• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

Status
Not open for further replies.

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
Define the part of London, it's a huge place.
One living in Leyton that teaches in Swiss Cottage.
One living in Bromley that teaches in Kennington.
One living in Kingston that teaches near Heathrow.
One living in Wembley that teaches in Camden.
One living in Forest Gate that teaches in Kentish Town.

As for the midwives:
One living in Stockwell, who is based at the Royal Free in Hampstead.
One living in Walthamstow, also based at the Royal Free.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,806
but it isn't running as many trains as was promised at the timetable change? it doesn't matter how many trains are running now compared to before the timetable change. The question is... are there as many trains running as was promised at the timetable change. If the answer is "no" then the new timetable is a failure by any measure!

But we haven't got a new timetable in operation, what we have got is one suited to the available resources just now. Which is working perfectly well. And will evolve to incorporate what has been promised in the spec of the franchise. The issues recently suffered are now all our yesterday's, but make absolutely no mistake that there will be a delivery of new services and new trains. The industry has had plenty of issues in the past with timetable changes and will continue to do so in the future, that is the reality. I personally expect a 10% year on year increase in passengers on Northern network for the next 5 years. But like your opinion on here as well as mine, it matters not one jot to the railway industry, the only difference is that I am in a better position to actually see what is going on every day
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I see your 2018 car and raise you my 1993 SaaB 900t. Built like a brick 5hithouse with proper thick gauge steel. Impact absorbing bumper and a long bonnet acting as a crumple zone to-gether with window pillars that are strong enough to support it's weight if placed on it's roof.

It may be the case that certain cars were built strong, but you just have to compare crash test videos of a car from 1994 and 2018. Note how in the 1994 model the cabin deflects horribly, but there is next to no deformation of the main body in the 2018 model. Cars have absolutely become safer since 1994, both through improvements in technology and legislation (it's also why cars are far larger than they used to be, for example the Fiesta 5 door has gained 300kg, and almost 200mm in all 3 dimensions)
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
But we haven't got a new timetable in operation, what we have got is one suited to the available resources just now. Which is working perfectly well. And will evolve to incorporate what has been promised in the spec of the franchise. The issues recently suffered are now all our yesterday's, but make absolutely no mistake that there will be a delivery of new services and new trains. The industry has had plenty of issues in the past with timetable changes and will continue to do so in the future, that is the reality. I personally expect a 10% year on year increase in passengers on Northern network for the next 5 years. But like your opinion on here as well as mine, it matters not one jot to the railway industry, the only difference is that I am in a better position to actually see what is going on every day
oh? so you are telling me that all the news items about the failure of the new Northern timetables were absolute hogwash then?

the fact is that Northern have deemed it neccessary to introduce an emergency timetable. If the new timetable was such a success why have they done that?
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,806
oh? so you are telling me that all the news items about the failure of the new Northern timetables were absolute hogwash then?

the fact is that Northern have deemed it neccessary to introduce an emergency timetable. If the new timetable was such a success why have they done that?


Suggest you re read my posts.

On Monday, there is a TSC meeting on this which is live on parliament TV. Suggest you watch it, then you might learn what really happened rather than all the drama potrayed by the media.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
Suggest you re read my posts.

On Monday, there is a TSC meeting on this which is live on parliament TV. Suggest you watch it, then you might learn what really happened rather than all the drama potrayed by the media.
it's a simple set of questions really:

did Northern have a new timetable which didn't work?
when it failed to work did they introduce an emergency timetable?
if so, are there less trains in the new emergency timetable compared to the planned new timetable?

having read your posts, and listened to others, including media I suggest that the answer to all 3 questions is yes

therefore the new timetable was a failure. No matter how much spin you want to put on it, it is a fact that Northern's new timetable is a failure! you can't have your cake and eat it.

I will concede, however, that Northern has responded more effectively to the failure of it's timetable than Thameslink has. I'll further concede that Northern's failure hasn't been as big as Thameslink's... despite Northern hitting the headlines more than Thameslink {despite the oft quoted "Londoncentricity" of the media!}
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,937
Location
Mold, Clwyd
ok... so the board of directors were answerable to the relevant secretary of state... who in turn was appointed by the Prime Minister... who got that position by being the leader of the majority party.... which was decided by who? oh yes the electorate... if the electorate was unhappy with the way that profits were being spent by the treasury {also appointed by the PM} then they could demand change through the ballot box. At the end of the day, no matter how you want to think differently, a nationalised industry is owned by the people... therefore my argument still stands... privatisation amounted to selling you something you already owned!

The railway was sold by its owners (HMG) in 1996 for something like £5 billion (Railtrack, rolling stock, freight etc), to pay down public debt.
Railtrack came back into public control by default after 5 years or so, and the shareholders (you and me, mostly) lost out.
The passenger operation was not sold, only franchised, so we still own it.
It's just that HMG decides every 7 years or so what to do with the asset for the best return.
Reversing all this completely will put up the public debt by a significantly higher amount, which is why I don't think it will happen in the way people are assuming.
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
2,047
BR was one big resource. You cannot argue that as one big lump it helped that everyone was reading from the same page, had the same objective and all problems were overcome by pulling together. Failed train? Loco comes from a depot a short distance away and pulls it home. Freight terminal sitting on 85 spare locos? Share them with a depot that has ran dry.

From a passengers stand point, you could buy a ticket at a reasonable price any time of any day.

Although the failure rate of trains was high under BR, the contingency was that they had a lot more trains to begin with. Take the Bedford Bletchley line for example. In BR days if a train failed, they would pull a 31 out of a depot and bolt it on the front, job done. These days, the train doesn't run at all.


The problem with a railway is that for most people who commute its a 4th emergency service. The customer needs that service no matter what. Its a life dependent thing on a financial and mental level. To that commuter that service must run whether its profitable or not. If the services in privatization do not meet the expected standard would you expect the profits to go into share holders hands or to be re-invested in the railway? The railway in the UK cannot and should not be ran like an American healthcare service.


The main objectives for re-nationalizing the railway are -

1) To put all money back into the railway
2) Ticketing should be fairly priced and comparable to about 80% of going by car

I think just hitting those 2 would make a big difference.

Putting all freight locos into a leasing format and taking whatever you want is also the way forward. Having this in the private sector has seen assets go to waste when they could have been used by the competition.
 

Iron Duke

Member
Joined
24 May 2018
Messages
8
Just imagine what a mess RMT would make for passengers if the railways were re-nationalised.
I think privatisation gave ASLEF in particular but also RMT a boost as they are able to pick-off individual companies who may well be forced to give a lot more than they would otherwise do in a nationalised railway.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
I suppose many people object to any private corporate enterprise taking a profit from a public service on principle. Many would rather see it run in a not for profit fashion for moral and ethical reasons.

It may be that profits can be just two or three percent but this ends up adding up to millions upon millions in many cases.

Then there's the issue of some other state Railways having a stake in British TOCs when our own state can't or won't bid themselves for franchises.
 
Last edited:

DanDaDriver

Member
Joined
5 May 2018
Messages
338
The problem with a railway is that for most people who commute its a 4th emergency service. The customer needs that service no matter what. Its a life dependent thing on a financial and mental level. To that commuter that service must run whether its profitable or not.

Then re-nationalise the gas and electricity companies.

Nationalise all supermarkets and farms.

Nationalise the pharmaceutical industry.

Nationalise all house building.

Arguably all more important things than a delayed or crowded train.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
I suppose many people object to any private corporate enterprise taking a profit from a public service on principle.
The railways were all built as private corporate enterprises, and remained so from 1825 to 1948. Did they magically become a public service upon nationalisation? Or were they already, but run by private companies?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,937
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The private railways pre-1948 were always highly regulated though, certainly in terms of rates and fares, and safety legislation.
They were under virtual state control during both world wars, when development and maintenance was largely abandoned.
The modern TOCs are similarly heavily regulated, to the point of being micro-managed by DfT and ORR.
They are very far from being the free-market swashbuckling fat-cat image portrayed by the media.
There are no George Hudsons today.
In some ways BR had more freedom of movement than a modern franchised TOC, within its very vague terms of reference.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
The railways were all built as private corporate enterprises, and remained so from 1825 to 1948. Did they magically become a public service upon nationalisation? Or were they already, but run by private companies?

Obviously they were public services before that. But one would imagine that as time went on the public desire was for them to be state owned and run hence that happened.

Historic private ownership only has so much relevance as regards pre 1948 as just because something was the case historically doesn't mean it was it's best in the past. Hence all the things that were once banned that are now legal and we now know shouldn't have been banned previously. And previous attitudes to health and safety etc where death was an accepted occupational hazard is no longer accepted as we now know better.

According to stats reported by the media and polls the desire once again seems to have shifted to the public wanting the railway operators to be nationalised again.

So presumably if we had a referendum on that tomorrow, the railways would once again be nationalised by the vote.
 
Last edited:

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
Obviously they were public services before that. But one would imagine that as time went on the public desire was for them to be state owned and run hence that happened.
But that isn't why they were nationalised. They'd been under state control during WW2, were in a parlous state because of a) the damage they'd sustained, b) the lack of staff they had because of war casualties, and c) were barely profitable even before the war, and the Big 4 were basically begging the Government to take over.
 

sbt

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2011
Messages
268
Parking prices too.

Or choose the train because road congestion is so chronic in some places. (Essentially why rail commuting to London is pretty much a de-facto captive market).

Or choose the train because they can't (actually can, I just wouldn't be safe due to my eyesight) drive.

To many people casually assume that everybody can drive and don't even think about the advantages that being able to drive gives them. Employers assume that you can get to meetings at remote locations easily. Colleagues arrange social event's you can't get to.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,937
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Railways were also considered strategic in 1948, "too important to fail" in modern parlance, mainly for their freight capability.
By the 1960s, the railways had stopped being strategic, and became an optional extra, which they remain, apart maybe for London commuting.
The imperatives of 1948 are not there today, and modern transport business models have completely changed.
EasyJet, Stena Line and National Express coaches don't rely on government support for their business.
The railway has to compete for its business today.
 

DanDaDriver

Member
Joined
5 May 2018
Messages
338
So presumably if we had a referendum on that tomorrow, the railways would once again be nationalised by the vote.

Yes, because the government and their friends in the newspapers tell me that all the rail related f*** ups are entirely the fault of rich tax avoiders like Richard Branson and DEFINITELY NOT THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY.

And Jeremy Corbyn tells me that when the glorious state takes the railways away from the bourgeoise that I will instantly get a seat and the fare will be £1 Edinburgh to London. (Prole class obviously, I wouldn’t be eligible for Party Member class.)

I think we’ve seen the mess that happens when we have referendums on things where the public thinks the public knows more than the public knows...
 

sbt

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2011
Messages
268
... and became an optional extra, which they remain, apart maybe for London commuting.

It is now seen, or starting to be seen, as a strategic asset again. The modern world and way of business requires the movement of people and goods in volumes and across mileages that have not been previously seen and are increasing (despite campaigns to, for example, reduce 'Food Miles'). It has been realised that it has become impractical to keep expanding the road network to handle all of this and rail has a part to play, especially since the skies over Northern Europe are basically running out of air and airport space[1] (why do you thing aircraft are getting bigger?).

HS1 and HS2 are just two (arguably flawed, but let's leave that out) examples of this chnage back to regarding rail travel as strategic.

[1] Even seaspace is getting tight in some areas - the English Channel has formal traffic management arrangements in place and collisions and near-collisions are still a problem, and one that is increasing.
 

Iron Duke

Member
Joined
24 May 2018
Messages
8
e 1h
but it isn't running as many trains as was promised at the timetable change? it doesn't matter how many trains are running now compared to before the timetable change. The question is... are there as many trains running as was promised at the timetable change. If the answer is "no" then the new timetable is a failure by any measure!

I was in Morecambe last Saturday travelling to Lancaster and then onward to Manchester.
There was a bus replacement departing at 1030 and another bus at 1115 so I went for the 1030 service.
At 1045 it hadn't arrived and the booking clerk finally announced that it wasn't coming and furthermore
the 1115 bus wasn't either because he said the vehicle had been taken off the road at a vehicle inspection
as being not roadworthy!! Finally got to Lancaster at around 1145 by taxi.

Other passengers with lots of luggage were probably going further than me heaven knows how they went on.
 

Bonemaster

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2006
Messages
323
Location
Coventry
Many of those who argue for nationalisation don't remember what the railways were like as a passenger in that era, in terms of service frequency, reliability, quality or the offerings of new rolling stock. The most despised rolling stock, in pacers, was all that BR could get at the time given the constraints that a publicly owned railway has to live within.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Yes, because the government and their friends in the newspapers tell me that all the rail related f*** ups are entirely the fault of rich tax avoiders like Richard Branson and DEFINITELY NOT THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY.

And Jeremy Corbyn tells me that when the glorious state takes the railways away from the bourgeoise that I will instantly get a seat and the fare will be £1 Edinburgh to London. (Prole class obviously, I wouldn’t be eligible for Party Member class.)

I think we’ve seen the mess that happens when we have referendums on things where the public thinks the public knows more than the public knows...

Well rightly or wrongly and whether any of us agree with it or not the relevant polls seem to be showing the public appetite at the moment is majority for nationalisation of the railways and their opererators.

People can argue and argue whether they think that is the right or wrong opinion to have. Or whether they trust the public, or the customers, but that is the public's point of view at the moment either way. It's democracy we live in by nature so if the appetite becomes that strong sooner or later it will happen when some political party stands strongly for it (one already has)and becomes elected. Whether that be in 4 years or 15 years or 30 years who knows but if public opinion becomes that strong whether us industry types agree it or not it will probably happen.

It's also questionable whether we should let the BR of the past taint a possible future state owned railway operation as well. Who says resource would be starved this time around? Public pressure would have more of a say nowadays.
 
Last edited:

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,023
Just imagine what a mess RMT would make for passengers if the railways were re-nationalised.
I'm sure the Tories would like the railways to be in national hands and run as a public service as it makes sense for the economy.

However if the railways were "nationalised" (i.e. run in-house by the DfT) I have no doubt the unions will just abuse their position and constantly go on strike so the government can be blamed. Sad but true and why no government will ever "nationalise" (i.e. operate services in-house directly as opposed to outsourcing to TOCs who can take the blame) the railways. Corbyn says he would but if the unions believed he bottled a lot of his policies once in power because they are unworkable - they'll soon be gunning for him to get what they want.

The only viable option is for local transport bodies to run services directly like the TfL does as opposed to a "British Rail" company run by the government. But there are only a handful in the country who would be capable of running it effectively - TfGM is probably the only other with the resources to do this effectively. Money is reinvested but the government doesn't get the blame from passengers. A halfway house solution for all if you will.
 
Last edited:
Joined
24 Mar 2009
Messages
592
Then re-nationalise the gas and electricity companies.

Nationalise all supermarkets and farms.

Nationalise the pharmaceutical industry.

Nationalise all house building.

Arguably all more important things than a delayed or crowded train.

Yes, nothing wrong with those suggestions either, comrade. I'd have no problem buying my State Baked Beans from Workers' Collective Supermarket #235, so long as the goods were of acceptable quality and the price was reasonable.

Viva la revolution!
 
Joined
24 Mar 2009
Messages
592
But that isn't why they were nationalised. They'd been under state control during WW2, were in a parlous state because of a) the damage they'd sustained, b) the lack of staff they had because of war casualties, and c) were barely profitable even before the war, and the Big 4 were basically begging the Government to take over.

So the Government effectively bailed out the "fat cats" of the LMS, SR, LNER & GWR then. Just like it's done with GNER, National Express and VTEC.

Plus ca change eh?
 

urbophile

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
2,482
Location
Liverpool
Yes, because the government and their friends in the newspapers tell me that all the rail related f*** ups are entirely the fault of rich tax avoiders like Richard Branson and DEFINITELY NOT THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY.

Governments (especially the present one) are notoriously reluctant to take the blame for their failures. But I don't know which newspapers you are reading (unless perhaps the Guardian): most of them are mouthpieces for rich tax avoiders and hate state involvement in anything.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,691
I'm sure the Tories would like the railways to be in national hands and run as a public service as it makes sense for the economy.

However if the railways were "nationalised" (i.e. run in-house by the DfT) I have no doubt the unions will just abuse their position and constantly go on strike so the government can be blamed. Sad but true and why no government will ever "nationalise" (i.e. operate services in-house directly as opposed to outsourcing to TOCs who can take the blame) the railways. Corbyn says he would but if the unions believed he bottled a lot of his policies once in power because they are unworkable - they'll soon be gunning for him to get what they want.

The only viable option is for local transport bodies to run services directly like the TfL does as opposed to a "British Rail" company run by the government. But there are only a handful in the country who would be capable of running it effectively - TfGM is probably the only other with the resources to do this effectively. Money is reinvested but the government doesn't get the blame from passengers. A halfway house solution for all if you will.

.
If the rail network was so critical to the very well being of the country that it caused it to be nationalised, it would be a good time to also define it as an essential service. Then strikes etc become illegal. More problems solved !
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,060
Location
Reston City Centre
As usual, this thread is more "complaints about the current private set-up" than 'suggestions for a practical nationalisation". For example, if its unethical for trains to be operated by private companies, are you okay with Rail Replacement Buses to be run by private companies? Should all buses that accept Plus Bus tickets be nationalised too? Do we nationalise The Train Line or the M&S Simply Food at your local station?

I think the point of nationalisation of any asset is that, at the moment, any profit goes into the hands of fat cats and shareholders... and people don't see why that should be so. If it's something you have to use, such as gas, electricity, water, transport then the ownership should be public with any profit going straight back into the Government coffers...

The problem with this argument is that rail only makes up five/ten percent of journeys in the UK - it's hardly "essential" on a nationwide scale.

Important, sure, but the vast majority of people don't use heavy rail on a regular basis.

Whereas most people buy milk/ eggs/ meat/ vegetables... should we nationalise farms?

in fact, I think the whole nationalisation debate is being driven by the fact that, now hard ecomomic realities such as arbitary and excessive price hikes have hit home, people now realise what a massive con privatisation was in the first place...

Most of the increase in costs to the railway industry have come from the increases to infrastructure - compare a new platform or a mile of electrification or remodelling a junction with the equivalent cost twenty years ago - its astronomical. Part of that is because we have much higher safety standards, of course, but the public sector Network Rail have run up huge debts - people still blame Stagecoach/ First/ Arriva though!

BR was one big resource. You cannot argue that as one big lump it helped that everyone was reading from the same page, had the same objective and all problems were overcome by pulling together. Failed train? Loco comes from a depot a short distance away and pulls it home. Freight terminal sitting on 85 spare locos? Share them with a depot that has ran dry

All sounds lovely but that wasn't how BR was run for the final decade and that isn't how any nationalised railway would be run in the twenty first century.

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Sodor anymore.

Look at the NHS or schools - they don't simply swap resources around willy-nilly - everything is costed for, everything comes from one budget or another.

1990s BR could swap around resources if it wanted to but you'd have to allocate costs from Railfreight to Provincial if a freight loco was called up to haul a local train.

There's also the issue of staff only being trained on certain types of train and on certain routes - you're not going to just point at a redundant locomotive in a siding and assume that someone will be able to drive it on a certain route. The world is much more complicated nowadays (and will remain so even if nationalised).

The problem with a railway is that for most people who commute its a 4th emergency service. The customer needs that service no matter what. Its a life dependent thing on a financial and mental level.

People who buy lots of products rely on those products - where do you draw the line? Shall we nationalise all taxis, since people rely on them?

Then re-nationalise the gas and electricity companies.

Nationalise all supermarkets and farms.

Nationalise the pharmaceutical industry.

Nationalise all house building.

Arguably all more important things than a delayed or crowded train.

True.

The railways were all built as private corporate enterprises, and remained so from 1825 to 1948. Did they magically become a public service upon nationalisation? Or were they already, but run by private companies?

I think they magically became a "public service" when people were trying to find an excuse not to close their local branchline in the 1960s.

According to stats reported by the media and polls the desire once again seems to have shifted to the public wanting the railway operators to be nationalised again.

So presumably if we had a referendum on that tomorrow, the railways would once again be nationalised by the vote.

Polls show that "the public" want lots of things that politicians don't suggest. The Death Penalty for one. Do you want to go down that road towards lynch mobs?

It's also questionable whether we should let the BR of the past taint a possible future state owned railway operation as well. Who says resource would be starved this time around? Public pressure would have more of a say nowadays.

The Government can face down Police Officers, Teachers, Fire Fighters and Doctors and Librarians because they are weak (compared to the state).

So Austerity has seen big cuts to essential public services - tens of thousands of fewer public servants in these essential roles.

Are you telling me that a Government willing to see crime rise as a price to pay for removing front line policing would be trusted to keep rural branch lines open? Sorry pupil funding is going down in real terms and we don't have enough trained Doctors to keep patients alive, but we'll keep funding the Heart Of Wales?

Without the muscle of Stagecoach/ First etc, rail would be at the mercy of Government cuts, left right and centre.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
something everyone seems to be missing in this debate.... if, according to Trump having home grown steel is a matter of national security then surely having an integrated rail system under government control is even more so... Imagine if the railways were as they are now at the beginning of WW2... we'd effectively have been handing money hand over fist to Hitler for him to re-arm!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top