Bring back british rail!

[CosherB]

I didn't say privatisation was the only reason for 3 times rail ridership. It's of course not possible to say what rail ridership would be now if rail were still nationalised, but I don't see how it could be anything like today's '3 times' level.

Why? Because without the massive investment that came with privatisation (and would NOT have come without privatisation) there wouldn't be the capacity on the railway today to carry 3 times the number of passengers!

Zoe - politicians always put votes first! Just because global warming is flavour of the month won't change that!

 

[Zoe]

would NOT have come without privatisation

You can't say that for certain.

there wouldn't be the capacity on the railway today to carry 3 times the number of passengers!

BR were actually planning a comprehensive upgrade of the WCML under the Intercity 250 project. Don't forget the ECML was also upgraded in the 1980s by BR. There was also investment in the Chiltern route under BR.

politicians always put votes first! Just because global warming is flavour of the month won't change that!

Green policies are more likely to be vote winners these days, the have promoted green issues in some of their recent election campaigns.

 

[Legzr1]

One thing is for sure.

Privatisation has made a lot of people very rich.

Isn't that the important thing? :roll:

 

[CosherB]

You can't say that for certain.

Nothing is certain save death and taxes, but some things are easily deduced. I can't say how much BR may or may not have got if it had not been privatised, that's true, but it would have been at best in line with earlier, quite inadequate, levels. What would have driven it to be more than the usual level of funding?

Only by introducing privatisation could things change and the money find its way onto the railway, for the political resasons stated above. That's why the politicians privatised it!

 

[Zoe]

Only by introducing privatisation could things change and the money find its way onto the railway, for the political resasons stated above. That's why the politicians privatised it!

No, they privatized it for their own reasons not that it was the only way. Thatcher considered it to be a privatization too far back in the 1980s and at this time there was investment in rail. John Major though had other ideas.

 

[Markdvdman]

No, they privatized it for their own reasons not that it was the only way. Thatcher considered it to be a privatization too far back in the 1980s and at this time there was investment in rail. John Major though had other ideas.

Very true Zoe.

The worst thing for me is the incessant rises in fares when many have no choice BUT to use the rail.

Fine IF it was reinvested into new trains, new lines, upgrades etc but it is NOT in the most part! South Wales is rubbish with delays, signal issues, and bottlenecks. Their answer to the bottlenecks is to fix them, THEN get more trains through - to introduce YET another bottleneck. WHO ARE these idiots in management?

ANY OTHER industry and such thinking would really be out the window!

 

[Morgsie]

Thatcher was opposed to the Privatisation of BR. John Major favoured a return to the big 4. The Treasury is largely responsible for the mess of the Privatisation of BR

 

[Old Timer]

Rants don't impress, OT. Cogent argument does it for me.

That perfectly describes pretty much all of your posts so far to be honest, which have concentrated on invective rather than any sort of rational and logical thought.

Your belief for example that BA shuttle represented the pinnacle of customer service will be something of a surprise to most people who have used them, and indeed BA who divested itself of them under the BA Connect name some years back.

Just a shame you do not marshall a proper post supported by facts and not your own distorted prejudices.

 

[Zoe]

Thatcher was opposed to the Privatisation of BR. John Major favoured a return to the big 4. The Treasury is largely responsible for the mess of the Privatisation of BR

It was John Major though that wanted privatization. Had he been completely opposed to it then there would be no mess. That said if he had convinced the Treasury to go with his form of privatization then things could be different now.

 

[Old Timer]

However this policy had been dropped before the election.

Shame no one told John Prescott that then in the run up to the 1997 Election wasn't it ?

 

[Zoe]

Shame no one told John Prescott that then in the run up to the 1997 Election wasn't it ?

Well the policy certainly wasn't in the 1997 manifesto and I also remember reading in early 1997 in the Times that Blair had dropped the policy. Was Prescott actually still saying Labour were going to renationalize during the weeks before the election then? If he was then he should have looked at the manifesto first.

 

[Old Timer]

But things were declining irrevocably; on the freight side (which no one seems to have considered) most of all. I'm pretty sure that if BR had remained in being, the only rail freight left today would've been perhaps MGR coal (steadily diminishing) and perhaps intermodal, although seeing how Freightliner got the scrag end of BR's loco fleet when it was spun off, i wonder if that would have lasted? And on the passenger side, this was the era of putting up fares to reduce demand; truly the gesture of a desperate management.

It was Labour who removed the old Conservative Freight Grants that assisted so many freight terminals to set up.

It was also Labour who raised the axle loading for lorries from 38-tonnes gross to 41-tonnes in 1999, and then to 44-tonnes two years later.

 

[bnm]

Yes same old tired response from yourself I see. The world according to Captain Speaking and heaven help you if your view or indeed experience differs.

Yes, same old tired responses from Old Timer, I see.

The world according to Old Timer and heaven help us if our view or indeed experience differs.

Oh, and no surprise that yet again the first mention of Socialism or the Labour Party in a thread on this forum came from Old Timer.:roll:

 

[Old Timer]

Well the policy certainly wasn't in the 1997 manifesto and I also remember reading in early 1997 in the Times that Blair had dropped the policy. Was Prescott actually still saying Labour were going to renationalize during the weeks before the election then? If he was then he should have looked at the manifesto first.

The words of Paul Foot, not someone I would normally use are quite explicit,a nd indeed damn Labour for destroying the true worth of the Railway in the run up to Privatization. Something Bliar continually stated he would reverse as a cynical means of gaining votes. But then should we be surprised by this ?

Nowhere was this denunciation more unequivocal than in the leadership of the Labour Party. At first, it seemed as though the Labour leaders recognised their power. If they announced that the privatised railways would be taken back into public ownership, then the entire privatisation project was bound to fail. After all, who would buy shares in a newly-privatised industry which the Labour Party was pledged instantly to renationalise? Not a penny profit could be made out of such a situation, and since profit was and is the only possible motive for investing in the railways, Labour’s pledge on renationalisation was crucial to the future of the industry. This understanding of their own power led to the formation among Labour’s transport spokespeople of the Crystal Clear Faction. Their leader was big bluff burly John Prescott, the man who doesn’t mince words. He told Labour’s Conference in 1993: ‘Let me make it crystal clear that any privatisation of the railway system that does take place will, on the arrival of a Labour Government, be quickly and effectively dealt with . . . and be returned to public ownership.’

Nothing could be more crystal clear than that, and by the following year it was time for a pledge. Frank Dobson, Labour’s transport spokesman at the 1994 Conference, assured his ecstatic audience that Labour’s promise on this occasion was not narrowly confined to Party members. ‘Let me give this pledge not just to this Conference but to the people of Britain. The next Labour Government . . . will bring the railway system back into public ownership.’ The following year (1995) Labour’s conference spokesman was Michael Meacher, a fully paid up member of the Crystal Clear Faction. He concentrated on the speculators who were hovering over the battered corpse of the rail industry. ‘If there are any investors listening who are thinking of buying into our rail system, I have a message for them. The railways depend on public subsidies to the tune of £1.8 billion a year. There is no guarantee that subsidy will continue. If you want to buy a pig in a poke in all those circumstances, then it is up to you, but don’t come crying to me when it all ends in tears.’

The message seemed clear but it came from Michael Meacher, and he was Old Labour, so perhaps it could be disregarded. But wait. Hark to the speech made at the same Conference by the new Labour leader himself, Tony Blair: ‘To anyone thinking of grabbing our railways, built up over the years, so they can make a quick profit as our network is broken up and sold off, I say this: there will be a publicly owned and publicly accountable railway system under a Labour government.’

For a time the message was repeated so firmly by so many Labour politicians that it was believed even in the big corporations. Brian Souter, chairman of the burgeoning bus company Stagecoach, told a Commons Committee two years later that in 1995 nobody in the industry would touch rail privatisation ‘with a bargepole’. The prospect of Labour doing what it said it would was enough to frighten off all but the small fry. When the Roscos were flogged off in January 1996, no big investor dared to bid even a fraction of what they were worth. Labour’s bold talk had worked. No serious contender was ‘thinking of grabbing our railways’ or ‘buying a pig in a poke’. If the Labour Party had stuck to its promises, the railways would never have been privatised.

 

[Zoe]

The words of Paul Foot, not someone I would normally use are quite explicit,a nd indeed damn Labour for destroying the true worth of the Railway in the run up to Privatization. Something Bliar continually stated he would reverse as a cynical means of gaining votes. But then should we be surprised by this ?

Yes, in 1995/1996 Labour did say they would renationalize. It was only in the months/weeks before the election that they dropped this policy. It may well be that by that time they realized it had gone too far to be revesed without it costing them a fortune.

If the Labour Party had stuck to its promises, the railways would never have been privatised.

But the first franchises were let in early 1996 when Labour were still planning to renationalize so not much Labour could do about that. One of these was won by Brian Souter's Stagecoach. So much for him saying no-one would touch them with a bargepole.

 

[Old Timer]

Yes, in 1995/1996 Labour did say they would renationalize. It was only in the months/weeks before the election that they dropped this policy. It may well be that by that time they realized it had gone too far to be revesed without it costing them a fortune.

Bliar KNEW as did anyone with a brain (that excludes pretty much all of the subsequent Labour Cabinets) that there was no way that the investment needed for the Railways, given the growing economy, could be made available from public funds.

There is no state-run Railway in the World which operates completely on money provided by the public purse that is comparable with the UK system. Whilst people on here continually parrot on about the French Railways, outside Paris they are slow and unreliable. Only the High Speed lines operate to any proper extent and they have few if any stations throughout their length. End to end timekeeping in France, as well as Germany and other States, is achieved by longer station dwell times than the UK.

 

[TrenHotel]

Labour dropped its commitment to nationalisation in March 1996, in a speech by then-shadow transport minister Clare Short. There's a good research paper on all this here: http://www.kent.ac.uk/kbs/documents/research/working-papers/2010/222-jupe.pdf

Sadly, Labour still seems to support the current privatised model, and shares a huge amount of blame for the current mess of the system.

 

[Old Timer]

Yes, same old tired responses from Old Timer, I see.

The world according to Old Timer and heaven help us if our view or indeed experience differs.

Oh, and no surprise that yet again the first mention of Socialism or the Labour Party in a thread on this forum came from Old Timer.:roll:

Impossible to remove Politics from it as you know. Just a shame you cannot bring a thoughtout response to the party though isn't it ?

 

[WestCoast]

End to end timekeeping in France, as well as Germany and other States, is achieved by longer station dwell times than the UK.

Although, it has to be said that average end-to-end rail services are of a longer distance and therefore time duration than many UK services. For example, it's not unusual to see DB Regional Services spanning up to 300km on double decker stock.

 

[Zoe]

Bliar KNEW as did anyone with a brain (that excludes pretty much all of the subsequent Labour Cabinets) that there was no way that the investment needed for the Railways, given the growing economy, could be made available from public funds.

Well how the railways should have been funded is debatable but do you think Blair have gone ahead and privatized in 1997 if the Tories hadn't done?

 

[Minilad]

Impossible to remove Politics from it as you know. Just a shame you cannot bring a thoughtout response to the party though isn't it ?

What a pity that is as it is politicians of both flavours that manage to bugger things up

 

[Yew]

I do remember BR days, they weren't fantastic yet I doubt any railway could provide a good service with low funding. No one will know but if BR had enjoyed the same levels of investment from the Dft/Treasury that the current railway does, things would have been a lot different.

Maybe grant northern an IC franchise? Would be almost equivalent...

 

[Greeny]

It pains me to say it, but having spent the best part of my working life working for BR, I personally found (and still believe) that the railways were safer with BR and whilst not everything was cause for celebration, I personally found morale (and morals) to be higher. I had this discussion with what I can best describe as a clown in rose tinted spectacles and he came up with a great response. He said (and he truly believed it – and worse, expected others to believe it) that it was not that the railways were not now, as safe as under BR, but that more was being reported under Network Rail. The man must have been off his bloody rocker – it is my (again personal) experience that far less is being reported now because of the nit picking attitude and (I’m sad to say it) the lack of ability and experience of some of those being promoted into positions of authority and responsibility

G.

 

[Old Timer]

Well how the railways should have been funded is debatable but do you think Blair have gone ahead and privatized in 1997 if the Tories hadn't done?

Yes absolutely because there was no way that the then present set up could have continued.

The EU was pushing for implementation of its Directive (89/44x ?) to separate out Infrastructure from operations, and the only model doing the rounds was that of the HM Treasury, dreamt up by the Civil Service and Treasury mandarins desperate to reduce reliance on the Treasury.

The sheer amount of money needed would never have been available from the public purse, and Bliar and Brown were determined to go on an out and out spending spree, Bliar because he wanted to match Mrs Thatcher in stature by the end of his term in office, and Brown because he deluded himself that the UK economy could buck the trend of the markets based on the buoyant economy that he had inherited from the previous Conservative Government and he had his eye on the future Premiership so he wanted to buy up the Trade Unions block vote by throwing £bns at public services.

What a pity that is as it is politicians of both flavours that manage to bugger things up

Absolutely, and I agree with that completely. Unfortunately we now have the worst of all worlds where Government can meddle at will, Civil Servants can interfere in the detail of operation and all can then step back and blame the Industry players when it all goes wrong.

There was a massive opportunity to really shake up the Industry within the last year but unfortunately the Coalition Government has bottled it, and the proposed route management system proposed by Network Rail is akin to an attempt to reshuffle the seats on the Titanic in mid-Ocean when what is needed is a defenestration of that organisation.

Nothing positive will happen until the wheel/rail interface is returned to single ownership

 

[Morgsie]

Yes absolutely because there was no way that the then present set up could have continued.

The EU was pushing for implementation of its Directive (89/44x ?) to separate out Infrastructure from operations, and the only model doing the rounds was that of the HM Treasury, dreamt up by the Civil Service and Treasury mandarins desperate to reduce reliance on the Treasury.

The sheer amount of money needed would never have been available from the public purse, and Bliar and Brown were determined to go on an out and out spending spree, Bliar because he wanted to match Mrs Thatcher in stature by the end of his term in office, and Brown because he deluded himself that the UK economy could buck the trend of the markets based on the buoyant economy that he had inherited from the previous Conservative Government and he had his eye on the future Premiership so he wanted to buy up the Trade Unions block vote by throwing £bns at public services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Absolutely, and I agree with that completely. Unfortunately we now have the worst of all worlds where Government can meddle at will, Civil Servants can interfere in the detail of operation and all can then step back and blame the Industry players when it all goes wrong.

There was a massive opportunity to really shake up the Industry within the last year but unfortunately the Coalition Government has bottled it, and the proposed route management system proposed by Network Rail is akin to an attempt to reshuffle the seats on the Titanic in mid-Ocean when what is needed is a defenestration of that organisation.

Nothing positive will happen until the wheel/rail interface is returned to single ownership

The EU Directive in question is 91/440
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Directive_91/440

 

[Old Timer]

Having spent the best part of my working life working for BR, I personally found (and still believe) that the railways were safer with BR and whilst not everything was cause for celebration, I personally found morale (and morals) to be higher. I had this discussion with what I can best describe as a clown in rose tinted spectacles and he came up with a great response. He said (and he truly believed it – and worse, expected others to believe it) that it was not that the railways were not now, as safe as under BR, but that more was being reported under Network Rail. The man must have been off his bloody rocker – it is my (again personal) experience that far less is being reported now because of the nit picking attitude and (I’m sad to say it) the lack of ability and experience of some of those being promoted into positions of authority and responsibility G.

One of the few lucid posts on here, I think.

The worst thing of all is the way that NR and its staff worked to hide any incidents affecting their people whilst at the same time enormously magnifying any failures made by the Infrastructure Contractors. This was compounded by deliberately adopting a policy of under-reporting NR accidents and incidents to the ORR, something which is now the subject of an ongoing official investigation.

The EU Directive in question is 91/440
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Directive_91/440

Thanks chap, for some reason I keep remembering it as in the 89/series !

 

[doubleamber]

this ones really stirred up a hornets nest!!


my Grandad was on the railways from 1925-1975 and even he admitted that the railways were in a very poor state finance wise but safety was always top of the list and people were not push to work faster and harder because mistakes were made, he started old school way as well, platform boy and ended his career as a signalling regional manager.

But one thing he also said was before BR the railways run a lot better as private companies

 

[Zoe]

Nothing positive will happen until the wheel/rail interface is returned to single ownership

Which will most likely be never as even if it's the same company, the accounting would still have to be separate and track access charges would still exist.

 

[Schnellzug]

Why the desire from people to return the Wheel and the Rail to common ownership? That would only be practical with a monopoly operator in any given area, wouldn't it, since a company that owns both the wheel and the rail is obviously always going to put their trains first, so you could hardly expect fair & even-handed treatment, so what we're really talking about is a monopoly, either Public or Private, and that's something that goes against everything that people tell us is what people want or is good.

 

[Old Timer]

Which will most likely be never as even if it's the same company, the accounting would still have to be separate and track access charges would still exist.

Yes but that is not such a difficult thing, many private organisations operate separate Divisions under a named banner. It is actually quite easy to achieve this under one Company with vertical integration.