Part nationalisation?

[coppercapped]

The people working on Labour's plans for the railways understand that it's not just money removed through dividends but the sheer inefficiency of the existing system. Hundreds of people employed in arguing about delay attribution. Millions spent in franchise bidding. The lack of joined up thinking. I dread to think how many people are employed in contract administration between the various companies. That's the bugger problem, and no amount of tinkering with franchising will solve it.

The concept of delay attribution was introduced by British Railways. Several posters who are railway staff have, on other threads which I can't be bothered to look up, have explained how the attribution system works - much of it is automated and only the contentious events have to be more closely investigated. Monies are exchanged on a monthly basis and all payments from or to the individual TOCs are routed through NR so there is no complication which might be caused by individual TOC to TOC transfers.
Delay attribution is an essential part of management - without being able to see if there are patterns in delays it would be very difficult to determine whether any changes made to operational, maintenance or timetabling was having any effect. BR knew this.

All companies have to administer contracts - it's part of the world of business. It enables one to be clear about responsibilities, rights, deliverables and payments. Why do you think it is any more demanding in 'the railway' as elsewhere? In fact the main contracts the TOCs have are with the DfT, NR and the ROSCOs. The interfaces are quite well defined.

The TOCs do not, except possibly at the margins, have contracts with each other. The original franchising set up in 1994 realised that the franchise lengths would vary and therefore ensured that such contracts didn't exist. It would be a nonsense for TOC A to have to negotiate a contract with TOC C which had just taken over from TOC B if TOC A's franchise had only another few months to run.

As the DfT has taken over the long term planning of the railways both in infrastructure and operational terms - quite apart from funding and financing issues - any lack of 'joined-up' thinking can be placed at its door - and its door alone. 'Nationalisation' will not change this situation.

 

[pdeaves]

t would be a nonsense for TOC A to have to negotiate a contract with TOC C which had just taken over from TOC B if TOC A's franchise had only another few months to run.

For station access, this does happen.

 

[quantinghome]

The concept of delay attribution was introduced by British Railways. Several posters who are railway staff have, on other threads which I can't be bothered to look up, have explained how the attribution system works - much of it is automated and only the contentious events have to be more closely investigated. Monies are exchanged on a monthly basis and all payments from or to the individual TOCs are routed through NR so there is no complication which might be caused by individual TOC to TOC transfers.
Delay attribution is an essential part of management - without being able to see if there are patterns in delays it would be very difficult to determine whether any changes made to operational, maintenance or timetabling was having any effect. BR knew this.

All companies have to administer contracts - it's part of the world of business. It enables one to be clear about responsibilities, rights, deliverables and payments. Why do you think it is any more demanding in 'the railway' as elsewhere? In fact the main contracts the TOCs have are with the DfT, NR and the ROSCOs. The interfaces are quite well defined.

The TOCs do not, except possibly at the margins, have contracts with each other. The original franchising set up in 1994 realised that the franchise lengths would vary and therefore ensured that such contracts didn't exist. It would be a nonsense for TOC A to have to negotiate a contract with TOC C which had just taken over from TOC B if TOC A's franchise had only another few months to run.

As the DfT has taken over the long term planning of the railways both in infrastructure and operational terms - quite apart from funding and financing issues - any lack of 'joined-up' thinking can be placed at its door - and its door alone. 'Nationalisation' will not change this situation.

Joined up thinking shouldn't only be at DfT level. That's the problem. If it takes the intervention of the DfT to ensure that, for example, platforms are extended to cater for longer trains, it's no wonder we're in a state. The DfT should be setting policy, not micromanaging franchises.

As for delay attribution, of course it's necessary. The problem is it's focused on penalty payments and not root cause analysis to solve issues and make the railway run more smoothly.

 

[tbtc]

Then what will happen is BR Mk2 will say, “We’d like to resignal and upgrade capacity at Leicester. It will cost £500m ish.” (for example)

And all the people who shouted loudest for nationalisation on twitter and in the media will go, “But that £500m could pay for the NHS’ weekly budget for staff lanyards. WE MUST PROTECT THE PEOPLES NHS!”

And Leicester will not be resignalled. And the money will be swallowed by the NHS.

(As this is Railforums, I should point out this is crude satire, and much as I believe this is pretty much what would happen, I am very much in favour of the NHS. So be cool.)

This is the point I've tried to get across to friends and colleagues of mine who favour nationalisation - who's going to approve £100m for new trains in Bristol when that same £100m could fund x nurses in Durham, y teachers in Harrow, z fire fighters in Gravesend etc etc...

So the railway will suffer from underinvestment. The railways are not a priority for the general public - they'll always think money can be better spent elsewhere and the government will follow the whims it'll think will get it re-elected.

And for my colleagues - most of whom never worked for BR, do they really think the pay awards we've been getting would continue under a Corbyn government? If anyone's ideology is going to follow that rail staff (drivers especially) are higher earners and don't need a pay rise as much as nurses or police officers, or aren't well enough to do that we cant afford tax increases, it's Corbyn's. This is a selfish point, but ultimately, I have to vote for what's best for my family and I.

I agree with the above two posts - having the railway as part of the same spending allocation as other bits of the state could make long term investment decisions very easy to defer and defer...

True, but then again Railtrack was even less of a poster boy for privatisation.

I'm in favour of public ownership of railways but it's a precondition to improving the railways, not an end in itself. The current system of separate train operating franchises, infrastructure and rolling stock owners is so fragmented that any improvements to the railways are incredibly different to achieve. Just look at Northern at the moment. Aside from the general incompetence of Arriva, it's incredibly difficult to drive through improvements and have any sort of accountability, because it's always Someone Else's Problem. The railways need to be reintegrated. Let the franchises expire. ROSCOs stay as they are but new rolling stock is bought outright.

More detailed info on Labour's thinking are given here: https://www.railmagazine.com/research-hub/reference/exclusive-labour-s-railway-vision
and here:
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/rail-features/exclusive

I'm certainly not defending Railtrack - just saying that NR hasn't lived up to expectations (and seems a reasonable comparison, since its a public sector organisation that took over from a private one, with rather mixed results)

But if its difficult to drive through improvements at (private sector) Arriva then I'm not convinced that its easy to drive through improvements in (say) the Prison Service, the NHS, schools, social work etc - the "someone else's problem" experience is true of both sides of the fence.

And, much as I prefer the idea of the Government buying all stock outright, the experience of how they handle procurement of other things, I'd expect them to still rent from the private sector in some convoluted contract (maybe the first few years of a Labour Government will see everything bought outright but not for long - just like BR leased some stock)

Lets not forget the last time the railways were state owned there was no devolution meaning almost all the decisions about railways were made at Westminster.

Today however its very different.

True - its a complicated new world - railways would be much higher profile now that they used to be and there'd be a lot of devolved bodies wanting their say

The people working on Labour's plans for the railways understand that it's not just money removed through dividends but the sheer inefficiency of the existing system. Hundreds of people employed in arguing about delay attribution. Millions spent in franchise bidding. The lack of joined up thinking. I dread to think how many people are employed in contract administration between the various companies. That's the bugger problem, and no amount of tinkering with franchising will solve it.

That's the way that it is in all large organisations though.

Think of how many "the railway" would employ (not just drivers/ guards, but maintenance/ cleaning/ procurement/ HR/ planning/ management etc). All of that needs cost codes, all of that needs invoices.

I know from personal experience that I've been involved in a "debate" between GP and Hospital over responsibility for aspects of care/treatment (and subsequent cost) - all of that needs allocating - e.g. whether my next blood test is with a Nurse at my local GP or I go to the drop in facility at the Hospital - even though that's all NHS. It'll be the same when allocating money between other bits of public sector (e.g. inside the Civil Service, between different sectors of Education).

And part of the reason for all of the delay attribution is because passengers expect compensation - any delays need to be costed - if the sector responsible for running a long distance service finds a route (e.g. Edinburgh - Plymouth) is shelling out thousands of pounds to compensate passengers then they'll want to know where that money comes from, is that the fault of unreliable infrastructure at Leeds or a badly timed local train at Birmingham or whatever. Just because it's all "public" doesn't mean there won't be people allocating the costs/ revenue between different cost centres.

What's the alternative? That we don't worry about delay attribution, and just let services run late without anyone assessing where the problems lie? No franchises, so no commitments, no requirement to introduce planned improvements? Have a railway that was able to rob Peter to pay Paul, swap trains around the regions, remove Sunday services without answering to anyone? Maybe that's more "efficient" but is it better? But I can't see any Government just giving the railway a big slush fund to spend as it wants without clear accounting and allocation of costs

 

[quantinghome]

I agree with the above two posts - having the railway as part of the same spending allocation as other bits of the state could make long term investment decisions very easy to defer and defer...



I'm certainly not defending Railtrack - just saying that NR hasn't lived up to expectations (and seems a reasonable comparison, since its a public sector organisation that took over from a private one, with rather mixed results)

But if its difficult to drive through improvements at (private sector) Arriva then I'm not convinced that its easy to drive through improvements in (say) the Prison Service, the NHS, schools, social work etc - the "someone else's problem" experience is true of both sides of the fence.

And, much as I prefer the idea of the Government buying all stock outright, the experience of how they handle procurement of other things, I'd expect them to still rent from the private sector in some convoluted contract (maybe the first few years of a Labour Government will see everything bought outright but not for long - just like BR leased some stock)



True - its a complicated new world - railways would be much higher profile now that they used to be and there'd be a lot of devolved bodies wanting their say



That's the way that it is in all large organisations though.

Think of how many "the railway" would employ (not just drivers/ guards, but maintenance/ cleaning/ procurement/ HR/ planning/ management etc). All of that needs cost codes, all of that needs invoices.

I know from personal experience that I've been involved in a "debate" between GP and Hospital over responsibility for aspects of care/treatment (and subsequent cost) - all of that needs allocating - e.g. whether my next blood test is with a Nurse at my local GP or I go to the drop in facility at the Hospital - even though that's all NHS. It'll be the same when allocating money between other bits of public sector (e.g. inside the Civil Service, between different sectors of Education).

And part of the reason for all of the delay attribution is because passengers expect compensation - any delays need to be costed - if the sector responsible for running a long distance service finds a route (e.g. Edinburgh - Plymouth) is shelling out thousands of pounds to compensate passengers then they'll want to know where that money comes from, is that the fault of unreliable infrastructure at Leeds or a badly timed local train at Birmingham or whatever. Just because it's all "public" doesn't mean there won't be people allocating the costs/ revenue between different cost centres.

What's the alternative? That we don't worry about delay attribution, and just let services run late without anyone assessing where the problems lie? No franchises, so no commitments, no requirement to introduce planned improvements? Have a railway that was able to rob Peter to pay Paul, swap trains around the regions, remove Sunday services without answering to anyone? Maybe that's more "efficient" but is it better? But I can't see any Government just giving the railway a big slush fund to spend as it wants without clear accounting and allocation of costs

All large organisations have a problem with 'silos'. But most large organisations try to overcome this problem by various means. They can reorganise themselves to reduce friction between different bits, change cost centres, tackle perverse incentives etc.
BR did this in sectorisation, organising for quality, total route modenisation and the like.
The problem we have now is the structure of the railways sets silos in stone and there's no means of getting the bits working together at a local level. Even if we get another 'guiding mind' organisation it will only be able to connect things at a high level. The best improvements seen since privatisation have tended to be where there is a single dominant train operator on a relatively self contained piece of the network, such as Chiltern, where the operator can effectively determine what's going on with the infrastructure.

 

[coppercapped]

Joined up thinking shouldn't only be at DfT level. That's the problem. If it takes the intervention of the DfT to ensure that, for example, platforms are extended to cater for longer trains, it's no wonder we're in a state. The DfT should be setting policy, not micromanaging franchises.

As for delay attribution, of course it's necessary. The problem is it's focused on penalty payments and not root cause analysis to solve issues and make the railway run more smoothly.

The issue is not that 'the railway' can't see the need to extend platforms, but that the necessary expenditure is in the gift of the DfT. Obviously NR has freedom to spend up to a certain amount on individual items of maintenance and repair, but its overall spend, and spend rate, on enhancements - which is what platform extensions would be classified as - is controlled by the DfT.

 

[option]

All large organisations have a problem with 'silos'. But most large organisations try to overcome this problem by various means. They can reorganise themselves to reduce friction between different bits, change cost centres, tackle perverse incentives etc.
BR did this in sectorisation, organising for quality, total route modenisation and the like.
The problem we have now is the structure of the railways sets silos in stone and there's no means of getting the bits working together at a local level. Even if we get another 'guiding mind' organisation it will only be able to connect things at a high level. The best improvements seen since privatisation have tended to be where there is a single dominant train operator on a relatively self contained piece of the network, such as Chiltern, where the operator can effectively determine what's going on with the infrastructure.

Scotrail? Merseyrail? TfL?
Metro extension to Sunderland.
Electrification to Bromsgrove.
TfW are actually taking some infrastructure off NR.
Those have been since privatisation.



What is the local level?

Lets take the CrossCity line as an example. Lichfield-Aston, that's easy because there's only one operator on that part, WMR.
Aston-New St, well there's two operators on that part, WMR & LNWR.
New St-Bromsgrove, there's two operators on that, WMR & XC, & WMR operate both local & regional services.

Or New St-International, with 5 operators, Leamington-Tyseley with 3, etc etc

So who is supposed to be working together differently to now, & towards whose priorities?

 

[py_megapixel]

My personal hope is that funding could be used more efficiently, without the private sector making a profit. If it is impossible to buy trains back from ROSCOs then new rolling stock orders should be made by the Government without the intervention of a ROSCO.

This means that ultimately the ROSCO-owned trains will be removed from service and scrapped. In an ideal world, that would encourage the replacement of old fleets, because it saves on leasing costs and provides the biggest upgrades for passengers. There is, of course, always the risk that it incentivises the replacement of mid-life stock - because it is most expensive leased stock - leaving the old trains until last.

 

[pdeaves]

without the private sector making a profit.

Where does one draw the line?

Railways consume fuel and electricity - supplied by the private sector. Staff uniforms will come from the private sector. Toilet paper and soap come from the private sector. The fabric used to make seat covers will likely come from the private sector. The food on board will come from the private sector. What about the cables used to make trains/signalling systems/electrification systems/stations? What about train/office/station fire extinguishers? What about that necessary evil: road vehicles?

Even BR bought a lot from the private sector (look at all those 'modernisation plan' diesels and east coast electrification, remembering that the perceived failures of both came from the specification rather than the delivery sector).

If you go for 'no private sector profit' then just about everything you can think of needs to be nationalised. Whether anyone thinks that is a good thing or a bad thing, it is probably totally impractical to create in the short to medium term.

 

[JonathanH]

If you go for 'no private sector profit' then just about everything you can think of needs to be nationalised.

...or the contracts private sector companies have with public sector organisations have to be written to stipulate a 'not for profit' agreement - ie contracting with the public sector helps cashflow, size of the business and turnover, spreading costs but does not contribute to profit.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

My personal hope is that funding could be used more efficiently, without the private sector making a profit. If it is impossible to buy trains back from ROSCOs then new rolling stock orders should be made by the Government without the intervention of a ROSCO.

This means that ultimately the ROSCO-owned trains will be removed from service and scrapped. In an ideal world, that would encourage the replacement of old fleets, because it saves on leasing costs and provides the biggest upgrades for passengers. There is, of course, always the risk that it incentivises the replacement of mid-life stock - because it is most expensive leased stock - leaving the old trains until last.

I think you might be forgetting that modern leasing/maintenance deals are increasingly with manufacturers and their banks rather than the classic Roscos.
The IEP and class 700 fleets are not leased from regular Roscos, but from Hitachi and Siemens respectively (who will also do the maintenance).
TfL's class 345 fleet has been sold to private owners and leased back so that TfL's capital can be used elsewhere.
It suited the Scottish Government to fund the class 385 fleet privately, and Wales is using a mix of schemes to acquire its new fleets.
Merseyrail will own its new stock, but maintenance will be by the manufacturer (Stadler).

 

[pdeaves]

...or the contracts private sector companies have with public sector organisations have to be written to stipulate a 'not for profit' agreement - ie contracting with the public sector helps cashflow, size of the business and turnover, spreading costs but does not contribute to profit.

Again, where do you draw the line? What about the companies' suppliers? What about their suppliers? Where do you stop if you really want no private sector profit?

 

[geoffk]

Lets not forget the last time the railways were state owned there was no devolution meaning almost all the decisions about railways were made at Westminster.

Today however its very different.

But the Govt. is far more closely involved with running the railways now than they ever were under BR.

 

[furnessvale]

...or the contracts private sector companies have with public sector organisations have to be written to stipulate a 'not for profit' agreement - ie contracting with the public sector helps cashflow, size of the business and turnover, spreading costs but does not contribute to profit.

Who is going to sign up for that? Without a (reasonable) profit I have no incentive to deal with you unless, of course, when my company goes belly up, you are going to bail me out big style.

 

[pdeaves]

Who is going to sign up for that? Without a (reasonable) profit I have no incentive to deal with you unless, of course, when my company goes belly up, you are going to bail me out big style.

Quite so.

And then what about the shareholders? 'Stuff them' won't be so popular when they are often made up of pension funds (who use the profit to give 'old' people an income) or banks (who use profit to pay interest on savers' accounts).

 

[tbtc]

Where does one draw the line?

Railways consume fuel and electricity - supplied by the private sector. Staff uniforms will come from the private sector. Toilet paper and soap come from the private sector. The fabric used to make seat covers will likely come from the private sector. The food on board will come from the private sector. What about the cables used to make trains/signalling systems/electrification systems/stations? What about train/office/station fire extinguishers? What about that necessary evil: road vehicles?

Even BR bought a lot from the private sector (look at all those 'modernisation plan' diesels and east coast electrification, remembering that the perceived failures of both came from the specification rather than the delivery sector).

If you go for 'no private sector profit' then just about everything you can think of needs to be nationalised. Whether anyone thinks that is a good thing or a bad thing, it is probably totally impractical to create in the short to medium term.

In a similar vein, shall we replace Costa Coffee/ WH Smith/ M&S Simply Food/ Upper Crust (etc) with a directly operated British Rail approved café/shop (if we can't have these wicked capitalists making a profit from the railway)?

I'd love to see how popular that would be...

 

[Dr Hoo]

As for delay attribution, of course it's necessary. The problem is it's focused on penalty payments and not root cause analysis to solve issues and make the railway run more smoothly.

Have you ever done delay attribution? Are you aware that it is commonly undertaken alongside 'control' activities whilst the once-a-month performance regime settlement is usually administered by finance or commercial staff (varies between operators)? Have you ever worked with the extremely rich data that delay attribution provides to develop performance improvement plans?

It is simply not "focussed on penalty payments". As has been explained so many times, passenger performance regimes only use the share of attributed delay to determine responsibility for lateness and cancellations. They are blind to the root cause.

 

[pdeaves]

In a similar vein, shall we replace Costa Coffee/ WH Smith/ M&S Simply Food/ Upper Crust (etc) with a directly operated British Rail approved café/shop (if we can't have these wicked capitalists making a profit from the railway)?

I'd love to see how popular that would be...

Exactly. And what would such shop sell? Things bought in from the private sector (like magazines)?

 

[AlbertBeale]

Exactly. And what would such shop sell? Things bought in from the private sector (like magazines)?

The fact that there is debate as to where to draw a line does not imply that no line should be drawn. It is obvious (to me, anyway) that essential services should be provided co-operatively rather than competitively, with "public good" being the aim, not private profit. The details of their interface with other "businesses" is a matter of debate, judgement and preference. Personally I'd much prefer - eg - locally-sourced co-operatives, with fair pay policies, running station cafes, in preference to rapacious multinationals. A publicly-owned railway system might make such choices; I hope it would.

Incidentally, "private sector magazines", as mentioned here, can themselves be non-profit, and intended for progressive ends - I used to edit just such a publication. (I only wish it were sold on railway stations!)

 

[Meerkat]

It is obvious (to me, anyway) that essential services should be provided co-operatively rather than competitively

The railway is not an essential service.
Food is pretty essential. Should we have collective farms, that normally works well.....?

 

[tbtc]

Exactly. And what would such shop sell? Things bought in from the private sector (like magazines)?

The fact that there is debate as to where to draw a line does not imply that no line should be drawn. It is obvious (to me, anyway) that essential services should be provided co-operatively rather than competitively, with "public good" being the aim, not private profit. The details of their interface with other "businesses" is a matter of debate, judgement and preference. Personally I'd much prefer - eg - locally-sourced co-operatives, with fair pay policies, running station cafes, in preference to rapacious multinationals. A publicly-owned railway system might make such choices; I hope it would.

Incidentally, "private sector magazines", as mentioned here, can themselves be non-profit, and intended for progressive ends - I used to edit just such a publication. (I only wish it were sold on railway stations!)

The railway is not an essential service.
Food is pretty essential. Should we have collective farms, that normally works well.....?

The problem is that the logic often goes no further than "I like trains" = "trains are important" = "I'd like more control of trains" = "trains should be controlled by The People".

IF you take the approach that "essential public services" should be controlled by the Government and run by the Government then there's a long long list of such things that I'd come up with before I started worrying about trains (something used by less than 10% of the population on a regular basis).

Farms (as @Meerkat suggests), shops, petrol stations... but these are all left to the private sector - even Jeremy Corbyn isn't talking about nationalising petrol stations or shops or petrol stations though.

 

[Meerkat]

Farms (as @Meerkat suggests), shops, petrol stations... but these are all left to the private sector - even Jeremy Corbyn isn't talking about nationalising petrol stations or shops or petrol stations though.

well not in public anyway.......

 

[AlbertBeale]

The railway is not an essential service.
Food is pretty essential. Should we have collective farms, that normally works well.....?

Perhaps I should have said I meant essential services which by their nature work best when integrated (eg post, public transport, etc, where duplication of infrastructure makes the service worse and is also wasteful). Apologies for sloppy terminology. Also, food is a commodity not a service.

And I do think that railways, as a part of the public transport system, do fit the definition of essential.

Also, note that I referred to services being provided co-operatively - I didn't specify that that necessarily meant directly government-owned and state-run.

And lastly, re control of farming (which has been raised though I didn't mention it) - if I understand the history correctly, during WW2 the government co-ordinated farming, and made overall decisions as to what the priorities were, and the result was more efficient production and a healthier diet than would have otherwise been the case. But we're getting off topic here...

 

[jon0844]

Something that is to be shushed. The nationalisation agenda is based around the fact that all the problems on the railways are caused by the TOCs, and things would be much better if the fat cats were not creaming off millions in profits every year and this money was spent on the railways instead. This myth is perpetuated by MPs, city mayors, union leaders.

In reality half the problems are on Network Rail’s watch, and aren’t many TOCs actually making a loss, or only a very modest profit?

Just as I'm not sure Corbyn actually wants to be PM (he's more suited to shouting from the sidelines, as he's done for decades and probably will continue to do so as I doubt he can win this election, despite the hatred for the Tories), I am not sure he actually wants to do something that stops it being possible to blame the issues of the railway on private (especially foreign) operators.

It's a great way to divert attention away from the Government, even when the DfT is increasingly responsible for many of the decisions that cause the problems (unworkable timetables, changing staff roles, ordering new rolling stock and so on).

 

[quantinghome]

Have you ever done delay attribution? Are you aware that it is commonly undertaken alongside 'control' activities whilst the once-a-month performance regime settlement is usually administered by finance or commercial staff (varies between operators)? Have you ever worked with the extremely rich data that delay attribution provides to develop performance improvement plans?

It is simply not "focussed on penalty payments". As has been explained so many times, passenger performance regimes only use the share of attributed delay to determine responsibility for lateness and cancellations. They are blind to the root cause.

I'm happy to stand corrected. There is an obvious good to delay attribution if it is actually used to identify problems, undertake root cause analysis and improve performance. But standing outside the system, I'm not seeing it working very well.

 

[quantinghome]

The railway is not an essential service.

That's a very interesting statement.

Food is pretty essential. Should we have collective farms, that normally works well.....?

There's obviously a balance to be struck between what's in the private sector and what's in the public sector. Some things are more suited to one than the other, so you tend to find that most countries end up doing things in similar ways. For example, food production in most countries is in the private sector (although usually with a fair whack of subsidy). Railways in most countries are in the public sector, at least ones which are orientated to passenger services. That should tell us something. Unfortunately in the UK we've this spurious argument that if we nationalise anything then it's bound to be worse and a slippery slope to collective farms and the gulags.

If privatising the railways is such a good idea, why is no one talking about privatising the London Underground?

 

[option]

Unfortunately in the UK we've this spurious argument that if we nationalise anything then it's bound to be worse and a slippery slope to collective farms and the gulags.

If privatising the railways is such a good idea, why is no one talking about privatising the London Underground?

But the London Underground isn't operated by central government,
& Overground might not exist if there wasn't the flexibility in the system to allow the transfer of route operations.


Look at the history of nationalisation in the UK.
The things that worked well are those where a national infrastructure had to be built, eg National Grid, Telecom.
The rest of the electricity & gas system was largely a roll-up of what was already owned by local authorities.

Then look at all the things that didn't work well when nationalised;
cars, steel, coal
even rail

 

[quantinghome]

But the London Underground isn't operated by central government,
& Overground might not exist if there wasn't the flexibility in the system to allow the transfer of route operations.

Public ownership doesn't have to mean a single monolithic entity controlled from Westminster. As you rightly point out, there is considerable devolution already in the rail network. I would be pretty happy with London Overground style arrangements applied to other regional networks. London Overground control fares, procure rolling stock and set service levels. Operations are contracted out, as I understand it in a similar way to London buses, but it's clear who is in charge and accountable. This would be much better than the current dog's breakfast of split responsibilities we see elsewhere. With Northern it's impossible to say who is ultimately accountable - take your pick from WYCA, TfN, DfT, Network Rail, and Arriva.

Look at the history of nationalisation in the UK.
The things that worked well are those where a national infrastructure had to be built, eg National Grid, Telecom.
The rest of the electricity & gas system was largely a roll-up of what was already owned by local authorities.

Then look at all the things that didn't work well when nationalised;
cars, steel, coal
even rail

Cars and steel I'd largely agree with. Coal is an interesting one. Coal production in the UK was in long term decline from the 1920s. Nevertheless the NCB made massive and successful investments e.g. the Selby coalfield. I understand that safety improved markedly compared to the pre-nationalised industry but I can't find any stats to back that up. I can't see that the picture would have been much different in private hands. The decline may have been more rapid in the face of the shift to oil and cheaper imports, then we'd have been even more stuffed in the 1970s during the oil crisis.

Rail, again, is an interesting case. The main change during the nationalised era was a shift from a predominantly freight-based network to an overwhelmingly passenger-based one. This would have happened regardless of nationalisation due to the rise of road haulage. As freight is profitable and passenger services (with a few exceptions) are not, it was inevitable that the railways would require permanent subsidy from government. Had the railways been left to fend for themselves in the private sector I doubt we'd have much of a railway left. If there is a profitable core to the passenger network, it's pretty small, and not very profitable, and our country doesn't have the sort of distances that have allowed US freight railways to flourish. Railways in this country will always require significant subsidy from the public sector. The current system isn't really privatised; I think we should give up pretending that it is and have some proper accountability to public sector bodies in the same mould as London Overground or Underground.

 

[Meerkat]

Perhaps I should have said I meant essential services which by their nature work best when integrated.

What proof is there that railways work best when integrated, and if you can prove that why does that require nationalisation rather than the DfT to properly integrate its suppliers?

 

[quantinghome]

What proof is there that railways work best when integrated, and if you can prove that why does that require nationalisation rather than the DfT to properly integrate its suppliers?

If the experience of our current railway organisation (for want of a better term) doesn't convince you, I'm not sure what would. But here goes...

The fact that pretty much every railway in the world is 'integrated' in the sense of the track, trains, signalling, stations etc. coming under the same organisation.
The fact that there is a continued attempt to have a 'guiding mind' for the UK railways.
The fact that London Underground has been reintegrated after the disastrous PPP experiment.