• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

BBC Nationalisation/Privatisation Article

Status
Not open for further replies.

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,661
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22700805
The background

Britain's railways were nationalised by Labour in 1948 and returned to private hands by John Major's Conservative government in 1993.

Labour was initially committed to renationalisation but the policy was dropped when Tony Blair came to power in 1997. Track, signalling and stations were taken out of private hands, and put into a not-for-profit company, Network Rail, after the collapse of Railtrack in 2002.

Labour has yet to reveal its transport policies for the next general election, but they are not thought likely to feature rail nationalisation.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has launched a private members' bill to allow the train companies to "fall back" into public ownership, which is supported by a number of Labour backbenchers and Plaid Cymru MPs.

The train companies insist the debate about nationalisation is solely driven by the unions.

Ian Taylor: The case for nationalisation

In 1993, Britain's railway was broken into pieces and handed, mostly as local monopolies, to profit-taking companies.
The cost of the railway to the taxpayer has subsequently more than doubled in real terms, a rise out of all proportion to the 33% increase in train services over the same period.

The cost rises stem from wastage as shareholder dividend pay-outs, other inefficient private sector financing and inefficiencies created by fragmentation of the railway.The wastage amounts to over £1bn per year, enough to cut fares by 20% if the railway were reunified as a public company.Instead, fare increases on the privatised railway threaten to turn it into a "rich-man's toy", as this government's first Secretary of State for Transport put it. Unbeknown to most passengers, one portion of our railway, the East Coast mainline, is still run by a publicly-owned company, Directly Operated Railways, which picked up the pieces after its two private sector predecessors walked off the job.

Recent calculations by the Office of Rail Regulation revealed how the public money that helps maintain the rail tracks or directly supports rail services splits between the train companies and showed that DOR receives less subsidy than any other rail franchise operator. DOR's success is a glaring embarrassment for the Government, who now intend to privatise it post-haste, even though that will increase costs to the taxpayer.

Most other rail franchises in the UK are, ironically, also run by companies that are wholly or partly publicly owned, but by other countries. Deutsche Bahn is foremost - they even run the Royal Train - and the German Government have said "We're skimming profit from the entire Deutsche Bahn...it is invested in the rail network here in Germany". So, if you are reading this on an overcrowded train with a ticket that made a painful hole in your wallet, take heart from your generous contribution to improvement of Germany's fine publicly-owned railway.


Ian Taylor, co-founder of Transport for Quality of Life think tank
Formerly manager of environmental consultancy services for the Centre for Alternative Technology
Has also worked for Greenpeace and Oxfam
Transport for Quality of Life's clients include the Department of Transport, local authorities and the rail unions



Ben Southwell: The case against nationalisation

The UK's railway network was built privately and competitively and by some way its most successful years were the private eras between 1830 and 1922 and 1994 to the present. Returning it to centralised state control would be a step backwards and a mistake. Instead we should end the practice of franchising, which creates private monopolies, and allow real competition and diversity.

Our system began with the first steam train in 1825, and despite costly government licenses, investors built the bulk of today's network (about 6,000 of approx 11,000 miles) in just three or so years, between 1844 and 1846. Journeys rose to from about 500 million a year in the 1870s to 1.5 billion just before the First World War. After the war, David Lloyd George judged that rail firms profits were too low due to too much competition, and decided to merge nearly all the UK's railway firms into just four firms, practically monopolies. Between 1923 and 1947 the so-called Big Four government-supported firms ran the roost and journeys fell to about 1.2 billion by the onset of the Second World War.

After the war, these and others were consolidated further into British Rail. Under British Rail, there were steadily fewer and fewer journeys per year—from around 1 billion in 1948 to only 750 million by 1995, just before the onset of the franchising system. Now there are deep flaws with franchising, and undoubtedly it has been lucky, coinciding with higher congestion, fuel prices, and a renewed rise in London as the UK's economic centre. But the sharpness of the change since 1995 is undeniable. Since then journeys have spiked dramatically, rising every year to close on the 1.5 billion not seen for almost a century. The solution to our current problems is not more state bungling, it is a return to diversity, competition and open markets.



Ben Southwell is a researcher at the Adam Smith Institute
Previously economics correspondent for City AM newspaper
He has a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University
The Adam Smith Institute is an independent free market think tank known for its work on privatisation and tax reform

A good article in my opinion explaining some things. But the second guy is an absolute joke. He thinks the decline in passengers is due to nationalisation and makes no reference to the rise of the motorcar!!!!!!!!! Then tells some questionable facts and basically what he wants is loads of different companies on the same line, in my honest opinion that will not work.

His degree puts me off too to me that is one of those degrees that breeds people like that (morons that make my cynical....) Personal opinion based on people i meet there may well be exceptions.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Wyvern

Established Member
Joined
27 Oct 2009
Messages
1,573
The way the lines were built by competing companies without central organisation gave problems that have lasted till today. I have a 1930s map which shows three main lines roughly side by side through Nottinghamshire. Just as another example you have two lines side by side from around Chapel en le Frith into Manchester and Buxton never getting a main line service.
 
Joined
11 Jun 2009
Messages
89
Services have not improved under privatisation. That is the biggest argument to put all train companies back under the government.

Although anyone giving Labour hope of doing anything, well Harold Wilson closed more stations than the Tories ever did.

Both Labour and the Unions put two fingers up to the ordinary person a long time ago.
 

Simon11

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2010
Messages
1,389
I thought the whole article was poorly written:

Nationalisation- has the author thought that the german railways are actually funding our railways??? Xc haven't been performing well.

Also, they chuck in the EC run by DOR is doing well but has it performed better than under privatisation?

The privatisation part was very poor and lacks any good arguements.
 

Simon11

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2010
Messages
1,389
Services have not improved under privatisation. That is the biggest argument to put all train companies back under the government.


Please can you quote facts to back up your argument?
PPM has improved compared to before privatisation. There are also more daily services run now than before privatisation took place....
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
....His degree puts me off too to me that is one of those degrees that breeds people like that (morons that make my cynical....) Personal opinion based on people i meet there may well be exceptions.
A rather sweeping generalisation - I found the PPE students to be among the more intelligent and thoughtful. Just don't get me started on Engineers and Physicists, though. (Agreed, this chap's article is pathetic!).
What I find is missing in articles such as this is some discussion about what the role of the state should be, and how privatisation/nationalisation fits in with it. They concentrate on their opinions about what would be better for the railways (in this instance, but it could equally well apply to utilities, banks, Post office), but never ask the questions about whether the state should actually be involved in running enterprises, and why.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,661
A rather sweeping generalisation - I found the PPE students to be among the more intelligent and thoughtful. Just don't get me started on Engineers and Physicists, though. (Agreed, this chap's article is pathetic!).
What I find is missing in articles such as this is some discussion about what the role of the state should be, and how privatisation/nationalisation fits in with it. They concentrate on their opinions about what would be better for the railways (in this instance, but it could equally well apply to utilities, banks, Post office), but never ask the questions about whether the state should actually be involved in running enterprises, and why.

That probably explains the opinion as I am an engineer :P
I did say this is based on the people I have met and there may well be exceptions, that was me admitting it sweeping generalisation but i have yet to see any proof on the contrary :)
The fact that Jordan off the apprentice did similar type thing just reinforces it :D

Exactly on your second point, no one ever says what they should do to fix it. Which is why i did my dissertation mostly on government electrification policy, what they did well what they did bad and what they should do in the future and how involved they should be etc etc. (engineers for you :P )
 

Hellfire

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2012
Messages
573
Southwell also says the first steam train was in 1825. I seem to recall Trevitthick was doing something with a steam engine in 1804.

I assume he meant to refer to the S & D
 
Last edited:

gordonthemoron

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2006
Messages
6,726
Location
Milton Keynes
if BR had not been privatised I doubt we'd be seeing all the current investment in the railways. Plus, services on ECML, WCML & MML are more frequent than under BR. My main gripe would be that XC is a disaster and the ROSCOs are a disgrace
 

Aldaniti

Member
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Messages
668
Services have not improved under privatisation. That is the biggest argument to put all train companies back under the government.

Although anyone giving Labour hope of doing anything, well Harold Wilson closed more stations than the Tories ever did.

Both Labour and the Unions put two fingers up to the ordinary person a long time ago.

Summed up perfectly! :)
 

Metrailway

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2011
Messages
575
Location
Birmingham/Coventry/London
Ben Southwood is against franchising?

His think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, heavily lobbied HM Treasury to follow their suggestion of franchising when privatising BR. Many cabinet ministers were against such a model, including PM John Major, but HM Treasury (and the Adam Smith Institute) won the argument, and thus we have a franchised railway.
 

AndrewP

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Messages
494
The privatisation argument is highly emotive and any article needs to be well written and genuinely objective if it is from an organisation with supposed neutrality like the BBC.

It looks a little skewed towards nationalisation as the pro writer is from a very different kind of organisation to the anti writer from the Adam Smith Institute which takes a very extreme view on competition and the free market. Irrespective the pro article was better written in my view.

Like any good management consultant I could write a convincing case from both sides. I have a personal preference for privatisation with a very robust performance management system that genuinely incentivises good delivery and not just business as usual.

However, it must be remembered that the main reason for privatisation was to generate investment funds which have been happened. The question is does this model still work and if so how should it be changed. Shame the DfT is in charge.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,021
if BR had not been privatised I doubt we'd be seeing all the current investment in the railways.
It's impossible to say what the railways would be like today if we still had BR, because we have no idea how everything would have panned out over the past 20 years. We can speculate that there wouldn't have been the hiatus in new train orders that happened around the time of privatisation. We can speculate that the network wouldn't have suffered the 'post-Hatfield effect' under BR (on the assumption that Hatfield might not have happened). But we can't ever know these things.

But we can do some comparison. London Underground services have improved over the past 20 years - and LU has remained in public hands. In fact the attempt to involve the private sector in LU failed spectacularly.

Plus, services on ECML, WCML & MML are more frequent than under BR.
Services on the NLL line are far more frequent now than under BR. (In the late 1980s you had 2-EPB units running 3tph. Now you have 4-car units running up to 8tph. And plans to add a 5th car to each unit.) But the NLL isn't a privatised railway - not in the same sense as services on the ECML/WCML/MML/etc. Yes, services on the NLL are operated by a private company; but all the decisions about trains, fares, services etc are taken by TfL, not a private company.


So overall, assuming that a BR-run railway would have received the same level of government funding that the privatised railway has received, we can surmise that things would have improved under BR. What we can never prove is whether things would be better or worse than they are now, if BR had continued to be in charge.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,518
Location
Southampton
One problem in this (frequently occurring) debate is that the argument is portrayed as a bipolar nationalised vs privatised option set, where in reality the current system is neither fully private or public. We could move towards more or less central government control for some parts of the industry, whilst keeping other parts privately owned/operated, if we so wanted.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,021
One problem in this (frequently occurring) debate is that the argument is portrayed as a bipolar nationalised vs privatised option set, where in reality the current system is neither fully private or public. We could move towards more or less central government control for some parts of the industry, whilst keeping other parts privately owned/operated, if we so wanted.
The ironic thing being that the government (or more specifically, the DfT) now has more direct control of the privatised railway than it ever had under BR!
 

Sidious

Member
Joined
11 Jun 2012
Messages
242
The whole debate lacks any relevance because at best we have a hybrid system of public and private ownership. Network Rail is a de facto public company when it assumed the assets of Railtrack PLC, in almost the same way that the British Railways Board was.

Then of the operators, London Overground, East Coast and DRS are all ultimately public entities too.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,251
Location
Yorks
However, it must be remembered that the main reason for privatisation was to generate investment funds which have been happened. The question is does this model still work and if so how should it be changed. Shame the DfT is in charge.

Curiously even ATOC in their recent publication have admitted that the investment increased considerably after the fully privatised railway was replaced by our hybrid nationalised infrastructure and privatised TOC's. Interestingly they use this as an argument in favour of their own private ownership since they point out that passenger usage was rising whilst investment during the fully privatised Railtrack era remained stagnant.
 

Goatboy

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2011
Messages
2,274
Of course services have improved. So they should, given the state funds rail now more than at any point in history!
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Services have not improved under privatisation. That is the biggest argument to put all train companies back under the government.

Although anyone giving Labour hope of doing anything, well Harold Wilson closed more stations than the Tories ever did.

Both Labour and the Unions put two fingers up to the ordinary person a long time ago.

I would also like to know how you think services have not improved under privatisation? God help us if the treasury hold the purse strings to the railways! What are you going to say if it is nationalised then 5-10 years down the line the network is back in the same state as at the end of BR? Look at the freedom freight has and it is thriving in the private sector. If anything the argument should be to go more towards the freight model.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
5,078
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
What are you going to say if it is nationalised then 5-10 years down the line the network is back in the same state as at the end of BR? Look at the freedom freight has and it is thriving in the private sector. If anything the argument should be to go more towards the freight model.

What, only carry traffic that is "profitable" (with massively subsidised track access costs and infrastructure investment) and throw everything else in the bin - and onto the roads?
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
What, only carry traffic that is "profitable" (with massively subsidised track access costs and infrastructure investment) and throw everything else in the bin - and onto the roads?

Subsidised track access? They pay more than the TOCs do or at least I think they do. That's the big problem at the moment TOCs are forced to operate trains even if there is only a couple of passengers or even none at all! This is where all the subsidy goes to. Operating trains that are going around empty because they have to. Go to an airline style book before you travel then you can cut down on all the massive wastage!!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,251
Location
Yorks
Subsidised track access? They pay more than the TOCs do or at least I think they do. That's the big problem at the moment TOCs are forced to operate trains even if there is only a couple of passengers or even none at all! This is where all the subsidy goes to. Operating trains that are going around empty because they have to. Go to an airline style book before you travel then you can cut down on all the massive wastage!!

Those passenger trains aren't as empty as you think.

Why celebrate service improvements then immediately propose to ruin them by operating a skeleton service!

Wasn't there some hoo ha recently when ORR proposed raising track access charges for freight trains which rather suggests that they aren't paying as much towards the infrastructure as they ought ?

Now there are good reasons to subsidise freight, but since it uses the same track as regional passenger services why must we pretend that freight is paying its way while the regional passenger railway is constantly lambasted as being a waste of money.
 

Railsigns

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2010
Messages
2,754
However, it must be remembered that the main reason for privatisation was to generate investment funds which have been happened.

While there is a lot more money going into the rail industry now than there was twenty years ago, don't be fooled into thinking that this is private investment. The privatised rail industry receives several times more in subsidy (public money) than the one billion pounds or so given to BR each year, and Network Rail borrows billions of pounds every year (BR didn't borrow any).
 
Last edited:

Metrailway

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2011
Messages
575
Location
Birmingham/Coventry/London
I would also like to know how you think services have not improved under privatisation? God help us if the treasury hold the purse strings to the railways! What are you going to say if it is nationalised then 5-10 years down the line the network is back in the same state as at the end of BR? Look at the freedom freight has and it is thriving in the private sector. If anything the argument should be to go more towards the freight model.

My bold.

HM Treasury still hold the purse strings in today's railways.

Government Support in 2011-2012: £3.901 billion

Private funding in 2011-2012: £0.518 billion

Figures from ORR.

That's the big problem at the moment TOCs are forced to operate trains even if there is only a couple of passengers or even none at all! This is where all the subsidy goes to. Operating trains that are going around empty because they have to. Go to an airline style book before you travel then you can cut down on all the massive wastage!!

Can you imagine the uproar if you closed significant parts of the London commuter network for most of the day to stem losses?

No government would ever propose mass cuts to make the railways pay. If they did, they would lose the election.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
My bold.

HM Treasury still hold the purse strings in today's railways.

Government Support in 2011-2012: £3.901 billion

Private funding in 2011-2012: £0.518 billion

Figures from ORR.



Can you imagine the uproar if you closed significant parts of the London commuter network for most of the day to stem losses?

No government would ever propose mass cuts to make the railways pay. If they did, they would lose the election.

The TOC and NR are companies not quangos. When the big figure comes out for what the TOCs get in subsidies, that is what the subsidies pay for. The trains that are more expensive to run than they take in revenue from ticket sales. If you get rid of the services that have a handful if any passengers you get rid of waste! An airline style pre book system cuts down waste and he ho low ticket prices and less subsidy!!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,251
Location
Yorks
The TOC and NR are companies not quangos. When the big figure comes out for what the TOCs get in subsidies, that is what the subsidies pay for. The trains that are more expensive to run than they take in revenue from ticket sales. If you get rid of the services that have a handful if any passengers you get rid of waste! An airline style pre book system cuts down waste and he ho low ticket prices and less subsidy!!

Nice idea. Still won't work.
 

pinguini

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2013
Messages
284
What I don't think the railway industry seems to understand is that there is privatisation by name but not by nature.

In a truly privatised industry, I could start my own TOC tomorrow and use whatever rolling stock I wanted, operate whatever routes I wanted and charge whatever fares I feel.
 

Metrailway

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2011
Messages
575
Location
Birmingham/Coventry/London
The TOC and NR are companies not quangos. When the big figure comes out for what the TOCs get in subsidies, that is what the subsidies pay for. The trains that are more expensive to run than they take in revenue from ticket sales. If you get rid of the services that have a handful if any passengers you get rid of waste! An airline style pre book system cuts down waste and he ho low ticket prices and less subsidy!!

Will it be acceptable to close most of the railway lines around London for most of the day? Would it be acceptable to completely close the majority of commuter and rural lines outside London and the South East as they have no chance of profitability in the forseeable future? For both of these propositions I would say no.

TOCs may not be quangos but the majority are franchisees and the terms of their franchise is set by the Government. No Government would set franchises which allow such cuts.

An airline pre book system? Would that be for all tickets available on the system? Say I wanted to travel between Bicester and Oxford - would I have to pre book? I, and the vast majority making such short and medium distance journeys would drive instead. If I missed my pre-booked train what would happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top