Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[AndrewE]

I first worked on the railway in 1970. I don't need to read anything.

As for "chaotic" - I really would appreciate some detailed and quantified information and data on that.

Perhaps we should ask HH how long he stayed on the railway and what jobs he did/what grade he reached?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Perhaps we should ask HH how long he stayed on the railway and what jobs he did/what grade he reached?

Let us await a response ...

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I wasn’t aware that the Metropolitan Railway had developed Metroland on brownfield railway sites. I thought that it was merely ‘selling’ the vision of a bucolic suburban idyll in the hope of drumming up long-term season ticket holders. Weren’t the houses in Pinner, etc. built by private developers?
(Yes, I know that there was some specific residential development like Chiltern Court over Baker Street station but I don’t think that that paid for or justified building the railway in the first place.)

The Met (Extension) line went into the hayfields of Middlesex with hopes of lucrative growth and hopefully connections to other main lines - the best quote is to read the magnificent work by Alan A Jackson on "London's Metropolitan Railway" , which covers the issues of both the inner area (bitter feuds with the Metropolitan District) , and the hopes for the outer area , largely realised after the demise of the core railway in the 1920's and 1930's. (obviously into London Transport)

Anyway - some of the Met routes had surplus green field sites , but they "allianced" with landlords and developers to build quality housing - the Pinner Park Estate being one , these developments also encouraged local freight traffic - not just bricks , cement and timber for the acres of red tiled housing , but household coal and consumables.

The only social housing was that for the railway employees at such places as Neasden and even Croxley...!

 

[Dr Hoo]

Thank you for that, Chief Planner.

 

[Harry26]

The most convincing argument I have heard against re-nationalisation is that once again the railways would be competing for public funds against education, nhs, welfare, defence etc. The railways would always come bottom as a low priority

 

[HH]

Let us await a response ...

Unlike some, I'm still working, so fish away, I won't be biting.

 

[B&I]

The most convincing argument I have heard against re-nationalisation is that once again the railways would be competing for public funds against education, nhs, welfare, defence etc. The railways would always come bottom as a low priority

But they are competing against those other demands. Where do you think that the subsidy which keeps the railways going comes from ?

 

[B&I]

And you think the two are the same do you?

What are ?

 

[B&I]

Not really. Corporation tax is on profits. Dividend tax is a tax on profits paid out as dividends to shareholders. So dividend tax is a tax on business profits, just like corporation tax.

But the tax is paid on different pots of money. If you don't pay out dividends, you don't pay dividend tax. You pay corporation tax on profits no matter what

 

[Carlisle]

But they are competing against those other demands. Where do you think that the subsidy which keeps the railways going comes from ?

True, is that because it would ultimately cost the Govt/ DFT a fortune in compensation to significantly alter or cut the present franchise agreements before they end , whereas a nationalised company wouldn’t require that meaning cuts could be cheaper easier and quicker?

 

[Carlisle]

As for "chaotic" - I really would appreciate some detailed and quantified information and data on that. V

Is the chaotic mostly referring to the huge number and diversity of activities BR once attempted to run in house,? given nowadays it’s pretty widely acknowledged to have been considerably underfunded.
I cant imagine any future U.K. nationalised railway ever being remotely similar in that respect

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But the tax is paid on different pots of money. If you don't pay out dividends, you don't pay dividend tax. You pay corporation tax on profits no matter what

But if you don't pay dividends, the people who own the company don't make a living (unless they are also employees being paid a wage, in which case their tax rate is income tax + NI).

I have my own business which is run as a limited company. At the end of the tax year, I pay corporation tax on whatever profits I/the company has made. But what's left from the profits after corporation tax still belongs to the company - even though it's my company, it's not my money: It's the company's money, and it can't legally be used for anything other than running and investing in the company. If I want to actually earn a living from the company, then I have to get those profits paid to myself: I can't just say, it's my company, therefore it's my money - that would be illegal. So instead, I have to have the company formally pay me the money as a dividend - at which point I pay dividend tax. And it's not a separate pot of money: The money I'm paying dividend tax on is the same money that my company has already paid corporation tax on. That's why you need to add tho two taxes to get an idea of the actual tax paid on the profits.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Met (Extension) line went into the hayfields of Middlesex with hopes of lucrative growth and hopefully connections to other main lines - the best quote is to read the magnificent work by Alan A Jackson on "London's Metropolitan Railway" , which covers the issues of both the inner area (bitter feuds with the Metropolitan District) , and the hopes for the outer area , largely realised after the demise of the core railway in the 1920's and 1930's. (obviously into London Transport) Anyway - some of the Met routes had surplus green field sites , but they "allianced" with landlords and developers to build quality housing - the Pinner Park Estate being one , these developments also encouraged local freight traffic - not just bricks , cement and timber for the acres of red tiled housing , but household coal and consumables.

!

That seemed to be also covered in the "Metroland" programme that John Betjeman narrated. I came across a long-forgotten dvd of the programme a month ago in my archive materials.

 

[Indigo Soup]

True, is that because it would ultimately cost the Govt/ DFT a fortune in compensation to significantly alter or cut the present franchise agreements before they end , whereas a nationalised company wouldn’t require that meaning cuts could be cheaper easier and quicker?

There's also the consideration that if a TOC or ROSCO wants to carry out capital investment, it picks up the phone to its' bankers (or parent company) and arranges the finance it needs.

If British Rail Mark II wants to carry out capital investment, it has to go to the Treasury. If government finance is available, it's at a much better interest rate than commercial finance. But it's much more likely to be unavailable, because government borrowing is limited for political reasons.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

That seemed to be also covered in the "Metroland" programme that John Betjeman narrated. I came across a long-forgotten dvd of the programme a month ago in my archive materials.

Quite a remarkable film that , and very well done. Of course , other railways did similar things in developing their hinterland for business development purposes - the LNWR on the "new lines" to Watford (think Hatch End) and on quite a big scale the developer Corbett who laid out much of Ilford and south of the river at Catford. All commercial developments. Geared largely of course to the middle classes , Forest Gate for example had the highest 1st class patronage on any section of the GER in the early 1900's.

 

[AndrewE]

Is the chaotic mostly referring to the huge number and diversity of activities BR once attempted to run in house,? given nowadays it’s pretty widely acknowledged to have been considerably underfunded.
I cant imagine any future U.K. nationalised railway ever being remotely similar in that respect

All of the "huge number and diversity of activities BR once attempted to run" - actually did run - were what it inherited from the big 4! Things like cartage, hotels, shipping, Meldon quarry, (not forgetting the works which once manufactured locos almost from raw materials) were progressively divested. Some sales were sensible, some were politically-driven stupidity.
Just think what one railway could do for trunk express parcels, replacing a lot of long-haul trucks!

 

[Clip]

What I don’t understand is why they didn’t privatize the London Underground. I’d it because the political elite in London want their own city to have the delights of socialism while the rest of the country has to experience capitalism?
.

Well this isn't true given how many PTEs there are around the country who have an involvement in setting fares and such like or indeed things like MerseyRail or The Metro or even Blackpool Transport which are all owned and run by the local Authority just as it is in London

 

[Dr Hoo]

All of the "huge number and diversity of activities BR once attempted to run" - actually did run - were what it inherited from the big 4! Things like cartage, hotels, shipping, Meldon quarry, (not forgetting the works which once manufactured locos almost from raw materials) were progressively divested. Some sales were sensible, some were politically-driven stupidity.
Just think what one railway could do for trunk express parcels, replacing a lot of long-haul trucks!

I thought that it was unified BR that realised that it wasn’t possible to make any money out of trunk express parcels at least in terms of it being able to justify ongoing investment in new vehicles and terminals. That withdrawal from an area of activity was nothing to do with privatisation.
The ending of Speedlink less-than-trainload Freight was another example of simple economic realities in the face of rapidly developing technology in logistics.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Just think what one railway could do for trunk express parcels, replacing a lot of long-haul trucks!

"Just in time" logistics killed parcels traffic for rail.
Once the newspapers left the railway, it just imploded.
When you see what is possible by using a road/air combination, mail had no chance either.
The residual WCML mail operation just uses the sunk RM costs of the class 325s and its terminals.
Added to which, I don't think Network Rail is keen to have a lot of overnight traffic back - it would interrupt their prime maintenance access time.
Hotels and ships have done much better under private management.
The LMS/Canadian Pacific-type transport conglomerate model is long gone from railways worldwide.

 

[AndrewE]

I thought that it was unified BR that realised that it wasn’t possible to make any money out of trunk express parcels at least in terms of it being able to justify ongoing investment in new vehicles and terminals. That withdrawal from an area of activity was nothing to do with privatisation.
The ending of Speedlink less-than-trainload Freight was another example of simple economic realities in the face of rapidly developing technology in logistics.

Agreed, but we are in a different world now, both with the amount of "stuff" being moved around and with congestion and pollution. I was thinking more of the potential for the re-birth of Red Star Parcels or something like it (shifting consolidated blocks of premium packages?) but think it would have a better chance of working on a unified railway. I wouldn't get into distribution - unless it was found that the only way to deliver the service properly was to take control of the whole chain. A bit like Network Rail bringing some things back in-house really.

 

[underbank]

There's also the consideration that if a TOC or ROSCO wants to carry out capital investment, it picks up the phone to its' bankers (or parent company) and arranges the finance it needs.

If British Rail Mark II wants to carry out capital investment, it has to go to the Treasury. If government finance is available, it's at a much better interest rate than commercial finance. But it's much more likely to be unavailable, because government borrowing is limited for political reasons.

Which is, of course, why Gordon Brown just loved PFI for hospital and school building. He wanted to "hide" the borrowing/debt so it didn't feature in the deficit/national debt figures.

 

[PeterC]

Agreed, but we are in a different world now, both with the amount of "stuff" being moved around and with congestion and pollution. I was thinking more of the potential for the re-birth of Red Star Parcels or something like it (shifting consolidated blocks of premium packages?) but think it would have a better chance of working on a unified railway. I wouldn't get into distribution - unless it was found that the only way to deliver the service properly was to take control of the whole chain. A bit like Network Rail bringing some things back in-house really.

Agreed, the whole parcels market has changed. Of course most of the infrastructure for parcels on the railways has now gone so bringing it back would take a lot more than running some dedicated trains. (As an aside I think that a friend of mine who is fed up with driving her daughter's belongings across the country at the beginning and end of each university year would love to see the luggage in advance service come back).

We do need to find a better balance between a fully nationalised system and the present structure. The present franchise structure would make any changes gradual rather than revolutionary but that is no bad thing.

 

[underbank]

Agreed, the whole parcels market has changed. Of course most of the infrastructure for parcels on the railways has now gone so bringing it back would take a lot more than running some dedicated trains. (As an aside I think that a friend of mine who is fed up with driving her daughter's belongings across the country at the beginning and end of each university year would love to see the luggage in advance service come back).

We do need to find a better balance between a fully nationalised system and the present structure. The present franchise structure would make any changes gradual rather than revolutionary but that is no bad thing.

Yes, change is needed, but you're talking about innovation, i.e. the improvement of parcels/luggage services. Nationalisation won't even touch the sides of innovation - it never does. You need entreprenneurs with vision for anything new or innovative. Yes, we're not getting that with the current franchise model, but we certainly wouldn't get it with nationalisation either.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, change is needed, but you're talking about innovation, i.e. the improvement of parcels/luggage services. Nationalisation won't even touch the sides of innovation - it never does. You need entreprenneurs with vision for anything new or innovative. Yes, we're not getting that with the current franchise model, but we certainly wouldn't get it with nationalisation either.

Well, this is complete hokum for starters.

The Nationalised railway came on leaps and bounds technically, due to the efforts of the research centre at Derby, for example, looking at track and train.

In terms of marketing, it came up with the InterCity concept, yield management, railcards etc.

The private sector railway, by contrast, has been a bit of a one trick pony, concentrating on yield management and little else.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Well, this is complete hokum for starters.

The Nationalised railway came on leaps and bounds technically, due to the efforts of the research centre at Derby, for example, looking at track and train.

In terms of marketing, it came up with the InterCity concept, yield management, railcards etc.

The private sector railway, by contrast, has been a bit of a one trick pony, concentrating on yield management and little else.

I think that this is a bit of a skewed comparison.
The franchises are largely in a commercial straitjacket in terms of fares regulation and the wider aspects of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.
Similarly, the franchises are never going to lead on the technical aspects of the track-train interface. However, the leaps and bounds in terms of rolling stock technical sophistication over the past twenty years have come from a global, privately-run supply industry. I appreciate that this has largely been enabled by developments in information technology but the sheer internationalism of the market makes the concept of nationalisation in this field almost irrelevant.

 

[AndrewE]

However, the leaps and bounds in terms of rolling stock technical sophistication over the past twenty years have come from a global, privately-run supply industry.

Really? I'm sure that the tilting train technology had a public-sector heritage... Now where might that have originated, I wonder?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Really? I'm sure that the tilting train technology had a public-sector heritage... Now where might that have originated, I wonder?

You must have missed the bit where I was talking about the last twenty years and a globalised market.

In any event, the concept of tilting trains can be traced back to the late 1930s. Just because BR did *some* interesting work in this area decades ago doesn’t give make the public sector its only father.

Is anybody seriously suggesting that a reincarnated BR would once more design and build its own rolling stock?

 

[B&I]

True, is that because it would ultimately cost the Govt/ DFT a fortune in compensation to significantly alter or cut the present franchise agreements before they end , whereas a nationalised company wouldn’t require that meaning cuts could be cheaper easier and quicker?

No. Government can drive a TOC out of a franchise if it wants at the minute, only it doesn't tend to happen openly. And do you really think any TOC would stand in the way of unprofitable services being cut by government diktat ?

 

[Robertj21a]

Well this isn't true given how many PTEs there are around the country who have an involvement in setting fares and such like or indeed things like MerseyRail or The Metro or even Blackpool Transport which are all owned and run by the local Authority just as it is in London

??? - you've lost me. Blackpool Transport isn't run by the local authority (it's run by an arms-length company). Can you explain your London comment ?

 

[yorksrob]

I think that this is a bit of a skewed comparison.
The franchises are largely in a commercial straitjacket in terms of fares regulation and the wider aspects of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.
Similarly, the franchises are never going to lead on the technical aspects of the track-train interface. However, the leaps and bounds in terms of rolling stock technical sophistication over the past twenty years have come from a global, privately-run supply industry. I appreciate that this has largely been enabled by developments in information technology but the sheer internationalism of the market makes the concept of nationalisation in this field almost irrelevant.

No, the skewed comparison comes in a previous poster saying that "nationalisation won't touch the sides of innovation" when experience tells us this isn't necessarily the case.

Yes, the franchises are in a financial straightjacket and that doesn't allow innovation in track and maintenance. There has also been precious little innovation in ticketing in the past twenty years, with only one and a bit railcards introduced, areas which the passenger facing part of the industry should lead.

A truely innovative industry could have introduced a bahncard across the board, rail miles schemes across the board, carnet travel across the railway, slicker business offers across the railway as an example. We've seen none of these from this "innovative" private sector.