Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[F Great Eastern]

When there's a change of government, is there a complete change of staff at the DfT? No? Then they're not part of government.

The DFT is a DfT is a ministerial department of the government that is led by a government minister. All of this is clearly outlined on the governments own website. The DFT website even forms part of GOV.UK.

Also from wikipedia

The Department for Transport (DfT) is the government department responsible for the English transport network and a limited number of transport matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that have not been devolved. The department is run by the Secretary of State for Transport

My original claim was that the DFT was part of the government and it is whether you admit it or resort to bringing the term staff in to construct a strawman argument as a weak attempt to save face or not

 

[absolutelymilk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impac...K_Rail_subsidy_1985-2014_(in_2014_prices).png

The graph of rail subsidy is here, the sources can be found underneath the graph

 

[Railsigns]

My original claim was that the DFT was part of the government and it is whether you admit it or resort to bringing the term staff in to construct a strawman argument as a weak attempt to save face or not

In the same post in which you claimed that "the DFT is the government", you also wrote that "the DFT are acting on behalf of the government". Are you therefore saying that the DfT acts on behalf of itself?

 

[F Great Eastern]

In the same post in which you claimed that "the DFT is the government", you also wrote that "the DFT are acting on behalf of the government". Are you therefore saying that the DfT acts on behalf of itself?

A government department is a division of government dealing with a specific area of activity on the behalf of the overall government - that is what I meant and I'm sure you know it deep down.

That's the last word I'm saying on the matter since it's clear there is no hope of having a discussion which isn't full of various kinds of fallacies to detract from a honest debate.

 

[Railsigns]

A government department is a division of government dealing with a specific area of activity on the behalf of the overall government - that is what I meant and I'm sure you know it deep down.

That's the last word I'm saying on the matter since it's clear there is no hope of having a discussion which isn't full of various kinds of fallacies to detract from a honest debate.

I would remind you that what started this discussion was your fatuous claim (post #854) that the DfT has the ability to block government policy so as to avoid relinquishing powers. It doesn't, and you have yet to address this point, preferring instead to go off at a tangent in the hope that the matter will go away. The role of the civil service is to implement government policy and any civil servant who disagrees with those policies is free to look for another job.

 

[quantinghome]

For those of you who would like to reduce government involvement to a minimum, bear in mind that pretty much every passenger railway in the world is not commercially viable and requires subsidy. This means some of form of government involvement is inevitable. The current franchising system guarantees government micro-management. It also perpetuates the perverse split between track and train. Plenty of government agencies are run at arms-length and there's no reason to think that this wouldn't be the case for a fully-nationalised rail network. The current system is effectively nationalised in all but name but requires an incredibly inefficient structure to perpetuate private sector involvement via franchising and rolling stock leasing.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Splitting track and train is not perverse, as it establishes a level playing field for different operators to run trains on the same infrastructure.
If you allow private freight and open access (which Labour doesn't seem to want to abolish), you need a level playing field, a regulator and all the access charging legislation to allow new entrants and to compare competing bids.
I'll say again that EU legislation doesn't preclude public ownership, but that service contracts must be competed for, as in other industries.
In 2018 you cannot close the door on competition, which is what the "back to BR" lobby wants.
Transport Scotland ran competitions for ferry services, even if the public operator (CalMac) won.
BR never conducted consultations, issued Route Utilisation Studies or project plans and milestones, or offered itself for scrutiny or ran a Delay Repay scheme.
The manufacturing and construction industries have changed completely since 1993, so a "new BR" would not be able to go back to the old procurement model.
The world is simply a different place to what it was 25 years ago when BR was broken up.
I still think that Labour's nationalised railway will look more like todays' model than BR's.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Splitting track and train is not perverse, as it establishes a level playing field for different operators to run trains on the same infrastructure.
If you allow private freight and open access (which Labour doesn't seem to want to abolish), you need a level playing field, a regulator and all the access charging legislation to allow new entrants and to compare competing bids.
I'll say again that EU legislation doesn't preclude public ownership, but that service contracts must be competed for, as in other industries.
In 2018 you cannot close the door on competition, which is what the "back to BR" lobby wants.
Transport Scotland ran competitions for ferry services, even if the public operator (CalMac) won.
BR never conducted consultations, issued Route Utilisation Studies or project plans and milestones, or offered itself for scrutiny or ran a Delay Repay scheme.
The manufacturing and construction industries have changed completely since 1993, so a "new BR" would not be able to go back to the old procurement model.
The world is simply a different place to what it was 25 years ago when BR was broken up.
I still think that Labour's nationalised railway will look more like todays' model than BR's.

I would agree that closing the door on competition is foolish and that, in this day and age, is somewhat taking a step backwards. I believe that open-access operations would be a good addition for the railways alongside a new model of British Railways (which I think should be the name of any new unified state-owned system to distance itself from British Rail and seem like a new thing. "People's Railway" sounds far too socialist) because it could increase competition and thus help to drive down the fares.

I only worry that the government might starve the railways of any needed investment, let it get to a poor state, and use the fact that open-access operators are better to put the franchise system back in. This is the biggest long-term worry with nationalisation: the fact that the government can starve it of investment and use it to sell it off again. Setting a fixed investment law that requires the government to put in a certain amount every year could be argued, but laws can come and go at the whim of Parliament. Plus, what if something like the NHS needs emergency increased funding but can't be given due to the fixed investments? It's a hard one really.

 

[Railsigns]

a new model of British Railways (which I think should be the name of any new unified state-owned system to distance itself from British Rail and seem like a new thing.

I don't mind what it's called as long as it's publicly owned and publicly accountable, but I would just point out that "British Railways" is what British Rail was named during the age of steam.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I don't mind what it's called as long as it's publicly owned and publicly accountable, but I would just point out that "British Railways" is what British Rail was named during the age of steam.

I am aware, but I don't think a lot of the public will be. British Rail is a name that is still remembered, but I don't think as many people will remember the name British Railways. Some argue that the steam days were the best days for British Railways even, so I can't imagine it could be a poor choice of a name. Whether they were I do not know, but I still think the name British Railways is mostly out of the public mind, while British Rail is still remembered somewhat. Maybe I've not met enough people in my lifetime though.

 

[brel york]

Having worked for both types since 1985 I can tell you that ordinary tradesman were paid roughly 20% less than private sector equivalent, obviously we had good terms and conditions.
In regards to private sector innovation I’m struggling to see what innovation the rosco s have brought the British public regarding rolling stock , any large company/ government can buy rolling stock from foreign companies out of a catalog , that’s not innovation that’s just business
I’m extremely proud of my railway apprentiship and so are most of the older guys who served one , proper training, proper qualifications.
Working along side the roscoes how pathetic the organisation is
It’s chaos at times , Brel was chaos too but at least it was organised chaos

 

[B&I]

Splitting track and train is not perverse, as it establishes a level playing field for different operators to run trains on the same infrastructure.
If you allow private freight and open access (which Labour doesn't seem to want to abolish), you need a level playing field, a regulator and all the access charging legislation to allow new entrants and to compare competing bids.
I'll say again that EU legislation doesn't preclude public ownership, but that service contracts must be competed for, as in other industries.
In 2018 you cannot close the door on competition, which is what the "back to BR" lobby wants.
Transport Scotland ran competitions for ferry services, even if the public operator (CalMac) won.
BR never conducted consultations, issued Route Utilisation Studies or project plans and milestones, or offered itself for scrutiny or ran a Delay Repay scheme.
The manufacturing and construction industries have changed completely since 1993, so a "new BR" would not be able to go back to the old procurement model.
The world is simply a different place to what it was 25 years ago when BR was broken up.
I still think that Labour's nationalised railway will look more like todays' model than BR's.

How does a railway system where moderation of competition arrangements exist involve any form of meaningful ompetition?

 

[colchesterken]

I support renationalization because of all the fingers in the pie. i e one lot own the track another lot own the rolling stock and another run the trains, one company one set of accounts call it profits if you like, I think the railways should be non profit making and self funding but with the subsidies as now.
I mostly object to the fact that most of the services are run by foreign companies, I am angry that we have built a railway to be proud of Crossrail and franchised it to Hong Kong railways. It should be run by Sadique with experienced managers and accountable to the Mayor

 

[quantinghome]

I would agree that closing the door on competition is foolish and that, in this day and age, is somewhat taking a step backwards. I believe that open-access operations would be a good addition for the railways alongside a new model of British Railways.

The problem is that competition on railways, in general, does not work. They tried it in 1825 on the Stockton-Darlington, found it didn't work. Since then the vast majority of operations throughout the world have been vertically integrated. Even the Tories realised this and abandoned their original plans for a free for all privatisation which they found were unworkable.

I only worry that the government might starve the railways of any needed investment, let it get to a poor state, and use the fact that open-access operators are better to put the franchise system back in. This is the biggest long-term worry with nationalisation: the fact that the government can starve it of investment and use it to sell it off again.

Newsflash! Pretty much all rail investment already comes from government. Franchisees invest very little. No matter what system is put in place, government decisions will always make or break the railway. A non-ideological government looking to save money would probably nationalise to get rid of the gross inefficiencies of running a fragmented system.

 

[B&I]

One of the interesting things about this thread is the number of people arguing that we can't / shouldn't renationalise, because this is too much of a leap in the dark, given the 23 years which have passed since privatisation. However, this does not seem to.prevent the argument that full privatisation is an entirely sensible decision, even though we last had that 70 years ago.

Also interesting is the advocacy of private over public, despite the fact that almost no other countries (except Japan) with extensive railway networks have privatised them. Could it be that people are thinking just a teensy-weensy bit with their ideological, market-always-knows-best hats on, rather than putting any actual thought into what is most likely to work?

 

[Agent_Squash]

I support renationalization because of all the fingers in the pie. i e one lot own the track another lot own the rolling stock and another run the trains, one company one set of accounts call it profits if you like, I think the railways should be non profit making and self funding but with the subsidies as now.
I mostly object to the fact that most of the services are run by foreign companies, I am angry that we have built a railway to be proud of Crossrail and franchised it to Hong Kong railways. It should be run by Sadique with experienced managers and accountable to the Mayor

MTR is an experienced metro operator who’ve operated services like Crossrail before. And even then it’s a concession; not a franchise let by TfL.

I’d much rather have MTR in charge of crossrail to begin with than the so called experienced managers of TfL.

 

[matt_world2004]

MTR is an experienced metro operator who’ve operated services like Crossrail before. And even then it’s a concession; not a franchise let by TfL.

I’d much rather have MTR in charge of crossrail to begin with than the so called experienced managers of TfL.

MTR is a private company?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The problem is that competition on railways, in general, does not work. They tried it in 1825 on the Stockton-Darlington, found it didn't work. Since then the vast majority of operations throughout the world have been vertically integrated. Even the Tories realised this and abandoned their original plans for a free for all privatisation which they found were unworkable.

I wasn't strictly suggesting operations not be virtually integrated, merely I was saying that putting franchises into public ownership while allowing open-access operators like Grand Central to carry on to the same extent as they do now. It's not the same as what you seem to describe as a free for all privatisation.

Newsflash! Pretty much all rail investment already comes from government. Franchisees invest very little. No matter what system is put in place, government decisions will always make or break the railway. A non-ideological government looking to save money would probably nationalise to get rid of the gross inefficiencies of running a fragmented system.

Indeed most subsidies come from the state, but there's nothing to stop a future government deciding it doesn't wish to invest in the railways to such extent anymore. Whoever actually provides the subsidies also has the power to withdraw those subsidies, and there isn't really anyone who can stop them from doing so. I can't imagine Labour would be able to stop the Conservatives from cutting the budget so drastically. After all, they've been powerless against years of austerity, though to be fair they did sometimes go along with it, and I believe an idea of "austerity-lite" was in the minds of some Labour MPs. Regarldess, even if the states chooses to save money by re-nationalising, what's to stop them cutting the budget in the name of saving even more money? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of nationalisation, or at least unifying the system, but there's some problems that come with it of course that we must acknowledge and maybe discuss how to come around them.

MTR is a private company?

Not sure if you're being a bit funny there (sorry, I know I'm a bit paranoid), but if you aren't... then yes, MTR is (sort of) a private company. It is a Public company in that it allows members of the public to buy shares on the stock market, but it's otherwise a private company (Public doesn't always mean public sector, though interestingly the Hong Kong Government (specifically The Financial Secretary Incorporated) is a 75.09% owner). It has contracts to run operations not only in London, but also Stockholm, Beijing, Shenhzen, Hangzhou, Melbourne and Sydney. Plus, MTR also runs Hong Kong's rapid transit system, which isn't really a surprise since it's a company based in Hong Kong and listed on their stock exchange. Such experience qualifies it to run Crossrail if you ask me.

 

[matt_world2004]

Not sure if you're being a bit funny there (sorry, I know I'm a bit paranoid), but if you aren't... then yes, MTR is a private company. It is a Public company in that it allows members of the public to buy shares on the stock market, but it's otherwise a private company (Public doesn't always mean public sector). It has contracts to run operations not only in London, but also Stockholm, Beijing, Shenhzen, Hangzhou, Melbourne and Sydney. Plus, MTR also runs Hong Kong's rapid transit system, which isn't really a surprise since it's a company based in Hong Kong and listed on their stock exchange. Such experience qualifies it to run Crossrail if you ask me.

It isnt though its effectively nationalised. it is owned by the hong kong government (75%) I believe the mainland chinese government own a smaller share and the private shareholders the rest

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

It isnt though its effectively nationalised. it is owned by the hong kong government (75%) I believe the mainland chinese government own a smaller share and the private shareholders the rest

I'm not quite sure that being owned by a government strictly makes a company nationalised. I mean yes the Hong Kong Government has a 75% share, but it could easily sell off this share to someone else, and in fact members of the public, even employees, could buy a share. It's kind of a limited company though as well. Here's another thing, Deutsche Bahn is technically a private joint-stock corporation limited by share ownership (an AG as it's known in Germany) and the Federal Republic of Germany just happens to be it's single shareholder. It's not unusual for governments to have shares in companies that are otherwise private.

Even outside of railways this could theoretically happen. For example, imagine if the White House bought a majority stake in The Walt Disney Company or Time Warner (which I'd rather not happen by the way) would that mean it is strictly nationalised? If I had to take a guess, then I'd say no, but saying that, I'm actually not sure myself, so I won't sit here and say that being owned by the government doesn't make it nationalised. I'll leave that to someone who is more of an expert to answer that question.

 

[quantinghome]

Interesting to see extensive coverage of Labour's nationalisation plans in the latest issue of RAIL. There appears to be evidence of rational thought at work, not just a simplistic 'nationalisation will solve all rail's problems'.

 

[matt_world2004]

I'm not quite sure that being owned by a government strictly makes a company nationalised. I mean yes the Hong Kong Government has a 75% share, but it could easily sell off this share to someone else, and in fact members of the public, even employees, could buy a share. It's kind of a limited company though as well. Here's another thing, Deutsche Bahn is technically a private joint-stock corporation limited by share ownership (an AG as it's known in Germany) and the Federal Republic of Germany just happens to be it's single shareholder. It's not unusual for governments to have shares in companies that are otherwise private.

Even outside of railways this could theoretically happen. For example, imagine if the White House bought a majority stake in The Walt Disney Company or Time Warner (which I'd rather not happen by the way) would that mean it is strictly nationalised? If I had to take a guess, then I'd say no, but saying that, I'm actually not sure myself, so I won't sit here and say that being owned by the government doesn't make it nationalised. I'll leave that to someone who is more of an expert to answer that question.

Wasnt British rail similar though a limited "company" owned by the state.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Wasnt British rail similar though a limited "company" owned by the state.

Wikipedia lists it as a State-owned enterprise. I'm not sure how this makes it different to a Public company, but doing more research I found that Railtrack was listed as a Public company. I can't really tell you the difference, and all I can say is that I'm making a bit of an educated guess by saying there's a few differences. If I'm wrong then maybe I'm not so educated.

 

[matt_world2004]

Wikipedia lists it as a State-owned enterprise. I'm not sure how this makes it different to a Public company, but doing more research I found that Railtrack was listed as a Public company. I can't really tell you the difference, and all I can say is that I'm making a bit of an educated guess by saying there's a few differences. If I'm wrong then maybe I'm not so educated.

Was railtrack a company with private shareholders except at the end during bankruptcy

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Was railtrack a company with private shareholders except at the end during bankruptcy

I couldn't tell you who had stakes in Railtrack, but being a PLC company I can only imagine that it did. Apologies that I can't really give a great answer for that question.

 

[gsnedders]

The problem is that competition on railways, in general, does not work. They tried it in 1825 on the Stockton-Darlington, found it didn't work. Since then the vast majority of operations throughout the world have been vertically integrated. Even the Tories realised this and abandoned their original plans for a free for all privatisation which they found were unworkable.

Competition seems to work well for rail freight, and as long as we have open access freight operators we need to account for their use of the infrastructure, and deal with potential conflicts in pathing (both in planning and in actual operation).

But even ignoring freight, there are, now, examples in Europe where we do have real competition, like DB v. HKX on Hamburg–Köln.

Now, we clearly can't do this without reforming the fare structure to be more like the majority of Europe (where tickets are always for specific trains, even if they are flexible) to allow more in the way of differential pricing and have some way to deal with allocating paths (but we already do, given we already have freight operators).

 

[coppercapped]

Wasnt British rail similar though a limited "company" owned by the state.

No. British Rail, or in its previous incarnations as British Railways or the British Transport Commission, was never a limited company.

The railways were nationalised and organised into the BTC by the then Government exchanging the shares in the GWR, LMS, LNER and SR (and some minor lines) for Government issued bonds. These were guaranteed a return of, IIRC, 3% for a number of years (from memory it was 15 but I could be wrong) into the future - the money for these dividends was to be generated by the BTC itself.

There was never any company structure in the legal sense under laws covering the operation of publicly or privately owned companies, it was more an arm of Government like the Army or the NHS. The BTC was organised by Act of Parliament to manage its business via 'agents'; the Railways Executive, the London Transport Executive, the Roads Executive and so on. None of these were set up as a legal company. The BTC did prepare profit and loss accounts but only at the highest level.

The first time any of the parts of the railway business was set up as a legal company was when some of the subsidiary businesses such as hotels and shipping were hived off. These were organised as legal companies, the shares being owned by the BTC, or later the BRB, until the shares were sold.

The first time since the Big Four that any of the core railway business was structured as a legal company was at the time of privatisation when Railtrack was set up, the shares initially being held by the state until the business was floated. Railtrack was structured such that it consisted of a holding company and several subsidiaries one of which was the infrastructure operator. When Railtrack was put into administration by Stephen Byers (remember him?) only the holding company folded - Network Rail was created by the government which then took over the share capital of the Railtrack infrastructure company; IIRC the company number (as registered at Companies House) remains the same but the name was changed.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There is an unspoken "all other things being equal" in your argument which otherwise I agree with - and which McNulty (remember him?) also made.

However "all other things being equal" is no longer the case. And it is these changes - legal, social and economic - which make it impossible to either roll the system back to being "nu-BR" or even sensibly being able to compare the situation now as it was then. "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there" is still very true.

Certainly mistakes were made along the way, both in the detail of some of the facets of privatisation and in the way that Network Rail lost control of its spending in the immediate aftermath of the Hatfield disaster. But this is what hindsight is for - to show up the successes and failures of one's earlier endeavours. It is always 100% correct.

Which is why this constant cry for nationalisation is a political issue pure and simple. It has nothing whatsoever to do with finding workable solutions to the issues of capacity, reliability, ticket pricing or extensions of the network - and none have been offered.

Just to clarify my position:

Although I dislike almost everything about the way the railways are run today, having lived the first half of my life with a nationalised railway, I too am extremely sceptical about the wisdom of renationalisation. (I agree with points a, b and c in post 854)

The one saving grace of the period before privatisation was that the Civil Service did not interfere with the day to day running of the railway. They could, and normally did, deny B.R. adequate funds to improve and expand services, but they did not tell B. R what trains to run or where or when to run them. The DfT track record in managing the railway since privatisation demonstrates very clearly they are unfit for that job. It is most unlikely that the DfT civil servants would go back to a "hands-off" approach if the railways were renationalised, so we would have the worst of both worlds.

The Labour Party's own track record on railways since 1948 is a disgrace. The Atlee Government deprived B. R. of money; it even confiscated money B. R had earned. They made it abundantly clear that they had zero interest in a modern, efficient and thriving railway. The idea of a Labour Government being concerned about giving our country a railway system that will contribute to national prosperity is nonsense to anyone familiar with the facts. Labour's current proposals are all about dogma, as was the case with Atlee's Government.

 

[B&I]

Just to clarify my position:

Although I dislike almost everything about the way the railways are run today, having lived the first half of my life with a nationalised railway, I too am extremely sceptical about the wisdom of renationalisation. (I agree with points a, b and c in post 854)

The one saving grace of the period before privatisation was that the Civil Service did not interfere with the day to day running of the railway. They could, and normally did, deny B.R. adequate funds to improve and expand services, but they did not tell B. R what trains to run or where or when to run them. The DfT track record in managing the railway since privatisation demonstrates very clearly they are unfit for that job. It is most unlikely that the DfT civil servants would go back to a "hands-off" approach if the railways were renationalised, so we would have the worst of both worlds.

The Labour Party's own track record on railways since 1948 is a disgrace. The Atlee Government deprived B. R. of money; it even confiscated money B. R had earned. They made it abundantly clear that they had zero interest in a modern, efficient and thriving railway. The idea of a Labour Government being concerned about giving our country a railway system that will contribute to national prosperity is nonsense to anyone familiar with the facts. Labour's current proposals are all about dogma, as was the case with Atlee's Government.

Is your worst of both worlds scenario really much different to today? As things are, the DfT micromanage and balls things up even when Network Rail and the TOCs don't. Why would renationalisation necessarily have to follow this model?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

MTR is a private company?

Yes it is, though the Hong Kong government is a major shareholder.
It has extensive property interests as well as the Hong Kong metro (and other rail systems).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation