YouGov poll suggests most want British Rail back.

[yorksrob]

Unfortunately, that is what is anticipated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below

Exactly the same is said when applied to the unions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---[/siz
I would expect that the timing of the survey was a factor in the results ... a misty-eyed view of the BR unicorn being another.
[.

But the fact remains that whereas the Unions have largely been emasculated, big business remains rampant and its unchecked power represents a far greater threat to stability.

Your concentration on Unions sounds quaintly retro by comparison, like a re-run of Top Of The Pops.

Once the country realises that there is too much capital flowing out and not enough flowing in, the policy of flogging off all of our assets to every Tom, Dick and Harry will come under greater scrutiny.

As for why people supposedly want BR back - I guess those of us who used it know that it wasn't half as bad as the privatisers made it out to be. For starters, it wasn't permanently on strike, contrary to the impression somebody might obtain from reading this thread.

 

[Greenback]

Once the country realises that there is too much capital flowing out and not enough flowing in, the policy of flogging off all of our assets to every Tom, Dick and Harry will come under greater scrutiny.

I agree, but by then I fear it will be too late and all our assets will be gone.

As for why people supposedly want BR back - I guess those of us who used it know that it wasn't half as bad as the privatisers made it out to be. For starters, it wasn't permanently on strike, contrary to the impression somebody might obtain from reading this thread.

The biggest factor for me, is that the chosen form of privatisation has, in my opinion, provided very poor value compared with what we had under BR. Givne the promises made about what a good deal it was for everyone, how services would improve and competition would bring untold benefits to passengers, all I can say is that anyone who actually remembers that time is far more likely to feel cheated than happy.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree, but by then I fear it will be too late and all our assets will be gone.



The biggest factor for me, is that the chosen form of privatisation has, in my opinion, provided very poor value compared with what we had under BR. Givne the promises made about what a good deal it was for everyone, how services would improve and competition would bring untold benefits to passengers, all I can say is that anyone who actually remembers that time is far more likely to feel cheated than happy.

Well, I suppose there are good and bad points about the current set up. Living where I live in West Yorkshire, I'm one of the few travellers in the UK that gets to enjoy the benefits of competition on the railway. Yet if I need to travel a relatively l
ong distance at short notice, the railway offers a lot less value for money.

The direction of discourse on the Regional Railway from the DfT is also becoming increasingly worrying in that they seem more concerned with service cuts than looking at the structure of the railway itself.

 

[Greenback]

There was good and bad about BR, too. It's poor value today, though in terms of what is paid to run the network, and what we get for that, in comparison to what was paid for and what we got under BR.

I doubt that everyone will agree with me on that, though.

It's disappointing when the government looks at cuts of any sort to reduce costs instead of examining where the structure of the industry can be altered to reduce costs instead.

 

[Chris Wallis]

But how many people actually do want BR back?

 

[Railsigns]

But how many people actually do want BR back?

What most people want is a publicly owned, public accountable railway. It needn't be called British Rail, it doesn't matter what colour they paint the trains and its organisational structure need not necessarily match BR's in every detail. Had BR not been privatised, it would have undergone another two or three reorganisations by now, anyway.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

That is clearly not the case; the strikes are typically based on a low turnout and are quite obviously, in most case, politically motivated.




No; the intention is to avoid burdening the state with additional pension liabilities that it will not be able to meet. Public sector pensions are going to have to come to an end, with staff getting their pensions in the private sector.

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


In my personal experience, the Union Reps were out to screw their own members; they were only ever interested in feathering their own nests and acted like a bunch of hells angels towards the colleagues. They are the ones that ended up as the current middle management in the organisation I am thinking of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Unfortunately, that is what is anticipated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Exactly the same is said when applied to the unions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Ditto.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I would expect that the timing of the survey was a factor in the results ... a misty-eyed view of the BR unicorn being another.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Public subsidy for the railways is being steadily reduced - 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.

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.

Capital investment is however going to be problematic going forward. Over the last 10 years or so, a lot of the work has been financed by debt, but NR is close to it's credit limit. A lot has been achieved so far with the relatively cheap debt, but additional capacity, particularly were it is really needed, is going to be one or two orders of magnitude more expensive than the little schemes seen so far.

This would be one arguement for having NR under state control so that it could access the currently relatively cheap Government debt financing. However this will not last, and Government expenditure will be significantly constrained in future years. The next phases of the financial crisis will most likely be more devastating than the last, with Government finances taking the biggest hit.

So going forward, if additional capacity is to be provided for the anticipated growth, it is going to require a substantial private sector involvement, with perhaps backers taking ownership of particular corridors. The alternative is yield management, which is already being planned for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Dribble.

If you feel the need to strike, you should probably go and find another job, or perhaps retire to a monastery.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The problem is that the unions are made up of Luddites that are living in the past; the world has changed for the better, but a number of the unions are still peddling the gospel of the Cold War. That is all it is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


We have the vote to prevent or remove the tyrants; tyrants such as Brown, Blair, Foot, Wilson, etc, etc. They are the more dangerous to society, and have done far more damage, perhaps only to be surpassed by the media manipulation of the current set of malcontents.

I've bitten my tongue for so long, but I apologise to the moderation team, but there's only so much that someone can take and I'm now going to say what I think of Olaf's ideology.

Your more blue than a porn movie. With some of the wibble that you have spouted it just proves to me & loads of others that you have little moral fortitude. You are the sort that would (given the chance) would sell your kids, your parents & everyone's soul to the devil for a few quid in your pocket.

You don't care about anyone except yourself. From reading your posts it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't cost YOU anything. That to me stinks, a typical selfish, self-centred & egotistical attitude which is typical of today's society and the 80's Thatcherite/Major generation.

With your attitude I would recommend that you emigrate to the USA, where your attitude to others & money is rife and more welcome.

 

[Oswyntail]

What most people want is a publicly owned, public accountable railway. .....

I agree with this whole post, and it is a shame that the debate is not about how best to achieve this, but, rather, a Manichean argument about "now" and "BR".
To me, this raises an essential question about the nature of democracy. Even if it were true that most people want a return to BR, and were prepared to vote for that in a referendum with 100% turnout, would it be right to revert if there were actually provably better alternatives? I am not saying the present system is the best possible, nor that the BR model is. But a massive public "demand" should not necessarily lead to the outcome they demand? Or should it?

 

[yorksrob]

. Even if it were true that most people want a return to BR, and were prepared to vote for that in a referendum with 100% turnout, would it be right to revert if there were actually provably better alternatives? I am not saying the present system is the best possible, nor that the BR model is. But a massive public "demand" should not necessarily lead to the outcome they demand? Or should it?

That depends on how much you trust the Establishment to come up with the right solution. Going by recent history, I don't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What most people want is a publicly owned, public accountable railway. It needn't be called British Rail, it doesn't matter what colour they paint the trains and its organisational structure need not necessarily match BR's in every detail. Had BR not been privatised, it would have undergone another two or three reorganisations by now, anyway.

If we were to nationalise, I'd rather have a version of BR and it's business sectors. It worked better than the other nationalised models, so why reinvent the wheel.

I'm a bit reluctant to come out in favour of public ownership precisely because we'd probably get something completely different and take another forty years to learn how to run a public railway.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

But how many people actually do want BR back?

Most people do according to post #1.

 

[fowler9]

That depends on how much you trust the Establishment to come up with the right solution. Going by recent history, I don't.

I really don't trust the private sector either. I currently work for a private sector company which is effectively doing work outsourced by the government and I think that the verdict of the service users is pretty much unanimous in that the service is pretty awful. It is cheaper for the government though. The railways aren't even that! I have seen little to no improvement in the railways since privatisation in the format that was chosen.

 

[Railsigns]

Public subsidy for the railways is being steadily reduced - 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.

Reduced, yes, but still about four times as much as what BR managed with. I don't see that as a cause for celebration.

 

[yorksrob]

I really don't trust the private sector either. I currently work for a private sector company which is effectively doing work outsourced by the government and I think that the verdict of the service users is pretty much unanimous in that the service is pretty awful. It is cheaper for the government though. The railways aren't even that! I have seen little to no improvement in the railways since privatisation in the format that was chosen.

I think a lot of it boils down to what Greenback said about costs. At the moment for me, the railway is pretty decent and largely fulfills my needs well (as it did under NSE), therefore I'm reluctant to support a massive upheaval (As I was in 1994). However, if the agenda were to turn to cuts in services and (heaven forbid) routes, and the current structure were exacerbating the problem by incorporating unnecessary costs, then I will definitely support change.

Sadly, the recent Northern Rail consultation points to this agenda.

 

[fowler9]

I think a lot of it boils down to what Greenback said about costs. At the moment for me, the railway is pretty decent and largely fulfills my needs well (as it did under NSE), therefore I'm reluctant to support a massive upheaval (As I was in 1994). However, if the agenda were to turn to cuts in services and (heaven forbid) routes, and the current structure is exacerbating the problem by incorporating unnecessary costs, then I will definitely support change.

Yeah I agree with you on all counts. When I say I have seen little to no improvement I don't mean it was that bad in the first place, just that largely for me nothing has changed. The rolling stock is the same, the service is largely reliable as it always was, my local station has the same mix of staff who are brilliant and staff who aren't quite as good (Much like any field of employment). The fares for local journies are competetive with the buses (I have a Trio ticket anyway). My lifestyle means I generally don't have to make long distance train journies at short notice so I don't suffer from the insane walk up and travel fares.

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.

 

[Railsigns]

I think a lot of it boils down to what Greenback said about costs. At the moment for me, the railway is pretty decent and largely fulfills my needs well (as it did under NSE), therefore I'm reluctant to support a massive upheaval (As I was in 1994). However, if the agenda were to turn to cuts in services and (heaven forbid) routes, and the current structure were exacerbating the problem by incorporating unnecessary costs, then I will definitely support change.

Sadly, the recent Northern Rail consultation points to this agenda.

Given the massive taxpayer subsidies and unsustainable borrowing on which the present set-up depends, I would hope that people can see that future cuts are a very real possibility and start pressing for change now, rather than waiting for the agenda to turn to cuts.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Indeed. The current model certainly seems to be doing more harm than good in the North at the moment. Perhaps we should begin with reform here and see if it would be suitable elsewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given the massive taxpayer subsidies and unsustainable borrowing on which the present set-up depends, I would hope that people can see that future cuts are a very real possibly and start pressing for change now, rather than waiting for the agenda to turn to cuts.

Yes, I'm no expert, but I do wonder how long until the "magic credit card" is maxed out.

 

[kermit]

I've bitten my tongue for so long, but I apologise to the moderation team, but there's only so much that someone can take and I'm now going to say what I think of Olaf's ideology.

Your more blue than a porn movie. With some of the wibble that you have spouted it just proves to me & loads of others that you have little moral fortitude. You are the sort that would (given the chance) would sell your kids, your parents & everyone's soul to the devil for a few quid in your pocket.

You don't care about anyone except yourself. From reading your posts it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't cost YOU anything. That to me stinks, a typical selfish, self-centred & egotistical attitude which is typical of today's society and the 80's Thatcherite/Major generation.

With your attitude I would recommend that you emigrate to the USA, where your attitude to others & money is rife and more welcome.

Thanks Harley, you have captured perfectly my sense of outrage and indignation at Olaf's post, which I think was quite deliberately provocative.

Another instance where a "like" button would be a handy facility on this Forum, I think.

 

[Flamingo]

Thanks Harley, you have captured perfectly my sense of outrage and indignation at Olaf's post, which I think was quite deliberately provocative.

Another instance where a "like" button would be a handy facility on this Forum, I think.

+1 on both points!

 

[Chris Wallis]

Most people do according to post #1.

Not if you actually read the question that was asked........which didnt mention a 'return to BR'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What most people want is a publicly owned, public accountable railway. It needn't be called British Rail, it doesn't matter what colour they paint the trains and its organisational structure need not necessarily match BR's in every detail. Had BR not been privatised, it would have undergone another two or three reorganisations by now, anyway.

I understand and agree with all of this.

 

[SaveECRewards]

And failed to spot key markets like Hull-London, didn't have any services on the ECML on Sundays until late morning ... The problem with a nationalised rail industry is that when it gets its judgements wrong there's no one to step in and fill the gap.

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.

 

[Robertj21a]

I've bitten my tongue for so long, but I apologise to the moderation team, but there's only so much that someone can take and I'm now going to say what I think of Olaf's ideology.

Your more blue than a porn movie. With some of the wibble that you have spouted it just proves to me & loads of others that you have little moral fortitude. You are the sort that would (given the chance) would sell your kids, your parents & everyone's soul to the devil for a few quid in your pocket.

You don't care about anyone except yourself. From reading your posts it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't cost YOU anything. That to me stinks, a typical selfish, self-centred & egotistical attitude which is typical of today's society and the 80's Thatcherite/Major generation.

With your attitude I would recommend that you emigrate to the USA, where your attitude to others & money is rife and more welcome.

To be totally honest, and taking out some of the heated emotion now evident, a re-read of the points made by Olaf suggest that he is not far off the mark. Others may not like what he writes, but it's difficult to argue against much of it.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

To be totally honest, and taking out some of the heated emotion now evident, a re-read of the points made by Olaf suggest that he is not far off the mark. Others may not like what he writes, but it's difficult to argue against much of it.

Don't worry he'll sell you, your family for organs & their souls too. Someone with zero scruples, when it comes to money & ethics.

 

[deltic]

Ownership of an organisation is usually irrelevant to the quality of service it provides - what is usually key is competition. Where there is no competition and little penalty for failure then the result is usually poor service and value for money and the need for regulators or Government to try and intervene to maintain some level of quality and value for money.

Freight is one area where there is on-rail competition and where productivity has increased dramatically. In the passenger rail market there is virtually no competition and is unlikely ever will be.

 

[sadgit]

To be totally honest, and taking out some of the heated emotion now evident, a re-read of the points made by Olaf suggest that he is not far off the mark. Others may not like what he writes, but it's difficult to argue against much of it.

The bit where he oddly enough only singled out Labour leaders (some not even PMs) as "tyrants" is pretty dodgy, and that's just a start. Blair was not wonderful by any stretch, and I say that as a Labour member and supporter (capsule summary: the man's government did a hell of a lot of good, which should be praised and defended, but a hell of a lot of bad after he seemed to more and more enjoy the smell of his own farts, and that bad was pretty goddamn terrible by all measures) but "tyrant" is a stretch. Brown, again, does not strike me as tyrannical, nor does Wilson, and Foot was never even prime minister. I wouldn't go so far as to call any British prime minister a tyrant, regardless of the colour of their rosette, so to do so already seems crass; to single out only Labour's leaders as such is needlessly partisan at best and wilfully idiotic at worst.

Unions in general are a necessary thing; they counterbalance the severe inequality of bargaining power between employers and workers (an employer can quite easily ruin your life by sacking you or reducing your pay, whereas you individually quitting or requesting a pay rise is not likely to do much to them). Olaf's suggestion that "if you feel the need to strike, you should find another job" is just ignorant, and effectively hands all power over the employer-employee relationship to the employer - the implied relationship being one where the employer decrees all terms to the employee and the employee can like it or lump it. This is outright offensive; collective bargaining is needed such that employees and employers can negotiate employment terms on equal levels, with equal or near-equal consequences for both sides should negotiations fail or one side wish to push things too far.

Nobody wants to return to unions having as much power they did in the 70s, but they have already been thoroughly gutted in terms of their influence to the detriment of many millions of workers, and the last thing that needs to happen is for them to be killed off entirely.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Private sector workers are just jealous of the protection that union worker have and the things that unions negotiate for their members.

Perhaps if enough of them put their heads together they might be able to form a union too, not that they could, they haven't got the brains, balls or backbone to do it.

 

[Railsigns]

Ownership of an organisation is usually irrelevant to the quality of service it provides - what is usually key is competition. Where there is no competition and little penalty for failure then the result is usually poor service and value for money and the need for regulators or Government to try and intervene to maintain some level of quality and value for money.

Rail is in competition with other forms of transport, principally road and air. Any attempt at introducing competition within the rail industry is therefore not only unnecessary but is actually counterproductive because the inherent efficiency of the structure that enables it far outweighs the benefits.

I have no problem with competition between private companies where there's a natural market (supermarkets, for example) but the dogma-driven transfer of essential public services into artificial regulated markets tends to increase costs while services decline. We've seen this happen with the railways and the Royal Mail, and the NHS will be next.

When it comes to public services, all people want is a consistent level of service at a reasonable price. The idea of introducing choice and competition to these services is just a con to try to get the public on board with privatisation.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Come on mods where's the like button...

 

[sadgit]

Private sector workers are just jealous of the protection that union worker have and the things that unions negotiate for their members.

Perhaps if enough of them put their heads together they might be able to form a union too, not that they could, they haven't got the brains, balls or backbone to do it.

I would be lying if I said a lot of it wasn't due to sour grapes. And rather than unionising themselves, or fighting for the same protections, they want to pull everyone down to their level.

 

[yorksrob]

And failed to spot key markets like Hull-London, didn't have any services on the ECML on Sundays until late morning ... The problem with a nationalised rail industry is that when it gets its judgements wrong there's no one to step in and fill the gap.

A reasonable point, although true of any monopoly, regardless of whether it's public or private. I certainly think that whatever system we have, it should have the opportunity for open access as this has definitely provided tangible benefits for the passenger.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rail is in competition with other forms of transport, principally road and air. Any attempt at introducing competition within the rail industry is therefore not only unnecessary but is actually counterproductive because the inherent efficiency of the structure that enables it far outweighs the benefits.

I have no problem with competition between private companies where there's a natural market (supermarkets, for example) but the dogma-driven transfer of essential public services into artificial regulated markets tends to increase costs while services decline. We've seen this happen with the railways and the Royal Mail, and the NHS will be next.

When it comes to public services, all people want is a consistent level of service at a reasonable price. The idea of introducing choice and competition to these services is just a con to try to get the public on board with privatisation.

Theoretically I agree, however in practice, I've found open access to be a very valuable part of the overall offer on the ECML. Helps to keep the incumbent on their toes!

 

[Robertj21a]

I would be lying if I said a lot of it wasn't due to sour grapes. And rather than unionising themselves, or fighting for the same protections, they want to pull everyone down to their level.

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.......