Could the railways be nationalised and would this avoid the current franchising problems?

[GrimShady]

Moderator note: split from Stagecoach to pull out of UK Franchising

That fact is the garbage system is collapsing all around us.

A nationalised system is sure to follow.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That fact is the garbage system is collapsing all around us.
A nationalised system is sure to follow.

More DfT control, not less?
Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Mag_seven]

That fact is the garbage system is collapsing all around us.

A nationalised system is sure to follow.

More DfT control, not less?
Be careful what you wish for.

DfT (or whatever it was called then) largely just let BR get on with it. I think we have had enough of John Major's so called privatisation model. It isn't working.

 

[StaffsWCML]

More DfT control, not less?
Be careful what you wish for.

Exactly DfT and Network Rail are EXACTLY what is screwing up the railway.

The franchising system is dumb and broken, track being separate to operators is stupid. A fully integrated solution is required perhaps when TOCs contribute more for the up keep of the lines they use.

Nationalisation is very likely not to be the solution unless we want more mediocracy. This government and departments are not fit to run a beer session in an alehouse.

Everything the state does is garbage from issuing contracts to garbage like Abellio to procuring (or forcing the procurement of) garbage trains that aren't fit for purpose.

 

[quantinghome]

Exactly DfT and Network Rail are EXACTLY what is screwing up the railway.

The franchising system is dumb and broken, track being separate to operators is stupid. A fully integrated solution is required perhaps when TOCs contribute more for the up keep of the lines they use.

Nationalisation is very likely not to be the solution unless we want more mediocracy. This government and departments are not fit to run a beer session in an alehouse.

Everything the state does is garbage from issuing contracts to garbage like Abellio to procuring (or forcing the procurement of) garbage trains that aren't fit for purpose.

So how is your fully integrated railway going to be owned, given that passenger services are not profitable once full costs are taken into account?

The problem with the system as currently set out is that the DfT is micro-managing the complex franchise system (arguably the industry structure means it doesn't have a choice) when it should be setting policy and high level strategy. Network Rail and the train operators are stymied because neither of them controls all the levers required to run a decent service.

Your comments on 'the state' smack of ideology rather than reality. What 'garbage' trains are you referring to? If you're talking about the Azumas then it's instructive to compare their development to the Intercity 125, which was produced entirely by state-owned British Rail and managed to get from concept to running in service in about half the time it's taken for its replacement. Similarly, BR was managing a respectable rolling programme of electrification during the 80s and early 90s. And of course BR never got the level of government funding poured into the 'privatised' industry.

The dead hand of Whitehall is a potential problem though. My personal preference would be to devolve funding and service specification to local or regional authorities.

 

[StaffsWCML]

So how is your fully integrated railway going to be owned, given that passenger services are not profitable once full costs are taken into account?

The problem with the system as currently set out is that the DfT is micro-managing the complex franchise system (arguably the industry structure means it doesn't have a choice) when it should be setting policy and high level strategy. Network Rail and the train operators are stymied because neither of them controls all the levers required to run a decent service.

Your comments on 'the state' smack of ideology rather than reality. What 'garbage' trains are you referring to? If you're talking about the Azumas then it's instructive to compare their development to the Intercity 125, which was produced entirely by state-owned British Rail and managed to get from concept to running in service in about half the time it's taken for its replacement. Similarly, BR was managing a respectable rolling programme of electrification during the 80s and early 90s. And of course BR never got the level of government funding poured into the 'privatised' industry.

The dead hand of Whitehall is a potential problem though. My personal preference would be to devolve funding and service specification to local or regional authorities.

Whitehall is always the problem and has been for many years. I don't doubt that British Rail did many good things in the 50/60/70 the R & D was ground-breaking, it was fantastic to see British engineering at the forefront, and using British Trains. However I suppose that time is gone. British rail was neglected and by the end it was falling apart, perhaps this was a deliberate managed decline. I don't also doubt that some of the private operators have done some good things for rail travel and continue to do so.

I would agree with devolving. There really needs to be more effective competition on many long distance routes too, for me the open access method (or similar) looks quite a good starting point where multiple operators could run trains on a route (of their choice). It would also make sense if for example a TOC wants to operate 150mph trains or Electrify a line they can contribute or contribute as a consortium to ensure those upgrades can be funded properly. The current system doesn't work that much we can agree. I am not sure the a return to British Rail is the solution - but maybe it is if done the right way?!

 

[coppercapped]

That fact is the garbage system is collapsing all around us.

A nationalised system is sure to follow.

If you are a railway employee, be very careful what you wish for.

Such simple statements and comments about complex issues usually shows a lack of understanding - look at Donald Trump.

A monopoly employer in an industry always pays less than the going rate in an open market. It's called a monopsony - a single purchaser; in this case of people to work on the railways.
Following any nationalisation of the railways there will be continual Treasury pressure to minimise public spending to reduce the load on the taxpayer. The wages and salaries won't be immediately affected - but after ten years or so there will be a noticeable difference.
One of the reasons NHS salaries are low compared to outside industry (although the pension scheme is good) is that it is a monopsony - there is only one employer. The increase in railway wages and salaries since BR was abolished is due to the competitive market that was created.

 

[Killingworth]

So how is your fully integrated railway going to be owned, given that passenger services are not profitable once full costs are taken into account?

The problem with the system as currently set out is that the DfT is micro-managing the complex franchise system (arguably the industry structure means it doesn't have a choice) when it should be setting policy and high level strategy. Network Rail and the train operators are stymied because neither of them controls all the levers required to run a decent service.

Your comments on 'the state' smack of ideology rather than reality. What 'garbage' trains are you referring to? If you're talking about the Azumas then it's instructive to compare their development to the Intercity 125, which was produced entirely by state-owned British Rail and managed to get from concept to running in service in about half the time it's taken for its replacement. Similarly, BR was managing a respectable rolling programme of electrification during the 80s and early 90s. And of course BR never got the level of government funding poured into the 'privatised' industry.

The dead hand of Whitehall is a potential problem though. My personal preference would be to devolve funding and service specification to local or regional authorities.

Profit is very hard, probably impossible, to truly define on a railway system largely built 100-200 years ago. There is so much infrastructure that is generations away from what would be planned and installed for a new build railway. It's easy to bewail how difficult it is integrating routes and structures partly modernised, truncated and revised from all those decades.

Passenger services overall are unprofitable, yet specific routes may not be, ECML? Freight is profitable, according to some calculations. Balance sheets don't tell it all.

We could spend many more billions on infrastructure and railways still wouldn't pay. We rearrange the management structures and cause new confusions.

Transport for the North may have priorities that differ from Transport for the Midlands, the South West and TfL, but their needs overlap.

I sit at a point where services through my station include freights from Midlands to North and London, and passenger services from Scotland to Cornwall plus East Anglia to the Mersey and Yorkshire to London overlap. It's a nightmare to manage all these.

 

[diffident]

If you are a railway employee, be very careful what you wish for.

Such simple statements and comments about complex issues usually shows a lack of understanding - look at Donald Trump.

A monopoly employer in an industry always pays less than the going rate in an open market. It's called a monopsony - a single purchaser; in this case of people to work on the railways.
Following any nationalisation of the railways there will be continual Treasury pressure to minimise public spending to reduce the load on the taxpayer. The wages and salaries won't be immediately affected - but after ten years or so there will be a noticeable difference.
One of the reasons NHS salaries are low compared to outside industry (although the pension scheme is good) is that it is a monopsony - there is only one employer. The increase in railway wages and salaries since BR was abolished is due to the competitive market that was created.

I think there is a degree of give and take in both nationalised and private systems where staff are concerned. Obviously, pay might well be less, and pay rises lower, but job security is better and general working conditions are better in a nationalised system. Attach to that, a more powerful union movement fighting your corner, and only having to deal with one group of senior officials as opposed to umpteen different companies.

 

[Bromley boy]

If you are a railway employee, be very careful what you wish for.

Such simple statements and comments about complex issues usually shows a lack of understanding - look at Donald Trump.

A monopoly employer in an industry always pays less than the going rate in an open market. It's called a monopsony - a single purchaser; in this case of people to work on the railways.
Following any nationalisation of the railways there will be continual Treasury pressure to minimise public spending to reduce the load on the taxpayer. The wages and salaries won't be immediately affected - but after ten years or so there will be a noticeable difference.
One of the reasons NHS salaries are low compared to outside industry (although the pension scheme is good) is that it is a monopsony - there is only one employer. The increase in railway wages and salaries since BR was abolished is due to the competitive market that was created.

This is a very good point and one that is often forgotten by the rail unions!

Off topic but, is the NHS a true monopsony? Once qualified, nurses and doctors can earn more in the private healthcare sector but, rather than increase wages, it continues to recruit new entrants at the same (too low!) wage levels.

That may well explain the perpetual NHS staff shortages...

 

[StaffsWCML]

Profit is very hard, probably impossible, to truly define on a railway system largely built 100-200 years ago. There is so much infrastructure that is generations away from what would be planned and installed for a new build railway. It's easy to bewail how difficult it is integrating routes and structures partly modernised, truncated and revised from all those decades.

Passenger services overall are unprofitable, yet specific routes may not be, ECML? Freight is profitable, according to some calculations. Balance sheets don't tell it all.

We could spend many more billions on infrastructure and railways still wouldn't pay. We rearrange the management structures and cause new confusions.

Transport for the North may have priorities that differ from Transport for the Midlands, the South West and TfL, but their needs overlap.

I sit at a point where services through my station include freights from Midlands to North and London, and passenger services from Scotland to Cornwall plus East Anglia to the Mersey and Yorkshire to London overlap. It's a nightmare to manage all these.

The whole Private = Bad, Public = Good Rhetoric is complete nonsense anyway.

Plenty of countries with more privatised services work better that the UK. In Scandinavian countries many public services of privatised and a re better than ours.

The Japanese railway privatised in the 1980s is many times better than ours because the structure is better.

 

[Robertj21a]

That fact is the garbage system is collapsing all around us.

A nationalised system is sure to follow.

For the sake of most of us I sincerely hope not. We need greater efficiencies, not less.

 

[Carlisle]

Attach to that, a more powerful union movement fighting your corner, and only having to deal with one group of senior officials as opposed to umpteen different companies.

That would depend on what activities were undertaken in house and what tasks were contracted out, a new BR (unlike the original ) might not directly employ anyone outside of those few core activities that probably in the main feel adequately remunerated under present structures anyway.

 

[quantinghome]

Profit is very hard, probably impossible, to truly define on a railway system largely built 100-200 years ago. There is so much infrastructure that is generations away from what would be planned and installed for a new build railway. It's easy to bewail how difficult it is integrating routes and structures partly modernised, truncated and revised from all those decades.

Railways are inherently complicated things. The organisational structure of the railway should ensure complexities and difficulties are minimised rather than multiplied.

Passenger services overall are unprofitable, yet specific routes may not be, ECML? Freight is profitable, according to some calculations. Balance sheets don't tell it all.

There is an ORR chart showing overall profitability once infrastructure costs are accounted for. Only ECML and south west trains show as profitable. Back in BR days Intercity was profitable, but based on BR's accounting which I hear had certain... peculiarities.

Freight is generally profitable - just look at the USA. If passenger railways were as profitable, they would still be running in private hands, or private companies would be developing them without government assistance.

We could spend many more billions on infrastructure and railways still wouldn't pay. We rearrange the management structures and cause new confusions..

I agree if it ain't broke don't fix it. But it is broke. The important thing is to ensure continuity of expertise within organisations. I think this was the principal problem with privatisation; the radical approach caused huge institutional upheaval. Fortunately an integrated system can be created incrementally as franchises expire.

Transport for the North may have priorities that differ from Transport for the Midlands, the South West and TfL, but their needs overlap.

I sit at a point where services through my station include freights from Midlands to North and London, and passenger services from Scotland to Cornwall plus East Anglia to the Mersey and Yorkshire to London overlap. It's a nightmare to manage all these.

It needs to be thought about carefully, but we are already in this position in several areas - Scotland, Wales, London, Merseyside, North of England (ish). Clearly some parts of the railway would need to stay under national control - principally the intercity lines and freight. Funding and specification for regional and commuter services should be devolved. Whitehall should have no business deciding whether (e.g.) Ashington to Newcastle should be reopened or how frequent commuter services should be around Leeds.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It needs to be thought about carefully, but we are already in this position in several areas - Scotland, Wales, London, Merseyside, North of England (ish). Clearly some parts of the railway would need to stay under national control - principally the intercity lines and freight. Funding and specification for regional and commuter services should be devolved. Whitehall should have no business deciding whether (e.g.) Ashington to Newcastle should be reopened or how frequent commuter services should be around Leeds.

But the "centralisers" (of all political shades) refuse to devolve real autonomy to the regions.
Network Rail is not devolved, and its new Regional structure reinforces the control (Scotland is a bit different).
The Treasury and DfT simply do not trust the regions to deliver against devolved funding, or to manage franchises.
OK some mild autonomy exists in Wales, Scotland, Merseyside and the PTEs, but it is under strict controls.
Real control over long-term spending is still with Westminster, who protect the weaker counties/regions who don't get much of a look-in otherwise.

 

[edwin_m]

But the "centralisers" (of all political shades) refuse to devolve real autonomy to the regions.
Network Rail is not devolved, and its new Regional structure reinforces the control (Scotland is a bit different).
The Treasury and DfT simply do not trust the regions to deliver against devolved funding, or to manage franchises.
OK some mild autonomy exists in Wales, Scotland, Merseyside and the PTEs, but it is under strict controls.
Real control over long-term spending is still with Westminster, who protect the weaker counties/regions who don't get much of a look-in otherwise.

Some contradiction between the two statements I have bolded? I suggest the first one is the correct one, and the regions should get the funding and authority to implement locally in line with their wider priorities, along with the accountability if they mess it up. At the moment there is virtually no democratic accountability for the majority of franchises (add TfL/Overground to the exceptions above) because they are run by an MP who is elected (currently) by Epsom and Ewell and a government that is judged on far more things than transport. A regional body could focus on improving their region's economic prosperity and quality of life by such things as infrastructure and spatial planning. This would include running the local franchise - most of which are already reasonably closely aligned to natural regional boundaries. They would also have to work with neighbouring regions, and with national government who would need to retain control of the long-distance operators.

 

[GrimShady]

More DfT control, not less?
Be careful what you wish for.

For the sake of most of us I sincerely hope not. We need greater efficiencies, not less.

I'd wager BR was far more efficient than any of the subsequent dire private options that followed.

BR should have been BR plc with sectorisation allowed to follow it's natural course.

 

[tbtc]

I think we have had enough of John Major's so called privatisation model. It isn't working.

John Major's model of privatisation didn't last a decade - a private sector Railtrack and the first round of TOCs didn't last long - what we have now owes more to John Prescott's changes and the subsequent Secretaries (Grayling etc).

Everything the state does is garbage from issuing contracts to garbage like Abellio to procuring (or forcing the procurement of) garbage trains that aren't fit for purpose.

This is the problem that I have. I'm happy to be convinced off my fence, I'm relatively neutral in the debate, the current system isn't working but the solutions that worked in the 1980s wouldn't necessarily work now (given how much more complicated everything has become than under BR).

However, whilst I can find examples of private companies behaving badly, it's hard to ignore the public sector problems too. Network Rail seem a bottomless pit of expenses (I hate it when people give the impression that passengers are paying higher and higher shares of rail revenue due to falling government support when Network Rail hide billions on their "credit card").

If the solution isn't Stagecoach/ First then I am far from convinced that the solution is the current DfT or the current Network Rail or the current Transport Secretary either. Nor am I convinced that giving control to cash strapped councils (affected by a decade of austerity) is going to mean increased spending on things.

 

[Robertj21a]

I'd wager BR was far more efficient than any of the subsequent dire private options that followed.

BR should have been BR plc with sectorisation allowed to follow it's natural course.

Unless you have hard evidence of all you say I'm going to struggle to believe your assertions.

 

[GrimShady]

Unless you have hard evidence of all you say I'm going to struggle to believe your assertions.

You could start with BR annual operating budget Vs the annual income for the private companies at three times the amount.

 

[StaffsWCML]

You could start with BR annual operating budget Vs the annual income for the private companies at three times the amount.

Are you taking into account nearly 30 years of inflation at 2% into account here? Its a rather simplistic view at looking at it I would guess.

I cant argue that there was some 'managed decline' of BR in the 80 and 90s before its demise, but equally it couldn't continue the way it was at the end.

I am not sure at present it would work in state control, can you imagine RMT taking a 1% pay cap? I cant! The most incompetent parts of the railway at present are actually the bits ran by the government....i.e. the jokers making the awards, choosing the trains and the organisation supposedly 'maintaining' the tracks, admittedly NR are infinitely better than RT but that's nothing great.

 

[quantinghome]

I cant argue that there was some 'managed decline' of BR in the 80 and 90s before its demise, but equally it couldn't continue the way it was at the end.

My recollections of BR in the 1990s are rather different. New trains (IC225s, Cl158s, Networkers), rolling programmes of electrification (ECML, NW Leeds), new stations opening all over the place (west Yorkshire station programme, robin hood line), innovative services like Thameslink and plans developing for the future (WCML, Thameslink2000, Crossrail). All this was brought to a crashing halt by a hiatus in investment caused by.... privatisation.

The most incompetent parts of the railway at present are actually the bits ran by the government....i.e. the jokers making the awards, choosing the trains and the organisation supposedly 'maintaining' the tracks, admittedly NR are infinitely better than RT but that's nothing great.

Agreed - but then the government (i.e. the government department) needs to step back and work only on high level strategy, and let an arms-length railway organisation, run by professionals who know what they are doing, do their thing (with proper accountability etc.)

I agree Network Rail managed to steady the shop pretty well after RT collapsed. I suspect the current problems are due to it being one stage removed from passengers. If the tracks were part of the same organisation that actually ran the trains, I suspect it would be more responsive.

 

[coppercapped]

I think there is a degree of give and take in both nationalised and private systems where staff are concerned. Obviously, pay might well be less, and pay rises lower, but job security is better and general working conditions are better in a nationalised system.

Job security better? Really?
British Aerospace - largely disappeared: British Leyland - largely disappeared, Longbridge is now a housing estate and MG a business estate, only Cowley and Jaguar/Land Rover remain under different owners; British Railways - number of employees fell from 650,000 in 1947 to around 100,000 (I have the actual figure somewhere but I can't put my finger on it at the moment) in 1995; National Coal Board - 800,000 employees in 1948, how many now? The steel industry on nationalisation in 1949 employed over 400,000 people - its now a tenth of that.
Name me one nationalised start up company which has been as successful as companies such as Sage, ARM, Intel, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, Apple which forty years ago didn't exist and now employ millions. Do you honestly think that these companies have worse working conditions than a nationalised industry? I worked for one of these for some eight years - and they were brilliant.

Attach to that, a more powerful union movement fighting your corner, and only having to deal with one group of senior officials as opposed to umpteen different companies.

What you really mean is that with umpteen different companies the need for a powerful union movement is less. People can vote with their feet.

 

[Meerkat]

New trains (IC225s, Cl158s, Networkers), rolling programmes of electrification (ECML, NW Leeds), new stations opening all over the place (west Yorkshire station programme, robin hood line), innovative services like Thameslink

Franchising has brought in far more new trains than the Treasury would ever have paid for up front.
In BR days new stations were really cheap due to much lower required standards both in infrastructure and in the methods of building them.

 

[Killingworth]

Back in 1985 British Rail was still simplifying junctions and removing surplus tracks as the momentum of rail decline had still to be arrested, or the pendulum had not yet been perceived to be going the other way. When Railtrack arrived in 1994 it was into a fragmenting railway of TOCs and some seriously fragmenting infrastructure.

I recall my days train spotting on Newcastle Central station in the late 1950s, below the castle with the wonderful diamond crossovers in between. They must have been a nightmare to keep in good order. It's so much simpler today and much the same was happening across the country. My first visit to Leeds was in the days when there seemed to be many more platforms running up beside the Aire where there are now shops and car parks to the north side .

I say 1985 for the reason that my local station was reduced from a former junction of 4 platforms (2 already disused) to one and the main line between Sheffield and Manchester reduced to single track for over half a mile through the station - very much a British Rail decision. By 1994 Railtrack knew very well that a problem bottleneck had been created and were preparing plans to redouble the line. I've heard it said that there were plans on Railtrack's office walls to do that very soon after they were formed. By 2005 Network Rail had made an application to Sheffield City Council regarding rebuilding a second track and platform. If we're lucky work may start in 2021*.

Does this have anything to do with Stagecoach pulling out? Not directly, but having to operate the Liverpool - Norwich service through the outskirts of Liverpool, then the notorious Castlefield/Platforms 13 & 14 section, then the Dore Junctions and station before getting even half way may help to make the point. That service alone is responsible for 25% of East Midlands delays on all trains! The Hope Valley stations are all among the worst 100 of over 2500 in Britain for the punctuality of trains.

There is a paralysis of joined up thinking that nationalisation, sectorisation, or privatisation can't in themselves ever resolve. One of the biggest issues may be that too few people stay long enough in their jobs or with one company to fully understand them, but maybe more importantly understand where everything fits in to the national jigsaw.

Throw in pensions, future open access operators and targets to go electric without enough wires and who in their right mind would want to spend millions preparing a semi-coherent bid on which to make a profit?

Offering a reasonably long term rolling management contract with all the variable risks identified and coverable to all but guarantee profits and it might be another story. It's going to be interesting to see how the next 5-10 years pan out.

Despite all the doom and gloom with late, cancelled, overcrowded and slow trains, my local station has grown passenger numbers over 5 times since reduced to one platform. It's doubled in the last 8 years (when the most recent plans were being formulated - on a growth forecast of 56% by 2025). Further growth is challenging whoever is managing it all.

*Network Rail Manchester is responsible for redoubling by December 2022. Network Rail at York are responsible for maintenance and operations of the tracks through the station. Left hands and right hands, but who's ultimately pulling who's strings? DfT!

 

[quantinghome]

Franchising has brought in far more new trains than the Treasury would ever have paid for up front.

I doubt it. There was an initial spree of orders in the first years after privatisation, but new orders would have undoubtedly had to be made to replace life-expired rolling stock, just as has been done on London Underground.
Much of this was restarting BR rolling stock programmes such as the IC250, roll-out of Networker trains and new electric trains on regional commuter networks which were stopped by privatisation, the process of which killed the UK train industry by having a 1000 day hiatus in new orders. When these were finally placed, the rolling stock industry has been severely cut back or taken over by overseas competitors. In any case, much of the rolling stock replacement during privatisation was directed by the DfT. They imposed a deadline to replace slam-door stock in the 2000s, which was critical in reducing the average age of LSE stock (see below). Pacers are being withdrawn only because the SoS specifically wrote it into franchise specifications. As the chart below shows, new rolling stock was pretty sparse after 2005. The recent spate of orders will, at last, bring the average age down, again largely due to DfT ensuring it happens through the franchise specification.


https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pd...infrastructure-assets-environment-2013-14.pdf

In BR days new stations were really cheap due to much lower required standards both in infrastructure and in the methods of building them.

And most of these stations are doing just fine today. The later BR stations were precast concrete with ramps so reasonably compliant with today's construction and PRM standards. The main change has been the ludicrous complexities in getting funding approved, with the result that new commuter stations opening today are announced with great fanfare and SoS visits, whereas back in BR days it was a pretty normal occurrence which wouldn't have gone further than the regional press office.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

One of the purposes of privatisation was to move train purchase off the government's books. Tick (except for IEP, 700, 345...).
Initially only the 15-year franchises were allowed to replace stock (WC, XC, SE, LTS).
A few TOCs got to order penny numbers of additional stock (MML/Chiltern turbos, FGW/FNW Coradias etc).
The next big replacement was for slam-door stock in 2000 (just as the current blitz is driven by the PRM deadline and Pacer withdrawal).
The government fixed the rolling stock market for the first 15 years or so, and had an unresolved slanging match with the MMC as a result.
The fallout is still visible today (XC shortages etc).

We just don't know how generous the government would have been with BR had it continued after 1996.
Much of the spend in the next decade was intended as a "one time only" investment to grease the wheels of privatisation.
The aim was to make the railway stand on its own feet after 2 franchise rounds, and sink or swim as appropriate.
The government had also lost confidence in BR to spend money wisely - which Railtrack and Network Rail have since done precious little to reverse.
How can you deal with an organisation which consumes 3 times its budget or more to deliver less than specified (WCRM, GW electrification).

 

[Bantamzen]

This is the problem that I have. I'm happy to be convinced off my fence, I'm relatively neutral in the debate, the current system isn't working but the solutions that worked in the 1980s wouldn't necessarily work now (given how much more complicated everything has become than under BR).

However, whilst I can find examples of private companies behaving badly, it's hard to ignore the public sector problems too. Network Rail seem a bottomless pit of expenses (I hate it when people give the impression that passengers are paying higher and higher shares of rail revenue due to falling government support when Network Rail hide billions on their "credit card").

If the solution isn't Stagecoach/ First then I am far from convinced that the solution is the current DfT or the current Network Rail or the current Transport Secretary either. Nor am I convinced that giving control to cash strapped councils (affected by a decade of austerity) is going to mean increased spending on things.

I totally agree that simple reversal to a 1980's BR model would not work now. I for one would never call for a solution so simplistic and rose-tinted.

However public sector expenses are not the number one problem here. Don't get me wrong, they are a serious issue and something that needs addressing, but the real problem lies with the decision makers. The pubic sector is in crisis, it is increasingly run by ostriches who at the first sign of trouble either bury their heads or run away. I know from my own experience inside another, non-transport related area that any good decision makers are quickly wooed by the private sector, and those that rise to fill their positions are perfectly capable of making wild promises, but simply incapable of enabling them. Indeed such is the rot, this has now manifested itself not just in the pubic sector halls of power, but the political ones too. One of the early eliminated candidates for the leader of the Conservative party was a perfect example of how to fail in their job, but manage to run away & even get promoted. I'll leave you to guess who that is...

I'm afraid until there are wholesale, sweeping changes in the back rooms and corridors of the public sector, things can & will only get worse. We need experienced, knowledgeable people who understand the areas they are responsible for. Sadly the days of people working their way from bottom to top are long gone, experience means nothing, and talk is cheap. Welcome to UK plc circa 2019, where knowledge is worthless and BS and rhetoric priceless....

P.S. Sorry for the rant, but this I feel is at the heart of the problem with our rail infrastructure, as well as other things.

 

[Meerkat]

Part of the problem is the right wing press’ obsession with civil service wages - the nonsense about how many civil servants earn more then the PM etc
So we get inadequate perms and huge spend on consultants.

Maybe the answer is British Rail as an executive agency (so it can pay more) that does most of the DfT work including franchising and operator of last resort.

 

[Adsy125]

In theory I think that a public operator would be better, but I can’t understand how anyone here can support it in the current climate of austerity and cuts. Can you name a publicly funded and run service that has been able to thrive and improve the way that the railway has in the past 9 years? I also think the DFT would want to become even more involved than they are currently, and we all know how well that ends...