Privatisation: Is enough finally enough?

[Broken Viking]

Hail all!
Well...After years and years of putting up with it, I'm now finally p***ed off to the back teeth with privatisation.

Since that Gods-forsaken invention of Mrs. Thatcher's was bought in, we've seen services being cut down, removed (Without passenger consultation and/or consent, I may add!), the standard of service has plummeted to levels that BR didn't reach even during WWII with rationing everywhere, Taxpayer's money has been pumped into the pockets of the greedy f***s on TOCs directors boards (Whereas with BR it was at least pumped into operation and development) and - In short - Our previously "iffy" network has become such a mahoosive crock of s***e, that people in other countries now refer to NR only as a shining example of how not to run a railway. :mad:

Admittedly, one or two good things have come out of privatisation (SWT and VWC getting newer and faster rolling-stock, for example) but personally I am in the mindset that - On the whole - Privatisation has done much more harm than good to what used to be a decent, customer-orientated, pleasant network.

So what I'm wondering here is whether my views on privatisation are shared by the majority of people here, and whether we - As railway enthusiasts - Should twist the Government's arm in the most painful, bone-breaking manner until they relent and give us back the BR that we all used to know and appreciate!

I've stuck a poll in this topic to collect people's opinions on this matter, and to see whether or not it might even be worth forming a movement of some description to force the Government's hand. If so, it'd be a very interesting exercise if nothing else...And in any case, it's about time someone (Or something) showed this bloated and greedy "Government" of ours who is the real boss in public matters...

Farewell, and looking forward to seeing others views on such an initiative!
>> Death <<

 

[90019]

I think that the ScotRail network is run pretty well overall, of course there are going to be a few exceptions to this; there always are,.Bbut the fact that it is essentially completely separated from the rest of the network and is subsidised through the Scottish Government rather than Wesminster is a very good thing and means it is a fairly well run franchise.

I can't say much about the rest of the UK network, though, as I don't really know it.

 

[mrcheek]

Have you been reading articles by that prick Christian Wolmar again?

Privatisation has its flaws. And things are far from perfect on the rail network. but if you think this is worse than under BR, you are looking at things through highly rose-tinted spectacles.

Services have been cut in places, but then, new ones have been introduced as well.
Corby has a railway station! More trains on the ECML and GWML than ever before. all since privatisation came in.

Also, the poll is flawed. two of the "yes" options are identical. and the remaining "yes" option and the single "no" option are also too close. a simple yes or no would have been better!

 

[whoshotjimmi]

There are good and bad parts to it all I figure.

Oop north, we have fared quite well recently. Good TOC's, decent levels of investment and generally a good improvement. I know the same cannot be said about the entire network and I know there are concerns regarding Intercity franchises.

What I would suggest is to re-franchise on a more realistic basis (ie lowering ridiculous franchise fees which can then be passed on in the form of lower prices), write in some service requirements into contracts and consider the introduction of service related fares such as that in France giving people choice and introducing a little bit more competition. Competition is known to benefit the customer in other sectors, so why not rail?

I am generally very pleased with the privatised world in which we live. I just think that since inception, the main concept has been forgotten.

 

[Snapper]

And in any case, it's about time someone (Or something) showed this bloated and greedy "Government" of ours who is the real boss in public matters.
>> Death <<

Err, in between elections - they are.

 

[Phoenix]

Honestly I think privitisation has done it's job in refurbishing the delapidation that BR did not have the time or money to deal with and that was the aim of the game.
But death I have to agree with you and I would definatly campaign to bring back BR (BBBR).
Toc's honestly put themselves infront of their passengers and can increase fares as they wish so one TOC is cheap as chips but then TOC next to your house has decided to hike up the prices to make profit.

PROFIT-This is the problem with privatization company's will only use a certain amount of money on infrastructure,stations and traction regardless of how much they make and this ultimately makes me ask "Why should we fill their pockets when they won't fill our timetables"

NON COLLECTIVE THINKING -With TOC's none of them work together really and often are pitted against one another by the powers that be so if one TOC decides to cancel a train you can't hop on another TOC's train if you have booked specifically with the former.If we had Nationalization generally catching the train could be made a hell of a lot easier.

There is many other points I could give but on the whole I think the nationalisation of britains passenger network and it's infrastructure should happen.

 

[me123]

I think privatisation can work. We've got these big companies willing to make money who will have to invest in their franchise if they want to improve their profits.

However, what I've always said is that they can't. Look at Southern; they only have a 9 year franchise which is not far off ending. Transpennine's franchise ends in 2012 (although may be extended), Crosscountry's is again only 9 years. How can these companies invest when there's no chance of them seeing the profits from the investment.

I'd say more like 20-30 year(!) franchises. At the same time though, to ensure they don't perform as badly as London Midland et al, monitor them every few months.

 

[anthony263]

i garee that privatisation has had its good points such as the open acess operators like wrexham & shropshire etc, but i do agree that br should be brought back, but maybe they should leave the open acess operators alone since they seem to be doing ok and if its not broken dont fix it.

 

[Phoenix]

I'd say more like 20-30 year(!) franchises. At the same time though, to ensure they don't perform as badly as London Midland et al, monitor them every few months.

There is always the idea of a reduction in the number of franchises and an extention of the timescale so More or less a form of grouping into sectors all run by a different large TOC.
So basically Sectorisation+Grouping = sector grouping/reigonalisation.

 

[222001]

In the my opinion the franchises should last 15 years. This seems reasonable enough for companies to see a return on their investment. If the company did a good job it should not be re-let but given to the same company again. They must also be aware that very poor performance could result in their franchise being ended.

 

[Pumbaa]

Yup - privatisation was a good shot in the arm, but what is needed now is rationalisation, and a holistic approach to service, maintenance and future upgrades. I'll comment more in the morning.

As such, I feel unable to vote for any options above Death, as I would vote for a re-think of the entire thing, with the view to bringing it under one umbrella that isn't a government controlled, and therefore most likely inefficient, umbrella.

 

[Spaceflower]

whatshotjimmiOop north, we have fared quite well recently. Good TOC's, decent levels of investment and generally a good improvement. I know the same cannot be said about the entire network and I know there are concerns regarding Intercity franchises.

here, here.....I agree (too an extent). Station improvements and service improvements, yes, but cost of travel and the minefield of ticket types is one downside. This serves to exclude those that probably need the service most and there is alot of room for improvement.

There lies the problem Death....you want a movement? a movement to what exactly?

 

[thefab444]

Since that Gods-forsaken invention of Mrs. Thatcher's was bought in

Was privatistion of BR not brought in by Major after Thatcher's demise? I believe the old biddy herself said "the railway would be a privatisation too far"?

 

[yorkie]

Services have been cut in places, but then, new ones have been introduced as well.
Corby has a railway station! More trains on the ECML and GWML than ever before. all since privatisation came in.

So? With privatisation came lots more money. In fact, subsidy is several times greater than BR. So you honestly believe privatisation introduced more services and not the extra money? In which case, where has the extra money gone? Do you think privatisation is good value for money?

 

[bluenoxid]

Was privatistion of BR not brought in by Major after Thatcher's demise? I believe the old biddy herself said "the railway would be a privatisation too far"?

Yes she did, which is the point at which I switched off and thought, f*** it.

 

[O L Leigh]

Contrary to how it appears to the uninitiated, the train operating companies (TOC's) do not just bank all the revenue while providing a "cheap as chips" service with clapped-out rolling stock and an inadequate level of staffing. Half of the problem is that the TOC's don't actually own anything more than a bunch of contracts. The rolling stock belongs to other companies and must be leased. There will be a contract with Network Rail for network access and the operation of the stations, and another with the Government to operate the service in the first place. Everything must be negotiated and is subject to final approval by the DfT, even down timetable changes and rolling stock procurement.

As I see it, there are two major disincentives. The first is the length of the franchise. Generally this is seven years with the option to increase to ten if performance is judged to be good. This is not a sufficient length of time for an operator to invest in the franchise and to plan, finance and implement significant improvements to the service. The only exception to this is Chiltern Railways who were awarded a 20 year contract right from the outset and who have turned the Marylebone routes from a backwater into a major carrier. They have invested in new services, opened new stations and are now one of the highest performing and best regarded operators in the UK.

The second major disincentive is that the TOC's are not free to invest as they please. Every TOC is committed to pay a premium to the DfT over the life of the franchise which the DfT is supposed to reinvest in the industry. This premium can run to many millions of pounds per year. For example, when GNER were awarded the East Coast franchise for the second time in 2005, they were committed to paying the Government a premium of £130 million PER YEAR for 10 years. This put GNER on a financial knife-edge and was enough to tip the company into insolvency due to it's poor profitability, over-bidding on the franchise renewal and competition from low-cost airlines and open-access rail operators Hull Trains and Grand Central Railway sharing parts the East Coast route. This is a fairly extreme example, but it illustrates the point that there are not vast amounts of money sloshing around inside the rail industry waiting to be spent.

What irks me most about the flak that the rail industry takes is that the DfT have so carefully hidden their part in the operation of the UK rail network, almost to the point of total invisibility, leaving the operators to carry the can. It is the ignorance of the general travelling public that means that it is always the operator who takes the kicking and never the DfT. However, it is the DfT that sets the terms of the TOC's franchises, agrees the timetable, approves rolling stock procurement and generally runs almost every major aspect of the UK rail industry. The TOC's are operating their franchises as stipulated by the DfT while being repeatedly stymied by the DfT every time they want to make a change.

What would happen if a government was brave enough to undo rail privatisation...? Frankly very little. Given that the Government already effectively run almost every aspect of the railways I can't see in what way things can change. The only difference I can see is that the system would become transparent, and that is something that no government would lightly agree to.

The flipside to this is that the DfT works for us. They are the Government and they are accountable to the electorate. If the state of the rail industry really is so important to you, why not make it one of the deciding factors the next time you elect your representative to Parliament. Quite simply the reason why the rail network is still crap is because WE have ALLOWED it by doing nothing to prevent it's decline.

I don't think that we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Given that privatisation is now the default situation I think we need to look at how to make the franchising system work properly. Longer franchises would be a good start together with a more joined-up approach to allocating paths along congested lines such as the ECML. The freedom to invest more of the money rather than paying it in premiums would be useful too.

So please, don't give me any of that "things were better before privatisation" nonsense about it being the fault of big business or fat-cat bosses. That's the tabloid press's easy answer to every ill. The people who run the railway work in Westminster, and they are answerable to us.

O L Leigh

 

[FusionRail]

Money is mostly spent on maintenece and renewing the **** state of whats already here, and actually Network Rail are rising up and improving greatly our railway, and have achievements never acheived by BR.

 

[WillPS]

Network Rail do a fantastic job as far as I can see - but I think that the benefits of privatisation have been lost and we'd be better with one operator for all of the UK, preferably nationalised seeing as the UK rail network overall isn't profitable.

 

[First class]

The Merseyrail network is just a glimpse of what can happen with investment and time.

New rolling stock due, refurbished stations, and soon, Liverpool Central and other underground stations will be completely regenerated, possibly including new platforms.

Chiltern and Merseyrail are regularly the top operators in the UK, even c2c with their 15 year franchise has done well.

I personally think services should be classed as either 'local' or 'intercity'.

Local services regulated/operated by a PTE/PTA, (e.g. Merseytravel with Merseyrail), intercity services operated by one operator only.

I think simplification really needs to happen - having so many TOCs, on so many different franchise lengths, with vastly different rolling stock, with various financial backing and markets- it isn't working properly.

Even things like customer care are complicated for some passengers, if you travel from Liverpool to Fort William for example, you will probably travel with Northern, Virgin/TPE, and First ScotRail. If you purchased your tickets from the trainline.com or something, that's another organisation you potentially have to deal with. If you were an elderly passenger, would you want to have to find out what TOC cancelled the train, which made you miss your connection of another TOC which ran late and then the next TOC didn't provide assistance because it got confused because you were late and the i previous TOC you travelled with didn't inform the staff? Confused?

Simplicity and accountability. That is what is missing.

 

[Golden Gripper]

Privatisation of the passenger railway has been a dead duck. To say that under privatisation the railway has improved doesn't mean anything. It was constantly improving under BR with new stock being introduced, stations reopened, new working practices etc. For privatisation to be considered a success there should have been a real step change in quality, and I haven't seen that. Stock renewal, for instance, has been at a similar rate to late BR stock renewal (and BR didn't have the advantage of leasing but had to pay up front).

This is reflected in ridership. Since privatisation the TOCs have pointed to continually increasing passenger figures, but this has been during a a period of ecomomic expansion, and is similar to the increases that BR achieved under similar circumstances. Any improvement that the private railway has made over BR is due to the subsidy increase.

BR generally got support in the region of £1bn. per year. Since privatisation government support has usually been between £4 and £6bn per year. Some of that money has been used to keep fares down. Typically BR was expected meet 75% of costs from the fares, the privatised railway has had lower limits to reach. This is now changing and the new franchises are much tougher.

The rest of the subsidy has been spent on infrastructure, with schemes such as West Coast Modernisation.

The freight railway has been a different kettle of fish. BR was reliant on government support. To maintain that they had to show good results with the passenger railway, since bad performance here had people writing to their newspaper and MP in droves. Althought every now and then there would be some protest about the number of lorries through some village, the freight railway was normally invisible to the average voter. As a result, althought BR did make some efforts to modernise, with block trains, Speedlink, fully air braking the wagon fleet, TOPS etc. it always had to cover its costs and tended to be at the bottom of the pile for investment. As a result a company dedicated to freight traffic could make a difference.

I do wonder, though, how much difference it makes to the bottom line being able to operate all those engineers trains.

 

[TGVDUDE]

keep the network priavtised because it is nice to see diffirent things at diffirent stations instead of the same things all of the time!, also if i remember rightly last time it was in the hands of the government it NSE was a terrible wreck so i rekon we should keep it privatised

 

[Metroland]

I don't think you have a decent rail system without the public behind it and the politicians, whoever owns it. Lets say it was nationalised tomorrow, do you actually think it would improve without political will? I don't think that's just down to politicians, I think public will and perception has much to do with it, not helped by an industry that moves as slow as a constipated tortoise (perhaps maybe part to do with structure and stakeholders?) and some of its dubious pricing policies, Daily Mail headlines and a minority of enthusiasts and transport writers (Hello Christian, Roger and Ben) that feed the perception that the railways are a joke through their constant moaning. At least under the privatisation its given it some zest, and a tiny bit of believe in itself and got people to actually use it again. I think that's something to be celebrated, but there's still much to be done. The tipping point will be when I see a blog which exactly promotes just how good it is, rather than one long list of moans. Perhaps then, and with more people using it, we might see a system that many would like to see which has nothing to do with who actually owns it - just good management, passenger numbers, freight tonnage, and a belief its actually a good thing and therefore a willingness to invest. I live in hope..

 

[shinkansen09]

Taxpayer's money has been pumped into the pockets of the greedy f***s on TOCs directors boards (Whereas with BR it was at least pumped into operation and development) and - In short - Our previously "iffy" network has become such a mahoosive crock of s***e,

A very worthy topic to get the grey matter working......or in some case not.....too many rose tinted specs I think....
The only fault with the DEATH comment is the money being pumped into????
That was the problem with BR as it was under the then Conservative government, no money was invested....each year BR`s SUBSIDY was cut to such a level it made it easy for the government to privatise it. Had BR received the size of susidy that all the combined franchises receive then it may have done better.
Research.....Derby Tech centre was a great thing that was burried at this time also....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think privatisation can work. We've got these big companies willing to make money who will have to invest in their franchise if they want to improve their profits. QUOTE]

Companies willing to invest.... Who are all these companies who want to invest in something which should be a "public service".....maybe certain services or areas do not make a profit, or enough profit. Do you feel sorry everytime you hear TOC`s asking for more of your money to keep the service running, does that benefit those people in that community by being privatised?, or are they taking their pound of flesh out of the tax payers money and just giving more of the same C**P back as a service.
You hit the nail on the head "improve their profits", that`s all they are intersted in...not if they have new trains or not....if you or i like the trains provided or what colour they are! So long as they put money in their pockets.....taken from yours don`t forget.
By the way....seen the state of the stock markets recently?????Not going to be many companies with spare cash to invest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The second major disincentive is that the TOC's are not free to invest as they please. Every TOC is committed to pay a premium to the DfT over the life of the franchise which the DfT is supposed to reinvest in the industry. This premium can run to many millions of pounds per year. For example, when GNER were awarded the East Coast franchise for the second time in 2005, they were committed to paying the Government a premium of £130 million PER YEAR for 10 years. This put GNER on a financial knife-edge and was enough to tip the company into insolvency due to it's poor profitability, over-bidding on the franchise renewal and competition from low-cost airlines and open-access rail operators Hull Trains and Grand Central Railway sharing parts the East Coast route. This is a fairly extreme example, but it illustrates the point that there are not vast amounts of money sloshing around inside the rail industry waiting to be spent.

What irks me most about the flak that the rail industry takes is that the DfT have so carefully hidden their part in the operation of the UK rail network, almost to the point of total invisibility, leaving the operators to carry the can. It is the ignorance of the general travelling public that means that it is always the operator who takes the kicking and never the DfT. However, it is the DfT that sets the terms of the TOC's franchises, agrees the timetable, approves rolling stock procurement and generally runs almost every major aspect of the UK rail industry. The TOC's are operating their franchises as stipulated by the DfT while being repeatedly stymied by the DfT every time they want to make a change.

What would happen if a government was brave enough to undo rail privatisation...? Frankly very little. Given that the Government already effectively run almost every aspect of the railways I can't see in what way things can change. The only difference I can see is that the system would become transparent, and that is something that no government would lightly agree to.

The flipside to this is that the DfT works for us. They are the Government and they are accountable to the electorate. If the state of the rail industry really is so important to you, why not make it one of the deciding factors the next time you elect your representative to Parliament. Quite simply the reason why the rail network is still crap is because WE have ALLOWED it by doing nothing to prevent it's decline.

So please, don't give me any of that "things were better before privatisation" nonsense about it being the fault of big business or fat-cat bosses. That's the tabloid press's easy answer to every ill. The people who run the railway work in Westminster, and they are answerable to us.

O L Leigh

GNER most certainly did pay over the odds for their franchise renewal, this being due to fears of losing their franchise. The cost of the franchise however did not tip GNER over the edge, Seacontainers over-valueing their assets caused the failure of GNER....not GNER itself...SHIPS SUNK GNER. The companys assets were not enough....
Did not Rialtrack executives not bleed money from the network in dire need for renewal....this DISPITE the Hatfield rail disaster....the follow-on effect of which was temporary speed resrictions blanketed all over much of the entire network ! Whatever profit is made does go to the shareholders or the board members, that`s how business works. Any dividend paid to shareholders is your tax money going down the drain!
The only upside to rail privatisation was the increase in a drivers income...without overtime. Being on a salary rather than wages per hour, thus giving a better pension in theory....(stockmarket not being as it is now)
And hold your breath I do agree that if the network was given back the same people would run it....hopefully those same people who squared up the Connex SE......not that they got the benefit when it was refranchised.
And on an old topic i can only comment on what i read.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Money is mostly spent on maintenece and renewing the **** state of whats already here, and actually Network Rail are rising up and improving greatly our railway, and have achievements never acheived by BR.

Clearing up the mess of Railtrack, and doing a good job of it from what i can see of it.
I would like to know what the achievements are though?...not a snidy comment:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

keep the network priavtised because it is nice to see diffirent things at diffirent stations instead of the same things all of the time!, also if i remember rightly last time it was in the hands of the government it NSE was a terrible wreck so i rekon we should keep it privatised

Keep the network priavtised because it is nice ???? TGVDUDE...DUD more like!!
Different things such as a different colour class 66`s instead of different classes of loco`s or different units instead of loco hauled trains.:roll:
"LONG LIVE GREAT WESTERN"????......"LONGER THAN SOME OF IT`S PASSENGERS"???????:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
Golden Gripper the most rounded debate item on this post....the only trouble with speedlink is it was withdrawn for not making more than 8% profit per contract, and thus was done away with to make way for sectorisation, which increased cost further due to a passenger diagrams for a driver no longer being able to have a return working of freight and visa versa, not to mention your failed train home having no rescue loco because the one a mile away belonged to the wrong sector. Therefore you had to wait for maybe over an hour for one to be sent from London when you are on the river bridge at Peterborough.

 

[43021HST]

Im all for Nationalisation again. But I,m worried if it comes under government ownership the "uneconomic" lines such as the cambrian coast line or the esk valley may be closed.

 

[charley_17/7]

I want neither the current situation or renationalisation.

I would prefer ownership of the railway to go to employee/partnership ownership (John Lewis plc-style model). More involvement of community rail lines with local organisations/authorities. Urban networks to be guided/controlled by the PTEs (or ITAs).

Reinvest the 'profits' back into the network. Government 'investment' where required for major projects of benefit to the nation(s).