Great Western to DOR?

[Goatboy]

So under your scheme, all the TOCs are state-owned, but the rail infrastructure is still owned by a private company (Network Rail)? Sounds a bit of a silly way to do it.

Anyone know what it would cost for the Government to buy up Network Rail and all its billions of pounds' worth of debts?

Network Rail isn't a traditional private company, it is a statutary organisation.

 

[Eagle]

It would still need to be bought out by the Government to achieve full nationalization.

Oh, and while we're at it, we're going to need to buy back all the trains from the ROSCOs.

 

[Goatboy]

It would still need to be bought out by the Government to achieve full nationalization.

This is not the case - it has no shareholders so there is nobody to 'buy out'. It was set up in this way exactly so as to provide the option to take it back into full public ownership in the future if deemed necessary.

 

[ModernRailways]

£6 billion to renationalise the railways sounds like a bargain and would be money well spent. If you think £6 billion is 'an absolute bomb', just bear in mind that this is how much of our money the government pours into the privatised rail industry every single year, compared to the £1 billion British Rail managed with. The government subsidises the rail industry by this amount not because it wants to but because the fragmented privatised industry requires that much money to function.

When he said £6 Billion he meant it would cost that just for ending franchises early. I should have said that in my original post, sorry if I've caused confusion.

Also, to add. It wouldn't be possible would it for all franchises to end at the same time, and so staggering a relaunch of BR for each line would be in my opinion shambolic and it simply wouldn't work. You would need all franchises to end at the same time, whether that be through handouts to current TOC's to franchise extensions (for those who agree).

What is actually happening is Cameron's gang wish to re-privatise DOR East Coast so the profit it is reporting goes to his Private Buisiness Pals rather than to all to us, the tax payer.

Think carefully before you vote in 2015.

The person I was talking to was a Labour MP.

DOR aren't meant as a long term replacement, if they were they have already wasted bucket loads of money on getting things ready for the next company who takes it over.

 

[junglejames]

I'm no fan of Bob Crow but what he says on this is spot on.

The sooner First Group are history the better!

Unfortunately no he isnt. In fact, he is so far from the truth, its beyond funny. Unfortunately you have fallen into his little trap. Its people like you he is praying on.

Now im no fan of privatisation. Its increased costs too much, and has made the industry too fragmented. However, right now, the worst thing about the railways, is the DFT meddling around in everything. They mess it all up. If you renationalise it all, surely the DFT will want even more power. Can you imagine that? It is very very scary. The best we can hope for now, is that the privatised industry is allowed to get on with things.

As for getting rid of FGW. Why? They actually havent been too bad. OK, I will admit the previous boss was responsible for the worst fleet of Mk3s known to man kind. She should be made to pay for that out of her own pocket. An absolute disastrous refurb. But since she left, FGW have been doing very well. A company not scared to stand up to the DFT (although they perhaps could have done more so when it came to IEP).
Plus this rubbish about handing back the keys just to avoid paying all those premium payments. Well, its exactly that, rubbish, with a capital 'R'. When TOCs operations are disrupted by engineering works etc, they are compensated. As we all know. So why would it be any different with FGW? It wouldnt. It just so turns out, that the compensation that would have been due to FGW during the electrification works, would have been more than the premium payments (because the electrification works were agreed after the franchise started). In other words, the DFT would have actually been out of pocket had FGW decided to keep going.

 

[Railsigns]

It wouldn't be possible would it for all franchises to end at the same time, and so staggering a relaunch of BR for each line would be in my opinion shambolic and it simply wouldn't work. You would need all franchises to end at the same time, whether that be through handouts to current TOC's to franchise extensions (for those who agree).

I see no reason whatsoever as to why it should be shambolic or any reason why all the franchises would need to end at the same time. The franchises could be brought under DOR control one at a time as and when they expire, so there'd be a gradual reduction in the number of TOCs over a period of years. That doesn't sound in any way shambolic to me, unlike the mad rush to get the railways fully privatised before the 1997 general election.

 

[daikilo]

Renationalisation needn't cost a bomb at all. It depends how it is done.

Yes you'd need to set up the administration part, but that could be piecemeal and be done as each franchise expires, rather than buy TOCs out of their franchise.

DOR could quite easily be a long term replacement.

The government has indeed created a rather interesting scenario i.e. either they achieve an acceptable negotation with the incumbent supplier for the extension or DOR step in, and this no matter what the cost (or benefit)

If I were an incumbent I might be strongly tempted to bid not just for the short extension but also for the follow-on rebid. Unfortunately this is publicly not foreseen therefore not workable.

In that case, as a supplier, I might weigh the pros and cons and reject the extension. As far as I am aware, rejection does not damage the suppliers ability to bid for the franchise renewal.

Will DOR be allowed to bid for any of the new franchises or will they go back into hibernation. I'm beginning to think even the new franchise process is already floored.

 

[swt_passenger]

Will DOR be allowed to bid for any of the new franchises or will they go back into hibernation.

No they can't bid and won't ever bid. They are an internal DfT organisation for use in emergency situations.

 

[455driver]

As for renationalisation of the whole network, it simply wouldn't work. It would firstly cost an absolute bomb, secondly it would be too much of a farce to setup. The Government would need to pay off the current TOC's who are running franchises, they would need to then pay for a load of new staff to run things behind-the-scenes.

Just wait until the franchise term is up, total cost £0.

The same staff would run it as now, okay there would be some who would stay with the operators (whether First group, Stagecoach etc) but 99% of the staff stay the same at change over time anyway.

As for the new uniform, well we get new uniforms anyway, they are rubbish quality though.

Re-nationalision wont happen simply because there are a lot of "important" people who make shed loads of money out of the franchising process and by "running" the trains.

 

[ModernRailways]

Just wait until the franchise term is up, total cost £0.

The same staff would run it as now, okay there would be some who would stay with the operators (whether First group, Stagecoach etc) but 99% of the staff stay the same at change over time anyway.

As for the new uniform, well we get new uniforms anyway, they are rubbish quality though.

Re-nationalision wont happen simply because there are a lot of "important" people who make shed loads of money out of the franchising process and by "running" the trains.

But then it would be a staggered takeover. If you are returning it to British Rail, all TOC's would have to go at the same time.

You would still need the big wigs to be switched around then you would also need new staff for the head of British Rail on the whole.

I never said that it won't happen because of 'important' people. I said it would cost way too much money - and my figure was from a Labour MP who I was chatting too who said it would need £6 Billion at the very least and that was without any extras that would need thrown in for the changeover.


I have a question though, which TOC's would NOT fall under a new British Rail, for example would Scotrail?

 

[Railsigns]

But then it would be a staggered takeover. If you are returning it to British Rail, all TOC's would have to go at the same time.

I don't know why you think that. I really don't.

 

[sheff1]

... all TOC's would have to go at the same time.

You keep repeating that but haven't explained why. Other posters have explained how it could work on a staggered basis.

Oh, and while we're at it, we're going to need to buy back all the trains from the ROSCOs.

Again, why ? I don't see any reason why DOR/BR couldn't continue to hire the existing trains.

The option would be there to go either way (outright purchase or lease) when new trains are ordered.

 

[bnm]

Re-nationalision wont happen simply because there are a lot of "important" people who make shed loads of money out of the franchising process and by "running" the trains.

Who are these people? An average of 3% in profit for the TOCs. The largest owning group, FirstGroup, haven't been a worthy investment for ages and their share price, and thus book value, has fallen off a cliff recently. That's why they have been forced to raise some dosh with a rights issue to prop up the company finances.

I'm genuinely interested to know who is making 'shed loads' out of running trains. Could you enlighten us.

One group of people I do know that have done well out of privatisation are train drivers. Because of their specialised skills, and a market place for those skills having been created by privatisation, it has led to competition between TOCs for the best drivers. This has meant the TOCs have to offer ever increasing wages and terms to either attract or retain drivers.

Same goes for other skilled grades in the industry. It's an inconvenient truth that salaries are one of the major drivers of the increasing costs faced by the industry since privatisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who are these people? An average of 3% in profit for the TOCs. The largest owning group, FirstGroup, haven't been a worthy investment for ages and their share price, and thus book value, has fallen off a cliff recently. That's why they have been forced to raise some dosh with a rights issue to prop up the company finances.

I'm genuinely interested to know who is making 'shed loads' out of running trains. Could you enlighten us.

One group of people I do know that have done well out of privatisation are train drivers. Because of their specialised skills, and a market place for those skills having been created by privatisation, it has led to competition between TOCs for the best drivers. This has meant the TOCs have to offer ever increasing wages and terms to either attract or retain drivers.

Same goes for other skilled grades in the industry. It's an inconvenient truth that salaries are one of the major drivers of the increasing costs faced by the industry since privatisation.

If you work in the industry and advocate re-nationalisation, I'd be careful what you wish for. A government controlled rail industry looking to save money will look to one of the biggest costs. The wage bill.

 

[sheff1]

I'm genuinely interested to know who is making 'shed loads' out of running trains. Could you enlighten us.

Well The Bearded One seems extremely keen to hang onto the WMCL. I doubt he is doing it out of the goodness of his heart.

No doubt 455driver will be back soon to elaborate on his thinking but, from where I am, the laywers, consultants etc who make 'shed loads' from the franchising process are the 'important' ones in this context. They most certainly will continue to maintain very good contacts at the higher levels of government, regardless of which party is in power.

 

[Railsigns]

If you work in the industry and advocate re-nationalisation, I'd be careful what you wish for. A government controlled rail industry looking to save money will look to one of the biggest costs. The wage bill.

I work in the industry, I advocate renationalisation and I'd happily go back to earning BR wages if the industry was renationalised. I'm not one of those people whose first thoughts are "what's in it for me?"

 

[railuser007]

Looks like with these its not about making shed loads as profits - but individuals (others) in between pocking huge amounts - like the bankers - the banks went kaput while the bankers champaged away.

 

[185]

If you work in the industry and advocate re-nationalisation, I'd be careful what you wish for. A government controlled rail industry looking to save money will look to one of the biggest costs. The wage bill.

I disagree. Staffing levels after the last fifteen years are already at a barebones minimum. In one instance, FirstGroup tried in 2009 to dispense with 28 key frontline staff, stating their jobs were unnecessary.

Well, I often criticise them on here, but the ORR were the ones who intervened and overturned a FirstGroup cost cutting plan, which would have seen a real risk of a collision caused by unsafe methods of working being introduced.

First initially claimed 'removing safety critical staff duties would allow staff to concentrate more on customer service issues' - this did not wash with the government agency.

My view, I consider a private company to be far less trustworthy with chopping staff numbers than government, government are far more likely to consider the long term cost of short term corner-cutting.

<< Especially that company. Shares at 97p today :P

 

[455driver]

Well The Bearded One seems extremely keen to hang onto the WMCL. I doubt he is doing it out of the goodness of his heart.

No doubt 455driver will be back soon to elaborate on his thinking but, from where I am, the laywers, consultants etc who make 'shed loads' from the franchising process are the 'important' ones in this context. They most certainly will continue to maintain very good contacts at the higher levels of government, regardless of which party is in power.

^^ Sheff has said it word for word!^^
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I work in the industry, I advocate renationalisation and I'd happily go back to earning BR wages if the industry was renationalised. I'm not one of those people whose first thoughts are "what's in it for me?"

As do I, I just wanted to turn my hobby into my career, a bit more variety (routes and traction) would be nice though.

The money went up almost as fast as the variety went down.

 

[tbtc]

I disagree. Staffing levels after the last fifteen years are already at a barebones minimum

Are there more jobs nowadays? There are certainly a lot more services than I can ever remember.

 

[bnm]

I disagree. Staffing levels after the last fifteen years are already at a barebones minimum. In one instance, FirstGroup tried in 2009 to dispense with 28 key frontline staff, stating their jobs were unnecessary.

I wasn't necessarily saying that re-nationalisation would see a cut in staff. I said that government would look to address one of the biggest costs to the industry. The wage bill.

Typical government actions to control the wage bill? Below inflation pay rises or even pay freezes. Cuts to staff benefits. Attempts to increase productivity without rewarding.

As I said, be careful what you wish for.

 

[ryan125hst]

I don't know why you think that. I really don't.

I agree with you Railsigns. Surely it would just be a case of handing each line under the control of DOR at the end of each franchise. After twenty years or so, the railway will be renationalised.

Would it even be necessary to go back to British Rail as it was? It could be called British Rail again for the network as a whole, but each area could have its own identity, which would bridge the gap between privatisation and nationalisation quite well.

For example East Coast currently exists. We could then have:
-West Coast
-Great Western
-Great Eastern
-Midland
-Cross Country
-Gatwick Express
for Inter City services. Would South West be another one for the London to Weymouth route?

The local and regional routes could them also be split, e.g:
-North East
-North West
-East Midlands

The top two replacing the Northern franchise, the bottom one replacing East Midland Trains's local routes.

Would this work?

 

[ModernRailways]

I agree with you Railsigns. Surely it would just be a case of handing each line under the control of DOR at the end of each franchise. After twenty years or so, the railway will be renationalised.

But DOR is an emergency TOC set up by the DfT. It isn't there just so they can avoid having to pay off TOC's so they can renationalise the network.

Would it even be necessary to go back to British Rail as it was? It could be called British Rail again for the network as a whole, but each area could have its own identity, which would bridge the gap between privatisation and nationalisation quite well.

For example East Coast currently exists. We could then have:
-West Coast
-Great Western
-Great Eastern
-Midland
-Cross Country
-Gatwick Express
for Inter City services. Would South West be another one for the London to Weymouth route?

The local and regional routes could them also be split, e.g:
-North East
-North West
-East Midlands

The top two replacing the Northern franchise, the bottom one replacing East Midland Trains's local routes.

Would this work?

Gatwick Express wouldn't be it's own. You could maybe have one called Airport Express. That would work on all trains that go to Airport's. So Airport Express would have the Gatwick, and Stansted Airports as Airport Express - isn't there another Airport Express, I can't remember any other UK Airports?

Your idea is essentially having all routes under the current arrangements just in Government hands.

My main issue with that idea is that it wouldn't be one railway, it would be the same way you had L.N.E.R, LMS, GWS etc. they were all separate at one point, they then all became BR and are now known as East Coast, Virgin Trains West Coast, First Great Western respectively.

If you were to have BR back, everything would have to be BR, with London's main commuter lines receiving separate branding, a la Network South East, and Scotrail (if they would be included).

 

[Railsigns]

But DOR is an emergency TOC set up by the DfT. It isn't there just so they can avoid having to pay off TOC's so they can renationalise the network.

I think everyone's aware of what DOR's purpose currently is. If and when renationalising the railways becomes government policy, there will need to be a public body to take over the running of services and seeing as DOR already exists, they'd be the obvious choice to take on that role instead of starting from scratch. That's not to say it wouldn't have to evolve in some way in recognition of its new role as a permanent operator and the foundation of a new BR.

 

[ryan125hst]

But DOR is an emergency TOC set up by the DfT. It isn't there just so they can avoid having to pay off TOC's so they can renationalise the network.

What I'm suggesting is that DOR take over as each franchise expires. After a number of years, the whole network will be effectively operated by the government, so will be renationalised. It wouldn't cost any more than a new TOC taking over the franchise, the trains will have to be repainted, stations rebranded and new uniforms issued either way.

Gatwick Express wouldn't be it's own. You could maybe have one called Airport Express. That would work on all trains that go to Airport's. So Airport Express would have the Gatwick, and Stansted Airports as Airport Express - isn't there another Airport Express, I can't remember any other UK Airports?

I only suggested that because Gatwick Express used to run under InterCity. An Airport Express brand does sound like a good idea though. The one that you were looking for was Heathrow (which actually has two services: Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect. I suppose the later would end up being operated by whoever operated the local services from Paddington to Slough and Reading).

Your idea is essentially having all routes under the current arrangements just in Government hands.

My main issue with that idea is that it wouldn't be one railway, it would be the same way you had L.N.E.R, LMS, GWS etc. they were all separate at one point, they then all became BR and are now known as East Coast, Virgin Trains West Coast, First Great Western respectively.

If you were to have BR back, everything would have to be BR, with London's main commuter lines receiving separate branding, a la Network South East, and Scotrail (if they would be included).

But even in BR days, there was InterCity, Regional Railways, Network South East and Scotrail, and I think there were also sub-brands InterCity Sleeper.

You could eventually merge operations, so the three local networks that I mentioned (North East, North West and East Midlands) could be merged.

Regional Railways (originally Provincial) - other passenger services in England and Wales, often suffixed by a regional description, e.g. Regional Railways North West

This shows that the network was split into areas as I suggested back in BR days. Doing it this way would also make the transition from a franchised TOC to a nationalised network easier.

 

[swt_passenger]

...Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect. I suppose the later would end up being operated by whoever operated the local services from Paddington to Slough and Reading).

Or Crossrail, which will shortly have taken it over in the real world?

 

[mralexn]

I had this email through today from a friend who works for FGW,

12 June 2013

Great Western franchise

You may have seen an announcement today by the RMT about the Great Western
franchise, suggesting that FirstGroup negotiations are not going well.
This is simply not true, and it is disappointing that the RMT has issued
the statement without fully understanding the process for Single Tender
Awards.

The RMT suggests that talks have run into trouble because Directly Operated
Railways has applied for a safety certificate. This is not the case. It
is usual practice and they must do this because the process to achieve a
safety certificate takes sixteen weeks.

We have also applied for a safety certificate, and this process is part of
all potential train operator single tender negotiations.

Contrary to the RMT statement, negotiations are progressing well and there
is no cause for concern. Our proposal is due to be submitted to the
Department for Transport (DfT) on Thursday 4 July.

In fact, the DfT has reiterated this position this morning in the following
statement:

“Whenever the DfT enters negotiations for a new franchise agreement it has
to ask Directly Operated Railways to carry out minimum preparatory work to
protect passenger services. This is just a routine standard procedure and
part of the Government’s sensible contingency planning. It does not relate
in any way to how the negotiations are proceeding and it is wrong for the
RMT to suggest otherwise.”


Mark Hopwood
Managing Director