Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[Clip]

What structural changes are we talking about?

He desperatly wants the link between Milton Keynes and Bedford direct to run all the time

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I prefer to keep Network Rail in public hands rather than private. I think it will be viewed as putting safety before money. If in private hands there is too much risk the perception would be seen the other way. I just can not see a privatized Network Rail doing all the electrification required.

I would like to see longer franchises and thus kept in private hands.

Long story short - I am for the status quo at the moment.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am totally against the idea of re-nationalisation of the railways as there are many in the socialist utopian aspiration camp that currently is having a field-day in the Momentum movement who would bring all that they could under the "Scarlet banner" that they love to sing about at gatherings. Could you image what life in Britain would really be like under that hegemony they would have the British people be subjected to?

There were family members on my father's side in Poland still living in the late 1950s/early 1960s period under a strictly controlled Communist state and never let British people forget how people's aspiration of freedom were dealt with by the Hungarian communist state with the backing of its Moscow master and how they dealt with such aspirations in the 1956 uprising. I cite this example as it was only just over ten years after the end of WWII when that matter occurred.

Perhaps the reality of having relatives living in a Communist state may have said to have coloured my judgement somewhat, but at least I can speak of an actuality rather that some Momentum clap-trap of aspirational Socialism favoured by those in Momentum. Shall I settle for the East German "Stasi" as a good example to cite?

 

[AlterEgo]

I am totally against the idea of re-nationalisation of the railways as there are many in the socialist utopian aspiration camp that currently is having a field-day in the Momentum movement who would bring all that they could under the "Scarlet banner" that they love to sing about at gatherings. Could you image what life in Britain would really be like under that hegemony they would have the British people be subjected to?

There were family members on my father's side in Poland still living in the late 1950s/early 1960s period under a strictly controlled Communist state and never let British people forget how people's aspiration of freedom were dealt with by the Hungarian communist state with the backing of its Moscow master and how they dealt with such aspirations in the 1956 uprising. I cite this example as it was only just over ten years after the end of WWII when that matter occurred.

Perhaps the reality of having relatives living in a Communist state may have said to have coloured my judgement somewhat, but at least I can speak of an actuality rather that some Momentum clap-trap of aspirational Socialism favoured by those in Momentum. Shall I settle for the East German "Stasi" as a good example to cite?

Jeez, give it a rest.

 

[Howardh]

I'm for renationalisation if it meant a simpler, more consumer friendly ticketing/pricing arrangement.
Add to that the fact that on some lines there's simply no choice- ie Manchester-London is Virgin (unless you travel to Crewe first, or Leeds/Sheffield I suppose). Can't see how thta's good for the customer.

 

[coppercapped]

Yes they should bd renationalised. The privatised system has increased fares and is often run by foreign national operators, if nationalisation can't work why are they so successful?

The advantages of selective memory!

Fares rose quite considerably in the last years of BR. At the time the railways were privatised the Government took it upon itself to control fare rises. The link to the Retail Price Index was established in 1996. From then until 2004 the Franchising Director and then the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) regulated fares by imposing a ‘cap’ on increases over the price that was charged in June 1995. Since 2004 this decision has been made by the DfT.

That is

• from 1 January 1996 until December 1998 increases in capped fares were not permitted to exceed the RPI (RPI+0)
• for the five years from 1 January 1999 to the end of 2003, the price cap was RPI-1
• from 2004 the price cap was RPI+1
• from 2013 the price cap has been RPI.

All this, and more, can be found in the House of Commons Briefing Paper SN01904 dated 3 March 2016 which can be found as a PDF on the Web.

So, yes, fares have risen, sometimes more than inflation, sometimes less. So do prices in the High Street generally - why should railways be any different?

Many of the new trains are either very long overdue or funded by the government anyway.

As one of the advantages of the robustness of railway vehicles is their long life, so really nothing should be thrown away until it's 40 years old or so. There are exceptions...

In some areas there may be a perceived need for additional vehicles and it can be argued these should have been built some years ago. However the TOCs' hands are to some extent tied by what is in their franchise agreement. The DfT has shown itself in many cases to be unwilling to amend franchise terms during the term of the franchise, so the lack of vehicles can be firmly put at the DfT's door.

The Government has not paid for any new trains since 1994 - there were a couple of minor exceptions for some locomotives for DRS discussed in another thread. The capital for all other new trains has been raised privately - and the leasing fees or Train Service Provision payments are paid by the TOC. There may be some Government guarantees in place but no cash has come from the Government - that is, from the taxpayer.

 

[Andrewlong]

I would like to see more competition on routes like on the ECML across the whole of the network where feasible. I don't have a phobia about public money going to private companies - they are there to make a profit and why is that a bad thing if they provide a good service? As to funding foreign countries, we live in a global economy nowadays though some would like us to recreate the empire or pretend we were the workshop of the world still.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

May I mention...
Directly Operated Railways

DOR was about 5% of the way to EC re-nationalisation, just replacing a franchise contract with a "service agreement".
It ran as a franchised TOC with all the usual structure including access charges and train leasing, with a premium payment to DfT, and under ORR regulation.
It didn't have to buy new stock or make any radical changes.

Nationalisation still has to answer questions about freight, open access, rolling stock ownership, HS1 (/2/3), Eurostar and the source of capital for investment.
How does nationalisation also manage devolution to Scotland, Wales and the regions?
Don't look abroad as you will find DB, SNCF, FS and the rest are all in varying degrees of insolvency and/or management crises, as the old state-owned monolith model breaks down.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Jeez, give it a rest.

Did not somewhere in the early part of the thread ask why we have voted in the poll and the reasons for doing so.

You, in true Momentum style, having been confronted with actuality against aspirationalism, in a thoughtfully-phrased posting, revert in true Momentum style but uttering that well known riposte to hide behind "Jeez, give it a rest"

Has "diddums" rushed away in what people much younger than me have described as a "hissy fit" ?

 

[Hadders]

I'm for renationalisation if it meant a simpler, more consumer friendly ticketing/pricing arrangement.
Add to that the fact that on some lines there's simply no choice- ie Manchester-London is Virgin (unless you travel to Crewe first, or Leeds/Sheffield I suppose). Can't see how thta's good for the customer.

Do you really think that would happen. It wasn't really simpler under BR and would no doubt have morphed into something similar to what we have today if BR had continued.

I'm not in favour of renationalisation, chiefly because of the vast upheaval it would mean for the industry. This would last for years and is the last thing that's needed at the moment.

 

[highdyke]

Could you image what life in Britain would really be like under that hegemony they would have the British people be subjected to?

Yes the state knows best, clear off the people that do know how to run businesses, and compete with other people that know how to sell products and services, don't let the public decide, we know best, and don't you dare have another opinion.

And btw if you do have anything worthwhile, we'll take that, give it to people that failed in everything and probably never tried to be different or better.

More or less dressed in in rhetoric about 'People's railway etc etc'.

There is a place for the state but it's regulation of the shaper ends of capitalism, providing a safety net, protecting us from violence and extremism, and making sure people have rights and responsibilities.

 

[Harbon 1]

I support it in that I believe public services (rail, roads, healthcare utilities etc) should be run in the best interests of the people, not profit, since a lot of it is integral to daily life now.

A railway run for the people would simply be an easier mix of stock, as mentioned a while back on another thread, if one company cancels a train, a replacement can't be sourced while another operators train sits empty. When all assets belong to one body, they can all be used by that body kind of thing.

Covers face ready for bombardment

 

[AlterEgo]

Did not somewhere in the early part of the thread ask why we have voted in the poll and the reasons for doing so.

You, in true Momentum style, having been confronted with actuality against aspirationalism, in a thoughtfully-phrased posting, revert in true Momentum style but uttering that well known riposte to hide behind "Jeez, give it a rest"

Has "diddums" rushed away in what people much younger than me have described as a "hissy fit" ?

No Paul, it's just tedious for you to roll out lines about communism and make ad hominem attacks on Corbyn at every opportunity. It contributes very little to the debate.

For the record, I don't vote Labour, I think Corbyn is a chocolate fireguard and I think privatising the railway was, on balance, a good thing.

We get it, you don't like Jez. Now let's talk railways...

 

[absolutelymilk]

A railway run for the people would simply be an easier mix of stock, as mentioned a while back on another thread, if one company cancels a train, a replacement can't be sourced while another operators train sits empty. When all assets belong to one body, they can all be used by that body kind of thing.

That assumes that the drivers who have the route knowledge to cover that route also have been trained on the spare units, which is very rarely the case.

 

[Harbornite]

I support it in that I believe public services (rail, roads, healthcare utilities etc) should be run in the best interests of the people, not profit, since a lot of it is integral to daily life now.

A railway run for the people would simply be an easier mix of stock, as mentioned a while back on another thread, if one company cancels a train, a replacement can't be sourced while another operators train sits empty. When all assets belong to one body, they can all be used by that body kind of thing.

Covers face ready for bombardment

What kind of nationalized system are we talking about? British railways circa 1950s, BR after 1982 or German railways today?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm for renationalisation if it meant a simpler, more consumer friendly ticketing/pricing arrangement.
Add to that the fact that on some lines there's simply no choice- ie Manchester-London is Virgin (unless you travel to Crewe first, or Leeds/Sheffield I suppose). Can't see how thta's good for the customer.

As opposed to BR, when there was no choice. That's some logic right there!

 

[DerekC]

The Government has not paid for any new trains since 1994 - there were a couple of minor exceptions for some locomotives for DRS discussed in another thread. The capital for all other new trains has been raised privately - and the leasing fees or Train Service Provision payments are paid by the TOC. There may be some Government guarantees in place but no cash has come from the Government - that is, from the taxpayer.

With the (not so minor) exception of Crossrail rolling stock which I believe is 30% publicly funded.

 

[Harbon 1]

What kind of nationalized system are we talking about? British railways circa 1950s, BR after 1982 or German railways today?

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of those so I can't answer that directly.

I'm for better integration of services, easier transfer of stock, simpler ticketing systems, and where the system is run like a railway and not where passengers are an afterthought to the business/stakeholders.

 

[Harbornite]

At least no one has said that they want BR back because the locos sounded better or the liveries were nicer, or any other irrelevant guff. Instead, the arguments given for renationalisation have been pretty poor, rose tinted specs spring to mind...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Add to that the fact that on some lines there's simply no choice- ie Manchester-London is Virgin --- Can't see how that's good for the customer.

?????

As opposed to BR, when there was no choice. That's some logic right there!

Precisely

Did not somewhere in the early part of the thread ask why we have voted in the poll and the reasons for doing so.

You, in true Momentum style, having been confronted with actuality against aspirationalism, in a thoughtfully-phrased posting, revert in true Momentum style but uttering that well known riposte to hide behind "Jeez, give it a rest"

Has "diddums" rushed away in what people much younger than me have described as a "hissy fit" ?

Don't let them get to you Paul - it is also called "Throwing your toys out of the pram"

I'm not in favour of renationalisation, chiefly because of the vast upheaval it would mean for the industry. This would last for years and is the last thing that's needed at the moment.

10/10 - well stated

 

[Harbornite]

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of those so I can't answer that directly.

I'm for better integration of services, easier transfer of stock, simpler ticketing systems, and where the system is run like a railway and not where passengers are an afterthought to the business/stakeholders.

If I were you, I'd research those systems before looking into nationalisation. Things aren't as rosy as they might seem when it comes to public ownership.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

?????

Precisely

Probably the most foolish argument in favour of renationalisation. Complaining about monopolies while harking back to a time when the whole network was under a bloody monopoly!


Still, at least the locos and wagons looked better...

Stuff it, I want BR back!

 

[neilmc]

I'm for renationalisation - I take the view that whilst there are some industries which are best left in the hands of private business - breweries, bakers, dairies, small hotels, local building societies, etc - major industries on which the nation is dependent - power, water, and the rail network - should be government controlled. The price of rail tickets generally is a disgrace and there is in reality very little price-reducing competition compared to most other areas of business where the consumer has an overwhelming choice of provider. When one considers the disappearance of "second-manning", the number of unstaffed and scarcely-staffed stations even in well-populated centres, the scarcity of signal boxes and the much-reduced number of traction maintenance depots compared to BR days I wonder where the hell the money has gone. Into the pockets of "consultants" and duplicated management functions across dozens of TOCs?? It's not being visibly spent on professional railwaymen, that's for sure.

 

[Harbon 1]

If I were you, I'd research those systems before looking into nationalisation. Things aren't as rosy as they might seem when it comes to public ownership.

Maybe not, but my opinion is that a more integrated system would work better for the country, and since competitors aren't fans of working together, the current system is never going to be well integrated.

That assumes that the drivers who have the route knowledge to cover that route also have been trained on the spare units, which is very rarely the case.

Which again, if it was a more integrated would be possible. As I said, assets could be called upon if they are available (which there would be a better likelihood of them being, since all the assets are under one roof), then they can be better utilised.

 

[Harbornite]

Maybe not, but my opinion is that a more integrated system would work better for the country, and since competitors aren't fans of working together, the current system is never going to be well integrated.



Which again, if it was a more integrated would be possible. As I said, assets could be called upon if they are available (which there would be a better likelihood of them being, since all the assets are under one roof), then they can be better utilised.

Well if you were based at Saltley depot, you wouldn't have had route knowledge for Edinburgh to Wick etc, as route knowledge would not have extended to the whole country for each depot, even back in BR days.

 

[Harbon 1]

Well if you were based at Saltley depot, you wouldn't have had route knowledge for Edinburgh to Wick etc, as route knowledge would not have extended to the whole country for each depot, even back in BR days.

Yes I'm well aware it's not a turn up and go situation, and I'm also well aware of the route knowledge boundaries for different depots that exist (sometimes oddly), but the more assets (ie drivers) you have, the more chance one of them will have the route and/or traction knowledge required. If they have one or the other, then if you have another asset who used to work for a different company, they could easily be provided as second man.

If neither are unavailable? Well then that's a cancelled service, but that's unavoidable, it's a railway, these things happen. But then as the stock is displaced, there could be another driver/unit/both that are available or spare for a while to take the train further from that point.

Now before you say I'm looking for sidings full of stock to be used at a moments notice (blue/grey mk2s with a 50 would be nice), I'm not. Cross Country seem to have a voyager sitting in the centre road at New Street the majority of times I've been there, and it has been used when the service is cancelled further back down the line to cover the next leg. What if that unit could be used to cover a failed cross city train? London midland to international? Virgin train to Wolverhampton?

I understand that pathing and drivers, as well as units for that matter, would not always be available and hold the required knowledge, but it was managed back when that godawful government owned monopoly that painted all its trains blue, and if that is as bad as most on here make out, then surely in a time of instant messaging and centralised control it can be achieved to keep people moving rather than cramming them onto the next available service?

 

[Harbornite]

Now before you say I'm looking for sidings full of stock to be used at a moments notice (blue/grey mk2s with a 50 would be nice), I'm not. Cross Country seem to have a voyager sitting in the centre road at New Street the majority of times I've been there, and it has been used when the service is cancelled further back down the line to cover the next leg. What if that unit could be used to cover a failed cross city train? London midland to international? Virgin train to Wolverhampton?

I understand that pathing and drivers, as well as units for that matter, would not always be available and hold the required knowledge, but it was managed back when that godawful government owned monopoly that painted all its trains blue, and if that is as bad as most on here make out, then surely in a time of instant messaging and centralised control it can be achieved to keep people moving rather than cramming them onto the next available service?

The intentions of this are good, but what if an XC unit fails and the Voyager is gone?

 

[D1009]

The intentions of this are good, but what if an XC unit fails and the Voyager is gone?

Well presumably the XC train would have been cancelled rather than the train the Voyager was used to cover. Then we'd get to try to debate which was the more important of the two.

 

[Harbornite]

Well presumably the XC train would have been cancelled rather than the train the Voyager was used to cover. Then we'd get to try to debate which was the more important of the two.

The XC one deserves priority due to train frequencies.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No Paul, it's just tedious for you to roll out lines about communism and make ad hominem attacks on Corbyn at every opportunity. It contributes very little to the debate.

For the record, I don't vote Labour, I think Corbyn is a chocolate fireguard and I think privatising the railway was, on balance, a good thing.

We get it, you don't like Jez. Now let's talk railways...

Point noted. Perhaps the after-effects of the very hot weather that we had on Tuesday which left night-time temperatures far too hot for me to sleep (for a period of 20 hours) must have overcome my normal care to attention when I made that posting.

One final note on the "other" matter. I suppose that as one who uses both terms "Jez" and "Jeez", you must take care never to mix up the one you are referring to in postings...

 

[coppercapped]

With the (not so minor) exception of Crossrail rolling stock which I believe is 30% publicly funded.

Yes, I'd forgotten about that. Oops!

But the main thrust of my argument remains - apart from some of the Crossrail order (and a few locomotives if one considers DRS to be part of the Government, but anyhow these were financed by Beacon) has not directly purchased any trains since 1994.

 

[CarlSilva]

I voted yes, I support it. Certain things should not be subject to profit and I think the railways are an example of this.