"Britain wants to return Nationalization" claims Sky

[ivanhoe]

that would only work as long if the franchises were at least 20 years long

Agreed. Would allow the larger TOCS to get greater access to capital to improve the network and rolling stock and get a decent return

 

[fgwrich]

The reason why RMT wants re-nationalisation is fairly obvious but the fact that they continue to live in the past is a sign of why they, like all unions, are slowly becoming more irrelevant.

Privatisation has its problems but re-nationalisation is not an answer. How the government handles the franchise system needs to change for sure.

Agreed...People think having the goverment run the East Coast will lead to re-nationalisation, which they then think is absolutly fantastic...But, A, The goverment only intend to run it as they ran South Eastern, till the franchise runs out, only to then go and re let it...Lets Face it, This goverment couldnt run a bath without worrying about costings and then would fail that!

As for the RMT Union, I think too that its time for them to grow up - Again, its Bob Crow, who still seems to live in the thatcher era...

I would argue that re-organisation rather than nationalisation is what is required.Fewer TOC'S , standardised liveries, standardised terms and conditions for rail workers, would in my opinion lead to a better railway for the UK taxpayer. I travelled from Loughborough to Liverpool last Saturday. Leg Loughborough to Leicester EMT, leg Leicester to Nununeaton Cross Country, Leg Nuneaton to Liverpool London Midland (changed at Stafford). God knows how the revenue from my saver ticket was apportioned but there must be people employed to deal with such things. What a waste, in my opinion.

I have respect for all rail staff who make the current system work, but it is not the way any sane person would advocate!

Same here... Though by the way its going at the moment, what else could you re-orginise?

Afterall, Scotrail runs all the services in Scotland, ATW runs all the services in Wales, Though here in england we have more TOC's mostly becasue england is bigger and far more regional...

that would only work as long if the franchises were at least 20 years long

Like Chiltern...

But theres a few flawes on that list, like where does Chiltern & Thameslink fit in ?

Afterall, Chiltern could be merged into FGW or the midlands based toc area...and Thameslink?

To be honest, its a typical Sky news story, aka something i wouldnt want to bother reading even if it was the last news channel around...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed. Would allow the larger TOCS to get greater access to capital to improve the network and rolling stock and get a decent return

Again, Like Chiltern, who want to take the Marylebone - Aynho section from Network Rail and run it themselves, both signalling and Maintenance...

Now where is this coming from? Chiltern, owned by DB AKA German State Railways....

Another thing we actually need in this industry, is proffesional people who actually know how to run a railway, and not managers promoted from other departments...Like Tim Shoveller for example... where did he come from?

Operations Director and then Business Development Director at Virgin Trains...

And who we need are people like, Andrew Haines...or Mr A Shooter from Chiltern Railways...

 

[TEW]

Andrew Haines was brilliant, shame he is in the aviation industry now.

 

[monkey]

...I just think this symptomatic want of rail enthusiasts of renationalisation is unrealistic. I think it would be better if people thought of more realistic ways of improving things as they are...

 

[daccer]

I worked for BR in the 80's and the rose-tinted view of it being touted on many forums doesnt bear much relation to the company i was part of. It was not bad and it was under-funded but isnt that the whole point. If you re-nationalise the railways then who puts the pressure on govt to come up with the increased investment that is needed? At the moment the govt is in a two-way contract with the TOC's and FOC's and if Network Rail (a public company) does not provide the right level of service the private operators get compensated. The govt dont spend money unless they have to and a nationalised company will not be able to manipulate the levels of investment out of the Govt that guys like Richard Branson can.

 

[fgwrich]

...I just think this symptomatic want of rail enthusiasts of renationalisation is unrealistic. I think it would be better if people thought of more realistic ways of improving things as they are...

Same, To be honest, we are too far beyound renationalisation...Privitisation was typically done by the conservatives and done in a mess, but it has eventually brought some results, just unfortunatly after the colapse of Railtrack, and various franchise reformed to how it is now...Like The Great Western running all the services in , the Great Western...

And How could we trust this goverment with a rail system...If they really did care and belive in it, then we would see far more major projects happening and more new stations, routes re-opend and better trains with better ticketing...

The dream of renationalisation is too far gone and could now never happen again...

As for the conservatives...They cant even run London properley, so theres no chance in hell i want them running the country again!

rich

 

[merlodlliw]

[?




Afterall, Scotrail runs all the services in Scotland, ATW runs all the services in Wales, Thugh here in england we have more TOC's mostly becasue england is bigger and far more regional...

as for Wales,pleased to report ATW have not replaced,VT/FGW and most important W/S

 

[Old Timer]

Integrating open access operators into a nationalised system would defeat the object of being open access, and as such would be against European law. ...

Nobody in Europe seems to be bothered in the slightest just look at the Netherlands, France in particular, and Germany, just to name three.

 

[Royston Vasey]

What's the point of the current Great Western franchise then?

They run commuter and local service at various points on their network (Oxford/Newbury/Reading - Paddington, local services around Bristol and Plymouth for example) as well as long distance intercity services (Paddington - Bristol/South Wales/Plymouth).

The same could be said for EMT. Local and commuter services around Derby, Nottingham and Leicester, and a intercity service from St Pancras to Nottingham and Sheffield.

Well, good point, I'm not defending the current system. To be fair FGW had an awful reputation for their operations until quite recently. Perhaps the sprawling nature of the franchise contributed to that. Now it must be said they run a pretty impressive franchise.

One of the big benefits of a nationalised railway would be the ability to easily pool stock in sensibly sized and structured "franchises", for example 158s from Northern could run on Liverpool to Norwich at short notice rather than having a cancellation or short formation. Alternatively, 317s from the current NXEA franchise could fill in on the Great Northern line. Chiltern 165s could be loaned to the Great Western side. ECML HSTs could easily fill in on the GWML.

But having a mix of local/regional and intercity trains in one franchise as originally suggested doesn't have that benefit. You might say that the previous paragraph describes InterCity, Network SouthEast and Provincial/Regional Railways, and that system made a lot of sense in that regard, but was horribly starved of investment for so long.

If nationalisation was reinstated, it should be done along those lines, for operational benefit and therefore ultimate reliability. It would be an interesting experiment. However I remember what British Rail became, it was crippled by ancient stock and infrastructure, and unfortunately at times of recession, being in the public sector the railways would end up being starved as they were for so long under state control.

It was well before privatisation that the InterCity 250 project failed, it took Virgin to bring in Pendolinos. I simply don't believe that the investments that have been made in rail by Stagecoach, First and Virgin etc would have been seen to the same extent without private funding.

- Would the Pendolinos have ever come to the WCML? Would we still be struggling on with 87s/90s and Mk IIIs?

- Would the entire HST fleet have been re-engineered or left to limp on?

- If privatisation had happened sooner, would not just 30 Cl91 + MkIV sets have been built but hundreds, for all the electrified main lines?

 

[Lampshade]

It was well before privatisation that the InterCity 250 project failed, it took Virgin to bring in Pendolinos. I simply don't believe that the investments that have been made in rail by Stagecoach, First and Virgin etc would have been seen to the same extent without private funding.

- Would the Pendolinos have ever come to the WCML? Would we still be struggling on with 87s/90s and Mk IIIs?

- Would the entire HST fleet have been re-engineered or left to limp on?

- If privatisation had happened sooner, would not just 30 Cl91 + MkIV sets have been built but hundreds, for all the electrified main lines?

All very good points:

I do think the HST fleet would have been re-engineered, even under British Rail I think people would have had the common sense to recognise that the HSTs are now around 30 years old and would need updating.

You say about still struggling on with old stock - Northern is still using 142s and Sprinters - every other TOC in the country bar NXEC at least has some post-privatisation stock. Is this Northern being tight on the investment front, investing nothing while pocketing everything?

 

[yorksrob]

I worked for BR in the 80's and the rose-tinted view of it being touted on many forums doesnt bear much relation to the company i was part of. It was not bad and it was under-funded but isnt that the whole point. If you re-nationalise the railways then who puts the pressure on govt to come up with the increased investment that is needed? At the moment the govt is in a two-way contract with the TOC's and FOC's and if Network Rail (a public company) does not provide the right level of service the private operators get compensated. The govt dont spend money unless they have to and a nationalised company will not be able to manipulate the levels of investment out of the Govt that guys like Richard Branson can.

Thats a very good point, and I would certainly agree that the not very transparent state of funding that having lots of different companies encourages, has helped to ratchet extra funds from the government, even though I might not be convinced that it has always been spent as wisely as possible. The problem is that so far privatisation has spanned a period of economic growth with a government that was indeed prepared to invest and not look too closely. The question is what will happen to an industry which is used to such spending when the available money declines. We can already see this with the difficulties of letting the East Coast franchise. Other companies which would otherwise pay a premium are finding that they will be unable to do so profitably.

I suspect we will see more nationalisation by the back door, i.e. with HM Government micro-managing the franchises and making all the important investment decisions concerning rolling stock and infrastructure anyway. "He who pays the piper calls the tune!" Whether this will be done more effectively for the railway than the business sectors would have managed is another matter.

It does worry me that whereas BR had a central management of railway professionals that did at least have a limited level of autonomy on how best to spend money around the network, and could liaise with the Ministry about his/her decisions on these matters, the current system doesn't and relies on civil servants extracting as much money as possible from one franchise and giving it to another whilst hoping that the numbers add up.

 

[Old Timer]

Only a very small proportion of railways actually make money, and these tend to be suburban systems in large cities where the economics or the logistics of owning/using car for work far outweigh the costs of travelling by train. Generally cities such as Hong Kong and a number of other Far East Countries have vibrant local services simply because travelling by car or bus is just simply not an option. They do not however have any long distance services that make money so to speak.

Long distance freight, especially in the USA, has made money albeit only in recent years has this occurred.

The problem with the UK is that we are neither fish nor foul in both passenger and freight senses.

In addition our taxation system encourages not only the giving of cars as a method of remuneration to get around tax but the car taxation system actually encourages maximum use of a vehicle when a fuel card is provided.

Many Companies do not want the costs of administrating fuel receipts and claims and opt to simply allow free fuel for private use. Because of the way that a fuel card is taxed, anyone with one is advised to do as much private mileage as possible in order to gain the most out of it.

Again with a car, it is the same tax liability for someone who is given a car as a perk as it is for a traveller who has to travel considerable distances in the course of their job. Again because of this, it is beneficial to use the car as miuch as possible as one is taxed on it.

Whilst some cities do have heavily used suburban services, it is simply because the roads are unable to cope with the rush hour road traffic that drives (pardon the unintentional pun) people onto the trains. Birmingham is a good example, however such is the demand that the station car parks are usually filled by about 7.30 making travel after this time impossible unless one lives on a bus route.

The great British love of the motor car is such that people will use them when they can UNLESS there is a good reason not to.

Since Labour came into power, the real cost of motoring has reduced sharply, whilst at the same time rail now pays VAT on its fuel whilst the air industry does not. Hardly a ringing endorsement as a transport policy ?

In addition Labour views the Railways as a revenue stream that is to a large degree bottomless, hence their continued awarding of Franchises to the highest bidder not necessarily the ones who offer the best all round deal.

A final issue is that when asked the Great British Public want to have a train service that runs regularly simply so it can be there for the very rare occasion when the want to use it, usually when the roads are blocked by snow. They will not use it otherwise, and because of this the prices have to reflect the limited useage, something again that they complain about if they do ever use the train.

At a time when lorry drivers, who in general are self employed, are offering to transport goods at not much more than the cost of diesel, and in competition with lorries from Europe which now ply for hire here, filled with cheap fuel in Europe and without the need to pay road tax. there is little hope for a vibrant freight market in the UK as the freight operators are slowly but surely starting to find out.

 

[Aictos]

You say about still struggling on with old stock - Northern is still using 142s and Sprinters - every other TOC in the country bar NXEC at least has some post-privatisation stock. Is this Northern being tight on the investment front, investing nothing while pocketing everything?

Uh the only post-privatisation stock that First Capital Connect has are the loaned 377/5s which belong to Southern so don't really count, the 313s, 317s, 319s, 321s and 365s are all former BR stock.

How about First Great Western as well, they only have former BR stock now they got rid of the 180s.

So I have to disagree with your point that every TOC except for Northern is running modern stock.

 

[ivanhoe]

A final issue is that when asked the Great British Public want to have a train service that runs regularly simply so it can be there for the very rare occasion when the want to use it, usually when the roads are blocked by snow. They will not use it otherwise, and because of this the prices have to reflect the limited useage, something again that they complain about if they do ever use the train.

.

Given the Government Cuts which are about to hit the Public Sector, and believe me they have started already in the Public Sector area in which I am employed, can we justify the number of services that the Railways currently offer ? I would not be surprised if we see cuts in services within the next few years unless the 'Privatised Railway ' can think of innovative ways of attracting more revenue (passengers)

 

[emoaconr]

And it was only a few weeks ago Murdoch was saying how much of a "monopoly" the publically-owned BBC held, and how we'd be all better off with subscription-based systems! I could not imagine the reaction Sky News and The Times would give to a renationalisation of the railway system. Where on earth BSkyB got these figures from, I do not know, but their crying out for popularism is more than evident.

As for public sector cuts... I do realise that the majority of the rail system is in private hands, but I fear for the long-term regulation of the railways, where common morals and tradition are ignored in the face of printing cash. I really hate how politics interferes in the railways, but I guess without subsidised incentive, the railways would be in an equally sorry state of affairs as British bus networks. I just hope that sometime soon, we'll get some proper realistic investment and innovation in the railway system. I do have my hopes!

 

[thefab444]

You say about still struggling on with old stock - Northern is still using 142s and Sprinters - every other TOC in the country bar NXEC at least has some post-privatisation stock.

Surely, Northern have 333s?

 

[daccer]

The PPM last month was 94%, Network Rail are starting a 30 billion investment programme in CP4 including some serious upgrades that have been stalled for a decade or so. We have a Transport Minister who is ultra pro-rail and customer satisfraction figures hover around 80%. We are in a period of sustained rail growth and also in a time in history where rail is seen as a vital part of the transport infrastructure. Ripping all of that up and starting again with some dramatic renationalistion seems a little draconian. I think we need a programme of fine tuning to get the system purring rather than spluttering like it is now. I think one of the major changes that should be brought in is that there should be no more moderation of competition clauses such as Virgin have been benefitting from over the last decade or so. This has stopped open access operators operating on the WCML which would surely have been as fertile a territory as the ECML has become.

 

[Lampshade]

Surely, Northern have 333s?

Ahh, my bad, sorry

 

[NJTom]

Maybe it would be an idea to actually privatise it first.

 

[Old Timer]

.......Network Rail are starting a 30 billion investment programme in CP4 including some serious upgrades that have been stalled for a decade or so. ........

Well we will have to see about that because by their recent actions they are rapidly destroying the workbank from which the best staff can be drawn.

By freezing out the major Infrastructure Contractors and holding back work, all NR have done is to damage what was left of relations with the big boys to the point where contracting to NR is now seen as a serious risk by the financiers and various shareholders. The upshot will be higher costs for the risk that has now been created.

What is the much more critical issue is the loss of highly experienced labour, engineers and managers from the UK. Right now a number of Australian companies are holding recruitment sessions in the UK and good staff are being offered packages that can almost double their UK salary. These Companies are looking only for the main key people and are stripping Railway enngineering talent out of the UK like there is no tomorrow.

Staff who have been made redundant or whose futures are uncertain because of NRs antics are taking up foreign job offers. Sadly these are the very people who will be needed if NR ever start to invest again.

Those who will be left are either those who were found to be unsuitable for work abroad, or whose UK committments have stopped them taking up offers. Bottom line is the UK market will be left without the best people, and Contractors who will be very wary about doing business with NR.

Petty mindedness and vindictiveness has won the day. If you rearrange the words "killed, goose, egg, the, laid, who, they, the, have, golden" you will see the outcome of that policy.

.......I think one of the major changes that should be brought in is that there should be no more moderation of competition clauses such as Virgin have been benefitting from over the last decade or so. This has stopped open access operators operating on the WCML which would surely have been as fertile a territory as the ECML has become.

Amazing what a few quid donated to the Labour can do