Nationalisation of the railways is already heading off track

[Mastermind88]

https://www.aol.com/articles/nationalisation-railways-already-heading-off-070000000.html

... Great British Railways risks enduring Whitehall micromanagement, high subsidy, ageing trains and political interference. A tale all too familiar when looking back at the old British Rail board begging ministers for more taxpayer support to run more loss-making trains...

Just posting an article i found that i thought some may find interesting to read.

Ive got no particular view either way

 

[Harpo]

Heading off of what track?

Nationalisation was always about saving money whereas many seemed to think a consignment of silver bullets was on its way.

Hendy’s recent parliamentary answer about SWR DMU replacement showed where things are going in stating that the Government is currently creating a national rolling stock and infrastructure strategy. Who needs GBR?

The Government is also developing a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, to be published later this year, which will set out Great British Railways’ future rolling stock requirements, including the approach to replacing older diesel trains.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-07-06/HL1695

 

[AlterEgo]

Nationalisation was always about saving money whereas many seemed to think a consignment of silver bullets was on its way.

Well, quite. Many of the same voices moaning about how things are getting worse now are the same voices who wanted a nationalised passenger railway in the first place. Now look what you've done. Please enjoy the railway dancing even closer to HM Treasury's tune.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nationalisation is proceeding at such a glacial pace that it's impossible to compare "before" and "after" TOC performances.
Once the current TOCs have been merged and reformed into whatever regional format the DfT decides, will be the time for a meaningful comparison.
Maybe the Anglia IBU will show the way, but how will that work on the much more complex WCML/ECML?

DfT has in the past produced rolling stock strategies, but they were largely meaningless in a franchise context where the TOCs were in charge.
The DfT itself procured the major cross-TOC fleets (eg IEP, Thameslink).
There's no sign yet of a coordinated procurement strategy, just each TOC's ideas on what it would like to do next, given the money.

I see the unions are after their next nationalisation target, the catering contracts.
As if the government wants to own a group of sandwich suppliers.

 

[akm]

Tony Lodge is a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies.

Enough said.

 

[nickswift99]

Nationalisation is proceeding at such a glacial pace that it's impossible to compare "before" and "after" TOC performances.
Once the current TOCs have been merged and reformed into whatever regional format the DfT decides, will be the time for a meaningful comparison.
Maybe the Anglia IBU will show the way, but how will that work on the much more complex WCML/ECML?

DfT has in the past produced rolling stock strategies, but they were largely meaningless in a franchise context where the TOCs were in charge.
The DfT itself procured the major cross-TOC fleets (eg IEP, Thameslink).
There's no sign yet of a coordinated procurement strategy, just each TOC's ideas on what it would like to do next, given the money.

I see the unions are after their next nationalisation target, the catering contracts.
As if the government wants to own a group of sandwich suppliers.

At least there might be the chance of XC actually getting stocked up at stations - I've lost count of the number of times there has been no catering available from Reading to Birmingham - plenty of hosts but no food.

I'd be happy if the microwaved bacon and tomato roll doesn't make a come back though - always used to smell fantastic but you just knew the bread would be hard, the tomato was 1000C and would burn your tongue as soon as you looked at it and the bacon too salty.

 

[SargeNpton]

Strange how old, bureaucratic, inefficient British Rail managed to privatise itself within the space of a couple of years.

How long has it been now since the Shapps-Williams report was published?

 

[Swedenorer]

When the railways were 'privatised it was to my mind inevitable that all that would happen was that the history up to 1947 would simply repeat itself in a compressed form so we had to reestablish the railway clearing house, witness a bit of mania then a period trying to get the safety issue sorted out followed by a bit of stability then what was essentially the grouping and now we're back to public ownership in just over 30 years. Would it have come about at all without the 1991 EU directive? I've always rather doubted that. When the ROSCOs emerged as an idea you just knew the whole thing was completely insane.

 

[TheSmiths82]

The article was written for the Telegraph by a person called Tony Lodge who works for the Centre of Policy studies. The CPS (not that one) was founded by Margaret Thatcher before she became PM and it wants a low tax small state government. It is as biased as a pro bus nationalisation article written by Andy Burnham .

 

[Djgr]

The article was written for the Telegraph by a person called Tony Lodge who works for the Centre of Policy studies. The CPS (not that one) was founded by Margaret Thatcher before she became PM and it wants a low tax small state government. It is as biased as a pro bus nationalisation article written by Andy Burnham .

The OP should be edited to make it clear that this article is essentially propaganda bias.

 

[Stossgebet]

The OP should be edited to make it clear that this article is essentially propaganda bias.

I understand that nearly anything and everything on this forum has some kind of "propaganda bias". I might even be accused of that myself... well, accused by people with a different bias of course.

 

[Farigiraf]

Well, quite. Many of the same voices moaning about how things are getting worse now are the same voices who wanted a nationalised passenger railway in the first place. Now look what you've done. Please enjoy the railway dancing even closer to HM Treasury's tune.

To be fair, I'm expecting most of the people suggesting nationalisation were doing so because of the perception that the privatised railway is a profit-first venture full of bureaucracy that's okay with overcrowding, high fares and zero growth, while in a nationalised model, a decent government will have the sense to invest and grow the rail network more. If you don't follow developments in the rail industry closely or read these forums a lot, then it's surprisingly difficult to find out that the DfT has been mostly pulling the strings and holding back funding for things this whole time. It's fairly clear that making this clear to travellers hasn't a been priority at all, since privatisation at least.
I think you'd struggle to find anyone that wants nationalisation and cost cutting.

Nationalisation (of anything really) is a really risky maneuver: if you're sure you know what you're doing, and you are committed to make things better than they were before, then it has the potential to work excellently. If you have zero motivation to increase passenger growth or make the railway more accessible to the entire population, then a private company with financial goals is still going to achieve more.

 

[Harpo]

If you have zero motivation to increase passenger growth or make the railway more accessible to the entire population,

……which is what we’ve had since the bean counters started micromanaging the railway during covid……

then a private company with financial goals is still going to achieve more.

…..but only if it is allowed to and largely they aren’t, hence why we have the clusterduck of XC, 175s, EMR, etc..

This ‘Nationalisation’ is just DfT cutting out the middle men.

 

[Sonic1234]

I think you'd struggle to find anyone that wants nationalisation and cost cutting.

Not in the public message, but potentially one reason for it. Nationalisation gives GBR near monopsony power over certain job roles.

 

[Farigiraf]

but only if it is allowed to and largely they aren’t

That's not to say that they'd achieve anywhere near optimal levels of service quality though. Other than a few outliers, such as Japan's privately owned JR companies (which aren't really possible, or sensible, in the UK/Europe), chasing profit and viewing passenger growth as numbers on a spreadsheet (rather than trying to achieve even growth throughout the network) are always going to be things that private TOCs do.

High-potential lines in need of serious capex - Poacher, West of England and North Wales Coast to name 3 - won't be profitable for a long time for a private TOC, these can only achieve their potential if the Treasury actually allows for investment. That's not to mention the large number of cities in need of expanded light rail and/or commuter rail services, to solve urban road congestion and help their economies. Comparing a zero-growth state monopoly railway with a free market privatised railway is, from a passenger perspective, particularly for those not living in profitable towns/cities, like comparing a moldy fruit with a slightly less moldy one.

 

[sprunt]

"Labour’s much-vaunted Great British Railways"

Hmmm.

 

[duffield]

Right wing privatisation supporter tells us how great privatisation was and how nationalisation is failing already. Ho hum.

GBR doesn't even exist properly yet...

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Original article is the usual. Not enough has happened to say anything about what track GBR etc is on!

All the debate here will probably be overtaken in the Autumn by HMG thinking about what it's pitch on rail is going to be when it goes to the country (Spring 2029?), ie. what resources it wants to put in place to secure some degree of improvement....

 

[Djgr]

I understand that nearly anything and everything on this forum has some kind of "propaganda bias". I might even be accused of that myself... well, accused by people with a different bias of course.

But it should still be made clear upfront that this report comes from a particular source.

 

[vuzzeho]

This is ridiculous. It's far too early to say if 'nationalisation has gone off the rails' because nationalisation hasn't really happened yet. GBR doesn't exist. The sweeping industry reforms that GBR is meant to bring haven't happened yet. They're not even public yet. GBR's level of control/micromanaging by the DfT hasn't been determined yet (though it is planned to not be micromanaged like things currently are. The level of nationalisation we're at is essentially just a new parent company, and some repainted trains. It's impossible to say whether it's been a success or a failure because it hasn't even happened properly yet. As for how long it's taken, the GBR from the William-Shapps Plan and the GBR we're going to get are essentially entirely different. They share a name and a brand and that's about it.

 

[Simon11]

Strange how old, bureaucratic, inefficient British Rail managed to privatise itself within the space of a couple of years.

How long has it been now since the Shapps-Williams report was published?

The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail was published on May 2021.

I was working on the design for GBR from around 2021/2 which is now over five years ago!

 

[35B]

This is ridiculous. It's far too early to say if 'nationalisation has gone off the rails' because nationalisation hasn't really happened yet. GBR doesn't exist. The sweeping industry reforms that GBR is meant to bring haven't happened yet. They're not even public yet. GBR's level of control/micromanaging by the DfT hasn't been determined yet (though it is planned to not be micromanaged like things currently are. The level of nationalisation we're at is essentially just a new parent company, and some repainted trains. It's impossible to say whether it's been a success or a failure because it hasn't even happened properly yet. As for how long it's taken, the GBR from the William-Shapps Plan and the GBR we're going to get are essentially entirely different. They share a name and a brand and that's about it.

That's a very big assumption, when all the evidence to date is that GBR is following the pattern of both Williams-Shapps and the previous 20 years, of very high government control and minimal delegation to those actually delivering the service

 

[vuzzeho]

That's a very big assumption, when all the evidence to date is that GBR is following the pattern of both Williams-Shapps and the previous 20 years, of very high government control and minimal delegation to those actually delivering the service

The William-Shapps plan was based on GBR being a body that would control fares and timetabling while running on a concession model with private companies running the trains. This is nothing like the GBR that is being planned now, which is an actually nationalised operator that controls fares and infrastructure while also running the trains themselves, and owning/managing the infrastructure. They're two separate ideas, linked by name only.

As for the previous 20 years, again, GBR doesn't exist yet so 'the evidence to date' is DFTO, which is an interim step, not a model or similar to what we can expect from GBR. A very large part of GBR - the rail reform part - is that it is to be an arms length body, with the link to central government/the DfT being through funding and DfT setting targets and expectations, and GBR achieving it whatever way they want. That's not how the railway is run today. The point is for GBR to handle things themselves which means ministers and the DfT don't micromanage the railway, but those delivering the service handle it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The original article is from the Daily Telegraph and the author is from the far-right think tank the Centre for Policy Studies.

I'm shocked - SHOCKED - that he thinks that privatisation is good and nationalisation is bad.

Please enjoy the railway dancing even closer to HM Treasury's tune.

If you have zero motivation to increase passenger growth or make the railway more accessible to the entire population, then a private company with financial goals is still going to achieve more.

The railway, collectively, hasn't generated a profit for well over 100 years. You have to look to before World War One to see a railway that actually made money for its ultimate owners.

So all this talk of private capital bringing untold riches to the railways is simply nonsense. Private companies made some money for themselves by operating trains but that profit came from the taxpayer, not from 'private sector innovation' or whatever other guff they try and come out with. There isn't a single TOC in the entire 30 year history of privatisation which has generated a net surplus to the taxpayer. Some may have provided a gross surplus but that surplus doesn't factor in the huge hidden subsidies though the track access charge system.

It's the same with Open Access, which is sold as some sort of proof of private sector brilliance. If they had to pay the actual costs of track access not one of them would make money.

If private operators, both franchised and open access, were actually paying the full cost of the infrastructure, Network Rail wouldn't be forty billion quid in debt. But they don't, so they are. I bet I could make money too if I didn't have to pay the proper cost of things.

So what about new trains? The actual capital risk for all the TOCs' train orders was and is covered by the taxpayer. The government underwrites the orders. The risk sits with the government, not the ROSCO. If it didn't, the ROSCO would just price the risk into the cost anyway, of course. But this is why the government get to decide how many new trains are ordered and where those new trains should be delivered. They're the ones paying for it.

Strange how old, bureaucratic, inefficient British Rail managed to privatise itself within the space of a couple of years.

Weird how smashing something to bits is quicker than glueing all the pieces back together again.

That's a very big assumption, when all the evidence to date is that GBR is following the pattern of both Williams-Shapps and the previous 20 years, of very high government control and minimal delegation to those actually delivering the service

The design of GBR keeps changing, under the last government it was going to be more of a concession model. GBR would set the fares and take the revenue risk, the concessionaires would get paid their costs and their margin.

The reasons for the increasing government control, especially since 2020, is largely (in my opinion) because those actually delivering the service weren't actually delivering the service. Even before Covid, two successive franchise holders on the ECML simply handed the keys back because they got their sums wrong and overbid. During and after Covid the franchise holders were tripping over each other in their rush to get the begging bowl out. But it would apparently be unfair to claim that they were privatising profit and nationalising risk.

So if government can't actually trust the operators to actually do what they say they will, of course the government will keep them on a much shorter leash.

Nationalisation of the TOCs may not actually change very much (and I never thought that it would) but it kicks out the bottom-feeders taking their 3% for doing sod all. That's 3% that can be spent on something else.

 

[Harpo]

The point is for GBR to handle things themselves which means ministers and the DfT don't micromanage the railway, but those delivering the service handle it.

I’d agree that’s what the point should be but there’s currently no evidence for it and considerable evidence to the contrary. Let’s see if Burnham’s desire to emasculate Westminster bears fruit at the DfT.

 

[vuzzeho]

I’d agree that’s what the point should be but there’s currently no evidence for it and considerable evidence to the contrary. Let’s see if Burnham’s desire to emasculate Westminster bears fruit at the DfT.

What evidence is there to the contrary?

 

[Harpo]

What evidence is there to the contrary?

See my post #2

 

[35B]

The original article is from the Daily Telegraph and the author is from the far-right think tank the Centre for Policy Studies.

The CPS is many things, but "far right" is a serious stretch.

I'm shocked - SHOCKED - that he thinks that privatisation is good and nationalisation is bad.

Indeed - this is definitely "dog bites man" rather than "man bites dog"

The reasons for the increasing government control, especially since 2020, is largely (in my opinion) because those actually delivering the service weren't actually delivering the service. Even before Covid, two successive franchise holders on the ECML simply handed the keys back because they got their sums wrong and overbid.

So if government can't actually trust the operators to actually do what they say they will, of course the government will keep them on a much shorter leash.

Nationalisation of the TOCs may not actually change very much (and I never thought that it would) but it kicks out the bottom-feeders taking their 3% for doing sod all. That's 3% that can be spent on something else.

The increased government control has been a feature since long before Covid, and is in a form that is removing all commercial flexibility from the system. The impact of it (see IEP, EMR) is to make delivery of a service harder and more expensive, and the quality of what is being delivered worse.

So what about new trains? The actual capital risk for all the TOCs' train orders was and is covered by the taxpayer. The government underwrites the orders. The risk sits with the government, not the ROSCO. If it didn't, the ROSCO would just price the risk into the cost anyway, of course. But this is why the government get to decide how many new trains are ordered and where those new trains should be delivered. They're the ones paying for it.

That's one interpretation. Another would be that the procurements determined by DfT have added cost (compare cl. 802 to cl. 800 costs on GWR), complexity (TPE franchise requirements, anyone?) and done little for quality (CAF anything). And many of those contracts don't even give government that level of control

During and after Covid the franchise holders were tripping over each other in their rush to get the begging bowl out. But it would apparently be unfair to claim that they were privatising profit and nationalising risk.

Risk that ultimately sat with the government because of the interaction between the franchising model and the policy decisions made by government at that time. Notably, the OAOs responded differently because that risk wasn't with government.

The issue with where DfT have taken the railways over the last 15-20 years is not a question of "private" vs. "public", but of approach to control. And stating that the failures of franchising demonstrate the case for nationalisation is an entirely circular argument given that the fundamental flaws in franchising largely lie with the way that DfT have let and controlled those franchised (including letting TOCs off the hook for their failures).

 

[Gareth1990]

The original article is from the Daily Telegraph and the author is from the far-right think tank the Centre for Policy Studies.

I'm shocked - SHOCKED - that he thinks that privatisation is good and nationalisation is bad.



The railway, collectively, hasn't generated a profit for well over 100 years. You have to look to before World War One to see a railway that actually made money for its ultimate owners.

So all this talk of private capital bringing untold riches to the railways is simply nonsense. Private companies made some money for themselves by operating trains but that profit came from the taxpayer, not from 'private sector innovation' or whatever other guff they try and come out with. There isn't a single TOC in the entire 30 year history of privatisation which has generated a net surplus to the taxpayer. Some may have provided a gross surplus but that surplus doesn't factor in the huge hidden subsidies though the track access charge system.

It's the same with Open Access, which is sold as some sort of proof of private sector brilliance. If they had to pay the actual costs of track access not one of them would make money.

If private operators, both franchised and open access, were actually paying the full cost of the infrastructure, Network Rail wouldn't be forty billion quid in debt. But they don't, so they are. I bet I could make money too if I didn't have to pay the proper cost of things.

So what about new trains? The actual capital risk for all the TOCs' train orders was and is covered by the taxpayer. The government underwrites the orders. The risk sits with the government, not the ROSCO. If it didn't, the ROSCO would just price the risk into the cost anyway, of course. But this is why the government get to decide how many new trains are ordered and where those new trains should be delivered. They're the ones paying for it.


Weird how smashing something to bits is quicker than glueing all the pieces back together again.


The design of GBR keeps changing, under the last government it was going to be more of a concession model. GBR would set the fares and take the revenue risk, the concessionaires would get paid their costs and their margin.

The reasons for the increasing government control, especially since 2020, is largely (in my opinion) because those actually delivering the service weren't actually delivering the service. Even before Covid, two successive franchise holders on the ECML simply handed the keys back because they got their sums wrong and overbid. During and after Covid the franchise holders were tripping over each other in their rush to get the begging bowl out. But it would apparently be unfair to claim that they were privatising profit and nationalising risk.

So if government can't actually trust the operators to actually do what they say they will, of course the government will keep them on a much shorter leash.

Nationalisation of the TOCs may not actually change very much (and I never thought that it would) but it kicks out the bottom-feeders taking their 3% for doing sod all. That's 3% that can be spent on something else.

The term ‘Far-Right’ is far too easily thrown around these days…

 

[mike57]

I see the last two years as a missed opportunity, a Labour goverment should have been pursuing the public ownership agenda with much more vigour.

In general I am not a fan of 'nationalisation', but in the case of the railways where half the money to run passenger service comes from the taxpayer trying to run it as a business doesn't make sense, and the previous model was broken and everyone could see that.

Instead the outgoing prime minister got bogged down by other stuff, and a series of own goals means he is replaced. This means that the new PM only now has 3 years to acheive anything.

For the railways a bold approach, get all the ToCs under public control quickly. Set up an arms length body to administer and run GBR. Give an annual settlement backed with a service requirement. Impliment a national rolling stock procurment strategy. Leave OAs for now as they are relatively small part of the overall network. This could have been acheived in 5 years.

I also think that a quick transistion to 'GBR' would have got support from those who may not be considered as traditional Labour supporters.