Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[najaB]

Secondly, and this is the important bit, the relative costs of subsidising NR versus the TOCs can be - and are - manipulated by adjusting the level of track access charges paid to NR. Even though the TOCs are making greater use of the infrastructure, track access charges have been reduced, meaning they are paying less.

The ORR disagrees with this.

 

[Railsigns]

The ORR disagrees with this.

That table only shows you the data from a single Control Period (CP4).

 

[najaB]

That table only shows you the data from a single Control Period (CP4).

Your claim was that TOCs have been paying less and less in track access charges, yet every year of CP4 the total amount paid increased.

It stands to reason that if they are using the track more, even if the per mile charge decreases slightly, they will pay more overall.

 

[highdyke]

Complex issue track access, because you have to incentivise passenger TOCs and freight companies to use the network, and provide a fair deal to NR.

http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/track-access

I happen to think that's it's a bit of a farce because of the road network. People are not being charged the the appropriate rate for congestion, tonnage, network improvement. Like all networks, parts of the road network makes a loss. Road pricing was comprehensively rejected by the public, though if we get electric cars it will probably come in at some point.

There are those that make a career of comparing the two, which hides the real comparative costs because the private part of the cost is not included, or elements of the pubic side are subject to significant overcharging/undercharging.

To reflect this reality, privatisation should have leased to track to operators (on long franchises) who would have maintained and operated it to a standard, the regulator ruling on network enhancements and access. Operators crossing out of their area could have agreed one fixed price payable per year subject to review/rebate if the track owner didn't perform.

 

[Tetchytyke]

My firm belief is innovation, new ideas, competition and productivity will solve a lot more than setting up a protectionist movement.

Network Rail should be compared with the private sector company that it replaced.

And Railtrack plc slid into administration with £7bn debts, together with a maintenance backlog of about another £7bn-£10bn as well as an overspend on the WCML of about £5bn. A reliance on private contractors, obtained on price alone through competitive tendering, meant they didn't know what they owned or what condition it was in. They still didn't when they went bust, with the consequences of their ineptitude at Hatfield causing the network to grind to a halt, costing them well north of £500m in damages to the TOCs.

As we know, Railtrack was never abolished, with Network Rail buying Railtrack plc out of administration, debts included. This is important because the government treated it like a private company, using bonds and other credit facilities in lieu of capital expenditure. Network Rail has debts because the Government wanted it to have debts, because it helped to cut expenditure. This only became an issue when the NAO ordered NR to be added to the national debt.

But even with this at least half the NR debt actually stems from the Railtrack days. And it is Railtrack you seem to be harking back to.

 

[highdyke]

Oh Railtrack and NR were/are disaster for the reasons you explain. The government should have maintained ownership of the track and leased it long 20-30 year plus franchises, and anyone public, private, mutuals allowed to bid, the contract going to the best value. It would have simplified things greatly, rather than selling paths, a yearly reviewable charge would be adequate for companies crossing into others territory. Likewise, if a private company, haulier or a local council has the cash, and providing they meet the standard, should be able to go online and get a price for access and get a path from the latter companies, with the regulator ruling on it if they are not successful. They should be be able to buy or lease the stock, short contracts or long term.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The government should have maintained ownership of the track and leased it long 20-30 year plus franchises, and anyone public, private, mutuals allowed to bid, the contract going to be best value.

I'm not sure I agree, because the main failing of Railtrack was that maintenance WAS handed out to companies on a regional basis on "best value" contracts. Railtrack's failings weren't because they owned the track, it was because they had no control over their contractors. Many of Railtrack's problems were because they didn't know who was maintaining things and they didn't know what standard they were being maintained to. They were clueless and they were being ripped off.

Potters Bar was so chilling because Jarvis- who had the contract for maintenance based on a "best value" contract- simply didn't arse themselves to do the work they were being paid to do, going so far as to lie about it with Walter Mitty tales of terrorism and sabotage. They knew they hadn't done what they were supposed to do, they just didn't care.

And even back under government ownership things didn't change for Jarvis. Even after Potters Bar, even after killing people, they still didn't do what they were being paid to do, and there was still no oversight. This was proved in September 2003 following a derailment at Kings Cross when Jarvis handed back control of the station throat after engineering works, having "forgotten" to replace a significant section of rail.

 

[highdyke]

You've totally ignored what I've said, the franchises could be long term and they maintain the track and operate the network through a lease. I'm not talking about a free for all in maintenance.

 

[HH]

I don't know what the best solution is, what I do know is that Railtrack saw themselves as a property company who had this bothersome task of also maintaining infrastructure. The blame for that has at least partly to be laid at the door of how the company was set up and that was largely done by Civil Servants, including former senior railway staff.

One issue with NR is that they no longer employ many people who understand how the railway works (this has been brought home to me many times over the last few years). This is undoubtedly somewhat down to the lack of vertical integration, but it's also down to the culture, at least some of which they inherited from RT.

 

[Harbornite]

Whilst looking up something for another thread, I came across this.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You've totally ignored what I've said, the franchises could be long term and they maintain the track and operate the network through a lease. I'm not talking about a free for all in maintenance.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted you, are you more meaning the Chiltern Railways and Merseyrail model of a long-term franchise and more vertical integration between TOC and infrastructure operator?

I think for franchises that are largely self-contained this could bring benefits. It did at Merseyrail and did to an extent at Chiltern (although Evergreen 3 has not been an unqualified success). c2c would be an ideal candidate.

But on the troublesome parts of the network, especially the southern WCML, I'm not convinced it would change much. Which franchise would control it? How would access arrangements be guaranteed? How would you stop Big Fast Trains Ltd nicking all the best paths, the FOCs in particular could well end up being sidelined and marginalised.

There's benefits to vertical integration- if nothing else, it's the TOC's name on the door when it all goes to pot, which concentrates minds- but I'm not convinced it would address the main issues, which are still around cost control and contractor oversight. Railtrack was split into regional cost centres but still bombed because they didn't know what they had, who was maintaining it, or what standard it was being maintained to.

 

[Lankyline]

Edit: Oh, and I'm also impressed by your strop at Lankyline for cherry-picking a year that suited his argument, yet you've chosen the lowest year of BR's years, conveniently ignoring all the other years where their subsidy was much higher. Including the immediate pre-privatisation years when you said that BR was being run into the ground by lack of investment.

Again, if you had read my post properly you will have noticed that I chose that year deliberately because it was when BRB came into existence. The same organisation that forms the basis of your argument.
You may have also noticed, or not, that his argument is simply based on political doctrine, not anywhere is there a rational argument based on facts or evidential support,

 

[highdyke]

But on the troublesome parts of the network, especially the southern WCML, I'm not convinced it would change much. Which franchise would control it? How would access arrangements be guaranteed? How would you stop Big Fast Trains Ltd nicking all the best paths, the FOCs in particular could well end up being sidelined and marginalised.

That's what the regulator is there for.

 

[Tio Terry]

I doubt my views will suit many but here goes!

I'm not politically motivated in any way, as far as I am concerned, no matter what colour flag they fly under, there's no such thing as an honest politician. They are all self serving, corrupt individuals who are in it from what they can, personally, get at the tax payers expense.

I worked for British Rail from July 1964 to February 1991 - over 25 years, but I never got my long service award! - so I know what a Nationalised Railway was like to work for. Since Feb 91 I have continued to work within the industry without a break, I'm now in my 53rd year in the industry.

Much of the time I worked for BR it was a closed shop so I was a Union member, but in all that time I was never called out on strike. Some members of the public would question that as the perception was that BR staff would strike at the drop of a hat. Not true.

Would I support renationalisation? Not if it was the same as it was in BR days. There was an attitude that everything had to be done "in house" which was totally wrong. The argument that if you wanted to serve a glass of milk in a Dining Car you needed to own the farm and the cows that produced the milk was ridiculous. I spent some time in my BR days designing a telephone exchange, known as a Cross Point, it was a massive waste of money, it never performed well and was very quickly displaced by electronic versions that were generally available on the open market.

There was a lot wrong with BR but the current situation with TOC's/FOC's is also not right. Too much tax payers money going to private company shareholders.

I would happily support a system where the Infrastructure is separated from the train running, but only if both sides were operated as not-for-profit company's with any revenue in excess to operating costs being reinvested in the company(s). But I doubt The Treasury could be persuaded to accept that!

I very much doubt in the few years that I will continue to work before retiring to the sunny Spanish home that is ready and waiting for me that I shall ever see my ideal railway in the UK.

 

[Domh245]

Like many views shared by 'the majority' it really does depend on the question that's asked. I doubt that one in ten of the population actually understands how the railway works today, so while they support 'renationalisation' they may not actually know what that entails

In my opinion, much like some people who voted for Brexit, it isn't so much that they are in favour of the alternative (brexit/nationalisation) but that they are dead set against the current system (EU membership/privatisation). There is of course no guarantee that the alternative is better, but they perceive the current system as not working for them and so they want the alternative.

 

[najaB]

Again, if you had read my post properly you will have noticed that I chose that year deliberately because it was when BRB came into existence.

I wasn't saying I agreed with Railsigns that you cherry-picked a data point that happened to support your argument - I get why you referred to that year. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of accusing someone of cherry-picking and then doing the same thing.

 

[Harbornite]

I should say that I'm impressed by the turnout regarding my poll. Thanks to everyone who has voted.

 

[matt_world2004]

How about a system where the railway network is divided up into city based passenger transport executives, with the passenger transport executives being given the choice of using a concession contract or direct operation.when an intercity service runs between two PTE's these are let as concessions in which the two PTE's can either bid for or co run

 

[J-2739]

I should say that I'm impressed by the turnout regarding my poll. Thanks to everyone who has voted.

Ya welcome!

 

[Harbornite]

How about a system where the railway network is divided up into city based passenger transport executives, with the passenger transport executives being given the choice of using a concession contract or direct operation.when an intercity service runs between two PTE's these are let as concessions in which the two PTE's can either bid for or co run

Maybe, or have a separate franchise for all intercity services.

The issue with this system is funding. Anyway, we've already got this system to an extent with the likes of Centro etc.

 

[AlterEgo]

How about a system where the railway network is divided up into city based passenger transport executives, with the passenger transport executives being given the choice of using a concession contract or direct operation.when an intercity service runs between two PTE's these are let as concessions in which the two PTE's can either bid for or co run

How does that work in areas without large cities, like the South West?

 

[Harbornite]

How does that work in areas without large cities, like the South West?

Good point. It would be unfair to have the entire south west governed by Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth authorities.

 

[Domeyhead]

Trying to portray Network Rail as an inefficient state body because it takes the majority of the public subsidy, while those oh-so-efficient private sector TOCs either take tiny subsidies or throw premium payments at the government, is completely bogus.

Firstly, NR has a national rail network to maintain: track, signalling and structures don't come cheap. The TOCs do little more than operate trains and check tickets, each within a limited geographical area. Comparing like with like?

Secondly, and this is the important bit, the relative costs of subsidising NR versus the TOCs can be - and are - manipulated by adjusting the level of track access charges paid to NR. Even though the TOCs are making greater use of the infrastructure, track access charges have been reduced, meaning they are paying less. The TOCs therefore need less of a subsidy, while NR is given more to compensate. It creates an illusion that the TOCs are lowering their costs and becoming more efficient, while NR gobbles up all the public money, but it's completely false. It's an example of the sort of tricks the government pulls to try to skew public perception. It looks like they've pulled the wool over your eyes, anyway.

Nobody is trying to make a like for like comparison between the TOCs and the infrastructure provider. You don't win any prizes for setting up your own sophistry and then demolishing it as though it was someone else's work! I checked the Track access charges for CP5 which details the charges year on year. As you know there are thousands of them so I am not sure how you can say they are all going down. They aren't. Not even most of them. Some are. Some are static, some are not. As for TOCs, they may "appear" more efficient because the franchising system means they frontload all innovation costs and investment, then coast through to renewal, but that is a circumstance forced on them by the Government's own franchising method, with different causes and remedies not germane to this argument. It is clear that Network Rail gets more taxpayer money via the Treasury's current account defecit than do the TOCs and it is also a fact that most of the delays experienced by the TOCs have root causes in the underlying infrastructure provided by Network Rail, but for which the public holds them responsible. How you can say this "completely false" when it is clearly and plainly true from ORR's own statistics is remarkable. Your general tone that everyone who disagrees with you is duped by a deliberately malicious state while only you have the power to deduce the truth suggests you are either the brightest man I have ever encountered or you are a fool. You could be either, as could I.

 

[AverageTD]

There may be another thread like this but I couldn't find it so please discuss. I see this question brought up in other threads as solutions so I thought it might be a good idea to create a dedicated one.

Moderator note: this has been merged into an existing thread (for more threads discussing renationalisation, see here)

 

[Dr Hoo]

Could the OP clarify what should be re-nationalised?

The rail network has already been re-nationalised.

 

[AverageTD]

Could the OP clarify what should be re-nationalised?

The rail network has already been re-nationalised.

I mean back to BR and network southeast. Sorry I didn't make it clear

 

[takno]

I don't think you can just go back - the customers, traffic mix, safety culture and the expectations of the wider society are too different now. If BR as it existed back then was recreated I think people would be pretty unhappy with the result

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Do you want to renationalise freight, open access and rolling stock, or just the passenger train operators?
Where will the money come from?
What do you expect will happen to fares as a result?
What structure will the rail industry have, and what will the "money-go-round" look like?
Who will employ the staff?
What happens to devolution to Scotland/Wales/regions?
Will HS2 be any different?
What happens to existing contracts (IEP is contracted from Agility for another 27 years, for instance)?

It's all rather more complicated than a simple "yes or no".

 

[meolebrace]

Straighforward economics....increase competition. The only reasonable way to lower fares without resorting to the taxpayer.

 

[DenmarkRail]

No I don’t

BUT

A new system of franchising needs to be introduced, with a realisation that one method does not fit all franchise, perhaps franchising the old BR sectors, rather than the many franchises we have now.