Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[Moonshot]

The railway does not exist to be a job creation scheme, it is there to transport vast numbers of passengers around as efficiently as possible.

The vast bulk of staff who would be made redundant would be things like delay attribution clerks, who are responsible for funnelling large volumes of money out of the railways and into the pockets of private corporations.

Of course private corporations have shareholders.......which include pension funds, and also staff. Not that I know this, but I wouldnt be suprised if the railways own pension funds have had investments in publically quoted transport groups.

 

[jon0844]

The railway does not exist to be a job creation scheme, it is there to transport vast numbers of passengers around as efficiently as possible.

The vast bulk of staff who would be made redundant would be things like delay attribution clerks, who are responsible for funnelling large volumes of money out of the railways and into the pockets of private corporations.

So many jobs will be redundant in the future (both low skilled work AND highly skilled work) it's quite scary thinking about it. Technology and consumer demand will see that staff doing just about anything in retail will go. People will buy a ticket, book a taxi, buy goods and communicate on their smartphone.

Like using Uber or similar today, one day you'll just Google how to get from A to B and I'd expect you'll be able to book your public transport travel arrangements on the phone - and then just use the phone to tap in/out. Even for a £200 ticket, you can use your phone. Google/Apple has your card details so if you were going to give £200 over the counter, why not via your mobile device?

In 10 or 20 years, who will even need a TVM?

Guards will be history and people will be wondering when trains can drive themselves, having been fitted with a barrage of sensors and technology to make them capable of being driverless.

You may still need security of course, so perhaps one of the most poorly paid jobs WILL be safe. That's assuming we don't have more CCTV with facial recognition and other sensors to take over the duty of security guards too.

Cuts will be made no matter what.

As an example, look at the merger of T-mobile and Orange to form EE. There were redundancies at the Head Offices of both companies and for a while, the stores were all open whichever operator they had previously belonged to, but after a short time stores are starting to close.

In most cases staff were moved to the 'other' store. The stores were kept only until the leases expired, hence the differing lengths of time before stores closed and only one remained in any given area.

But a lot of head office staff went with the merger and now BT has taken over, I expect further cuts. In Hatfield, EE has vacated two big buildings and only seems to have one small one left - and there are ongoing rumours they may close the HQ and relocate, as BT will have a lot of the same people already.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The vast bulk of staff who would be made redundant would be things like delay attribution clerks, who are responsible for funnelling large volumes of money out of the railways and into the pockets of private corporations.

I know that it has been said before but let's be clear that delay attribution is a concept that was actually begun by BR, once the majority of train running data was capable of being captured automatically. The TRUST system, which underpins attribution was developed by BR.

Previously performance investigation and management relied on trying to piece together what had happened by wading through control logs, train registers, guards' journals, station supervisors' tick sheets, etc. This process kept many Area Operations Clerks and others busy on day shifts, sending out 'please explain' memos after the event. Frankly this 'process' was spectacularly ineffective and I speak from a position of having participated in it over many years.

Like the human body the railway is a complex system. Just as staff in a hospital are regularly capturing data about temperature, blood pressure, heart rate and so forth in order to manage recovery, so data on train operations is now captured continuously.

Another analogy is with fault finding in electrical systems. If there is a power cut the network operator will check for faults in its own equipment, send out response staff, check to see if outside influences such as weather or vandalism have been experienced and so forth. If no problem is established from this checking (equivalent to the Network Rail 'side' of attribution) then the customer's equipment connected to the network has to be checked (equivalent to the operator's role in attribution). Most of the time these processes will be carried out without dispute.

With genuine information on exactly what has been going wrong both sides of the industry can target and prioritise actions to prevent recurrence or improve mitigation.

This essential activity is only slightly related to the separate operation of the performance regimes. These only require to know the share/proportion of responsibility (Network Rail, operator on self or other operator), not the root cause, which is the focus of delay attribution.

The idea that a nationalised or 'integrated' industry would then stop delay attribution, after we have benefitted from it for over 20 years, is ridiculous.

 

[HH]

The idea that a nationalised or 'integrated' industry would then stop delay attribution, after we have benefited from it for over 20 years, is ridiculous.

Quite; and a point I have made before, whenever such issues come up. While there was overlap between TOCs & NR, much of that has now been removed. Removing delay attribution, if rail was ever vertically integrated (public owned or not), would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The idea that a nationalised or 'integrated' industry would then stop delay attribution, after we have benefitted from it for over 20 years, is ridiculous.

Delay attribution isn't the problem, it's the industry that has grown up around it to dispute the size of bird a train hit, and to complain about an open gate, or to complain about the weather, with a helpful series of flow charts to allow each party to try and weasel out of responsibility.

Network Rail and a nationalised British Rail entity doesn't need an ongoing argument about what size the bird was which took out 1W29 (random headcode) nor is it helpful if the size of bird is exaggerated up or down the way to escape a TDA bill, what we need on the ground is an accurate report, which can be assessed to see if we've got a problem with fencing, a useless farmer who can't control chickens, a new pigeon loft or if it's all bad luck.

What doesn't help is if one incident says it's a swan, a second incident says it's a pigeon and in reality it's neither but the TDA has been argued by one or other party.

The current TDA system is the classic garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) system, which isn't as helpful as it could be.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The classic 'large bird argument' jibe that has been thrown at the task of delay attribution over many years gets another airing.

In many years of experience I never personally came across an actual dispute on this point although I accept that it has, on occasion, happened.

But the idea that there is a whole 'industry' that has built up away from the coal face is again ridiculous. There is a Delay Attribution Board, composed of very experienced industry professionals (not 'lawyers') who meet monthly to review how this important industry activity is working and to fine tune it. Maintenance and improvement of professional methods and standards goes on in all 'routine' activities. BR had many committees, groups, etc. looking at subjects when it existed.

 

[cjmillsnun]

My main objection to renationalisation is government interference. Actaully taking the TOCs back could be done relatively cheaply. As each franchise runs out, it is not reset and handed to DOR. As far as FOCs go, I'd leave them private and also allow private open access and charter passenger services.

My main objection to the current system is government interference.

The government interferes however you do it. Therefore there is no point in moving towards renationalisation as there is almost zero benefit.

 

[SamYeager]

The government interferes however you do it. Therefore there is no point in moving towards renationalisation as there is almost zero benefit.

Quite. :thumbsup:

 

[satisnek]

I'm a bit late to this one but I have just voted 'Yes' in the full knowledge that it is extremely unlikely to happen in reality. It is a purely personal view; I am deeply, deeply resentful of what the Major government did to the UK's railway system for purely ideological reasons and it is something which will remain with me for the rest of my life.

Ideally I want to see the railways reintegrated, whether private or public. There is no natural internal competition within the rail system, this was systematically removed over a period of time during the middle part of the 20th century. Rail transport is in competition with buses, coaches, short-haul flights and the private car and I feel that it should be presented as a single, cohesive entity, a national network with standardised rolling stock owned, operated and maintained by a single organisation.

At the end of the day, I object to paying multiple profit centres. It's as simple as that.

 

[Harbornite]

I'm a bit late to this one but I have just voted 'Yes' in the full knowledge that it is extremely unlikely to happen in reality. It is a purely personal view; I am deeply, deeply resentful of what the Major government did to the UK's railway system for purely ideological reasons and it is something which will remain with me for the rest of my life.

Ideally I want to see the railways reintegrated, whether private or public. There is no natural internal competition within the rail system, this was systematically removed over a period of time during the middle part of the 20th century. Rail transport is in competition with buses, coaches, short-haul flights and the private car and I feel that it should be presented as a single, cohesive entity, a national network with standardised rolling stock owned, operated and maintained by a single organisation.

At the end of the day, I object to paying multiple profit centres. It's as simple as that.

What is your opinion of the German system?

 

[northernchris]

I wouldn't support re-nationalisation as it would cost the government millions and that money can be better spent elsewhere. It would also likely impact on staff pay rises as many government sectors have had a freezes/pension cuts, which would in turn affect morale and increase the likelihood of industrial action. What I would like to see though is a government owned arms length company set up to bid for contracts similar to Abellio and Arriva, and if that company is able to compete on a level playing field for franchises let them run it with any profit being returned to the state

 

[Railsigns]

I wouldn't support re-nationalisation as it would cost the government millions and that money can be better spent elsewhere.

Renationalisation would save the government (i.e. us, the taxpayer) more than a billion pounds a year, every year. That's our money which, as you say, can be better spent elsewhere. I would urge you to consider the long term benefits of renationalisation, not just the short-term cost.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The classic 'large bird argument' jibe that has been thrown at the task of delay attribution over many years gets another airing.

In many years of experience I never personally came across an actual dispute on this point although I accept that it has, on occasion, happened.

But the idea that there is a whole 'industry' that has built up away from the coal face is again ridiculous. There is a Delay Attribution Board, composed of very experienced industry professionals (not 'lawyers') who meet monthly to review how this important industry activity is working and to fine tune it. Maintenance and improvement of professional methods and standards goes on in all 'routine' activities. BR had many committees, groups, etc. looking at subjects when it existed.

Sounds like a bit of (self) interest. Delay attribitution -"or impact" mins was done under BR when the failings or successes of technical suppliers like the PW or Fleet could be discussed ,without financial penalty. However - the "Star" system and the circus that is schedule 4 and 8 compensation is a vicious , expensive and largely futile to the customer experience. Certain Adam Smith era boffins thought that such "incentives" would spur on ecefficiency ...(hollow laugh) - whereas in fact it brought in even more bureaucracy on all levels and despite your views on "no arguments" - there have always been very expensive lawyers hanging around looking to mkae some "easy" money without leaving a cool / warm office.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Renationalisation would save the government (i.e. us, the taxpayer) more than a billion pounds a year, every year. That's our money which, as you say, can be better spent elsewhere. I would urge you to consider the long term benefits of renationalisation, not just the short-term cost.

Managing out costs - as Lord McNulty said - is not easy. Easy targets are on TOC costs like conductors or booking offices .

Stripping out a falsely based "incentive" basis on Track Access rights , delay attribution (600 staff UK wide?), station access , "compliance" would have huge savings in bureaucracy. Some of it , admittedly , you need.

Never mind "contracting out" mundane things like track litter picking - which used to be done quite safely by local trained staff. (I recall as very serious near miss when a Manchester based team of "contractors" went to the wrong Bedford station , got down on an open line and were only saved by an alert driver. ....

And as a minor point - holding a connection in the glory days of BR was a simple call to the signalbox , (within reason of course) - passengers made their link and no-one got penalised.....

There could be much more.

 

[EM2]

Renationalisation would save the government (i.e. us, the taxpayer) more than a billion pounds a year, every year. That's our money which, as you say, can be better spent elsewhere. I would urge you to consider the long term benefits of renationalisation, not just the short-term cost.

Evidence?

 

[WatcherZero]

Renationalisation would save the government (i.e. us, the taxpayer) more than a billion pounds a year, every year. That's our money which, as you say, can be better spent elsewhere. I would urge you to consider the long term benefits of renationalisation, not just the short-term cost.

How do you figure a billion?

The franchises only made £200m dividends last year (money leaving the industry) on an industry turnover of £8.7bn Network Rail on the other hand had income of £6bn and expenditure of £6.3bn. If the services were nationalised and they had the same financial performance that would mean the taxpayer spending an extra £435m a year.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Cost reduction example , in BR days - a Divisional Director -say Ian Dobbs on Anglia , had total responsibilty for income , operational costs , fleet , marketing , infrastructure.

A big job - we have about 20 seperate organisations dealing with this now.

By the way - changing anything now is a minefield of consultation and so on - BR did not get it quite right by any means (was not allowed to) - but it could deliver change pretty quickly at the coalface when it grasped opportunties and had a bit of spare cash kicking around.... "Operation Quickspend"anyone ..?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you figure a billion?

The franchises only made £200m dividends last year (money leaving the industry) on an industry turnover of £8.7bn Network Rail on the other hand had income of £6bn and expenditure of £6.3bn. If the services were nationalised and they had the same financial performance that would mean the taxpayer spending an extra £435m a year.

Might therefore be an opportunity for Network Rail to really get a grip on costs and its own bureaucracy....(21 signatures I understand to get a simple Network Change through) ...so I gather ...

 

[absolutelymilk]

Might therefore be an opportunity for Network Rail to really get a grip on costs and its own bureaucracy....(21 signatures I understand to get a simple Network Change through) ...so I gather ...

Why would nationalisation of the TOCs be needed for this?

And as a minor point - holding a connection in the glory days of BR was a simple call to the signalbox , (within reason of course) - passengers made their link and no-one got penalised.....

I suspect that this rarely happens now has more to do with today's much busier railways than because of privatisation

 

[matt_world2004]

How do you figure a billion?

The franchises only made £200m dividends last year (money leaving the industry) on an industry turnover of £8.7bn Network Rail on the other hand had income of £6bn and expenditure of £6.3bn. If the services were nationalised and they had the same financial performance that would mean the taxpayer spending an extra £435m a year.

Less duplication on HR, revenue enforcement; training, delay attribution (No need for delay attribution teams for each TOC, customer service,duty related travel , would also be free or nominal cost between TOC's . Currently if I am to travel for work related purposes with my transport company it requires two people to sign off on it and one person to deliver the ticket to me. the ticket also costs £12 for a journey that can often be made for £3.00

 

[HH]

delay attribution (600 staff UK wide?)

Very few people are employed solely to do delay attribution, and has already been pointed out, delay attribution is necessary in order to target areas for improvement. Less people are employed in TOC v NR fights these days, partly down to the growth in joint control centres.

Not to say it's perfect; it isn't, but a little bit of a fight ensures that the attribution is more rigorous. I've seen some NR regions, and even a couple of TOCs, where the internal attributions are pretty rubbish.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

How do you figure a billion?

The franchises only made £200m dividends last year (money leaving the industry) on an industry turnover of £8.7bn Network Rail on the other hand had income of £6bn and expenditure of £6.3bn. If the services were nationalised and they had the same financial performance that would mean the taxpayer spending an extra £435m a year.

I've run out of fingers and toes, how does stopping £200m from leaving the industry translate into an extra taxpayer expenditure of £435m a year ?

 

[matt_world2004]

I suspect that this rarely happens now has more to do with today's much busier railways than because of privatisation

It still happens on the London underground, Particularly at Harrow on the Hill , White City and Wembley Park around about last train of the night, trains are dispatched using a green signal lanmp by csa's to hold connections

 

[Railsigns]

Evidence?

As per the Rebuilding Rail report of June 2012. If you disagree, I'm sure the authors would be delighted to hear where they've got it wrong. In detail, of course.

 

[absolutelymilk]

As per the Rebuilding Rail report of June 2012. If you disagree, I'm sure the authors would be delighted to hear where they've got it wrong. In detail, of course.

Not sure that any report sponsored by the trade unions is going to be the most impartial of sources...

I've run out of fingers and toes, how does stopping £200m from leaving the industry translate into an extra taxpayer expenditure of £435m a year ?

I think WatcherZero means that if the TOCs were nationalised and had the same loss as a % of turnover as Network Rail currently do then this would result in a loss of £435m a year. Not sure why that would be the case inherently though

 

[jon0844]

Hearing how BR shared stock in the old days, does anyone think it could ever be possible for that to happen again?

As in stock is procured for the whole of the network and distributed around, with drivers given the necessary training for different stock and different routes.

Indeed, drivers now being employed by one company with one set of T&Cs, standardised pay (perhaps with some local weighting) and the expectation to move around from time to time to meet demand - at least within regional areas that might be bigger than current TOC areas.

 

[Busaholic]

When I were a lad nationalisation was sometimes applied without compensation, or at least the threat of so doing: I'd love to see Beardy Branson's face if this was mooted again!

 

[Railsigns]

Not sure that any report sponsored by the trade unions is going to be the most impartial of sources...

Predictable response. You could say the same about a government sponsored report.

As I said before, if anyone disagrees with the report, they're free to explain where the authors got it wrong. I've yet to see anyone do so.

 

[AlterEgo]

Predictable response. You could say the same about a government sponsored report.

As I said before, if anyone disagrees with the report, they're free to explain where the authors got it wrong. I've yet to see anyone do so.

Well, given that I assume none of us on the board are going to sit with complicated long division sheets in front of us, it doesn't seem likely that we will work out how reliable the figures are.

Therefore we're left with considering the provenance of the report.

It was commissioned by trade unions, and its main audience is trade union members.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is interesting to see how the associated thread poll is faring.

 

[EM2]

As per the Rebuilding Rail report of June 2012. If you disagree, I'm sure the authors would be delighted to hear where they've got it wrong. In detail, of course.

I don't agree or disagree, I simply asked for evidence of your billion pounds claim so that I can make an informed decision.

 

[furnessvale]

I don't agree or disagree, I simply asked for evidence of your billion pounds claim so that I can make an informed decision.

Presumably, most of the savings will come from a reduction in wages back to nationalised industry levels!