Jeremy Corbyn pledges rail renationalisation

[DT611]

What is more important to people - The NHS, Defence, Education or renationalising the railways?

Can they not all be important. Are people not capible of caring about multiple issues at the same time?

There is not enough money to go round,

That won't change whoever runs the railway.

The trains I travel on are clean, on time, not particularly over priced for the amount I use them and make my daily communte more pleasurable - free WIFI etc.

The problem with this country is that we always want more for less and that people think the grass will be greener. Having private companies means one thing....we will never ever turn out like Greece, relying on handouts because the country can't afford anything because it it all in the states control.

Who do you think is the biggest invester in the rail network? The private companies aren't running services on britains railways out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Railsigns]

No I didn't - READ THE POST PROPERLY .......

I DID. You omitted to mention that state subsidies to the railways have risen from £1 bn to £5 bn per annum (despite promises that they would fall).

And let's not forget:

Debt: Up from £0 to £35+ billion.

 

[jon0844]

Who do you think is the biggest invester in the rail network? The private companies aren't running services on britains railways out of the goodness of their hearts.

No, but you have to spend money to make money and provide a good service if you want custom.

Much as people like to moan, I think rail travel is pretty good here and as has been mentioned, given the amount of off-peak/leisure travel it has to be assumed that most people don't have a problem.

Arguably our confusing ticketing means some people might be paying too much when cheaper options exist, but that's another argument.

Peak users have little choice and suffer the worst congestion, but until we see people leaving the railway in their droves then much as they might say they want renationalisation, it's not putting that many people off.

 

[Railsigns]

Peak users have little choice and suffer the worst congestion, but until we see people leaving the railway in their droves then much as they might say they want renationalisation, it's not putting that many people off.

Perhaps they've realised that as they're contributing more than ever to the railways through taxation, they might as well use them.

 

[Oswyntail]

Can they not all be important. Are people not capible of caring about multiple issues at the same time?.....

Of course they are all important, but what was asked was which was more important. The approach favoured by some is, as you imply, we can have all of everything. That is nonsense, which is why we have to prioritise. The Army alone could quite happily spend the entire GDP

 

[misterredmist]

I DID. You omitted to mention that state subsidies to the railways have risen from £1 bn to £5 bn per annum (despite promises that they would fall).

And let's not forget:

Debt: Up from £0 to £35+ billion.

I did NOT forget to mention anything, people like you only see the things that you want too, but as I mentioned subsidy per pax and the number of total pax, you would not need to be Einstein to work out the figures.....

Do you really believe subsidy can be reduced when traffic is so much heavier on an old creaking network ? very naive if you thought so ...also , what is £1Bn worth in today's prices.....

as for the debt, will that just disappear under nationalisation , free ride ?

dream on

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34389319

Renationalisation is now official Labour Party policy.

Labour activists have voted to officially back rail nationalisation as party policy at their conference.
Bringing the railways back into public ownership was a key plank of Jeremy Corbyn's successful leadership bid.

Transport spokeswoman Lilian Greenwood said the railway was inefficient and among the most expensive in Europe.
She also called for the new HS2 high-speed rail link from London to the Midlands to become a "public service under public ownership".

Members overwhelmingly backed a policy statement drawn up by the National Executive Committee, calling for existing franchises to be nationalised when they come to an end and for a new "public operator" to reinvest profits by private rail operators into cutting fares and rail infrastructure.

Ms Greenwood said a far-reaching shake-up was needed to deal with the "fragmented" network and a "broken" franchise system.
"Twenty years ago we were told that privatisation would deliver cheaper tickets and lower subsidies," she said. "What we have been left with is some of the most expensive tickets in Europe and an efficiency gap of 40%.
"The Tories will tell you the railways cannot change... it falls to us to set out a better way. That's why I say it is time for our railways to be run under public ownership, in the public interest, with affordable fares for all."

Five existing franchises are due to expire between 2020 and 2025. Labour has insisted nationalising them will not involve any costs as the state will only step in once their contracts for delivering services had run out.

I wonder what it will look like when they get to the detail (which I don't believe they have thought through).
Even if they form the government after 2020 it will be 10 years before the last private passenger operator turns off the lights (and what about freight and Network Rail and the ROSCOs and all the rest?).
The railway doesn't want to be like the 1960/70s steel industry, privatised and nationalised in approximately 5-year cycles and practically destroyed in the process.

 

[BananaRepublic]

You missed out:

State subsidies : Up from circa £1 billion p.a. to circa £5 billion p.a.

Resounding success? I think not.

One man's "subsidy", is another man's "investment".

Recent figures released show that passenger services are now almost at break even point, averaged across the network.
While there are those regions and franchises that continue to run at a loss, it is now at a point where the operating subsidies to those franchises are mostly offset by the very large franchise payments being made by the profitable operators.

In effect, almost all the state "subsidy' is being spent on NR (subsidy) and capital projects (investment); i.e. on the nationalised part of the railway.
So what is so wrong with that? Don't all political parties and most of the public want investment in the railways?

It's often said there has never been so much investment in the railways (in real terms) since the Victorian era,
but the Labour Party are claiming massive underinvestment in the railways. That must be the new Doublespeak.

I doubt they will be voted into power, but if they did, their dogmatically driven plan would be a very costly disaster.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can they not all be important. Are people not capible of caring about multiple issues at the same time?

That may well be the case but people do tend to prioritise matters that they feel affects them in a personal way. Because this is mainly a rail-based web site, many forum members keep transport matters well to the top of their priorities, but heretical as it may seem to be said on this website and this thread in particular, the general public at large when pressed to name their priorities do not tend to place transport matters at the same high level as the National Health Service or Education.

The Blessed Tony Blair made his mantra "Education, Education, Education"...not "Transport, Transport, Transport".

 

[Railsigns]

I did NOT forget to mention anything, people like you only see the things that you want too [sic], but as I mentioned subsidy per pax and the number of total pax, you would not need to be Einstein to work out the figures.....

The average taxpayer who never uses the railways isn't interested in 'subsidy per passenger'; all they care about how their tax money is spent. They were promised they would contribute less to the railways after privatisation but they are paying more - much more.

Do you really believe subsidy can be reduced when traffic is so much heavier on an old creaking network ? very naive if you thought so

Very naive of the Tory government to promise reduced subsidies, you mean. Or maybe they were just lying.

...also , what is £1Bn worth in today's prices.....

About £1.8 bn, since you ask, which is still a lot less than £5 bn.

as for the debt, will that just disappear under nationalisation , free ride ?

Of course not. That debt will be left behind for the taxpayer to pay off. But let's not forget that it was accumulated by the privatised railway and not the nationalised railway.

 

[DarloRich]

It's often said there has never been so much investment in the railways (in real terms) since the Victorian era,
but the Labour Party are claiming massive underinvestment in the railways. That must be the new Doublespeak.

But both are true.

There is a massive investment in railway spending which is required to tackle a massive historical under investment. Even more money is need to deliver a network fit for the economy of our country in the 21st century.

 

[Railsigns]

One man's "subsidy", is another man's "investment".

Recent figures released show that passenger services are now almost at break even point, averaged across the network.
While there are those regions and franchises that continue to run at a loss, it is now at a point where the operating subsidies to those franchises are mostly offset by the very large franchise payments being made by the profitable operators.

In effect, almost all the state "subsidy' is being spent on NR (subsidy) and capital projects (investment); i.e. on the nationalised part of the railway.
So what is so wrong with that? Don't all political parties and most of the public want investment in the railways?

It's often said there has never been so much investment in the railways (in real terms) since the Victorian era,
but the Labour Party are claiming massive underinvestment in the railways. That must be the new Doublespeak.

Smoke and mirrors. The apparently good performance from the TOCs ignores the indirect subsidies they all receive via steadily reducing track access charges paid to Network Rail, even though they are making increasing use of NR's infrastructure.

their dogmatically driven plan would be a very costly disaster.

The Tories' dogmatically driven privatisation is a very costly disaster.

 

[DT611]

No, but you have to spend money to make money and provide a good service if you want custom.

I agree, i'm not disputing it. The amount of money isn't the issue, its whether it should or would be better spent on a fully publically run railway or the current system.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Tories' dogmatically driven privatisation is a very costly disaster.

It's been costly but a disaster? I'm not sure that's a fair criticism.

 

[Adrian42140]

....
Even if they form the government after 2020 it will be 10 years before the last private passenger operator turns off the lights (and what about freight ...

Glad someone remembers the railway consists of more than franchised TOCs. Not sure whether the Labour Party don't know that or the policy makers didn't read beyond the first page of their briefing notes.

Taking TOCs back in at the end of their franchise leaves all the freight out there, needing to be nationalised, plus all the open access passenger operations such as Hull, Grand Central, Heathrow Express and, erm, Eurostar. (Which 373s would be nationalised? And how do you stop non-nationalised ones trespassing?)

I am also waiting to see how the franchises get taken back. Legislation exists to take TOCs in-house in the event of a failure. The expectation exists that the next lot goes out to tender. If that expectation is set in legislation and the UK government doesn't alter the legislation (no mention of it so far) then we can envisage the European Competition authorities taking Westminster to court.

 

[DT611]

Even if they form the government after 2020 it will be 10 years before the last private passenger operator turns off the lights (and what about freight and Network Rail and the ROSCOs and all the rest?).

Freight operators cannot be stopped from operating under open access rules. The roscos cannot be stopped from doing deals with private open access operators in relation to procuring and leasing stock. As infrastructure and services must be separate, network rail will remain or be named whatever the nationalised operator is but will have "infrastructure" after the name with their accounting done separately.

 

[furnessvale]

Of course not. That debt will be left behind for the taxpayer to pay off. But let's not forget that it was accumulated by the privatised railway and not the nationalised railway.

So the newly nationalised railway will not accumulate any more debt?

How will this be achieved?

Increased fares?

Reduced investment?

Less staff and/or lower wages?

Or will it be the magic "no private profits" which are currently running at less than 3% of turnover?

 

[misterredmist]

Very naive of the Tory government to promise reduced subsidies, you mean. Or maybe they were just lying.

They were lying or they got it wrong- they are politicians, what do you expect ? but what has that got to do with whether you'd
revert to a nationalised railway now ? I'd love to see your budget .....


you are welcome to have your old "BR" back.....me, know thanks, I like what we have now....by no means perfect, room for improvement, but frankly a LOT better.........

 

[yorksrob]

Glad someone remembers the railway consists of more than franchised TOCs. Not sure whether the Labour Party don't know that or the policy makers didn't read beyond the first page of their briefing notes.

Taking TOCs back in at the end of their franchise leaves all the freight out there, needing to be nationalised, plus all the open access passenger operations such as Hull, Grand Central, Heathrow Express and, erm, Eurostar. (Which 373s would be nationalised? And how do you stop non-nationalised ones trespassing?)

I am also waiting to see how the franchises get taken back. Legislation exists to take TOCs in-house in the event of a failure. The expectation exists that the next lot goes out to tender. If that expectation is set in legislation and the UK government doesn't alter the legislation (no mention of it so far) then we can envisage the European Competition authorities taking Westminster to court.

If the chosen policy of the Government of the day requires legislation, it will pass legislation just as the 1992 - 97 Tory Government did with the Railways Act.

 

[NSEFAN]

Smoke and mirrors. The apparently good performance from the TOCs ignores the indirect subsidies they all receive via steadily reducing track access charges paid to Network Rail, even though they are making increasing use of NR's infrastructure.

But this is kind of the point. The part that needs the most money by far is the infrastructure. This is already state-owned. How will putting the TOCs back into state hands solve this problem?

If anything putting the whole lot back into direct state control increases the chance of funding cuts, which I'm sure that none of us would like to see. You speak about NR's debt like it's a bad thing, but BR as it was would never have been allowed to get away with racking up that much debt so quickly to pay for so many infrastructure upgrades. Do you at least accept that, even if more efficiently run, BR would still have required more subsidy in order to achieve the same level of upgrades that we have seen since the mid 90s?

 

[Railsigns]

Taking TOCs back in at the end of their franchise leaves all the freight out there, needing to be nationalised, plus all the open access passenger operations such as Hull, Grand Central, Heathrow Express and, erm, Eurostar. (Which 373s would be nationalised? And how do you stop non-nationalised ones trespassing?)

Why does freight need to be nationalised? Perhaps the intention is to leave that as it is. It's the inherently inefficient passenger franchising model and the costly pantomime that occurs every time a franchise comes up for retendering that needs to end.

As for the open access operators, the EU demands that they should have access to state-owned railway networks, so they're here to stay as long it's worth their while.

 

[Dave1987]

They were lying or they got it wrong- they are politicians, what do you expect ? but what has that got to do with whether you'd
revert to a nationalised railway now ? I'd love to see your budget .....


you are welcome to have your old "BR" back.....me, know thanks, I like what we have now....by no means perfect, room for improvement, but frankly a LOT better.........

I don't know why you are bothering TBH, Railsigns is one of those hard core ultra left wingers who hate any company that dares to make a profit in this country. You will never convince him that nationalisation isn't the bed of roses he believes it is so why bother.

 

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm not sure someone who believes in the same rail structure as Mrs Thatcher is necessarily a "hard core ultra left winger". Not to mention that lots of the public, including very many Tory voting commuters don't like privatized rail.

But agree that nationalization won't solve the big problems.

 

[ExRes]

Of course not. That debt will be left behind for the taxpayer to pay off. But let's not forget that it was accumulated by the privatised railway and not the nationalised railway.

No argument there, but could you please remind us of the profits that BR made and passed on to the taxpayer to enjoy

 

[BananaRepublic]

Glad someone remembers the railway consists of more than franchised TOCs. Not sure whether the Labour Party don't know that or the policy makers didn't read beyond the first page of their briefing notes.

From statements and comments being made today by parliamentary representatives and party faithful, it's clear most haven't got a clue as to how the railway is set up, what is "privatised" and what is state owned and controlled (are they aware of the latter?).
Much like the public at large then?

Taking TOCs back in at the end of their franchise leaves all the freight out there, needing to be nationalised.....

Why does freight need to be nationalised?
Unless it's a clause 4 thing?

Which 373s would be nationalised?

None.
They are now all owned and operated by a foreign owned company.


Similarly, post 2020, when most of the HST fleet will have been retired, the bulk of domestic inter city stock is owned (bought and paid for) by private holdings.
In the case of the IEP procured Class 800 series, they will be paid for and owned by mostly overseas banks and finance groups. A British government simply couldn't just attempt to snatch them, or even afford to buy them outright. They'd be tied to the legal agreements already committed to.

 

[DT611]

I don't know why you are bothering TBH, Railsigns is one of those hard core ultra left wingers who hate any company that dares to make a profit in this country.

Really? i'm not getting that from his posts.

You will never convince him that nationalisation isn't the bed of roses he believes it is so why bother.

Who said it would be a bed of roses? nobody. All is being debated is whether a nationalised railway would deliver better bang for the buck then the current system and be some bit better. Thats something we don't really know because we have nothing to compare it to as
1. Some, if not all costs will have risen since BR'S time.
2. Different rules and practices compared to 20 years ago.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

No argument there, but could you please remind us of the profits that BR made and passed on to the taxpayer to enjoy

Parts of BR - Trainload coal and Intercity did indeed make profits in the 1980's thanks to sector management - the "excess" was used to cross-subsidise wagon load freight in that area , and to Regional operators in the passenger arena.

Land sales and property rentals went on station refurbishment - any budget surplus at year end went on small, quick schemes. There were always a string of them "ready to go" - none of this NR 2 years to develop a scheme in those days.

As opposed to funding cheaper fares to the Dutch - or certain island homes.

 

[Railsigns]

It's been costly but a disaster? I'm not sure that's a fair criticism.

How soon we forget.

• Southall, 19/09/97 - 7 dead, 139 injured
  
• Ladbroke Grove, 05/10/99 - 31 dead, 52 injured
  
• Hatfield, 17/10/00 - 4 dead, 70 injured
  
• Potters Bar, 10/05/02 - 7 dead, 76 injured

Privatisation was a contributory factor in all of these.

 

[BananaRepublic]

How soon we forget.

• Southall, 19/09/97 - 7 dead, 139 injured
  
• Ladbroke Grove, 05/10/99 - 31 dead, 52 injured
  
• Hatfield, 17/10/00 - 4 dead, 70 injured
  
• Potters Bar, 10/05/02 - 7 dead, 76 injured

Privatisation was a contributory factor in all of these.

Railtrack specifically, was a significant factor in most of those incidents and they all took place under their watch, but there was a certain element of BR legacy in two of them.

The lessons were learned, Railtrack was closed down and its operation taken under state owned control.
The safety record since then has been excellent and far safer than under BR as well.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder what other surprises are in store for us once the Socialist Republic of Albion becomes a fact?