Bring back british rail!

[phil8715]

To me privatisation means one thing, a licence to print money. Everything the Tories privatised Gas, Electric, Water, BA, British Rail, buses & BT.

All these Services were state owned, now they're in private hands they're the most expensive services in Europe possibly the world.

I'm currently on holiday at my parents in Northern Ireland which has a state owned rail system, ok the network isn't as big as England, Scotland & Wales, but at least the buses and trains connect with 99.99% of stations being interchanges. The railway company is called Translink.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[CosherB]

BT? you really think the government should be running electronic communications in 2012? Mecahnical Strowger switches in the exchanges and a 6 month delay to RENT an expensive BT analogue phone from BT? OK, BT were going electronic before privatisation, but this is the most dynamic indusrty on the planet. It does not need the heavy hand of state ownership to kill it (and it would have been killed if not privatised). As it is, we are strong in IT and comms under (like the rest of the world) private enterprise.

Gov is not good at running businesses. To have them running a business as dynamic and progressive and ground breaking as electronic comms, in a world market, would be the kiss of doom to UK tech industries! An industry that currently earns us squillions.

Same with BA. remember when it was a cosy taxpayer-supported loss making national airline? Now it's a world class airline and big revenue generator for UK!

 

[WatcherZero]

To me privatisation means one thing, a licence to print money. Everything the Tories privatised Gas, Electric, Water, BA, British Rail, buses & BT.

All these Services were state owned, now they're in private hands they're the most expensive services in Europe possibly the world.

I'm currently on holiday at my parents in Northern Ireland which has a state owned rail system, ok the network isn't as big as England, Scotland & Wales, but at least the buses and trains connect with 99.99% of stations being interchanges. The railway company is called Translink.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Yes, unfortunatley Translink has about 5x the per passenger KM subsidy as the mainland. It doesnt really get the passenger numbers to finance its own investment from its own revenue so all investment is from Government. Its integrated because it runs both the buses and the trains.

We have made progress over the last decade in Britain, the Government now makes a profit from passenger service operation (Franchise Payment total is greater than Franchise Subsidy) but the rails themselves are still soaking up huge subsidy, about a third of this is capacity expansion (longer platforms, speed and capacity upgrades, safety upgrades, etc..).

Breakdown is £35bn 2009-2014, £12bn on expansion, £11.5bn renewals, £11.4bn daily maintenence and operation.

 

[yorksrob]

Tinkering around the edges. It needed the sort of root and branch revolution only a major change of culture can bring.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Again, tinkering. It needed major change to take us from the run-down BR railway to the much better railway we have today. No amount of wishful thinking can take the place of massivly bigger investment. And that massivly bigger investment came witn privatisation - it wasn't going to come without that!

Nonsense. The day to day business of running the railway involved stock renewal, track renewal, signalling renewal etc before privatisation just as it did afterwards. This is why even the Tory government of the day saw that investment was too low during the mid 1980's and began to increase it afterwards.

They thought that privatisation would allow them to get away with cutting it again in the mid 1990's but as we all know, free market hocus-pocus cannot replace Government investment, hence why it had to commence investing again fairly soon after privatisation and has continued to this day.

 

[CosherB]

Nonsense. The day to day business of running the railway involved stock renewal, track renewal, signalling renewal etc before privatisation just as it did afterwards. This is why even the Tory government of the day saw that investment was too low during the mid 1980's and began to increase it afterwards.

They thought that privatisation would allow them to get away with cutting it again in the mid 1990's but as we all know, free market hocus-pocus cannot replace Government investment, hence why it had to commence investing again fairly soon after privatisation and has continued to this day.

Oh right. So the massive increased investment in rail that followed privatisation would have happened even if rail had remained nationalised?

Any oinking heard from above?

I think the nonsense stems from thee, yorksrob!

 

[yorksrob]

Oh right. So the massive increased investment in rail that followed privatisation would have happened even if rail had remained nationalised?

Any oinking heard from above?

I think the nonesense is from thee, yorksrob!

Don't look at inflated numbers. Look at the day to day business of running the railway.

Stock renewals, track renewals, electrifications, re-signallings. All of these things were happening before privatisation just as they were afterwards. Infact, privatisation represented an interruption to a lot of these things.

 

[Greeny]

Oh right. So the massive increased investment in rail that followed privatisation would have happened even if rail had remained nationalised?

Any oinking heard from above?

I think the nonsense stems from thee, yorksrob!

I think you can rest your case OT, and Yorksrob. You have, to my way of reading it, demolioshed the arguments of the individuals who detest BR and those who ran it.


G.

 

[TrenHotel]

The tragedy is that the current Labour Party, under Ed Miliband, still supports rail privatisation. Labour had 13 years to fix things, but did nothing. That great socialist John Prescott was transport secretary but even oversaw the final aspects of privatisation.

Of course, Labour nationalised Connex South Eastern into South Eastern Trains... but Alastair Darling insisted on re-privatising it as Southeastern, possibly England's most loathed TOC, with a f***ed franchise model based around profits from HS1 which never came. So the likes of Southeastern are being bailed out in the same fashion as British Leyland was bailed out - but with Go-Ahead's shareholders taking home some of the loot.

Even recently, Maria Eagle, Labour's shadow transport secretary, suggested the nationalisation of the East Anglia franchise... but only for the Olympics (!) Which tells you what an ideological mess they're in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/10/nationalise-east-anglia-rail-franchise-olympics-labour-party

And that's Labour and the railways for you. You can tell Labour Party members that the organisation they pay subscriptions to is as much responsible for the state of the railways as the Tories, and they go into denial.

While I understand this forum tries to keep politics out of discussions, the fact is that Labour, the Tories, and the Lib Dems all went into the 2010 election supporting a model we all know doesn't work. Which shows the contempt UK politicians have for public transport.

Of course, privatisation worked on discrete lines like Chiltern - but failed elsewhere. But national politicians of all three stripes aren't interested in long-term planning, as proved by the conversion of a corrupt Railtrack into an unaccountable Network Rail, leaking millions out into the wallets of useless bosses.

I don't know the machinations behind the Merseyrail model, but that and London Overground (pushed by Ken Livingstone against a Labour govt who wouldn't give him control of much else) show a model of a railway that works.

The London mayoral election will be interesting - both Ken and Boris want TfL to take charge of London's mainline railways on an Overground model. This seems like the way to go. If things are going to change, it may start in London. And hopefully, well beyond zone 6 after...

(although the advertising of a new Thameslink/Southern franchise may well prove that the current coalition bottom-feeders haven't learned anything - and this is the kind of thing that should come up in the London mayoral election, but maybe won't because it doesn't currently carry a roundel...)

 

[WatcherZero]

Merseyrail is just another franchise, the only difference is who awards it. Union pressure also forced them to abandon fairly advanced plans for reintegration of track and rolling stock.

 

[Mike C]

My opinion is that under BR we had an excellent pool of technical resource and while we still do now, much of it is imported and it is not as well integrated as before. There are small groups of technically brilliant people scattered across the country in small isolated groups. Under BR, it was easier to share this vast and valuable pool of knowledge. Beyond NIR's and well connected employees, very little is shared now. I recently had cause to contact another TOC on a technical matter (relating to reliability). I was not a stranger to the company and knew the contact I was using but the knowledge couldn't be shared due to a commercial conflict: the parent company of my organisation was bidding for the running of theirs. Apologies sent and a frustrating dead end. This is just one example but there are many more. I'm fortunate in that I have many good contacts in the former DM&EE in Derby who are always willing to help with their huge amount of knowledge and experience. The trouble is: they'll soon be gone and then what? We rely on foreign companies to fill the void.

The timetables were often better integrated under BR too but that isn't a detailed survey, just my impressions from distant memories.

That said, I do think that despite these problems and to use a hateful modern expression, I do think the privatised railway is more "customer focussed" on the front end or "shop window" if you like. The trouble is that I often think it is style without substance behind. There are too many fluffies calling the shots and not enough engineers. But maybe I'm just biased there.

 

[Ticket Man]

I was only young when BR was suffering and dont remember too much about the old system.
However, a colleague of mine who worked under BR for 11 years is constantly telling me about how he wouldn't want it back.
He tells me of staff frequently ignoring safety protocol, corruption and bribery amongst staff and management, peoples work shy attitude due to the "job for life culture" that existed.
Whilst it must be said that this was not true of all BR staff, even if only a quarter of the workforce is behaving like this, would this kind or operation be successful in today's world.
BR did have its good points but I think even more input from the government on how to better over-complicate the system will not be good for passengers.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

In BR days a charity hired a train on about 6 summer Sundays.
Trip Lostwithiel to Fowey (Carne Point)
A very scenic run and very popular locals, tourists, birdwatchers & enthusiasts.
Cost approx £900 day.
Raised hundreds for local causes.
After privatization
Hire of train £900 + Railtrack's horrendous fee of £500 day hock:
Lostwithiel, a key signal box open 24hrs anyway(level crossing)
Trips discontinued

 

[Yew]

I get the impression that the general public quite like the Voyagers and Pendolini though. Every time I've talked to people that are not interested in the railways they have said they prefer the new trains.
[.

What have you compared them to? My friends prefer HST's to meridians as the seats are less claustrophobic, and a quieter environment. I suppose with pendolini they where replacing stock that had been intentionally run down (why refurb of we are getting new trains soon).

Also pendolinos look good from the outside compared to some of the ugly wcml locos..

 

[HH]

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.

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.

All Labour actually managed through their hyperbole was to ensure that the Franchises & Roscos were sold for considerably less than their true value. You might regard that as a colossal own goal, but I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[Greenback]

'New' Labour were about as Labour as UKIP are Conservatives! by that I mean a bit further to the right!

Anyway, I think the real debate here is whether some services are best delivered by the private sector or by the public sector. I believe that things like energy, water and mail services should be in public ownership. I don;t believe that the customer has benefitted from the privatisation of gas, electricity and water, nor do I think that privatisation of the Royal Mail will lead to better services int he long term.

When we talk about bringing back BR, we don't necessarily have to bring it back exactly as it was. The structure of the organisationw as constantly evolving, and there is no reason to go back to an organisation run on traditionally nationalised lines.

 

[CosherB]

I think you can rest your case OT, and Yorksrob. You have, to my way of reading it, demolioshed the arguments of the individuals who detest BR and those who ran it.


G.

Perhaps you could shine your (grimy old BR oil) light of justification on the rest of us, to whom that statement just doesn't stand up?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It seems that Captain Speaking's claim that he was being personally attacked is not without a large helping of hypocrisy.

 

[route:oxford]

There will never be a "British Rail" again.

For the simple reason that the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament would never allow it.

 

[150222]

There will never be a "British Rail" again.

For the simple reason that the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament would never allow it.

That is a good point but surely they could have Wales and Scotland in differant sectors. In the form of the current ATW and Scotrail franchises respectively.

 

[Greenback]

That is a good point but surely they could have Wales and Scotland in differant sectors. In the form of the current ATW and Scotrail franchises respectively.

Possibly, possibly not. It would probably depend on the nature of the proposals, but he fact that we have devolved government in Wales and Scotland is potentially another obstacle to BR coming back in any form.

 

[Ministry]

A private company exists purely to make profit for their shareholders and owners, so under the current system there's always an additional layer of money being syphoned off to provide returns for shareholders and excessively large renumeration for company directors and executives that could instead be used to make the railways more efficient.

My objection to the privatisation of the railways is that everytime I use it I'm paying money to what amounts to companies who play no role other than leeching extra money from the system. They aren't the truly great minds who put the railways together, and they aren't innovative or entrepenuerial in any way. I'd rather see my money recycled through the railways rather than paying into the pockets of shareholders and company directors of ROSCOs and TOCs who don't do anything to justify their existence.

 

[Greenback]

A private company exists purely to make profit for their shareholders and owners, so under the current system there's always an additional layer of money being syphoned off to provide returns for shareholders and excessively large renumeration for company directors and executives that could instead be used to make the railways more efficient.

My objection to the privatisation of the railways is that everytime I use it I'm paying money to what amounts to companies who play no role other than leeching extra money from the system. They aren't the truly great minds who put the railways together, and they aren't innovative or entrepenuerial in any way. I'd rather see my money recycled through the railways rather than paying into the pockets of shareholders and company directors of ROSCOs and TOCs who don't do anything to justify their existence.

I agree, but there is a counter argument that the profit motive for the private company ensures that the drive to maximise revenue outweighs the amount going out in comparison to a public organisation. The latter, without it's strong drive to make as much profit as possible, could end up less efficient overall.

 

[CosherB]

My objection to the privatisation of the railways is that everytime I use it I'm paying money to what amounts to companies who play no role other than leeching extra money from the system.

Do you feel the same way every time you buy groceries in Sainsburys, a book from Amazon, petrol for your car, undies from M&S, a plane ticket for your hols, a new carpet, a pint in the pub... just about anything infact?

Objecting to privatly run businesses is like objecting to rain being wet! Business is what makes the world go around!

 

[route:oxford]

That is a good point but surely they could have Wales and Scotland in differant sectors. In the form of the current ATW and Scotrail franchises respectively.

The Scottish Parliament would definitely not sanction Scotrail/Transport Scotland being a "Sector" of a British Rail.

There is always the potential for "English Railways" though.

 

[Ministry]

Do you feel the same way every time you buy groceries in Sainsburys, a book from Amazon, petrol for your car, undies from M&S, a plane ticket for your hols, a new carpet, a pint in the pub... just about anything infact?

Objecting to privatly run businesses is like objecting to rain being wet! Business is what makes the world go around!

Apples and oranges - the companies you have referenced operate in a free market where consumers have the option to choose between them. If I don't like Sainsburys for the quality of produce or service, or because of high prices, I'm free to go to Tesco, Morrisons, Asda, Aldi etc etc.

Those companies also live and die by their policies and decisions. They operate as completely private enterprises and are more than entitled to use their profits to renumerate their management and shareholders as they see fit, because if they make a mess of things they'll also be punished for poor decision making.

In the case of the railways I have very little choice of service and thus very little freedom to choose one company over another. Also, as demonstrated by the East Coast fiasco, if a franchise holder gets sick of owning a route they can simply walk away. In the good years they paid their shareholders and management a lot of money, and when things went wrong they continued to do so while the state was forced to step in and keep things running.

As I previously noted, the great minds who built the railways and were entitled to profit from them are long since dead, and in their place are companies who seem to fulfil no purpose and offer no improvement or performance benefits in the overall scheme of things. Public money still pours into the system and the state still stands ready to step in and run things, so why not just cut out the middle man and return to nationalisation?

 

[CosherB]

There is an element of competition for TOCs as Virgin will tell you! They are to re-compete for the WCML contract next year, and it's by no means sure who will get it. The winning bidder will be the one who offers the best financial deal to government, even at the expense of reduced levels of service on the railway.

As it is, TOCs make about 3% profit - peanuts compared to, say, supermarkets. It's not the trough of gold some on here seem to think it is.

 

[kylemore]

The Scottish Parliament would definitely not sanction Scotrail/Transport Scotland being a "Sector" of a British Rail.

There is always the potential for "English Railways" though.

SSR - "Scottish State Railways" has a ring to it! And RER "Royal English Railways" ((they do love their Royals you know(and welcome to them!)).
Wales is a bit more problematical since their network is effectively split in two.

 

[Ministry]

As it is, TOCs make about 3% profit - peanuts compared to, say, supermarkets. It's not the trough of gold some on here seem to think it is.

I agree with you fully that the railways are far from a profitable environment (ignoring peak routes into major cities). To my mind that strengthens the argument for public ownership - why have a layer of pretend private enterprise trying to extract money from the system for shareholders and directors?

Wouldn't it be easier to return the service elements (which seem to be inherently unprofitable) to the public sector while allowing the private sector to do what it does best and provide innovative solutions for things like rolling stock design and manufacturing?

State ownership of privately sourced rolling stock makes more sense to me than having ROSCOs who play no part in developing new trains or technology but still take profit for leasing them to operators, who pretend to be private enterprises but are really state subsidized with no reason or incentive to provide any of the benefits of the free market.

 

[WestCoast]

SSR - "Scottish State Railways" has a ring to it! And RER "Royal English Railways" ((they do love their Royals you know(and welcome to them!)).
Wales is a bit more problematical since their network is effectively split in two.

Reminds me a bit too much of the USSR or the Slovak Socialist Republic (SSR).

RER is Réseau Express Régional - the well-known commuter rail network serving Paris and its suburbs.

Until there is an English Government I don't see why it should be anything other than British Rail. However. that's a debate for another thread.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Network Rail own the land + track in the 3 countries without a problem.
Maybe it's just in a name.
National Rail!
British Rail sounds better though.