Jeremy Corbyn pledges rail renationalisation

[Barn]

be fair, a lot of this is down to current Government policy demanding higher premiums

Also known as reducing those nasty evil subsidies that posters like Railsigns point out so often...

 

[365fenman]

Imagine if we'd had today's rail system in the 1980s, with TOCs, ROSCOs, Network Rail etc. But in the eighties, where trains were used much less than today and funding was very limited.

Would they have done things like build pacers? Would they have done something better? Or would they have cut services and closed lines on a big scale?

 

[Railsigns]

There is alot [sic] of private money going in to the railways and to suggest not is simply untrue

No, there isn't. Private sector investment accounts for a tiny percentage of the money that goes into the rail industry today; the remainder comes from public funds or borrowing underwritten by the government.

 

[thenorthern]

State Owned Companies are not always the answer and many things we use in everyday life shows us this such as why did people still use William Hill instead of The Tote? why do people still watch ITV when there is a BBC? why do people use Google Maps rather than Ordinance Survey? Finally why did people still buy Fords and Vauxhalls when British Leyland was State Owned?

The same thing can be seen in the railways such as why did British Rail still buy trains from Pressed Steel, Metro Cammell and Electroputere? (Electroputere built the awful Class 56s). And why did passengers still travel by CrossCountry, First Hull Trains, First Capital Connect and Grand Central when East Coast was a State Owned Company?

Ed Milliband's idea of having a state owned company that is allowed to bid for franchises would have been an interesting idea although the public didn't vote him in. As I have said though a full scale re-nationalisation will never happen.

 

[Pigeon]

The NHS is in such a mess because of the Thatcherist meme that "business" is the magic solution to every problem. It can't be privatised because there would be national outrage, so it has been forced into what is effectively a situation where it pretends to be a business and do businessy things. Like having more managers than medical staff and having them spend their time shoving around vast piles of paperwork concerning the utter nonsense and fairytales that accountants believe in. (And it literally is nonsense and fairytales; one example being our local hospital panicking about running out of budget and getting around it by deciding to believe in a slightly different version of the fairytale in question.) The state of the NHS does not constitute an argument against nationalisation; it does constitute an argument against being bloody stupid

The reason companies can be more efficient in the private sector than the public sector despite paying dividends is called the profit motive, The knowledge that they will act as rational actors to maximise efficiency motivated by the return in profit.

I know that is the fallacy used to justify privatisation, but it doesn't wash. It's a heck of a convoluted way to dodge the responsibility of simply ensuring that the people running the nationalised operation are competent. It also doesn't work, because it means they operate to maximise profit at the expense of service. So we end up with rubbish like Railtrack, making profits from selling land and not bothering about maintenance until they have to be abolished because their neglect was killing people.

This statement immediately made me think of "the collective farm" system introduced last century under Communism in two large countries and of the actual reality that then followed after blind adherence to political dogma. Perhaps being a septuagenarian, I am more aware of that part of history than some of our younger website members.

When you have a system run by a psychopath whose response to millions of people starving to death is to pretend it isn't happening, and whose subordinates' prime concern is to avoid getting shot or sent to a gulag, all bets are off. It certainly doesn't prove that the system is inherently unworkable.

This assumption is fundamentally flawed. I have seen many examples at work (industrial, non rail related) where by good teamwork, critically challenging process, equipment used etc... we have been frequently able to to more for less money. It's how almost all companies stay in business because of they don't their competitors will.

No. To do a given thing costs x amount of money. If you were doing it for more, then you weren't doing it properly. If you are doing it for less, you are doing a different thing.

I'd dispute that , what the Exchequer takes in revenue from Road Tax , VAT on new vehicles and excise duty on fuel will be far more than is ever spent on the Roads......

A lot of people think that, but TTBOMK the reality is exactly the opposite.

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.

Competition is inherently wasteful of resources and the railways are one of the best examples of this. It simply isn't possible unless you have vast amounts of spare capacity. Competition on railways leads to things like three parallel independent lines up the same valley, carrying a total traffic which is significantly less than they could carry if they were all integrated, and all operating on the brink of survival because all three companies are constantly strangling themselves to compete with the others.

When was the last time that a polling company ran a poll of voter perceived priorities using the existing Ministries as the areas involved and if so, where did transport come in the list of priority preferences?

Quite often, and almost always right down the bottom. Which exposes a fundamental flaw in our system of government, and goes to explain why the system has always been a mess since the word go with only the type of mess changing.

 

[yorksrob]

State Owned Companies are not always the answer and many things we use in everyday life shows us this such as why did people still use William Hill instead of The Tote? why do people still watch ITV when there is a BBC? why do people use Google Maps rather than Ordinance Survey? Finally why did people still buy Fords and Vauxhalls when British Leyland was State Owned?

The same thing can be seen in the railways such as why did British Rail still buy trains from Pressed Steel, Metro Cammell and Electroputere? (Electroputere built the awful Class 56s). And why did passengers still travel by CrossCountry, First Hull Trains, First Capital Connect and Grand Central when East Coast was a State Owned Company?

Ed Milliband's idea of having a state owned company that is allowed to bid for franchises would have been an interesting idea although the public didn't vote him in. As I have said though a full scale re-nationalisation will never happen.

Yes, but to take your example, if the Government of the time had followed the same philosophy with the BBC and the Tote, they would have both been sold off, yet people still value both in their present form.

 

[CdBrux]

No. To do a given thing costs x amount of money. If you were doing it for more, then you weren't doing it properly. If you are doing it for less, you are doing a different thing.

This is utter rubbish. To make, lets say, a smart phone costs initially a lot of money for the first few units you make. Then over time you become better at it, learn how to get the same outcome (if not better via improved technology) with better, more efficient, manufacturing processes and so on... With this you are able to reduce the unit price sold to the customer and also, by sharing some of the savings, increase your margin as much, or little, as competition allows for.

If you have a washing machine at home you are cleaning more clothes for a given ammount of your time than with a washing board. You are quite possibly also using less water, less energy to warm the water as well. Indeed, compared to those machines of 25 years ago energy and water consumption are much lower. Was it not being done properly before or are they doing a different thing?

On the railways we see something similar for example with multiple signal boxes being replaced by one control centre with much lower operational costs. I'm sure many people here can think of how new technology, better use of existing technology, a good review of processes to reduce waste, can be and has been applied to the railways.

All examples of where it is possible to do more with less and not having a different outcome. The same thing was being done properly before, is being done properly now but more efficiently.

 

[jon0844]

Competition is inherently wasteful of resources and the railways are one of the best examples of this. It simply isn't possible unless you have vast amounts of spare capacity. Competition on railways leads to things like three parallel independent lines up the same valley, carrying a total traffic which is significantly less than they could carry if they were all integrated, and all operating on the brink of survival because all three companies are constantly strangling themselves to compete with the others.

You must know that competition isn't just about having multiple operators and lines for people to choose from, but rather competing to run a franchise?

In fact, it's hardly about the former at all.

I'm pretty sure that I only have one phone cable, electric cable, sewage pipe, water pipe and gas pipe coming to my home.

Yes, in the case of telecoms you might have some other cables to choose from but generally speaking, the infrastructure doesn't get duplicated.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Competition is inherently wasteful of resources and the railways are one of the best examples of this. It simply isn't possible unless you have vast amounts of spare capacity. Competition on railways leads to things like three parallel independent lines up the same valley, carrying a total traffic which is significantly less than they could carry if they were all integrated, and all operating on the brink of survival because all three companies are constantly strangling themselves to compete with the others.

What a load of complete rubbish. So we should have nationalised shops, airlines, banks, manufacturers, logistic companies etc etc? Tried and failed! In any case, the railways are not privatised anyway. The government owns and runs all the infrastructure and sets all the rules re the services. If private companies make too much money it's the fault of the government for getting the franchising wrong.

 

[coppercapped]

Competition is inherently wasteful of resources and the railways are one of the best examples of this.

'Competition' is why we no longer live in caves...

 

[WelshBluebird]

The original way the railways were run as private enterprises certainly was wasteful. Yes the competition meant that companies were pushing for the fastest trains and pushing to reach destinations all over the country. However it also meant that competing lines were built and many of those have since been closed and dug up, simply because it was so wasteful.

Although I do think it is important to note that some of these competing lines are often now seen as vital because they give the national network some flexibility when it comes to disruption (A good example is SWT picking up slack between Reading and London when the Great Western line goes belly up).

In terms of how they are run as private companies now, the main wastage is really with how the system is done rather than the fact they are private specifically. Things like delay attribution which are banded about enough times that we all know about them. And things like stock and staff being specific to each ToC and not able to be shared is probably a bit wasteful too.

 

[DarloRich]

You must know that competition isn't just about having multiple operators and lines for people to choose from, but rather competing to run a franchise?

In fact, it's hardly about the former at all.

I'm pretty sure that I only have one phone cable, electric cable, sewage pipe, water pipe and gas pipe coming to my home.

Yes, in the case of telecoms you might have some other cables to choose from but generally speaking, the infrastructure doesn't get duplicated.

but surely the difference with utility providers is that you have a choice of your sole provider of gas or electricity. Many people don't have that choice on the railways

The competition for franchises has brought lots of benefits to passengers, just look at how those fares have fallen.............. oh hang on:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What a load of complete rubbish. So we should have nationalised shops, airlines, banks, manufacturers, logistic companies etc etc? Tried and failed! In any case, the railways are not privatised anyway. The government owns and runs all the infrastructure and sets all the rules re the services. If private companies make too much money it's the fault of the government for getting the franchising wrong.

but we don't have direct competition on the railways do we.

 

[yorksrob]

'Competition' is why we no longer live in caves...

That isn't the whole story.

It wasn't competition that got the sewers built, universal education provided, trunk roads developed, the national grid built etc, but state intervention.

 

[thenorthern]

but we don't have direct competition on the railways do we.

We do though, from Birmingham their is a choice of 3 operators to London, from Stoke-on-Trent there is a choice of 2 to London and 3 to Manchester, from Edinburgh and Glasgow both have a choice of 3 to London and 2 to Birmingham.

Under British Rail do you think we had the "London Midland Only" tickets or "Via East Coast Main Line" the same?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

but surely the difference with utility providers is that you have a choice of your sole provider of gas or electricity. Many people don't have that choice on the railways. The competition for franchises has brought lots of benefits to passengers, just look at how those fares have fallen.............. oh hang on:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


but we don't have direct competition on the railways do we.

I wish that the same could be said when it comes to the provision of water supply and sewage removal. Your existing water company has no competitors.

 

[HowardGWR]

We do though, from Birmingham their is a choice of 3 operators to London, from Stoke-on-Trent there is a choice of 2 to London and 3 to Manchester, from Edinburgh and Glasgow both have a choice of 3 to London and 2 to Birmingham.

Under British Rail do you think we had the "London Midland Only" tickets or "Via East Coast Main Line" the same?

Also, from anywhere west of Exeter - to London.. When I have looked at prices between the SW and North, it hasn't been too difficult to find a cheaper price than Cross Country, e.g. via London. I expect it's the same between Arriva and Cross Country from Welsh origins. What about when East West is completed? I presume Northern and TPE compete for many destinations?.

 

[DarloRich]

I wish that the same could be said when it comes to the provision of water supply and sewage removal. Your existing water company has no competitors.

it will have soon.............

 

[thenorthern]

Also, from anywhere west of Exeter - to London.. When I have looked at prices between the SW and North, it hasn't been too difficult to find a cheaper price than Cross Country, e.g. via London. I expect it's the same between Arriva and Cross Country from Welsh origins. What about when East West is completed? I presume Northern and TPE compete for many destinations?.

With Transpennie and Northern there are TPE only, Northern only and via certain routes which only Northern travel.

One thing to remember though is before 1997 Cross Country services were poor, irregular and slow. It took some time and their were issues along the way with Voyagers and Operation Princess but Virgin Trains improved Cross Country so much that is is now one of the main inter-city lines in the country. I don't think this would have happened under British Rail.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Also, from anywhere west of Exeter - to London.. When I have looked at prices between the SW and North, it hasn't been too difficult to find a cheaper price than Cross Country, e.g. via London. I expect it's the same between Arriva and Cross Country from Welsh origins. What about when East West is completed? I presume Northern and TPE compete for many destinations?.

It's a sham competition though, because DfT sets the stopping patterns and timetable for each franchise.
TPE's job is to whisk people across the Pennines, Northern's job is to connect all the smaller stations to big cities.
Any residual "competition" between (say) Preston and Manchester is entirely fortuitous.
The premium/subsidy profile is calculated accordingly.
What is more, ORCATS ensures that the interavailable revenue gets distributed according to the seats provided.
You may think you are "choosing" Northern but a fixed proportion of your fare will go to TPE whether you travel on them or not.

 

[DarloRich]

We do though, from Birmingham their is a choice of 3 operators to London, from Stoke-on-Trent there is a choice of 2 to London and 3 to Manchester, from Edinburgh and Glasgow both have a choice of 3 to London and 2 to Birmingham.

Under British Rail do you think we had the "London Midland Only" tickets or "Via East Coast Main Line" the same?

We don't though do we, really. Birmingham is in a lucky position of having multiple lines and suppliers serving it. My point is not everybody has direct competition and most have precious little indirect competition:

If i live in Norwich I have a choice of an AGA train to London or i walk.

In Inverness if i want to go to Aberdeen I get Scotrail or walk.

In Darlington if i want to go to Middlesbrough I get Northern or walk

If i don't like my BT service i can buy in any number of other service providers, if i don't like Northern Electric i can change to any number of electric suppliers, if i don't like British gas i can change to any number of gas suppliers and if i don't like Orange i can change to nay number of mobile providers.

THAT is competition. It should, in theory, bring the price down. We all know it doesn't but.............

Rail fares have risen exponentially since privitisation so perhaps BR tickets weren't so bad after all.

With Transpennie and Northern there are TPE only, Northern only and via certain routes which only Northern travel.

One thing to remember though is before 1997 Cross Country services were poor, irregular and slow. It took some time and their were issues along the way with Voyagers and Operation Princess but Virgin Trains improved Cross Country so much that is is now one of the main inter-city lines in the country. I don't think this would have happened under British Rail.

However one might have found a seat on an 8 carriage train - such is progress in the privitised world.

I wouldn't put all of the improvement down to the sainted Virgin trains however.

 

[LLivery]

We do though, from Birmingham their is a choice of 3 operators to London, from Stoke-on-Trent there is a choice of 2 to London and 3 to Manchester, from Edinburgh and Glasgow both have a choice of 3 to London and 2 to Birmingham.

Under British Rail do you think we had the "London Midland Only" tickets or "Via East Coast Main Line" the same?

However the vast amount of people using the railways don't have this choice. With energy suppliers or supermarkets every household can switch and choose whether they want for example British Gas or Npower, or whether they want to shop at Sainsbury's, Lidli or Waitrose. I can't go from London to Nottingham without East Midlands Trains. I can't go from Barnehurst to Lewisham without Southeastern and I can't go from Inverness to Wick without ScotRail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If I fly from London to New York I can choose BA, American, Delta, Virgin and even Kuwait Air. All fly non-stop and take broadly the same amount of fly time. Apart from London to York I can't think where this happens on the railways. I can't even choose a different direct operator between London and Manchester! In fact Virgin stops competition!

 

[CdBrux]

So a little more open access needed on longer distance routes? Not a full solution of course but an improvement?

 

[thenorthern]

We don't though do we, really. Birmingham is in a lucky position of having multiple lines and suppliers serving it. My point is not everybody has direct competition and most have precious little indirect competition:

If i live in Norwich I have a choice of an AGA train to London or i walk.

In Inverness if i want to go to Aberdeen I get Scotrail or walk.

In Darlington if i want to go to Middlesbrough I get Northern or walk

If i don't like my BT service i can buy in any number of other service providers, if i don't like Northern Electric i can change to any number of electric suppliers, if i don't like British gas i can change to any number of gas suppliers and if i don't like Orange i can change to nay number of mobile providers.

THAT is competition. It should, in theory, bring the price down. We all know it doesn't but.............

Rail fares have risen exponentially since privitisation so perhaps BR tickets weren't so bad after all.



However one might have found a seat on an 8 carriage train - such is progress in the privitised world.

I wouldn't put all of the improvement down to the sainted Virgin trains however.

However the vast amount of people using the railways don't have this choice. With energy suppliers or supermarkets every household can switch and choose whether they want for example British Gas or Npower, or whether they want to shop at Sainsbury's, Lidli or Waitrose. I can't go from London to Nottingham without East Midlands Trains. I can't go from Barnehurst to Lewisham without Southeastern and I can't go from Inverness to Wick without ScotRail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If I fly from London to New York I can choose BA, American, Delta, Virgin and even Kuwait Air. All fly non-stop and take broadly the same amount of fly time. Apart from London to York I can't think where this happens on the railways. I can't even choose a different direct operator between London and Manchester! In fact Virgin stops competition!

Its not just competition in services there is also competition in franchises as companies want to win franchises they will offer the best deal they can because if they don't they know that the Government will just choose someone else.

Companies also have their name to protect because after the NXEC fiasco lets face it National Express suffered from a bad image. The same was true for Veolia after they had the Connex franchise withdrawn. If British Rail provided a poor service could they loose their franchise? Would British Rail have such a bad reputation that it was no longer allowed to operate trains? If someone could offer better value for money than British Rail would the Government let them operate trains?

Aside from all this the railways will never be Re-Nationalised as Labour like to promise it when there isn't an election on but when there is an election on or they are in government they back down. Also Corbyn's current plans mean that if there was an election tomorrow he would need to win that one as well as the next 2 elections to complete his nationalisation plans. Only once has Labour won 3 terms and that was under Blair.

 

[misterredmist]

ROADS :


A lot of people think that, but TTBOMK the reality is exactly the opposite.

I think you must be living on a different planet......


http://www.roadusers.org.uk/chapters/infrastructure-investments/

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Noting where a certain MP for Tatton is at present, will kind Uncle Jeremy's promise of rail nationalisation be something of a suppressant to the hoped-for Chinese financial backing of the HS2 project?

 

[thenorthern]

Noting where a certain MP for Tatton is at present, will kind Uncle Jeremy's promise of rail nationalisation be something of a suppressant to the hoped-for Chinese financial backing of the HS2 project?

Uncle Jez is anti-HS2 I may not agree with him on nationalisation but it seems I agree with him on one railway issue.

Has there been an announcement on who is going to run the HS2 trains as the most logical choice will be the holder of the WCML franchise but everything will have changed by then.

 

[LateThanNever]

Noting where a certain MP for Tatton is at present, will kind Uncle Jeremy's promise of rail nationalisation be something of a suppressant to the hoped-for Chinese financial backing of the HS2 project?

Let's hope so. But Osborne is crazy to be asking for so much Chinese investment. It might be a nice inflow of funds initially but then there will be an outflow for the next fifty years - like Chinese Wonga for our grandchildren. Even more so for Hinkley Point where we're volunteering to pay for leccy at twice the current rate and then it goes up with inflation! It's been worked out that that is £110 for every household per year for the next 35 years.
And the same people have the cheek to think Uncle Jeremy's People's Quantitive Easing is stupid? You couldn't make it up...

 

[coppercapped]

If i live in Norwich I have a choice of an AGA train to London or i walk.

Er, National Express runs every two hours with a variety of pick-up and set-down points with journey times varying between 3h10min to 3h25min. Prices (single) from £9 to £16.50.

There is also the motor car...

Or you could go to Peterborough by rail and connect to a not-AGA train there.

Or, if you a inadequately informed, you could walk...

Rail fares have risen exponentially since privitisation

No they haven't. For a quick summary see page 8 of <http://www.raildeliverygroup.com/what-we-do/publications.html?task=file.download&id=649>. The summary is:

In real terms, the average price paid per passenger mile (yield) has increased by 6.7% since 1997-98. This is significantly lower than reported headline increases in fares and reflects passengers purchasing more discounted tickets. Whilst Standard Season yields have increased slightly in real terms over the period as a result of government fares policy, yields from other ticket types in 2014 were at the same level as in 2003 in real terms.

'In real terms' means the costs/prices have been corrected for inflation.

 

[Dave1987]

Let's hope so. But Osborne is crazy to be asking for so much Chinese investment. It might be a nice inflow of funds initially but then there will be an outflow for the next fifty years - like Chinese Wonga for our grandchildren. Even more so for Hinkley Point where we're volunteering to pay for leccy at twice the current rate and then it goes up with inflation! It's been worked out that that is £110 for every household per year for the next 35 years.
And the same people have the cheek to think Uncle Jeremy's People's Quantitive Easing is stupid? You couldn't make it up...

Considering you really don't understand the implications of what Corbyn is proposing then it's amazing you have the cheek to say that! Who exactly do you think this money Corbyn is creating will be paid back to?

 

[yorksrob]

Let's hope so. But Osborne is crazy to be asking for so much Chinese investment. It might be a nice inflow of funds initially but then there will be an outflow for the next fifty years - like Chinese Wonga for our grandchildren. Even more so for Hinkley Point where we're volunteering to pay for leccy at twice the current rate and then it goes up with inflation! It's been worked out that that is £110 for every household per year for the next 35 years.
And the same people have the cheek to think Uncle Jeremy's People's Quantitive Easing is stupid? You couldn't make it up...

Indeed. If we took the idea of QE for investment, but engineered a small but regular repayment on the investment, for example a small proportion of rent from housing, or a toll from a new road, we wouldn't be any worse off than we are with current pfi or overseas funding, but at least the finance would flow back into this country, rather than to Beijing.