Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[Ianno87]

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.

Parking prices too.

Or choose the train because road congestion is so chronic in some places. (Essentially why rail commuting to London is pretty much a de-facto captive market).

 

[underbank]

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.

And don't forget that people "like" the higher wages offered in cities like London and make the informed decision that the long commute is a price worth paying. We have firefighters living in Preston who travel down to London for their shifts and bunk up with colleagues overnight when they're not sleeping in the station. That's simply because the higher wages make the Virgin train fare viable. I also know of a nurse who lived/worked all her life in Glasgow, but "moved" jobs to a London hospital, simply to get the higher wage for the last few years of her working life. The thing was, maybe not so much with more recent recruits, but lots of people are on "final salary" pension schemes, so suffering long commutes or higher living costs for the end of their working lives had a massive impact on increasing their gold plated pensions (as I say, not so relevant for recent recruits). Same in private sector, I know I could have doubled/trebled my salary as a chartered accountant very easily by getting a job in London, or 50%/100% more by getting a job in Manchester or Leeds, but I made the choice that quality of life was more important so stayed working in a Northern run down town instead, on a wage more akin to a teacher/nurse. We all have choices.

 

[urbophile]

I'm an economic ignoramus so although I am instinctively in favour of a publicly owned transport system, I acknowledge that there might be benefits in privatisation. However, if Transport for London can oversee and co-ordinate a system which involves several privately-owned operators, and this system appears as a seamless integrated whole to the passenger, why can't our national rail system work in the same way? In other words, when you turn up at a station, or look to buy tickets online, there is one fares structure and one timetable. And (less important but symbolically significant) all branding and liveries should reflect the same house style with only minor differences such as logos to indicated the operator.

The train service between us and the next major city is shared between at least three operators. So often each TOC brandishes its own timetable leaflets and ignores the existence of other services. Not helpful.

 

[takno]

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.

These are fair points. For the most part nationalisation is used as a shorthand for public ownership and control. There are plenty of Labour party activists pushing for public ownership of buses for example, but very few of them are pushing for a return of the national bus company.

The various proposed plans for rail mostly seem to involve taking back the franchises as they come up for renewal, or often just allowing public sector bids. This certainly doesn't preclude local influence, control or even ownership. It would still be called nationalisation though

 

[nlogax]

Grass is always greener. Many of us have fond memories of BR days (well, the last fifteen years of them here) - but we also remember the crappy bits too.

Is there really a sweet spot between the privatised and the nationalised railway system? If so, what specific fixes are needed to get there?

 

[Moonshot]

I'm an economic ignoramus so although I am instinctively in favour of a publicly owned transport system, I acknowledge that there might be benefits in privatisation. However, if Transport for London can oversee and co-ordinate a system which involves several privately-owned operators, and this system appears as a seamless integrated whole to the passenger, why can't our national rail system work in the same way? In other words, when you turn up at a station, or look to buy tickets online, there is one fares structure and one timetable. And (less important but symbolically significant) all branding and liveries should reflect the same house style with only minor differences such as logos to indicated the operator.

The train service between us and the next major city is shared between at least three operators. So often each TOC brandishes its own timetable leaflets and ignores the existence of other services. Not helpful.

Decent post. If that appears as a structure for National Rail , there still needs to be an incentive for the private sector to innovate and reap the rewards. How would open access operations fit in?

 

[xotGD]

Decent post. If that appears as a structure for National Rail , there still needs to be an incentive for the private sector to innovate and reap the rewards. How would open access operations fit in?

On a national public service, run for the public good, there is no place for cherry-pickers purely in the game to make a fast buck.

 

[Moonshot]

On a national public service, run for the public good, there is no place for cherry-pickers purely in the game to make a fast buck.

Private sector perfectly entitled to make a profit.......just like all the other private sector companies supplying the NHS , Education, Defence etc etc ....

 

[Matt P]

The various proposed plans for rail mostly seem to involve taking back the franchises as they come up for renewal, or often just allowing public sector bids. This certainly doesn't preclude local influence, control or even ownership. It would still be called nationalisation though

I dont want to get into a drawn out discussion over semantics, but nationalisation means central government owning the operator. If it is owned by a local authority or passenger transport authority it cannot by definition be nationalised. So public ownership does not automatically mean nationalised.

What Labour is proposing, as I understand it, is essentially an entirely publicly owned and operated system, at least in terms of passenger rail system with one operator, a 21st century BR. They are right that the current system isnt working but they are wrong that what they propose is the only alternative. It would be a step back in time and flies in the face of how railways across Europe are being run and how more are likely to follow to comply with EU directives - more sensibly organised and with a mix of public owned and private operators winning tenders for Public Service Obligation type services (I.e. regional railways) and competing on an open access basis for long distance traffic. I suppose this at least explains Corbyn's luke warm at best attitude towards the EU and EEA.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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?

Not refranchising the TOCs achieves precisely nothing.
You then have 20-ish TOCs to manage, so you need the managers for that, but they won't have access to private funds to do anything significant, like buy new trains.
They will have to bid for government funds and we will be back to stop/go projects on a year by year basis, not the current 7-10 year deals.
They will still be leasing private trains (for 27 years if they are IEPs) from banks, and trains will still be privately built (mostly abroad) and maintained.
There will still be private freight and Open Access TOCs, so you still need ORR and path competition and allocation to provide the same level playing field as today.
You still have to have a "franchise-like" service performance contract with DfT and all the devolved parties (Scotland, Wales, Rail North, TfL, PTEs etc).
You have to accommodate HS1, HS2 and lines like Heathrow Express which are funded differently (they are not NR lines).

So what organisational model will your non-franchised railway have, and how will it be funded?
What fares will you charge (the current supposed "rip-off" franchises still use the ex-BR model regulated by DfT)?
No, it won't cost a single penny, but you will lose all the expertise and cost controls that the current management brings.
The future would, in my opinion, look very like the recent past, except the government could step in and force changes like cuts, much more quickly.
Public sector price/wage freezes would be back, plus cross-industry wage bargaining (and national strikes).
And we would be back to annual Treasury budget settlements, competing head-on against spending on education and the NHS.
It will not be utopia.

I haven't heard a single reasoned explanation from a Labour politician about how the money-go-round will work post nationalisation.
All we get is "it won't cost a penny".
The latest utterance I heard from Andy McDonald was that fares would rise by CPI rather than RPI.
Big deal - a drop in the ocean.

 

[B&I]

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.

No recent British government would have allowed this because there would be too much danger of the tebdering authorities trying to set up publically owned alternatives. The ban on new public-owned bus companies in the recent bus legislation illustrates this

 

[B&I]

Not refranchising the TOCs achieves precisely nothing.
You then have 20-ish TOCs to manage, so you need the managers for that, but they won't have access to private funds to do anything significant, like buy new trains.
They will have to bid for government funds and we will be back to stop/go projects on a year by year basis, not the current 7-10 year deals.
They will still be leasing private trains (for 27 years if they are IEPs) from banks, and trains will still be privately built (mostly abroad) and maintained.
There will still be private freight and Open Access TOCs, so you still need ORR and path competition and allocation to provide the same level playing field as today.
You still have to have a "franchise-like" service performance contract with DfT and all the devolved parties (Scotland, Wales, Rail North, TfL, PTEs etc).
You have to accommodate HS1, HS2 and lines like Heathrow Express which are funded differently (they are not NR lines).

So what organisational model will your non-franchised railway have, and how will it be funded?
What fares will you charge (the current supposed "rip-off" franchises still use the ex-BR model regulated by DfT)?
No, it won't cost a single penny, but you will lose all the expertise and cost controls that the current management brings.
The future would, in my opinion, look very like the recent past, except the government could step in and force changes like cuts, much more quickly.
Public sector price/wage freezes would be back, plus cross-industry wage bargaining (and national strikes).
And we would be back to annual Treasury budget settlements, competing head-on against spending on education and the NHS.
It will not be utopia.

I haven't heard a single reasoned explanation from a Labour politician about how the money-go-round will work post nationalisation.
All we get is "it won't cost a penny".
The latest utterance I heard from Andy McDonald was that fares would rise by CPI rather than RPI.
Big deal - a drop in the ocean.

So why not renationalise, if it would cost nothing and would make no difference ?

 

[takno]

I dont want to get into a drawn out discussion over semantics, but nationalisation means central government owning the operator. If it is owned by a local authority or passenger transport authority it cannot by definition be nationalised. So public ownership does not automatically mean nationalised.

What Labour is proposing, as I understand it, is essentially an entirely publicly owned and operated system, at least in terms of passenger rail system with one operator, a 21st century BR. They are right that the current system isnt working but they are wrong that what they propose is the only alternative. It would be a step back in time and flies in the face of how railways across Europe are being run and how more are likely to follow to comply with EU directives - more sensibly organised and with a mix of public owned and private operators winning tenders for Public Service Obligation type services (I.e. regional railways) and competing on an open access basis for long distance traffic. I suppose this at least explains Corbyn's luke warm at best attitude towards the EU and EEA.

I would describe Labour's policy in the manifesto as half-baked, as you would expect since the whole thing was put together at short notice for a snap election. As far as what the standing policy is, I don't think it goes as far as defining exactly what corporate structure public ownership should take.

I fully understand that nationalisation strictly means national government ownership, but as it is used by the public, pollsters and most importantly the press it tends to be a shorthand for public ownership. Actual Labour policy documents are much more likely to say public ownership, but as described in speeches and the press the N word will be used instead. Given that the pre-privatisation water and electricity suppliers were largely regional boards with a high degree of local input I don't think it's fair to assume that the plan going forward is for a series of BR-style monoliths.

 

[Moonshot]

So why not renationalise, if it would cost nothing and would make no difference ?

People like me who actually work in this industry wouldn't get the pay rises we have enjoyed over the last 20 years. So no way do I want to see a return to BR. Keep it as it is, it works fine.......and the passenger numbers prove that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So why not renationalise, if it would cost nothing and would make no difference ?

It costs "nothing" to get to the point where you have the TOCs in public hands, but you then still have to fund all the things the private TOCs did.
So you have gained "nothing" in the process (except another lot of chaos).
Ownership is not important, it's how the show is funded and managed which matters.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

People like me who actually work in this industry wouldn't get the pay rises we have enjoyed over the last 20 years. So no way do I want to see a return to BR. Keep it as it is, it works fine.......and the passenger numbers prove that.

works fine? tell that to the people trying to use Thameslink or Northern at the moment.... or those passengers who had to put up with a summer of misery due to strikes "on safety issues" on Southern last year...

 

[The_Engineer]

or those passengers who had to put up with a summer of misery due to strikes "on safety issues" on Southern last year...

Which, if we now had a nationalised industry, would have been national strikes.

 

[Moonshot]

works fine? tell that to the people trying to use Thameslink or Northern at the moment.... or those passengers who had to put up with a summer of misery due to strikes "on safety issues" on Southern last year...

I do work for Northern, no doubt there have been a couple of weeks where it has been difficult for passengers north of Manchester, but prior to that and since emergency timetable introduction, works as it should. Some very full trains knocking about today in Northern land

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

It costs "nothing" to get to the point where you have the TOCs in public hands, but you then still have to fund all the things the private TOCs did.
So you have gained "nothing" in the process (except another lot of chaos).
Ownership is not important, it's how the show is funded and, managed which matters.

I think the point of nationalisation of any asset is that, at the moment, any profit goes into the hands of fat cats and shareholders... and people don't see why that should be so. If it's something you have to use, such as gas, electricity, water, transport then the ownership should be public with any profit going straight back into the Government coffers...

in fact, I think the whole nationalisation debate is being driven by the fact that, now hard ecomomic realities such as arbitary and excessive price hikes have hit home, people now realise what a massive con privatisation was in the first place...

think about it, taking gas privatisation as an example.... everyone was encouraged to "Tell Sid" {anyone remember the ads?} and to buy shares in British Gas when it was privatised... now hang on think about it... what were they encouraged to buy? Shares in a nationalised industry... but if it was a nationalised industry then surely the company was owned by the government. Let's translate that into business terms... The government of the day could be called the "board of directors" and the general electorate "shareholders". So, in fact, when the general public bought those shares they bought shares in a company they already owned..!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I do work for Northern, no doubt there have been a couple of weeks where it has been difficult for passengers north of Manchester, but prior to that and since emergency timetable introduction, works as it should. Some very full trains knocking about today in Northern land

Surely, that in itself shows a failure? What you are saying is that the Northern situation has settled down because they have abandoned any attempt to run the timetable they promised... and seeing as "emergency" usually means "reduced" with timetables is it any wonder there are full trains?

 

[Matt P]

No recent British government would have allowed this because there would be too much danger of the tebdering authorities trying to set up publically owned alternatives. The ban on new public-owned bus companies in the recent bus legislation illustrates this

British Governments generally have no trust in allowing local government to run or commission services that they do in Europe and elsewhere in the western world. There is no way that John Major's government would have done what the Federal German government in 1996 by handing over the responsibility for organising and buying regional railways to regional authorities (overlooked the lack of such a tier in most of the UK). Indeed Major wanted to abolish local government all together. So I agree that in 1993 and since, having something more like the structure of the German rail system probably hasn't been possible. However if we had politicians who were prepared to be a bit more pragmatic, then this would surely be a template for a fair compromise between what we have now and a fully public sector option.

The limitations in the bus legislation do make sense and could equally apply to railways. Germans, amongst others, get around the potential problem of transport authorities awarding contracts to their own companies irrespective of how well they perform. The 'public sector' option for German PTAs being a subsidiary of the national rail operator, although DB Regio is strictly speaking a private business so the term public sector is only very loosely applicable.

 

[Moonshot]

Surely, that in itself shows a failure? What you are saying is that the Northern situation has settled down because they have abandoned any attempt to run the timetable they promised... and seeing as "emergency" usually means "reduced" with timetables is it any wonder there are full trains?

I'm afraid you completely do not understand at all....the service today is running the same amount of trains that it was prior to the new timetable. I ll take this opportunity to remind you that there is still a significant new portion of infrastructure to be delivered by Network Rail , and a load of new trains to come on stream to replace Pacers. Let's make no mistake about this, despite the issues suffered by a small number of passengers, the overall trajectory is still upwards.

 

[Matt P]

The government of the day could be called the "board of directors" and the general electorate "shareholders". So, in fact, when the general public bought those shares they bought shares in a company they already owned..!

Only that's not quite correct is it. The Board of Directors of nationalised industries were appointed by and answerable to the relevant Secretary of State. So the Government owned the industry, the people did not. If the people were the shareholders of nationalised industries, then the Board of Directors would have been directly answerable to the people - i.e. there would have been elections to the Board, or more likely to a supervisory board to then appointed the board. Any profits made by a nationalised industry would also have been paid out directly to the people as dividends, rather than being paid to the Treasury. No British Government has ever gone down that route because it looks and sounds too much like real democracy.

 

[EM2]

So you're suggesting we should only work where we live, or vice versa?

No, I'm suggesting that when thinking of a career, it's something that people should consider more.

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?

And nationalisation will magically fix that, will it?

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?

Well, fifty miles was the hypothetical figure that you suggested...

 

[Warwick]

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

Yes, lots of them.

 

[EM2]

And don't forget that people "like" the higher wages offered in cities like London and make the informed decision that the long commute is a price worth paying...We all have choices.

That post summed up exactly what I've been talking about.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Only that's not quite correct is it. The Board of Directors of nationalised industries were appointed by and answerable to the relevant Secretary of State. So the Government owned the industry, the people did not. If the people were the shareholders of nationalised industries, then the Board of Directors would have been directly answerable to the people - i.e. there would have been elections to the Board, or more likely to a supervisory board to then appointed the board. Any profits made by a nationalised industry would also have been paid out directly to the people as dividends, rather than being paid to the Treasury. No British Government has ever gone down that route because it looks and sounds too much like real democracy.

ok... so the board of directors were answerable to the relevant secretary of state... who in turn was appointed by the Prime Minister... who got that position by being the leader of the majority party.... which was decided by who? oh yes the electorate... if the electorate was unhappy with the way that profits were being spent by the treasury {also appointed by the PM} then they could demand change through the ballot box. At the end of the day, no matter how you want to think differently, a nationalised industry is owned by the people... therefore my argument still stands... privatisation amounted to selling you something you already owned!

 

[Warwick]

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.

"...a car built in 1994...".

I see your 2018 car and raise you my 1993 SaaB 900t. Built like a brick 5hithouse with proper thick gauge steel. Impact absorbing bumper and a long bonnet acting as a crumple zone to-gether with window pillars that are strong enough to support it's weight if placed on it's roof.

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?

Define the part of London, it's a huge place.

 

[Warwick]

Just remember when talking about under-investment that B.R. had it's debts written off twice. The first time in 1955, the second time in 1968.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I'm afraid you completely do not understand at all....the service today is running the same amount of trains that it was prior to the new timetable. I ll take this opportunity to remind you that there is still a significant new portion of infrastructure to be delivered by Network Rail , and a load of new trains to come on stream to replace Pacers. Let's make no mistake about this, despite the issues suffered by a small number of passengers, the overall trajectory is still upwards.

but it isn't running as many trains as was promised at the timetable change? it doesn't matter how many trains are running now compared to before the timetable change. The question is... are there as many trains running as was promised at the timetable change. If the answer is "no" then the new timetable is a failure by any measure!