Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[James James]

Because the UK is trying to emulate Switzerland (fat chance, but whatever), and Switzerland has a nationalised railway, ergo the UK wants a nationalised railway.

(The current situation is certainly ridiculous, privatisation only works if you can have true competition. An infrastructure monopoly such as a railway network precludes that, but who cares about practicalities when you can make cheap political ideological points.)

 

[jon0844]

What an amusing, if somewhat hysterical ramble.

Amusing? You think that signs of ever growing far right support and people like Trump saying how he'd like to be more like the leader of North Korea because people listen to him and show respect is amusing? It's quite terrifying actually (more so than nationalising the railway which I'm actually open minded to, but very sceptical of being beneficial).

As new generations come we seem doomed to make the same mistakes again. We can also be sure that sooner or later the Tories will be thrown out. We'll swing to the left and in 10-20 years we'll swing the other way. As we always do.

I think the mention above of boredom is a good example too. People want change for the sake of, well, wanting change.

 

[yorksrob]

Amusing? You think that signs of ever growing far right support and people like Trump saying how he'd like to be more like the leader of North Korea because people listen to him and show respect is amusing? It's quite terrifying actually (more so than nationalising the railway which I'm actually open minded to, but very sceptical of being beneficial).

As new generations come we seem doomed to make the same mistakes again. We can also be sure that sooner or later the Tories will be thrown out. We'll swing to the left and in 10-20 years we'll swing the other way. As we always do.

I think the mention above of boredom is a good example too. People want change for the sake of, well, wanting change.

Yes, amusing. I find it very amusing that people can find parallels between the rise of fascism and a comparatively pedestrian debate about how a nation runs its railways. Particularly since the last time we had a nationalised railway didn´t (as I recall) coincide with a fascist state.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Yes, amusing. I find it very amusing that people can find parallels between the rise of fascism and a comparatively pedestrian debate about how a nation runs its railways. Particularly since the last time we had a nationalised railway didn´t (as I recall) coincide with a fascist state.

though let's be honest it's last days as a nationalised industry was under the nearest we've ever come to a fascist dictatorship...

 

[jon0844]

Yes, amusing. I find it very amusing that people can find parallels between the rise of fascism and a comparatively pedestrian debate about how a nation runs its railways. Particularly since the last time we had a nationalised railway didn´t (as I recall) coincide with a fascist state.

I wasn't linking them. How did you possibly get that from what I wrote? It was about people wanting things we've done before and not being aware of what happened.

If we renationalise under a new Labour government you know that in 25 or 30 years there will be talk of privatising again. No doubt arguing that it's better than allowing politicians to run the show.

That was my point.

 

[yorksrob]

Clearly you saw a different BR to the one I saw.

I caught a train (usually a comfortable one) and I got there.

It is a matter of record that in its closing years, BR carried equivalent passengers than any comparable country in Western Europe with far less subsidy. A lesson learnt by SW trains in its early years when it sacked a load of its drivers and discovered that they were needed afterall !

 

[yorksrob]

though let's be honest it's last days as a nationalised industry was under the nearest we've ever come to a fascist dictatorship...

Ha ha, as a mere passenger enjoying the best that NSE had to offer, I couldn´t comment on the ambience for staff !

The trains were well looked after though.

 

[thenorthern]

Why the Railways though?

Mobile phones are used by almost every person in the country. Surely the communications infrastructure is far more important to the country?

I think with the railways because it was the last major one to be sold off under the 1979-1997 Conservative governments it makes sense to re-nationalise it first.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Clearly you saw a different BR to the one I saw.

Could you kindly elaborate on that ?

 

[JOHNR150]

Since the 1980's we have lost so much BR (BREL) designed trains, delivered them, maintained them and operated them and many of the trains are still in use today they cannot have been that inefficient. The real problem for me is that many of the true railway men have left, they planned for the long-term as best they could whilst dealing with brutal financial situations pushed down from government and all at a level at which the subsidiary was less than today.

The DFT in my opinion are a waste of space the TOC model is short-term and the public are tired of being fleeced. The system was sold off in a way that even if an attempt to bring it back under public control was attempted it would be such a tough and rocky road to do it. I could go on, but I feel this generation and the next one will not turn around the damage that was done from 1994 onwards.

 

[yorksrob]

I wasn't linking them. How did you possibly get that from what I wrote? It was about people wanting things we've done before and not being aware of what happened.

If we renationalise under a new Labour government you know that in 25 or 30 years there will be talk of privatising again. No doubt arguing that it's better than allowing politicians to run the show.

That was my point.

There will be talk of privatising by the free market lobby again, that is for sure.

Don´t get me wrong, theres lots good about the current railway, and I´m happy not to rock the boat (to an extent) whilst the money´s still coming in. But it will always be a matter of sadness to me that BR was destroyed at its best, and I will defend it against lazy slanders.

 

[Journeyman]

I can't find any reference to there being regular electricity shut offs due to strike action in 1978-79 - perhaps you are throwing in the early-70s 3 day week for good measure?

Back to the railways, I've used them regularly since the early 1990s. I've not found post-privatised railways any more reliable, comfortable or value for money than under BR.

Oh, there were plenty of power cuts in 78 to 79 - I was only four at the time, but I can remember them, and the annoyance they caused my (Tory-voting!) parents.

And back to the railways - in my experience they've absolutely transformed since the early 90s. Back then, I lived on the Waterloo suburban network, and we had vandalised 455s which were frequently absolutely full of litter and absolutely caked in dirt. Since then, a 4-car half-hourly service has gone to a 10-car train every fifteen minutes, using stock refurbished to a very high standard. It's regularly litter-picked during the day, the information provision, accessibility and seating is better, the scratched windows have all been replaced and provision for bikes has improved. Stations have been refurbished and ticketing options transformed thanks to Oyster and contactless. It's VASTLY superior. The number of cancellations has dropped sharply too.

I now live in Scotland, and in that time, frequencies on my local line have doubled, and trains have been renewed. They're about to be renewed again.

Things may not be perfect, and the improvements may or may not be down to privatisation, but the bits of the railway I use regularly have transformed out of all recognition in the last 25 years.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Since the 1980's we have lost so much BR (BREL) designed trains, delivered them, maintained them and operated them and many of the trains are still in use today they cannot have been that inefficient. The real problem for me is that many of the true railway men have left, they planned for the long-term as best they could whilst dealing with brutal financial situations pushed down from government and all at a level at which the subsidiary was less than today.

The DFT in my opinion are a waste of space the TOC model is short-term and the public are tired of being fleeced. The system was sold off in a way that even if an attempt to bring it back under public control was attempted it would be such a tough and rocky road to do it. I could go on, but I feel this generation and the next one will not turn around the damage that was done from 1994 onwards.

There seems to be a strange idea that renationalising the railways will be expensive... but that ignores the fact that the infrastructure is to all effects and purposes, already nationalised.... and the rest is operated under a fixed term contract... so all any government has to do is wait for each franchise to end... and then fail to re-franchise taking operations of each franchise back under a state run operating company... that way it doesn't cost a single penny to renationalise... or am I missing something?

 

[JOHNR150]

though let's be honest it's last days as a nationalised industry was under the nearest we've ever come to a fascist dictatorship...

What about the current system where private companies in general have a monopoly and their goal is to make money, yet the public pay a subsidiary higher than when it was BR? Some sources also report that fares are on overage 115% higher than in 1995. I cannot share your view sadly.

 

[driver_m]

Meanwhile in 2018, we have badly vandalised trains aplenty across the network, many trains not seeing a washplant with any frequency and recent meltdowns across various TOCs. Journeyman, are you taking the Mickey?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

What about the current system where private companies in general have a monopoly and their goal is to make money, yet the public pay a subsidiary higher than when it was BR? Some sources also report that fares are on overage 115% higher than in 1995. I cannot share your view sadly.

my comment was aimed at the government of the day

 

[Journeyman]

There seems to be a strange idea that renationalising the railways will be expensive... but that ignores the fact that the infrastructure is to all effects and purposes, already nationalised.... and the rest is operated under a fixed term contract... so all any government has to do is wait for each franchise to end... and then fail to re-franchise taking operations of each franchise back under a state run operating company... that way it doesn't cost a single penny to renationalise... or am I missing something?

Yes - the leasing companies. They own billions of pounds worth of assets with very long lives, that generate years of very high incomes. Try renationalising those. Good luck with that.

 

[Journeyman]

Meanwhile in 2018, we have badly vandalised trains aplenty across the network, many trains not seeing a washplant with any frequency and recent meltdowns across various TOCs. Journeyman, are you taking the Mickey?

Nope.

I stand by my assertion. The railway of 2018 is VASTLY better than the railway of 1993.

 

[JOHNR150]

Under BR the goal was bums on seats and provide a service, that goal does not remain in the same way today, the system needs to be run by railway men again with the goal to deliver a service and not by private companies or the ridiculous and pathetic DFT. The cost base is out of control today and the really unpopular thing I am about to say is that for some roles in the industry salaries are too high and to bring them down to what they should be will cause huge strikes and media attention. I cannot see the damage done since 1994 being repaired by this generation or the next. It also does not help all the differing trains types being ordered with no multiple working, lessons have not been learned and will not be. When I use the railways in many countries abroad it further highlights the plight that we are in today.

 

[158756]

There seems to be a strange idea that renationalising the railways will be expensive... but that ignores the fact that the infrastructure is to all effects and purposes, already nationalised.... and the rest is operated under a fixed term contract... so all any government has to do is wait for each franchise to end... and then fail to re-franchise taking operations of each franchise back under a state run operating company... that way it doesn't cost a single penny to renationalise... or am I missing something?

Mostly I think this is down to a misunderstanding of the situation - it is commonly believed (outside of this forum) that the whole railway system is privately owned. However The ROSCOs would cost quite a bit to nationalise, and there would no doubt be costs in setting up whatever the new system is. If we then get on to another common belief, that nationalised = cheap fares, more trains, more staff etc it will be very expensive.

 

[JOHNR150]

Nope.

I stand by my assertion. The railway of 2018 is VASTLY better than the railway of 1993.

A railway run mainly on paper tickets in 2018, it is hardly cutting edge or some kind of benchmark the UK system for sure, have you used railways in other countries?

 

[Journeyman]

Under BR the goal was bums on seats and provide a service, that goal does not remain in the same way today, the system needs to be run by railway men again with the goal to deliver a service and not by private companies or the ridiculous and pathetic DFT.

Most senior managers in the industry started their careers with BR. And if the railway was renationalised, who would be in charge of how it ran, if it wasn't the DfT?

 

[Journeyman]

A railway run mainly on paper tickets in 2018, it is hardly cutting edge or some kind of benchmark the UK system for sure, have you used railways in other countries?

Yes, I have.

I'm not saying it's perfect - the current network is decidedly patchy - but it's way better than it was.

The railway is safer, services are more frequent, and it's used by twice as many people as it was in the nineties. I'd say that's quite an achievement.

 

[The Box Photter]

For those who were around before privatisation. Were people saying "The railways should be privatised" when things went wrong?

Nope. The reason people want the railways to be re-Nationalised is because they feel cheated every time their train (for which they pay handsomely) is either delayed or cancelled and the TOC apologises for the disruption, blaming Network Rail, or the weather, or the wrong type of timetable and yet the private TOC still gets to keep their money and pay it to shareholders/incompetent CEOs.

That's why.

 

[JOHNR150]

Yes, I have.

The railway is safer, .

There are still many accidents thankfully most of them minor, only today I witnessed the aftermath of an impact of a Class 142 shunting and hitting a stationary unit, the media reported there were no injured people yet some people were suffering from some injuries. Accidents happen still quite often but they seem to not receive any media attention at times. Since 1994 there have been some very serious and fatal accidents, as the years go past safety in all areas of our lives tends to improve I am not convinced that safety would have been any worse under BR.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, I have.

I'm not saying it's perfect - the current network is decidedly patchy - but it's way better than it was.

The railway is safer, services are more frequent, and it's used by twice as many people as it was in the nineties. I'd say that's quite an achievement.

It still has some notable value for money issues for passengers, particularly compared to networks with Bahncard or equivalents. We should perhaps remember thecplethora of railcards brought in by BR.

 

[The Box Photter]

I still think the railways would have had increased in passenger growth regardless of privatisation. We're in a digital age and people are moving around move than ever before and that wouldn't matter who's running the service.

I certainly didn't start commuting because the train service was privatised. The growth in passenger numbers has largely been caused by ordinary workers being priced out of home ownership in the major cities, having to relocate to the suburbs or further away in dormitory towns. This, along with the increase in young professionals living alone, living in apartments and flats away from their place of work has increased the number of people needing to commute each day.

 

[The Box Photter]

Nah, I've worked in both. BR was an absolutely lousy place to work, with poor pay and pressure to work long hours, and many of the stuff were a bunch of aggressive, lazy knuckle-draggers.

No way I'd go back to that.

That's got nothing to do with the railway being nationalised and more to to with the poor calibre of your workmates. Industrial relations were poor, I'll admit, but that's also a function of poor management. Get the right people across any organisation, all pulling towards the same goal and there would be success. It's all about employing the right workers and the right management.

I'd certainly suggest that in the current railway there's a lot of the former and too few of the latter.

 

[JOHNR150]

I certainly didn't start commuting because the train service was privatised. The growth in passenger numbers has largely been caused by ordinary workers being priced out of home ownership in the major cities.

Also the population of the country even according to official figures is much higher than it was in 1994, ever noticed how many more people you see on your local high street compared to the 90's? There in general seems such an increase in the population. Despite official figures some people are also of the opinion that the government know the population today is more than 110 million but cannot officially report this for political reasons. How true this is or not in relation to the population figure is I have no idea.

 

[The Box Photter]

Why is it a non-choice? What compels someone to use a train, rather than (for example) learn to drive and buy a car, learn to ride and buy a motorbike, use a coach service, club together with others and privately hire a minibus or coach, not elect to work in a career where they feel that they have to commute, not elect to move much further from where they work?
I have a very good friend who is in a very, very well-paid job. He travels to work by coach, it takes him about two hours each way door-to-door. He gets a guaranteed seat, free WiFi, a table to work at, free hot drinks and it costs him per week what a day return would on the train.
As he put it to me, 'To be honest, **** your trains'.

meanwhile, in the real world ...