Private versus Nationalised UK Railways

[TrainBrain185]

Hello guys,
After having the UK Rail System under Private Ownership for a number of years now, how many people think the present UK Rail is better under Private ownership? Or for the folk who remember back to Nationalised days, was it better in those days?
Would be interesting to see some candid opinions and views.

Cheers:

 

[asylumxl]

Privatised and Nationalised both have their advantages.

Privatisation increased the frequency on major routes compared to the BR days.

 

[Bittern]

I prefer private, personally. More liveries

 

[Metroland]

When the railways were nationalised the government didn't want to spend any money on it.

Now they are privatised, they have to, because of short franchises that take the minimal risk.

But passenger numbers have increased a good deal under the private network, while for the most part BR lost freight and passengers for 40 years.

The debate remains what BR could have done with the money, the private companies get.

 

[221_108]

Privatisation has been effective in the UK with greater frequencies, higher investment in rolling stock and infrastructure thus making the rail market more competitive which I believe can only be a good thing.

Had we not have had privatisation would we have had new fleets of trains such as the Voyagers, Pendolinos, Desiros, Meridians and Turbostars- there are some problems with each of these but they are much better than HSTs, XC loco hauled stock and Sprinters.

I also believe that it isn't the role of the state to interfere with services such as public transport, the current system appears to be working but I do have to agree with Sir Richard that franchises should be longer and franchisees should be able to invest in stations and infrastructure. I also think that a similar organisation such as SRA should be returned to regulate and manage the rail industry rather than the bulky DfT

But I'm biased because I don't remember the nationalised railway, but I do believe that the growth and spending within the rail network couldn't have been generated and then sustained by BR as to me it would seem by the early 1990s BR was in huge trouble with a lack of funding and vision.

 

[me123]

I also do not think that BR would have produced what we have today. The network is very good today, much better than it was in many respects. Of course, it has also gotten worse in many areas, but these are quickly improving.

I've always said, however, that to get the best out of franchising you need to increase the length. There's no incentive to invest over a seven year period, but some companies with longer franchises such as Chiltern are improving the network because they can see a return on their investment. And this is one of the most successful TOCs in the UK! Hopefully someone will see sense in this; indeed Richard Branson has ambitions to improve the WCML further, but wouldn't be able to without a sensible franchise.

 

[Daimler]

Privatisation hasn't been done properly - that's the main issue. Chiltern demonstrates the power of a committed company (with a real railwayman in charge - and a railway enthusiast!) which has been given an opportunity to perform in the shape of a long franchise. it shows that the concept is not entirely without merit.

With regard to me123's points on Richard Branson, how long do you want to give him? He'll have had nearly 20 years, and it's cost us a fortune (not just the upgrade, but his company, which has turned Intercity West Coast from a profitable arm of BR to a private company needing subsidisation) and given us inadequate trains for the journeys carried out on them.

Of course, what BR would have achieved given the money that's been thrown at the network since, I'd love to know.

 

[me123]

Inadequate trains is a matter of preference; I wouldn't call Pendolinos inadequate, although they're far from perfect.

Let's face it, WCML is now a competitive option to air travel. I can get from Glasgow to London in 4 and a half hours. There is a turn-up-and-go frequency from Manchester and Birmingham. If that's not progress, I don't know what is.

 

[HSTfan!!!]

It's common knowledge that staff working under BR were reasonably happy people, happy workers = a good job done.
The problem with privatisation is that its brought on a blame culture amongst TOC's/NR etc.

 

[stut]

The biggest problem, from my point of view, is the airline-style pricing on longer-distance journeys.

For those of us who can't commit to one train, several weeks in advance, £266 return to somewhere like Newcastle is frankly ridiculous.

But then, privatisation is an expensive business. Those shareholders and directors don't come for free, you know...

 

[F Great Eastern]

Having lived in Dublin some of my life I much prefer the UK rail system. Yes things have for sure improved in Dublin in the last few years, and at last things are heading in the right direction. But people mistake all the work going in over the last few years as Dublin having the right ideas - when the fact is the only reason it's like this is because the rail system is so outdated in the first place.

Over here we have a very decent sized problem as everybody believes that you can buy tickets on train, and a lot of people do not buy tickets upfront, if they don't see anyone to buy a ticket they walk out the other end without paying, or if they see a RPI they'll ask to pay and when they're fined they go mad. People frequently do not turn up more than a few minutes before the train leaves, then moan when they cannot buy their tickets, and get on without one.

In addition I had the pleasure of accompanying some Irish citizens to the UK recently and when I took them to Paddington and St Pancras amongst others they were like Oh my god? You have all these shops? And these huge information screens? In a train station? And you actually have all those ticket machines? And these LCD screens on platforms? They can't believe it.

I agree privatisation has it's flaws, but the trouble with a public owned system is there genrally is less of an incentive to suceed and make the business efficent and a tendancy to be about self serving, jobs for the boys etc, With private companies they have to succeed as they need to satisfy their shareholders, and generally will not employ people just to give them jobs, when they cannot afford to.

When you couple that with a public owned bus service too, you have a situation where the company knows people need to travel, and if they are the only ones offering such service, why improve? No incentive to.

 

[j0hn0]

It's common knowledge that staff working under BR were reasonably happy people, happy workers = a good job done.
The problem with privatisation is that its brought on a blame culture amongst TOC's/NR etc.

lol, story of my life working in the private sector

In the private sector, everyone is out of their comfort zone and has to produce the goods on a regular basis or risk being replaced by the regulator. I forsee a few franchises being replaced in the near future, but as the number of franchises grows, the companies able to operate them shrinks.

How many of todays TOC's are part of one large group such as First or Stagecoach or Arriva?

I predict that eventually, it will come full circle, like British rail, one company will own it all, yet it will be private and responsible to the shareholder. DB Schenker will own all the freight, DB/SNCF will own High Speed operations and the government will slowly sell off all the Network Rail infrastructure too. I think they will see the sell-off of LCR as a good earner and apply it to the rest of the network.

I saw a few years of BR and all I can remember was tired, overgrown stations and crumbling infrastructure. Privatisation has improved many things about the railway, but the government has had to make all the investments in the infrastructure to improve journey times and reliability anyway. They've had to subsidise new trains too so in reality, they've just let private companies cream off the top layer for its shareholders, when that should've been invested directly back into the railway.

That way we wouldn't have had Hatfield and the resultant panic, WCML upgrade would've been completed to spec with in cab signalling and 140mph running and no corners cut, plus our whole network could be electric etc etc.

I know it's all hypothetical but why not force the TOC's to merge into say "British Railways" and have the government take a controlling stake in it so that it could regulate fares and timetables. Just like NS in Holland

 

[anthony263]

If the railways were still nationalised do you think we would have had direct london services from plces like sunderland/hull & wrexham?

i think what needs to happen is for all rail franchises to be at least 15-20 years long so that the companies can invest.

 

[gordonthemoron]

there was a direct sunderland & hull service to london (and also cleethorpes) under BR, but only one a day

 

[Oswyntail]

... by the early 1990s BR was in huge trouble with a lack of funding and vision.

There is a myth that BR was stagnating before privatisation was tabled. Inter-City, NSE, Railfreight were all moving forward, and, in the case of Inter-City, profitable. There was also investment. BUT, in order to justify privatisation, funding was heavily squeezed and development plans kicked into the long grass. I believe that we could have achieved the current service levels at a much smaller price if the government had been committed to a coherent transport policy across all media. Personally, I cannot see the current system lasting, as costs and risks are more firmly put with the franchisees. [In the realm of government IT, there was a similar push, as contracts were "Market Tested", pushed out to the private sector which treated them as cash cows, paying little or no thought to their customers, and quite happy to "lose" the contract when it came up for re-tender. End result, no one in government has the experience to run a genuine IT system and the suppliers get away with anything. Sound familiar?]

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

Personal hat on here!

BR could have been kept on, but Open Access was allowed, so HT, GC, WSMR etc could run. Freight side, BR and other independent operators (aren't FOCs Open Access anyway??) to keep competition healthy.

I like the idea that Transport Scotland had, to introduce one livery across the country, with discrete "Operated By:" logos. I saw a 156 in the new livery the other day at Newcastle, and I have to say it looks superb. I think that would work here too, but the OA TOCs are allowed to keep their own livery, just to differentiate. Also, the timetables should be written in such a way that a) there is plenty of time for connections, and that b) that time isnt stupidly long!

 

[j0hn0]

If the railways were still nationalised do you think we would have had direct london services from plces like sunderland/hull & wrexham?

i think what needs to happen is for all rail franchises to be at least 15-20 years long so that the companies can invest.

Everyone has had an improvement of services to London, from Rugby it now takes 52 minutes. Yet I can no longer get a direct train to Manchester or Glasgow.

How is that progress?

I think the franchising method is flawed anyway. Would the passengers on the Great Western approve of FGW getting the franchise for 20 years? I'm not so sure, whereas GNER passengers had a much better deal yet they were not awarded a new contract.

There are far too many factors to consider when choosing a TOC and to say that they should have longer franchises without caveats is a recipe for disaster.

I would award longer contracts to the top performing operators after an initial 5 years probation. But then people would argue that they haven't been given long enough etc etc.

So just get rid of it, I am frankly amazed that anything gets done in this country what with contractors, and sub-contractors, leasing companies etc.

Everyone has their finger in the pie taking more and more money out of the investment. Network Rail say they have "finished the upgrade to the WCML" yet all of that work is carried out by contractors and sub-contractors, all of which take a large slice of the money just for using their services.

Can anyone else see the wastage here?

 

[nedchester]

Privatisation was the worst thing that could have happened to the railways. Imagine if the amount of money that is presently put into the privatised railway by the tax payer was put into a national set up like BR.
BR had it's faults undoubtedly but the fragmented set we have just doesn't work for the passenger.

We have ridiculous things like 'safety cases' for each company. Why? If it's OK for one company then why not another.

Franchises are constrained where they work. For example if Arriva Cross Country suddenly decided they wanted to run a Liverpool to Penzance service they can't because it's not part of their 'manor'. Also if Virgin wanted to stop their Pendolinos at Wembley for the recent Everton match they can't cos it's a LM station. Under BR if they thought it was worth trying a service they'd just get on and run it.

We also have trains that have incompatible couplings which doesn't help either when things go wrong.

Many TOCs are fighting against each other rather than for the common good of the railway. Connections are never held because the company incurs penalties and such like.

If there's an incident companies spend ages trying on the blame game for delays.

The Nationalised Railways of Europe work much better!!

It is unlikely that the Railways will ever be renationalised again because it would just cost too much to pay the companies off that own them.

 

[The Planner]

Franchises are constrained where they work. For example if Arriva Cross Country suddenly decided they wanted to run a Liverpool to Penzance service they can't because it's not part of their 'manor'. Also if Virgin wanted to stop their Pendolinos at Wembley for the recent Everton match they can't cos it's a LM station. Under BR if they thought it was worth trying a service they'd just get on and run it.

Thats not strictly true, if XC wanted to do that then they would apply to the Dft to do it. ATW want to/will run to Marylebone and that is hardly their patch. If VT wanted to stop at Wembley, again, if they wanted to they could. They stop at Milton Keynes, and thats a LM station and they had permission to run from Shrewsbury but backed down.

 

[nedchester]

Thats not strictly true, if XC wanted to do that then they would apply to the Dft to do it. ATW want to/will run to Marylebone and that is hardly their patch. If VT wanted to stop at Wembley, again, if they wanted to they could. They stop at Milton Keynes, and thats a LM station and they had permission to run from Shrewsbury but backed down.

Virgin can't just decide to stop at Wembley for the convenience of passengers. They could under BR.

OK they could run on application to the dft but under BR they could just decide to run a particular route and get on with it. Or even run a relief train (that's an extra train run at peak times for our younger viewers!!!) from say Liverpool to Bristol. Too much bureaucracy now sadly.

 

[TrainBrain185]

Thanks for the responses guys.
Speaking only from my work environment working both for nationalised and private, I have to concur private has been better.
Working in the nationalised sector on train maintenance, I started being caught up in the early Pacer/Sprinter nightmares trying in vain to keep them going and old generation DMU's being kept going with duck tape and gum-gum. The Pacers most annoyingly having being passed by the BREL Tech Derby staff before mass delivery.
Since private TOC's have arrived, we have seen train manufacturers supplying a lot better calibre of vehicle and take the responsiblilities for design failures unlike when I was fighting BREL researched Pacers and heads being buried in the sand hiding whose responsible for failures.
I saw the old nationalised BR being run down in its latter days and with very poor BR designed stock arriving at the time, passenger confidence was not helping.
My views only compare a percentage of the overall contribution to the daily train ops. What about comparisons from traincrews and management people on the forum?
Best regards

 

[winks]

Theres no doubt that alot of investment has gone in to rolling stock and stations (although some stations are still horrendous) during privatisation. Thank good the slam-doors have gone.

Although having god knows how many franchises cant be good for the newtork, even now it is still fragmented. What will happen over time is super franchises emerging where regions are merged, so we may come full circle again. Although the organisation may not be wholly owned by the Govt.

For those that want a renationalised rail network the best chance your get is during this recession when franchises start falling apart (such as NXEC). If the economy starts picking up then things will remain the status quo.

 

[shinkansen09]

i think what needs to happen is for all rail franchises to be at least 15-20 years long so that the companies can.

.......SQUANDER......WASTE......LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS WITH TAX PAYERS MONEY CLEVERLY RENAMED SUBSIDIES !

 

[TrainBrain185]

.......SQUANDER......WASTE......LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS WITH TAX PAYERS MONEY CLEVERLY RENAMED SUBSIDIES !

SIX FIGURE BONUS PAYOUTS FOR NETWORK RAIL BOSSES!!! WELL THEY HAVE DONE A "TERRIFIC" JOB. THEY ARE WORTH EVERY PENNY :-x:cry:

 

[Bittern]

How about you two turn off your caps lock?