades of government for the last 20+ years seem to be going for the cheapest short term cost with a very long expensive payback mechanism (in all areas - just look at all the PFI issues).

However, the problem is the post privatisation railway has simply not coped with an expanding market well. The run up to, and years after privatisation saw huge cutbacks in rolling stock orders (leading to the collapse of the British train manufacturing industry). This was largely to make it easier to sell off the ROSCOs for as much as possible for short term gain, as the receipts were desperately needed to bail out the Exchequer. Everything was done to make the ROSCOs an easy sell to the city. Hence why the were set up as a cartel from the beginning (TOCs were not allowed to source rolling stock elsewhere). As a result, the ROSCOs had no incentive to invest in rolling stock, since they had a guaranteed income they did not wish to dilute, and the TOCs, with short term contracts had no desire to risk rolling stock investment either which would be lost if they lost the contract.

Hence the huge shortages of rolling stock we have today, and using price to regulate demand down, rather than lengthening trains, ditching unpopular pacers etc.

I personally think the ROSCO sell off was the worst aspect of the privatisation process that has held back the railways to this day. It was done not so much for idealogical reasons, but as a desperate attempt to raise some short term cash to bolster a dying government.

 

[jon0844]

Isn't Eversholt Rail now owned by the richest man in Hong Kong?

 

[al.currie93]

Isn't Eversholt Rail now owned by the richest man in Hong Kong?

Yes, the same man who owns a very large chunk of our electricity supply industry (about a 6th of the infrastructure?).

 

[The Box Photter]

The main problem that causes overcrowding in the peaks is the fact that most ordinary workers can no longer afford to buy a home within walking/cycling distance of their place of work.

Add into the mix rising prices in the private rented market. The only people who can afford to live in our cities are the wealthy and those on benefits who don't have to pay their own housing costs. Ironically, its the normal tax-paying commuters who are paying the rents of those who can't be bothered to work, but who live closer to the main centres of employment.

This has fuelled the need to transport large numbers of people from further and further outside the major cities (but particularly in London) and has driven the so-called success of rail privatisation. All you need to do is read the regular surveys of passengers' opinions on the quality of rail travel and you'll see they aren't flocking to the trains because they like the service.

I don't know whether BR would have handled the growth any better, but perhaps if Chris Green had been left to develop Network Southeast as a single franchise, there might have been more cohesion.

Because of the seemingly irrepressible lure of having a head office in London, thousands of office workers who could quite effectively carry out their daily duties from home via internet connections are forced to squeeze onto more and more crowded trains. They then spend the day sitting in a soulless office only to have to repeat the process in reverse at 5 pm. Employers say they want a motivated and happy workforce, but they don't trust them enough to use the technology that exists today to free up thousands of spaces (and a few seats) on peak hour trains for those who have to use them.

 

[phil beard]

The main problem that causes overcrowding in the peaks is the fact that most ordinary workers can no longer afford to buy a home within walking/cycling distance of their place of work.

Add into the mix rising prices in the private rented market. The only people who can afford to live in our cities are the wealthy and those on benefits who don't have to pay their own housing costs. Ironically, its the normal tax-paying commuters who are paying the rents of those who can't be bothered to work, but who live closer to the main centres of employment.

This has fuelled the need to transport large numbers of people from further and further outside the major cities (but particularly in London) and has driven the so-called success of rail privatisation. All you need to do is read the regular surveys of passengers' opinions on the quality of rail travel and you'll see they aren't flocking to the trains because they like the service.

I don't know whether BR would have handled the growth any better, but perhaps if Chris Green had been left to develop Network Southeast as a single franchise, there might have been more cohesion.

Because of the seemingly irrepressible lure of having a head office in London, thousands of office workers who could quite effectively carry out their daily duties from home via internet connections are forced to squeeze onto more and more crowded trains. They then spend the day sitting in a soulless office only to have to repeat the process in reverse at 5 pm. Employers say they want a motivated and happy workforce, but they don't trust them enough to use the technology that exists today to free up thousands of spaces (and a few seats) on peak hour trains for those who have to use them.

The time will come when all this commuting malarkey will come to an end and we can all work from somewhere much nearer, if not actually in, our homes. I shan't see it but workplace work will decline to ease the commute for those who have to go into the city centres. Of course, I suspect we'll all live in cities anyway. Goodness, I sound like H G Wells without his skill.

 

[aylesbury]

No thank you to the return of BR ,miserable staff ,dirty stations,rolling stock dirty inside and out the norm,and lastly the trade unions in charge .We have moved on and the future is the privatised railway regardless of were the owners live.Come and have a look at Chiltern its brilliant clean trains ,clean stations,staff who have pride in their railway its the future.When our lines were run by BR we had crap rolling stock and stations and a bunch of staff who could not care a less about the passenger.It depends on which way you vote in May that decides wether or not you want BR back.

 

[al78]

The main problem that causes overcrowding in the peaks is the fact that most ordinary workers can no longer afford to buy a home within walking/cycling distance of their place of work.

Add into the mix rising prices in the private rented market. The only people who can afford to live in our cities are the wealthy and those on benefits who don't have to pay their own housing costs. Ironically, its the normal tax-paying commuters who are paying the rents of those who can't be bothered to work, but who live closer to the main centres of employment.

This has fuelled the need to transport large numbers of people from further and further outside the major cities (but particularly in London) and has driven the so-called success of rail privatisation. All you need to do is read the regular surveys of passengers' opinions on the quality of rail travel and you'll see they aren't flocking to the trains because they like the service.

I don't know whether BR would have handled the growth any better, but perhaps if Chris Green had been left to develop Network Southeast as a single franchise, there might have been more cohesion.

Because of the seemingly irrepressible lure of having a head office in London, thousands of office workers who could quite effectively carry out their daily duties from home via internet connections are forced to squeeze onto more and more crowded trains. They then spend the day sitting in a soulless office only to have to repeat the process in reverse at 5 pm. Employers say they want a motivated and happy workforce, but they don't trust them enough to use the technology that exists today to free up thousands of spaces (and a few seats) on peak hour trains for those who have to use them.

This is only part of it (and I think the implication that those on benefits can't be bothered to work is rather judgmental). There are also those who could live closer to work but don't because they want a nice house in the leafy outskirts (note that a lot of new housing seems to be in the form of sprawling, space-inefficient developments in the countryside rather than building flats on brownfield sites in urban areas). In all cities there are cheap places and expensive places to buy or rent, and I doubt all the affordable housing is in areas that are regularly on fire.

With the working situation, I think the problem is that humans have an instinctive need for direct social contact with others, which digital media doesn't really fulfill. I doubt that skyping your friends is in any way comparable to going down to the pub for a drink with them, for example.

 

[muddythefish]

The time will come when all this commuting malarkey will come to an end and we can all work from somewhere much nearer, if not actually in, our homes. I shan't see it but workplace work will decline to ease the commute for those who have to go into the city centres. Of course, I suspect we'll all live in cities anyway. Goodness, I sound like H G Wells without his skill.

The technology has existed for people to work at home for many years yet commuting by rail has risen inexorably over the past 15 years or so. Why do you think this is ?

 

[bavvo]

The technology has existed for people to work at home for many years yet commuting by rail has risen inexorably over the past 15 years or so. Why do you think this is ?

Quite. I can work from home if I choose, but rarely do. The human interaction is a necessary part of my job, and I would be much less effective without it. It's simple things, like joining an informal conversation round a desk, bouncing ideas off each other. Not to mention home working tends to be very isolating. The only advantage to home working is the chance to avoid interruptions.
Teleconferencing is still a very hit and miss affair.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Isn't Eversholt Rail now owned by the richest man in Hong Kong?

The recent history of ownership is as follows:-
In 1997, HSBC acquired the business to add to its assets portfolio for £726.5 million and retained it until December 2010, when the Eversholt Investment Group SCS consortium which is equally owned by 3i Infrastructure, Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners and STAR Capital Partners with its co-investor PGGM purchased it from them.

The recent change of ownership sees CK Investments agreeing to buy 100% of Eversholt Rail Group with an equity value of £1.1 billion and an enterprise value of £2.5 billion. The matter requires the regulatory approval of the EC. CK Investments is jointly owned by Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Limited and Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited.

So all in all, large global investors have been involved with the company for the last 18 years, so nothing has changed at all in that respect.

 

[DT611]

No thank you to the return of BR ,miserable staff ,dirty stations,rolling stock dirty inside and out the norm,and lastly the trade unions in charge

the trade unions weren't in charge. dirty trains, rude and miserable staff, dirty stations, can happen with any railway. i'm sure it still happens with the privatized railway today. with quick turn arounds its not that easy to clean trains.

We have moved on

it could be debated that the railway hasn't moved on much.

the future is the privatised railway regardless of were the owners live.

well, you never know, i wouldn't be so sure, but you could be right.

Come and have a look at Chiltern its brilliant clean trains ,clean stations,staff who have pride in their railway its the future.

with the greatist of respect Chiltern is a major exception to the rule. i'm sure they have some faults. sure, they could certainly be something to work off but they are still an exception.

When our lines were run by BR we had crap rolling stock and stations and a bunch of staff who could not care a less about the passenger.

there is still crap rolling stock. pacers for example aren't liked by many. you could argue that the pre-privatization stock was and is better then after privatization stock. but it does come down to personal preference. you could also say the companies don't care about passengers if they aren't traveling with them, staff from one TOC not being able to help passengers from another even though its the same station being one of the things that comes up here a bit

 

[jon0844]

The recent history of ownership is as follows:-
In 1997, HSBC acquired the business to add to its assets portfolio for £726.5 million and retained it until December 2010, when the Eversholt Investment Group SCS consortium which is equally owned by 3i Infrastructure, Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners and STAR Capital Partners with its co-investor PGGM purchased it from them.

The recent change of ownership sees CK Investments agreeing to buy 100% of Eversholt Rail Group with an equity value of £1.1 billion and an enterprise value of £2.5 billion. The matter requires the regulatory approval of the EC. CK Investments is jointly owned by Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Limited and Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited.

So all in all, large global investors have been involved with the company for the last 18 years, so nothing has changed at all in that respect.

But the head of that firm, and Hutchison (soon to be merged, renamed and moved to the Cayman Islands) is the richest man in Hong Kong. Also owns Three (and likely soon O2), Superdrug, The Perfume Store and more in the UK.

 

[Railsigns]

No thank you to the return of BR ,miserable staff ,dirty stations,rolling stock dirty inside and out the norm,and lastly the trade unions in charge .We have moved on and the future is the privatised railway regardless of were the owners live.Come and have a look at Chiltern its brilliant clean trains ,clean stations,staff who have pride in their railway its the future.When our lines were run by BR we had crap rolling stock and stations and a bunch of staff who could not care a less about the passenger.

This is such an inaccurate sweeping generalisation that it isn't worthy of further consideration or comment.

 

[Robertj21a]

But the head of that firm, and Hutchison (soon to be merged, renamed and moved to the Cayman Islands) is the richest man in Hong Kong. Also owns Three (and likely soon O2), Superdrug, The Perfume Store and more in the UK.

And....... ? - sorry, I've lost what is the issue.

 

[DT611]

And....... ? - sorry, I've lost what is the issue.

that tocs, some of who are heavily subsidized, are paying huge charges to this company to lease almost life expired stock that was payed for in full years before said company even existed, helping to push rail costs up in turn. but i suppose as its all a privatized system then its fine.

 

[Robertj21a]

that tocs, some of who are heavily subsidized, are paying huge charges to this company to lease almost life expired stock that was payed for in full years before said company even existed, helping to push rail costs up in turn. but i suppose as its all a privatized system then its fine.

Fine, I get that - what I didn't, and still don't, get is the significance that he is the richest man in Hong Kong. So what ? - good luck to him.

If the money went to someone else then it would just make them richer. What's the relevance ?

Unless I've misunderstood, this just seems like the usual moan from people who begrudge others who are more successful than themselves.