Nationalisation of the railways is already heading off track

[vuzzeho]

See my post #2

I mean, I'd argue a national rolling stock strategy is a good thing, but yes, while it is made by the government, that is because GBR doesn't exist, and because the government is paying for it. He who pays the piper and all that. That isn't evidence that GBR will be micromanaged by the state.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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

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

The Centre for Policy Studies is a very long way to the right, along with their neighbours in Tufton Street they are right in Heritage Foundation territory (and share the same funding).

The fact that people try and portray their position as centrist or even centre-right beggars belief. They’re not.

 

[Harpo]

I mean, I'd argue a national rolling stock strategy is a good thing, but yes, while it is made by the government, that is because GBR doesn't exist, and because the government is paying for it. He who pays the piper and all that. That isn't evidence that GBR will be micromanaged by the state.

It’s irrefutable evidence that DfT is not relinquishing ‘controlling mind’ status anytime soon and one hell of a straitjacket if it’s mandated by DfT.

 

[brad465]

Whatever model is best, it only works best if done properly. Nationalisation needs huge public investment to work properly, which didn't happen under BR and isn't happening now, but has happened in other countries where nationalisation is prevalent. Privatisation only works if there is proper competition, which, with a few exceptions, did not exist post-1994.

 

[35B]

The Centre for Policy Studies is a very long way to the right, along with their neighbours in Tufton Street they are right in Heritage Foundation territory (and share the same funding).

The fact that people try and portray their position as centrist or even centre-right beggars belief. They’re not.

I'm saying nothing about their Tufton Street neighbours, and disagree with guilt by association. They certainly aren't centrist, but are within the range of conservative thought

 

[KHCT]

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

Far-right? Oh dear; are you Keir Starmer?

Of course The Telegraph has a political bias, as does The Guardian. However, left wing views seem to be widely accepted on this form while any view from the right is certainly not.

As for the truth; what matters is how the railway is run, not who runs it. To that end it's far too early to assess the success or otherwise of GBR. What doesn't help is the government churning out messaging about a "broken system" and those pesky shareholders, which creates the impression that public ownership is a solution in itself. Labour have, in my opinion, overplayed their hand here which will result in some seriously disappointed people when very little actually changes. After all, cash is needed to produce significant results and even the government have said there isn't any more for the railways.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Far-right? Oh dear; are you Keir Starmer?

Of course The Telegraph has a political bias

The Centre for Policy Studies is, in my opinion, a far-right think tank funded by the same people who fund all the other far-right think tanks, both here and in the US. They're no different to the Heritage Foundation: they're funded by the same people for the same purpose.

As for the Daily Telegraph, their new majority shareholder Mathias Döpfner has some interesting views about the world.

Döpfner sums up his foreign policy views as “Free west, **** the intolerant Muslims and all the other riff-raff.”

‘I’m all for climate change’: Axel Springer CEO faces heat over leaked messages

Mathias Döpfner’s reported comments on climate, Muslims and east Germany – and his apparent political manoeuvring – create shock waves

www.theguardian.com

Anyway, this is distracting from the actual thread so I'll leave it there.

 

[Djgr]

Far-right? Oh dear; are you Keir Starmer?

Of course The Telegraph has a political bias, as does The Guardian. However, left wing views seem to be widely accepted on this form while any view from the right is certainly not.

Not true at all. I see Thatcher's children everywhere on the forums.

 

[Gareth1990]

The Centre for Policy Studies is a very long way to the right, along with their neighbours in Tufton Street they are right in Heritage Foundation territory (and share the same funding).

The fact that people try and portray their position as centrist or even centre-right beggars belief. They’re not.

Never said they were centre or centre right, I just think we need to be careful with terminology…

 

[Tetchytyke]

he 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).

The fundamental problem with the railways is the accountability gap which was introduced by privatisation.

Politicians claim they can't be held accountable for the failures of private companies. Private companies say they can't be held accountable for the failures of politicians. Everybody says it is someone else's fault and so nobody is ever held accountable.

My opinion is very much that that accountability gap is a design feature of privatisation, not a design flaw. But whether it is a feature or a bug doesn't really matter very much, that accountability gap is there and it needs to be removed.

As for control, in the early days of privatisation the government were content to write the cheques and let the operators operate. And all that happened was that the private companies took the piss.

Railtrack sums up all the issues perfectly. They killed four people at Hatfield and it cost them £500m. They got a bailout from the government to cover those losses and the first thing they did was use £150m of it to pay dividends to shareholders. Network Rail came into being and the government had to foot the bill for all the things Railtrack should have done but didn't. The independent regulator Tom Winsor imposed £22bn of costs over five years on the government and the government had no say in the matter.

And then you had the TOCs: Connex(x2!), Chiltern using public money to underwrite their loss-making OAO, and even more recently we had Go-Ahead "accidentally" retain £51m of taxpayer money that it had no entitlement to. Consequences, none (or none that matter, anyway).

In the face of all of that, of course the response was to keep the operators on a tighter leash. And to give Winsor's replacement as regulator a lot fewer teeth.

Although I am sceptical about just how bad the DfT actually are: it certainly suits the private operators to blame DfT for everything. We've seen that with XC, who claimed that DfT made them cut their rolling stock. Perhaps that's true but Arriva barely used their HSTs even when they could use them freely, as long ago as 2015 the HST sets spent most of their time sitting unused at Craigentinny.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to privatisation where it can take place in a genuinely competitive marketplace. The competition provides some accountability to the private sector. I'd never be demanding that British Airways or National Express be nationalised again.

The problem is that very few utilities exist in that sort of sector. It's the same issue in the water sector- no accountability, a deliberately weak regulator, crooked ownership- with the same effect. What can the consumer do? They can't refuse to pay.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2026 ==

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).

I was calling it the Insanely Expensive Train even before the first IETs were built. I'd completely agree about the procurement being a shambles. Even the National Audit Office thought so. Hitachi's price gouging became apparent when the Cameron government threatened to cancel the scheme: suddenly they could offer big discounts after all.

But you'd expect later IET derivatives to be cheaper. The R&D costs for the train would be amortised over the number of orders. Later orders won't have those costs included and so the price should come down. I'd be more worried if it hadn't.

The shambles at TPE was largely First's fault: who could have predicted that introducing three different types of train at the same time, together with an over-ambitious timetable and a rostering policy that didn't keep drivers and guards together, would be a disaster?

I don't understand the CAF hate but show me a train manufacturer which hasn't had issues at one time or another. Look at the issues Scotrail had with Siemens. At least the agreements these days are lease-and-maintain, which pushes some of the financial risk and financial accountability back on to the manufacturers.

 

[Gareth1990]

Japan has managed to operate a privatised rail network successfully for decades, why exactly couldn’t we?

 

[mike57]

I'm not dogmatically opposed to privatisation where it can take place in a genuinely competitive marketplace.

And I believe there is public support for nationalisation of things like the railways where a genuinely competetive marketplace cannot be acheived. This support I suspect extends beyond the traditional party lines. I would probably describe myself as 'Conservative' in general outlook, but I always thought the privatisation of the railways was flawed, both in the model chosen, too fragmented, and in keeping accountability. I also think the HS2 issues have meant politicians are avoiding the whole topic of the railways because they see it as a 'banana skin'.

Would something along the lines of the 'big 4' been more effective, with all operations under one company banner. Each company given a share of subsidy money and told to get on with it. Failure to deliver agreed service would then result in financial penalties. The buck for failure cannot then be passed around.

Going back to pre-covid far too many ToCs were let off the hook with regard to poor performance.

 

[Coleridge]

Labour have, in my opinion, overplayed their hand here which will result in some seriously disappointed people when very little actually changes.

I agree. I don't know whether ministers have lost interest in rail nationalisation, or whether they've belatedly realised how very, very difficult (read impossible) it would be to implement the improvements and simplifications that they promised would be coming our way courtesy of Great British* Railways.

I have no doubt whatsoever that five years from now we'll have the same uncomfortable, overcrowded trains, the same labyrinthine fares system, the same delays and the same excuses, the only difference being that everything will be branded in garish colours.

*except for most of Scotland and Wales

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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!

And the Simpler Fares scheme, which began with the LNER flex advances and abolished off-peak fares on certain flows, began under the Tories before Labour gained power.
The extensions to the scope of the trial happened under Labour.

 

[35B]

The fundamental problem with the railways is the accountability gap which was introduced by privatisation.

Politicians claim they can't be held accountable for the failures of private companies. Private companies say they can't be held accountable for the failures of politicians. Everybody says it is someone else's fault and so nobody is ever held accountable.

My opinion is very much that that accountability gap is a design feature of privatisation, not a design flaw. But whether it is a feature or a bug doesn't really matter very much, that accountability gap is there and it needs to be removed.

The trouble with this argument is that is a) also true of arms length organisations and b) the direction of policy has been to turn "arms length" into "puppet to do what parent insists upon". There is so far absolutely no sign of that accountability gap being removed and, in the absence of such removal, the structural change to bring GBR into being is entirely useless. I'd also go further, and suggest that the reason we see an accountability gap is that politicians have allowed DfT to "own" responsibility for the network, and so deflected from the operators.

The shambles at TPE was largely First's fault: who could have predicted that introducing three different types of train at the same time, together with an over-ambitious timetable and a rostering policy that didn't keep drivers and guards together, would be a disaster?

That is to blame the symptom rather than the cause - it omits a franchise spec (and assessment process) that required those multiple fleets (there being strong suggestions that the spec was written to try to create a home for the 442s). As for the rostering policy - that was what was bid, and DfT made it hard for TPE to move away from it. So the accountability gap works, and has TPE blamed for decisions that DfT were at the very least jointly accountable for.

I don't understand the CAF hate but show me a train manufacturer which hasn't had issues at one time or another. Look at the issues Scotrail had with Siemens. At least the agreements these days are lease-and-maintain, which pushes some of the financial risk and financial accountability back on to the manufacturers.

Of course all manufacturers have problems. The speciality of CAF was in their adamant refusal to engage with the problems, hence the nickname.

I was calling it the Insanely Expensive Train even before the first IETs were built. I'd completely agree about the procurement being a shambles. Even the National Audit Office thought so. Hitachi's price gouging became apparent when the Cameron government threatened to cancel the scheme: suddenly they could offer big discounts after all.

But you'd expect later IET derivatives to be cheaper. The R&D costs for the train would be amortised over the number of orders. Later orders won't have those costs included and so the price should come down. I'd be more worried if it hadn't.

At which point, you'd expect DfT to be engaging - instead of which they were deeply embarrassed by the better deals struck later on. As for lease and maintain, the principle is great. The problem is when the contract is lifelong, there's no effective termination option, and it enshrines a supplier monopoly. The result can be seen in the poor availability on GWR and LNER, combined with serious inflexibility in operation.

The common theme here is excessive government control, extending from matters of policy to direct operational decisions. Taking just one - TPE - a sensible DfT would have told First Group that they didn't care about the cost impact, but expected the timetable to be delivered, rather than stepping in and exercising back seat control.

That is where I fear GBR, because it will give us the toxic combination of direction from Whitehall overruling local management teams, without there being the governmental accountability for what is "delivered". At least BR had a level of autonomy.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Japan has managed to operate a privatised rail network successfully for decades, why exactly couldn’t we?

Since it was privatised in 1987 the Hokkaido company has closed half its network. Imagine if that happened here...

At least they privatised sensibly in Japan, keeping vertical integration. That said, corner-cutting was a contributory factor in a 2005 derailment that killed over 100 people.

Would something along the lines of the 'big 4' been more effective, with all operations under one company banner.

I think going back to the old 'big four' would have been a much more effective way of privatising things, definitely. We see that to an extent with Chiltern, the long-term franchise award and the self-contained nature of their network giving them a lot more freedom to improve. Similar with c2c.

Vertical integration would have removed many of the Railtrack-era issues, the cost and consequences of which we are all still paying for now.

But I don't think that fit in with the ideology behind our privatisation, lots of private companies all competing for 'slots' provided by one privatised infrastructure owner, and the taxpayer only having to pay for the stuff nobody else wanted. They applied the same framework they used for the telephone and electricity and gas privatisations.

 

[Gareth1990]

Since it was privatised in 1987 the Hokkaido company has closed half its network. Imagine if that happened here...

At least they privatised sensibly in Japan, keeping vertical integration. That said, corner-cutting was a contributory factor in a 2005 derailment that killed over 100 people.


I think going back to the old 'big four' would have been a much more effective way of privatising things, definitely. We see that to an extent with Chiltern, the long-term franchise award and the self-contained nature of their network giving them a lot more freedom to improve. Similar with c2c.

Vertical integration would have removed many of the Railtrack-era issues, the cost and consequences of which we are all still paying for now.

But I don't think that fit in with the ideology behind our privatisation, lots of private companies all competing for 'slots' provided by one privatised infrastructure owner, and the taxpayer only having to pay for the stuff nobody else wanted. They applied the same framework they used for the telephone and electricity and gas privatisations.

It did happen here in the 60’s under a nationalised system, which is arguably far worse

 

[Krokodil]

Japan has managed to operate a privatised rail network successfully for decades, why exactly couldn’t we?

The Japanese railway companies are largely real estate developers who happen to use trains to feed customers into their tenants.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That is to blame the symptom rather than the cause - it omits a franchise spec (and assessment process) that required those multiple fleets (there being strong suggestions that the spec was written to try to create a home for the 442s). As for the rostering policy - that was what was bid, and DfT made it hard for TPE to move away from it. So the accountability gap works, and has TPE blamed for decisions that DfT were at the very least jointly accountable for.

I don't think you can argue that the operators should be allowed to operate as they see fit and then blame the DfT when that operator makes a complete horlicks of it all. The rostering wasn't something in the franchise bid at all, the rostering was First Group's way of trying to implement what they'd agreed whilst trying to save some money.

Such a rostering policy is incredibly efficient on paper. If only trains ran on paper we wouldn't have had so many TPE trains abandoned at Leeds or Manchester Victoria with a driver but no guard, or a guard but no driver, because the managers didn't even have the common sense to roster both on the same pattern.

The same thing happened with LNR/WMT and their convoluted inter-working.

"DfT made us do it" is an excuse trotted out by every failing rail manager. It's often complete nonsense.

Taking just one - TPE - a sensible DfT would have told First Group that they didn't care about the cost impact, but expected the timetable to be delivered

And First would have told them where to shove it, just as National Express and Stagecoach did before them. You can't make them stick around if they're losing money.

Which brings us back to the issue that DfT can't easily enforce financial obligations against wider group companies.

The trouble with this argument is that is a) also true of arms length organisations and b) the direction of policy has been to turn "arms length" into "puppet to do what parent insists upon".

ALMOs and QUANGOs were also brought in precisely to implement an accountability gap. The local council can't possibly interfere with the housing association, they're independent.

I don't have an issue with the second part of your post though: if the parent is telling them what to do then the parent becomes responsible for the outcome.

That is where I fear GBR, because it will give us the toxic combination of direction from Whitehall overruling local management teams, without there being the governmental accountability for what is "delivered". At least BR had a level of autonomy.

I think there is more autonomy already than you give credit for.

Others have mentioned the LNER fares trial. That fares trial wasn't dreamed up by DfT, it was dreamed up by LNER's local management. It was merely a continuation of what Stagecoach had already attempted to do on the ECML and, of course, LNER's local management is the same as it was under Stagecoach.

DfT let them get on with it. Maybe DfT should have overruled LNER's local management. But would that have been back-seat driving?

I don't know if GBR will completely close the accountability gap, but it will help. Politicians can't so easily claim it has nothing to do with them if they've made a big song and dance about bringing back control.

 

[Krokodil]

Ultimately BR had a similar accountability gap. But at least it wasn't costing taxpayers and farepayers alike an absolute fortune, so people didn't mind as much as they do now.

 

[mike57]

Maybe this needs to be rolled back to basics: What are we trying achieve?

My own guess would be to provide an integrated public service nationally at a service level based on current provision at minimum cost to the taxpayer, whilst maintaining the network and infrastructure to ensure that economies made now are not going affect things in the future, in other words a broadly stable network.

So then how do you deal with investment in improvements which will probably still be paid for by the tax payer and need to deliver value for money. Thats where it gets more difficult as one persons idea of value for money is probably different to another. Personally I would create an improvement pot of money and then get projects/companies to bid for it.

Over the last nearly 200 years we have tried lots of different approachs, from the startups, through the periods of Victorian Railway Mania, Consolidation, Grouping, Nationalisation, Privatisation, all have their weaknesses, so do you end up with the 'least worst solution'?

 

[Watershed]

Japan has managed to operate a privatised rail network successfully for decades, why exactly couldn’t we?

Japan has a higher proportion of its population living in cities (70% vs 54% in the UK) so there is inherently more demand for train travel. You also can't buy a car unless you can prove you have a dedicated parking space for it, which means that many people are forced to use public transport regardless.

Their government has been far more willing to invest in infrastructure (e.g. Shinkansen lines) which the now-privatised JR companies have benefitted from. Their debt to GDP ratio is much higher than ours though, partly as a result of this kind of investment.

More fundamentally, in Japan and more generally in Asia, it's common to have large conglomerates which benefits from having multiple businesses under one 'roof'. For example all the JR businesses have some degree of property/development interests, e.g. some own shopping centres that they have built over their stations or on former railway land. Many have station hotels.

So really the railway serves as the enabler to unlocking the value from that land and hence it is in the company's interest to provide a good and affordable service. This vertical integration solves the problem we have seen with HS2 and the Elizabeth line, where the government funds the infrastructure but private developers or landowners benefit from the land value uplift, paying back only a fraction of this profit as s106 contributions or similar.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2026 ==

Since it was privatised in 1987

It is structured as a private company but in reality it is no more private than Network Rail or any of the European state operators. JR was split up into 6 regional passenger operators plus JR Freight; of those JR Shikoku and Hokkaido, as well the latter, remain in government ownership.

the Hokkaido company has closed half its network.

Much the same would have happened here if our government were as unwilling to subsidise unprofitable services. See the Serpell report...

Frequent earthquakes, landslides, and flooding have not exactly helped. Many lines which might have limped on, e.g. to Samani, have been finished off by that.

There is also the population decline which has been particularly acute in Hokkaido - it's now 13% less than in 1987, whereas Japan's overall population has stayed the same.

At least they privatised sensibly in Japan, keeping vertical integration.

Unfortunately they are now heading in the opposite direction, with the favoured approach being for local governments to directly take ownership of the infrastructure or to subsidise a spun-out infrastructure company which is jointly owned by the government and operator.

Even the Hokkaido Shinkansen extension is being built that way because of the uncertainty over its profitability.

I think going back to the old 'big four' would have been a much more effective way of privatising things, definitely. We see that to an extent with Chiltern, the long-term franchise award and the self-contained nature of their network giving them a lot more freedom to improve. Similar with c2c.

Vertical integration would have removed many of the Railtrack-era issues, the cost and consequences of which we are all still paying for now.

Yes and no; water and electricity distribution were privatised that way and it has created just as much of an accountability gap and performance problem.

Vertical integration makes more sense in most situations but it is not a panacea.

But I don't think that fit in with the ideology behind our privatisation, lots of private companies all competing for 'slots' provided by one privatised infrastructure owner, and the taxpayer only having to pay for the stuff nobody else wanted. They applied the same framework they used for the telephone and electricity and gas privatisations.

Yes, that never really made any sense given the fundamental differences between the way the different services/utilities work. It would be like saying that you can choose which supplier physically pumps the fresh water into your pipes or deals with your sewage.

It works with electricity, gas (to some extent) and the internet because the networks are fungible and it is possible for multiple companies to connect to them without impairing the overall service.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Whatever model is best, it only works best if done properly. Nationalisation needs huge public investment to work properly, which didn't happen under BR and isn't happening now, but has happened in other countries where nationalisation is prevalent. Privatisation only works if there is proper competition, which, with a few exceptions, did not exist post-1994.

The (Tory) government, via the initial franchising process in 1996, did authorise and fund WCRM, Thameslink completion, and fleet replacement at LTS (c2c), XC and SER.
They were sweeteners to get the franchise process going and attract bidders - for mainly 15-year franchises.
There's no feeling of similar government largesse for the reverse process of nationalisation - in fact the main aim seems to be to reduce costs.

 

[JonathanH]

The (Tory) government, via the initial franchising process in 1996, did authorise and fund WCRM, Thameslink completion, and fleet replacement at LTS (c2c), XC and SER.
They were sweeteners to get the franchise process going and attract bidders - for mainly 15-year franchises.
There's no feeling of similar government largesse for the reverse process of nationalisation - in fact the main aim seems to be to reduce costs.

While there may be no feeling of government largesse, it is funding TransPennine Upgrade, HS2, and the signifucantly increased cost of the railway, such that in real terms it is probably paying more right now (in real terms) than on the projects at the outset of privatisation

 

[mike57]

Yes and no; water and electricity distribution were privatised that way and it has created just as much of an accountability gap and performance problem.

With water and electricity there are no 'competing modes' or alternatives, with rail you also have air, bus, coach and car use competing across the network, so if the service deteriorates to the point of being unusable people switch.
This happened with TPE prior to covid with the Scarborough service, people switched to other modes, the A64 was notably busier and the Coastliner buses were also busier.

If my electricity supplier/distribution system lets me down my only option is to go 'off grid' which for a lot of people would be impractical and is a major undertaking.

 

[Watershed]

With water and electricity there are no 'competing modes' or alternatives, with rail you also have air, bus, coach and car use competing across the network, so if the service deteriorates to the point of being unusable people switch.
This happened with TPE prior to covid with the Scarborough service, people switched to other modes, the A64 was notably busier and the Coastliner buses were also busier.

If my electricity supplier/distribution system lets me down my only option is to go 'off grid' which for a lot of people would be impractical and is a major undertaking.

For a lot of journeys, those alternatives are no more viable than going off the grid. Try flying, taking the bus, coach or car to get into central London at rush hour...

Journeys in and around London make up a vast proportion of all rail journeys, so this isn't an insignificant consideration for the railway's structure or management.

 

[DarloRich]

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

second article on similar terms that this chap has written. Both in the Telegraph. Tufton Street at it again.................

 

[Sonic1234]

For a lot of journeys, those alternatives are no more viable than going off the grid. Try flying, taking the bus, coach or car to get into central London at rush hour..

And this is why the railways are so fixated on London and commuting.

Where there is more choice is leisure journeys, using a different mode and/or different destination. Getting people to switch their spending away from London is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, that never really made any sense given the fundamental differences between the way the different services/utilities work. It would be like saying that you can choose which supplier physically pumps the fresh water into your pipes or deals with your sewage.

It works with electricity, gas (to some extent) and the internet because the networks are fungible and it is possible for multiple companies to connect to them without impairing the overall service.

If my electricity supplier/distribution system lets me down my only option is to go 'off grid' which for a lot of people would be impractical and is a major undertaking.

Electricity, gas, and telephone networks were privatised in the same way as the railway. You had one infrastructure company responsible for the hardware and you had a competitive market for suppliers into that hardware.

You can't choose who gets your electricity or gas to your house. But you can choose who supplies that electricity or gas into the system and therefore, in a roundabout way, who supplies you with the gas or electricity. The market-based supplier model does work to an extent, but only to an extent.

But yes, the same model has failed in all the other privatised utilities and largely for the same reason. Any superficial competition at supplier level is completely undermined by the monopoly held by the infrastructure owner. The telecoms industry, specifically Openreach, demonstrates that perfectly.

The national gas grid is owned by Macquarie, formerly of Thames Water and currently of Southern Water. They also own the largest local gas distributor. Two of the other local gas distributors are owned by the Chinese. Ever wonder why your gas standing charges are so high? There's your answer. Turns out that it isn't Net Zero after all, it is Macquarie price-gouging like only they can.

Interestingly, the system operation and planning part of the electricity network was nationalised again in 2023. There have been rather a lot of articles in the Daily Telegraph recently about how NESO are apparently "engulfed in scandal" and is "covering up blackout threats." I wonder why the Daily Telegraph would be going after a recently nationalised utility company. Answers on a postcard to Matthias Dopfner c/o Tufton Street, London.

With water and electricity there are no 'competing modes' or alternatives, with rail you also have air, bus, coach and car use competing across the network, so if the service deteriorates to the point of being unusable people switch.

For a lot of journeys, those alternatives are no more viable than going off the grid. Try flying, taking the bus, coach or car to get into central London at rush hour...

There is a reason why season tickets are still regulated fares.

For long-distance or leisure journeys there usually is some sort of competition from other modes. It's commuting, particularly commuting into London but also increasingly into places like Birmingham and Manchester, where other modes can't offer any genuine competition.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2026 ==

More fundamentally, in Japan and more generally in Asia, it's common to have large conglomerates which benefits from having multiple businesses under one 'roof'. For example all the JR businesses have some degree of property/development interests, e.g. some own shopping centres that they have built over their stations or on former railway land. Many have station hotels.

So really the railway serves as the enabler to unlocking the value from that land and hence it is in the company's interest to provide a good and affordable service. This vertical integration solves the problem we have seen with HS2 and the Elizabeth line, where the government funds the infrastructure but private developers or landowners benefit from the land value uplift, paying back only a fraction of this profit as s106 contributions or similar.

Sadly we have had successive governments, of both sides, who have seemed determined to sell off anything that isn't nailed down.

Network Rail owned some of the most valuable real estate in the country. If they'd kept it it would have continued to give them a constant and consistent revenue stream from which they could fund other projects. Instead, Network Rail were forced by the previous government to sell off their assets and the prices they were achieving was little more than fire sale revenue. The people who bought those assets for a song will do very well out of it. The taxpayer will foot the bill.

It's always the way in the UK and then we wonder why everything has gone to poo. Look at HS1, it cost seven billion quid to build and the brains trust in the Conservative Party sold it to a foreign pension fund for two billion in 2010. That pension fund then sold it on for three billion quid in 2017 having racked up huge profits from access charges in the meantime.

Instead of having an asset they can generate regular revenue from, the taxpayer has spent a net five billion on building the asset and for that money they get to pay someone else £80 a minute to use that asset. It's absolute madness. I fully expect that the HS2 White Elephant will go the same way.

Imagine where we'd be if we'd set up a national investment fund such as the Norwegian sovereign fund or even the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund. Instead we've flogged everything off like a spivvy market trader and we're still up to our eyeballs in debt. No wonder nothing works anymore.

 

[35B]

For a lot of journeys, those alternatives are no more viable than going off the grid. Try flying, taking the bus, coach or car to get into central London at rush hour...

Journeys in and around London make up a vast proportion of all rail journeys, so this isn't an insignificant consideration for the railway's structure or management.

For travel, there are also choices about whether to consume. Those are practically impossible, even in aggregate, for power and water utilities