EM2
Established Member
And to do it at a profit. Why successive UK Governments have had this obsession that our railways must be profitable bemuses me.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?
- Thread starter thenorthern
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 8,342
BR was mostly nowhere near as bad as some people claim. But nor was it perfect.
In two separate spells, I commuted between St. Helens & Manchester. Yes - some trains might be a bit late - but not once was I delayed due to "cancelled service" . How many current commuters can say the same ?
But there was also some poor & unimaginative management. Post Marples/Beeching, and doubtless under the pressure of the treasury, some services away from London were reduced to near-useless levels.
e.g. (circa 1971 to 1973) 3 hour gaps in trains at Rainhill;
Huddersfield to Marsden reduced to 3 per day (SX) - only 2 on saturdays, both in the late evening.
It was only after PTA/PTEs were allowed to support local services that things started to improve - and passenger use started to recover (slowly - it takes time to recover traffic that has been driven off the railways.)
But BR also gave us the HSTs and West Coast electrification. And the arrival of chairman Peter Parker led to a slow improvement in services, although again blighted by the treasury - e.g. the "2 new" to replace "3 old" coaches tendency when new stock was needed to replace 1st generation dmus & loco-hauled stock, so BR would never have been allowed enough stock to provide more frequent services.
However, I think that the current privatised system is also an expensive farce. ££ multi-millions are wasted on franchise contract preparation & operations, legal fees, consultants fees, etc. The fragmented network means a bare minimum of cooperation over connections. Many more ££ millions must be wasted shuffling money / paper, etc., between the various parts of the "system". And the negative hand of the treasury & DfT still blights everything. Passenger numbers were starting to increase before the great sell-off, and but for the treasury, passenger numbers would have probably increased under BR -- IF it had been allowed to invest in sufficient new trains.
In principle, I would prefer a single nationalised rail system -- but -- some way would need to be found to ensure that the DfT & treasury could not blight everything. And governments would have to agree a long term policy (20+ years) without finance being cut after every election.
(Hence - no easy solutions....)
In two separate spells, I commuted between St. Helens & Manchester. Yes - some trains might be a bit late - but not once was I delayed due to "cancelled service" . How many current commuters can say the same ?
But there was also some poor & unimaginative management. Post Marples/Beeching, and doubtless under the pressure of the treasury, some services away from London were reduced to near-useless levels.
e.g. (circa 1971 to 1973) 3 hour gaps in trains at Rainhill;
Huddersfield to Marsden reduced to 3 per day (SX) - only 2 on saturdays, both in the late evening.
It was only after PTA/PTEs were allowed to support local services that things started to improve - and passenger use started to recover (slowly - it takes time to recover traffic that has been driven off the railways.)
But BR also gave us the HSTs and West Coast electrification. And the arrival of chairman Peter Parker led to a slow improvement in services, although again blighted by the treasury - e.g. the "2 new" to replace "3 old" coaches tendency when new stock was needed to replace 1st generation dmus & loco-hauled stock, so BR would never have been allowed enough stock to provide more frequent services.
However, I think that the current privatised system is also an expensive farce. ££ multi-millions are wasted on franchise contract preparation & operations, legal fees, consultants fees, etc. The fragmented network means a bare minimum of cooperation over connections. Many more ££ millions must be wasted shuffling money / paper, etc., between the various parts of the "system". And the negative hand of the treasury & DfT still blights everything. Passenger numbers were starting to increase before the great sell-off, and but for the treasury, passenger numbers would have probably increased under BR -- IF it had been allowed to invest in sufficient new trains.
In principle, I would prefer a single nationalised rail system -- but -- some way would need to be found to ensure that the DfT & treasury could not blight everything. And governments would have to agree a long term policy (20+ years) without finance being cut after every election.
(Hence - no easy solutions....)
EM2
Established Member
What about the real world (where we all live)?
The quality of trains have tended to improve over the last 20 years, yes there's still a lot of older trains and a lot of trains that could do with being retired, however they are pressganged into service because there's a need for more units.
If there hadn't been the level of growth then some of the poorer examples of trains could have been scrapped sooner.
The outer services currently run by SWR beyond Woking have, for some stations (mostly those that require it) have improved and are provided by units which are significantly nicer than those units they replaced (slam door trains).
Would BR done the same, possibly, but one thing is certain that those services are currently being run by a private company in such a way which is keeping the vast majority of their passengers, with trains that are good and mostly with friendly and helpful staff. Could it be run better, quite possibly, the problem is it could also be run a lot worse.
As such, although it could be better to nationalise the railways you would have to be a very brave politician to do so, as if it ends up being worse you are going to be out of a job fairly quickly.
The Box Photter
Member
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 592
In the real world, we have the jobs we have and live in the places we live. We might like our current job, which involves a 50 mile jorney from a reasnably rural place to the centre of a major metropolis. I'm speaking hypothetically here. So we decide the take advantage of the excellent UK road network, learn to drive, buy, tax and insure a car, and on Monday morning set off for work, straight onto the same road as 200,000 other cars, all heading in roughly the same direction. Assuming we get to our workplace, we have to:
1. Pay congestion charge
2. Pay Low Emission Zone charge
3. Find a parking space and pay for it
4. Rinse and repeat on the way home and the next day. OR
Get on a train, fall asleep/read a book/watch a film on your tablet/do some work. Get to work and do the same thing in reverse in the evening. If you're suggesting the car/bus/coach option is a serious contender, you're as useful as your avatar was.
EM2
Established Member
Let's start there then. We already know where we live. Why do we choose a job that might mean us having to travel 50 miles or more to get there? Why don't we choose to do a job nearer home?
But you've already decided to take that job, when you know how long, how expensive and how convenient (or otherwise) the commute is going to be.
Which can often be done for less than the cost of your annual season ticket
1 and 2 only apply in certain areas. Many employers provide 3.
Plenty of people do it though. If they didn't have fifty-mile commutes (see above) it wouldn't be so necessary.
Built 1953/4, finally withdrawn in 1986 in the Netherlands. A thirty-year career is pretty decent.
whittlesfordok
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 101
Nationalise it then introduce DOO the unions will not be in such a good place as they think! Because if the treasury hold the purse strings they can cut it st will
Teflon Lettuce
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 1,750
Well... if you can find a nursing/ teaching job in London that pays enough to afford to buy a house in London then please feel free to pinch yourself and wake up
EM2
Established Member
I know a number of teachers that both work and live in London, as well as two midwives.
But if you're going into nursing or teaching, why do it in London, rather than where you live fifty miles away?
Go on then genius, explain how you bring it all in just like that?
It's much safer, but that's the only positive. Financially for me, yeah it's better, but I can see the bigger picture and I haven't had so much stick about the state of the railway from friends and family since the days of Railtrack post-Ladbroke Grove. You tell anyone in the North at the minute that the railway is better now and quite frankly, youd be lucky to escape in one piece .
Teflon Lettuce
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 1,750
because that's where teachers and nurses are needed? or do you think that nurses and teachers don't deserve anything better than a council house on a sink estate?
EM2
Established Member
Aren't they needed everywhere?
I have no idea how you've reached that conclusion.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
Actually, it was official Lib Dem policy in their manifesto prior to the 2005 General Election to renationalise the railway, and it contributed to the reason why I voted for their candidate. Labour had seesawed over renationalisation over the years prior to that - I can remember Brian Wilson at different times advocating it and, later (probably after Gordon Brown had had a word or two with him) disagreeing with it. Wilson had been a Transport Minister, by the way, this was his retirement job after the Beach Boys!
A car made in 1994 would not be as safe as one made in 2018, many aspects of life become more safety centric as time does progress. I am confident BR would be at least the same as where the existing system is today in relation to safety. I do feel that under BR we would have had higher speeds as well on some routes by now, they already had plans for even 155mph on the West coast at the time they were being destroyed, it just needed money the engineering strategy was in place.
Teflon Lettuce
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 1,750
well how much does a teacher or nurse earn? 25k? 30k? even at 40k a year they would only be able to get a mortgage for about 130k, so unless they are in council housing, or they have a great aunt Nellie who pops her clogs and leaves them a large wodge of cash then they have no choice but to move out to the suburbs and commute... and why shouldn't someone on a lower wage try and better their life? or are you one of the Tory elite/ bankers that believe that the hoi polloi should live in any hovel they are given and be grateful for the squalor they are forced to live in?
sorry, but to say that people choose to commute is just offensive to those of us that struggle each month to make ends meet!!
EM2
Established Member
You're only talking about people originally from London who need to live in London. If they don't live there already, why do they choose jobs where they need to commute in?
The discussion was about those that already live outside London but decide to commute in. If you already live in Dover, or Haywards Heath, or Worthing, or Didcot, or Rugby, and decide that teaching or nursing or the police or paramedic is the career that you want, why would you choose to do it in London, when you already know what your wages will be and how much commuting will cost?
And even if you do, why do you have to buy somewhere?
You've clearly read very little of my postings.
Of course they choose to commute, everyone does.
Let's go back to the beginning.
Why did you choose the career that you did?
When you chose it, did you do so knowing that it would involve commuting?
Last edited:
Should think it would be when we have ROSCO companies making not millions but billions in the longer term. You have to look at how much a carriage cost under BR (BREL) and what one costs today. Even with inflation the media would never ever print how much more we pay for rolling stock now it is a scandal. All the lack of multiple working between units does not help as there is no long-term methodology, as a quick example look at some of the diesel units ordered that cannot work together, Class 170, 175, 185, 221, 222, 195 this limits the system being flexible over the 30 year plus life of units. Under BR the 15x and 14x fleets did play nice together, we have lost that long-term strategy. Just one very small example of the mess we are in when real railway men are not running the system.
The world has changed since 1994. The public sector makes use of PFI and other contracts and borrowing to spread or put off spending. Promoting from within is largely a thing of the past too. Any new nationalised system will in all likelihood be run by businessmen or civil servants at the behest of the DfT, as probably would BR by now if it still existed.
In the UK that might be the case but in other countries things are still state owned and run by people that are not 'businessmen'. I cannot see the railways in this country being run for the people like they used to be for many generations to come if at all.
If I have to purchase 3 split tickets to get a cheaper fare from Cheltenham to Sheffield does that suddenly make me 3 passengers in the statistics?
Yes, it would do.
However there's two things to bear in mind:
It doesn't increase you distance traveled, which had also significantly increased.
Most passengers in the stats are commuters in the South East, who very rarely are able to benefit from split ticketing (that said I have so it's not impossible). It therefore means that the numbers doing so are fairly small and wouldn't make a significant difference to the overall picture.
I would also point out that unless you are using advanced tickets much of the pricing structure hasn't changed much since BR's time it is just that a lot of it is down to the discrepancies in prices are more obvious due to above inflation ticket increases.
(The above inflation ticket increases would have happened under BR if it was still running the railways as the train for it was government policy to reduce its spend on the railways).
Depending on where you live there may not be many opportunities for employment in the field that you work in. Given that often you need to move jobs to get a pay rise or progress your career, people will be willing to travel to do so.
I once moved jobs requiring an hour's travel each way as it meant that my pay went up by enough to more than cover the extra costs and meant that each increase thereafter was bigger.
However since then I've moved to a more local job which obviously saves a lot. However I need the experience to be able to get that current post and the company was just as far away when I moved to the further away position.
Yes, and still people move jobs, see above.
You also have to bear in mind that companies move and so you may need to travel for your job, even if you don't move jobs.
It depends, based on just fuel costs, yes. However if you need to own another vehicle then often traveling by train is much more competitive. Even with a reasonable car insurance cost, a lot of people pay about £1,000 (made up of insurance, tax and servicing) before they even travel one mile even without the cost of buying the car.
If you assume that you buy a car for £9,000 and sell it three years later for £6,000 then that's a further £1,000 a year in cost.
That's £2,000 before you've traveled a single mile. That would get you a reasonable distance by train using a season ticket.
.
Although parking may be provided by some employers, is not universal and a lot have limitations on the number of spaces they can provide. Also, depending on where you live there may be costs associated with owning a car where you live. For instance parking permits or the inconvenience of funding somewhere to park.
James James
Member
- Joined
- 29 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 434
The SBB is run by a typical businessman. He has some background in railways, but still went through a typical businessman career.
The Box Photter
Member
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 592
So you're suggesting we should only work where we live, or vice versa?
What about if when you took the job, the commute was less expensive, faster and more reliable than it is now, due to the incompetent management of the timetable by a PRIVATE operator?
Most employers in London actively discourage their employees from commuting by car by either restricting the number of parking spaces available or (like Boots in Nottingham) making employees pay to park. I quoted 1 and 2 because most commuters in the UK commute into London, where most of the jobs are.
A 50-mile plus commute isn't an option for thousands of people, unless you'd like us to return to the 19th century, where we all work in 't mill or down 't pit and live in tied cottages just outside the factory gates provided by our employers?
Not really in meltdown though.
The staff will still get paid, the trains will still run and people will still be able to use the railways as usual.
A lot of the media is hyped up hype with an extra dish of sexing up.
I understand what you're saying but there are more people around these days, and while car useage has gone up, there are many that can't afford fuel prices or insurance, so choose the train instead.
nottsnurse
Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2014
- Messages
- 278
Boots are merely passing on the cost of the Workplace Parking Levy (WPL), which Nottingham City Council charge on all businesses with more than 11 employee parking spaces.
The WPL directly subsidise the excellent 'Linkbus' network in Nottingham, as well as having subsidised the rebuilding of Nottingham Railway Station and the phase two extention of the tram.
A well-run, centrally controlled and planned transport system, subsidised with funding raised by the controlling body...what a throughly refreshing idea...
Execpt the Nottingham example is one of a local authority rather than centrally planned initiative. I certainly dont think it helps the supporters of nationalisation. If anything it points towards giving local authorities either individually or collectively via transport authorities more power to deliver local and regional transport - including railways.
Most rail tendering in Europe is done at local level. In Germany it is done by transport associations owned by city and district authorities (roughly analogous to county and unitary authorities in England) and/or by state governments. I think we could emulate that here. It is far more likely to assist delivering integration with other local public transport. I see central government as part of the problem with the current system which nationalisation wont solve.
squizzler
Established Member
I think road (especially freight) is a better candidate than rail. Almost all journeys involve a leg by road and if the road transport was nationalised it could become policy that logistics must use integrated transport where possible. So the nationalised lorry operator could be required to take goods to the intermodal terminal to use rail for the long haul, rather than drive there as present.
Also I am a motorist and cyclist. I share road space with lorries not trains so for me I’m actually more concerned the lorry driver is will rested and attentive than the train driver!
- Status