Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[LNW-GW Joint]

That's without forgetting that the only reason East Coast was once again franchised was solely for ideological purposes by the current government. The 'nationalised' entity that ran for six years had the highest customer satisfaction of any rail franchise and returned over £1bn to the treasury.

I think you are forgetting that EU and UK law made a competition necessary for EC after the DOR period.
It was never permanently in the public sector, it just took 6 years to get round to the competition (largely due to the ICWC fiasco).
The Railways Act 1993 forces franchising to the private sector (and still does, except for Scotland).
EU competition law requires railway services (ie TOCs) to be offered periodically for competing bids, though they need not be from the private sector.
That's why direct awards can only be for a limited period (normally 2 years max).
Even railway services in France and Germany are competed for, usually by public sector groups, and the incumbent state operator may lose.
The state railways have limited licences and must be competed for by 2025, or some such date.
eg NS bids here (as Abellio) because one day, they face a competition at home.
Brexit might mean none of the EU stuff applies in the future, but as it stands franchises must be rebid periodically.
Labour might find that a problem in the future if it takes direct control of TOCs.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Given the "Race to the bottom" on staff conditions over the past two or three years the unions do need more power!
Part time ,Zero hour contracts,redundancies followed by rehiring on reduced terms are taking place across the industry. Conditions for staff with some FOCs are shocking. Unions are there to protect their members! Something that is getting harder to do all the time given anti union legislation favoured by the current government.

Didn't GTR Southern drivers get a massive above inflation pay rise recently? If the railway is a 'race to the bottom', the public sector must be already there!

 

[urbophile]

I think you are forgetting that EU and UK law made a competition necessary for EC after the DOR period.
It was never permanently in the public sector, it just took 6 years to get round to the competition (largely due to the ICWC fiasco).
The Railways Act 1993 forces franchising to the private sector (and still does, except for Scotland).
EU competition law requires railway services (ie TOCs) to be offered periodically for competing bids, though they need not be from the private sector.
That's why direct awards can only be for a limited period (normally 2 years max).
Even railway services in France and Germany are competed for, usually by public sector groups, and the incumbent state operator may lose.
The state railways have limited licences and must be competed for by 2025, or some such date.
eg NS bids here (as Abellio) because one day, they face a competition at home.
Brexit might mean none of the EU stuff applies in the future, but as it stands franchises must be rebid periodically.
Labour might find that a problem in the future if it takes direct control of TOCs.

I'm not sure whether public ownership is the key here. I would have thought that the important thing is that the railway system, as an integrated whole, is publicly controlled. What would be the problem with a national rail system run like London buses? As I understand it, various companies tender to run the different routes, but fares, timetables and liveries are all set by the central organisation. This seems much more effective than the free-for-all that operates everywhere else in the UK. What is the reason (apart from Tory dogma) why this could not be the model for the railways?

 

[F Great Eastern]

But a lot of that is already public controlled anyway through the DFT's micromanagement of the franchises and the specification that it sets for them which means the franchisees cannot change anything when they want to.

The government has an appalling record of managing big rail projects, especially those involving rolling stock - look how long it took them to procure the Thameslink units and put them into service and the same with the Intercity Express Program - the most drawn out rolling stock programs I've ever seen and even when they arrive there are obvious flaws.

Then you have the situation when the SRA and the DFT have a track record of under forecasting passenger volumes and dictate the rolling stock terms to a TOC on their own flawed forecasts and then turn around and blame the TOC when there is overcrowding.

Making everything publicly controlled won't fix this - it might actually make it worse because a lot of the problems in the railway are caused by government policy, dithering, incompetence and inaccurate forecasting and changing of their mind.

 

[urbophile]

In which case why do we have the nonsense of repainting trains every time the franchise changes, and tickets that are only available on certain companies' trains?

 

[urbophile]

And paradoxically I imagine there was much less micromanaging under BR.

 

[Moonshot]

In which case why do we have the nonsense of repainting trains every time the franchise changes, and tickets that are only available on certain companies' trains?

Why is it a nonsense?

I ve also no doubt that operator specific tickets have been a boon to some rail enthusiasts

 

[Moonshot]

But a lot of that is already public controlled anyway through the DFT's micromanagement of the franchises and the specification that it sets for them which means the franchisees cannot change anything when they want to.

The government has an appalling record of managing big rail projects, especially those involving rolling stock - look how long it took them to procure the Thameslink units and put them into service and the same with the Intercity Express Program - the most drawn out rolling stock programs I've ever seen and even when they arrive there are obvious flaws.

Then you have the situation when the SRA and the DFT have a track record of under forecasting passenger volumes and dictate the rolling stock terms to a TOC on their own flawed forecasts and then turn around and blame the TOC when there is overcrowding.

Making everything publicly controlled won't fix this - it might actually make it worse because a lot of the problems in the railway are caused by government policy, dithering, incompetence and inaccurate forecasting and changing of their mind.

Surely the solution to that is to privatise the whole lot and let the industry ( with passengers at the core ) dictate the decision making process

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm not sure whether public ownership is the key here. I would have thought that the important thing is that the railway system, as an integrated whole, is publicly controlled. What would be the problem with a national rail system run like London buses? As I understand it, various companies tender to run the different routes, but fares, timetables and liveries are all set by the central organisation. This seems much more effective than the free-for-all that operates everywhere else in the UK. What is the reason (apart from Tory dogma) why this could not be the model for the railways?

That's basically a concession system, like Merseyrail or London Overground, so perfectly legal, because the contract is competed for.
A TOC management contract is very similar, with the DfT taking revenue risk while the TOC takes cost risk (eg TSGN).
It looks like VTEC is heading in that direction, as VTWC was for a number of years during WCRM.
I guess the theory is that a full franchise gets more investment in at the owner's risk.
The DfT wants long franchises to extract the most investment, but the Treasury wants short franchises to reduce the risk of the DfT letting a bad contract.
There are examples of success and failure at both ends of the spectrum.
Wales grumbles that it had a 15 year franchise but no investment, while Chiltern's similar franchise did deliver significant investment - and both are owned by DB Arriva.

 

[coppercapped]

In which case why do we have the nonsense of repainting trains every time the franchise changes, and tickets that are only available on certain companies' trains?

This old canard - again...

Did BR never change the colours it painted its trains?

I can remember:

• The original 'blood and spilt milk' colours with the SR remaining green.
• Then there was all over muddy maroon, with the SR remaining green
• Then BR(WR) started painting some of its stock in chocolate and cream, with the SR remaining green
• Then there was matt blue and grey, and the SR started painting its trains in 'all over' matt blue
• Then the refurbished 1st generation DMUs came out in white
• Then the SR started adding grey to the 'all over' blue of its express stock
• Then London and South East introduced the Jaffa Cake colours
• InterCity adopted the APT scheme with the swallow emblem
• Other Provincial Services became Regional Railways and had its own colours
• Engineering locos were grey
• London and South East became Network South East and got its own colour scheme
• Railfreight Distribution and Loadhaul and Parcels got their own colours

...I'm sure I have forgotten a few other schemes, some national, some local.

(it's necessary to re-paint trains every few years anyway. The colour makes no significant difference to the cost. Unless it's gold leaf).

 

[urbophile]

Why is it a nonsense?

I ve also no doubt that operator specific tickets have been a boon to some rail enthusiasts

The railways should be a public utility, not a hobby for trainspotters.

 

[Moonshot]

The railways should be a public utility, not a hobby for trainspotters.

Well unless I m very mistaken, the railway is indeed a public service providing a transport solution to millions of passengers every day. The public image of todays railway however is a lot different from the days of BR. Its not difficult to see why todays railway carries more passengers than at any time in its history

 

[Railsigns]

Making everything publicly controlled won't fix this - it might actually make it worse because a lot of the problems in the railway are caused by government policy, dithering, incompetence and inaccurate forecasting and changing of their mind.

Direct government interference in running the railways has increased (dramatically) since BR days, not decreased.

 

[EM2]

Well unless I m very mistaken, the railway is indeed a public service providing a transport solution to millions of passengers every day. The public image of todays railway however is a lot different from the days of BR. Its not difficult to see why todays railway carries more passengers than at any time in its history

Why is it now a public service, in your view? Because the railways in this country were originally private enterprises, with one function, which was to make money.

 

[Railsigns]

Surely the solution to that is to privatise the whole lot and let the industry ( with passengers at the core ) dictate the decision making process

Since when has any private company ever put customers first? Profits come first, always.

If you were to 'privatise the whole lot', the first decision to be made would be "how quickly can we close all the loss-making lines, now that the taxpayer subsidies have disappeared?"

 

[F Great Eastern]

Direct government interference in running the railways has increased (dramatically) since BR days, not decreased.

That's my point and a lot of the current problems are down to government interference - I mean look at the Thameslink and Intercity Express rolling stock procurement - both a shambles.

Look at the number of franchises where it was obvious that there was room for growth and yet the government would only let them on no or minimum growth franchises such as Northern.

Look at the poor track record on passenger number forecasting when the DFT spends it's time saying that rolling stock orders should be cut back because there won't be demand, then turning around and blaming the TOC when there is demand.

Putting the railways fully back in public control will not resolve these issues because these problems are caused by public control that is already there.

 

[Moonshot]

Direct government interference in running the railways has increased (dramatically) since BR days, not decreased.

Indeed.....a rail fare rise of over 3% this year is government policy and not derived from price signals sent by the free market.

 

[acned]

I am in no doubt that the railway should be renationalised; it should operate on the model that was previously tried and tested. With the British Railways Board running the show within fiscal parameters set by Government. Until Brexit happens that would be illegal under European law. E.U. law dictated the separation of train operations from infrastructure which is why operations aren't as slick in Germany or other countries, as they once were. I was lucky to travel in Belgium before the separation of train operation from track and it used to be bloody brilliant, with 40 year old diesels and steam-heated stock persisting until 2003, and everything ran to time. Nowadays the trains are modernised but punctuality is appalling.

 

[Moonshot]

Why is it now a public service, in your view? Because the railways in this country were originally private enterprises, with one function, which was to make money.

Making money how?? Carrying passengers?? To make a profit , they had to carry passenegrs and freight, which is what they do today.

 

[Railsigns]

Its not difficult to see why todays railway carries more passengers than at any time in its history

Go on, then... why is that? Before you answer, bear in mind that concurrent with the rise in passenger numbers in Great Britain, they also rose to record numbers on Northern Ireland Railways, which is publicly owned.

 

[Moonshot]

Go on, then... why is that? Before you answer, bear in mind that concurrent with the rise in passenger numbers in Great Britain, they also rose to record numbers on Northern Ireland Railways, which is publicly owned.

Rail is a more attractive proposition nowadays - its that simple.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Go on, then... why is that? Before you answer, bear in mind that concurrent with the rise in passenger numbers in Great Britain, they also rose to record numbers on Northern Ireland Railways, which is publicly owned.

We're not talking about Northern Ireland though, we're talking about Great Britain. To my knowledge Northern Ireland passenger journeys were never nosediving heavily under national control like the GB passenger numbers were.

It's not as simple as you make it out.

 

[Railsigns]

Putting the railways fully back in public control will not resolve these issues because these problems are caused by public control that is already there.

No; you're completely missing the point. There was less government interference with BR, because it was a coherent arm's-length body able (and qualified) to make its own big strategic decisions. The fact that the big decisions affecting the railways are now being made by politicians and civil servants (both often clueless) is a direct result of the fragmented structure inflicted on the rail industry by privatisation.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed.....a rail fare rise of over 3% this year is government policy and not derived from price signals sent by the free market.

What signals do you think the free market sent?
The market decided the £ should be devalued 20% after the Brexit vote, and the current inflation figure is linked to the effects of that.
An inflation-linked price rise is an empirical cop-out, but it does reflect market conditions.
Another market signal is the wage rises the unions won during the year.
Declining ridership would also be a signal to increase fares to maintain revenue.

 

[F Great Eastern]

No; you're completely missing the point. There was less government interference with BR, because it was a coherent arm's-length body able (and qualified) to make its own big strategic decisions. The fact that the big decisions affecting the railways are now being made by politicians and civil servants (both often clueless) is a direct result of the fragmented structure inflicted on the rail industry by privatisation.

So your way to deal with the mistakes made by the government which then use the private companies as a shield to deflect any blame away from them, is to give the government even more control because that is what would happen if the railways are put back fully in public control - the people in the DFT are not going to give up control like you seem to think.

I look forward to seeing every major rolling stock order to take 10 years to arrive then like Thamelsink and IEP and overcrowding to get worse because the government keep stating making stupid forecasts and can't make their mind up about infrastructure and keep having reviews and delaying projects and playing politics with it all.

The current setup is ideal for the government because they can push all of the blame for their mistakes onto someone else and many of the problems right now are caused by government policy yet the average man on the street will blame the TOC because of the fact he doesn't know that the DFT are pushing the buttons and micro-managing.

 

[Moonshot]

What signals do you think the free market sent?
The market decided the £ should be devalued 20% after the Brexit vote, and the current inflation figure is linked to the effects of that.
An inflation-linked price rise is an empirical cop-out, but it does reflect market conditions.
Another market signal is the wage rises the unions won during the year.
Declining ridership would also be a signal to increase fares to maintain revenue.

Personally I would like to see greater competiton between operators " in the market" and not " for the market". This would probably mean bidding for train paths.

 

[Railsigns]

So your way to deal with the mistakes made by the government which then use the private companies as a shield to deflect any blame away from them, is to give the government even more control because that is what would happen if the railways are put back fully in public control - the people in the DFT are not going to give up control like you seem to think.

I look forward to seeing every major rolling stock order to take 10 years to arrive then like Thamelsink and IEP.

Did you even read my post which you quoted in yours? The keys phrase was "coherent arm's-length body", something very worthwhile, which privatisation destroyed.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Did you even read my post which you quoted in yours? The keys phrase was "coherent arm's-length body", something very worthwhile, which privatisation destroyed.

Do you really think that it is going to happen? Because I don't.

If the DFT are micromanaging stuff now when the companies are private and have no connection with the DFT, what makes you think that they are going to stop when both operator and the department are both part of the state even if they are at arms length?

 

[Railsigns]

Do you really think that it is going to happen? Because I don't.

If the DFT are micromanaging stuff now when the companies are private and have no connection with the DFT, what makes you think that they are going to stop when both operator and the department are both part of the state even if they are at arms length?

Are you able to differentiate between government/state ownership and government/state control? The former decreased as a result of privatisation but the latter very much increased. It's perfectly reasonable to assume the renationalisation will reverse this. There will be plenty other matters to keep politicians and civil servants occupied, so I wouldn't worry about them too much.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Are you able to differentiate between government/state ownership and government/state control? The former decreased as a result of privatisation but the latter very much increased.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume the renationalisation will reverse this. There will be plenty other matters to keep politicians and civil servants occupied, so I wouldn't worry about them too much.

The argument is that is what happened before is a weak and overly simplistic one .

I just cannot see it happening - there has been plenty of other matters to keep politicians and civil servants busy over the last number of years yet they still have been interfering in matters and continued to use the private companies as a human shield so they can nationalise the praise and privatise the blame.

The cost per passenger KM was much higher under British Rail, if we use the same argument here than it suggests that the reduction in costs will be reversed as well since you can't use the theory that something things will go back to the way they were before when it suits your agenda and they won't when it doesn't.

I don't pretend that the current system is perfect since it most certainly isn't, but I also do not believe that putting everything back in public control and removing private companies will magically fix everything either and it'll fix all our woes because I cannot see it happening the way you want it to and it's pie in the sky stuff that sounds good when you write it but I can't see happening.