Jeremy Corbyn pledges rail renationalisation

[Railsigns]

It is still not clear from any of the posts above what is the problem that nationalisation will solve and how will it solve it

Here's what the problem is (besides the higher fares and the £35+ billion of public debt).

This (from 1996):

I anticipate the level of subsidy will be about the same. It’ll then fall, because we’re getting better value for money from the people who bid for the franchises than we got from British Rail, so the taxpayer will eventually save money, not lose money.

versus this:

Government support to the rail industry - Table 1.6

(Note: The official figures linked to above are corrected for inflation; all are presented in equivalent 2014-15 prices.)

 

[deltic]

Here's what the problem is (besides the higher fares and the £35+ billion of public debt).

This (from 1996):



versus this:

Government support to the rail industry - Table 1.6

(Note: The official figures linked to above are corrected for inflation; all are presented in equivalent 2014-15 prices.)

I think we can all agree that privatisation did not deliver what the government of the day expected as you quote above.

However, it is not clear that nationalisation will deliver much cost savings - the huge subsidies going into rail are going to Network Rail which is in effect a nationalised organisation.

As many have said the world is very different from 20 years ago with different and more costly standards and health and safety rules in place.

What practical differences will nationalisation lead to on the rail network?

 

[Railsigns]

I think we can all agree that privatisation did not deliver what the government of the day expected as you quote above.

Then why try to defend it? It has demonstrably failed.

However, it is not clear that nationalisation will deliver much cost savings - the huge subsidies going into rail are going to Network Rail which is in effect a nationalised organisation.

Yes; however, part of Network Rail's subsidy constitutes an indirect subsidy to the TOCs. Track access charges paid to NR have been steadily decreased even though the TOCs are making increasing use of the infrastructure. That's a political decision, designed to give the impression of steadily improving performance from the TOCs and, conversely, steadily deteriorating performance from publicly owned NR. In truth, it's the entire industry structure that's broken and is failing to perform.

As many have said the world is very different from 20 years ago with different and more costly standards and health and safety rules in place.

What practical differences will nationalisation lead to on the rail network?

Greater efficiency resulting from the removal of the inherently inefficient and costly franchising model and the countless artificial barriers that fragmentation has needlessly imposed on the rail industry. Replacing competition with cooperation.

 

[The Planner]

How many job losses would people assume nationalisation would cause?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The case for full renationalisation would be one to consider in its implications when strike action by the rail unions is envisaged.

Presently, it is only the services of the TOC in which the rail unions are in dispute with that cause passenger disruption in that franchise area, but can you imagine the greatly increased "clout" the rail unions will have if the entire rail network is then affected? I am sure that Mick Cash will have been delighted by the Jeremy Corbyn renationalisation proposals on all counts.

 

[deltic]

Then why try to defend it? It has demonstrably failed.

Not sure I have ever defended privatisation - privatisation has failed against the financial target it was set but it has achieved many other positive benefits.

Yes; however, part of Network Rail's subsidy constitutes an indirect subsidy to the TOCs. Track access charges paid to NR have been steadily decreased even though the TOCs are making increasing use of the infrastructure. That's a political decision, designed to give the impression of steadily improving performance from the TOCs and, conversely, steadily deteriorating performance from publicly owned NR. In truth, it's the entire industry structure that's broken and is failing to perform.

Fair point but Network Rail has not covered itself in glory - having its CP5 programme effectively ripped up after one year as not being deliverable

Greater efficiency resulting from the removal of the inherently inefficient and costly franchising model and the countless artificial barriers that fragmentation has needlessly imposed on the rail industry. Replacing competition with cooperation.

Competition has been shown in virtually every industry to drive innovation and efficiency regardless of whether you are in the public or private sector. The problem with natural monopolies is this lack of competition that leads to inefficiency as witnessed in most monopolies again regardless of whether it is in the public or private sector.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Presently, it is only the services of the TOC in which the rail unions are in dispute with that cause passenger disruption in that franchise area, but can you imagine the greatly increased "clout" the rail unions will have if the entire rail network is then affected? I am sure that Mick Cash will have been delighted by the Jeremy Corbyn renationalisation proposals on all counts.

Including the national pay freezes, service/staffing cutbacks and DOO plans which nationalised BR implemented periodically (often under Labour governments)?

 

[misterredmist]

...or indeed the possibility that Network Rail will be privatised which is now being floated....

I don't like that idea, wasn't "Railtrack" a disaster as shareholder's dividends took precedent over expenditure on rail safety ? hence they were removed from the industry .....

 

[NSEFAN]

I don't like that idea, wasn't "Railtrack" a disaster as shareholder's dividends took precedent over expenditure on rail safety ? hence they were removed from the industry .....

And ignoring the safety aspect, wasn't a lot of the "profit" just the revenue from selling assets? That's hardly a sustainable business model.

 

[muz379]

The case for full renationalisation would be one to consider in its implications when strike action by the rail unions is envisaged.

Presently, it is only the services of the TOC in which the rail unions are in dispute with that cause passenger disruption in that franchise area, but can you imagine the greatly increased "clout" the rail unions will have if the entire rail network is then affected? I am sure that Mick Cash will have been delighted by the Jeremy Corbyn renationalisation proposals on all counts.

Just out of interest how come you always bang on about Mick Cash ,its getting a bit tired now we know you dont like him or the RMT . What about the other unions representing rail staff you know like Mick Whelan and Aslef .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just out of interest how come you always bang on about Mick Cash ,its getting a bit tired now we know you dont like him or the RMT . What about the other unions representing rail staff you know like Mick Whelan and Aslef .

Ask yourself this question,,,Who sets out to create a higher profile for himself on the both the trades union and the political stage...Mick Cash or Mick Whelan? There you will find the answer to the question. Mick Cash WANTS his profile to be as well known as possible, so I am obliging him in that respect.

I will add that I am also aware of Manuel Cortes, the General Secretary of TSSA who you chose to ignore, so I will mention his name to address the balance.

Do not make assumptions about my knowledge of any matter before making sure that you are fully aware of the matter.

 

[Dave1987]

Greater efficiency resulting from the removal of the inherently inefficient and costly franchising model and the countless artificial barriers that fragmentation has needlessly imposed on the rail industry. Replacing competition with cooperation.

And replace it with insane amounts of public sector bureaucracy and red tape. All public sector contracts have to be put out to tender and have at least three separate bids from companies, you cannot just give the contract to a local firm. Public sector running of the railways won't be the shining beam of light of efficiency you believe it will.

A cooperation? What are you going to say to the private freight operators? Nationalise them as well or tell them they can like what they are given or lump it? That would no doubt leads to an increase in road haulage.

 

[thenorthern]

Can we all just accept the rail network is not going to be re-nationalised despite what any Labour politician likes to pledge/call for when there isn't an election on and the Tories are in Government to try and show they are in touch with public opinion.

When the railways were privatised Labour said if they ever won power they would re-nationalise the railways as a priority however after winning 3 elections and being in power for 13 years it never happened. During the NXEC fiasco the Labour Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said franchising represents good value for money. Milliband promised it and called for it prior to 2014 but it was never a Labour manifesto pledge.

Would re-nationalisation solve issue? Who knows. Is it going to happen? No unless the Green Party win power.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Can we all just accept the rail network is not going to be re-nationalised despite what any Labour politician likes to pledge/call for when there isn't an election on and the Tories are in Government to try and show they are in touch with public opinion.

When the railways were privatised Labour said if they ever won power they would re-nationalise the railways as a priority however after winning 3 elections and being in power for 13 years it never happened. During the NXEC fiasco the Labour Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said franchising represents good value for money. Milliband promised it and called for it prior to 2014 but it was never a Labour manifesto pledge.

Would re-nationalisation solve issue? Who knows. Is it going to happen? No unless the Green Party win power.

Difference is the Labour Party has changed hugely in the last five years, there are now an increasing number of people joining the party on the left of the political spectrum (150,000 since May and 40,000 since Corbyn's won the leadership). If Corbyn makes the parliamentary party more accountable to the membership (he will have to sure up his leadership) then I can see this policy outlasting his leadership to keep the new left wing party membership happy.

 

[class26]

Not sure I have ever defended privatisation - privatisation has failed against the financial target it was set but it has achieved many other positive benefits.

Agreed. Privatisation was intended to make the railways more like the airline industry where carriers come and go, compete against each other,develop / abandon routes at a whim etc but if thought through that was never going to happen.

It did have other benefits as mentioned above though and nationalisation would not solve any problems and certainly would not return the railways back to a golden age. Firstly if nationalised where would the money come from for electrification, new stock, new lines etc ? Not from the government because that would increase the national debt. If the national debt is significantly increased the Pound would loose value and then all that shiny new rolling stock from Seimens, Alstom etc would go up in price to the point it would be unaffordable. Even the home made product will be sourcing much from abroad so will not be imune to price increases. Nationalisation is history.

 

[455driver]

How many job losses would people assume nationalisation would cause?

Pretty much everyone employed in delay attribution would go (no need for the moneygoround anymore).

Management could be streamlined as well.

The 'profits/premiums' leaving the industry would also stop and all money would stay within the industry.

A lot of the GRIP stage rubbish could go as well, if it needs doing (no matter about the BCR etc) then it gets done for the greater good instead of everything having to be cost effective.

Trains could be built up to a standard instead of down to a price meaning things would actually be cheaper in the long run.

Plus more I will come back to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The case for full renationalisation would be one to consider in its implications when strike action by the rail unions is envisaged.

Presently, it is only the services of the TOC in which the rail unions are in dispute with that cause passenger disruption in that franchise area, but can you imagine the greatly increased "clout" the rail unions will have if the entire rail network is then affected? I am sure that Mick Cash will have been delighted by the Jeremy Corbyn renationalisation proposals on all counts.

How many rail strikes have there been since privatisation?
How many of them were because the staff were taking the wee wee?
How many of them were because Management/DaFT were taking the wee wee?
I am not including the RMTs ability to threaten strike action every time somebody farts!

A Union is there to protect the workforce and if they and Management cant agree on things such as sensible modernisation then there is something fundamentally wrong somewhere!

 

[WelshBluebird]

I wonder how the ROSCOs would be dealt with. I would assume if these were nationalised then it would have to be some kind of buyout, but then you have the insane situation of the state buying older stock that it once built and owned itself (which to be fair isn't much more mad than the current situation where that rolling stock is being paid for despite having been built and paid for previously).

 

[swt_passenger]

A lot of the GRIP stage rubbish could go as well, if it needs doing (no matter about the BCR etc) then it gets done for the greater good instead of everything having to be cost effective.

Just like the way schools and hospitals are put up anywhere, anytime they like, with no supervision by the relevant departments at all. Are you in some kind of dream?

 

[jon0844]

Pretty much everyone employed in delay attribution would go (no need for the moneygoround anymore).

Would that happen? It still wouldn't just be one company running the show, so I suspect this arguably wasteful process would still exist - if only to show who to blame.

 

[HowardGWR]

The railways are nationalised. Stephen Byers took them back for a song. Only the servicing of the timetables is contracted out and the stock leased. I don't know what folk are on about here.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Pretty much everyone employed in delay attribution would go (no need for the moneygoround anymore).
Management could be streamlined as well.
The 'profits/premiums' leaving the industry would also stop and all money would stay within the industry.
A lot of the GRIP stage rubbish could go as well, if it needs doing (no matter about the BCR etc) then it gets done for the greater good instead of everything having to be cost effective.
Trains could be built up to a standard instead of down to a price meaning things would actually be cheaper in the long run.

You are joking? A "nationalised" railway is not going to be a single body, and "franchises" (short-term TOC contracts) will still exist even if in the public sector.
Think about how costs are central to how the NHS is managed - and how much trouble it causes when they run out of budget.
Railway costs will have to be managed in terms of cost and benefits, and cost control means "delay attribution" and other management tools.
Private sector trains will still run (eg freight, open access, cross-border).
Nobody is going to give you a blank cheque to do what you like, and EU rules and competition law will still have to be followed (eg access regulation, tendering for public contracts).

GRIP is typical of how large organisations, public or private, run major projects, and was invented by central government to manage things like new technology in the NHS, or introducing new aircraft carriers in defence.
It's how you measure the "greater good" and control specifications and costs.
Rolling stock will still need to provide "value for money", just like Networkers did in the BR era, with luxuries trimmed if unaffordable.
You will still have staffing pressures and operating efficiencies to worry about (eg ROCs and DOO).
I can't see nationalisation being the nirvana that its proponents think, and is just ideology rather than a practical solution to the railway's problems (which are all to do with its high cost and subsidy requirement).
All it does is alter the money go round.

 

[Holly]

I wonder how the ROSCOs would be dealt with. I would assume if these were nationalised then it would have to be some kind of buyout, but then you have the insane situation of the state buying older stock that it once built and owned itself (which to be fair isn't much more mad than the current situation where that rolling stock is being paid for despite having been built and paid for previously).

Taxed into bankruptcy.
Rolling stock sold back for its scrap value.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy". - John Marshall (American, 1755-1835)

 

[swt_passenger]

Taxed into bankruptcy.

That'll be legal?

 

[thenorthern]

Given that most franchises are due to expire before 2020 which is the earliest that Labour will win power Jeremy Corbyn must be thinking he will stay as Prime Minister for a long time as it would take till at least till 2029 (the date when C2C expires) to do his current plan but by 2020 there will be even more franchises re-let probably beyond 2030 meaning that he would be in his 80s before the job would completed.

The railways are nationalised. Stephen Byers took them back for a song. Only the servicing of the timetables is contracted out and the stock leased. I don't know what folk are on about here.

Because Fred Bloggs the commuter from Wigan thinks that he is getting a raw deal from Northern Rail and concludes that Northern Rail are deliberately operating dangerous, dirty and out of date Pacers because they hate their customers and bringing back British Rail would solve all the problems as they would never operate pacers.

Seriously though most the non-railway people I know who think the railways should be re-nationalised are young people under the age of 30 who know sod all about the railways and how they work and have very little or no memories of what British Rail was like. They also complain that British Rail wouldn't operate old trains such as Pacers or 313s but they forget both these were introduced by British Rail and that British Rail operated even older stock at the time of privatisation.

 

[Holly]

Taxed into bankruptcy.

That'll be legal?

Totally. As long as the new nationalised railway pays the same taxes.

 

[The Planner]

Pretty much everyone employed in delay attribution would go (no need for the moneygoround anymore).

Management could be streamlined as well.

The 'profits/premiums' leaving the industry would also stop and all money would stay within the industry.

A lot of the GRIP stage rubbish could go as well, if it needs doing (no matter about the BCR etc) then it gets done for the greater good instead of everything having to be cost effective.

Trains could be built up to a standard instead of down to a price meaning things would actually be cheaper in the long run.

Plus more I will come back to.

Like others have mentioned, I would disagree with a lot of that. Delay Attribution would stay just on a smaller scale as it would still need to be investigated. GRIP would never go as it is a governance process to progress projects, how else do you measure that you are doing the right thing? Just because it is nationalised doesn't mean you can **** money up the wall with no control because it sounds like a good idea.

 

[313103]

Remind me 313103 which operator brought in under floor engine DMUs. Pretty sure it was BR

And your right that they did, however most if not all diesel rolling stock until the sprinter/pacer generation were only in one or two cars and not ALL the train, so if you didnt want the din and noise you could chose to go to a coach that didnt have a engine underneath it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ask yourself this question,,,Who sets out to create a higher profile for himself on the both the trades union and the political stage...Mick Cash or Mick Whelan? There you will find the answer to the question. Mick Cash WANTS his profile to be as well known as possible, so I am obliging him in that respect.

I will add that I am also aware of Manuel Cortes, the General Secretary of TSSA who you chose to ignore, so I will mention his name to address the balance.

Do not make assumptions about my knowledge of any matter before making sure that you are fully aware of the matter.

So how does Mick Cash create a higher profile for himself then? I cant remember the last time i saw him on TV or even being quoted in the press. Perhaps you get different news then i get (I watch BBC New most of the time). The only time i see Mick Cash say anything is when i read the RMT news.

One thing i will say is that you tend to blame all the railway ills on the RMT and in particular Mick Cash.

 

[yorksrob]

They also complain that British Rail wouldn't operate old trains such as Pacers or 313s but they forget both these were introduced by British Rail and that British Rail operated even older stock at the time of privatisation.

Except that actually, BR didn't have significantly older stock than now at the time of privatisation. Infact, the average age of rolling stock would have been around the twenty year mark as it is now. People seem to forget that today's clapped out carriages were brand spanking new twenty years ago for some reason.

 

[deltic]

I wonder how the ROSCOs would be dealt with. I would assume if these were nationalised then it would have to be some kind of buyout, but then you have the insane situation of the state buying older stock that it once built and owned itself (which to be fair isn't much more mad than the current situation where that rolling stock is being paid for despite having been built and paid for previously).

Why would they be nationalised - much rolling stock is provided on build and maintain leases - I suggest the public sector that invented PFI is not going to go back to making outright purchases of expensive capital equipment

 

[WelshBluebird]

Why would they be nationalised - much rolling stock is provided on build and maintain leases - I suggest the public sector that invented PFI is not going to go back to making outright purchases of expensive capital equipment

Because there is a huge amount of rolling stock that was built and paid for prior to privatisation that we have had to now pay for twice, three times over and even more because they are now owned by the ROSCOs.
I agree for rolling stock since 1994 the leasing concept isn't necessarily a bad one (especially as a lot of the newer contracts are a combined build and maintenance as you say), but in my mind at least it is insane that we are still having to pay for pacers which were built and paid for by BR decades ago.
It also means that sometimes ToC's are actually better off NOT using all their available stock because the leasing costs are too great (I am looking specifically at the XC HST situation where I believe the case is that they try not to use them because they only pay the leasing costs when they are used).