Nationalisation and privatisation

[D365]

I'm sure a number of ye ol' faithful may have noticed how back in March, the Tory-led government gave extensions to virtually all the franchises until 2017, whilst East Coast are to be reprivatised in February 2015. This is, conveniently for them, just before the election, leaving the next government with a private EC again and all the [re]tenders etc. to blow make expense on, and the blame if anything further is screwed up.

The administration of the privatised system model, as I see it in particular, is vastly inefficient. But I wish not to peruse further and delve into such a debate, again. The Tories breathe by private service, infrastructure and industry. They don't just swear by it.

Just to be picky, I'd like to point out that the state owns Direct Rail Services.

I was going to say! (owned by NDA after being transferred from the now-defunct founding BNFL)

I think there's a lot to be said for the parts of the above which are natural monopolies to be nationalised: Transco / National Grid. Similarly, the OpenReach part of BT; presumably the parallel in the rail industry would be Network Rail.

The state did actually retain "golden shares" in a number of industries after they were sold off, but I recall the BT share had to be relinquished in the end due to some ruling legislation or something.

When it comes to the things mentioned as benefits of nationalisation, which would still apply to more integration? For instance, if Scotrail were to own / maintain tracks (excl ECML south of Edinburgh, and WCML), stations and trains directly, would this be better, or worse, or the same?

How's the SWT/NR alliance doing?

 

[jon0844]

EC was never meant to remain in public hands.

 

[Morden Via CHX]

How many times do we have to have this debate?

 

[D365]

EC was never meant to remain in public hands.

Not so long as the system remains privatised, but the coincidence of delaying the changeover to February 2015 just before the 2015 General Election, rather than to 2017 to bring it in line with other franchises...

 

[NSEFAN]

That could be convincing but only if you overlook the extra billions of pounds of public money needed to keep Britain's railways running each year since privatisation, as well as Network Rail's £28 billion debt. Why not take a look at Northern Ireland's railways and discover that it's possible have new trains, station improvements and record passenger numbers on a state-owned UK rail system?

To play devil's advocate for a moment, why are you assuming that more money in means more wastage? A good railway is ultimately going to be expensive no matter what political ideology you apply to it, especially when you consider the managed decline attitude of BR that means we are now paying for decades of neglect on top of all the improvements made. I'd be surprised if Northern Ireland railways were able to pay for multiple concurrent system improvements without some increase in subsidy.

Something I've always suspected is that, for central government, subsidising private initiatives is more politically acceptable than subsidising state-run systems. For the government of the mid 90s, injecting more cash into the railways was only going to be feasible if it was taken out of direct state operation first. People sometimes talk about privatisation as selling off the family jewels, but that's not how the railways were seen at the time. From everything I've read about them, they were seen as a burden and not the national asset that they should be.

In principle, I support a nationalised passenger operation because of how important transport is to the economy of the country. That said, I don't trust the DfT not to screw it all up. It's like having to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea. :roll:

 

[Harpers Tate]

...I don't trust the DfT not to screw it all up....

Quite.
Much of what we percieve to be "wrong" with the Railway as it is at present - lack of sufficient rolling stock (and hence overcrowding) and the absence of any decent, new rolling stock, are examples of what we "enjoy" in "Northern" territory - are matters which are controlled/dictated wholly by the Government and not by the private enterprise that does the day-to-day running. How anyone can imagine that INcreasing the extent to which the same government body is involved would improve matters is beyond my comprehension.

It's my contention that, at a commercial level, the TOCs offer a far greater range of discounts and deals; are far more creative when it comes to encouraging us to travel; than (suicidal) BR ever was. Which is a good thing, surely. I see nothing to suggest that a re-nationalised industry would be any better than BR was prior to privatisation. And frankly it was dire.

 

[yorksrob]

Firstly, if, as the above posters contend, the currently privatised system is beholden to the treasury which is ultimately to blame for the lack of rolling stock etc, how can they then go on to absolve the Government of responsibility for it‘s own investment decisions during the Nationalised period ? classic double standards.

Quite how a poster can go on to describe BR as "suicidal" when, lets not forget, for most of the 1980‘s it was developing a growing railway, both in terms of passenger numbers and passenger route mileage, I find incomprehensible, and I speak as someone old enough to have travelled during the Nationalised period, and whilst it certainly had it‘s moments, most of the time I found the service provided to be more than adequate.

I think there are areas where privatisation has excelled, noteably the open access element which has opened up many new markets, and the undoubted development of yield management (although railcards and apex fares etc are testament to the fact that the nationalised railway was also developing this area) and it is right that these are discussed. However let's not descend into spouting the sort of incorrect drivel spouted by the Major era Tory party's propaganda machine please
.

 

[jon0844]

Not so long as the system remains privatised, but the coincidence of delaying the changeover to February 2015 just before the 2015 General Election, rather than to 2017 to bring it in line with other franchises...

Are you suggesting any other party that wins in 2015 would potentially nationalise the railway?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Yep, let's re-nationalise the system. Wasn't it great when the dead hand of the treasury was on top.......Have a look at the new trains.

Privatisation has brought us around 1400 new trains so far, in seventeen years. In the last seventeen years of BR around 1600 trains were introduced.

See the amount of electrification work being carried out.

I'd wager the last seventeen years of BR saw more mileage of new electrification than the seventeen years of privatisation has.

 

[Buttsy]

Yep, let's re-nationalise the system. Wasn't it great when the dead hand of the treasury was on top. Next time that you're about the rail system have a look at all of the station improvements that are being made. Have a look at the new trains. See the amount of electrification work being carried out. The frequency of the service in many places has improved immeasurably. Even the staff look smarter.
Gosh but some of you have rose tinted spectacles.

BR was given a budget and got on with the job, having to go to the government if it wanted a major infrastructure project or investment carried out. It did not have the DfT prescribing exactly what the railways needed (bi-mode anyone?), nor did it have to satisfy shareholders requirements for returns. Thatcher left well alone as it worked and with the right people at the top, it became a gradually smaller drain on public money. If the arch-privatiser left it alone, surely that said something about the job it was doing...

 

[jon0844]

Thatcher didn't want to privatise it though did she? So, had she not been kicked out and Major came in to rush it through, we might not have had it privatised at all.

But who is to say that new Labour wouldn't have part-privatised it in some way?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Privatisation has brought us around 1400 new trains so far, in seventeen years. In the last seventeen years of BR around 1600 trains were introduced.



I'd wager the last seventeen years of BR saw more mileage of new electrification than the seventeen years of privatisation has.

Increased subsidy from our taxes has paid for that not privatisation. A truly privatised rail network (bar a handful of lines) would not be viable and would close.

 

[gordonthemoron]

surely the primary purposes of Rail Privatisation were:

1. Enabling the government to make off with the BR Pension Fund
2. Giving loads of taxpayers money to the government's friends

In both respects it's been a roaring success

 

[61653 HTAFC]

...

But who is to say that new Labour wouldn't have part-privatised it in some way?

Had the Major-era privatisation not happened I have absolutely no doubt that Blair would've embarked on some form of private sector involvement- not only was he even more of a free-market fundamentalist than Thatcher, but such a move is mandated under EU legislation anyway (Not quite sure how NI railways have avoided this, but that's another story altogether).

That said, had the privatisation not been rushed through by the Major government perhaps in the subsequent years it would've taken a vastly different form than the flawed system we have now.

 

[Wyvern]

Privatised rail has meant 'higher fares, older trains and bigger taxpayers' bill'

The TUC-commissioned report, by the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change at the University of Manchester, says private train companies depend heavily on public subsidy to run services. It claims that the halving of track access charges for companies since privatisation has resulted in a hidden, indirect subsidy from the taxpayer.

The report said the average age of trains had risen by two years since rail privatisation and carriage space had not increased to match the growth in passenger numbers. The majority of new rail investment had been financed by Network Rail via taxpayer funding or government-underwritten borrowing. Private sector investment in new technology, such as the Pendolino tilting trains, had been underwritten by the state.

One of the authors, Professor Karel Williams, said the research showed that the rail franchising system allowed private firms to make easy profits from public subsidy.

Isnt this the whole point of privatisation? qv.NHS Check how many MPs have, or stand to gain, lucrative positions within the companies involved.

However:

Train operating companies dispute the TUC's methodology in establishing the full direct and indirect public subsidy. A spokesman for the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) said passengers would be the beneficiaries of a higher subsidy.

Surely we were supposed to be the beneficiaries of more efficient operation. At least, I'm sure that's what we've been told.

"By introducing competition between train companies to run services, government has ensured operators have played a crucial role in reversing the fortunes of the railway by motivating them to attract more passengers

I think I need that explaining to me.

*******************************************

I'm not sure why this has been shifted here as it says nothing about nationalisation and none of the discussion that is taking place seems relevant.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Others are more expert on these things but something tells me that the train age bit is being a bit economical with the facts. I suspect the train fleet was relatively new prior to privatisation due to the phasing out of the slam door stock. Had the TUC run the comparision with the period prior to that happening I suspect the average train age would have been older.

Wehther privitisation is good for the railway as a whole I just don't know, undoubtedly mistakes were made, particularaly with the selling of the rolling stock, however as a commuter on the Uckfield Line I can't help but feel that without privitisation the line would have been long shut by now.

 

[jon0844]

Weren't the slam door trains really, REALLY, old? I remember (vaguely) lots of complaints from people about trains that were 50-60 years old, on the local news channels.

It's not as if BR was replacing stock any quicker than is happening now, and it was other factors such as improved safety (not just the doors but the stock itself) that must have helped get them all changed in a relatively short space of time.

 

[yorksrob]

Weren't the slam door trains really, REALLY, old? I remember (vaguely) lots of complaints from people about trains that were 50-60 years old, on the local news channels.

It's not as if BR was replacing stock any quicker than is happening now, and it was other factors such as improved safety (not just the doors but the stock itself) that must have helped get them all changed in a relatively short space of time.

Some of the CEP‘s and DEMU‘s reached over 40 but don‘t forget, we‘d had ten years of privatisation by then. Conversely, some of the CIG‘s and VEP‘s were only built in 70 and 74. Only the island line tubes were over 50..

 

[Muzer]

I think the major problem with the railway system at the moment is its inertia - it takes quite a while for things to get done. I don't know if this was better in BR days, but I suspect it wasn't. For example, why is there not a national railcard? The Network Railcard seems like a complete anachronism in this current system. It's just weird. But, of course, then you have BR to blame as well for not introducing a national railcard themselves when they were in power, as it were.

 

[jon0844]

I presume that when it was NSE, it was accepted that fares were higher within it. Perhaps they didn't want 1/3 off some of the regional railways?

But why not at least have a Network Railcard that covers the south east AND all Intercity routes? Or rename it, as 'Network' suggests the rail network - not an area that forms a now obsolete brand.

A national network railcard should definitely be introduced.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Increased subsidy from our taxes has paid for that not privatisation. A truly privatised rail network (bar a handful of lines) would not be viable and would close.

True, but that wasn't really the point I was making.

 

[Railsigns]

Wehther privitisation is good for the railway as a whole I just don't know, undoubtedly mistakes were made, particularaly with the selling of the rolling stock, however as a commuter on the Uckfield Line I can't help but feel that without privitisation the line would have been long shut by now.

I usually choose to disregard anyone's comments on privatisation if they can't even spell the word correctly.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Some of the CEP‘s and DEMU‘s reached over 40 but don‘t forget, we‘d had ten years of privatisation by then. Conversely, some of the CIG‘s and VEP‘s were only built in 70 and 74. Only the island line tubes were over 50..

The HSTs are now over 35 years old, the 313s are the same age.

 

[Railsigns]

This new report published today tells it like it is and is well worth a read:

The Great Train Robbery: Rail Privatisation and After

Broken promises burden the taxpayer while private interests frame the railways reform agenda.

Rail privatisation promised to reduce public subsidy and bring in private investment but has failed on both counts according to a new TUC commissioned research report from the CRESC. For the first time this report tracks the flow of public money through a dysfunctional rail system which creates artificial private profits and huge concealed taxpayer liabilities.

 

[Dave1987]

This new report published today tells it like it is and is well worth a read:

The Great Train Robbery: Rail Privatisation and After

I'm sure coming from the TUC it is a totally unbiased report........ dream on!

 

[Railsigns]

I'm sure coming from the TUC it is a totally unbiased report........ dream on!

It didn't come from the TUC; the TUC only commissioned it.

Do you think reports commissioned by the government are unbiased? Anything that restores some balance after the McNulty and Brown reports is to be welcomed.

 

[yorksrob]

The HSTs are now over 35 years old, the 313s are the same age.

Quite. We will soon have had twenty years of privatisation and the HSTs and various legacy stock is likely to last well over forty years. Think about it.

 

[Dave1987]

It didn't come from the TUC; the TUC only commissioned it.

Do you think reports commissioned by the government are unbiased? Anything that restores some balance after the McNulty and Brown reports is to be welcomed.

Yes but they would have only published it if it had come to the conclusions they wanted it the come to. I genuinely think people should fear the govt controlling the railways again. Just like buses, air travel and cars, rail travel is a luxury not a right. Private companies want to attract as many people to travel (mainly during the off peak) as possible so they offer cheap advance tickets. I hate to think what the pricing structure would be like under the control of govt on unregulated fares. We couldn't afford to go back to how BR was in its later years.

 

[Railsigns]

I genuinely think people should fear the govt controlling the railways again.

The government exercises far more control over the privatised railway today than it ever did over state-owned B.R.

British Rail operated at an arm's length from government and important strategic decisions were made by experienced railway managers and not, as today, by politicians or civil servants who either don't know or don't care what they're doing.

 

[yorksrob]

I genuinely think people should fear the govt controlling the railways again. Just like buses

Very courageous of you to cite bus transport as a reason to be thankful of "deregulation".