Fantasy: If National Rail was renationalised, how would YOU run it?

[59CosG95]

With ICEC about to pass into private hands again, I thought: If you were to run a renationalised railway, what would you do?

I'd split the areas back into their main "regions": Southern, Western, LMS, LNER, and Scottish.

Scottish Region:
I would keep the ScotRail branding more or less as it currently stands, but mix the livery of the Saltire one currently in situ with the old "Blue Train" livery for Glasgow suburban EMUs. The livery of the HST powercars of the cascaded fleet due for Abellio takeover would be slightly altered as well; a blend of the Saltire and InterCity Swallow liveries. Reconstructed LMS Black Fives would also haul the Deerstalker from Waverley to Fort William.

Western Region:
A modern variant of the GWR intercity livery would be applied; the front and rear coach of the Class 800/801 units would be in GWR green, with chocolate-and-cream intermediate coaches. GWR and "InterCity" Swallows would both be applied. All the local DMUs/EMUs would be in choc-and-cream as well, and new designs of GWR railmotors (now using either battery or hydrogen power) would be used on small branch lines in the region. Rebuilt Warships and Westerns would be used for holiday crowd-busting in the West Country.

Southern Region:
In common with the other lines out of London, all 750v DC lines will be rewired at 25kV AC. The SR would exist as a brand again, and would take back London-Barnstaple services, using rebuilt Bulleid Pacifics west of Salisbury (my proposed western wiring limit for the moment), and SR-painted EMUs east of Salisbury i.e. the EMUs would be Pacific-hauled west of the wires.

London Midland Region:
LM's current green/grey/black colours would revert to their maroon colouration, and Virgin's units would be repainted to look like streamlined Coronations. Pendolini would have red fronts, while Voyagers would have blue fronts, and both would have maroon coaches with LMS and "InterCity" Swallow branding in cream on the side. Proper rebuilt and streamlined Coronations would be used on N. Wales holiday trains.

Eastern Region:
AGA, EMT and EC would all be grouped together again, and LNER-coloured and branded "InterCity" Swallow trains would run to destinations such as Norwich, Sheffield, Edinburgh etc. The livery on each would be a mix of LNER colours and the Swallow livery. Summer holiday trains would be run by new, updated A4s to destinations in East Anglia and Scotland-all intercity stock would have colours of an A4 at the front and back, Gresley styling on the intermediate coaches, and the names corresponding to all the A4s on the stock i.e. Mallard would have a blue front and Union of South Africa would have a green front etc.

NB. For LHCS services, repainted and refurbished Mk4 coaches would be used.

Well, that's my plan. What's yours? Feel free to post below! Be as detailed or as concise as you like!!!

Mods' note: please post your ticketing ideas at Idea for new ticket pricing instead, thanks

 

[Busaholic]

My first action would be to appoint myself as the Fat Controller: my second action would be all-expenses-paid trips to France, Germany, Switzerland and Japan to see just how these countries successfully run their railways: my third action would be to dig up all the dirt I could find on the Chancellor of the Exchequer before paying him a visit.

 

[cf111]

I don't know. Probably lose all my hair to stress .

 

[The Planner]

Not worry about what colour the trains are....

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Realise there would be much more pressing concerns than reviving livery schemes from 50-60 years ago or replacing modern DMU trains with steam locomotive for 120 miles across the Westcountry for nostalgic purposes.

 

[6Gman]

Not worry about what colour the trains are....

What The Planner says!

 

[telstarbox]

The OP should have said "If you were to run a renationalised railway, what colours would you pick for the trains?"

 

[DarloRich]

Well the paint scheme would be the last of my concerns – right next to the ply of the toilet roll in the second class carriages!

That I would be supreme overlord with the final say on all matters goes without saying!

I would immediately form a modern day Railway Executive Committee, by conscripting people if required. I would give them wide ranging executive powers, take everything under common ownership immediately, turn the money lender out of the temple (or at least the rolling stock depot) and make a start on trying to sort out some of the mess we find ourselves in. Within 6 months I would want detailed and achievable plans for a proper reintegration of the industry. Within 18 I would expect this to be completed.

I might have to also take any rolling stock manufacturers left in the country under immediate control to ensure security of rolling stock supply. It is all terribly communistic but you can’t break an omelette without mixing eggs!

 

[nuneatonmark]

I wouldn't do anything. As it stands the government own the Infrastructure company, decide what trains run where and regulate most train fares. The only things the 'private' companies do is either take a management fee or pay a premium back to the government with them taking the profit over and above that. That sounds like 95% Nationalisation to me and not a lot different to when BR was broken up into 'business units' in the 1980s like 'Inter-City'.

 

[DarloRich]

I wouldn't do anything. As it stands the government own the Infrastructure company, decide what trains run where and regulate most train fares. The only things the 'private' companies do is either take a management fee or pay a premium back to the government with them taking the profit over and above that. That sounds like 95% Nationalisation to me and not a lot different to when BR was broken up into 'business units' in the 1980s like 'Inter-City'.

So you are happy with the vast sums of money leeching out of the industry into the pockets of shareholders and directors emollients? What about the inefficiency built into the privatised industry through so many duplicate jobs?

 

[Emyr]

That sounds like 95% Nationalisation to me and not a lot different to when BR was broken up into 'business units' in the 1980s like 'Inter-City'.

You mean, apart from the profits taken by the TOCs and ROSCOs? :roll:

 

[jopsuk]

Organisation:
I'd go for a variation on Sectorisation. I'd expand Overground to cover all London "metro" operations, and bring back NSE to cover the "commuter" lines- though expand in some areas ie including the Norwich line. Intercity would comprise East Coast, West Coast, long distance Great Western and most of Cross Country, possibly some of Transpenine. I'd have an umbrella organisation for Regional Railways, but with a more devolved structure- eg Rail North (or something similar) would be a thing with "Welsh Rail" as a direct "Scot Rail" equivalent, answerable to the Welsh Assembly (with input from the English councils it would run services through).

 

[Blamethrower]

I think he has a point with the colours, they just need to designate exactly what the train does. ie. White with Blue stripe - Intercity, Blue with White Stripe - Inter-regional, Red with white stripe - stopper. Then as HS2 gets built - White with Red stripe - Intercity Express

Then employ franchises to run them. The announcement should not be "The East Midlands trains service to", it should say "The intercity/inter-regional service to" and should just have a EMT logo somewhere out of sight. The railways should not be a branding exercise for franchisees because the standards vary too much. The name of the service should reflect the stopping pattern of the train.

Now where have I seen that before.....

In all seriousness, split the services as above, give them each their own livery and then electrify all lines (apart from low traffic branches) and build grade separated junctions to stop them all from conflicting each other, especially in times of disruption. Then more services could be squeezed in during the peaks.

I would also look at a way of incorporating double deckers onto some of the most congested commuter lines - not just lowering track and raising bridges, but also designing a bespoke DD to work within our obtrusive platform edges. I know people will cry "dwell times" but having lived and worked in the Netherlands, all you have to do is build them with big doors, dwell times over there are really not an issue and they carry thousands more passengers in the peaks than our lines do.

Standardising fares would also be an option

*flies back from cloud cuckoo land

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why should anyone consider that I would connect myself to the running of a nationalised industry. I hereby nominate Mick Cash to act on my behalf...

 

[59CosG95]

The OP should have said "If you were to run a renationalised railway, what colours would you pick for the trains?"

I probably should've said that! Fictitiousliveries.co.uk has a lot to answer for that...
But you others have come up with some really good ideas, that are actually sensible!

 

[Robertj21a]

So you are happy with the vast sums of money leeching out of the industry into the pockets of shareholders and directors emollients? What about the inefficiency built into the privatised industry through so many duplicate jobs?

Your 'vast sums get paid out to shareholders' is because they own the companies involved !. Would you let your own money be used by others without expecting a return on it ?. Many shareholders will be the Pension Funds who need to obtain the best returns for people like you and me to receive a pension - so I am very happy for them to get a good dividend.

I certainly don't want to return to a nationalised railway if that also means a return to numerous duplicated jobs, mostly filled by disinterested staff intent on avoiding doing any real work.

 

[DarloRich]

Your 'vast sums get paid out to shareholders' is because they own the companies involved !. Would you let your own money be used by others without expecting a return on it ?. Many shareholders will be the Pension Funds who need to obtain the best returns for people like you and me to receive a pension - so I am very happy for them to get a good dividend.

But that is my point - remove the shareholders and increase the money ploughed back into the raiwlay. All that profit goes back into the pot.

I certainly don't want to return to a nationalised railway if that also means a return to numerous duplicated jobs, mostly filled by disinterested staff intent on avoiding doing any real work.

And that is different to what we have now how? We have massive role duplication. For instance each TOC has a group of directors. How many finance directors, say, do you really need?

 

[w0033944]

But that is my point - remove the shareholders and increase the money ploughed back into the raiwlay. All that profit goes back into the pot.




And that is different to what we have now how? We have massive role duplication. For instance each TOC has a group of directors. How many finance directors, say, do you really need?

What you must understand is that people who think as we do are a dying breed (despite the fact that I'm hardly ancient). Nowadays, most people are fully sold on the notion that every human endeavour has to make massive profits and provide senior executives with vast bonuses.:roll:

In answer to the OP, my first decision would be to reverse jopsuk's policy to add Norwich to Network South-East, as I doubt he realises that Norfolk people (myself included) don't appreciate being told that we're in the south-east! I definitely think there's a justification for livery simplification, with InterCity returning as the standard branding for all such services. In terms of colour schemes, as much as I'd love for LNER colours to return, for most passengers such a move would just mean "a new livery" - you have to be at least 75 or an enthusiast for Apple Green, teak stock and Garter Blue to have any allure.

I think my biggest influence would be to attempt to change the way we perceive our rail network. Ever since Privatisation, the zeitgeist has been that the network is a means of making as much money for shareholders and top executives as possible. I'd prefer to see us view our railway in the way many of our mainland European neighbours do; as an essential part of national infrastructure.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Your 'vast sums get paid out to shareholders' is because they own the companies involved !. Would you let your own money be used by others without expecting a return on it ?. Many shareholders will be the Pension Funds who need to obtain the best returns for people like you and me to receive a pension - so I am very happy for them to get a good dividend.

I certainly don't want to return to a nationalised railway if that also means a return to numerous duplicated jobs, mostly filled by disinterested staff intent on avoiding doing any real work.

You forgot to mention that those 'vast sums paid out to shareholders' come mainly from us the taxpayer in the form of subsidies.

 

[HSTEd]

Make like the Southern Railway.

Maximum reuse of old equipment and all available resources thrown at electrification.

Only an electric railway can really compete economically.

 

[Hophead]

So you are happy with the vast sums of money leeching out of the industry into the pockets of shareholders and directors emollients?

Railway subsidy is spent on moisturiser? Tell us more!

 

[21C101]

Sooner or later it will end up getting nationalised. It will be a roaring success and make huge efficiency gains, just as LUL did in 1935.

However the unions will be more powerful and will chip away winning better terms and conditions, and better terms and conditions, and even better terms and conditions. Productivity will fall and fall and it will all get less and less efficient. Losses will mount and the government will say enough after 30 40 years

So, after 30-40 years it will get privatised, the new private management will kill off lots of spanish practices and make huge efficiency gains, but then they will recruit lots of sales guys and lawyers to deal with contracts that replace someone saying "do this", they will ever increase profits to shareholders. The government will eventually tire of paying for this

So, after 30-40 years it will be nationalised. It will be a roaring success and make huge efficiency gains, just as LUL did in 1935....

Rinse and repeat......

And eventually someone will invent teleporting and the whole railway network will be closed down. hock:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But that is my point - remove the shareholders and increase the money ploughed back into the raiwlay. All that profit goes back into the pot.

Rubbish.

In the 80s when BR made operating profits of up to £300 million, every penny was confiscated by the treasury and went into general exchequer revenue. BR didn't see a penny of it.

With the TOCs, at least some of the operating profit gets reinvested.

 

[EM2]

Eastern Region:
AGA, EMT and EC would all be grouped together again,

So EMT, that run on the MIDLAND main line, into a terminus built by the MIDLAND Railway will be lumped in with the Eastern, and not the MIDLAND Region to which they rightly belong?

 

[yorksrob]

In the 80s when BR made operating profits of up to £300 million, every penny was confiscated by the treasury and went into general exchequer revenue. BR didn't see a penny of it.

With the TOCs, at least some of the operating profit gets reinvested.

Wasn't it more the case that the profitable bits of BR subsidised the unprofitable bits and Government topped up the rest ?

The truth is that BR received support from the taxpayer just like the railway does today. It just the railway receives more support today for more services.

The thing that isn't always realised about BR was that it had to pay out on Government bonds, so the railway has never been entirely free of "the man". Perhaps if Government had paid off these and let it on it's own two feet, we could have had a private BR ?

 

[PeterC]

I would certainly have a single national Inter City brand. Local services could be branded regionally or nationally. Operation could be any combination of in-house and third party.

Look at National Express coaches arriving at Victoria, they can run a national brand with such a mix.

 

[Drsatan]

If I was supreme overlord of the railways, I would do the following.

Firstly, I'd commission my own private carriage, which would include a library of historical and technical books, journals and magazines about the operation of the railways. Such a private carriage would also include a OO gauge model railway, for me to practice rudimentary railway operation and signalling on :P

I'd also create something akin to the British Transport Commission, which would include Network Rail. I would assemble a commission, which would exclude anyone from bus operators, and be dominated by ex BR people, in the interests of impartiality . I would give such a commission 18 months to research and produce a report on how to run the railways in such a way that is more favourable to the passenger. This Commission would also seek to introduce regulation of bus services, similar to TfL's net cost tendering program.

To keep the public happy until then, I'd also abolish the more ridiculous ticket restrictions (like peak time beginning at 15:00 from some London termini, and Northern's current evening restrictions) and retrain all guards to emphasise that if you suspect a passenger is travelling using the wrong ticket, or off-route. always check with a higher authority if you suspect you might give misleading information, or incorrectly charge the passenger. Retraining sessions would be lead by the resident Fares Advisors on this forum (who would be paid a substantial sum for their time), and anyone with a working knowledge of rail fares.

I'd also remove barriers from stations considered unsuitable (like Salisbury) create an ombudsman similar to the financial ombudsman with the power to fine BR for breaches of its passenger charter, and introduce mystery shopping to ensure passengers were not being treated unfairly, fobbed off or being overcharged

 

[yorksrob]

create an ombudsman similar to the financial ombudsman with the power to fine BR for breaches of its passenger charter, and introduce mystery shopping to ensure passengers were not being treated unfairly, fobbed off or being overcharged

To be honest, that would be quite good for the current railway.

 

[Bevan Price]

My ideas would only work if I was "Supreme Controller, U.K.", but in a benevolent way, rather than a Hitler/Stalin type tyrant.
First, I would strip DfT of all influence on transport finance & policy, leaving it as a small unit to implement designated policy. Then, I would decide that railways existed to carry as many people as possible, not as a means to make large profits for shareholders. A secondary aim would be, as far as possible, to make it more attractive to use public transport rather than cars. The fares would be as low as possible without incurring huge deficits. and the fares system would be greatly simplified and based on distance - maybe in the region of 15p to 20p per mile single. There would be a single national definition of peak hours - e.g. journeys into large cities arriving prior to 09:30. (and no afternoon peak). Something like the one-time Woolworths philosophy - "Pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" - which worked well for many years until they lost their way.

Return fares allowing peak travel would be, say 1.8 times the single fare, with "off-peak " returns costing about 1.2 times the single fare. Apart from Seasons & Rovers, these would be the only types of ticket.

There would be temporary increases in income tax to pay for additional stock required to cope with extra passengers.

An ideal solution might be to abolish all fares, and pay for everything by the tax system , but I do not see that as affordable at present. However, in the long term, such a policy would reduce the costs of administration, and free ticket sales / checking staff to be retrained as train operators.

A steady extension of electrification, over a period of, say, 20-25 years, would be pursued for all except the most rural & lightly used lines.

OK - Dream (Nightmare ??? ) over - time to wake up and back to reality - it will never happen - not with the prospect of Tory-ish governments for many years to come. Walk on fares will continue to get increasingly unaffordable for many people; deterred by high peak hour rail fares, shoppers will turn even faster to internet shopping. Many city centre shops will struggle to survive. and High Streets will see more empty shops.

 

[21C101]

Wasn't it more the case that the profitable bits of BR subsidised the unprofitable bits and Government topped up the rest ?

The truth is that BR received support from the taxpayer just like the railway does today. It just the railway receives more support today for more services.

No, the railway received an annual subsidy agreed in advance of the financial year (about half the current subsidy in real terms)

However for several years in the late 80's BR made an operating profit, net of the subsidy, of up to £300 million.

That had to be returned to the Government in full, so, effectively their reward for effort and efficiency was to give the government back a large chunk of the subsidy. ie 100% of the profit was given to the shareholder (HM Government) as a dividend with none retained to increase investment.

Of course, when the economy tanked and BR made an operating loss in other years this money had to be borrowed, they didn't get any extra money from the government to help. Heads I win, tails you lose.

And yes, you are right that BR also had to pay out dividends to the big 4's shareholders. Big 4 shares were converted into government railway bonds with a guaranteed dividend at nationalisation, which was paid by BR.

The railway bond dividend was fixed in perpetuity at far in excess of the share dividend ever paid out by the big 4 railway companies, to buy off opposition to nationalisation, and because it was expected (for dogmatic reasons) that the nationalised company would be far more efficient and profitable. It was a massive albatross round BRs neck and the railways were only relieved of this at privatisation.

 

[yorksrob]

No, the railway received an annual subsidy agreed in advance of the financial year (about half the current subsidy in real terms)

However for several years in the late 80's BR made an operating profit, net of the subsidy, of up to £300 million.

That had to be returned to the Government in full, so, effectively their reward for effort and efficiency was to give the government back a large chunk of the subsidy. ie 100% of the profit was given to the shareholder (HM Government) as a dividend with none retained to increase investment.

Of course, when the economy tanked and BR made an operating loss in other years this money had to be borrowed, they didn't get any extra money from the government to help. Heads I win, tails you lose.

And yes, you are right that BR also had to pay out dividends to the big 4's shareholders. Big 4 shares were converted into government railway bonds with a guaranteed dividend at nationalisation, which was paid by BR.

The railway bond dividend was fixed in perpetuity at far in excess of the share dividend ever paid out by the big 4 railway companies, to buy off opposition to nationalisation, and because it was expected (for dogmatic reasons) that the nationalised company would be far more efficient and profitable. It was a massive albatross round BRs neck and the railways were only relieved of this at privatisation.

You say "for dogmatic reasons" but if what you say about an operating profit is correct, they were right that the nationalised railway would be more efficient and profitable.

Still, it confirms my belief that the case for privatisation was based entirely on lies that the railway was "deeply inefficient".