is there any going back?

[P156KWJ]

now we have a privatised rail network, I'd just like to know if you (especially those who can remember BR better than I can) was it better as a whole, or have the greedy stakeholders and tories won you over??
Just, also say if you think there is any chance of the government and the DafT waking up to what has happened and rescue the iron roads before meltdown. Sorry if I'm biased :???:

 

[alex57601]

I've voted for the 'no difference' option as personally I can't see how nationalisation or privatisation is miles better than the other option, and as long as stuff such as...

*Forward thinking
*Common sense
*Money made available when due
*Letting the train companies get on with running things (i.e. fleet allocations)

Then I'm not bothered. Interestingly enough the points above seem to have been overlooked in both nationalisation AND privatisation so, again, I can't see any proper argument for which is better.

 

[Z12XE]

Considering just how tightly the DfT control everything on the railways nationalising it would make little difference

 

[me123]

I've also voted "no difference". One way, you've got a good railway system, but the modern railways are good as well. The franchises just need to be longer to allow the companies to invest money where it's needed.

 

[Brit456767]

Nationalised, then the staff will sell you the cheapest ticket just to get at the Government.

 

[Mojo]

It would have to be what system is fit for purpose & value for money (and by that I don't just mean cheap). The current system of franchising is not fit for purpose and represents poor value for money for taxpayers & passengers through high walk-on fares and high subsidies.

What is really needed is an in-depth study which would be contributed to by MPs, passenger & stakeholder groups, economists & transport consultants and planners. Any recommendations should then be implimented with minimal delay and not just filed away on on some shelves somewhere like virtually all other transport strategies have over the past ten years of this Government.

I also wonder if one of the reasons for Governments being sticky over privitisation could be for their own political gain. It is true that a public railway is more electorally popular (only a small percentage though base their vote on Transport though, but the majority think it's a good idea), but the current structure allows the Government/DfT to shift most of its blame onto the public sector. First GW are increasing fares primarily to fund the Department's Rail Tax, running shorter trains because the Department refuses to underwrite any more and removing staff from stations & cutting back on other facilities just so the Department requires less money from the Treasuary. It is only recently that people & the media are understanding the full extent of Government interference but still I expect that the majority of passengers when asked "Who do you blame for the fare increases" or "Who do you blame for the overcrowding" will probably answer with the name of their selected TOC.

 

[Pumbaa]

We need a total revamp of the way the Railways are administered before nationalisation could occur. The way it worked in BR days was fine at first, but the methods used were outdated by what was actually happening on the network. Pen-pushers from University with a degree in Maths shouldn't be in control; people who actually know what needs to be happening should be. Socialism is the way forward!!

 

[Techniquest]

I've voted for the indifferent option. The privatisation era has seen huge increases in service provision and massive investment in stock both new and old. It has also provided us with advance-purchase ticketing, bargain fares the network and the TOCs needed

BR, on the other hand, didn't have several tickets available for the same journey with confusing conditions. It also didn't have such frequent service on some lines and would not have invested so heavily in the HSTs.

No point messing everything around now though. I'm happy with it as it is.

 

[Respite]

With BR we worked as a team, not at each other's throats like we do today. Things got done before the penpushers even knew there was a problem. I worked for BR(midland region) for 5 years before privatisation & would say that the staff I worked with back then were fantastic, more so because they were actually railwaymen/women. I'm still amazed we actually managed to run trains at all due to the ever decreasing budget the shameful tory goverment gave to the railways. But with a good team spirit & the flexability of just one company in control we managed it. Ok so maybe the passengers may have moaned & bitched about having there train failed & the loco replaced with a 56 or 58 off a coal working, but at least they got there. There was none of this virgin mentality where one TOC can pay more to get better running paths & screw any passengers who dont use there trains. Even though there trains dont go to where the other passengers want to go anymore after they cut out the services they didnt want. Oh & I best stop saying service as thats a bit of a BR term, today we dont run a service, we just make money how we want to, paint our corporate image onto everything to show how great we are...............

Ok I'm gonna stop now.............

 

[Metroland]

now we have a privatised rail network, I'd just like to know if you (especially those who can remember BR better than I can) was it better as a whole, or have the greedy stakeholders and tories won you over??
Just, also say if you think there is any chance of the government and the DafT waking up to what has happened and rescue the iron roads before meltdown. Sorry if I'm biased :???:

BR Better?

Pros

- much cheaper to run. ECML electrification was £550 million in today's money and WCML modernisation £1.2 billion. Lot less subsidy, Network SE and Intercity ran at a profit for a short while.

- Some good innovations. HSTs, Standard coach designs, RETB, SSI. BR had a research department at Derby.

- Railway was more unified and it was able to get things done, although BR was always cash strapped. Even though, resignalling and electrification were common.

- It did, at least on the main lines, look after the infrastructure. The WCML was handed over with no TSRs

- Faster schedules than today in many cases. Indeed, the ECML and GWML were considerably faster in the 1970s.

Cons

- Poor public image, like most nationalised industries. BR sandwiches and timekeeping were a joke - although a lot of the latter were more the press. Timekeeping is similar to today in actual fact.

- Poor staff wages. Drivers basic wage was £200 per week in the early 90s and Grade E signalman similar, with numerous top-ups such as DOO, shift allowances etc BR had a lot of trouble attracting staff in some areas.

- Was quite cheapskate in the way it did some things. It let many stations go into a poor state of repair.

- Wasn't especially business led, until maybe the mid 1980s.

- Cut back a lot of signalling and track layouts - for example long single lines and maintenance holidays.

- Treasury was BR paymaster, Conservative governments and to an extent the Labour government were anti rail, until maybe the late 1990s. BR concentrated on running down anything other than the main lines.

From an enthusiasts point of view, those who missed out on loco-hauled trains missed a treat! Although I only caught the back of it myself!

 

[Tom B]

The fragmentation is, IMO as a passenger, the worst bit of it. The fact that you get on a train operated by one company, at a station operated by another, using track operated by a third. If anything goes wrong, all the companies will blame each other, and nothing ever actually gets done. Communications seem shoddy, too - when the line from Sheffield to Lincoln was shut over the summer, the porter (whoops, Customer Relations Adviser or whatever they are this week) at Doncaster didn't have a clue, and the stationmaster's knowledge was no more than mine, and suggested I rung NRE. They were even worse, insisting it wasn't shut "because it says on the screen", and eventually after ringing Northern I managed to find out the time of the replacement bus (which didn't connect at all with GNER or Hull Trains services).

 

[Kneedown]

The money was a lot worse under Nationalisation, but it was a much happier place to come to work at, and the trains ran a lot better than they do now!

 

[Mojo]

Trains might have run more reliably (I don't have the stats to back that up, but if you say it...), but there were also less trains and passengers to get in each other's way.

 

[yorkie]

Considering just how tightly the DfT control everything on the railways nationalising it would make little difference

What about the huge cost escalation caused by privatisation?

What about the huge cost of leasing old trains caused by privatisation?

 

[bluenoxid]

What about the huge cost of buying it all back?

Are you surprised at the huge cost escalation. Staff can demand more as there are shortages of them and the unions have not really had their hold broken as with other companies privatised, so changes in working patterns are difficult to negotiate. The government has had 5-10 years of money throwing about, which has led to everyone circling and grabbing their piece of the money pie.

I find the worst thing about the current system is the lack of joined up thinking and common sense. Nobody has been put in place to give the railways a figurehead, a mascot or a competent leader. No money is put in a general pot to get things sorted out such as replacement buses, infrastructure improvement and advertising, all because it is anti competitive. I hate the fact that the current system will not admit what it is (which is a tightly specified public private franchising program) and not a fully fledged private rail system.

 

[driver9000]

I dont think the railway ever was truly privatised, except for freight. The DfT or whichever accronym it was depending on the period of privatisation you look at, has held all the cards and has dictated what the TOCs - in essence managment contractors - can and cant do from day one. In theory privatisation could have been the best thing to happen to the railway for a long time, but it was done poorly and quickly. If the various TOCs had been sold off like EWS, Freightliner etc were then investing in the companies would have been forthcoming and with a lot more visibility. With an 8yr contract there is little incentive to buy all new rolling stock or go to town refurbishing the trains they inherit. British Rail hasnt died it just has 50 new colour schemes and a new name, but if we keep going the way we are, it will die. The phrase too many cooks springs into my mind. It could be great, but until innovation and freedom are welcomed back onto the railway we will be stuck as we are.

 

[Metroland]

I dont think the railway ever was truly privatised, except for freight.

Except before 1948....

The politicians started really interfering after grouping, and arguably tried to break the railways monopoly. The LMS was the biggest company in the world at one stage, employing over 1 million people, and all the big four were even by today's standards powerful corporations which the politicians were quite wary of, especially the union power. Both the miners and railwaymen brought the country to its knees during the general strike and in 1955, when a state of emergency was declared.

But once the railways couldn't pay their way, post 1955, because of road competition (although it's not true free market competition as the government built the roads, allowed bigger trucks, and organised planning which has not favoured rail freight or public transport, and roads are damn good at externalising costs) the days of the truly independent railway had ended. After the modernisation plan costs went up enormously. The system was incredibly run down because of the war effort, and needed the money. Much of the money was squandered on a bunch of unreliable diesels which cost far more than the 10 year old steam locos which they replaced, which went straight to the scrap heap, despite having 50 years of life left in them. But the railway was keen to show it was modern, and steam engines didn't look good next to the new M1 motorway.

Whatever structure you put in now, government would have a say in it. Although what don't they have a say in these days? We have never lived in such a centralised, controlled manner. You can only marginally call this country a democracy and Free State.

 

[driver9000]

Except before 1948....

My apologies

My post was intended to read as being aimed at the 1990s end of the equation.

 

[Kneedown]

What about the huge cost of buying it all back?

It wouldn't cost anything to buy back. Just wait until each franchise ends and not put it out to tender, just bring it back in house.

 

[Metroland]

Not sure about that, they would have to put Network Rails £18bn debt on the government books - which was run up setting it up, over the WCML, fitting TPWS and so on. Although the government doesn't seem to mind about putting Northern Rock's balance on the accounts...

Then there's the trains to buy back, which are owned by banks, and all the consultants and lawyer's fees. Which were several billion when the railway was privatised, and several more billion when NR was set up.

There is some really good examples of nationalised networks: German railways, Swiss federal railways, but also some good examples of private railways, Japanese regional companies and US freight railroads like UP and BNSF.

It has everything to do with the skills of management, the dedication and skills of workers, available money, the national geography which has a bearing on whether it's a success.

As well as whether the population and government are pro rail. There is too many people in this country that want to just see more roads built rather than have anything decent going into public transport. Yet in a small, densely populated country, that's exactly what we need. Most people, even the enthusiasts, have a very jaded view of the railways, which just doesn't exist in say Japan or even Germany. I blame the press for some of it, although there are other factors.

 

[bluenoxid]

It wouldn't cost anything to buy back. Just wait until each franchise ends and not put it out to tender, just bring it back in house.

What about the rolling stock and the Infrastructure?

Then you have all the staff structures to merge and sort.

I would not say that the country is anti rail, in fact I think the opposite has become true. Trains are attracting people out of their cars at a high rate.

It is the investment that will sort out whether the railways will expand or not.

 

[Metroland]

That reminds me, if any members of Her Majesty's gutter press are reading, could you please stop using phrases like:

The train taking the strain, off the rails, hit the buffers, wrong type of X, Anoraks, on the wrong line, got the green light...

It's getting really, really dull. Some of these phrases and clichés were being used 20 years ago, it's like something found down the back of a BR waiting room plastic seat.

 

[Snapper]

One thing that is always forgotten about the 'good old days' of BR is how crap they were at running freight. BRs record is one of a continuous decline and implementing bizarre policies such as forcing companies to buy their own locos and wagons (Yeoman). Senior managers would sit out the job waiting for their pension, knowing that no matter how poorly they performed, they were effectively civil servants and would never be called to account.

All that has now been swept away....

 

[87015]

All that has now been swept away....

Yes, as freight is actually openly competitive, whereas for the most part the passenger franchises are not. If the passenger services were brought back in house I don't see why freight couldn't be left in private hands, meaning it would effectively be open-access apart from EWS owned depots etc, and that would be a pretty similar way to how its done on the continent (or at least parts of - loads of small private freight jobs alongside a nationalised/one big passenger company)

 

[Snapper]

Yes, as freight is actually openly competitive, whereas for the most part the passenger franchises are not. If the passenger services were brought back in house I don't see why freight couldn't be left in private hands, meaning it would effectively be open-access apart from EWS owned depots etc, and that would be a pretty similar way to how its done on the continent (or at least parts of - loads of small private freight jobs alongside a nationalised/one big passenger company)

Hmm, not quite. Have a look at this list of German passenger operators:

* DB AG - Deutsche Bahn AG (Die Bahn)
* ABELLIO - ABELLIO GmbH
* ABG - Anhaltische Bahn Gesellschaft mbH
* AKN - Altona-Kaltenkirchen-Neumünster Eisenbahn AG
* ALEX - Arriva Länderbahn Express
* AVG - Albtal-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft mbH
* BBG - Bahnbetriebsgesellschaft Stauden mbH
* BKD - Borkumer Kleinbahn und Dampfschiffahrt GmbH
* BLB - BerchtesgadenerLand-Bahn
* BLB - Burgenlandbahn GmbH
* BayOB - Bayerische Oberlandbahn GmbH
* BOB - Bodensee-Oberschwaben-Bahn GmbH
* BSB - Breisgau-S-Bahn-Gesellschaft
* BSEG - Brohltal Schmalspur-Eisenbahn Betriebs-GmbH
* BZB - Bayerische Zugspitzbahn AG
* Cantus - Cantus Verkehrsgesellschaft
* CB - Centralbahn AG
* CBC - City Bahn Chemnitz GmbH
* Chiemseebahn
* CS - Connex Sachsen GmbH (Veolia Verkehr)
* DBG - Döllnitzbahn GmbH
* Drachenfelsbahn - Bergbahnen im Siebengebirge AG
* EGB - DBAG Erzgebirgsbahn
* EIB - Erfurter Bahn GmbH
* Eurobahn - Keolis S.A.
* EVB - Eisenbahnen und Verkehrsbetriebe Elbe-Weser GmbH
* FEG - Freiberger Eisenbahngesellschaft mbH
* FKE - Frankfurt-Königsteiner Eisenbahn AG (now HLB Basis)
* GVG - Georgs-Verkehrs-GmbH
* HEX - HarzElbeExpress (Veolia Verkehr Sachsen-Anhalt GmbH)
* HLB Basis - Hessische Landesbahn GmbH
* HSB - Harzer Schmalspurbahnen
* HTB - Hellertalbahn GmbH
* HzL - Hohenzollerische Landesbahn AG
* IL - Inselbahn Langeoog
* KHB - DBAG Kurhessenbahn
* KML - Kreisbahn Mansfelder Land GmbH
* MBB - Mecklenburgische Bäderbahn Molli GmbH&Co.
* ME - metronom Eisenbahngesellschaft mbB
* MeBa - Mecklenburg Bahn GmbH
* NB - NordseeBahn
* NBE - Nordbahn Eisenbahngesellschaft mbH
* NEB - Niederbarnimer Eisenbahn
* NEG - NEG Niebüll mbH (former NVAG)
* NOB - Nord-Ostsee-Bahn
* NWB - NordWestBahn
* OBS - DBAG Oberweißbacher Berg- und Schwarzatalbahn
* ODEG - Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH
* OEG - Oberrheinische Eisenbahngesellschaft AG
* OLA - Ostseeland Verkehr GmbH (former MeBa/OME)
* OPB - Oberpfalzbahn
* OSB - Ortenau-S-Bahn
* PEG - Prignitzer Eisenbahn Arriva AG
* RBG - Regental Bahnbetriebe GmbH ("Länderbahn")
* RBK - Regionalbahn Kassel GmbH
* Regio-Bahn GmbH
* RHB - Rhein-Haardtbahn GmbH
* RNV - Rhein-Neckar-Verkehr GmbH
* RTB - Rurtalbahn GmbH & Co. KG (former DKB)
* RüKB - Rügensche Kleinbahn GmbH & Co. (from 12/2007 operated by PRESS)
* RV - Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG
* Saarbahn GmbH
* S-Bahn Berlin GmbH
* SBB - Schweizerische Bundesbahn GmbH
* SBE - Sächsisch-Böhmische Eisenbahn
* SDG - Sächsische Dampfeisenbahn Gesellschaft mbH (former BVO Bahn)
* SHB - Schleswig-Holstein-Bahn GmbH
* SHG - S-Bahn Hamburg GmbH
* SOB - DBAG SüdOstBayernBahn
* SOEG - Sächsisch-Oberlausitzer Eisenbahngesellschaft mbH
* STB - Süd-Thüringen Bahn
* STE - Strausberger Eisenbahn GmbH
* SWEG - Südwestdeutsche Verkehrs AG
* TDR - trans regio Deutsche Regionalbahn GmbH
* TE - Trossinger Eisenbahn
* UBB - Usedomer Bäder-Bahn
* VBG - Vogtlandbahn GmbH
* VBK - Verkehrsbetriebe Karlsruhe GmbH
* vectus - Vectus Verkehrsgesellschaft
* VIAS - VIAS GmbH (Odenwald-Bahn)
* WB - WestfalenBahn
* WEBA - Westerwaldbahn GmbH
* WEG - Württembergische Eisenbahngesellschaft
* Wendelsteinbahn GmbH
* WFB - DBAG WestFrankenBahn

 

[87015]

Hmm, not quite. Have a look at this list of German passenger operators

Most appear to be open-access or specialised operations rather than similar to the franchises we have here. DB still operate the vast majority of services and is presumably supplemented by the other operators who are either specialised or local. I have no knowledge of German railways but thats what it looks like - effectively a different system to us.

 

[Kneedown]

What about the rolling stock and the Infrastructure?

Then you have all the staff structures to merge and sort.

The trains mostly belong to the leasing companies and not the TOC's, the infrastructure is already owned by the government, and as regards harmonising staff, that just takes thought, not millions of pounds.

 

[Defiant]

I voted for Privatisation, as I remember "BR" days when I left school in 1963 and went to work for them in a signal box at Oxford. Everthing was dirty especially the engines and now I look around and see that most of the stock is clean, so some good has come of this.

 

[Snapper]

Most appear to be open-access or specialised operations rather than similar to the franchises we have here. DB still operate the vast majority of services and is presumably supplemented by the other operators who are either specialised or local. I have no knowledge of German railways but thats what it looks like - effectively a different system to us.

Many of those companies are franchises which have taken over services previously run by DB but which were put out to tender. So no different from us.

 

[AlexS]

Freight is still, I would say, not overly competitive, and you will never get back to the 'golden era' of the olden days shifting anything and everything known to man.

No operators are interested in wagonload, rather than trainload, freight, bar the odd EWS Enterprise feeder operation that still clings onto being.

As a result, you would appear to be limited to delivering essentially palletised goods in containers and liquids in tankers. Bar the odd flow like the Chirk logs that are still trainload in reality because they're all from one company.

Also with the decline in industry pickup freight is never going to return, realistically.

Newspapers were taken from the railways by the late 80s, mail by the early/mid 2000s and so on.