Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[cjmillsnun]

Straighforward economics....increase competition. The only reasonable way to lower fares without resorting to the taxpayer.

Not easy with limited paths available. If you did that companies would just go for the profitable routes. The intercity and southern commuter routes. Rural services would suffer.

I'm personally not sure nationalisation in the BR sense would work, however the franchising system we have is half baked.

 

[coppercapped]

No I don’t

BUT

A new system of franchising needs to be introduced, with a realisation that one method does not fit all franchise, perhaps franchising the old BR sectors, rather than the many franchises we have now.

Which is exactly the way the original (1995-96) franchising map was drawn up for the passenger sectors.

BR broke down each Sector into profit centres concentrating on a specific group of train services. These profit centres were used as the basis for the shadow TOCs before they were let as TOCs.

The reason that the profit centres were identified as the basis for franchising was that the four passenger sectors were considered too large for a private company to take on having consideration of the size of the bonds which had to be posted to cover season ticket liabilities and performance. In addition insurance to cover loss and damage for, IIRC, £100 million had to be bought - the size of the insurance premiums were considerable.

 

[Polarbear]

Much as I personally think the current franchise system is broken, half baked & a travesty of what the private sector is supposed to stand for, I don't think nationalisation is the saviour of all of those ills.

The reason that the profit centres were identified as the basis for franchising was that the four passenger sectors were considered too large for a private company to take on having consideration of the size of the bonds which had to be posted to cover season ticket liabilities and performance. In addition insurance to cover loss and damage for, IIRC, £100 million had to be bought - the size of the insurance premiums were considerable.

I appreciate that this model would have caused problems initially, but I honestly think it would have been a much better basis for private sector involvement. Inter City was turning a profit, and was a well recognised brand across the country. I well recall at the time of privatisation that there were some concerns raised at the possible loss of the Inter City brand, which were dismissed by government ministers as "scaremongering", yet have been proven true as the brand pretty quickly disappeared.

Whilst Network South East wasn't as flush with cash, it probably would have been able to hold its own, which would have left Regional Railways as the problem child of the network.

 

[lordbusiness]

No.
Simply because of the power that it would give to the Unions. Regardless of which Political Party was in power the Unions or more specifially the Union Leadership and their cronies (with their own agenda) would run the railway and arguably the County.

 

[tbtc]

(thanks to the Mods for merging threads - we have the same arguments over and over so it's good to keep them contained in one thread - makes things much tidier/ easier)

No I don’t

BUT

A new system of franchising needs to be introduced, with a realisation that one method does not fit all franchise, perhaps franchising the old BR sectors, rather than the many franchises we have now.

Which is exactly the way the original (1995-96) franchising map was drawn up for the passenger sectors.

BR broke down each Sector into profit centres concentrating on a specific group of train services. These profit centres were used as the basis for the shadow TOCs before they were let as TOCs.

The reason that the profit centres were identified as the basis for franchising was that the four passenger sectors were considered too large for a private company to take on having consideration of the size of the bonds which had to be posted to cover season ticket liabilities and performance. In addition insurance to cover loss and damage for, IIRC, £100 million had to be bought - the size of the insurance premiums were considerable.

The current set up makes bidding for franchises in 2018 too complicated for many potential bidders - you need to put up a bond equivalent to the GDP of some countries - you spend over a million pounds putting your bid together - it can take a year to sit down with your lawyers/ accountants etc and agree to all of the terms etc. And that's with dozens of franchises like we currently have.

Imagine how expensive/ complicated/ time consuming it'd be to bid for an entire sector of BR? How few organisations could potentially bid for it? And that would mean bids becoming less competitive and potentially a maximum of one sector per company (if we have arguments today about slight overlaps between TOCs, imagine the overlaps if FirstGroup won both InterCity and Provincial?)

That'd be even worse than the current set-up.

Much as I personally think the current franchise system is broken, half baked & a travesty of what the private sector is supposed to stand for, I don't think nationalisation is the saviour of all of those ills

It's funny - it may be confirmation bias but Nationalisation seems to be more popular now than at any time in the past twenty years (possibly because it's one of Corbyn's high profile things)... yet I can't recall a time when "the Government" has been responsible for such a big share of problems:

NR overspends, IET procurement, electrification delays, squabbling between DFT and ORR, politicians changing their minds, rising inflation (caused by the drop in the pound caused by Brexit)... meanwhile the private companies are getting the blame for everything (e.g. Stagecoach are the baddies for paying a premium of £272m pa to the Treasury, rather than those lovely DOR people who paid £216m pa in premium).

The trouble is, nationalisation is a magic wand, it's Deus ex Machina, it's a cure-4-all... it's impossible to argue against it because people can cherry pick the bits that they want ... despite the fact that a nationalised railway would be at Chris Grayling's command (please don't let anyone tell me that it'd be some "proper railway men" who got given a bundle of money once a year and were free to invest it without any political interference - that's not how the NHS works, that's not how defence works, that's not how any government department works and that's not how any nationalised railway would work)

No.
Simply because of the power that it would give to the Unions. Regardless of which Political Party was in power the Unions or more specifially the Union Leadership and their cronies (with their own agenda) would run the railway and arguably the County.

Interesting one - I'd say that the opposite would be true (the Unions would have to accept their members getting 1%pa pay rises and lose their open final salary pension schemes in line with other public sector workers - they've done very nicely out of privatisation and being able to play each TOC against each other because they'd rather pay an inflation-busting pay rise than suffer a strike - BR was able to introduce DOO much easier than modern TOCs can), but who knows - depends on the type of nationalisation I guess.

 

[coppercapped]

Much as I personally think the current franchise system is broken, half baked & a travesty of what the private sector is supposed to stand for, I don't think nationalisation is the saviour of all of those ills.



I appreciate that this model would have caused problems initially, but I honestly think it would have been a much better basis for private sector involvement. Inter City was turning a profit, and was a well recognised brand across the country. I well recall at the time of privatisation that there were some concerns raised at the possible loss of the Inter City brand, which were dismissed by government ministers as "scaremongering", yet have been proven true as the brand pretty quickly disappeared.

Whilst Network South East wasn't as flush with cash, it probably would have been able to hold its own, which would have left Regional Railways as the problem child of the network.

It's not a question of "that this model would have caused problems initially" - the Sectors were quite simply too large for any private sector company in the transport business[1] to bid in the very early stages of what was a very immature market. It simply would not have happened.

InterCity was making a profit by the simple expedient of defining the profitable long distance routes, and Gatwick Express, as 'InterCity'. Any long distance routes which were losing money were made part of the putative Crosscountry or placed in 'Other Provincial Services'.

The name ('brand') was used simply to identify BR's long distance services on the main trunk routes out of London as a marketing shorthand. There was little or no synergy between the various routes - they were physically separated, used different terminii in London and, with the exception of the hundred or so HSTs, used very different equipment. As soon as the services were split among the various operators the name ceased to have any relevance as each TOC promoted its own services. Nationwide advertising was pointless and a waste of money if you were trying to get people onto, say, Liverpool Street to Norwich trains.

[1] Assuming of course that one wants to attract people who at least have a modicum of understanding of the issues presented by the task of moving large numbers of people around in a 24 hour business.

 

[DenmarkRail]

I also think it is worth looking at this, before we talk about the benefits of a nationalised system:

-CrossCountry - Fleet replacement on all BR stock, except a few HSTs, likely further replacement running into the 2020s
-Intercity West Coast - Entire fleet replacement, and much shorter journey times. A network which now has character and recognition via Virgin brand
-Intercity East Coast - Majority fleet replacement by 2025, network with recognition due to Virgin brand, new destinations.
-C2C - Complete fleet replacement
-Thameslink - New class 700 trains introduced, massive capacity enhancements, hopefully new stock for Southern into the 2020s, Shorter journey times
-Scotrail - Massive stock overhauls, and replacements, refurbed HST stock, new Desiros, Hitachi stock
-West Midlands - Complete WCML long haul stock replacement, new stock on the way to replace Ex BR stock, reopened stations such as Stone

So when we look at this, and compare this investment, to that of what BR did, I think we can genuinely see that BRITAINS railways run better when they are operated by a private company.

 

[coppercapped]

(thanks to the Mods for merging threads - we have the same arguments over and over so it's good to keep them contained in one thread - makes things much tidier/ easier)





The current set up makes bidding for franchises in 2018 too complicated for many potential bidders - you need to put up a bond equivalent to the GDP of some countries - you spend over a million pounds putting your bid together - it can take a year to sit down with your lawyers/ accountants etc and agree to all of the terms etc. And that's with dozens of franchises like we currently have.

Imagine how expensive/ complicated/ time consuming it'd be to bid for an entire sector of BR? How few organisations could potentially bid for it? And that would mean bids becoming less competitive and potentially a maximum of one sector per company (if we have arguments today about slight overlaps between TOCs, imagine the overlaps if FirstGroup won both InterCity and Provincial?)

That'd be even worse than the current set-up.

BIG SNIP

You are agreeing with my position, I maintained that the sectors were too big to franchise as a unit. I would add however that the current way the DfT runs the franchising process - and indeed what it aims to get from the franchising process - is very different from the aims and methods of OPRAF at the start of the privatisation era.

The DfT has accrued power to itself as OPRAF morphed into the SRA after which the rump of the SRA was absorbed by the DfT. During this process it has become more and more concerned with the finer details of train services, frequencies, calling points, rolling stock allocation and specified all this and more in the Invitations to Tender. This level of detail essentially defines the cost base and, through its control of regulated fares, it also broadly defines the income of the TOC from year to year. DfT requires subsidies to decrease year-on-year, or premiums to increase, to a target profile based on a Treasury model of the economy for a bid to succeed. By changing the weightings applied to the financial performance or to the 'passenger experience' (aka new trains) it affects train procurement dramatically. The only major variable left to the TOC is for the TOC to encourage more people to use the trains - and this has limits.

Interesting one - I'd say that the opposite would be true (the Unions would have to accept their members getting 1%pa pay rises and lose their open final salary pension schemes in line with other public sector workers - they've done very nicely out of privatisation and being able to play each TOC against each other because they'd rather pay an inflation-busting pay rise than suffer a strike - BR was able to introduce DOO much easier than modern TOCs can), but who knows - depends on the type of nationalisation I guess.

Hmm! I'm not convinced. With only one employer any strikes would be national, rather than limited. Strikes ruin business and reputation. In 1955 ASLEF struck for a couple of weeks because of some perceived slight over pay differentials. Overnight the railways lost all their 'smalls' traffic and it never returned - and people used their new cars and traffic didn't return for another 40 years.
In 1975 the Class 313s - entirely suitable for DOO - were introduced on the GN. In November 1979 BR raised the issue of DOO through the 'Machinery for Negotiation'. Negotiations rumbled on until agreement was reached in October 1986 and it was finally introduced in January 1987 - over seven years after the issue was first raised.

The introduction of DOO on the BedPan route was delayed by a year to 1983 because of industrial action - and in the meantime the new Class 317s didn't turn a wheel.

It was certainly not easier to introduce DOO on BR then than it is now.

The fact that pay has increased so dramatically for the staff is that BR was a monopsony - a single purchaser in the same way that a monopoly is a single supplier. Having a choice of employers does wonders for pay rates...

...and if there really was a will to improve the pay for nurses and health care workers, the NHS monopsony would be broken. Pay rates have little or nothing to do with the effects of trades unions if there are many employers - but given a monopsony (BR, NHS, local government) they become a necessary counterweight.

 

[B&I]

I also think it is worth looking at this, before we talk about the benefits of a nationalised system:

-CrossCountry - Fleet replacement on all BR stock, except a few HSTs, likely further replacement running into the 2020s
-Intercity West Coast - Entire fleet replacement, and much shorter journey times. A network which now has character and recognition via Virgin brand
-Intercity East Coast - Majority fleet replacement by 2025, network with recognition due to Virgin brand, new destinations.
-C2C - Complete fleet replacement
-Thameslink - New class 700 trains introduced, massive capacity enhancements, hopefully new stock for Southern into the 2020s, Shorter journey times
-Scotrail - Massive stock overhauls, and replacements, refurbed HST stock, new Desiros, Hitachi stock
-West Midlands - Complete WCML long haul stock replacement, new stock on the way to replace Ex BR stock, reopened stations such as Stone

So when we look at this, and compare this investment, to that of what BR did, I think we can genuinely see that BRITAINS railways run better when they are operated by a private company.

With several times the subsidy BR had, it would have been pretty concerning if the private companies hadn't made those fairly modest improvements. What might BR have managed with similar largesse?

 

[Funkkydrummer]

I have what will likely be considered a very naive view on this as I wasn't really old enough to understand what was going on under nationalisation.

I work for a design firm who specialise in railway design and we employ quite a few ex-BR engineers. It's great hearing their stories of "the good old days". Particularly when it comes to their recollection of BR's approach to projects. It seemed like the Engineers were at the top of the tree. They identified the need for a project, prepared all of the design, tendered the works, managed the Contractor and acted as Resident Engineer.

Nowadays, we do a mixture of early design work for NR and detailed design work for NR's appointed Contractor, either via a Joint Venture model or a traditional Contractor / Consultant relationship. We have little control over what goes on, we often adopt other Consultants designs from the previous design stage and develop them, we're chained to a desk in the office rarely getting to see what is happening on site, we're squeezed on programme and fee's so that we can win work and we get little recognition when projects are successful and the blame when it goes wrong. Our office sometimes feels like I work for a financial company and not an engineering company at all!

My colleagues BR recollections of no timesheet's, sufficient time allowed for design and total control sounds idyllic.

All that said, I'm sure I am viewing this with very thick rose-tinted glasses and there were many drawbacks, not only on the engineering side, but on the operational side as well.

Perhaps I was born 30 years too late............

 

[SamYeager]

The fact that pay has increased so dramatically for the staff is that BR was a monopsony - a single purchaser in the same way that a monopoly is a single supplier.

Completely off-topic but thank you for introducing me to a word I never knew existed.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Completely off-topic but thank you for introducing me to a word I never knew existed.

. . . . and which is not in my Concise Oxford Dictionary.

 

[tbtc]

The DfT has accrued power to itself as OPRAF morphed into the SRA after which the rump of the SRA was absorbed by the DfT. During this process it has become more and more concerned with the finer details of train services, frequencies, calling points, rolling stock allocation and specified all this and more in the Invitations to Tender. This level of detail essentially defines the cost base and, through its control of regulated fares, it also broadly defines the income of the TOC from year to year. DfT requires subsidies to decrease year-on-year, or premiums to increase, to a target profile based on a Treasury model of the economy for a bid to succeed. By changing the weightings applied to the financial performance or to the 'passenger experience' (aka new trains) it affects train procurement dramatically. The only major variable left to the TOC is for the TOC to encourage more people to use the trains - and this has limits

Good points (as ever) - I particularly agree with the point regarding how the Government now specifies more of the minutia of each franchise - leaving very little room for innovation from the private bidders - yet the private bidders become the scapegoats for when things go wrong.

I don't think people appreciate how much of the railway is directly run by bits of Government or carefully specified by bits of Government.

With several times the subsidy BR had, it would have been pretty concerning if the private companies hadn't made those fairly modest improvements. What might BR have managed with similar largesse?

I've seen this point made a few times, but consider the infrastructure bill - which is where the bulk of our ticket price goes.

Look at how much it costs the public sector Network Rail to build a new station (or extend an existing platform or electrify a mile of single track or upgrade signalling etc), compared to the equivalent cost of those things in the 1980s.

We've seen several arguments about how BR managed to invest in infrastructure at dirt cheap prices when the equivalent project today would be hundreds of millions of pounds. Some of that will be due to the careful way that BR managed to fudge figures, so that they dumped inconvenient costs into different budgets but a lot of it is just because infrastructure costs significantly more than it did a generation ago.

Not just railway infrastructure - the same applies if you are building a motorway or a football stadium or whatever. Feasibility studies, Health & Safety, environmental impacts and whatnot. Why would building a new line be significantly different under a nationalised railway compared to the public sector Network Rail that we currently have?

There's also the problem that modern stock costs significantly more than the trains that BR were buying - given how much more complicated modern trains are - which would be the case under any system.

So I don't buy the argument that BR would find today's money "largesse" - they'd have struggled to cope with the increases in things like infrastructure costs, just like Network Rail struggle with such things.

Completely off-topic but thank you for introducing me to a word I never knew existed.

Likewise - I will try to use "monopsony" in as many conversations as I can - cheers coppercapped !

 

[coppercapped]

. . . . and which is not in my Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Google is your friend...!

(I was introduced to it in the Liberal Studies (aka Economics, literature, politics) section of my science course at Uni more years ago than I care to remember!)

 

[jon0844]

If Labour won and managed to take back control of every franchise over the next 10-20 years, I am sure many of these facts would soon become very apparent. But Labour, and the unions, would of course have a good 10-20 years to argue that they inherited such a poorly maintained rail setup and it was only to be expected.

Thus no real changes for the travelling public. Perhaps even a continuation of inflation-busting fare increases.

Thing is, I suspect a lot of people who are angry now are doing so because the Tories are in power. Look at social media - much of the moaning is directed at them - so if Labour had to increase fares, as it did before, I am sure people will less inclined to complain.

I do wonder what the RMT would do though. I suspect they don't really want nationalisation, but have to say that. It can be used as a blanket response to everything that happens, and it keeps the RMT going. It is not far off the effective ending of UKIP now we've voted to leave the EU. The RMT would surely benefit more from things staying as they are; even keeping a Conservative government. They have an enemy to justify their existence and give them justification for strong action and can't really afford to lose that.

 

[gareth950]

I also think it is worth looking at this, before we talk about the benefits of a nationalised system:

-CrossCountry - Fleet replacement on all BR stock, except a few HSTs, likely further replacement running into the 2020s
-Intercity West Coast - Entire fleet replacement, and much shorter journey times. A network which now has character and recognition via Virgin brand
-Intercity East Coast - Majority fleet replacement by 2025, network with recognition due to Virgin brand, new destinations.
-C2C - Complete fleet replacement
-Thameslink - New class 700 trains introduced, massive capacity enhancements, hopefully new stock for Southern into the 2020s, Shorter journey times
-Scotrail - Massive stock overhauls, and replacements, refurbed HST stock, new Desiros, Hitachi stock
-West Midlands - Complete WCML long haul stock replacement, new stock on the way to replace Ex BR stock, reopened stations such as Stone

So when we look at this, and compare this investment, to that of what BR did, I think we can genuinely see that BRITAINS railways run better when they are operated by a private company.

Let's consider how this private sector 'largesse' has benefitted Wales shall we?

Rolling stock:
Apart from the small fleet of under capacity 175s, no new rolling stock at all. Any major refurbishments (eg. 158 overhaul) funded by Welsh Government. Any extra rolling stock has been funded by Welsh Govt.
Valley lines still running with decrepit 142s and 143s with some spruced up 150s, none of which are PRM 2020 compliant and work not yet started to make any of Wales' fleet 2020 compliant. Still no definite Pacer withdrawal date.

Infrastructure:
Apart from recent improvements around Cardiff with CASR, re-openings such as Vale of Glamorgan and Ebbw Vale and improvements in North Wales, no major infrastructure upgrades such as electrification. Wales still has the least amount of electrified railway in any European country, and has the least amount of infrastructure funding in the whole of the UK, below Northern Ireland.

So yeh, privatisation has benefitted the Welsh rail network immensely.

 

[Moonshot]

Let's consider how this private sector 'largesse' has benefitted Wales shall we?

Rolling stock:
Apart from the small fleet of under capacity 175s, no new rolling stock at all. Any major refurbishments (eg. 158 overhaul) funded by Welsh Government. Any extra rolling stock has been funded by Welsh Govt.
Valley lines still running with decrepit 142s and 143s with some spruced up 150s, none of which are PRM 2020 compliant and work not yet started to make any of Wales' fleet 2020 compliant. Still no definite Pacer withdrawal date.

Infrastructure:
Apart from recent improvements around Cardiff with CASR, re-openings such as Vale of Glamorgan and Ebbw Vale and improvements in North Wales, no major infrastructure upgrades such as electrification. Wales still has the least amount of electrified railway in any European country, and has the least amount of infrastructure funding in the whole of the UK, below Northern Ireland.

So yeh, privatisation has benefitted the Welsh rail network immensely.

Of course the infrastucture provider is state owned, and the services themselves recieve operating subsidies from the taxpayer. To what extent the Welsh Rail network is privatised is a very moot point. Having the whole lot under the private sector with little or no interference from the state would wipe out the entire Welsh Network

 

[Gareth Marston]

Whatever people think on this forum, the problems on the Railways have been the big "in" the chink that lets Nationalisation become popular again. Because we have such a messy, over complicated, inefficient and expensive way of running the railway and the majority of passengers see very little improvement for their constant fare increases.

Essentially the Government (Blair's, Browns, Cameron's & Mays) have chosen to hide behind the TOC's rather than man up and accept responsibility for all the problems caused by the consequences of the 1993 Railways Act and other events largely dictated by them. The doyen of civil service thinking has been the transference of Risk and whilst the monetary side has been a miserable failure the blame attachment has to a large degree been succesful with Joe Pubic blaming the TOC's fanned by simplistic narrative from the left.

The RDG, individual TOC's and other private sector parts of the rail industry have now been overtaken by events and Grayling riding his neo liberal hobby horse over all events is hardly helping their cause.

 

[gareth950]

Of course the infrastucture provider is state owned, and the services themselves recieve operating subsidies from the taxpayer. To what extent the Welsh Rail network is privatised is a very moot point. Having the whole lot under the private sector with little or no interference from the state would wipe out the entire Welsh Network

My point was in response to the post I quoted, boasting that privatisation has brought with it 'largesse' and private investment aplenty in terms of new rolling stock. It's what I heard on the radio this morning when fare increases are justified. "We are seeing more new trains now than ever before. 5,000 new carriages....."
Wales has got nothing. A small fleet of 175s, everything else is still 1980s BR DMUs, with no replacement on the horizon, depending on what comes out of the new franchise. Arriva have invested ZERO in new rolling stock over 15 years. Yes, I know this was specified by government in 2003, but the argument that private sector funding has brought with it mass fleet replacement of ageing rolling stock UK wide is rubbish.

I'd argue fare increases should be capped or reduced in Wales to reflect these facts.

 

[Moonshot]

My point was in response to the post I quoted, boasting that privatisation has brought with it 'largesse' and private investment aplenty in terms of new rolling stock. It's what I heard on the radio this morning when fare increases are justified. "We are seeing more new trains now than ever before. 5,000 new carriages....."
Wales has got nothing. A small fleet of 175s, everything else is still 1980s BR DMUs, with no replacement on the horizon, depending on what comes out of the new franchise. Arriva have invested ZERO in new rolling stock over 15 years. Yes, I know this was specified by government in 2003, but the argument that private sector funding has brought with it mass fleet replacement of ageing rolling stock UK wide is rubbish.

I'd argue fare increases should be capped or reduced in Wales to reflect these facts.

Which would require a change of policy from the government.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

My point was in response to the post I quoted, boasting that privatisation has brought with it 'largesse' and private investment aplenty in terms of new rolling stock. It's what I heard on the radio this morning when fare increases are justified. "We are seeing more new trains now than ever before. 5,000 new carriages....."
Wales has got nothing. A small fleet of 175s, everything else is still 1980s BR DMUs, with no replacement on the horizon, depending on what comes out of the new franchise. Arriva have invested ZERO in new rolling stock over 15 years. Yes, I know this was specified by government in 2003, but the argument that private sector funding has brought with it mass fleet replacement of ageing rolling stock UK wide is rubbish.
I'd argue fare increases should be capped or reduced in Wales to reflect these facts.

You've not noticed the masts going up between the Severn Tunnel and Cardiff?
Or IEPs running to Cardiff/Swansea since October?
Completely new Virgin fleet in North Wales with faster journey times to London?
New XC stock on Nottingham-Cardiff?
First use of ERTMS in the UK on the Cambrian?
No, Wales hasn't seen any investment in its railways since privatisation.

There are other things like PIS at (I think) all stations in Wales.
Standard pattern ATW timetable (for good or ill, mostly good).
Station upgrades at Newport and Chester (not before time, left to rot by BR).
You can blame government (UK and Cardiff Bay) for the "no growth" franchise, not ATW.
ATW did get the balance of the 175 fleet which was used by FNW/TPE, and deployed two LHCS sets Holyhead-Cardiff/Manchester.
W&B has been at the back of the queue for upgrades because of the 2003 15-year franchise.
Its time should come in 2018 (fingers crossed).

 

[Gareth Marston]

You've not noticed the masts going up between the Severn Tunnel and Cardiff?
Or IEPs running to Cardiff/Swansea since October?
Completely new Virgin fleet in North Wales with faster journey times to London?
New XC stock on Nottingham-Cardiff?
First use of ERTMS in the UK on the Cambrian?
No, Wales hasn't seen any investment in its railways since privatisation.

There are other things like PIS at (I think) all stations in Wales.
Standard pattern ATW timetable (for good or ill, mostly good).
Station upgrades at Newport and Chester (not before time, left to rot by BR).
You can blame government (UK and Cardiff Bay) for the "no growth" franchise, not ATW.
ATW did get the balance of the 175 fleet which was used by FNW/TPE, and deployed two LHCS sets Holyhead-Cardiff/Manchester.
W&B has been at the back of the queue for upgrades because of the 2003 15-year franchise.
Its time should come in 2018 (fingers crossed).

Your mixing up state investment with private quite a bit there. The 2 LHCS sets one is paid for by WG the other is a "fine" for DB for taking over Arriva which they hoped Daft would forget about but didnt. Also no one stuck a shot gun to Arrivas head and said you must run a no growth franchise and accept the c rap that come with it the management at the time made a decision to win bids to pursue profit and if that ment screw the passenger they were happy to do it.

Newport and Chester had public £ and the ETCS trial is state funded.

 

[matt_world2004]

I also think it is worth looking at this, before we talk about the benefits of a nationalised system:

-CrossCountry - Fleet replacement on all BR stock, except a few HSTs, likely further replacement running into the 2020s
-Intercity West Coast - Entire fleet replacement, and much shorter journey times. A network which now has character and recognition via Virgin brand
-Intercity East Coast - Majority fleet replacement by 2025, network with recognition due to Virgin brand, new destinations.
-C2C - Complete fleet replacement
-Thameslink - New class 700 trains introduced, massive capacity enhancements, hopefully new stock for Southern into the 2020s, Shorter journey times
-Scotrail - Massive stock overhauls, and replacements, refurbed HST stock, new Desiros, Hitachi stock
-West Midlands - Complete WCML long haul stock replacement, new stock on the way to replace Ex BR stock, reopened stations such as Stone

So when we look at this, and compare this investment, to that of what BR did, I think we can genuinely see that BRITAINS railways run better when they are operated by a private company.

So we should congratulate private companies for replacing 30-40 year old rolling stock 22 years after privatisation. In the last year of British rail how much rolling stock dated from 1955-1965 because that is the equivilent age you are looking at now

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Your mixing up state investment with private quite a bit there. The 2 LHCS sets one is paid for by WG the other is a "fine" for DB for taking over Arriva which they hoped Daft would forget about but didnt. Also no one stuck a shot gun to Arrivas head and said you must run a no growth franchise and accept the c rap that come with it the management at the time made a decision to win bids to pursue profit and if that ment screw the passenger they were happy to do it.
Newport and Chester had public £ and the ETCS trial is state funded.

True enough now, but until NR became a public body there was the charade of pretending they were in the private sector (because they borrowed private money).
My point really is that "my line hasn't had new stock since BR" doesn't work at a national level.
But VT, XC and GWR have certainly had the lion's share of new train funds as far as Wales is concerned.
That's as much down to the weak W&B business case as anything, which Northern, in a similar state, managed to overturn at franchise renewal.
Apart from the decent 175s, the 158s are nearly as good, and the refurbished 150s are better than those of other TOCs.
It's the 142/153s which let the side down (and too few of any of them).

 

[F Great Eastern]

Isn't it disgusting how many new trains have entered in service over the last few years to expand services and are due to do so - surely it would be better if we just replaced everything old first to bring the age down?

The simple fact is that the rolling stock has got older because there has been a huge boom in passenger numbers and the alternative would have been to not keep the older stock on and instead not expand capacity - many fleets that were supposed to be withdrawn by new stock ended up staying on because of huge increased in demand.

Lets also not forget that many of the oldest trains are still in operation because the DFT takes 10 years from the start of a tender process for two big projects to see even the beginnings of the fruit to be bared of such tenders, not forgetting the SRA who prevented TOCs ordering stock and cut orders because there was 'no demand'.

No, it's far easier for the DFT to use the TOCs as a shield for it's own failings so they can continue taking the praise for anything good and shift the blame to someone else for anything bad because the general public know no better. It's essentially nationalising the praise and privatising the blame - almost all of the public blame the TOCs for DFT/SRA failings, and that suits the DFT just fine.

So we should congratulate private companies for replacing 30-40 year old rolling stock 22 years after privatisation. In the last year of British rail how much rolling stock dated from 1955-1965 because that is the equivilent age you are looking at now

It's very noticeable none of these reports mention the number of carriages now in service versus the timeframe they are comparing them with, perhaps because that might not suit their agenda to be totally transparent and might expose the fact that older carriages have to be kept in service to meet demand as the DFT and the SRA have hung the TOC's out to dry.

Handing the railways back to government control from private companies won't solve these issues, because these issues are caused by the government but unfortunately the general public who have little knowledge who the railway works simply think the TOC has control over many things when in fact it's the DFT.

 

[HowardGWR]

It's an unfortunate choice in the poll. The railways are nationalised. Can the OP not alter the term to 'railway (passenger) services' if that is what they mean, or indeed forget what's in brackets if they mean freight as well. Then I can vote. At the moment, everyone who voted has voted about nothing (including me if I was previously pragmatic about it and have forgotten I voted ).

Edit, if the Q was what I suggest, then I am against nationalisation, but agree to a DOR solution when needed, coupled with a heftier fine for the defaulting franchise holder.

 

[matt_world2004]

So we should congratulate private companies for replacing 30-40 year old rolling stock 22 years after privatisation

Isn't it disgusting how many new trains have entered in service over the last few years to expand services and are due to do so - surely it would be better if we just replaced everything old first to bring the age down?

The simple fact is that the rolling stock has got older because there has been a huge boom in passenger numbers and the alternative would have been to not keep the older stock on and instead not expand capacity - many fleets that were supposed to be withdrawn by new stock ended up staying on because of huge increased in demand.

Lets also not forget that many of the oldest trains are still in operation because the DFT takes 10 years from the start of a tender process for two big projects to see even the beginnings of the fruit to be bared of such tenders, not forgetting the SRA who prevented TOCs ordering stock and cut orders because there was 'no demand'.

No, it's far easier for the DFT to use the TOCs as a shield for it's own failings so they can continue taking the praise for anything good and shift the blame to someone else for anything bad because the general public know no better. It's essentially nationalising the praise and privatising the blame - almost all of the public blame the TOCs for DFT/SRA failings, and that suits the DFT just fine.



It's very noticeable none of these reports mention the number of carriages now in service versus the timeframe they are comparing them with, perhaps because that might not suit their agenda to be totally transparent and might expose the fact that older carriages have to be kept in service to meet demand as the DFT and the SRA have hung the TOC's out to dry.

Handing the railways back to government control from private companies won't solve these issues, because these issues are caused by the government but unfortunately the general public who have little knowledge who the railway works simply think the TOC has control over many things when in fact it's the DFT.

Capacity on the network has not kept place with passenger numbers, indeed despite passenger numbers doubling on the GWML London suburban services the service frequency remained unchanged from 1996, until 2015 when it was increased by 2tph in preperation for a service where the toc will have all decisions made on capacity, rolling stock ,station condition, and frequency being made by a nationalised transport authority.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Capacity on the network has not kept place with passenger numbers.

Are you aware that a number of train operators predicted a certain amount of passenger growth and the government said that it was not realistic so stopped them ordering adequate trains to deal with that passenger growth?

The reason old trains are being kept in service for the last number of years because quite frankly it's either keep the old trains in service and use the new trains to enhance capacity or have no enhancement at all.

indeed despite passenger numbers doubling on the GWML London suburban services the service frequency remained unchanged from 1996, until 2015 when it was increased by 2tph in preperation for a service where the toc will have all decisions made on capacity, rolling stock ,station condition, and frequency being made by a nationalised transport authority.

Are you aware of the fact that there were proposals for additional suburban stock for the GWML lobbied for by FGW which was later cancelled by the government after many years of dithering?

Are you also aware that the awful management by the government of the IEP project that has took a decade from the start of the process to the rolling stock going in service?

 

[matt_world2004]

Are you aware that a number of train operators predicted a certain amount of passenger growth and the government said that it was not realistic so stopped them ordering adequate trains to deal with that passenger growth?

The reason old trains are being kept in service for the last number of years because quite frankly it's either keep the old trains in service and use the new trains to enhance capacity or have no enhancement at all.

Or you order more trains only had 22 years to do it

Are you aware of the fact that there were proposals for additional suburban stock for the GWML lobbied for by FGW which was later cancelled by the government after many years of dithering?

Are you also aware that the awful management by the government of the IEP project that has took a decade from the start of the process to the rolling stock going in service?

What law did the government use to stop GWR ordering more trains

 

[F Great Eastern]

Or you order more trains only had 22 years to do it.

Transpennine Express wanted to order 168 carriages with an option for 56 more. The DFT cut the order to 153 carriages with no options and resisted any attempt for the company to order a fourth car when overcrowding happened but still publicly lambasted the company for overcrowding.

200 diesel carriages were proposed for various operators following agreement with train operators but the government cancelled this project when electrification was announced.

The Thameslink and Intercity Express projects was fully managed start to finish by the government and both of them took a ridiculous amount of time since the government wanted to be hands on.

If you think that rolling stock procurement, replacement and age management is down to the TOCs then I have to say you are extremely naive and are falling right for the governments tactics of taking the praise for the good things and shifting the blame to the companies for the bad.