BBC News: Rail nationalisation not a silver bullet, says Labour

[perstreperous]

BR days? I remember them, and not in a good way.

I used to do a journey regularly from A to C via B where there was an A-B train, taking 25 minutes, every half hour and a B-C train, taking 4.5 hours, every half hour. There was a timetabled 10-minute change at B. The situation slowly deteriorated during the late 1980s and early 1990s to the point where not only the 10-minute change was unreliable, the 40-minute change became unreliable too. So there was eventually a 70-minute (or more) wait at B. (The B-C train, as you might have guessed, was InterCity and generally reliable. It was the A-B local train that was the problem).

In the 30 years since I have made many regular journeys, some even more complex, and have come across nothing remotely as unreliable over a sustained period.

 

[R Scandle]

She's looked at the utterly disastrous ScotRail pseudo-nationalized set-up which has proved just how bad things would become if it was renationalized right across the UK.

 

[778]

She's looked at the utterly disastrous ScotRail pseudo-nationalized set-up which has proved just how bad things would become if it was renationalized right across the UK.

Maybe Labour regret the whole idea of GBR and don't want to go throught with it?

 

[whoosh]

It's a micromanaged but conversely rudderless entity at present.
There isn't any leadership.
There's been a lot of vacuous "we'll be creating Great British Railways," and ,"we're setting up a GBR 'transition team'," but it hasn't really gone anywhere yet.

If they ever plod on and actually get on with it, maybe it could be successful. British Rail wasn't all marvellous, but Intercity, and Network South East, were mostly good, and even Regional Railways had moments of frequency improvement.
Privatisation was hailed as a success by Consevatives, but it's successful years coincided with an increase in passenger numbers - something that also happened to the nationalised Northern Irish Railway and the publically owned London Underground. Frustrations were voiced about how good British Rail could've been with the same subsidy - which was also planned out and committed to over fixed periods with the private TOCs in contrast to what had gone before.

Until there is proper leadership, it just looks like rearranging deckchairs.

 

[alanbur]

Does anybody know where short formations come in these figures? Or if short formations are included at all? I assume they are not included, or that category would be off the charts!

That's just outright cancellations and delays / skipped stations etc. Train formation changes come under a different category on https://www.journeycheck.com/northernrail/ I could start pulling in those as well I suppose...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==

Until there is proper leadership, it just looks like rearranging deckchairs.

I think that's the crux of it. From the outside up here in NorthernLand, every month or so Andy Burnham and the politicians from the surrounding areas meet with Northern and have a good old shout at them. Northern management trot out a load of risible excuses as to why nothing has changed and how none of it is their fault, say how sorry they are, leave the meeting and carry on exactly as before. The politicians leave the meeting and then earnestly tell the press how they've held Northern's feet to the fire, without actually saying what's going to be done to improve anything.

And round, and round, and round we go...

 

[lordbusiness]

The more and more I hear, both from within the industry and outside is leading me to worry that this whole GBR thing is going to be a complete disaster.

 

[LMS 4F]

I’m also too young to properly remember it, and never used it as an adult, but most people I know who can remember it have the same view as you: it was pretty dire.

The one positive thing I remember were the staff, some of whom really pulled out all the stops on several occasions.

 

[Deepgreen]

Absolutely.

I’m not at all sure re nationalisation will achieve anything, certainly not without extra funding. I’m not sure there’s any real consensus on what problem nationalisation is supposed to solve, or even what role the railway is supposed to fulfil, in the wider public consciousness.

Irrespective of that, the idea of renationalising the railway is something that for whatever reason seems to resonate with the public, hence the last government proposed it, and this government is continuing with it.

I doubt any more thought or analysis beyond “if we do this it’ll help us in the opinion polls” has gone into it. It’s popular with the unions, of course, but that’s just down to political dogma, as far as I can see.

One huge problem that I hope nationalisation will solve is the inefficient fragmentation of the national network, in terms of ticketing, information, rolling stock deployment, etc. I want to see a simplified fares structure, a national passenger information system that treats the network as just that, an end to TOC-based IR issues (which leads to so much complication in negotiations) and a proper, national rolling stock strategy that allows sensible deployment without the layers of ROSCOs adding huge costs.

Whether any of that materialises is, of course, moot. It is surely vital to remove the unnecessary layers of management and contracts which add so much cost and make the whole system so cumbersome. Sadly, though, such a vast amount of genuine railway management skill and experience has gone that we face a huge struggle to get things on an efficient even keel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==

The problem with nationalisation is that nobody cares about waste, despite the surplus of ineffective managers knocking around the system.

It's all political posturing and will achieve nothing - apart from wasting shedloads more of our money in achieving that nothing.

This nationalisation will have to have efficiency at its heart. Of course, the privatisation model tried to pretend that there was genuine competition and profit involved in the railways, when there isn't, so dismantling the artificial structure that tried to force that square peg into the round hole will be fundamental. It's going to take at least a generation to make real progress.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==

Maybe Labour regret the whole idea of GBR and don't want to go throught with it?

I was under the impression that GBR was a Tory (Johnson-era) concept to try to amend what even they admitted was a disastrous privatisation.

 

[JonathanH]

I want to see a simplified fares structure, a national passenger information system that treats the network as just that, an end to TOC-based IR issues (which leads to so much complication in negotiations) and a proper, national rolling stock strategy that allows sensible deployment without the layers of ROSCOs adding huge costs.

I'm sure loads of people want to see those things, but each will have their own view on what it really means. A simplified fare structure doesn't mean a cheaper one. What does a national passenger information system entail? I think it means one place to read about all disruption, but does that mean having to sift through lists of disruptions occurring on the other side of the country to find out what is happening locally. Limiting IR issues to one TOC has, until recently, generally meant that we don't have all out strikes. I'm sure the DfT has a spreadsheet with the list of all rolling stock, but it also has budget constraints which prevent immediate redeployment of surplus rolling stock.

 

[BlueLeanie]

If you want to cut costs on the passenger railway, you don't start by nationalising the operators, you start by compulsory purchasing and nationalising the rolling stock.

 

[Dr Day]

Sacrilege to say on here, but given it is going to be difficult to bring down staff wages or leasing costs, a cost-driven national railway may focus on deploying its expensive resources where they will generate the best return for the economy- probably on trunk routes - rather than keeping open heavy rail branch lines. I (sadly) foresee a bit of re-shaping as well as the loss of fares regulation, with more funding to devolved regional authorities leading to a realisation that rail isn’t particularly good value compared other transport options.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If you want to cut costs on the passenger railway, you don't start by nationalising the operators, you start by compulsory purchasing and nationalising the rolling stock.

The government doesn't want to capitalise rolling stock, and leasing has become the preferred model in many countries.
The manufacturers now largely maintain the rolling stock rather than the railway directly.
And there are 20+-year contracts in place for the main IC fleets (Hitachi/Agility).

 

[Goldfish62]

If you want to cut costs on the passenger railway, you don't start by nationalising the operators, you start by compulsory purchasing and nationalising the rolling stock.

Think of the £billions that would cost though. It would take decades if ever to realise any savings from that. No wonder not even Corbyn's Labour wanted to go down that route.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I cannot help but think that one fairly simple way of improving performance under GBR would be .........

Once you have got rid of this false train operator and network contractual interface would be to go back to simple means of getting trains moving by empowering competent staff to deal with simple failures - take a simple track circuit failure for example , which prevents a set of points working - at St Albans for example , so you cannot shunt via the centre turnback. MOM called out from Elstree or Luton , and S&T from somewhere equally difficult to get there in rush hour traffic - so slow lines really compromised.

Back in the day - the multi-functional station supervisor would go trackside , walk the area , and with agreement clip and scotch the points and get things moving again - albeit with some delay but better than today , - likewise bridge bash examination to give slow speed derogation till the experts arrive. This logic of course applied to LUL where they allow trained supervisors to carry out the points securing stuff as appropriate.

The emphasis is of course competence training and of course full PTS to enable this to take place.

 

[Bald Rick]

If you want to cut costs on the passenger railway, you don't start by nationalising the operators, you start by compulsory purchasing and nationalising the rolling stock.

Cutting costs by spending about £20bn?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==

I cannot help but think that one fairly simple way of improving performance under GBR would be .........

Once you have got rid of this false train operator and network contractual interface would be to go back to simple means of getting trains moving by empowering competent staff to deal with simple failures - take a simple track circuit failure for example , which prevents a set of points working - at St Albans for example , so you cannot shunt via the centre turnback. MOM called out from Elstree or Luton , and S&T from somewhere equally difficult to get there in rush hour traffic - so slow lines really compromised.

Back in the day - the multi-functional station supervisor would go trackside , walk the area , and with agreement clip and scotch the points and get things moving again - albeit with some delay but better than today , - likewise bridge bash examination to give slow speed derogation till the experts arrive. This logic of course applied to LUL where they allow trained supervisors to carry out the points securing stuff as appropriate.

The emphasis is of course competence training and of course full PTS to enable this to take place.

There will be some of that, Guv, but competence management and assessment is in a compleltely different place to BR days, as is getting access to the track. PTS is not enough. I know that LU have some ‘interesting times’ keeping on top of the competence requirements of their Martini men and women.

The big wins for performance will be having aligned targets and incentives across the industry, and a ground up communication and engagement process that supports it. The latter will help unpick some the absurdities in operating practice that put a handbrake on performance and the passenger experience.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Isn't the point that nationalisation does provide a small amount of additional funding, as less is (in theory) syphoned off to the private sector? I guess it may just be retained by the Treasury instead.

Nationalised British Rail received far less tax-payers' money than John Major's fragmented and pseudo-privatised railway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Nationalised British Rail received far less tax-payers' money than John Major's fragmented and pseudo-privatised railway.

Indeed. But it also carried far fewer passengers, on far fewer services on a smaller network, in far less comfort*, and with a far worse safety record. Imoroving all these thigns costs money, lots of it.

*comfort being an opinion, but in my opinion in general the trains are much more comfortable now than they were in, say, the 80s. Aircon, more space, doors you can open without having to lean out of a window and grab a handle covered in effluent, etc etc.

 

[tbwbear]

Indeed. But it also carried far fewer passengers, on far fewer services on a smaller network, in far less comfort*, and with a far worse safety record. Imoroving all these thigns costs money, lots of it.

*comfort being an opinion, but in my opinion in general the trains are much more comfortable now than they were in, say, the 80s. Aircon, more space, doors you can open without having to lean out of a window and grab a handle covered in effluent, etc etc.

You are correct in pointing out the importance of increased ridership. The comparison should certainly be between total Rail Passenger Miles and Subsidy. But I don't think John Major's origninal plan was to increase subsidy, much of that happened after the failure of Railtrack under Blair.

Let's imagine that Blair had answered the failure of Railtrack with a return to a fully nationalised model instead but with the sort of increased subsidies that were dished out in the early 2000s after NR was created.

In those circumstances, isnt it possible that the system would still have grown in much the same way as it did, the handles covered in effluent would have gone, the verdict on Railtrack's safety was already known by then anyway, the network would have coped with its share of the massive increase in commuting into London after 2000 etc.... If we had had GBR in 2002, what would have happened ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The privatisation process forced the government to commit to West Coast Route Modernisation, Thameslink 2000 and things like the LTS total route upgrade.
You can argue that most of that cost fell on the government in the end (after Railtrack's collapse), but it's arguable how much of that investment would have gone in under BR or a later GBR.
Each subsequent franchise then got 7-10 year investment (TOC+NR), with NR borrowing on the market.
BR was very poor at distributing its limited investment round the country, with its one-project-at-a-time funding model.
We have yet to see how GBR will manage its public sector funding with fewer "franchises", under likely Treasury constraints.
Private sector profits are a rounding error in the wider scheme of rail financing.

 

[43066]

Nationalised British Rail received far less tax-payers' money than John Major's fragmented and pseudo-privatised railway.

There is also a wider discussion to be had around funding levels, of course. Neither nationalised nor privatised systems will work well if they aren’t funded properly,
and there’s a large element of “you get what you pay for”.

 

[Halwynd]

*comfort being an opinion, but in my opinion in general the trains are much more comfortable now than they were in, say, the 80s. Aircon, more space, doors you can open without having to lean out of a window and grab a handle covered in effluent, etc etc.

The point about effluent on outside door handles is a good one, and it's only right that we no longer dump waste on the track.

On the other hand, we now have an equally unsatisfactory situation: more toilets located within passenger compartments surrounded by seating.

Flush the toilet, open the door and let all those lovely aerosol pathogens escape...

 

[geoffk]

How should GBR try to overcome things like the loss of expertise caused by closure of BR's graduate training scheme and the loss of apprenticeships, which gave trainees a system-wide understanding of how the railway works? We now have increased use of outsourcing and "silo working". With regard to rolling stock, hopefully Civil Servants won't be specifying the design of new trains and we won't have any more PFI schemes (Paying for Indefinitely).

 

[43066]

How should GBR try to overcome things like the loss of expertise caused by closure of BR's graduate training scheme and the loss of apprenticeships, which gave trainees a system-wide understanding of how the railway works? We now have increased use of outsourcing and "silo working". With regard to rolling stock, hopefully Civil Servants won't be specifying the design of new trains and we won't have any more PFI schemes (Paying for Indefinitely).

The TOCs and Network Rail have run similar graduate programmes for years, so there should still be people around with relevant knowledge, albeit on a more localised level.

It must be a worrying time for them, actually, as you can see there being more of them than strictly necessary for GBR, given duplication between operators.

 

[Stossgebet]

Indeed. But it also carried far fewer passengers, on far fewer services on a smaller network, in far less comfort*, and with a far worse safety record. Imoroving all these thigns costs money, lots of it.

*comfort being an opinion, but in my opinion in general the trains are much more comfortable now than they were in, say, the 80s. Aircon, more space, doors you can open without having to lean out of a window and grab a handle covered in effluent, etc etc.

I think you have merged two separate metrics there. Comfort. And user friendliness.

I will wholeheartedly agree that user friendliness of rolling stock has got better. But would disagree about comfort.

For me comfort comes down to getting a seat. Fitting in it (3+2 & 3-1+2 just don't offer comfort) and actually being comfortable in that seat and personal space for the duration of the journey. And as you mentioned, air con.

HIgh density seating isn't comfortable. It is functional. longer distance services really should be comfortable. And of course, all trains should be user friendly without exception.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2025 ==

The privatisation process forced the government to commit to West Coast Route Modernisation, Thameslink 2000 and things like the LTS total route upgrade.
You can argue that most of that cost fell on the government in the end (after Railtrack's collapse), but it's arguable how much of that investment would have gone in under BR or a later GBR.
Each subsequent franchise then got 7-10 year investment (TOC+NR), with NR borrowing on the market.
BR was very poor at distributing its limited investment round the country, with its one-project-at-a-time funding model.
We have yet to see how GBR will manage its public sector funding with fewer "franchises", under likely Treasury constraints.
Private sector profits are a rounding error in the wider scheme of rail financing.

Private sector profit might be a "rounding error". But the structural industry costs of enabling that private sector profit, is where the real money is lost.

 

[Harpo]

Private sector profit might be a "rounding error". But the structural industry costs of enabling that private sector profit, is where the real money is lost.

Exactly. The cost of creating and administering contractual relations in two different organisations with associated leakage of cash from the industry to lawyers etc.

 

[43096]

there’s a large element of “you get what you pay for”.

Generally that holds true. Except on the British railway, where it doesn’t matter what you pay, you still get a poor service.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think you have merged two separate metrics there. Comfort. And user friendliness.

I will wholeheartedly agree that user friendliness of rolling stock has got better. But would disagree about comfort.

For me comfort comes down to getting a seat. Fitting in it (3+2 & 3-1+2 just don't offer comfort) and actually being comfortable in that seat and personal space for the duration of the journey. And as you mentioned, air con.

HIgh density seating isn't comfortable. It is functional. longer distance services really should be comfortable. And of course, all trains should be user friendly without exception.

I must have been dreaming about all those close packed 3+2 seats with racks above them (that I invariably bashed my head on) with doors adjacent (that invariably required pushing past other passengers’ knees to get off/on) with no easy places to stand, sometimes no corridor let alone a gangway to other coaches, and seats that bounced like a bucking bronco. All decidedly uncomfortable.

 

[MikeWh]

I must have been dreaming about all those close packed 3+2 seats with racks above them (that I invariably bashed my head on) with doors adjacent (that invariably required pushing past other passengers’ knees to get off/on) with no easy places to stand, sometimes no corridor let alone a gangway to other coaches, and seats that bounced like a bucking bronco. All decidedly uncomfortable.

No, I clearly remember those too. Even worse were the single compatment 6+6 seats - cramped in the rush hour and a predators dream off-peak.

 

[Starmill]

So far, vast amounts of money have been spent on set-up costs for DfT Operator Limited. There have been no meaningful benefits at all. It's not cheaper to run than it otherwise would have been. It's not producing more than it otherwise would have been. Projects are slowed by the transition. Everything is slowed by the replacement of senior management.

The single improvement has been a sensible policy on ticket acceptance between the three operators who share common routes. However, this isn't really a benefit in that it is just showing up all the other operators as widely not complying with the PRO, while in certain cases only, these operators now will comply.

 

[Bald Rick]

So far, vast amounts of money have been spent on set-up costs for DfT Operator Limited.

How much has been spent, and how does that compare to the costs incurred in managing a franchise compettion and transferring a franchise from one firm to another?