Labour Drops Rail Renationalisation Policy then reinstates it.

[sor]

Indeed. And there were a lot of small sub-exchanges that might only cover a few hundred houses (anyone old enough to remember 5-digit local dialling?). So a move of just a mile or less could see you on a different exchange.

5 digit phone numbers are still a thing in some parts of the UK (at least two Cornish towns have them), although with so many using mobiles where you'd need to dial the area code anyway it's largely irrelevant

No, it actually was difficult. In the days of Strowger switches renumbering involved getting an engineer into the exchange physically moving wires from one part of the main distribution frame to another. It's not like today where it can be done with a couple of keystrokes.

I gather this was also true for some of the digital period too, since the network still used an inflexible routing scheme where it'd send everything in a certain range to a specific exchange & it would be non-trivial to route it towards the customer's new exchange. Only with the rise of the "intelligent network" were they able to make it a bit more... intelligent.

(interestingly there's still some ping-ponging in the mobile world if you've changed networks. I don't have voicemail on my phone and if I call it but don't answer, I get 3 different versions of the same message - one from my current network, one from the network that originally "owned" the number, and one from the network I'm calling from, a BT landline in this case. The three different voices and phrases make it clear)

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps if the telephone companies still had to pull a few wires out, it would make it more difficult for scammers to misappropriate existing telephone numbers and dialing codes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps if the telephone companies still had to pull a few wires out, it would make it more difficult for scammers to misappropriate existing telephone numbers and dialing codes.

That's not how caller ID works, it is just sent by the originator, just like the "from" line of an email.

 

[sor]

Perhaps if the telephone companies still had to pull a few wires out, it would make it more difficult for scammers to misappropriate existing telephone numbers and dialing codes.

unfortunately there's currently no validation in what goes into the caller ID. It is changing, in the US they have a system called "SHAKEN/STIR" (it's like DKIM if you know email stuff, in essence it forces the originating telco to say "yes this is a legitimate call from one of my customers and I vouch for the accuracy of the data") and it should mean the number that pops up on your phone actually is whoever is calling. Ofcom has told the UK telcos to start implementing it as well.

 

[Cloud Strife]

5 digit phone numbers are still a thing in some parts of the UK (at least two Cornish towns have them), although with so many using mobiles where you'd need to dial the area code anyway it's largely irrelevant

Still a thing in much of Scotland as well.

 

[HSTEd]

Which is not true .
In most EU countries railways are in public ownership .
Single market requires competition but does not ban state owned operators to run trains.

The fourth rail package now requires all public rail services supported by the state to be put up for open tender.

SNCF recently lost a local service tender.

This is not nationalisation in any meaningful sense, it's no more nationalised than the Operator of Last Resort means the UK railway is nationalised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fourth rail package now requires all public rail services supported by the state to be put up for open tender.

SNCF recently loss a local service tender

The Fourth Rail Package is a nasty piece of neoliberalism - a big sign of the EU going the wrong way and explanatory as to why Corbyn was a Leaver. There is no need to standardise this across the EU - it should simply be that if something IS tendered the tender is open to all qualifying EU companies.

As an aside, this approach is a huge threat to health systems too.

 

[brad465]

Yep, Starmer isn't an election winner. I still maintain they need Andy Burnham. Some don't like him, but if a Scouser can become Manchester Mayor (and a very popular one at that) he can definitely win a GE.

If the next election is called in 2024 then Burnham could easily complete his term as Mayor and re-stand for Parliament, something I suspect many are hoping he does, but of course he wouldn't become leader immediately, even though he is the bookies' favourite to be the next Labour leader. A Labour majority at the next election is a long shot in any case, but a coalition/alliance with the Lib Dems is not only possible (they have agreed to a non-aggression pact in target seats), but something some would welcome as a route to PR and better politics overall.

Is anyone else thinking that Labour are seeking to emulate 1997?

Partly this, but also trying to target centrist voters who voted Tory last time because they believe a hard-right Tory party was not as bad as a hard-left Labour party. I also think the current leadership seem to think that it's not possible to convince voters to change their mind on specific policies, so are adopting unorthodox positions, such as on not nationalising key industries.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the next election is called in 2024 then Burnham could easily complete his term as Mayor and re-stand for Parliament, something I suspect many are hoping he does, but of course he wouldn't become leader immediately, even though he is the bookies' favourite to be the next Labour leader. A Labour majority at the next election is a long shot in any case, but a coalition/alliance with the Lib Dems is not only possible (they have agreed to a non-aggression pact in target seats), but something some would welcome as a route to PR and better politics overall.

Even though I'm anti-Greens because they're anti-nuclear, I do see a "left wing alliance" as a good route to PR, yes. The left has far too little chance of winning because there are several parties rather than mostly just the Tories on the right. I'd rather see that as a "single issue" campaign, i.e. we'll implement PR on a specific model and then call a GE immediately, though.

 

[RT4038]

The Fourth Rail Package is a nasty piece of neoliberalism - a big sign of the EU going the wrong way and explanatory as to why Corbyn was a Leaver. There is no need to standardise this across the EU - it should simply be that if something IS tendered the tender is open to all qualifying EU companies.

As an aside, this approach is a huge threat to health systems too.

There is a problem with that approach - if one country tenders its services, the award of that tender should not be available to companies from countries that do not. Otherwise surely it is protectionism.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a problem with that approach - if one country tenders its services, the award of that tender should not be available to companies from countries that do not. Otherwise surely it is protectionism.

I see no reason why that needs to be the case, nor do I see that as a problem per-se. A simple choice - state owned operation, or tendering to any qualifying EU company.

Protectionism is often a good thing, by the way. I think we need to do it more in the UK.

 

[RT4038]

I see no reason why that needs to be the case, nor do I see that as a problem per-se. A simple choice - state owned operation, or tendering to any qualifying EU company.

Protectionism is often a good thing, by the way. I think we need to do it more in the UK.

So if all the countries engage in protectionism then .... ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if all the countries engage in protectionism then .... ?

There isn't a railway tendering market. So?

 

[yorksrob]

unfortunately there's currently no validation in what goes into the caller ID. It is changing, in the US they have a system called "SHAKEN/STIR" (it's like DKIM if you know email stuff, in essence it forces the originating telco to say "yes this is a legitimate call from one of my customers and I vouch for the accuracy of the data") and it should mean the number that pops up on your phone actually is whoever is calling. Ofcom has told the UK telcos to start implementing it as well.

That sounds good, and about time.

 

[Mag_seven]

A reminder that the topic of this thread is Labour Drops Rail Renationalisation Policy.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else then they are welcome to start a new thread.

thanks

 

[317 forever]

But mainly "yes".

Track, stations, & signalling owned by the state.

Timetables, investment decisions, policy, and a large chunk of fares set by civil servants at the DfT.

That just leaves the private sector operating a management contract as laid down by the DfT; all fares collected also going to the DfT.

But all the trains are still owned by private sector companies......

If the rolling stock companies were nationalised, it would avoid modern stock being mothballed or prematurely withdrawn.

This is potentially costing the taxpayers more money unnecessarily than the TOCs between them.

 

[najaB]

If the rolling stock companies were nationalised, it would avoid modern stock being mothballed or prematurely withdrawn.

Not that I'm in favour of the ROSCO model, but private industry has a profit motive in sweating every last possible penny out of their assets.

Do you have a specific example of rolling stock being withdrawn where there was both life left and a ready use.

 

[317 forever]

Not that I'm in favour of the ROSCO model, but private industry has a profit motive in sweating every last possible penny out of their assets.

Do you have a specific example of rolling stock being withdrawn where there was both life left and a ready use.

The 379s being mothballed. Also, had the Roscos not been in private hands, a cascade may well have been worked out so that Thameslink 700s did not lead to the early withdrawal of 365s. These if anything could have replaced 317s without the need to purchase quite so many 720s.

 

[Bevan Price]

In principle, I think that public ownership of vital services is desirable - but unfortunately that means - as normally constituted - they come too much under the malignant influence & control of the Civil Service & Treasury. Time and time again, parts of the senior civil service have demonstrated that they are clueless when it comes to organising industry effectively. Viewed from the outside, they often seem incapable of sensible long term planning, their main thought seems to be "how little can we spend".

Examples - in addition to an apparent dislike of rail electrification, one only needs to look at how "effectively" they enacted things like some defence contracts, or NHS IT systems, etc,

Doubtless there are many worthy people working within the civil service, but the top levels create the impression of a self-perpetuating system that lower levels fear to criticise in case it spoils their career prospects. "We have always done things this way - why change.?". And in the early days of rail nationalisation, who did they choose as leaders - it did not seem to be people with expert knowledge of railways - the first two heads of BTC were a retired general, and a retired senior civil servant.

 

[najaB]

The 379s being mothballed.

What was the ready market for them?

 

[tomuk]

The 379s being mothballed. Also, had the Roscos not been in private hands, a cascade may well have been worked out so that Thameslink 700s did not lead to the early withdrawal of 365s. These if anything could have replaced 317s without the need to purchase quite so many 720s.

The 700s were bought by the government because they thought they could do better than the ROSCOs. The government also owned the 365s as they were bought by BR on a Hire Purchase style lease.
The 365s were arguably redundant due to the over purchase of 387s instigated by the government to keep Derby going after they lost the Thameslink contract. Not sure how the ROSCOs can be blamed for the loss of the 365s.

 

[Mikey C]

The 365s were arguably redundant due to the over purchase of 387s instigated by the government to keep Derby going after they lost the Thameslink contract. Not sure how the ROSCOs can be blamed for the loss of the 365s.

Or indeed from the inadequate electrification programme leaving a surplus of EMUs and shortage of DMUs, which is either the fault of the government or Network Rail for its cost overruns, but again not the ROSCOs.

 

[317 forever]

The 700s were bought by the government because they thought they could do better than the ROSCOs. The government also owned the 365s as they were bought by BR on a Hire Purchase style lease.
The 365s were arguably redundant due to the over purchase of 387s instigated by the government to keep Derby going after they lost the Thameslink contract. Not sure how the ROSCOs can be blamed for the loss of the 365s.

Much as I liked 317s, the 365s could have been retained as replacements for the 317s. This would have saved paying to purchase extra 720s.

Current leasing arrangements almost certainly ruled out such a scheme. It would have been possible under state ownership though.

 

[tomuk]

Much as I liked 317s, the 365s could have been retained as replacements for the 317s. This would have saved paying to purchase extra 720s.

Current leasing arrangements almost certainly ruled out such a scheme. It would have been possible under state ownership though.

A large part of the reason the 365s were scrapped is because they were state owned. If they were under a normal leasing arrangement its a lot more likely they would have been picked up by another TOC.

A lot of stock has been scrapped because of 1)The low rate of financing. 2)economies of having a standardised fleet. 3)franchise competitions favouring quality i.e. new stock.

 

[Herefordian]

A large part of the reason the 365s were scrapped is because they were state owned. If they were under a normal leasing arrangement its a lot more likely they would have been picked up by another TOC.

A lot of stock has been scrapped because of 1)The low rate of financing. 2)economies of having a standardised fleet. 3)franchise competitions favouring quality i.e. new stock.

Didn't Eversholt buy back the 365s before they were scrapped?

 

[tomuk]

Didn't Eversholt buy back the 365s before they were scrapped?

Yes I believe Eversholt did buy them back after they had been in storage for quite a while, probably with the same money the government probably paid them to store them. Just the government disposing of a worthless asset.

 

[CapitalStar378]

So Labour will renationalise if/when they win power after all. Along with this the Tories have for now, quietly shelved GBR legislation.

it seems unlikely that any of the OLR run contracts will be awarded in the meantime, or that anyone would bother bidding.

So are the railways in limbo until after the next GE?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So Labour will renationalise if/when they win power after all. Along with this the Tories have for now, quietly shelved GBR legislation.

it seems unlikely that any of the OLR run contracts will be awarded in the meantime, or that anyone would bother bidding.

So are the railways in limbo until after the next GE?

I wonder how the rail unions will view a two-year situation stated in your last sentence above?

 

[pdeaves]

the Tories have for now, quietly shelved GBR legislation.

This caught my eye; is there any source or further information, please? (Note: not disbelieving you!)

 

[eldomtom2]

This caught my eye; is there any source or further information, please? (Note: not disbelieving you!)

The Guardian ran this article yesterday:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...try-at-lowest-ebb-since-the-days-of-railtrack