Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[Railsigns]

The biggest argument for denationalisation of the railways is monopolies. You think of virtually every other privatisation and it has lead [sic] to competition: utilities, airlines, haulage (yes they tried to nationalise all the HGVs in the 50s), but trains?! There is no competition to speak of (with the limited exception of routes like London-Birmingham).
As such it does allow an element of profiteering,

There's ample competition with alternative forms of transport.

I don't need or want to be able to choose between different train operators when I've already made a decision to travel by train. I think the same goes for most people too.

 

[najaB]

I don't need or want to be able to choose between different train operators when I've already made a decision to travel by train. I think the same goes for most people too.

In the franchise model competition occurs at the bidding stage. The timetable, stock service patterns, etc. are pretty much decided by the Government for franchised operators. Open Access Operators provide the only real on-track competition.

 

[whittlesfordok]

The unions should be against it as it would ideal for bringing in driverless trains and freezing salaries

 

[highdyke]

https://assets.publishing.service.g..._passenger_rail_services_in_Great_Britain.pdf

 

[Heartland]

I disagree about monopolies, as the key to the franchise in this country is fragmentation. The careful split into the numerous franchises in the 1990's, the train maintenance units, railtrack and the many staff employed on the retail outlets on the stations has created a diverse employment situation. The franchise operators are only part of a complex equation. The current railway world has evolved into a situation where exploitation already exists for those in catering and on the stations working at the minimum wage (or less if under 25). As to the rest well, the franchisee has to make a profit and the main expense is staff wages. Whilst it remains only a possible future for other train staff. The longer this practice is allowed to continue there must be a concern for staff security, wages and employment. As to the passengers, there seems to be less concern from them at the present.

 

[southern442]

There are elements of competition in the rail industry. London to Birmingham is a very good example, but also London to Portsmouth and Southampton. SWT are a good deal quicker but Southern are a good deal cheaper with the right tickets.

As for monopolies and pricing, if a company has a monopoly it can usually up the prices a bit because there is no real competition. Whilst there is space for this in a nationalised railway, the government would be immediately held to account. one of modern governments' biggest priorities is to maintain popularity with the media and the people, and by increasing fares significantly the opposite would happen, making this situation undesirable.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Renationalisation would be a disaster for the UK rail-freight industry. Gone would be the enterprising and innovative approach of GBRf, Freightliner, DRS and Colas, and with it all on-rail competition. We'd be back to the take-it-or-leave-it approach of a monopoly nationalised freight operator and a hemorrhaging of traffic to the ruthlessly voracious road haulage industry. It would only work if road freight were nationalised at the same time but even the most enthusiastic Corbynites would baulk at that prospect,

 

[Whistler40145]

I think it's far too complicated to renationalise our railways.

 

[Railsigns]

Renationalisation would be a disaster for the UK rail-freight industry. Gone would be the enterprising and innovative approach of GBRf, Freightliner, DRS and Colas, and with it all on-rail competition. We'd be back to the take-it-or-leave-it approach of a monopoly nationalised freight operator and a hemorrhaging of traffic to the ruthlessly voracious road haulage industry. It would only work if road freight were nationalised at the same time but even the most enthusiastic Corbynites would baulk at that prospect,

I don't think anyone is actually suggesting renationalising the FOCs. The focus is on the TOCs and ending the farcical and costly nonsense of franchising.

 

[3141]

We saw Jeremy Corbyn sitting on the floor of a train, though it now appears that he sat there because initially he couldn't find two seats together to be able to sit next to his wife.

How exactly would renationalising the railways relieve overcrowding? Many lines are operating at capacity. If there are no more paths available you can't run extra trains. In many cases you can't lengthen trains either without major changes to trackwork, signalling and platforms. If fares were reduced, as Corbyn says they would be, more people would travel and overcrowding would be worse.

There are possible electronic systems that can squeeze a bit more out of the infrastructure, but they'd provide only a short- or medium-term answer. What we really need is more railway routes, or additional tracks, especially as railways approach the centre of large cities, where the pressure is greatest.

Those solutions will be expensive. Think of HS1 getting to St. Pancras, or Crossrail. Building new lines above ground will be controversial as well, since not many people will actually want the solution to be at the end of their garden.

Finding answers will need very careful thought and planning, as well as a lot of money. It's much easier to start arguing about ownership and structure. People on one side of the political spectrum advocate one approach, and those on the other side advocate something different. They then imagine they are doing something about the problem, but actually it's a distraction and diverts effort away from achieving solutions.

 

[coppercapped]

Who are "we"? Undoubtedly, it would be very convenient to those who defend privatisation if its opponents would suddenly drop all their opposition to it and quietly "move on". Well, I'm sorry, but that's never going to happen. I've been strongly opposed to this ill-conceived privatisation since it was first suggested and I'll go on opposing it until it's reversed. I'll take every opportunity to shout as loudly as I can every time another billion pounds of our money is taken from us, the taxpayer, as a result of this deeply flawed privatisation, which, by the way, was a product of ideology.

If privatisation was the result of ideology, so then was the nationalisation which preceded it.

Sidney Webb wrote what became Clause IV of the Labour Party’s constitution in 1917:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

In 1942 the annual Labour Party Conference, with an eye on its constitution and Clause IV, passed a resolution urging the Government to coordinate road, rail and canal transport under national ownership - with the aim of aiding the war effort. This idea of national ownership remained and was adopted by Labour in December 1944 and appeared in the 1945 election manifesto as “There are basic industries ripe and over-ripe for public ownership and management in the direct service of the nation.” These industries were the railways, coal, road transport, the Bank of England, civil aviation, external telecommunications, electricity, gas and steel.

The government compensated the shareholders of all these companies with Government Stock which paid, IIRC, 3% per annum.

There is a curious twist to this story. In the event, the Attlee government had no money (for reasons which could fill a book!) and had to go cap-in-hand to the Americans in 1946 for an emergency loan of $3.75 billion (in then dollars). The Canadians chipped in a further billion. Nominally the loan was to cover post-war overseas expenditures, but as the Government could only have afforded the nationalisation and its welfare reforms if it withdrew from all of its overseas commitments immediately, essentially the nationalisations and welfare were funded by the Americans. The final repayment of the loan was made in 2006.

So - just drop this ‘ideology’ thing. Two can play at that game.

 

[Harbornite]

Thanks for sharing those facts.

Thank god for the USA and the colonies!

 

[southern442]

What we really need is more railway routes, or additional tracks, especially as railways approach the centre of large cities, where the pressure is greatest.

I can agree with this bit. We really need more railway lines, and we need lots of them. The price is going to be mind-blowing, but it's the only way to solve long-term capacity problems. The main issue is whether it would be better to do this under a privatised or a nationalised railway.

 

[Railsigns]

If privatisation was the result of ideology, so then was the nationalisation which preceded it.

Sidney Webb wrote what became Clause IV of the Labour Party’s constitution in 1917:

<snip>

So - just drop this ‘ideology’ thing. Two can play at that game.

When I wrote that privatisation was a product of ideology, I was responding to the comment that "re-nationalisation is nice to idealise about." So, you're right - two can play at that game. Well done for making it three.

And thanks for the history lesson, but since Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution no longer commits it to public ownership, it adds no weight to any suggestion that ideology is what's behind current calls for renationalisation.

 

[keppoch69]

This is another topic that has been cropping up recently on the forums, as Corbyn et al seem to support this. Also, I am aware that Network rail is publicy owned but that's not the point.

I have a feeling that a poll was done for this topic a while back, but people's views could have changed since and the forum had less membes back then. Therefore, I think it's worth asking this question again.

Once you've answered, you should try to justify your vote.

Thank you for holding this vote. I voted no, and how do I justify my vote?
I do not like "big government", I am not comfortable with "control". I do prefer freedom & personal choice. Not that we have much in this life. At heart I am more anarchist, or is it Anti-Christ> rather than socialist where everything is done for you.
Plus I have never voted labour, or the red side of the spectrum, & been years since I was a trades union member.
I remember the dead going unburied, not being sure if we would have electric to cook our dinner/tea. Does anyone vote labour anymore, apart from the die heard types & incomers to the UK?

 

[AlterEgo]

I can agree with this bit. We really need more railway lines, and we need lots of them. The price is going to be mind-blowing, but it's the only way to solve long-term capacity problems. The main issue is whether it would be better to do this under a privatised or a nationalised railway.

I'm not so sure that in 50 years that will ring true. There are great advances being made with smarter roads and self-driving cars. The railway will be around for a long time yet, but I can't see it expanding at the rate some people think will occur.

 

[3141]

I'm not so sure that in 50 years that will ring true. There are great advances being made with smarter roads and self-driving cars. The railway will be around for a long time yet, but I can't see it expanding at the rate some people think will occur.

Yes, I've seen predictions that driverless cars and lorries could run much closer together on a motorway, increasing the throughput of vehicles. It seems to me that that depends on the vehicles maintaining a steady speed. On railways as they currently operate trains stop at stations - some at most stations, some at a few, and a small number only when they reach the terminus. When they get to the terminus they have to wait - a minimum time for passengers to get off and new ones to get on, or somewhat longer if the train is going to be cleaned as well. Then on their way out the trains cross over the lines that will be used by other trains approaching the terminus. I think these factors limit the amount of capacity expansion that "smarter" systems can provide.

And anyway, are you proposing to leave poor Jeremy Corbyn sitting on the floor for up to fifty years?

 

[backontrack]

And anyway, are you proposing to leave poor Jeremy Corbyn sitting on the floor for up to fifty years?

It depends on whether or not the train is in Latvia.

 

[coppercapped]

When I wrote that privatisation was a product of ideology, I was responding to the comment that "re-nationalisation is nice to idealise about." So, you're right - two can play at that game. Well done for making it three.

And thanks for the history lesson, but since Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution no longer commits it to public ownership, it adds no weight to any suggestion that ideology is what's behind current calls for renationalisation.

I’m glad you appreciated the history ‘lesson’. As is often said - those who ignore history are often condemned to repeat it. I’m hoping to spread enlightenment…

The argument that you and others frequently make is that BR was privatised because the Government was ideologically opposed to the concept of nationalised industries.

I simply pointed out that the creation of BR in the first place was equally due to ideology.

Your last point is a red herring.

 

[Frontera2]

Having been around (and indeed worked in the industry) at the end of BR, when NSE & InterCity were at their very best, I would support renationalisation.

The people that claim that privatisation has brought investment? Well I believe that it would have come anyway, had the money been available. Lets not forget that private operators aren't, in most cases, risking their own money.

Look at France - a nationalised operator (SNCF) which introduced the TGV.. Likewise, under a nationalised BR, we had;

The original HST (still going strong)
Introduction of Mk IV stock and complete modernisation of the ECML
Complete refurbishment of the Chiltern route
Introduction of Networkers

Etc etc

 

[southern442]

I'm not so sure that in 50 years that will ring true. There are great advances being made with smarter roads and self-driving cars. The railway will be around for a long time yet, but I can't see it expanding at the rate some people think will occur.

In 50 years most of the oil will have run out so non-electric car travel will be near impossible, and I don't think that alternative car technology is advancing fast enough to allow roads to do all the work. We need an expansion of the railways as well so that they can take all of the plane and boat traffic that won't be able to run.

 

[Harbornite]

Look at France - a nationalised operator (SNCF) which introduced the TGV.. Likewise, under a nationalised BR, we had;

The original HST (still going strong)
Introduction of Mk IV stock and complete modernisation of the ECML
Complete refurbishment of the Chiltern route
Introduction of Networkers

Etc etc

There was a lot of rationalisation under BR with useful routes like Stratford to Honeybourne being closed for no decent reason. In addition, BR had to axe APT, additional HSTs and intercity 250, and ordered Pacers.

 

[Railsigns]

There was a lot of rationalisation under BR with useful routes like Stratford to Honeybourne being closed for no decent reason. In addition, BR had to axe APT, additional HSTs and intercity 250, and ordered Pacers.

They needn't have done any of this had the government given them just a fraction of the subsidies they give to the privatised railway.

 

[highdyke]

The autonomous car stuff is a somewhat overhyped, it's not at all as straightforward as many are led to believe. There are problems with weather and some of the decision making algorithms for a start. Automation will be introduced gradually over a period of decades.

That's before you get to public acceptance, as liability shifts from the driver to the manufacturer. Google/Apple etc may find themselves part of a public backlash against job losses and accidents - even if they are safer.

You'll still need railways as you do now, for congestion busting purposes, especially as any gains with automation will be offset by more of the population having access to vehicles.

Nevertheless the railways need to be aware they cannot live in a bubble and they will have to be competitive not hide behind nationalisation/tax payers etc

http://www.railengineer.uk/2016/08/06/rail-automation-reaching-out-across-europe/

 

[najaB]

The autonomous car stuff is a somewhat overhyped, it's not at all as straightforward as many are led to believe. There are problems with weather and some of the decision making algorithms for a start. Automation will be introduced gradually over a period of decades.

Are you aware that Uber has already started offering self-driving taxis in Pittsburgh? The law requires a human 'operator' ready to take over if needs be, but automation is years rather than decades away.

 

[highdyke]

Are you aware that Uber has already started offering self-driving taxis in Pittsburgh? The law requires a human 'operator' ready to take over if needs be, but automation is years rather than decades away.

I am aware, there is a race and a lot of exaggerated claims are made, depends who you want to ask, and the level of automation (level 4/5 is really what we are are talking about) issues of costs and public acceptance. The railways need to wake up and smell the coffee though, because branch lines such as the Poacher line or Tarka line are going to have very questionable existences in these scenarios.

 

[najaB]

I am aware, there is a race and a lot of exaggerated claims are made, depends who you want to ask, and the level of automation (level 4/5 is really what we are are talking about) issues of costs and public acceptance.

You're right that public acceptance is an issue - in fact it's probably a more difficult hurdle to overcome than technical obstacles. Thanks largely to the gaming industry there is a *lot* of really cheap computing power on the market these days which is ideally suited to the type of calculations involved in self-piloting vehicles. Airline autopilot systems typically work on majority voting systems with the software running on three or five processors at the same time.

Now they can run the algorithms on three hundred (or thousand) cores using slightly different parameters to average out the control inputs.

 

[highdyke]

Airline autopilot systems typically work on majority voting systems with the software running on three or five processors at the same time.

Now they can run the algorithms on three hundred (or thousand) cores using slightly different parameters to average out the control inputs.

Indeed, railway signalling is the same. The original solid state interlockings based around Motorola 6800 CPUs (That's the stuff pre-Commodore Amiga computers) which is pretty old hat now.

http://www.disit.org/axmedis/1d4/00...n-db-1d485e7d-5f12-4bb9-8fca-ee16be1ee1cc.pdf

Some of the ROCs are really controlling relay interlockings in some cases.

You are right so say in the near future there is going to be an explosion in computer power based on tech from the games industry and general industry where programmable logic controllers (PLC) are in wide use.

 

[jon0844]

The problem, besides public acceptance and liability concerns, is how good a driverless car can be. If it drives slowly and stops dead at any perceived risk (as I expect it would have to) then it's not going to be very popular.

Unless the driving environment can be tightly controlled, and pedestrians and other risks can somehow be removed. To me, a car going at some speed would need a dedicated road away from cars still with drivers.

 

[najaB]

Unless the driving environment can be tightly controlled, and pedestrians and other risks can somehow be removed. To me, a car going at some speed would need a dedicated road away from cars still with drivers.

Largely to protect the driverless cars from the vehicles controlled by illogical humans.