Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[tbtc]

A worthwhile post, but did you mean 'nationalise' where I have used bold type?

Yes - well spotted!

Have you actually used LM recently? "Empty seats" are not what you'll find. What you will find is severe overcrowding, which is entirely caused by the fares policy taking passengers from 11-car Pendolinos onto 4-car regional units which would be perfectly adequate in this form were the fares not so low.

So what it would actually do is make people choose the appropriate train for their journey.

That's my point.

If the London - Milton Keynes - Rugby - Stoke - Crewe/ Coventry - Birmingham passengers had no financial incentive to take a slower/cheaper train then they'd all be crammed on to the "InterCity" service, whilst the 350s only carried short distance passengers.

How many passengers would prefer to do Euston - Milton Keynes on a 350 (if the faster 390 cost the same to use)?

People say that they want a "simpler" fares system, so would that mean accepting a large shift in demand between slower services (which are currently cheaper) and fast services (which are currently more expensive) if there was no "competition" under a nationalised system?

Knowing that we have to eat and drink in order to live, that surely must make these large supermarket chains "essential services", so would you nationalise all of these and we'll all end up with the faceless "grey image" establishments that were so well known in the countries of the Warsaw Pact.

Be careful in holding nationalisation dear to your heart, as you might find your wish granted sooner than you think.

Do you not get bored with trotting out all of the iron curtain stuff?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's my point.

It's not. It's the precise opposite of your point.

If the London - Milton Keynes - Rugby - Stoke - Crewe/ Coventry - Birmingham passengers had no financial incentive to take a slower/cheaper train then they'd all be crammed on to the "InterCity" service, whilst the 350s only carried short distance passengers.

Which is precisely how it should be, with a quality connectional Taktfahrplan co-ordinated between the two. Look at how the Swiss do it - short regional trains (typically 4-car) connecting with very long InterRegio trains and InterCity trains (typically 8-car, some even up to 12-car). That is how we should do it, too. It's more efficient, and it's better for the passengers.

It is a total nonsense that Crewe-Euston stopping services are overcrowded due to fares incentives, making things worse for those who have no choice but to use those services.

The one exception is Euston-MKC, where commuters are better provided for with the faster regional services (no longer crowded out by people going to Brum on the cheap), leaving the 390s for long-distance passengers. This can be controlled, as it presently is at peak time, by applying "u" and "s" to the timetable.

 

[Blamethrower]

Yes was my vote

All the infrastructure, operating bodies, leasing, staff etc all exist already. Surely renationalising train operations would mean that all that operating infrastructure would just transfer to the DfT?

Just let the franchises end naturally so no compensation is needed. Roscos on the other hand would probably remain as they help procure new trains and compensation would be high.

What I want to see is standardised train info eg. Stopper, regional, intercity and intercity express. Number each train so that you know which route it is taking then changing trains is easy.

Announcements would be easier, passengers less confused, shareholder money reinvested.

Why subsidise profits at the expense of the electorate? Conflict of interests by our career politicians.

 

[highdyke]

Do you not get bored with trotting out all of the iron curtain stuff?

It's a good point though, railways are only really essential to London and its hinterland. Fairly important in some other cities, and between cities. Nice to have, elsewhere.

Food, the internet, and many other things probably more important, yet these are in private hands.

Last time I looked London commuter fares were regulated, so what does nationalisation really deliver?

People got almost everything from the state in the 1970s, strikes were common. 3 channels on the TV start at 9am, finish at 11pm. Under 30s would be shocked at the lack of choice, and average quality of services on offer. Oh and cheap imports were a big problem long before Thatcher - going back to the Corn laws really.

 

[Deepgreen]

It's a good point though, railways are only really essential to London and its hinterland. Fairly important in some other cities, and between cities. Nice to have, elsewhere.

Food, the internet, and many other things probably more important, yet these are in private hands.

Last time I looked London commuter fares were regulated, so what does nationalisation really deliver?

People got almost everything from the state in the 1970s, strikes were common. 3 channels on the TV start at 9am, finish at 11pm. Under 30s would be shocked at the lack of choice, and average quality of services on offer. Oh and cheap imports were a big problem long before Thatcher - going back to the Corn laws really.

Food more important than railways? Are you new here?

 

[45107]

Knowing that we have to eat and drink in order to live, that surely must make these large supermarket chains "essential services", so would you nationalise all of these and we'll all end up with the faceless "grey image" establishments that were so well known in the countries of the Warsaw Pact.

Be careful in holding nationalisation dear to your heart, as you might find your wish granted sooner than you think.

Gas, water, electricity are generally of the same standard irrelevant who provides them ( apart from the myriad of tariffs since privatisation and profits to shareholders instead of investment in the infrastructure that everyone relies on)

Since you raise nationised food supply, perhaps you could explain your views further ?

 

[Haig paxton]

Gas, water, electricity are generally of the same standard irrelevant who provides them ( apart from the myriad of tariffs since privatisation and profits to shareholders instead of investment in the infrastructure that everyone relies on)

Since you raise nationised food supply, perhaps you could explain your views further ?

I believe we may see a National Dairy before long if dairy farmers continue to drop at current rates or worse. As for trains, it all depends on where you live and what you use trains for. If you live in an area with few trains per day that receive a heavy subsidy, I doubt a nationalised rail company will improve your lot so it really would not make any difference.

 

[HH]

Nationalise 'em. Bring back Beeching!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Gas, water, electricity are generally of the same standard irrelevant who provides them ( apart from the myriad of tariffs since privatisation and profits to shareholders instead of investment in the infrastructure that everyone relies on)

Since you raise nationised food supply, perhaps you could explain your views further ?

This was another "essential service" that I asked a posting contributor to give his views upon, as he had already cited a number of services that he would like to be nationalised.

My views are well known on this website for being against any state ownership of any industry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you not get bored with trotting out all of the iron curtain stuff?

Do you honestly believe for one moment that I am ever likely to forget the Communist regimes that family members of mine had to live under...

 

[sd0733]

Personally I believe that Nationalisation is the wrong route to go down. It leaves the railway wide open to Government meddling even worse than it is now and changes on a whim with changes to the ministers.

I think the best way to go is to the 'Chiltern' model where the franchisee is given a long, 20-25 year franchise with lots of investment and time for the toc to recoup that investment this brings stability in rolling stock, long term certainty to staff and passengers and gives time for the franchisee to get good local contacts with councils, NR etc in order to improve and develop.

The way we are with 6-7 year franchises micromanaged by Dft seems the worst of all worlds especially with these very short term direct awards keep coming 1 after the other which completely stop pretty much anything happening. This leads to so much uncertainty and no investment, thus making boom and bust orders for refurbs/trains and must push prices up. If it was organised sensibly into say 12 franchises which were let on a 25 year basis this would, if done logically have a franchise up for renewal every 2 years which should lead to a fairly consistent flow of orders and refurbs also lowers work loads on tenders and refranchising. Obviously clauses and breaks would need to be inserted too incase of failure.

Ticketing also needs a national overhaul with a lot of the off-peak, anytime, super off peak etc having a common timing on routes. The present where off-peak can start anywhere from 0415 until 0930 is totally confusing to everyone but there is no reason why this cant be put into new franchises anyway so when they start they are put into the standard ticketing framework so at least they can base all the forecasting on a known entity with where they stand.

 

[highdyke]

deleted

 

[Mag_seven]

We have the ludicrous situation where foreign state owned companies such as SNCF and DB can run franchises in this country (and send the profits back to France and Germany) but our own state cannot. You couldn't make it up! And don't get me started on the army of accountants and lawyers that fragmentation has brought!

 

[AlterEgo]

We have the ludicrous situation where foreign state owned companies such as SNCF and DB can run franchises in this country (and send the profits back to France and Germany) but our own state cannot. You couldn't make it up! And don't get me started on the army of accountants and lawyers that fragmentation has brought!

So are you for or against nationalisation?

 

[HowardGWR]

The railways are already nationalised. You did specify 'railways'.

 

[furnessvale]

Have you actually used LM recently? "Empty seats" are not what you'll find. What you will find is severe overcrowding, which is entirely caused by the fares policy taking passengers from 11-car Pendolinos onto 4-car regional units which would be perfectly adequate in this form were the fares not so low.

So what it would actually do is make people choose the appropriate train for their journey.

Or more likely make people choose the appropriate ROAD for their journey as fares rose.

 

[Master29]

The tories have always hated the railways and been it`s number one enemy. The French and German argument has merit as these have been largely socialist governments that have an infrastructure designed around it`s working. Britain`s railways had suffered years of butchery at the hands of politicians intent on control of a service they didn`t care about as nothing more than a tool of whim.

Had we have had the SNCF style model and yes it did run at a loss for around a decade but as rightly speculated at the time would eventually break even. This won`t happen in the UK as too many chiefs want profit now and not years down the lane. This was the big mistake we now have to live with in the UK.

Ultimately it would be better to see re nationalisation but it would require large sums of money and will run at a loss for a few years before any profit can be made. That will never happen in an American style economy obsessed in profit However, wasn`t the railways a public service after all.

 

[43074]

I think the DfT have so much control over the franchisees anyway that you could consider the present setup 'nationalised' to an extent - its only really the provision of the train service which is in private hands, but even then it is specified to such a high degree by the DfT that there's no real incentive to innovate - one of the supposed perks of privatisation. On that basis, I'm against re-nationalisation - to quote Gerry Fiennes' I tried to run a railway, ''when you re-organise, you bleed'', and the industry does not need another reorganisation when privatisation is just about being made to work.

 

[Harbornite]

However, wasnt the railways a public service after all.

No, it was built by private investors with the aim of making profit.

 

[Master29]

No, it was built by private investors with the aim of making profit.

OK. Good point but look what happened as a result. Twice the country was almost bankrupted in what was a free for all melt down.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

OK. Good point but look what happened as a result. Twice the country was almost bankrupted in what was a free for all melt down.

I'm not quite sure which events you're referring to there. However, it does remind me of the railway mania bubble from the 1840s - now largely forgotten. The equivalent of a stock market crash, but mainly centred on the railways, and caused by too many companies over-optimistically planning to build non-viable rail lines. It financially ruined a huge number of families, companies, and investors.

As with other bubbles, the Railway Mania became a self-promoting cycle based purely on over-optimistic speculation. As the dozens of companies formed began to operate and the simple unviability of many of them became clear, investors began to realise that railways were not all as lucrative and as easy to build as they had been led to believe. Coupled to this, in late 1845 the Bank of England put up interest rates. As banks began to re-invest in bonds, the money began to flow out of railways, under-cutting the boom. The share prices of railways slowed in their rise, then levelled out. As they began to fall, investment stopped virtually overnight, leaving numerous companies without funding and numerous investors with no prospect of any return on their investment. The larger railway companies such as the Great Western Railway and the nascent Midland began to buy up strategic failed lines to expand their network. These lines could be purchased at a fraction of their real value as given a choice between a below-value offer for their shares or the total loss of their investment, shareholders naturally chose the former.

Many middle class families on modest (but comfortable) incomes had sunk their entire savings into new companies during the Mania, and they lost everything when the speculation collapsed.

That of course happened on an entirely private railway. I don't think by itself that is particularly relevant to nationalization per se, but it does remind us of the need for proper strategic planning at a national level, no matter who runs the railways.

 

[Master29]

I'm not quite sure which events you're referring to there. However, it does remind me of the railway mania bubble from the 1840s - now largely forgotten. The equivalent of a stock market crash, but mainly centred on the railways, and caused by too many companies over-optimistically planning to build non-viable routes. Financially ruined a huge number of families, companies, and investors.



That of course happened on an entirely private railway. I don't think by itself that is particularly relevant to nationalization per se, but it does remind us of the need for proper strategic planning at a national level, no matter who runs the railways.

You`re right. That is what I meant. Thanks for that.

 

[jon0844]

The railway might have been a total mess back when rival companies were building lines and stations next to each other, but now the closest we have is the open access operator - but that's using existing infrastructure and just fitting in around other services.

I really did think the TSGN management contract sounded like the ideal way to do things.. much like TfL in London. However, it has all gone pretty much tits up.

I can't figure out if the idea was flawed, or it's merely because the DfT made it a requirement to enact changes that means whoever got the gig was going to be screwed and will become the fall guy for the Government.

I'm torn over whether GTR is as much a victim as the rest of us, or totally and utterly incompetent. Thing is, we may never truly know as I'm sure the DfT will hang the company out to dry in due course, namely when it gets the results it wants.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The railway might have been a total mess back when rival companies were building lines and stations next to each other, but now the closest we have is the open access operator - but that's using existing infrastructure and just fitting in around other services.

I really did think the TSGN management contract sounded like the ideal way to do things.. much like TfL in London. However, it has all gone pretty much tits up.

I can't figure out if the idea was flawed, or it's merely because the DfT made it a requirement to enact changes that means whoever got the gig was going to be screwed and will become the fall guy for the Government.

I'm torn over whether GTR is as much a victim as the rest of us, or totally and utterly incompetent. Thing is, we may never truly know as I'm sure the DfT will hang the company out to dry in due course, namely when it gets the results it wants.

Govia knew what they were getting into. They aren't victims in any way.

 

[jon0844]

So why would anyone have bid? I have to assume they've been given an easy ride thus far because they are being given protection/shielding by the Government. But can that last?

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

 

[highdyke]

I'm torn over whether GTR is as much a victim as the rest of us, or totally and utterly incompetent. .

You may find this interesting.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/railway-roulette/

 

[jon0844]

You may find this interesting.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/railway-roulette/

Yes, very much so!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or more likely make people choose the appropriate ROAD for their journey as fares rose.

It is true that LM have attracted people out of cars with their low fares, but they have also attracted many from VT as well. It isn't realistic to suggest VT drop their fares to LM's level (their operation is much more expensive to run due to the higher capacity and quality).

I'm not sure what the answer is, TBH. You could I suppose accept it and extend the LMs to 12-car throughout - but the cost of that would raise costs hugely and would make the low fares non-viable - the whole LM fare concept is only viable by cramming people into short EMUs that are running anyway. Meanwhile, the Trent Valley inhabitants who have no choice have to cram into packed 350s and don't have the option to pay a more realistic fare in order to have a bit of personal space.

 

[Andrewlong]

I am for nationalisation, The southern railway debacle shows that the privately run railways have limited accountability towards the public there is virtually no competition on the railways in the south east of England meaning there is no incentive to improve the service; at least under the nationalised model the respective politicans can be voted out and The one example in the UK where a completely private railway and a completely nationalised railway runs between the same two stations , the nationalised railway charges 20% of the price of the privatised one, and is more frequent

How can it be a privatised railway when the government awards the franchises, sets fares and Network Rail is a publicly owned body. NR infrastructure works at London Bridge have not helped the situation. You can get rid out franchises unlike BR which was a monopoly. The nearest thing you have to a privatised railway are the heritage ones eg GCR or GWR.

 

[notlob.divad]

It is true that LM have attracted people out of cars with their low fares, but they have also attracted many from VT as well. It isn't realistic to suggest VT drop their fares to LM's level (their operation is much more expensive to run due to the higher capacity and quality).

And there is the problem with the way the railway networks have been privatized. VT have no incentive to make efficiency savings or anything else that would allow them to drop their prices and compete for those customers, because ultimately the taxpayers via the dft are the buckstop. What VT have done to a limited extent is go after new customers for longer journeys, with their super cheap advanced fares, but they have had no reason to drop the peak flows prices and so instead have major issues in 'shoulders'.

 

[Phil.]

It would be interesting to know what proportion of voters here have experienced both regimes.

....bearing in mind that that someone of fifteen years of age in 1994 would now be thirty seven years of age and have no real clue as to just how awful B.R. could be with it's fleet of dirty grotty old trains, dirty grotty old stations and a huge tranche of staff who had no clue or interest in good service. There were good bits but they were overwhelmed by the bad bits.