Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[AlterEgo]

I fully agree.
The person that should be voting on this forum should be only those that used BR prior to 1994 and can fully understand the differences.

Sure, because they're the only ones who have a stake in it. :roll:

 

[coppercapped]

With electricity you can choose to buy power from different sources, so you might pay for greener energy sources at a higher price. That service provider than buys different electricity, even if your actual supply won't be from that source.

Water is water. I assume gas is also gas but maybe that can be bought from different supplies?

Telecoms is the best for competition IMO. You have a BT infrastructure that many companies use, but not exclusively. There are other networks, from Cable and Wireless (Vodafone owned?), Virgin and many others.

Water companies are arranged by river catchment areas. The reason being that it's quite expensive to either pump water over the hills separating the river basins or tunnelling through said hills. Geography means that constructing a national water grid is expensive both in capital and operation.

 

[HH]

Well my father joined BR before the Second World War and worked for them until he retired (aside from a few years to see off the Hun); I lived in a Station House for several of my early years. That was before my own rail career, where I have seen both BR and privatisation. I feel therefore that I have a better grasp of what BR was like than most.

Bluntly those were different times and what BR was like has no bearing on re-nationalising the railway now. We wouldn't go back to BR whatever happened; that's just pie in the sky viewed through rose-tinted spectacles.

There are two key questions in my mind:

1. Should all utilities be re-nationalised? Clearly if that is your belief then it's a ideological standpoint; just the same as if you believe that none of them should ever be. Whichever side of the fence you are, you are unlikely to change your mind.

2. If you have a more open mind, what makes Rail more suited to nationalisation than other utilities?

My own view having seen the good and bad on both sides is that overall I'm for privatised companies under contract to the government, unless there are compelling public interest reasons why not. The reason why I think this is what tends to happen in government organisations, which can be seen currently in NR - without the profit incentive it's too easy to fall prey to perverse incentives, which in turn lead to empire building, arse covering and turf wars. These aren't the sole prerogative of publicly owned companies, but private companies that succumb to these evils usually fall by the wayside.

 

[Railsigns]

Rail privatisation came with the promise of lower fares (e.g. John Major, House of Commons, 20/03/97), but gave us the highest fares in Europe, if not the world.

Rail privatisation promised reduced taxpayer subsidies (e.g. George Young, House of Commons, 10/02/97), but the annual cost to taxpayers is now billions of pounds higher than it was under BR, even after inflation is taken into account (official ORR figures).

Rail privatisation turned a debt-free industry into one that has added tens of billions of pounds to the national debt.

Rail privatisation was supposed to "liberate" the railways, but the DfT now micro-manages the industry to a far greater extent than it ever did under BR (and has frequently demonstrated incompetence in its handling of both franchise renewals and train procurement).

Common sense will tell you splitting a coherent national industry into a hundred separate parts won't make it more efficient. The private sector extracts profit from the railway's finances but adds literally no value to the mundane day-to-day task of running train services.

I believe renationalisation is inevitable. Opinion polls consistently show that the general public is in favour of rail renationalisation, and governments that don't listen to the electorate while needlessly wasting billions of pounds of their money tend not to remain in power.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Rail privatisation came with the promise of lower fares (e.g. John Major, House of Commons, 20/03/97), but gave us the highest fares in Europe, if not the world.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Real_terms_rail_prices_per_passenger-km.PNG
We already had the highest fares in Europe, but fares have risen at about the same rate since privatisation. (I created this graph using data from the ORR which is linked to there)

Rail privatisation promised reduced taxpayer subsidies (e.g. George Young, House of Commons, 10/02/97), but the annual cost to taxpayers is now billions of pounds higher than it was under BR, even after inflation is taken into account (official ORR figures).

Subsidy has risen, but much of this is due to the large amounts of infrastructure upgrades going on at once, e.g. Crossrail, Thameslink, GW and Preston-Manchester electrification, the Northern Hub, which never occurred during the nationalised era. If you strip out upgrades, then (in England at least), the rail industry is actually making a profit on the day to day running of the network.

GB rail industry financial
information 2014-15 p.30

Network Rail capex - enhancements: £2,553, Government subsidies: £2,516.

 

[route:oxford]

Rail privatisation came with the promise of lower fares (e.g. John Major, House of Commons, 20/03/97), but gave us the highest fares in Europe, if not the world.

Rail privatisation promised reduced taxpayer subsidies (e.g. George Young, House of Commons, 10/02/97), but the annual cost to taxpayers is now billions of pounds higher than it was under BR, even after inflation is taken into account (official ORR figures).

It's a very crude analysis.

I read somewhere else that the subsidy was actually down...

Calculated on the basis of number of passenger seats in service per year per head of population and taking into inflation.

It doesn't sound outrageous as it wouldn't surprise me if the number of seats had doubled since 1997 (much of the country had a bare-bones Sunday service in the olden days) and the UK population has increased by 7 million people.

 

[matt_world2004]

I fully agree.
The person that should be voting on this forum should be only those that used BR prior to 1994 and can fully understand the differences.

Why you dont need to be over 20 years old to have ridden on an nationalized railway in the UK.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why you dont need to be over 20 years old to have ridden on an nationalized railway in the UK.

Indeed, you can get on the ferry to Belfast and ride on one there.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Loads of nice new trains.....

In BR's last 20 years, it introduced more new trains than the first twenty years of Privatisation. In fact, Privatisation will only overtake BR when when the HST replacement, class 700s and 707s and Crossrail units come into use. BR even cancelled some planned train orders on the run up to Privatisation, the trains built by BR cost them nothing to lease, were sold off for a pittance at the time of Privatisation and are still in use today raking in money for the banks. So aside from costing more, this hasn't really changed.

....Stations being smarted up and independent refreshment retail units operating rather than "Traveller's Fare" and it's awfulness in products and staff....

There is nothing to suggest this wouldn't have happened anyway.

....Staff being more aware of having to impart information....

Depends who you talk to, I doubt the number of complaints regarding staff is lower.

....Trains and stations are definitely cleaner and tidier....

The brand new trains might be. Stations is somewhat debatable, but again there is nothing to suggest this wouldn't have happened anyway.

....The staff are far better presented....

Tell that to the three Wigan based Guards who currently have to wear jeans to work because Northern haven't supplied any uniform (aside from a pair of jumpers in January) for the last two years, and won't supply any more until December 2017!

....Huge amount of works to the infrastructure being carried out.

Again, there is no proof that this wouldn't have happened anyway. Refurbishment of stations to DDA compliance might even have been required to be quicker under BR than has actually been the case.

 

[Harbornite]

I fully agree.
The person that should be voting on this forum should be only those that used BR prior to 1994 and can fully understand the differences.

Who are you to decide who votes and who doesn't? This is my poll, not yours.

 

[matt_world2004]

Most of the station refreshes round here have been carried out by TfL whereas silverlink, AGA and GWR left the stations and rolling stock to rot.

 

[HH]

There is nothing to suggest this wouldn't have happened anyway

There's nothing to suggest that it would either, i.e. it's a meaningless statement.

 

[LLivery]

As a political theorist, can you offer up a reason why the general public can choose different gas and electricity suppliers but not water suppliers?

The water systems are not within my knowledge, but as I understand it (now better after reading posts from other form members), it is very complicated to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why you dont need to be over 20 years old to have ridden on an nationalized railway in the UK.

Indeed, NIR, South Eastern Trains, East Coast come to mind.

 

[matt_world2004]

Indeed, NIR, South Eastern Trains, East Coast come to mind.

Also London Underground.

 

[43074]

Why you dont need to be over 20 years old to have ridden on an nationalized railway in the UK.

And a renationalised railway today would probably look very different to how BR looked in 1994 because of the amount of fragmentation that took place at privatisation anyway.

 

[Busaholic]

Oooh another angry, self righteous, bremainer. Keep up the insults, they are amusing.

Are all the bremainers in favour of privatisation because they are all capitalist pigs busy lining their pockets with shares invested in foreign rolling stock companies and TOC operators ? No? You do surprise me!:roll:

Well, it obviously triggered something in you.

 

[Moonshot]

Rail privatisation came with the promise of lower fares (e.g. John Major, House of Commons, 20/03/97), but gave us the highest fares in Europe, if not the world.

Rail privatisation promised reduced taxpayer subsidies (e.g. George Young, House of Commons, 10/02/97), but the annual cost to taxpayers is now billions of pounds higher than it was under BR, even after inflation is taken into account (official ORR figures).

Rail privatisation turned a debt-free industry into one that has added tens of billions of pounds to the national debt.

Rail privatisation was supposed to "liberate" the railways, but the DfT now micro-manages the industry to a far greater extent than it ever did under BR (and has frequently demonstrated incompetence in its handling of both franchise renewals and train procurement).

Common sense will tell you splitting a coherent national industry into a hundred separate parts won't make it more efficient. The private sector extracts profit from the railway's finances but adds literally no value to the mundane day-to-day task of running train services.

I believe renationalisation is inevitable. Opinion polls consistently show that the general public is in favour of rail renationalisation, and governments that don't listen to the electorate while needlessly wasting billions of pounds of their money tend not to remain in power.

The poll at the top of this thread shows otherwise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well, it obviously triggered something in you.

The posting made by ComUtoR to which you have responded that stated "Capitalistic pigs lining their pockets with shares invested in foreign rolling stock companies and TOC operators" somewhat amazes me, as most of the trades unions, with the exception of "the usual suspects", were in favour of a "Remain" vote in that referendum.

I was unaware that any of those trades unions who backed "Remain" had "capitalistic leanings" of any kinds and all that I can say is that you learn something new about the trades union movement every week on this website.

 

[ComUtoR]

The posting made by ComUtoR to which you have responded that stated "Capitalistic pigs lining their pockets with shares invested in foreign rolling stock companies and TOC operators" somewhat amazes me, as most of the trades unions, with the exception of "the usual suspects", were in favour of a "Remain" vote in that referendum.

As a member of a Trade Union my vote was bought and paid for and my rights as an individual were second place to what my union mandate told me to do.

As to the usual suspects. I have no idea how Kevin Spacey voted.

 

[Railsigns]

Opinion polls consistently show that the general public is in favour of rail renationalisation

The poll at the top of this thread shows otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that poll is only open to members of this forum, not the general public. :roll: :roll:

 

[route:oxford]

I'm pretty sure that poll is only open to members of this forum, not the general public. :roll: :roll:

Members of the forum *are* the general public.

 

[Railsigns]

Members of the forum *are* the general public.

Oh, don't be ridiculous. It's a forum for discussing railways, of interest only to particular section of the general public. The wider population doesn't want to talk about railways.

 

[jon0844]

As with the referendum, we must ignore opinions from people here because there's a high chance that passengers with an interest in the railways, and staff who have worked for many years and have built up a huge amount of knowledge based on experience are bordering on experts, thus are not needed and should be ignored.

What we need is someone to shout loudly 'take our railways back' and say how much money is spent on it each week, that could better spent elsewhere.

 

[Harbornite]

As with the referendum, we must ignore opinions from people here because there's a high chance that passengers with an interest in the railways, and staff who have worked for many years and have built up a huge amount of knowledge based on experience are bordering on experts, thus are not needed and should be ignored.

What we need is someone to shout loudly 'take our railways back' and say how much money is spent on it each week, that could better spent elsewhere.

We spend £350 million a week on the NHS. Let's spend it on the railways instead!


:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Of all the people who have voted in favour of renationalisation, are any of you opposed to having any private trains on the network, and do you think that the freight companies should be nationalised?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Members of the forum *are* the general public.

I'd reckon just under half the posters on this thread are railway employees, and a number are probably BR starts who remember how awful the nationalised railway really could be at times.

 

[Welly]

I voted No to renationalisation because BR was hamstrung by inconsistent government policy and the fact that it was only able to get funding from the taxpayers. BR did well to cope but a legacy is the effing Pacers!!

 

[Railsigns]

I'd reckon just under half the posters on this thread are railway employees, and a number are probably BR starts who remember how awful the nationalised railway really could be at times.

Some of us are BR starts who remember how much more efficient the nationalised railway actually was.

 

[highdyke]

Oh, don't be ridiculous. It's a forum for discussing railways, of interest only to particular section of the general public. The wider population doesn't want to talk about railways.

No they don't, unless maybe they live in London.

I love railways, you love railways, we're part of the railway bubble to an extent. The fact is it's 3 percent of passenger journeys and 9 percent of passenger miles. Most of that is London.

The intercity network is quite important to other cities and certainly business leaders would be keen to have that improved. Sometimes modal shares there are 30-70% between cities.

For the public in general, 42% rarely or never go on trains, most of the rest it's a couple of times a year, unless you commute. Again mostly London, with Glasgow, Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester following.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/11748/rail-passenger-experience-report.pdf

Rail is just not that high up the list in terms of high government spending, transport is the least important to voters. It's pretty important to business which is why the Tories have supported them more than Labour in the past.

Labour make a lot of promises, but end up spending it on pet projects like tax credits and the NHS - which BTW costs 2.24 billion A WEEK. Rail input is around 2 weeks of NHS spending.

Some people say that is too high. There is always a pressure from other groups like road transport and some think tanks to spend less on rail. I don't agree with any of the following, but outside the railway bubble there are people around that really don't like the industry.

http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/...-to-busways-could-save-passengers-40-in-fares

 

[EM2]

My major concern with renationalisation is the number of redundancies that will be involved.
Each TOC and FOC has equivalent departments, such as HR, purchasing, commercial and so on.
There won't be enough work to keep all of those people employed.
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.
And those two companies are pretty small compared to most TOCs...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

My major concern with renationalisation is the number of redundancies that will be involved.
Each TOC and FOC has equivalent departments, such as HR, purchasing, commercial and so on.
There won't be enough work to keep all of those people employed.
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.
And those two companies are pretty small compared to most TOCs...

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.