Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[JohnR]

One reason why there is a clamour for nationalisation now, is the same reason there was a similar clamour for privatisation in the 80s and early 90s.

People like to complain about their rail service - whether its the curly sandwich or not getting a seat. And some people come along and like to sell them an easy solution "If only the railways were privatised/nationalised/franchised then all your problems will be solved".

 

[cactustwirly]

One reason why there is a clamour for nationalisation now, is the same reason there was a similar clamour for privatisation in the 80s and early 90s.

People like to complain about their rail service - whether its the curly sandwich or not getting a seat. And some people come along and like to sell them an easy solution "If only the railways were privatised/nationalised/franchised then all your problems will be solved".

Exactly!

But from travelling around Europe, it isn't neccessarily who operates the railways, but how well they are designed.
The truth is, our railways are poorly designed around large stations, which increases congestion and delays.
The German railways have the S-Bahn which eliminates the commuter services from the big stations, instead putting them in a tunnel, like Crossrail.
This system works really well.
They also have more grade separated junctions etc.

 

[mpthomson]

Exactly!

But from travelling around Europe, it isn't neccessarily who operates the railways, but how well they are designed.
The truth is, our railways are poorly designed around large stations, which increases congestion and delays.
The German railways have the S-Bahn which eliminates the commuter services from the big stations, instead putting them in a tunnel, like Crossrail.
This system works really well.
They also have more grade separated junctions etc.

It also helped that Germany got a huge amount of financial aid in the aftermath of WW2 and that many of the cities were destroyed by bombing so their infrastructure needed to be recreated. The UK was very badly off financially and couldn't even nearly do these things.

 

[Indigo Soup]

It also helped that Germany got a huge amount of financial aid in the aftermath of WW2 and that many of the cities were destroyed by bombing so their infrastructure needed to be recreated. The UK was very badly off financially and couldn't even nearly do these things.

The UK actually got more financial aid than anyone else. It's just that we chose to spend ours on other things than infrastructure investment. - specifically, building the welfare state.

 

[B&I]

The UK actually got more financial aid than anyone else. It's just that we chose to spend ours on other things than infrastructure investment. - specifically, building the welfare state.

Or, sustaining a military presence all over the world that we could no longer afford

 

[B&I]

One reason why there is a clamour for nationalisation now, is the same reason there was a similar clamour for privatisation in the 80s and early 90s.

People like to complain about their rail service - whether its the curly sandwich or not getting a seat. And some people come along and like to sell them an easy solution "If only the railways were privatised/nationalised/franchised then all your problems will be solved".

Was there a clamour for privatisation ? It never struck me as a very popular policy, even among Tory supporters

 

[js1000]

Can anyone shed some light on how the new LNER "government-run" franchise works?

I believe it's operated by the government by run on their behalf by a consortium of Arup, Ernst & Young and SNC Lavalin.

I understand it makes sense for the government to outsource expertise to companies who can ensure organised running and a profitable operation but what do they get in return other than a small profit/payment I assume?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

And nuclear power, Concorde, Blue Streak, etc.
All now known to be dead ends.
Like Brexit (sorry, we don't know that just yet).

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Was there a clamour for privatisation ? It never struck me as a very popular policy, even among Tory supporters

There was no general clamour for privatisation. Obviously, as always, there were one or two right wing think tanks (so-called) peddling their usual free market theories, but most people including Margaret Thatcher accepted that railways would continue as a nationalised industry.

 

[etr221]

The UK actually got more financial aid than anyone else. It's just that we chose to spend ours on other things than infrastructure investment. - specifically, building the welfare state.

There was one particular chunk of Marshall Plan aid which generated money indirectly - the French used theirs to electrify Paris-Lyon; our treasury decided to pay of a chunk of national debt...

 

[yorksrob]

And nuclear power, Concorde, Blue Streak, etc.
All now known to be dead ends.
Like Brexit (sorry, we don't know that just yet).

I'm not sure that nuclear power can be described as a dead end - its survived over half a century and is likely to be around for a while yet.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm not sure that nuclear power can be described as a dead end - its survived over half a century and is likely to be around for a while yet.

​

Yes, but not with British technology - the new nuclear power plants will be either French or Japanese designs.
All that white-hot heat of technology in the 50s/60s/70s (AGR etc) down the drain. APT is in the same category.
We have a habit of (the government) backing the wrong horse allowing others to leapfrog, mixing my metaphors!

 

[Busaholic]

And nuclear power, Concorde, Blue Streak, etc.
All now known to be dead ends.
Like Brexit (sorry, we don't know that just yet).

Well, we'll all be dead by the end of it, so yes!

 

[yorksrob]

​

Yes, but not with British technology - the new nuclear power plants will be either French or Japanese designs.
All that white-hot heat of technology in the 50s/60s/70s (AGR etc) down the drain. APT is in the same category.
We have a habit of (the government) backing the wrong horse allowing others to leapfrog, mixing my metaphors!

Isn't that more to do with the fact that the clueless free market brigade sold off the technological arm. Yes, the experimental version at Dungeness B might not have been carried on, but the more traditional type could have been developed.

 

[w1bbl3]

Isn't that more to do with the fact that the clueless free market brigade sold off the technological arm. Yes, the experimental version at Dungeness B might not have been carried on, but the more traditional type could have been developed.

Not really the AGR programme was effectively shut down in the mid 70's together with the SGHWR programme long before privatisation had become a buzzword. When it became apparent to the CEGB that contemporary PWR designs where more economic hence Sizewell B being replaned as a PWR based on a licensed Westinghouse design. Politics of the late 70's saw Haysham 2 and Torness ordered as AGR's following the successful least bad Hinkley design against the recommendation of the CEGB that had requested PWR designs.

However had privatisation of the CEGB not happened then Sizewell B would have been the first in type of a series consisting of Hinkley Point c, Wylfa B and Sizewell C.

The AGR's as built reflect four different designs spread across the seven stations with the "Hinkley" design being only the version constructed more than once.

 

[nr758123]

Although there's still a lot of BR era stock I would question if you are traveling on services run by the same number of units with the same frequency?

Not knowing where you are based I don't know. However, even if your rural backwater hasn't directly benefited chances are that services which you can connect to have improved, making long distance travel better.

However, can you be sure that BR (had it stayed in existence but given the extra resources that the railways assist to have been given) would have improved your trains?

Sorry it's taken a while to reply. I'm in Slaithwaite. It's much more of a backwater than it ought to be, and much of that is down to the poor train service. Somewhere on a main railway line 20 miles from two major cities should not be a backwater.

Let's set aside the new timetable with its reduction in peak frequency and its unreliability, discussed on other threads. Up to 19th May, services were operated by 2-carriage pacers, sprinters and the occasional class 156, just like in BR days. So no change there. No increase in daytime or peak weekday frequency. Introduction of an hourly Sunday service on the whole line, replacing a previous 2 hourly train running only as far as Marsden, so some improvement there - but initiated and underwritten by GMPTE, so I don't think the private sector can claim the credit for that one.

I can't know that BR would have made improvements. No-one can know what would have happened. But I do know that the private sector bits of the railway haven't made any improvements, and I'm unapologetic about questioning what privatisation has delivered for me.

Either way, neither those who support returning to a nationalised railway or staying with some form of privatised system can prove that their system is actually better than the other.

Does that mean that I think that we should stay exactly as we are, certainly not. However we do need to think carefully about how can we make small changes (which are likely to be fairly cheap to do) which could get rid of some of the problems with the current system and try and get some of the benefits from other models that could be used.

No-one can prove one system is better than another, I agree with you there. It should not be seen as a binary choice between the privatised railway as structured now and BR as structured in the 1990s. Both of those have their weaknesses.

 

[JohnB57]

...I'm in Slaithwaite. It's much more of a backwater than it ought to be, and much of that is down to the poor train service. Somewhere on a main railway line 20 miles from two major cities should not be a backwater.

Let's set aside the new timetable with its reduction in peak frequency and its unreliability, discussed on other threads...

...I can't know that BR would have made improvements. No-one can know what would have happened. But I do know that the private sector bits of the railway haven't made any improvements, and I'm unapologetic about questioning what privatisation has delivered for me.

“Setting aside” the one fact that that blows your argument is a bit like saying: “Setting aside the substantial lottery win I had in May, I’m absolutely skint”...

Slaithwaite is a place I know probably at least as well as you do and to call it a “backwater” was, frankly, ludicrous even before the recent timetable changes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can't know that BR would have made improvements. No-one can know what would have happened. But I do know that the private sector bits of the railway haven't made any improvements, and I'm unapologetic about questioning what privatisation has delivered for me.

You do realise the timetable (frequency and journey time) is dictated by DfT in the franchise ITT?
Also heavily constrained by what Network Rail can squeeze out of the infrastructure, and by PTE demands in their areas of interest.
For years, the issue on the route has been how many trains per hour can be run Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds, and the stopping pattern.
Today's answer is 6tph TPE, with some trains stopping at the smaller stations (previously separate Northern stoppers).
It's not Northern/TPE's fault that the timetable pattern is as it is now.
BR started the "frequent, short" train pattern during its Sprinterisation phase.
I don't think you can say what BR might have done with the route had it still been in charge, but they wouldn't have had a free hand.
You can complain at TPE and Northern over on-board standards, day to day operation and some fares (not regulated ones including seasons which are DfT/PTE).
Pacers, and short 185s, are still around thanks to DfT policy of not allowing new trains in the last franchise, plus the heavy subsidy at Northern and TPE.
They will be gone in 18 months, as will the short 185s on most services, thanks to private sector funding of new trains.

 

[B&I]

You do realise the timetable (frequency and journey time) is dictated by DfT in the franchise ITT?
Also heavily constrained by what Network Rail can squeeze out of the infrastructure, and by PTE demands in their areas of interest.
For years, the issue on the route has been how many trains per hour can be run Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds, and the stopping pattern.
Today's answer is 6tph TPE, with some trains stopping at the smaller stations (previously separate Northern stoppers).
It's not Northern/TPE's fault that the timetable pattern is as it is now.
BR started the "frequent, short" train pattern during its Sprinterisation phase.
I don't think you can say what BR might have done with the route had it still been in charge, but they wouldn't have had a free hand.
You can complain at TPE and Northern over on-board standards, day to day operation and some fares (not regulated ones including seasons which are DfT/PTE).
Pacers, and short 185s, are still around thanks to DfT policy of not allowing new trains in the last franchise, plus the heavy subsidy at Northern and TPE.
They will be gone in 18 months, as will the short 185s on most services, thanks to private sector funding of new trains.

Again, a comprehensive demonstration of how privatisation has made little difference.

 

[coppercapped]

Again, a comprehensive demonstration of how privatisation has made little difference.

Again, a comprehensive demonstration of an inability to understand how the ground rules have totally changed since 1993.

 

[cactustwirly]

Well no one knows what a nationalised railway is like in 2018...
What we do know is that is isn't the magic wand people think it is, there will still be delays and the fares probably won't change much (unless the government increases the subsidy)

 

[RT4038]

I've just completed a 2 500 mile trip around part of Europe [Eurostar/German/Czech/Austrian] on (mostly) state owned railway on main line, secondary and suburban services. I experienced lots of unpunctuality, broken connections, a rail replacement bus, overcrowding, seat reservation problems, information breakdowns, unhelpful staff (and the opposite!), inconvenient platforming, cheap and high fares, unhelpful ticket machines; in fact very similar to what you get here. Couldn't help but think that the whole privatisation vs. nationalisation, or level of subsidy, debate isn't actually getting down to where the real problem lies.......

(The most punctual section of the journey was travelling to and from London on the WCML.......)

 

[cactustwirly]

I've just completed a 2 500 mile trip around part of Europe [Eurostar/German/Czech/Austrian] on (mostly) state owned railway on main line, secondary and suburban services. I experienced lots of unpunctuality, broken connections, a rail replacement bus, overcrowding, seat reservation problems, information breakdowns, unhelpful staff (and the opposite!), inconvenient platforming, cheap and high fares, unhelpful ticket machines; in fact very similar to what you get here. Couldn't help but think that the whole privatisation vs. nationalisation, or level of subsidy, debate isn't actually getting down to where the real problem lies.......

(The most punctual section of the journey was travelling to and from London on the WCML.......)

I did the same, and on the whole it was the opposite.
The most unpunctual was the journey from Gatwick Airport to Redhill, after I got back.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I've just completed a 2 500 mile trip around part of Europe [Eurostar/German/Czech/Austrian] on (mostly) state owned railway on main line, secondary and suburban services. I experienced lots of unpunctuality, broken connections, a rail replacement bus, overcrowding, seat reservation problems, information breakdowns, unhelpful staff (and the opposite!), inconvenient platforming, cheap and high fares, unhelpful ticket machines; in fact very similar to what you get here. Couldn't help but think that the whole privatisation vs. nationalisation, or level of subsidy, debate isn't actually getting down to where the real problem lies.......
(The most punctual section of the journey was travelling to and from London on the WCML.......)

I much enjoyed seeing the (permanent) sign "Rail Replacement Bus" (in English) at Munich Airport station a couple of weeks ago.
Felt just like being at home.

 

[Railguy1]

Whether the railways are nationalised or privatised are irrelevant in my opinion. I believe the real issue as to whether both these concepts work in practice is how much money is spent and where the money is spent.

 

[RT4038]

Whether the railways are nationalised or privatised are irrelevant in my opinion. I believe the real issue as to whether both these concepts work in practice is how much money is spent and where the money is spent.

And little to do with service delivery on the ground? Now there is a real issue.....

 

[Goldfish62]

I've just completed a 2 500 mile trip around part of Europe [Eurostar/German/Czech/Austrian] on (mostly) state owned railway on main line, secondary and suburban services. I experienced lots of unpunctuality, broken connections, a rail replacement bus, overcrowding, seat reservation problems, information breakdowns, unhelpful staff (and the opposite!), inconvenient platforming, cheap and high fares, unhelpful ticket machines; in fact very similar to what you get here. Couldn't help but think that the whole privatisation vs. nationalisation, or level of subsidy, debate isn't actually getting down to where the real problem lies.......

(The most punctual section of the journey was travelling to and from London on the WCML.......)

As quite a frequent European rail traveller I completely agree. The one example I've experienced of rail replacement in Germany was an utter cock-up.

Two stand out differences for me is that elsewhere in Europe trains tend to be more comfortable, which I guess is partly down to the larger loading gauge, and trains in the UK are generally more frequent

Of course, in Eastern Europe train fares are very cheap, but then so is everything.

 

[nr758123]

“Setting aside” the one fact that that blows your argument is a bit like saying: “Setting aside the substantial lottery win I had in May, I’m absolutely skint”...

I set it aside because to include it is to bring into play the complete unreliability of the service since the timetable change. But even if you were to include it and cite it as evidence of private sector involvement bringing some benefits, then perhaps you can explain how halving the peak frequency into the nearest major city counts as a benefit? Or how the huge number of cancellations, delays and trains terminated short at Stalybridge is a benefit? Supposedly journey times are reduced (that was meant to be one of the few advantages), but since most of the trains that aren’t cancelled are significantly delayed, that’s no benefit.

I can assure that no-one who uses the trains here sees what has happened since the timetable change as a lottery win.

It doesn’t blow my argument at all. If you think that the private sector is somehow responsible for the new timetable debacle (which incidentally I don't), then it supports my argument.

Slaithwaite is a place I know probably at least as well as you do and to call it a “backwater” was, frankly, ludicrous even before the recent timetable changes.

You know my town better than someone who has lived here for 27 years and been using the trains regularly all that time? I’m impressed.

That you seem to be unaware of just how unreliable the train service has been since the timetable change suggests that your knowledge is not quite as good as you claim it is.

I don’t see it as a backwater, that was intended to be ironic. But in terms of the desperately poor train service it certainly is.

 

[nr758123]

You do realise the timetable (frequency and journey time) is dictated by DfT in the franchise ITT?
Also heavily constrained by what Network Rail can squeeze out of the infrastructure, and by PTE demands in their areas of interest.
For years, the issue on the route has been how many trains per hour can be run Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds, and the stopping pattern.
Today's answer is 6tph TPE, with some trains stopping at the smaller stations (previously separate Northern stoppers).
It's not Northern/TPE's fault that the timetable pattern is as it is now.
BR started the "frequent, short" train pattern during its Sprinterisation phase.
I don't think you can say what BR might have done with the route had it still been in charge, but they wouldn't have had a free hand.
You can complain at TPE and Northern over on-board standards, day to day operation and some fares (not regulated ones including seasons which are DfT/PTE).
Pacers, and short 185s, are still around thanks to DfT policy of not allowing new trains in the last franchise, plus the heavy subsidy at Northern and TPE.
They will be gone in 18 months, as will the short 185s on most services, thanks to private sector funding of new trains.

I think you're proving my point. I'm not claiming that the lack of improvements is because of privatisation or getting into hypothetical discussions about what would have happened if franchising had never happened. I'm just saying that privatisation hasn't delivered for me.

If you're saying that within 18 months private sector investment will deliver for me, then based on past experience you'll permit me to reserve judgement until it finally happens.

 

[B&I]

Again, a comprehensive demonstration of an inability to understand how the ground rules have totally changed since 1993.

How have the ground rules changed, except as a result of privatisation itself ? And if the ground rules have changed, how does this excuse the lack of practical improvement for many passengers post-privatisation ?