Fresh from the Labour Party Conference.

[9K43]

The post below is from the above meeting.
This is posted for a full and frank discussion on the contents.
I Have no views either way.


Labour conference report reveals public ownership of rail could save £1.2 billion and that 71% believe train operators are fleecing the public and only 19% believe railways should remain in private hands.

Reuniting the railways under public ownership could save the taxpayer £1.2bn a year according to a briefing from the Transport for Quality of Life Think Tank to be presented at Labour Party conference today - 28th September.

The interim briefing is part of a project due to be completed in December to examine what should be the structure of the railways to put a future Labour government firmly on the side of the passenger and taxpayer.

The report, commissioned by the rail unions ASLEF, RMT, TSSA and UNITE, says that this could be achieved through cheaper borrowing costs, the removal of dividends to shareholders and reducing fragmentation.

300 million alone annually could be saved by taking the train operating companies back into public ownership.

The briefing, which is to be released at a fringe meeting at Labour Party Conference said the savings from a re-integrated railway could lead to a across the board 18% cut in rail fares.

The findings come as an ICM poll for 2000 people found that 71% of those asked believed privatised train companies were more concerned with making profits than providing affordable fares and a decent service for passengers and that only 19% believe that the railways should remain in private hands.

The Transport for Quality of Quality report also said privatisation had resulted in significant social environmental and significant costs to the UK including the destruction of a once successful train manufacturing industry.

ASLEF General Secretary Keith Norman said;

“Last week Philip Hammond warned that the railways were becoming a rich man’s toy. To prevent that disaster he needs to control the industry - and that can only be done by ending the anarchic free-for-all that’s emerged from the discredited private franchise system.”

RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said;

“This research nails the lie of the McNulty Review that the answer to the inefficiencies and over-charging on Britains railways is more cuts, more rip-off opportunities for big business and higher fares. The solution is simple - stop the greed, fragmentation and profiteering of privatisation and we can save more than a billion pounds that could be invested back into the system. If Labour fail to grasp the popularity and economic common sense of renationalising the railways they will be throwing away the political opportunity of a lifetime.”

TSSA Assistant General Secretary Manuel Cortes said,

"We can no longer continue to tinker at the edges. Privatisation has failed passengers, workers, business and the economy. We now need to open our minds to bold new alternatives that serve the interests of passengers and taxpayers rather than the god of profit"

Unite assistant general secretary, Diana Holland said:



“As our experience at Bombardier shows, the fragmented, privatised rail network has been an unmitigated failure for passengers, workers, communities and the wider economy too.

 

[ainsworth74]

We've had this before though, around 2002/03 a Labour Part conference voted that renationalisation should be a policy of the party, however Gordon Brown and the rest of the decision makers (though mostly Brown) shot the plan down in flames. I don't think anything has changed radically enough for it to become a policy of the party.

It is of course worthwhile pointing that a big bang approach to renationalisation (ala 1948) would in the present day prove to be very expensive (I believe it's been quoted to be in the region of £20bn) due to all the payments that would have to be made due to early termination of franchises. So a project like this would either cost a lot or take a long time (bring them back under the state as franchises expire).

To be honest I think this is mostly conference hot air (perhaps it's no coincidence that there is a major political conference at the same time as a heat wave ).

 

[Yew]

Dont we have quite a few franchises ending in a big block soon? so we could nationalise those, and then let the rest carry on until the end of their terms

 

[Ferret]

I Have no views either way.

My view is that renationalisation will not happen in my lifetime, as I don't see the political will to do it. On a personal note, I'd rather see the energy companies nationalised first in any case.....

 

[ainsworth74]

Dont we have quite a few franchises ending in a big block soon? so we could nationalise those, and then let the rest carry on until the end of their terms

That is true but assuming the coalition lasts the distance most of those franchises will be renewed by 2015 (Greater Western, ICEC, Northern, TPE, ICWC, Essex Thameside, Greater Anglia and South Eastern) on to at least 15 year franchises by the time a Labour government will be in power again. So you would have to wait a very long time (in political terms) to renationalise or spend a lot of money to do it.

 

[CosherB]

Why would anyone want to re-nationalise? You either have to be quite young or have a short memory not to know how awful BR were in so many ways. Not least because they were always starved of funds, last in the queue at the Treasury, way behind the road lobby.

It's true the privatised railway has its faults, but having lived with both there's no comparison. Not for nothing are 3 times as many passengers using the Railway since privatisation! It's a safer railway, too, and faster (MAN - EUS in sub 2 hours!).

 

[Schnellzug]

Labour are in the comfortable position of being able to say what they like and make as many vague "promises" as they like, knowing that there's no prospect of them being in any position to be held to them for a while yet.
And by then, of course, does anyone think that anyone will remember what they said in their Conference four years ago?

Would the calls for "Bringing back British Rail" also include the relentless cutbacks and "economies" and relentlessly declining passenger numbers that accompanied it throughout its history?

 

[Aictos]

Just hot air!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

All it will take is Conference questions being asked such as "What do we spend priority money on when the country is really in a bad financial way" and you will find that railways will suddenly drop way down the order after the National Health Service, Education, etc, etc

 

[Mvann]

So what we need is a way to nationalize the railways without it being left to the whims of the treasury.

 

[90019]

What a load of crap.

I'll believe it when I see it happen.

 

[Yew]

What a load of crap.

I'll believe it when I see it happen.

didnt they promise the same thing just before that 12 year long period where they where in power, and where they had suitable cash to do so

 

[dggar]

So what we need is a way to nationalize the railways without it being left to the whims of the treasury.

No national publicly funded body can escape the whims of the treasury
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a safer railway, too, and faster (MAN - EUS in sub 2 hours!).

Which trains are sub 2 hours?

 

[HSTEd]

Isnt the London-Glasgow fastest run record for an in service run still held by BR?

Getting 2hr08minutes to Manchester took spending equal to a decade or more of subsidies for BR in capital costs alone.
EDIT:
Best I can think of is give it the authority to issue bonds itself, but frankly the privatised railway is no more independant of Treasury spending demands than BR was,


EDIT #2: There is a rather evil way around this termination fee thing, you pass an Act of Parliament regulating the business to death by imposing ludicrously high late fees, once they are in default and are in breach of contract you seize the franchise and pass a second Act repealing the ludicrously high late fees.

Or just use parliamentary supremacy to annull the franchising contracts.

You could certainly serve compulsary purchase orders on rolling stock and so on, if they have no stock they are certainly in breach of franchise.

 

[Schnellzug]

"parliamentary supremacy"? Would that be like the Politicians just... deciding to do something because they wanted to? But of course, that would be Democratic because 92% of the Public think that the railways should be owned by the state. So don't worry about the Politicians deciding to do something because they wanted to. They'd only do it in the Public Interest. Move along. Nothing to see here.


I wonder if someone could draw up a small list of exactly what would be the advantages of the railways being run by the State, given the surely manifest incompetence of the Government in every other walk of life? Why is it assumed, in the face of all experience, that if only the Government provided Public Transport, then we'd be enjoying a blissful utopia? Why did this utopia never come to pass in the 50 years that the railways were run by the State, and why is it assumed that if they were now, then it would be?

 

[sprite]

I can't see fiddling laws and compulsary purchase orders on rolling stock NOT going to some form of EU court and costing ALOT in legal fees and compensation.

 

[Schnellzug]

indeed, sounds like the kind of thing some dodgy third world government would do.


....

 

[ainsworth74]

indeed, sounds like the kind of thing some dodgy third world government would do.

Well then there should be no problem with doing it here then!

 

[Greenback]

It's highly unlikely that any party will renationalise the railways simpy because they would then be unable to avoid being responsible for it.

As for 'blissful utopia' only a the most foolish spin doctor would even think of promising that, and only a fantasist would describe BR in those terms! The real question is whether a nationalsed system would be better, overall, than what we have now. The first difficutly though is finding an acceptable definition of better!

Personally, I think that a nationalised system would be far cheaper to run, for a start.

 

[Schnellzug]

Whether it would be Cheaper to run, certainly should be taken into account; but what criteria should one use to measure success? Number of passengers carried, safety record? An awful lot of the inconsistencies and illogicalities currently are because of what was decided by Government when awarding the franchise or deciding on the peculiar way that subsidies are paid. I think one reason for that was the the Conservative Government didn't expect for one moment that the railway network would see anything but continued decline, so, as it would be embarrassing to see franchises going bust, they built in enormous subsidies, and protection from competition, which was counterproductive in that it removed the incentive for operators to strive for success, which is the keynote of any commercial enterprise.

 

[Greenback]

Whether it would be Cheaper to run, certainly should be taken into account; but what criteria should one use to measure success? Number of passengers carried, safety record?

Exactly my point! What is better? To many it seems to mean just cheaper, yet other criteria have to be involved.

An awful lot of the inconsistencies and illogicalities currently are because of what was decided by Government when awarding the franchise or deciding on the peculiar way that subsidies are paid. I think one reason for that was the the Conservative Government didn't expect for one moment that the railway network would see anything but continued decline, so, as it would be embarrassing to see franchises going bust, they built in enormous subsidies, and protection from competition, which was counterproductive in that it removed the incentive for operators to strive for success, which is the keynote of any commercial enterprise.

I mostly agree with that. I have frequently said that it is the method chosen for privatisation that was a failure rather than privatision as such itself.

 

[HSTEd]

1. A unified national rail operator could order rolling stock steadily and in bulk, providing a stable environment for local supporting businesses and providing reduced costs. (ie. it could order Sprinters instead of a dozen different families like the Coradia, Turbostar, Desiro and so on)
2. Profitable routes could be used to cross subsidise less profitable but socially neccesary routes, under the current systems profitable routes return profits to the operator and we are then required to pay the entire subsidy for the non profitable ones rather than the former contributing to the latter.
3. Many of the contracts regarding walk on ticket income dispersal could be disposed of, as there would only be one operator in the great majority of cases, open access operators could adopt seperate tickets or come to seperate agreements but they would be few in number.
4. Short term sharing of rolling stock would be far easier to accomplish since it would all be owned by the same operator rather than the contracting process neccesary for operators to move stock around under the current system.
5. Parallel management infrastructure which is considerably less efficient than a single unified system would be due to unneccesary duplication of skills and office space etc.
6. A unified rail operator would be large enough to absorb the liability from accidents from its operational reserves, this would remove the need for unneccesary and complicated insurance policies that do nothing but provide an income for a variety of lawyers in a variety of litigation scenarios.
7. Assuming the operator had a state guarantee of its debts, it would be able to acquire capital at a lower cost and thus be able to undertake infrastructural projects that would be nonviable under the current system.
8. A nationwide operator would be able to operate secondary services at a sufficient scale to be more efficient than currently employed agency staff, this would save money and also allow for the improvement of the working conditions of said staff who could be taken onto the payroll. (As a nonskilled agency worker myself I can testify to how horrible it is).



NB: Parliamentary Supremacy is one of the foremost principles of Westminster Parliamentary supremacy but oh well, well if the franchises last 15 years and the saving would be over £1.2bn a year, with the yield on government bonds of that duration being several percentage points below inflation it might still be worth it.

 

[CosherB]

No national publicly funded body can escape the whims of the treasury
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Which trains are sub 2 hours?

Take a look at National Rail travel site for some MAN - EUS timings. Quite a few at 1hour 58.

 

[Schnellzug]

1. A unified national rail operator could order rolling stock steadily and in bulk, providing a stable environment for local supporting businesses and providing reduced costs. (ie. it could order Sprinters instead of a dozen different families like the Coradia, Turbostar, Desiro and so on)
2. Profitable routes could be used to cross subsidise less profitable but socially neccesary routes, under the current systems profitable routes return profits to the operator and we are then required to pay the entire subsidy for the non profitable ones rather than the former contributing to the latter.
3. Many of the contracts regarding walk on ticket income dispersal could be disposed of, as there would only be one operator in the great majority of cases, open access operators could adopt seperate tickets or come to seperate agreements but they would be few in number.
4. Short term sharing of rolling stock would be far easier to accomplish since it would all be owned by the same operator rather than the contracting process neccesary for operators to move stock around under the current system.
5. Parallel management infrastructure which is considerably less efficient than a single unified system would be due to unneccesary duplication of skills and office space etc.
6. A unified rail operator would be large enough to absorb the liability from accidents from its operational reserves, this would remove the need for unneccesary and complicated insurance policies that do nothing but provide an income for a variety of lawyers in a variety of litigation scenarios.
7. Assuming the operator had a state guarantee of its debts, it would be able to acquire capital at a lower cost and thus be able to undertake infrastructural projects that would be nonviable under the current system.
8. A nationwide operator would be able to operate secondary services at a sufficient scale to be more efficient than currently employed agency staff, this would save money and also allow for the improvement of the working conditions of said staff who could be taken onto the payroll. (As a nonskilled agency worker myself I can testify to how horrible it is).



NB: Parliamentary Supremacy is one of the foremost principles of Westminster Parliamentary supremacy but oh well, well if the franchises last 15 years and the saving would be over £1.2bn a year, with the yield on government bonds of that duration being several percentage points below inflation it might still be worth it.

Mmmm... but, taking point (1) for starters, how many would say that the 'class 150s for all' approach was one that gave the best stock from the passenger's point of view? Is it not preferable for operators to be able to choose what best suits their requirements, rather than having one standard one-size-fits-all design imposed upon them?
As regards many of the other financial points, did those things apply to BR, and if they did, then could it be said that they were really very successful, seeing that "financial success" and "BR" were rarely synonyms?

 

[Greenback]

Mmmm... but, taking point (1) for starters, how many would say that the 'class 150s for all' approach was one that gave the best stock from the passenger's point of view? Is it not preferable for operators to be able to choose what best suits their requirements, rather than having one standard one-size-fits-all design imposed upon them?

Surely it is the route and the passenger profile that determines rolling stock suitability? The class 150 is a good enough unit for short distance inter urban and commuter routes regardless of the transient comapnt that happens to be operating the line temporarily!

 

[HSTEd]

Mmmm... but, taking point (1) for starters, how many would say that the 'class 150s for all' approach was one that gave the best stock from the passenger's point of view? Is it not preferable for operators to be able to choose what best suits their requirements, rather than having one standard one-size-fits-all design imposed upon them?
As regards many of the other financial points, did those things apply to BR, and if they did, then could it be said that they were really very successful, seeing that "financial success" and "BR" were rarely synonyms?

I didnt say one class.... I said one "family" of trains with various different classes for different roles, if an operator decides that they want a different interior or something they woudl be free to do that.
The Class 180s seem rather unneccesary next to the Class 22x family, the decision to acquire three multiple unit families for the Southern Region at the same time is stupid, the Class 185s probably should have been ordered at 22xs as well if they wanted fast acceleration or Turbostars if it isnt a major issue.

And at the risk of getting shouted at, perhaps it would be a good idae for all units to be able to work in multiple?


As for financial success: note how BR used to get a madly varying subsidy of somewhere between £400 million and £1100 million per year..... now note what the privatised industry gets now.

Network rail want and will probably get £30 million for a winter testing facility for equipment that will be able to test whole signals and so on, do you see British Rail so easily acquiring funding for such a system in the 80s?
The passenger numbers argument is difficult to make either way due to the explosion in fuel prices following the 80s fuel glut and the introduction of the fuel duty escalator and the increasing environmental awareness that has, in combination, driven people off the roads. And ofcourse the pre 2008 economic boom that increased use of all forms of transport.

EDIT:
And before someone notes how much nicer the trains on Southern Region are now with air conditioning and all that, I would point to the last acquired multiple units, 5WES sets, and the projected Networker Classic that never came to anything look pretty similar to the modern units that have been built.

 

[Zoe]

Even under direct control by the DfT though they have missed the chance for standardization with the IEP. Instead HSTs will be retained on some routes and when they are finally replaced it will leave the TOCs with two fleets of trains where in the case of FGW there is only one currently.

 

[Lampshade]

I can't see fiddling laws and compulsary purchase orders on rolling stock NOT going to some form of EU court and costing ALOT in legal fees and compensation.

Hopefully by then we'll be out of the EU.

 

[Schnellzug]

I didnt say one class.... I said one "family" of trains with various different classes for different roles, if an operator decides that they want a different interior or something they woudl be free to do that.
The Class 180s seem rather unneccesary next to the Class 22x family, the decision to acquire three multiple unit families for the Southern Region at the same time is stupid, the Class 185s probably should have been ordered at 22xs as well if they wanted fast acceleration or Turbostars if it isnt a major issue.

And at the risk of getting shouted at, perhaps it would be a good idae for all units to be able to work in multiple?


As for financial success: note how BR used to get a madly varying subsidy of somewhere between £400 million and £1100 million per year..... now note what the privatised industry gets now.

Network rail want and will probably get £30 million for a winter testing facility for equipment that will be able to test whole signals and so on, do you see British Rail so easily acquiring funding for such a system in the 80s?
The passenger numbers argument is difficult to make either way due to the explosion in fuel prices following the 80s fuel glut and the introduction of the fuel duty escalator and the increasing environmental awareness that has, in combination, driven people off the roads. And ofcourse the pre 2008 economic boom that increased use of all forms of transport.

EDIT:
And before someone notes how much nicer the trains on Southern Region are now with air conditioning and all that, I would point to the last acquired multiple units, 5WES sets, and the projected Networker Classic that never came to anything look pretty similar to the modern units that have been built.

I think that there are those as would argue that the 180s were rather superior to the Voyagers from the passenger's point of view, if not in reliability. Plus the 442s were about as non-standard as you could get; they could (theoretically) multiple with other SR stock, but i can't recall them ever doing so. And the Networker Turbos were pretty different from the Sprinters.

 

[HSTEd]

I think that there are those as would argue that the 180s were rather superior to the Voyagers from the passenger's point of view, if not in reliability. Plus the 442s were about as non-standard as you could get; they could (theoretically) multiple with other SR stock, but i can't recall them ever doing so. And the Networker Turbos were pretty different from the Sprinters.

As I understand it the Class 442s were identical electrically to Class 432s which could work in multiple with other units being fitted with the standard SR multiple working equipment (which would they have to have to work in formation with 4TCs). You can see the standard jumpers on the front which supports this.
As for them being non standard that was largely a result of the frugality of the Southern Region, they were largely mechanically identical to the other Mark 1 units around at the time due to them having Mark 1 electrical and traction equipment.

If Class 180s are superior (and in my experience they are not, thanks to ludicrous shaking when running flat out) then we should have ordered nothing but Class 180 derived trains.
Networker ordering started after the Sprinters and was to be the next generation of vehicle, they were not ordered at the same time or in alternating batches as has occured with the Desiros and Electrostars.