Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[DynamicSpirit]

Forget the lack of space etc ..the issue is the industry is so fragmented without a single controlling mind (responsible for safety , finance ,service etc etc) , called the Chairman of the BRB -with a cadre of responsible , qualified , dedicated managers and engineers etc , - mostly sourced through decades of experience and knowledge, who also (let it be said) - were not brilliantly paid , but by and large were there because they genuinely believed in public service and enjoyed the job.

There seem to be two conflicting arguments here. On the one hand, people are saying that the industry is too fragmented, with no single organisation able to coordinate things properly. On the other hand, people are saying that a big problem is that the DfT controls and micromanages everything. If so, that would imply that the DfT is the 'single controlling mind'.

Both problems can't simultaneously be true, can they?

 

[yorksrob]

There seem to be two conflicting arguments here. On the one hand, people are saying that the industry is too fragmented, with no single organisation able to coordinate things properly. On the other hand, people are saying that a big problem is that the DfT controls and micromanages everything. If so, that would imply that the DfT is the 'single controlling mind'.

Both problems can't simultaneously be true, can they?

It would suggest that the single "controlling mind" should be within the railway.

 

[coppercapped]

There seem to be two conflicting arguments here. On the one hand, people are saying that the industry is too fragmented, with no single organisation able to coordinate things properly. On the other hand, people are saying that a big problem is that the DfT controls and micromanages everything. If so, that would imply that the DfT is the 'single controlling mind'.

Both problems can't simultaneously be true, can they?

The issue is that the Department for Transport is confused about its role.

It is, or should be, the Department for Transport not the Department for Railways. Its job is to look at the strategic, demographic and business needs of the country and influence the creation of a transport system which serves those needs.

Thus, it should be looking at the strategy for shipping, harbours and surface access to these harbours; it should be looking at a strategy for internal and international air traffic; it should be looking at the trunk road system and also the shape and structure of the railway network so both road and rail meet present and foreseeable future demands. It can also target transport infrastructure spending as a tool to support wider social and economic development of the regions..

So - what it should be doing is supporting programmes such as East - West Rail and similar proposals insofar as they make sense in the wider scheme of things.

What it should not be doing is getting involved with operational details such as the Thameslink timetable, specifying the Thameslink and IEP trains or getting into detail about the number of seats to be offered between A and B.

How the railways are organised in the layer beneath the DfT does not really matter. Left to themselves the TOCs and Network Rail - or its successor organisation(s) - have the knowledge and experience to interpret and implement the DfT's general guidance. Left to themselves people will organise themselves to achieve the results required.

(Added in Edit...)

As seen from the point of view of the DfT, it has very little influence in areas such as harbour developments and air routes as these are almost entirely within the private sector or operate according to international regulations. Apart from Heathrow's third runway not much else is happening in the airport business - and anyway they are mostly in private hands which limits the DfT's involvement. There is little significant activity in the road trunk routes sector as all the main motorway routes have been built - most of the work is in widening existing roads which is important but not cutting edge stuff in the great scheme of things.

So, considering that one of the main concerns of any organisation is its own survival what can the DfT do? These other activities will not employ a large number of people, but everybody knows how to run a railway...

The issue with the DfT now is that, as a result of taking over the Office for Rail Passenger Franchising (OPRAF) and its successor, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) franchising functions it now does things which are fundamentally unsuited for a Government department. It has been incompetent in managing the franchises - it has managed to financially weaken (Stagecoach, First and Virgin) or drive out (National Express) the remaining UK-based TOCs leaving only the foreign railways in play. A considerable achievement. It's subsidiary, Network Rail, at least since September 2014, has been plagued with cost and schedule overruns which to large extent can be traced back to poor project definition and governance on the part of DfT.

Grayling's greatest memorial would be that he gets the DfT out of any operational involvement with the railways and returns it to strategic level transport considerations. 'Strategy' is what one expects Governments to be good at...

The DfT would certain shrink in size - but some of its functions would be taken over by a son-of-OPRAF - but it would concentrate on the wider transport issues and get away from being a Ministry of Roads and Rails.

 

[B&I]

There seem to be two conflicting arguments here. On the one hand, people are saying that the industry is too fragmented, with no single organisation able to coordinate things properly. On the other hand, people are saying that a big problem is that the DfT controls and micromanages everything. If so, that would imply that the DfT is the 'single controlling mind'.

Both problems can't simultaneously be true, can they?

Yes they can. The DfT makes virtually all the decisions, which are then implemented through a sprawling morass of different organisations. This system is seen at its 'best' when responding to something which has gone wrong

 

[B&I]

Strange, because I thought the introduction of 2 car Sprinter type units, replacing longer trains, was done during the nationalised era.

Nationalisation needn't necessarily mean austerity, in the same way that privatisation needn't necessarily mean a 5 fold increase in railway spending

 

[RT4038]

Nationalisation needn't necessarily mean austerity, in the same way that privatisation needn't necessarily mean a 5 fold increase in railway spending

This is true, but there is little that has happened to state run organisations in this country for the last 60 years that convinces me that a nationalised railway would not suffer from austerity most of the time, with intermittent booms in between. And yes, our sort of privatised system has increased railway spending to a level unheard of when it was nationalised. But there lies the rub - in our culture the nationalised industry is a political football, looked down upon as inefficient and their management have little standing (as they will be lent upon by their masters), whereas privatisation ties things up in a contractual knot (reducing political interference) plus owners and management can be vociferous in defending their corner [with lawyers if necessary] and promoting the industry. However, this comes at the price of maximising profits over service.
The extremes of either are disliked by the general public, but we have yet to come up with a middle way to harness the advantages of both, and minimising the disadvantages.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

This is true, but there is little that has happened to state run organisations in this country for the last 60 years that convinces me that a nationalised railway would not suffer from austerity most of the time, with intermittent booms in between. And yes, our sort of privatised system has increased railway spending to a level unheard of when it was nationalised. But there lies the rub - in our culture the nationalised industry is a political football, looked down upon as inefficient and their management have little standing (as they will be lent upon by their masters), whereas privatisation ties things up in a contractual knot (reducing political interference) plus owners and management can be vociferous in defending their corner [with lawyers if necessary] and promoting the industry. However, this comes at the price of maximising profits over service.
The extremes of either are disliked by the general public, but we have yet to come up with a middle way to harness the advantages of both, and minimising the disadvantages.

Well put - maybe a model akin to Welsh Water (DWR GLAS) , which basically is (I think) not for profit , pays managers a reasonable wage / salary and appears to invest profits in sensible things like infrastructure and staff / apprentice training.

 

[Robertj21a]

This is true, but there is little that has happened to state run organisations in this country for the last 60 years that convinces me that a nationalised railway would not suffer from austerity most of the time, with intermittent booms in between. And yes, our sort of privatised system has increased railway spending to a level unheard of when it was nationalised. But there lies the rub - in our culture the nationalised industry is a political football, looked down upon as inefficient and their management have little standing (as they will be lent upon by their masters), whereas privatisation ties things up in a contractual knot (reducing political interference) plus owners and management can be vociferous in defending their corner [with lawyers if necessary] and promoting the industry. However, this comes at the price of maximising profits over service.
The extremes of either are disliked by the general public, but we have yet to come up with a middle way to harness the advantages of both, and minimising the disadvantages.

Nice. A sensible post looking at the whole issue without bias.

 

[FQTV]

Well put - maybe a model akin to Welsh Water (DWR GLAS) , which basically is (I think) not for profit , pays managers a reasonable wage / salary and appears to invest profits in sensible things like infrastructure and staff / apprentice training.

I often think that the operations and performance Northern Ireland Translink are rather forgotten when the mainland’s railways are being discussed, or perhaps Translink is just an inconvenient truth.

Small network, but strong passenger growth, new stock, potential line reopenings, developing modal integration.

 

[devonexpress]

Its all down to Corbyn, says anything to get votes. Personally I think we need to go back to the 1940s era, privatize the entire lot back into the big 4. The only exceptions being Crossrail, Overground which can still be franchised and Crosscountry which should be taken over by one rail company.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm still somewhat undecided about nationalisation, although I do think the current structure is far too fragmented. I also think there is a huge problem that fixed-term franchises means that the TOCs have insufficient incentive to invest to improve their networks - especially near the end of franchise terms - because many of the benefits of any investment will accrue to the franchise successor, not the TOC making the investment.

Fundamentally, it seems to me that the public/private dilemma is that railways have a huge social and economic value to the country as a whole. And that means that any evaluation of their worth and how much money should be spent on them, and on what lines investment should take place, goes well beyond whether they are profitable or not. And the free market is not really very good at making those kinds of judgement calls - that ultimately has to be done by the Government. Yet at the same time, the free market and being susceptible to competition - to something better coming along and disrupting some aspect of the industry - is vitally important in the long term for making sure that an organisation acts efficiently, innovatively, and effectively in operating in any industry - including the railways.

Sadly, so far, as far as I can tell, no-one has ever devised a structure for the railways that adequately meets both of those requirements. I'm certainly open to the possibility that maybe nationalisation is the least bad scenario, and maybe we just have to accept lack of competition as the price for having a stable, integrated, and not fragmented, public transport system. But I would like to think we could somehow have a structure that gives scope for private innovation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I often think that the operations and performance Northern Ireland Translink are rather forgotten when the mainland’s railways are being discussed, or perhaps Translink is just an inconvenient truth.

Small network, but strong passenger growth, new stock, potential line reopenings, developing modal integration.

Why do you say it's an inconvenient truth? Is there any data to indicate that railways in Northern Ireland are managed significantly better (or significantly worse) than on the mainland? (I'm guessing it would be hard to interpret any such data, as you'd need to account for all manner of differences in the markets served, level of Government support, etc.)

 

[B&I]

Why do you say it's an inconvenient truth? Is there any data to indicate that railways in Northern Ireland are managed significantly better (or significantly worse) than on the mainland? (I'm guessing it would be hard to interpret any such data, as you'd need to account for all manner of differences in the markets served, level of Government support, etc.)

It may be difficult to draw any useful comparisons because a. recent improvements in NI represent coming back from a very low base b. it remains a very small network.

 

[B&I]

The difficulty that you forget with our model of privatisation is that it has not.encouraged the development of entreprenurial companies who safeguard their own independence from.the government to maintain their commercial success. It has instead involved a micromanaged franchise model where DfT effectively call the shots, and private companies have little incentive to rock the boat as their incomes are generally.guaranteed.

I emphasise that this is the result of our model of privatisation, and not privatisation per se. BR plc might have been a better model, though it would still have come up against the difficulty that experience worldwide suggests that it is very hard to run a profitable passenger railway network.

Similarly, while I remain in favour of nationalisation (because I do not believe that it is necessary to divert public funds into.private profits in order to improve the railways), it would not be a panacea if BR mk 2 continued to be dictated to by the know-nothings of the DfT. Whatever happens in future, there needs to be a mahor rethink about how fragmented the railways are, and about their relationship with other governmental structures eg any form of devolution that may be achieved in future.

 

[FQTV]

Why do you say it's an inconvenient truth? Is there any data to indicate that railways in Northern Ireland are managed significantly better (or significantly worse) than on the mainland? (I'm guessing it would be hard to interpret any such data, as you'd need to account for all manner of differences in the markets served, level of Government support, etc.)

I wrote perhaps rather just is, but my question is predicated on two recurring themes in the debate about 'privatisation' vs 'nationalisation'.

The first is that supporters of privatisation/status quo often point to mainland passenger numbers growth and the introduction of new stock as two absolute results/successes of privatisation.

Secondly, it's also repeatedly suggested that 'The EU' would not allow a nationalised system. Even the Secretary of State repeated this untruth in The House of Commons Statement in which he announced the ending of the Virgin Trains East Coast franchise.

Albeit from a small base (as I also noted in my post), Translink is perhaps inconveniently a demonstration that a state-owned not wholly suburban operation does exist and can be successful, with increasing ridership, new rolling stock and improving integration with other modes, within the United Kingdom.

Obliquely, supporters of nationalisation, who have often proposed keeping the East Coast Main Line operation in public ownership as some kind of test or balancer, also seem to ignore what could be a very useful case study to support their aspirations.

 

[coppercapped]

The difficulty that you forget with our model of privatisation is that it has not.encouraged the development of entreprenurial companies who safeguard their own independence from.the government to maintain their commercial success. It has instead involved a micromanaged franchise model where DfT effectively call the shots, and private companies have little incentive to rock the boat as their incomes are generally.guaranteed.

I emphasise that this is the result of our model of privatisation, and not privatisation per se. BR plc might have been a better model, though it would still have come up against the difficulty that experience worldwide suggests that it is very hard to run a profitable passenger railway network.

Similarly, while I remain in favour of nationalisation (because I do not believe that it is necessary to divert public funds into.private profits in order to improve the railways), it would not be a panacea if BR mk 2 continued to be dictated to by the know-nothings of the DfT. Whatever happens in future, there needs to be a mahor rethink about how fragmented the railways are, and about their relationship with other governmental structures eg any form of devolution that may be achieved in future.

I have tried to explain to you before that the structure and intentions of the 1993 Railways Act lasted all of three years.

John Prescott then changed the assumptions and these changes led directly to the close involvement of the DfT in the form seen now.

The Railways Act franchising / infrastructure operator model was never intended to encourage the development of train operating companies safeguarding their independence from Government. It was accepted that for the foreseeable future the railways would need Government financial support and to make these payments transparent and to meet the need to avoid the charge that these payments benefitted some companies unfairly, the model of the time limited franchise was developed. It was hoped that, with entrepreneurial flair and private enterprise attention to cost control, with time the train operating subsidy payments would fall and possibly become premium payments. The first generation franchises to a large extent were able to do this. The second generation franchises were based on different ground rules.

You have set up a straw man argument.

To your last point. Knowing what we know now a BR plc, or even a 'Big 4' (or 5) integrated model may well also have worked as the loss of infrastructure knowledge which went with the hived-off infrastructure maintenance companies would have been avoided. The big question mark about this model is how the demand for the cash to pay for infrastructure improvements (which would have been needed as traffic increased) would have been satisfied as the business as a whole would still be operating at a loss at an operating level. Lending to a loss-making business..? Hmm...

 

[B&I]

I have tried to explain to you before that the structure and intentions of the 1993 Railways Act lasted all of three years.

John Prescott then changed the assumptions and these changes led directly to the close involvement of the DfT in the form seen now.

The Railways Act franchising / infrastructure operator model was never intended to encourage the development of train operating companies safeguarding their independence from Government. It was accepted that for the foreseeable future the railways would need Government financial support and to make these payments transparent and to meet the need to avoid the charge that these payments benefitted some companies unfairly, the model of the time limited franchise was developed. It was hoped that, with entrepreneurial flair and private enterprise attention to cost control, with time the train operating subsidy payments would fall and possibly become premium payments. The first generation franchises to a large extent were able to do this. The second generation franchises were based on different ground rules.

You have set up a straw man argument.

To your last point. Knowing what we know now a BR plc, or even a 'Big 4' (or 5) integrated model may well also have worked as the loss of infrastructure knowledge which went with the hived-off infrastructure maintenance companies would have been avoided. The big question mark about this model is how the demand for the cash to pay for infrastructure improvements (which would have been needed as traffic increased) would have been satisfied as the business as a whole would still be operating at a loss at an operating level. Lending to a loss-making business..? Hmm...

I am not setting up a straw man argument at all. The flaws of our privatisation model were built-in from the start. Your comments about how privatisation should have worked are an interesting insight into the world of wishful thinking, rather than a convincing argument for pirvatisation.

 

[devonexpress]

Nationalisation is the worst thing for the railways, it led to the power the unions now have over everything, the crippling underfunding and overall poor state the railways have been in since 1947.

The only good thing to come from BR was the HST and thats about it. the Dft has too much control of everything, and Network Rail don't seem to know what they are doing half the time, which leaves TOC's to take the brunt of everything. People complain the TOC's don't fund enough, its purely because its not in their contract, and even then its a nightmare, take the GWR 802 purchase, it took ages before they finally agreed to it! The cost benefits also show, a Dft designed and controlled programme, costing several times more, than the off the shelf 802 model even though they are effectively the same train!

There is also the timetable issue, in which TOC's want to change timetables this year, but because of Network Rail incompetence its now not happening until May 2019, to me nationalisation v2, would just put a lot of people off the railways and back into cars.

 

[yorksrob]

The only good thing to come from BR was the HST and thats about it. .

I'm afraid that this sentence alone means that I am sceptical of this poster.

 

[johnnychips]

The last few posts give an indication of the paradoxes of this debate. If nationalisation hadn't happened in 1947, all the railway companies would have gone bust.

Now we've got effective nationalisation by the DFT, with top staff who are not experienced in running the railways.

The 'privatised' ideology in its purest form seems to be limited to Hull Trains and Grand Central.

Sorry for rambling but it's going to take a few years to sort out... and I can't see anybody stepping forward to effectively lead this.

 

[jon0844]

Bring all rail jobs into one organisation (BR 2.0) and that's circa 200,000 people. Now there could be some efficiencies that could be made. However a lot of the management roles for each TOC would still be there, just with then reporting to a different board.

Wasn't Network SouthEast set up with all/most of the current franchises run as different lines, with their own management?

Even if that isn't the case, it would seem rather dangerous for there to be a reduction in management given each franchise is pretty substantial in its own right.

I do think that if people think a united BR would mean just having one boss and a local route manager for each line, saving millions in salaries, they might be somewhat disappointed.

Likewise the 'wasteful' delay attribution we have today would surely still exist too? Even if only to establish where problems exist, and where to distribute more funds/staff or whatever. No good just laying it all on BR as a whole.

 

[Rail Blues]

Nationalisation is the worst thing for the railways, it led to the power the unions now have over everything, the crippling underfunding and overall poor state the railways have been in since 1947.

Inaccurate and ahistorical nonsense from start to finish.

 

[jon0844]

Personally, besides the obvious issues of late, I think the idea of a management contract is a better way to do things.

GTR has obviously had issues (!) but I still like the concept, as the DfT can set out the requirements and look at the whole network. Rather like BR would. I would also like to see the DfT taking control of rural buses, rather than councils, and trying to properly integrate public transport.

The problem is that the DfT probably didn't set out the terms of the TSGN contract very well. Specifying a train/layout that hasn't won many fans (but they DO move a lot of people, which IS a positive) and not giving an operator much incentive to protect revenue when it doesn't keep it. Besides a regular check on ticketless travel, that's about it. If GTR wanted to man gatelines '24/7' for example, they'd be told it's not part of the contract so what incentive is there?

When GTR wants to put carnet tickets on the Key, they're told it's not a contract commitment (so they'd have to fund it all themselves) and yet we all know that carnet abuse is rife given tickets open gates as many times as you like for three months.

People are advising users online on how to modify the dates or even clean off the date completely, and that's before those who just write on the date only when they see a passenger host. But, what incentive is there to reduce this fraud?

Nevertheless, I think with some changes, the DfT would become like British Rail, but still use private companies to run specific routes. I'd then go as far to say that all trains would have a standardised DfT livery with 'operated by xxxx' added.

There is one other issue though; the DfT being competent to do this! I have somewhat little faith in Governments running things effectively, especially when politicians get involved with nothing but short term visions.

 

[mmh]

This is true, but there is little that has happened to state run organisations in this country for the last 60 years that convinces me that a nationalised railway would not suffer from austerity most of the time, with intermittent booms in between.

You must have missed Concorde and the HST somehow?

The extremes of either are disliked by the general public, but we have yet to come up with a middle way to harness the advantages of both, and minimising the disadvantages.

Actually you could argue we had a reasonable approximation of a middle way from the late 40s 'til the 70s

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I'm afraid that this sentence alone means that I am sceptical of this poster.

It's not often that I agree with you, but I do here. (That poster has repeated his nonsense in the "Controversial Opinion" thread) I sometimes wonder if people who make these extremist generalisations about British Rail are old enough to have travelled extensively by train during the B. R. period.

Another element to B. R. which is so often overlooked is that it had one of the best research facilities in the world; now, of course, gone with the wind. B. R. also had huge strength-in-depth of experienced people who had come up through the ranks and who had learned the railway business the hard way. As is revealed by the autobiographies of Gerald Fiennes and Stan Hall, there was no fast tracking, queue-jumping in those days. If you hadn't learned the business, you didn't get promoted to a key position.

 

[AndrewE]

It's not often that I agree with you, but I do here. I sometimes wonder if people who make these extremist generalisations about British Rail are old enough to have travelled extensively by train during the B. R. period.

let alone know anything about how it was organised.

Another element to B. R. which is so often overlooked is that it had one of the best research facilities in the world; now, of course, gone with the wind.

part of which was a very feet-on-the-ground Service department which played a significant role in keeping the day-to-day railway running. Even things as "simple" as office (or tunnel) environment measurements when staff were unhappy, which would have led to an impartial assessment and recommendations for stop-gap and longer-term improvements.

 

[coppercapped]

The last few posts give an indication of the paradoxes of this debate. If nationalisation hadn't happened in 1947, all the railway companies would have gone bust.

No, that would not have happened, it's simply one of the reasons given after the event for their nationalisation. The railways were merely one of the many industries nationalised in 1947 and no money was invested in any of them.
There would have been changes, certainly, but all of the Big 4 had plans for the future. Interesting, the LNER - the weakest financially of the Four as it never properly recovered from the collapse of the coal and steel business in the North East in the 1920s - had a concept which pre-dated the 1993 Railways Act. It had proposed a 'Landlord and Tenant' concept by which the Government would take over all or part of its network and the LNER would pay a fee to operate trains over it. Sound familiar?

Now we've got effective nationalisation by the DFT, with top staff who are not experienced in running the railways.

The 'privatised' ideology in its purest form seems to be limited to Hull Trains and Grand Central.

Sorry for rambling but it's going to take a few years to sort out... and I can't see anybody stepping forward to effectively lead this.

Absolutely. The DfT is confused about what it should be doing and doesn't have either the skill set or the right attitude - the civil service is all about process (how things happen) rather than product (making sure things do happen when they should).

I would add the freight operating companies to your list.

 

[coppercapped]

Nationalisation is the worst thing for the railways,

Quite possibly, but...

it led to the power the unions now have over everything, the crippling underfunding and overall poor state the railways have been in since 1947.

The only good thing to come from BR was the HST and thats about it. the Dft has too much control of everything, and Network Rail don't seem to know what they are doing half the time, which leaves TOC's to take the brunt of everything. People complain the TOC's don't fund enough, its purely because its not in their contract, and even then its a nightmare, take the GWR 802 purchase, it took ages before they finally agreed to it! The cost benefits also show, a Dft designed and controlled programme, costing several times more, than the off the shelf 802 model even though they are effectively the same train!

There is also the timetable issue, in which TOC's want to change timetables this year, but because of Network Rail incompetence its now not happening until May 2019, to me nationalisation v2, would just put a lot of people off the railways and back into cars.

...these arguments are specious, simplistic and completely misunderstand and misrepresent the roles of the various players in the history of the railways since the Second World War.
There is an argument against nationalised businesses such as the railways - but this is not it.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not often that I agree with you, but I do here. (That poster has repeated his nonsense in the "Controversial Opinion" thread) I sometimes wonder if people who make these extremist generalisations about British Rail are old enough to have travelled extensively by train during the B. R. period.

Another element to B. R. which is so often overlooked is that it had one of the best research facilities in the world; now, of course, gone with the wind. B. R. also had huge strength-in-depth of experienced people who had come up through the ranks and who had learned the railway business the hard way. As is revealed by the autobiographies of Gerald Fiennes and Stan Hall, there was no fast tracking, queue-jumping in those days. If you hadn't learned the business, you didn't get promoted to a key position.

Indeed.

It was with BR that I learnt that rail was an effective way to get from a to b. If it was as disastrous as some try to make out, I would probably be a motorist.

 

[B&I]

No, that would not have happened, it's simply one of the reasons given after the event for their nationalisation. The railways were merely one of the many industries nationalised in 1947 and no money was invested in any of them.
There would have been changes, certainly, but all of the Big 4 had plans for the future. Interesting, the LNER - the weakest financially of the Four as it never properly recovered from the collapse of the coal and steel business in the North East in the 1920s - had a concept which pre-dated the 1993 Railways Act. It had proposed a 'Landlord and Tenant' concept by which the Government would take over all or part of its network and the LNER would pay a fee to operate trains over it. Sound familiar?

So, the Big Four could have avoided nationalisation, so long as the government bunged them a massive buyout. That sounds familiar, alright: it's how our wonderful modern day 'free market' works time and time again, from badly-run railway franchises to reckless and corrupt banks. The fact that it still costs huge amounts of taxpayers' money, and doesn't lead to any better service, doesn't matter, so long as right wing ideologues can sleep safe at night, knowing that something hasn't been nationalised.