Should the railways be Re-Nationalised ??

[Meld]

A simple question - feel free to post your reasoning

 

[ungreat]

Yes..one company,sole responsibilty for everything instead of this ridiculous fragmentation and blame shifting whenever anything goes tits up

Having worked for BR and then various other colour schemes that take over a particular section,I can honestly say bring back BR

 

[Respite]

Yes. As said above, try working on the railway these days after BR & you can easily see why!

 

[me123]

Hmm... the big question. I don't think they should. The franchised system allows for greater investment in theory from external companies and, again purely theoretically, competition on some routes should encourage each TOC to strive towards the highest standards.

However, I would allow companies to run franchises for longer periods of time: more like 20-30 years. This would encourage them to spend the money to improve the railways and modernise the network. The current system allows only a few years franchising IIRC before extentions, hence the TOCs do not invest in new trains as they may not see the benefits of their investment.

In short, I like the current system but I do feel there are major flaws that need corrected if we are going to make rail travel a competative option for travellers in the future. As a result, I don't say that they should be left alone, rather the current system rethought to allow a better implimentation.

I'm sure most of you will know that this is an observers POV, and drivers and staff may have reasons for nationalisation that I have not taken into consideration.

 

[Respite]

Right the next person who clicks option 2 or 3 will be dragged onto a month's work experience on whats left of our railways, you can not seriously believe the crap the DFT give out, do you not understand how the railway works now??? They don't give a sh*t about you as passengers, they make you feel you are important but they dont care that you need to get from point A to point B, you will get from point A to any point they declare, maybe by bus at certain times. The most important thing to them is PR, the company image endoresed in vulgar lairy graphics & corporate image....... Freight, well yeah all the companys fight for the big juicy contracts, but no one gives a rats arse for the smaller fish. Privatisation is lying to you, it's lying to the whole country. I'm stuck in a job where I know I could make a difference only to find out that I can't because I find that all the managers of all the companys don't care what is happening, it is not about a public service, it's making it look like there is a service & taking the grant for that!

I'm sure a lot of people will come along & start to quote how we are better off with privatisation, how the railways are safer now from closure etc etc..... Ok well you come down here & work on what we have left, maybe take a trip back in time & see what we had before the tories screwed us over big time. The thing thats annoys me is we as the railways could clean up over road transport in this day & age, but the DFT, private company/owners just shoot us in the foot everytime. Makes you feel that they really dont care at all about this, it's just something they are trying to squeeze money out of.

 

[Daniel]

Voted for the second option, as IMO the passenger side of todays railway is shocking, but from my view freight seems ok, (if a little dead at the moment)!

Now, GhostCav, wheres that work experience? 8)

the next person who clicks option 2 or 3 will be dragged onto a month's work experience on whats left of our railways,

 

[me123]

Right the next person who clicks option 2 or 3 will be dragged onto a month's work experience on whats left of our railways, you can not seriously believe the crap the DFT give out, do you not understand how the railway works now??? They don't give a sh*t about you as passengers, they make you feel you are important but they dont care that you need to get from point A to point B, you will get from point A to any point they declare, maybe by bus at certain times. The most important thing to them is PR, the company image endoresed in vulgar lairy graphics & corporate image.......

I would be happy for a month's WE, could you arrange it? I did mention that I have little knowledge of what goes on in the staffing sector, and I would agree with you in that one of the flaws in privitisation is the profit-centric thinking which seems to have taken over recently in the railways. I don't see that passengers are treated badly and like a number, but that could just be my local franchises or, as you suggest, the wool that has been pulled over my eyes.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Everything should be under one roof, but it won't happen.

 

[paul1609]

From a passenger point of view I say no to re-nationalisation.
Miserable weekends stranded in Plymouth because of frequent strike action, being stranded for hours on end because of clapped out locomotives, catering that just never turned up are my main memories of the BR era. I would however break up Network Rail and introduce vertically integrated companies on a Regional Basis.

 

[wjp]

Highest number of passenger journeys since 1946, despite the price suggests that something works. As for the comments that the DfT doesn't give a s%$*, I'm not sure the RMT are particularly fussed either (continual threats of strike action on FGW due to the use of managers - who can at least be bothered to turn up to work - to staff trains etc).

 

[richa2002]

Highest number of passenger journeys since 1946, despite the price suggests that something works. As for the comments that the DfT doesn't give a s%$*, I'm not sure the RMT are particularly fussed either (continual threats of strike action on FGW due to the use of managers - who can at least be bothered to turn up to work - to staff trains etc).

Highest number of passengers yet with a fraction of the network, no wonder it's so crowded!

 

[Metroland]

I agree with Paul. There was a lot wrong with BR, it wasn’t especially customer orientated and not all that innovative on the customer service side. Nationalised companies think they have an automatic right to exist.

However, engineering wise, BR research at Derby did come up with some amazing things. R&D really sucks on the UK side since privatisation, although Network Rail is starting to do some interesting projects.

If you look at the most successful private railways, namely US rail freight and Japan, they are vertically integrated and have good cost control. Train and track go hand-in-hand, as by nature they are tightly bound.

There is far too much consultation and red tape with the current system. If Virgin has aspirations to run say and extra train per hour from London to Liverpool, they not only consult Network Rail, but all the quangos like the ORR, DfT and followed by the other train operating companies who may or may not have objections. This is hugely management intensive, with endless meetings and processes, when in a vertically integrated organisation the company can move in and do the necessary saving an awful lot of time and money. Because they are in for the long haul, it is also in their interests to make it work. This is especially relevant in the face of competition from other modes of transport, which pose a much greater threat to business viability than any of the other TOCs and provide choices for travellers. Its ironic some of the TOCs run competing coach and rail services. Nevertheless, on key flows there is often still competition between rail operators in any case. A good example would be London-Birmingham or Exeter.

If there was evidence that the current system had brought down costs and provided a better service for the passenger I’d be in support of it. But there is no evidence it has. Indeed, it is 4 times less efficient than BR, an organisation that was supposed to be monolithic and customer unfriendly. It is so inefficient in the face of massive road congestion and $135 oil it seems unable to respond to changing economic needs where it should be strong, thus denying the population of any Plan B. I think I read for every £100 Network Rail spends less than £2 ends up on kit on the ground. The explanation is these hugely expensive management interfaces between the companies.

The current system doesn’t seem to be able to plan. There is no evidence civil servants respond well to day-to-day needs, or have the business sense or technical ability to respond to long term ones. A good example is HST 2, why on earth are we looking at diesel trains right now? One geopolitical event at the moment could not only send fuel prices sky high but create physical shortages! BR would have electrified, as it did in the 80s. I dare say a long term regional company would have had an investment motivation and the technical ability to engineer a solution and with lower costs and they could just get on and do the job. Meanwhile, at least one bidder has pulled out of HST 2 because of the technical requirements. Most of the TOCs do not have the engineering skills to respond to the need for sensible new designs and rely on outside expertise, which care little about the situation in 30 years.

We can see with the debacle between GC and National Express East cost hasn’t done anything to make it easier for passenger, and clearly other companies on the line or doing much to prevent the introduction of competition that’s desired.

The main objectors to a vertically integrated regional railway could well be freight operators, who could take the form of freight department within these regional firms or open access on top. Nevertheless, in practice, they could respond much more quickly with infrastructure upgrades at a lower cost and would have a greater say over pathing. I don’t buy the argument about Network Rails buying power, because regional companies buying from the same suppliers could bring down prices as they force them to innovate because system is much more responsive to day-to-day needs as they do in Japan and America where unit costs are a fraction of what they are here.The reality is in practice, BR regions and Network rail zones have their own management practices and structures - so the complexity of running a train cross country would be little different, and a lot simpler within a region itself.

 

[Spaceflower]

What the fook is a train anyway?

 

[NSEFAN]

I wouldn't mind a privatised railway: it's just the way in which it was privatised. It would have been better to keep everything together as one company.

The idea that two separate lines can compete is mad. Surely the railway's greatest competitors are the airlines and the roads?

 

[Spaceflower]

The idea that two separate lines can compete is mad. Surely the railway's greatest competitors are the airlines and the roads?

The same thing can be said for the regions as a whole, can it not?

 

[jopsuk]

.

The idea that two separate lines can compete is mad.

Quite- the only worse privitisation in this country is that of water, where there is no competition whatsoever.

You're right though, there's very few journies in this country where passengers have an actual choice between different companies- and where that choice is meaningful. There's a few routes where several companies run services- Cambridge-Ely for example- but passengers are unlikely to make a concious choice as to which company they use; they'll just use the service at the right time for them, as the price is no different whether you get an FCC, NXEA or XC service.

South from Cambridge, to central London, there is a genuine choice- an "any" ticket will allow you to use the FCC Flyer to Kings Cross, but if you're not in so much of a hurry, NXEA offer cheaper tickets to Liverpool Street. But this is a rare situation- I suppose London-Glasgow is somewhat similar, with VWC v NXEC being a geniune choice of fares and timings.

 

[ungreat]

Right the next person who clicks option 2 or 3 will be dragged onto a month's work experience on whats left of our railways, you can not seriously believe the crap the DFT give out, do you not understand how the railway works now??? They don't give a sh*t about you as passengers, they make you feel you are important but they dont care that you need to get from point A to point B, you will get from point A to any point they declare, maybe by bus at certain times. The most important thing to them is PR, the company image endoresed in vulgar lairy graphics & corporate image....... Freight, well yeah all the companys fight for the big juicy contracts, but no one gives a rats arse for the smaller fish. Privatisation is lying to you, it's lying to the whole country. I'm stuck in a job where I know I could make a difference only to find out that I can't because I find that all the managers of all the companys don't care what is happening, it is not about a public service, it's making it look like there is a service & taking the grant for that!

I'm sure a lot of people will come along & start to quote how we are better off with privatisation, how the railways are safer now from closure etc etc..... Ok well you come down here & work on what we have left, maybe take a trip back in time & see what we had before the tories screwed us over big time. The thing thats annoys me is we as the railways could clean up over road transport in this day & age, but the DFT, private company/owners just shoot us in the foot everytime. Makes you feel that they really dont care at all about this, it's just something they are trying to squeeze money out of.

That about sums it up for me..sort of what i was thinking at the time,but too tired to post it

 

[Spaceflower]

me too. and its not just confined to the railways.

 

[Z12XE]

I wonder how long its going to be before we start getting GNER type hand backs or Connex/SET type setups. Which is nothing more than nationalisation by the back door

With a dowturn in economy, and costs for everything going up, people will not be able to afford leisure travel, and a lot of the 'new' tocs (i.e those franchied from 2004 onwards) are contracted on large % increase in passengers per year.
Plus we now hear that one of these TOCs is starting to see a slowdown in passenger growth........

 

[Metroland]

While it is possible that a slow down could mean a drop in demand, it has to be remembered the costs for competing transport are going up far faster - which could mean a modal shift, but we shall have to see.

Unfortunately the market is far from perfect and doesn't account for the way society has been interfered with through public policy: IE building a lot of out of town shopping and sprawl and induced diffuse commutes which doesn't make PT very attractive.

That said, even in sprawling Los Angeles rail use has increased by 14% in one year.

 

[Z12XE]

While it is possible that a slow down could mean a drop in demand, it has to be remembered the costs for competing transport are going up far faster - which could mean a modal shift, but we shall have to see.

True - but thats long term.

Now we're talking about people making the choice to put 40 litres of petrol in their car and making lots of essential trips with it or spending that money on a trip to the seaside or London on the train.

 

[Metroland]

Well as I said, we shall have to see. There's a lot of two/three car families that may well get rid of one of those vehicles and travel by other modes. I'll be quite honest with you, if petrol goes up past £1.50 (which it may well do in the autumn) I won't be buying another [petrol] car, the cost is just not worth the convenience.

At the same time, you are right about leisure travel and all the evidence is fuel demand doesn't go down until it hits very high prices elsewhere and with less money to spend it is going to affect highly discretionary journeys first.

Interestingly I heard someone has done a 'mood of the nature' map of the UK, which isn't good at the moment, with fuel prices being cited as the biggest concern - except in London and other major conurbations where PT use is high. It's very rural areas that get hit most, and mostly rail doesn't serve these very outlying areas. Feel sorry for those in the highlands and islands paying £1.44 litre already and on low incomes..

 

[Spaceflower]

yeah, well, i dont live in a rural area and theres very few places i can go by train. besides is £5 bus fare to the railway station.

 

[dave12435]

my idea would be to nationalise but to franchise it out so one company operated the whole lot

 

[Spaceflower]

My idea would be similar to today, with longer franchises and different yet stricter performance targets set for each toc, but what targets?:???:

 

[Nick W]

While it is possible that a slow down could mean a drop in demand, it has to be remembered the costs for competing transport are going up far faster - which could mean a modal shift, but we shall have to see.

"Thanks" to the fact that about 1/3 of the cost of fuel is tax and the fact that political parties aim to be "popular", car travel won't be costing much more.

Unfortunately no one is willing to block level crossings with tractors when rail fares go up.

Unfortunately the market is far from perfect and doesn't account for the way society has been interfered with through public policy: IE building a lot of out of town shopping and sprawl and induced diffuse commutes which doesn't make PT very attractive.

Although hopefully more people will shop online especially if giving up their cars.

 

[Metroland]

"Thanks" to the fact that about 1/3 of the cost of fuel is tax and the fact that political parties aim to be "popular", car travel won't be costing much more.

You reckon? From where I'm standing I can't see where they are going to get the money from. More to the point, if taxes are cut, demand rises, and with a couple of years, you'll be back to were you started. Then what? The only [intelligent] solution is policy changes designed to address the demand side and that's what they've been advised by the IEA.

Unfortunately no one is willing to block level crossings with tractors when rail fares go up.

Just as well, we're civilised here, not like the French.

Although hopefully more people will shop online especially if giving up their cars.

That's one big advantage we have. I'd be in favour of central rail served depots with goods being delivered by electric vans.

 

[P156KWJ]

yes they should. even heritage lines can struggle for freight movements etc.
for example: we pay a damn sight more these days to move vehicles from main line sites by rail to preserved lines, as we will end up paying either Advenza, Cotswold rail or First GBRf more than if someone like RfD did it if they were around still. as a result, 95% of vehicles arriving at the GCRN now come by road. the only ones /i can remember that came behind a GBRf 66 were the 7 gatwick express coaches and the SWT 421CIG

 

[adamp]

Bring BR back.
Would it ever happen? and why not?

...if I became a driver Id be able to drive EVERYTHING then ha...not.