The railways should be brought into public ownership ASAP

[Busaholic]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fraud-by-avanti.238352/

How anyone without a vested interest can argue that railways aren't brought back into public ownership asap is completely beyond my comprehension.

 

[zwk500]

How anyone without a vested interest can argue that railways aren't brought back into public ownership asap is completely beyond my comprehension.

What exactly would this achieve? Public ownership with the current structure would be no different. It is also not necessary to nationalise the railways to change the current structures.

 

[JonathanH]

How anyone without a vested interest can argue that railways aren't brought back into public ownership asap is completely beyond my comprehension.

Of course, the LNR only tickets would potentially no longer exist in that instance meaning the OP would have had to buy a more expensive ticket.

In many ways the railway would be simpler if there weren't operator specific tickets for journeys such as Crewe to London but some passengers would be paying more or not travelling. There are certainly people who would like to see the end of operator specific tickets.

 

[Watershed]

How anyone without a vested interest can argue that railways aren't brought back into public ownership asap is completely beyond my comprehension.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, this isn't an issue that would be resolved merely by changing the ownership of the TOCs. You could face exactly the same issue when holding a Northern only ticket and having to use LNER, say on an ASLEF strike day - yet both companies are owned by the government.

 

[yorkie]

How anyone without a vested interest can argue that railways aren't brought back into public ownership asap is completely beyond my comprehension.

There is no need to do this; we could change the rules so that train companies have to behave sensibly, put passengers first and honour tickets bought in good faith!

Also, much of "the railways" are in public ownership already.

 

[Gloster]

How anyone without a vested interest can argue that railways aren't brought back into public ownership asap is completely beyond my comprehension.

But it is the people who have a vested interest that decide whether we argue about it or not. The Man with the Vested Interest: He say No.

 

[JamesT]

Of course, the LNR only tickets would potentially no longer exist in that instance meaning the OP would have had to buy a more expensive ticket.

In many ways the railway would be simpler if there weren't operator specific tickets for journeys such as Crewe to London but some passengers would be paying more or not travelling. There are certainly people who would like to see the end of operator specific tickets.

Even if there was only a single operator, I suspect there would still be a requirement to have some way of restricting which trains a ticket was valid on for revenue maximising purposes.
How did BR price things like this back in the day? Was there a cheaper ticket only valid on stopping services, or just the expensive ticket valid on all trains. (And presumably the slow ones running mostly empty whilst everyone who could buy a ticket crammed onto the intercity trains)

 

[yorkie]

BR had advance purchase fares, along with off peak fares and route restricted fares.

Furthermore there were products which were only valid on Network SouthEast trains in order to manage demand on the InterCity trains to/from London.

The situation described in the thread which sparked @Busaholic's post above can be resolved within a matter of days and without any change in the structure of the industry itself. It just needs some rule changes to put passengers first and prevent rogue train companies like Avanti behaving in an anti-passenger manner.

 

[zwk500]

Even if there was only a single operator, I suspect there would still be a requirement to have some way of restricting which trains a ticket was valid on for revenue maximising purposes.

Nationalisation doesn't go hand-in-hand with a single operator. BR had it's sectors, for instance.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The railways basically ARE under public ownership in all but name, just operated by the private sector under contract. Assuming the magic money tree suddenly bears a bountiful harvest the key aspect to "buy back" would in my opinion be the ROSCOs. That would put paid to the daft situation with the 379s and 350/2s and allow the former to replace the dire 360s on EMR Corby services. 2+2 seating, end gangways... what's not to like?

 

[JonathanH]

It would also be possible to remove operator specific walk up tickets while the railway operators remain run by private companies. Indeed, this was suggested in the Williams-Shapps plan for the railway.

Assuming the magic money tree suddenly bears a bountiful harvest the key aspect to "buy back" would in my opinion be the ROSCOs. That would put paid to the daft situation with the 379s and 350/2s and allow the former to replace the dire 360s on EMR Corby services. 2+2 seating, end gangways... what's not to like?

That isn't going to happen. A publicly owned railway would continue to lease trains because it is just about the only way they can realistically be financed in the current economic climate.

 

[yorkie]

It would also be possible to remove operator specific walk up tickets ...

There is no need to do this; the rules can be changed so that when disruption occurs, or the timetable changes after the ticket was purchased, all relevant TOCs act in a sensible manner which puts customers first.

This principle already exists at times of extreme disruption but it could apply at other times and it could become a rule which rogue companies such as Avanti cannot duck out of.

 

[zwk500]

The railways basically ARE under public ownership in all but name, just operated by the private sector under contract. Assuming the magic money tree suddenly bears a bountiful harvest the key aspect to "buy back" would in my opinion be the ROSCOs. That would put paid to the daft situation with the 379s and 350/2s and allow the former to replace the dire 360s on EMR Corby services. 2+2 seating, end gangways... what's not to like?

The interest rate on the debt required? Especially after the last week or so. It's billions of pounds to buy out the nationwide fleet.

 

[tbtc]

Network Rail (and TfL etc) own all of the infrastructure

The DfT take all of the decisions about which services to run/ cut/ prioritise and when to buy new rolling stock (e.g. the successful IET contract!)

Westminster are the ones trying to weaken the Unions (tacitly encouraging TOCs to fight for changes to working practices), in fact it seemed to be a large part of Grant Shapps’ job; you can’t argue that he wasn’t hands-on as Transport Secretary

The government take the decisions on improvements like electrification projects (just as the government take the decision to cancel them, e.g. MML electrification)

Fare rises are all agreed by the government

Who is doing the planning for and signing the cheques for big projects like HS2?

Political representatives decide on things like franchise commitments that are worded so carefully as to almost force the hand of bidders in a certain direction (much tighter now than old franchises used to require)

TOCs like Northern/LNER are “in-house”, with more to follow (Caledonian Sleeper etc)

If this isn’t sufficient “public ownership” for some people then it’s hard to see what difference nationalising a few M&S Simply Food branches is going to make

I could have bought the argument for the government running everything back in those millennium days when it felt like the industry was out of control with no leadership and threats to go backwards but we’ve had twenty years of increasing state involvement, the government seemingly unable to resist the urge to intervene…

…in fact what was the last significant commercial decision made without Government approval? Feels like we are going back all the way to First Group buying some HST power cars without getting Westminster to approve first

I’m not saying everything was perfect in 1999 or 2019 or that everything is terrible now in the GBR-era, but it feels to me like Government has its fingers in all of the pies right now and that some things are lousy, I admire the optimism of anyone who thinks that “public ownership” will improve the status quo, given that the government is pretty much taking any decision that needs to be taken… are you really looking at the DfT and thinking “yeah, they’re doing such a good job that I want them to have even more powers”?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That isn't going to happen. A publicly owned railway would continue to lease trains because it is just about the only way they can realistically be financed in the current economic climate.

I know, that's why I included the smiley face. To be honest it's the leasing of trains that causes so many issues from a funding perspective, and removes any chance of strategic planning with regard to cascades... then there's the insane charges for leasing life-expired Pacers a few years ago, long after those assets had been paid for. Renationalisation won't have anything like the positive impact that advocates hope for, without solving this issue.

 

[Watershed]

Network Rail (and TfL etc) own all of the infrastructure

The DfT take all of the decisions about which services to run/ cut/ prioritise and when to buy new rolling stock (e.g. the successful IET contract!)

Westminster are the ones trying to weaken the Unions (tacitly encouraging TOCs to fight for changes to working practices), in fact it seemed to be a large part of Grant Shapps’ job; you can’t argue that he wasn’t hands-on as Transport Secretary

The government take the decisions on improvements like electrification projects (just as the government take the decision to cancel them, e.g. MML electrification)

Fare rises are all agreed by the government

Who is doing the planning for and signing the cheques for big projects like HS2?

Political representatives decide on things like franchise commitments that are worded so carefully as to almost force the hand of bidders in a certain direction (much tighter now than old franchises used to require)

TOCs like Northern/LNER are “in-house”, with more to follow (Caledonian Sleeper etc)

If this isn’t sufficient “public ownership” for some people then it’s hard to see what difference nationalising a few M&S Simply Food branches is going to make

I could have bought the argument for the government running everything back in those millennium days when it felt like the industry was out of control with no leadership and threats to go backwards but we’ve had twenty years of increasing state involvement, the government seemingly unable to resist the urge to intervene…

…in fact what was the last significant commercial decision made without Government approval? Feels like we are going back all the way to First Group buying some HST power cars without getting Westminster to approve first

I’m not saying everything was perfect in 1999 or 2019 or that everything is terrible now in the GBR-era, but it feels to me like Government has its fingers in all of the pies right now and that some things are lousy, I admire the optimism of anyone who thinks that “public ownership” will improve the status quo, given that the government is pretty much taking any decision that needs to be taken… are you really looking at the DfT and thinking “yeah, they’re doing such a good job that I want them to have even more powers”?

As you say, I think it just goes to demonstrate that the ownership of individual parts of the system is not really a relevant factor in determining how effective it is at providing a good service to customers and the wider public.

What is, however, relevant is the structure of the industry and the extent to which the government is involved in day-to-day decisions. And on both counts the current industry setup is simply not fit for purpose. BR was in no way perfect, but the arms-length relationship it had from the government was much better than what we have today with the DfT micromanaging the TOCs, despite not having a clue what they're doing.

And although a fragmented structure can work, the correct incentives need to be in place to make it work. And that simply isn't the case at the moment; the railway is far too contractually and operationally focussed and seems to forget, at times, that it exists for the benefit of passengers - not the other way around!

 

[mike57]

I am not a fan of nationalisation, in fact in most cases I would be opposed to it, but bearing in mind the mess that the railways are in, I would support rail nationalisation.

The current DfT - TOC structure is not working, TPE are a good example where there is no real incentive to sort their problems out, hiding behind the 'DfT tell us what to do'. Avanti seem like another case, although I dont have personal experience of their 'service'

Coupled with (re)-nationalisation however there would need to be some major changes in order for nationalisation to deliver benefits.

Allow local managers some flexibility to tweak service provision to match and manage demand.
Ensure that all staff are onboard with the 'one organisation' message
Where there is disruption local managers make decisions based on passenger good, all the current rubbish where one TOC has to get its tickets accepted by another would be binned for example.
Work towards getting all the backroom systems into a standard format, and remove duplication both of systems and management
Re-organise and simplify fares.
Move towards a national set of T&Cs for employees, it wont be easy, but begin with all new starts being on the new terms, and then try and negotiate all the existing employees onto the new terms, but accept that it may not possible.

Try and move towards an 'arms length' organisation where subsidies are agreed at a national level, but the micro management is removed

Ensure that open access operators can continue to operate, they are one the few small success of the current system

And probably the most controversial, abandon delay repay. It encourages timetable padding, it soaks up more resources. Maybe go for a much simpler system where passengers on a delayed train are given a code or chit which entitles them to a free journey upto certain limits.

You would probably end up with management structure much like the pre 1948 system, with the country broken down into areas.

 

[Energy]

To be honest it's the leasing of trains that causes so many issues from a funding perspective

How? Arguably its easier when it isn't one lump payment. Leasing is become more common than ever with airlines and bus companies often leasing their fleets.

and removes any chance of strategic planning with regard to cascades...

WMR 170 centre cars to XC, WMR 170s to EMR, 172s to WMR, 350/4s to LNWR, TPE 170s to Chiltern, 322s to Greater Anglia, GA 170s to TfW to EMR, GA 156s to EMR to Northern. Cascades are still happening.

 

[Trainbike46]

How? Arguably its easier when it isn't one lump payment. Leasing is become more common than ever with airlines and bus companies often leasing their fleets.

Because, if you lease trains for their entire lifespan (40 years, more or less), it is more expensive than buying them outright. In addition, the current setup of the leasing system means there is no party (other than potentially the DfT), who is capable of managing/reducing the risk of trains being retired early, which then of course gets priced in by the ROSCOs, further increasing costs.

 

[Snow1964]

How anyone without a vested interest can argue that railways aren't brought back into public ownership asap is completely beyond my comprehension.

How does who is ultimate holding company or Government Department make any difference to day to day service

There might be a case for removing operator specific ticket types where multiple operators can be used between start station and journey end, but that is completely different.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

Because, if you lease trains for their entire lifespan (40 years, more or less), it is more expensive than buying them outright. In addition, the current setup of the leasing system means there is no party (other than potentially the DfT), who is capable of managing/reducing the risk of trains being retired early, which then of course gets priced in by the ROSCOs, further increasing costs.

That is more to do with lack of legislation where trains have to be made available for short term hire and a new lease for say minimum of 24 months when a lease finishes (unless say more than 30 years old where withdrawal is allowed).

Perhaps off-lease vehicles should be available at a capped rent by law, or a minimum percentage of the lease co fleet available for spot or short term hire at capped rates. There are ways the leasing market residual availability can be improved with legislation.

The comparison with airline leasing misses the point that there is a short term market for ‘white tails’, but no railway equivalent.

 

[Trainbike46]

That is more to do with lack of legislation where trains have to be made available for short term hire and a new lease for say minimum of 24 months when a lease finishes (unless say more than 30 years old where withdrawal is allowed).

Perhaps off-lease vehicles should be available at a capped rent by law, or a minimum percentage of the lease co fleet available for spot or short term hire at capped rates. There are ways the leasing market residual availability can be improved with legislation

I agree there are ways to improve the leasing system, though I'm not sure your suggestions would work. This is why I said "the current setup of the leasing system"

Sometimes leasing is clearly the right way to acquire stock, for example locomotives that may only be needed for a small number of years by a Passenger TOC, before then returning to a freight TOC. I don't believe it is always the right option, for example for stock that will be needed for a long time buying outright can be the better option, and I believe it would be advantageous if, for each new rolling stock order, the advantages and disadvantages of leasing and buying outright could be considered

 

[61653 HTAFC]

WMR 170 centre cars to XC, WMR 170s to EMR, 172s to WMR, 350/4s to LNWR, TPE 170s to Chiltern, 322s to Greater Anglia, GA 170s to TfW to EMR, GA 156s to EMR to Northern. Cascades are still happening.

Ah yes... that cascade didn't cause any problems at all, did it?

Obviously buying back all the rolling stock would be far too expensive, but without doing so any new national operator would be held to ransom by the unaccountable rolling stock lessors. Let's not forget that all of BR's rolling stock was gifted to them for nothing, which they then charged the TOCs (so in most cases the taxpayer via DfT subsidies) to use.

 

[Watershed]

Let's not forget that all of BR's rolling stock was gifted to them for nothing

It wasn't quite gifted to them for nothing, but NAO reports later showed that it had been grossly undervalued. If the leasing model had to be adopted, it could at least have been limited to new-build stock - rather than the government selling off fully-depreciated stock for very little and then paying back many times its value in lease payments.

 

[Energy]

Ah yes... that cascade didn't cause any problems at all, did it?

It still happened, even if it wasn't good for TPE.

Let's not forget that all of BR's rolling stock was gifted to them for nothing, which they then charged the TOCs (so in most cases the taxpayer via DfT subsidies) to use.

It was undervalued but not nothing, ROSCO also pay for exams, overhauls and major refurbishments. The pacers were cheap to lease, otherwise they'd have been replaced much sooner.

ROSCOs were also given some stock which would need replacing (e.g 4CEPs) though overall BR's rolling stock was sold of too cheap.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It still happened, even if it wasn't good for TPE.

It was undervalued but not nothing, ROSCO also pay for exams, overhauls and major refurbishments. The pacers were cheap to lease, otherwise they'd have been replaced much sooner.

ROSCOs were also given some stock which would need replacing (e.g 4CEPs) though overall BR's rolling stock was sold of too cheap.

I didn't say "cascades no longer happen", that would be absurd. I said there was no longer any strategic planning behind them, meaning you get things like TPE's 170s being "rug-pulled", and the 379s being stored.

Excuse me if I'm not overly sympathetic to the poor ROSCOs. There isn't a violin small enough.

 

[Thirteen]

If the railways were renationalised, how would it affect the likes of Merseyrail, the Elizabeth Line and London Overground?

 

[bramling]

How anyone without a vested interest can argue that railways aren't brought back into public ownership asap is completely beyond my comprehension.

In a perfect world I think I’d agree.

However the problem is how on earth we would reach that point. Indeed at the moment the biggest problem seems to be the DFT, and by extension the treasury.

I’m not even convinced that letting all the franchises go to DOR-type ownership would solve the issue.

Agree with the comments made on this thread about the leasing setup, but again what’s the alternative?

Even if we were able to flick a switch and return to a BR-type setup, I’m not sure it would work because of the lack of continuity.

Certainly the TOCs seemed better in the early days of privatisation (though how much of this was BR’s legacy?), but the infrastructure side certainly wasn’t.

As a final note, TFL is nationalised and that isn’t exactly a shining light either at the moment.

Unfortunately the damage seems to have been done, and the issue isn’t salient enough for any government to want to, or even be able to, do a proper repair job.

 

[Llanigraham]

I am not a fan of nationalisation, in fact in most cases I would be opposed to it, but bearing in mind the mess that the railways are in, I would support rail nationalisation.

The current DfT - TOC structure is not working, TPE are a good example where there is no real incentive to sort their problems out, hiding behind the 'DfT tell us what to do'. Avanti seem like another case, although I dont have personal experience of their 'service'

Coupled with (re)-nationalisation however there would need to be some major changes in order for nationalisation to deliver benefits.

Allow local managers some flexibility to tweak service provision to match and manage demand.
Ensure that all staff are onboard with the 'one organisation' message
Where there is disruption local managers make decisions based on passenger good, all the current rubbish where one TOC has to get its tickets accepted by another would be binned for example.
Work towards getting all the backroom systems into a standard format, and remove duplication both of systems and management
Re-organise and simplify fares.
Move towards a national set of T&Cs for employees, it wont be easy, but begin with all new starts being on the new terms, and then try and negotiate all the existing employees onto the new terms, but accept that it may not possible.

Try and move towards an 'arms length' organisation where subsidies are agreed at a national level, but the micro management is removed

Ensure that open access operators can continue to operate, they are one the few small success of the current system

And probably the most controversial, abandon delay repay. It encourages timetable padding, it soaks up more resources. Maybe go for a much simpler system where passengers on a delayed train are given a code or chit which entitles them to a free journey upto certain limits.

You would probably end up with management structure much like the pre 1948 system, with the country broken down into areas.

Just picking up on those two highlighted points.
Do you not see a problem with the differences in employment rules and conditions between those empoyed by the train operators and those empoyed by Network Rail?

 

[43096]

Obviously buying back all the rolling stock would be far too expensive, but without doing so any new national operator would be held to ransom by the unaccountable rolling stock lessors. Let's not forget that all of BR's rolling stock was gifted to them for nothing, which they then charged the TOCs (so in most cases the taxpayer via DfT subsidies) to use.

Evidently you either can’t (or don’t want to) understand how businesses are bought and sold. The buyer pays what they think it is worth, including the assets and liabilities and taking into account other risks and opportunities. To be clear: BR’s rolling stock was not gifted for nothing.

It is very easy to sit here with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time there were a lot of unknowns about rail privatisation - for a start the Labour opposition were quite vocal about re-nationalisation. That’s a pretty big risk when the Government was privatising against the clock to the next general election.

 

[mike57]

Just picking up on those two highlighted points.
Do you not see a problem with the differences in employment rules and conditions between those empoyed by the train operators and those empoyed by Network Rail?

When you say problem, do you mean 'there shouldnt be people in the same organisation doing similar jobs on totally different terms and conditions'? If so then I agree, but I suspect its been a problem since the birth of railways, as companies have been taken over or amalgamated. Same thing happened in 1948 no doubt.

All you can do is make sure going forward all new starts are on the 'new' terms, and try and negotiate away the old ones, but if it fails dont turn it into trench warfare just accept it for what it is and that each year the problem will be a bit smaller. If you re-nationalised today there would be people still on T&Cs from BR days. The alternative of a mass fire and rehire is just going to poison things even more, and to be honest I dont think would be the difference between nationalisation succeding or failing, its just one of many problems facing the industry. Go for the low hanging fruit first because very often once you have dealt with the easier to fix problems whats left often then dont seem as bad.