Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[urbophile]

How, exactly, is nationalisation 'outlawed'?

I don't know how. Only that (apart from the 'emergency' situation of the East Coast until it was reprivatised) the government refuses to allow any but 'private' operators from running trains. Except, bizarrely, that other countries state-owned railway companies (e.g. Germany, France, the Netherlands) count as private!

 

[Railsigns]

How, exactly, is nationalisation 'outlawed'?

Under Section 25 of the Railways Act, UK public sector operators cannot be franchisees.

Of course, if it were true that the public sector is inherently less efficient than the private sector, there would be no need for such legislation, since any public sector bids would always be unsuccessful.

 

[najaB]

Under Section 25 of the Railways Act, UK public sector operators cannot be franchisees.

Yes. But that doesn't outlaw nationalisation, it just means that they can't bid for franchises. If the government was minded they could choose to directly operate services rather that franchise them.

 

[Tilehog]

Am I the only one who remembers the days of BR. Underinvested, basic maintenance, shoddy stations, demotivated staff used as a political football. Also the sheer joy of national rail strikes. Under nationalisation the RMT would be rubbing their hands together with glee!!!!

 

[fowler9]

Don't people remember how dirty and smelly the railways were under BR? Nah me neither.

 

[Railsigns]

Am I the only one who remembers the days of BR.[?] Underinvested, <snip>

I remember BR. There was a lack of investment, certainly, but that was a failure of successive governments to invest, not a failure of public ownership.

BR managed with an annual subsidy of around £1 billion. The privatised railway receives around £4-6 billion of our money each year. If the railways are better now, do you honestly think it's all down to the private sector's involvement and nothing to do with the extra billions of pounds of taxpayers' money being poured into the industry (contrary to promises that 'private sector efficiency' would lead to a reduction in subsidies), not to mention countless billions of pounds of borrowing?

If BR had had a fraction of the government money thrown at the privatised industry today, it could have been world class. That's all BR needed: investment.

Other than the lack of investment, which was a fault of government, there's not a single criticism made of BR that couldn't equally be directed at today's privatised railway.

 

[Master29]

Don't people remember how dirty and smelly the railways were under BR? Nah me neither.

As opposed to Eau De Crosscountry Voyager nowadays.

Truth is that BR was deliberately run down by the tories as a shoehorn for privatisation.

 

[fowler9]

I remember BR. There was a lack of investment, certainly, but that was a failure of successive governments to invest, not a failure of public ownership.

BR managed with an annual subsidy of around £1 billion. The privatised railway receives around £4-6 billion of our money each year. If the railways are better now, do you honestly think it's all down to the private sector's involvement and nothing to do with the extra billions of pounds of taxpayers' money being poured into the industry (contrary to promises that 'private sector efficiency' would lead to a reduction in subsidies), not to mention countless billions of pounds of borrowing?

If BR had had a fraction of the government money thrown at the privatised industry today, it could have been world class. That's all BR needed: investment.

Other than the lack of investment, which was a fault of government, there's not a single criticism made of BR that couldn't equally be directed at today's privatised railway.

What you said.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As opposed to Eau De Crosscountry Voyager nowadays.

Indeed.

 

[najaB]

BR managed with an annual subsidy of around £1 billion. The privatised railway receives around £4-6 billion of our money each year.

You can't simultaneously say that BR was under-invested, and then point to their lower subsidy as a sign that they were doing things right!

 

[Panda]

It should either be privatised fully or nationalised fully. Currently it's half of the one and half of the other.

The main benefit I expect as a commuter form privatisation is how I get from A-B (the frequency of service, the speed of the service, the rolling stock used in the service). Most of these things are not in the control of TOC, so privatisation seems slightly superfluous.

 

[Railsigns]

You can't simultaneously say that BR was under-invested, and then point to their lower subsidy as a sign that they were doing things right!

I can and I did. BR could achieve far more with a given sum of money than the fragmented privatised industry could ever aspire to.

 

[satisnek]

Pre-1980s BR was highly inefficient, although slowly improving, and, away from the main lines and big city stations, rather decrepit (but it has to be said that railways had always been like this ever since they had passed their first flush of youth). The prevailing trend was one of decline and, outside the Southern third rail area, service levels were a fraction of what they are today. But it generally worked, even though you needed a bit of nous to find your way around it.

The final decade or so of BR was one of fewer trains running higher mileages, shorter trains, introduction of DOO, diminishing station staff and the first steps in yield management (remember 'blue days' and 'white days' - urgh!). The decrepitude (but inherent functionality) of yesteryear was swept away and replaced by pristine, bare platforms with brightly painted furniture. The purse strings were being pulled ever tighter.

What we have today is essentially a continuation of the late era BR model (pro rata with the increase in passenger usage) but with a gigantic job creation scheme for managers, consultants, desk jockeys and clipboard carriers - not to mention the big black money pit that is the ROSCOs - bolted on.

There must be a better way.

 

[Harbornite]

Pre-1980s BR was highly inefficient, although slowly improving, and, away from the main lines and big city stations, rather decrepit (but it has to be said that railways had always been like this ever since they had passed their first flush of youth). The prevailing trend was one of decline and, outside the Southern third rail area, service levels were a fraction of what they are today. But it generally worked, even though you needed a bit of nous to find your way around it.

The final decade or so of BR was one of fewer trains running higher mileages, shorter trains, introduction of DOO, diminishing station staff and the first steps in yield management (remember 'blue days' and 'white days' - urgh!). The decrepitude (but inherent functionality) of yesteryear was swept away and replaced by pristine, bare platforms with brightly painted furniture. The purse strings were being pulled ever tighter.

What we have today is essentially a continuation of the late era BR model (pro rata with the increase in passenger usage) but with a gigantic job creation scheme for managers, consultants, desk jockeys and clipboard carriers - not to mention the big black money pit that is the ROSCOs - bolted on.

There must be a better way.

Don't forget the considerable investment in rolling stock that has occured since privatisation.

 

[Flying Snail]

You can't simultaneously say that BR was under-invested, and then point to their lower subsidy as a sign that they were doing things right!

They were being starved of cash and investment and still managed to run a railway. If BR had survived and been given the increased funding we have seen since privatisation there would have been a hell of a lot more of that money put into trains, stations, infrastructure and front line services rather than the hundreds of different companies all taking their cut out before any money gets spent on anything tangible.

That's before the comically inefficient structure we now have gets to mis-spend the funds left.

 

[najaB]

They were being starved of cash and investment and still managed to run a railway.

I don't disagree with that. It just strikes me as a bit cheeky to say "BR cost a lot less to run" in the same breath as "They didn't spend nearly as much on infrastructure in BR's day."

If BR had survived and been given the increased funding we have seen since privatisation there would have been a hell of a lot more of that money put into trains, stations, infrastructure and front line services rather than the hundreds of different companies all taking their cut out before any money gets spent on anything tangible.

I really doubt it would be much different on the infrastructure side of things as you'd still have the same mix of contract and in-house staff as you do with Network Rail. The pressures to outsource and reduce the 'standing army' would be the same regardless of it being Network Rail or BR.

On the TOC side of things, there would be some savings because there would be fewer top-level managers, but frontline staff levels would likely be the same as today, or perhaps even fewer since you wouldn't have situations such like Glasgow Central where there are two ticket offices at the same station run by different TOCs.

That's before the comically inefficient structure we now have gets to mis-spend the funds left.

I'm pretty sure that, were it in the public sector, they would find different and more inventive ways to misspend the money.

 

[Railsigns]

Don't forget the considerable investment in rolling stock that has occured [occurred] since privatisation.

Funded by the taxpayer (you're welcome).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I really doubt it would be much different on the infrastructure side of things as you'd still have the same mix of contract and in-house staff as you do with Network Rail.

Not so. For instance, the cost of electrification practically doubled overnight when the railways were privatised.

 

[Bookd]

Those who desire nationalisation because they dislike the present structure should beware of what they wish for. The thread on the GTR dispute shows a widespread belief that policies are driven by DfT; if nationalised the government could do as it wished without involving a middle man.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Funded by the taxpayer (you're welcome).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not so. For instance, the cost of electrification practically doubled overnight when the railways were privatised.

If you are referring to the fact that the TOCs have to be paid for closures and overrunning engineering works, then surely the money would still have been lost under BR, just now it is being recognised formally in the accounts. i.e. if trains don't run then less ticket income is received/compensation has to be paid.

 

[Domh245]

Funded by the taxpayer (you're welcome).

Are they not funded by the ROSCOs? Repaid by the taxpayer perhaps.

 

[NSEFAN]

Funded by the taxpayer (you're welcome).

Despite the efficiencies made by BR, the railways needed a big cash injection to properly modernise, but you would never catch a Tory government announce a massive increase in funding for a nationalised industry. Given the (realistic) choice between ongoing cash-starving and private bank loans for rolling stock, which would you have rather occured back in the mid 90s?

 

[najaB]

Not so. For instance, the cost of electrification practically doubled overnight when the railways were privatised.

I doubt the *true* cost actually doubled. A lot of the apparent cost increases came through better accounting - an example of this came about with my employer who let a lot of direct employees go and then re-hired them as contractors. It meant that the costs directly applicable to a project increased significantly, but the total labour cost was roughly the same.

 

[Domh245]

Not so. For instance, the cost of electrification practically doubled overnight when the railways were privatised

How much of the cost can be solely attributed to privatisation. And how much can be attributed to the "cheap crap" that BR used to install, the brick sh*thouse style of electrification now used, and the loss of knowledge arising from several years of no electrification?

 

[Heartland]

My view is for re-nationalisation in perhaps a vain hope we might return to the original aims of the 1947 Transport Act. Then the hope was a co-ordinated transport network. Now with the current franchise system, the TOC simply follow a DfT guide line. There is no innovation and little prospect for British Companies to really excel. There is a large proportion now of TOC's which are owned by foreign railway companies and it is they who profit from our railway passengers.

Had OFQ1 become the model for the future our railways would have been different with Intercity, Regional and Network Rail being the passenger operations. Whilst the franchise system has nominally brought more services and trains onto the network to the benefit of the travelling public, the continued fragmentation in the name of profit is not good for the network.

In reality it is no longer a network, but the clock has turned back to the time before 1914 when many companies operated trains in competition with their neighbours. The view that this is healthy is perhaps misguided as fares have become very complex, people are restricted to certain trains that are allowed for their ticket type. Paying for tickets is a minefield, where good bargains are often overshadowed by the excessively priced.

Station space has been hived off in many directions, often to the benefit of shoppers, but not necessarily travellers. Booking offices closed in the belief that most users are computer users, and even if they were, there it is not certain that they would get a service that face to face contact provides.

Whilst we are in a changing world and franchise the way forward, why is it that the DB, SNCF and NS still provide the bulk of services for their respective countries. Is it because they can profit from ours. And, in the years since 1997 the expertise that was British Rail has been blown away like so much dust in the wind.

 

[Northhighland]

Note a few people claiming that nationalisation would empower ASLEF and RMT. It always amazes me that whenever there is industrial action some people jump straight in and say that "bloody unions again" . If a dispute ends up in strike action it is the fault of both sides to come to an agreement. The managers should shoulder a part of the blame as well.
I would argue strongly that Bob Crowe did an extremely effective job of exploiting the franchising agreement and playing one company off against another and pushing driver wages up way beyond anything he could have achieved under BR.

I think the whole privtisation process is a disaster, however I would not be in favour of spending huge sums of money to nationalise. I would simply change the act and allow UK public companies to bid to be franchise holders. We could then see where that goes. theoretically something like what ran East Coast could and should be able to win franchiese and deliver good services. If that became the norm it would happen by default.

 

[AlterEgo]

Note a few people claiming that nationalisation would empower ASLEF and RMT. It always amazes me that whenever there is industrial action some people jump straight in and say that "bloody unions again" . If a dispute ends up in strike action it is the fault of both sides to come to an agreement. The managers should shoulder a part of the blame as well.
I would argue strongly that Bob Crowe did an extremely effective job of exploiting the franchising agreement and playing one company off against another and pushing driver wages up way beyond anything he could have achieved under BR.

I think the whole privtisation process is a disaster, however I would not be in favour of spending huge sums of money to nationalise. I would simply change the act and allow UK public companies to bid to be franchise holders. We could then see where that goes. theoretically something like what ran East Coast could and should be able to win franchiese and deliver good services. If that became the norm it would happen by default.

DOR delivered great returns...for the taxpayer.

They got rid of their Newcastle call centre, they eviscerated the on-train catering, they outsourced a number of major functions...I could go on.

Crucially all of the changes made weren't aspects of rail service that the National Passenger Survey asks about, so full marks to them for using their noggins. East Coast was crap - a load of no-frills cuts here there and everywhere.

 

[Wivenswold]

I would say that innovation would have happened anyway. If you're looking for innovation during the last ten years of British Rail you'll find it. The Networker, electrication of the GEML, WA, GNML, Thameslink etc.

Just because it's old hat now doesn't mean it wasn't groundbreaking at the time. In fact, you could argue that the system is still catching up after the enforced hiatus on new builds in the nineties and Railtrack's money problems

 

[Harbornite]

My view is for re-nationalisation in perhaps a vain hope we might return to the original aims of the 1947 Transport Act. Then the hope was a co-ordinated transport network. Now with the current franchise system, the TOC simply follow a DfT guide line. There is no innovation and little prospect for British Companies to really excel. There is a large proportion now of TOC's which are owned by foreign railway companies and it is they who profit from our railway passengers.

It wasn't that good. The common carrier rule wasn't abolished and real progress in electrification wasn't made until the 1960s, while many of the diesel types ordered as part of the flawed 1954 modernisation plan were crap. Also don't forget the regional system that was less efficient than the sectorised system of the later BR years.

As for the evil foreigners who own some TOCs, they have invested in improving services and the staff who benefit from working for these TOCs are British. You should remember that it's a two way process and I don't hear the Germans bitching about British companies running trains in Germany.

In reality it is no longer a network, but the clock has turned back to the time before 1914 when many companies operated trains in competition with their neighbours.

Why 1914? Private companies existed in competition with each other until January 1948.

 

[yorksrob]

It wasn't that good. The common carrier rule wasn't abolished and real progress in electrification wasn't made until the 1960s, while many of the diesel types ordered as part of the flawed 1954 modernisation plan were crap. Also don't forget the regional system that was less efficient than the sectorised system of the later BR years.

As for the evil foreigners who own some TOCs, they have invested in improving services and the staff who benefit from working for these TOCs are British. You should remember that it's a two way process and I don't hear the Germans bitching about British companies running trains in Germany.




Why 1914? Private companies existed in competition with each other until January 1948.

As I recall, didn't the Germans hold out a long time before allowing foreign companies to take over their routes ? And they at least have a big state player who can compete and obtain foreign franchises to compensate the loss of revenue.

 

[Harbornite]

As I recall, didn't the Germans hold out a long time before allowing foreign companies to take over their routes ? And they at least have a big state player who can compete and obtain foreign franchises to compensate the loss of revenue.

I think the EU had a part to play in encouraging competition, as well as the separation of infrastructure and train operations.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the EU had a part to play in encouraging competition, as well as the separation of infrastructure and train operations.

Probably true.

In truth, I think the Germans should have been allowed to run their railway as they see fit, however, I still don't think one can assume an equivalence between their situation and ours.