Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[matt_world2004]

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.

Elements of the London transport executive at some point became a company London Underground limited and London bus services limited are companies that exist now. Even though LBSL is more a regulator than company now.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Importantly, the BR Regions and Sectors were never structured as companies, and never produced public accounts.
That gave BR the scope to cross-subsidise different parts of its business, which it did relentlessly.
The creation of multiple TOCs stopped all that and each TOC got treated individually, and it's now only too clear when and where there are financial problems.
The equivalent today is for DfT to squeeze the last penny out of profitable franchise premiums (like VTEC) in order to subsidise the others (like Northern).
But the figures are all out in the open in franchise agreements instead of staying in the BR boardroom.
That's why I think the government (any shade) will not let the huge rail budget be controlled behind closed doors by a BR-like organisation.
Every mis-step (like NR electrification, or EC financial failure) only reinforces their reluctance to cede control to "professional railwaymen".

 

[coppercapped]

Elements of the London transport executive at some point became a company London Underground limited and London bus services limited are companies that exist now. Even though LBSL is more a regulator than company now.

I gave a potted history. Of course the structures changed later. The 1962 Transport Act dissolved the BTC and replaced it with

• the British Railways Board
• the London Transport Board
• the British Transport Docks Board
• the British Waterways Board, and
• the Transport Holding Company.

This history of each of these constituents then followed its own course.

 

[quantinghome]

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.

I'm not sure this tells us much, other than you don't like the Labour party. If you have to go back 70 years to find an example then I'm not sure you have much of a case to make.

Neither Labour nor Conservative have had a good record on the railways, but the three biggest post-war policy failures were the 50s Modernisation Plan, Beeching and Privatisation, all of which were the responsibility of the Conservatives. Labour continued with the latter two policies, so you could perhaps charge them with perpetuating failing policies and not having a clear vision for the railways, but to suggest their record is worse than anyone else's is a fantasy, particularly as it was the most recent Labour government who finally grasped that railways needed sustained and substantial government investment.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I refer you to the definition of bailout: "an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse"

VTEC is not going to collapse. And as far as I'm aware the government isn't actually giving any financial assistance to the current franchise, but in effect renegotiating terms?

Reducing premiums is hardly financial assistance.

Beardy reckons he's losing £100m a year at present. Presumably the implication is that Beardy might have to remortgage his offshore tax free paradise island if things don't change.

So they change. Beardy and his gay-bashing best friend get let off most of the premiums, given that the franchise (as always) was back-loaded. And then gets a new franchise- without competition- on significantly more preferential terms,

If that ISN'T financial assistance, I don't know what the hell is.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Neither Labour nor Conservative have had a good record on the railways, but the three biggest post-war policy failures were the 50s Modernisation Plan, Beeching and Privatisation, all of which were the responsibility of the Conservatives.

Labour have been guilty of pouring money into the privatised railway system without getting many concrete guarantees or improvements back from the private companies. But I don't think you can really criticise them for much more than that. IEP? I'd criticise them for that, but see my first point about pouring money into the system.

What tends to happen is that Labour do all the legwork for big infrastructure upgrades, the Conservatives then come in and attempt to claim all the credit. Crossrail is a Labour project. Thameslink is a Labour project. But because Labour are out of office, they don't get the credit for their work. Slimeball Sleazy Grayling come in and reckons it's all his work.

 

[matt_world2004]

What tends to happen is that Labour do all the legwork for big infrastructure upgrades, the Conservatives then come in and attempt to claim all the credit. Crossrail is a Labour project. Thameslink is a Labour project. But because Labour are out of office, they don't get the credit for their work. Slimeball Sleazy Grayling come in and reckons it's all his work.

I am by no means a supporter of the conservative party but couldnt the opposite be said of the jubilee line extention.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If it does not get the product right it will not be profitable and will cease to exist.

You make the mistake that lots of people do. They assume that the customer is the passenger, and the passenger's views count for something.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am by no means a supporter of the conservative party but couldnt the opposite be said of the jubilee line extention.

You certainly could, to be fair. The redevelopment of Docklands, of which the JLE was a big part, was a Tory project.

And it does work both ways: the Tories (well, Michael Heseltine) did all the planning for the Millennium Dome, yet Labour got the blame for that white elephant.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

This delightful clip from Radio City Liverpool from the 70's sums up what British Rail was all about.

 

[coppercapped]

Beardy reckons he's losing £100m a year at present. Presumably the implication is that Beardy might have to remortgage his offshore tax free paradise island if things don't change.

So they change. Beardy and his gay-bashing best friend get let off most of the premiums, given that the franchise (as always) was back-loaded. And then gets a new franchise- without competition- on significantly more preferential terms,

If that ISN'T financial assistance, I don't know what the hell is.

I think that you will find that the situation is slightly different to your description. As I wrote in another post, based on information posted in the Financial Times and other papers

...receipts have been lower than anticipated when the bid was prepared towards the end of 2013 and awarded in November 2014 to a joint venture of Stagecoach (90%) and Virgin (10%). The two partners are putting money into the franchise to meet the premium profile which one could argue was, with the benefit of hindsight, over-ambitious. Far from ‘handing in the keys’, Stagecoach is intending to stay in the franchise at a cost of £84.1 million over the next two years (2017-18 and 2018-19). In addition it is drawing down £57 million from the Parent Company support loan commitment in the franchise agreement.

So the total cost to the partners will be around £140 million over the two years. This is:

• quite a distance from Branson losing a £100 million a year
• no reason for Branson to remortage his island as most of the money is coming from Stagecoach.

It might help your case if your rants weren't so foam-flecked and you got your facts right.

 

[matt_world2004]

It might help your case if your rants weren't so foam-flecked and you got your facts right.

Ladies and gentlemen , this is an example of civil discourse /s

 

[ChiefPlanner]

You certainly could, to be fair. The redevelopment of Docklands, of which the JLE was a big part, was a Tory project.

And it does work both ways: the Tories (well, Michael Heseltine) did all the planning for the Millennium Dome, yet Labour got the blame for that white elephant.

Going ahead with the JLE (with a few coins in the tin from Olympia and York) partly caused Thameslink to be scoped as TLK 2000 (pause for hollow laughter) and of course killed of Crossrail.

Now the JLE is a great line and we take it very much for granted now , but above was not a good deal IMHO. Of course , both TLK an XR were huge risks for the privatisation of Railtrack , ...as we all know....?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Going ahead with the JLE (with a few coins in the tin from Olympia and York) partly caused Thameslink to be scoped as TLK 2000 (pause for hollow laughter) and of course killed of Crossrail.

The re-development of Docklands was a key Tory project (Heseltine leading the LDDC for a long time). The JLE was an important part of the later phases of that.

I think that with the success of the Docklands redevelopment it has become necessary, but I'd agree about whether other projects could have been considered first.

It might help your case if your rants weren't so foam-flecked and you got your facts right.

Branson, in his own blog, reckons he and Stagecoach have already lost £100m. Add that to the amounts you claim.

Even using your figures, that's £70m a year.

And this has been used as the justification for walking away from a £2bn liability. As I said, if being let off a £2bn liability isn't "financial assistance", I'd love to know what is.

 

[HowardGWR]

This has drifted away from the subject of nationalisation of services.

Nationalised Network Rail and its predecessors has carried forward many good capital projects as has TfL and other similar public bodies. Most of those capital works are planned and carried out by private enterprise, sometimes more successfully than others.

The transport services are contracted out at present, now in a variety of ways, but I see no advantage whatsoever in nationalising those (the subject of this thread, despite the misleading title - OP please!!).

I see great advantages in promoting competition on lines and a recent report demonstrated how customers were benefiting where competition existed.

 

[Bookd]

If this country is to remain one of the most prosperous in the world we need to encourage businessmen (and women) who generate the income that we all rely on.
Why this hatred on the thread of 'beardy' - Branson has certainly made a lot of money but he has started lots of businesses which have been transforming for the better (Virgin Atlantic, Media, Mobile and lots of others)
Part of our problem is that anyone successful is slagged off so why would they bother?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Yes , there have been limited successes with "competition" and "open access" , but on a minute scale. Moderation of competition rules was / were written in to protect potential franchise bidders (and a very tedious job it was too , declaring all these flows) - on an already overburdened network where "competition" might be of interest , there are very few paths available.

Not much call for competition between - say Chessington South and Waterloo via Raynes Park.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If this country is to remain one of the most prosperous in the world we need to encourage businessmen (and women) who generate the income that we all rely on.

Off topic, but precisely what does Richard Branson- who lives tax-free in the British Virgin Islands- contribute financially to the UK?

Interestingly, none of the businesses you mentioned are owned by Branson. Virgin Media- a merger of Telewest and NTL- has never had anything to do with the bearded one.

Indeed, the only significant UK business 100% owned by the bearded one is Virgin Care, which is steadily ripping off the NHS for contracted services that should never have been privatised. Sounds familiar.

 

[Railsigns]

The transport services are contracted out at present, now in a variety of ways, but I see no advantage whatsoever in nationalising those

1. A more efficient integrated industry structure.
2. An end to the costly pantomime that is the franchise renewal process.
3. Less public money funding private sector profits and foreign railways.
4. Less confusing for passengers and better connectivity.

 

[Moonshot]

1. A more efficient integrated industry structure.
2. An end to the costly pantomime that is the franchise renewal process.
3. Less public money funding private sector profits and foreign railways.
4. Less confusing for passengers and better connectivity.

Against the background of 20 years of passenger growth it has to be said.

I note the current results of this poll - pretty much split halfway between those who want the current set up to remain as it is ( which in reality it will do ), and those who want a return to the days of BR ( which it wont )

As traincrew myself, I m happy with the current set up. My salary easily outstripping what the public sector would have paid.

 

[507021]

Although I'm generally a Labour voter, I have to admit re-nationalising British Rail is one of the few policies they have I don't agree with.

 

[Railsigns]

Against the background of 20 years of passenger growth it has to be said.

Passenger growth which would have happened irrespective of privatisation.

I note the current results of this poll - pretty much split halfway between those who want the current set up to remain as it is ( which in reality it will do ), and those who want a return to the days of BR ( which it wont )

A recent poll of the general public (which matters more than a poll on this forum) shows 76% support for renationalisation. Another poll on this forum shows the largest age group of members to be 20-29; these people won't even remember BR and probably just view it as old fashioned.

As traincrew myself, I m happy with the current set up. My salary easily outstripping what the public sector would have paid.

"I'm all right, Jack". A truly appalling attitude.

 

[Moonshot]

Although I'm generally a Labour voter, I have to admit re-nationalising British Rail is one of the few policies they have I don't agree with.

Agreed. Its not going to happen anyway

 

[jon0844]

You certainly could, to be fair. The redevelopment of Docklands, of which the JLE was a big part, was a Tory project.

And it does work both ways: the Tories (well, Michael Heseltine) did all the planning for the Millennium Dome, yet Labour got the blame for that white elephant.

Thing is, the dome and the subsequent development around the area means it wasn't really a bad idea in the end. Sure the setup initially was somewhat stupid (although I went to the dome for the 'experience' or whatever it was called and quite enjoyed it - as did most people who actually went). We can argue about the money to build it, and the subsequent sale, but I am sure the economy has benefited in the long run from the area. If not, at least many thousands of people have enjoyed events there, and eating out locally.

Politicians of all colours are never interested in long term benefits though. If they were, I am sure a lot of things would be done differently, and to get back to rail, I am sure we'd have seen more infrastructure upgrades being treated as priorities rather than kicked down the road.

 

[Railsigns]

Its not going to happen anyway

When people say this, what they really mean is "I don't want it to happen and I want others to think that campaigning for it is futile."

FWIW, I believe it will happen.

 

[Moonshot]

Passenger growth which would have happened irrespective of privatisation.

You dont actually know that



A recent poll of the general public (which matters more than a poll on this forum) shows 76% support for renationalisation. Another poll on this forum shows the largest age group of members to be 20-29; these people won't even remember BR and probably just view it as old fashioned.

Have you got a link to that



"I'm all right, Jack". A truly appalling attitude.

I dont care what you think, I m doing a job that pays a lot better than it would have done under BR. Train Drivers earn a lot more than me as well, and best of luck to them. They appear to find getting a pay rise under Privare Sector T and Cs far easier than they did in BR days

 

[Moonshot]

When people say this, what they really mean is "I don't want it to happen and I want others to think that campaigning for it is futile."

FWIW, I believe it will happen.

Think what you want. The reality today no matter how much you dislike it is that the Private Sector will continue to operate TOCS. I happen to think that Network Rail will eventually be sold off to the private sector FWIW

 

[Railsigns]

You dont [don't] actually know that

What I know is that publicly owned Northern Ireland Railways achieved record passenger growth during the same 20 year period, proving that private sector involvement isn't a prerequisite to growth.

Have you got a link to that[?]

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...tionalisation-plans-voters-tired-free-markets

I cannot overstate how disgusted I am with your selfish attitude.

 

[Moonshot]

What I know is that publicly owned Northern Ireland Railways achieved record passenger growth during the same 20 year period, proving that private sector involvement isn't a prerequisite to growth.



https://www.theguardian.com/busines...tionalisation-plans-voters-tired-free-markets

I cannot overstate how disgusted I am with your selfish attitude.

Nothing selfish about it at all, thats the reality. I ll state again , I really dont care what you think, but the facts are the TOCs are run by the Private Sector and my T and Cs are decided by the TOCs. Plenty on here would swap with me, and if by any chance you fancy working in the industry, simply apply online like thousands of others do.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Beardy reckons he's losing £100m a year at present. Presumably the implication is that Beardy might have to remortgage his offshore tax free paradise island if things don't change.

So they change. Beardy and his gay-bashing best friend get let off most of the premiums, given that the franchise (as always) was back-loaded. And then gets a new franchise- without competition- on significantly more preferential terms,

If that ISN'T financial assistance, I don't know what the hell is.

If you read this thread, you’ll know VTEC is Virgin in name only in practical terms. I know Branson bashing is a fun sport, but you need to look at Government failures too. Branson really had no choice but to defend his company as the left wing media seeks to trash its name.