Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[matt_world2004]

I agree with the premise that privatised TOCs mean money is going away from the railway - this is undeniably true. But it does mean that with many investment projects (such as commissionning new stock etc), the risk is borne largely by private enterprise.

Except the risk of commissioning new stock isn't born by private enterprise, every stock replacement by a TOC has been underwritten by the government and department of transport. If a franchisee goes bankrupt its contractual obligations are taken over by the government, until a new franchisee can be found, A franchisee can just walk away in most cases if it is not making enough money . GWR did for example and then rebid for the same franchise and won.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...saves-800m-in-payments-to-the-government.html

literally running a rail franchise you cannot fail, you just get the subsidy increased or the payments decreased. Hell as southern and GwR have proven you do not even have to run your franchised service.

 

[AlterEgo]

literally running a rail franchise you cannot fail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_North_Eastern_Railway#Demise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connex_South_Eastern#Demise
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A franchisee can just walk away in most cases if it is not making enough money . GWR did for example and then rebid for the same franchise and won.

They didn't just walk away, they exercised a break clause in their contract.

 

[matt_world2004]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_North_Eastern_Railway#Demise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connex_South_Eastern#Demise

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So when Connex South Eastern failed did its stations get sold off, did its ashford depot get turned into an Lidl? did all its staff get sacked, no It in effect got bailed out, the strategic rail authority took over the franchise, and its losses,

First Group exercised a break clause in its contract and then rebid for exactly the same contract at a lower price, So it didnt exactly want to end the contract did it? it just couldn't be bothered paying any more.

 

[AlterEgo]

So when Connex South Eastern failed did its stations get sold off, did its ashford depot get turned into an Lidl? did all its staff get sacked, no

No, because it didn't own any of them, and because of TUPE.

The company did fail and the company did make an enormous loss both in financial terms and reputational terms.

GNER went bust too.

First Group exercised a break clause in its contract and then rebid for exactly the same contract at a lower price, So it didnt exactly want to end the contract did it? it just couldn't be bothered paying any more.

I'm not sure why this is a bad thing? Of course a company is going to do that. If the break clause wasn't fair or good value for the taxpayer then the DfT need to carry the can for that one. The same incompetent department that would have to organise the nationalisation of the network should that day ever come.

 

[Muttley]

GNER went bust too.

No it didn't.

 

[HH]

No it didn't.

No, Sea Containers went bust.

However other franchises have made losses and not gone bust. Still saved us, the taxpayers, a bunch of money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, Sea Containers went bust.

As a direct result of which GNER was in breach of its franchise (liquidity requirement) and it was terminated, AIUI. GNER on its own was profitable.

 

[EM2]

The same incompetent department that would have to organise the nationalisation of the network should that day ever come.

An excellent point!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No, Sea Containers went bust.

However other franchises have made losses and not gone bust. Still saved us, the taxpayers, a bunch of money.

DfT stripped GNER of the franchise when it became apparent GNER couldn't make the premium repayments.

It couldn't make the premium repayments because Network Rail had started to get the track, signalling and OLE on the ECML into some semblance of order, and the enormous compensation payments GNER used to receive dried up.

There's a few ex GNER people around who maintain the franchise was never profitable once the Railtrack/Network Rail compensation was excluded from the equation.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The court case that GNER brought against the ORR and others regarding open access was a last desperate throw of the dice and when they lost that the game was well and truly up.

Their revenue predictions were so wide of the mark that they were in serious trouble, open access not withstanding. Their yield management was an industry joke.

But a decade on from that debacle the DfT are still looking primarily at the bottom right hand corner of the premium spreadsheet in choosing who gets the gig and then wondering a few years later why their favoured choice for a franchise can't keep their promises.

Meanwhile the smart TOC always has their franchise re-openers baked somewhere into their FA. So, outgunned, the DfT has to kick the financial can down the road for a few years more.

It's a mad system.

 

[HH]

You'd have thought things would get better following the West Coast fiasco, but actually they've gotten worse. Rather than follow the suggestions in the Brown Report, the DfT went their own way.

There's only been one TOC that had the ability to hand the franchise back early - FGW. Everyone else has been protected by the template Agreement.

If the DfT was always competent, then there wouldn't be an issue. The problem with the DfT is that it doesn't find people who are very good at this job and then let them carry out all negotiations. It likes to chop and change its teams, including which consultants it uses. Small wonder then that some teams are not as good as others.

I wouldn't like to see DfT get more power unless it became considerably more competent. Not that DfT are the only incompetent publicly owned organisation, even in rail...

 

[matt_world2004]

I'm not sure why this is a bad thing? Of course a company is going to do that. If the break clause wasn't fair or good value for the taxpayer then the DfT need to carry the can for that one. The same incompetent department that would have to organise the nationalisation of the network should that day ever come.

As compared to the competence of First who signed a contract with Heathrow Airport holdings to provide a rail service but didn't specify any financial penalties for failing to provide that service


There would be no franchise contracts if there were no franchises.

 

[AlterEgo]

There would be no franchise contracts if there were no franchises.

But franchising is only one method of privatisation.

I don't think the current system is much good either.

 

[Harbornite]

Thought I'd bump this thread by sharing this article from the Socialist worker. I found this after a claptrap-filled article from the SW was referenced in another thread.

Delayed, overcrowded, and expensive trains. That’s what the privatisation rail rip-off has brought us.

The scam works a treat for rail bosses. As another rise in rail fares was announced on Tuesday rail company shareholders were enjoying a bumper dividend—up 21 percent to £222 million last year.

That’s why Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was right when he said rail bosses “cannot be trusted” and argued for renationalisation of the railways.

Company profits come first in an industry more than 96 percent funded by public money.

Bosses are making cuts to unprofitable routes while packing more people on less trains on the profitable ones.

Their vision is of a rail network with fewer staff on stations, no ticket offices, no train guards and driver only operated trains. At every turn they squeeze out as much profit as possible and undermine safety. That’s why workers have been striking back to defend jobs and safety.

The Tory government is pushing more privatisation and supporting bosses to weaken the unions.

It has asked city bankers to sell off Network Rail assets including its largest railway stations. It hopes to raise £1.8 billion but it will cost us an estimated £10 billion over ten years in knock on costs, fees and bailouts after more private failures.

It’s time to renationalise our railways and boot out these parasites.

https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/43247/Take+back+our+trains+from+the+fat+cats

 

[me123]

^ I may agree with the sentiment that railways could be run better*, but I've yet to see any real reason to suggest that the government would do a better job. I don't think fares will fall and I don't think investment will rise.

The government can be a variable beast, and whilst there are some great politicians who could take charge of the transport brief there's also lots of potential deadweight. For example, Jeremy Hunt is meant to be running the NHS but I'm not even sure he can competently run a bath. As we've also seen with the NHS (and of course with the railways many years ago), direct public control can also lead to the service being manipulated to some degree for political gain/to advance political ideology.

Be careful what you wish for.

*(FWIW, that article is bloated nonsense as I would expect from the Socialist Worker).

 

[cjmillsnun]

What I don't support is this half arsed system we have now. Either nationalise or fully privatise. This is the worst of all worlds.

 

[NoMorePacers]

I personally think that the railways should be re-nationalised for the following reasons:

Profit - Private enterprise lusts for profit and will simply abandon something if it isn't profitable - look at what happened to CSE and NXEC. Government organisations are not-for-profit and won't bail out if there isn't money being made.

Service - The customer suffers more under private enterprise than public service. Chronic overcrowding, outrageous prices and poor quality of service are just a few things that customers face under our current system than in any point in British Rail's history.

Private enterprise is wrong in many ways and public bodies are much better.

And, looking at the polling results, if this were a general election for a parliament, out of 405 seats, if 203 are needed for an overall majority, then the Labour party (representing pro-nationalisation ) would have 174 seats, 29 short of a majority and with 3 seat less than the Conservatives (representing pro-privatisation) with 177, 26 seats short of a majority. The Liberal Democrats (representing the swinging centrists) would have 44 seats. UKIP (representing the 'don't care' people) would have 10 seats. Labour would have the support of 23 of the Lib Dem MP's, giving them 23 extra seats, bringing the seat total to 198, 5 seats short of a majority. 7 Lib Dem MP's and 5 UKIP MP's would support the Conservatives, giving them a total of 189 seats, 14 short of a majority and 9 behind Labour. 5 UKIP MP's and 14 Lib Dem MP's don't take the whip or ally with one of the 2 main parties, standing for their own party. This gives 198 Lab/Lib MP's, 189 Con/Lib/UKIP MP's, and 19 Lib/UKIP MP's. That is how I imagine the poll results.

 

[Domh245]

Service - The customer suffers more under private enterprise than public service. Chronic overcrowding, outrageous prices and poor quality of service are just a few things that customers face under our current system than in any point in British Rail's history.

How much of that is due to the nasty private companies, and how much of that is to do with growth on the Railway far outstripping demand and catching everyone off guard (coupled with the Government no less refusing to allow more trains to be purchased - see Operation Princess or TPE as a prime example)

 

[Harbornite]

I personally think that the railways should be re-nationalised for the following reasons:

Profit - Private enterprise lusts for profit and will simply abandon something if it isn't profitable - look at what happened to CSE and NXEC. Government organisations are not-for-profit and won't bail out if there isn't money being made.

Well not entirely true. Look at all the rural lines that require subsidy (albeit funded by government) but the private companies have by and large increased the numbers of services rather than closing them down.

Service - The customer suffers more under private enterprise than public service. Chronic overcrowding, outrageous prices and poor quality of service are just a few things that customers face under our current system than in any point in British Rail's history.

Yeah because British Rail always provided an excellent service, and didn't have its share of surly staff, dirty and old rolling stock and it never cancelled orders for new stock and never ordered cheap crap...

Private enterprise is wrong in many ways and public bodies are much better.

Why? Do you not like people profiting from ventures?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How much of that is due to the nasty private companies, and how much of that is to do with growth on the Railway far outstripping demand and catching everyone off guard (coupled with the Government no less refusing to allow more trains to be purchased - see Operation Princess or TPE as a prime example)

Indeed, it's why we had franchises like Wales being let on a basis of no-growth.




I should add that for the first time since the poll was created, we have more votes in favour of renationalisation!

 

[NoMorePacers]

Well not entirely true. Look at all the rural lines that require subsidy (albeit funded by government) but the private companies have by and large increased the numbers of services rather than closing them down.




Yeah because British Rail always provided an excellent service, and didn't have its share of surly staff, dirty and old rolling stock and it never cancelled orders for new stock and never ordered cheap crap...



Why? Do you not like people profiting from ventures?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Indeed, it's why we had franchises like Wales being let on a basis of no-growth.




I should add that for the first time since the poll was created, we have more votes in favour of renationalisation!

BR gave us Pacers, but they didn't give us crap that can't work and they didn't give us chronic overcrowding, Plus, the fares were cheaper.

Also, we're in a hung parliament. (I'm treating the poll like a general election. See the bottom of my above post)

 

[highdyke]

BR gave us Pacers, but they didn't give us crap that can't work and they didn't give us chronic overcrowding, Plus, the fares were cheaper.

Also, we're in a hung parliament. (I'm treating the poll like a general election. See the bottom of my above post)

The reality:

http://player.bfi.org.uk/film/watch-anglia-reports-railways-transport-special-1982/

 

[Bletchleyite]

What I don't support is this half arsed system we have now. Either nationalise or fully privatise. This is the worst of all worlds.

Is it? You've seen the mess that is bus deregulation, right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Domh245]

BR gave us Pacers, but they didn't give us crap that can't work and they didn't give us chronic overcrowding, Plus, the fares were cheaper.

Dodging my question like a true politician! Give an example of "crap that can't work" introduced by and solely the fault of the privatised railway. Also state whether or not the overcrowding is because of the privatised railway or because of a rising population and an increasing level of usage of the railway. Also, extrapolate from a source to prove that the fare increases under BR would have yielded cheaper fares today.

Also, we're in a hung parliament. (I'm treating the poll like a general election. See the bottom of my above post)

Some very naive assumptions there. As one of the "Lib Dem" MPs, can you guarantee that I would support Nationalisation? I've nailed my colours to the mast as "Not Sure" as it depends entirely on how it is done. Trying to draw parallels to a political system with coalitions is rather odd, why not just interpret it as you should for this kind of poll: Of the people who are decided either way, there is almost a dead split for and against renationalisation. 44 people aren't sure and it can be presumed that they want more information about it. 10 people don't care so long as they get paid on time/the trains run on time.

 

[Harbornite]

BR gave us Pacers, but they didn't give us crap that can't work

I didn't ask that did I. You cant argue that Pacers aren't crap, just look at your username. Whether or not it works was not mentioned. What crap has the privatised system given us that doesn't work?

Have a look at this graph, then get back to me once you realise why overcrowding has increased since privatisation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only case of overcrowding on the railway that is the fault of the TOC, substantially, is that on XC caused by the idiotic decision to buy inefficiently laid out short DMUs instead of trains of at least 7 or 8 coaches.

The rest of it seems to be doing its best in the face of huge growth and lack of funding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[matt_world2004]

I didn't ask that did I. You cant argue that Pacers aren't crap, just look at your username. Whether or not it works was not mentioned. What crap has the privatised system given us that doesn't work?

Have a look at this graph, then get back to me once you realise why overcrowding has increased since privatisation.

If passenger mileage goes up at a lower rate than the increase in services- then the subsidy should drop, which hasn't happened.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Dodging my question like a true politician!

I thought my answer given to Harbonite would cover your answer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Give an example of "crap that can't work" introduced by and solely the fault of the privatised railway.

Govia Thameslink Railway.

 

[Harbornite]

The only case of overcrowding on the railway that is the fault of the TOC, substantially, is that on XC caused by the idiotic decision to buy inefficiently laid out short DMUs instead of trains of at least 7 or 8 coaches.

The current franchisee cannot be blamed for this, considering that they tried to increase capacity by getting rid of on-board shops and reintroducing HST stock. Nevertheless, the fault lies with the SRA and Virgin for not ordering enough stock, as you have alluded to. Ideally we would have seen a mix of 11 coach Voyagers as well as 5 and 6 car units that could be used for portion working, which is a similar arrangement to that being sought by GWR.

 

[Domh245]

The only case of overcrowding on the railway that is the fault of the TOC, substantially, is that on XC caused by the idiotic decision to buy inefficiently laid out short DMUs instead of trains of at least 7 or 8 coaches.

The rest of it seems to be doing its best in the face of huge growth and lack of funding.

Even then, I vaguely recall talk about Virgin wanting to either get more trains, or more cars for the existing trains, and being shot down by the SRA as happened with FTPE as well.

 

[Harbornite]

Govia Thameslink Railway.

When I mentioned crap, I was talking about rolling stock and not operators. Get it right.