Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[Moonshot]

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!

Go and read post 2 in this thread

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Go and read post 2 in this thread

and that answers my question how?

 

[nottsnurse]

Which, if we now had a nationalised industry, would have been national strikes.

Highly unlikely without repealing the Trade Union Act 2016.

Getting 50% of union members who work for a TOC to vote is one thing, getting 50% of a national workforce to vote is quite another, especially if the issue is a very local one.

Without repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 customers would likely experience fewer rail strikes with a nationalised railway than they currently do under the 'wonderful' franchise system.

But you know, boo re-nationalisation eh?

 

[yorksrob]

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.

That's a very unbalanced view of rollong stock history.

Yes, the despised pacers were introduced by BR due to financial constraints. But they also introduced much better rolling stock, both before and after pacers. From CIG´s and mk 3´s and TPE DMU´s before pacers to 156´s, 158´s, 442´s and mk 4´s afterwards.

In terms of comfort, volume, reliability and cost, BR´s record on rolling stock introduction stands up well in comparison to any period of the railway´s history.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

That's a very unbalanced view of rollong stock history.

Yes, the despised pacers were introduced by BR due to financial constraints. But they also introduced much better rolling stock, both before and after pacers. From CIG´s and mk 3´s and TPE DMU´s before pacers to 156´s, 158´s, 442´s and mk 4´s afterwards.

In terms of comfort, volume, reliability and cost, BR´s record on rolling stock introduction stands up well in comparison to any period of the railway´s history.

BR of course , wished to expand the 125 fleet to give a much better coverage on the second tier Inter City Routes (Midland Main Line being one) , as well as to provide a better Regional Railways service "offer" - there were well developed MK5 plans in the early 1990's for both West and East Coast lines.

Cheese paring DfT officials of course knocked these back , second guessing BR commercial and operating experts , and the Treasury of course supported the (by and large anti-rail DfT) , whilst BR did some low cost refreshing of the better first generation DMU stock , they had no real wish to persue the 141/142 option , but were forced into it.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

BR of course , wished to expand the 125 fleet to give a much better coverage on the second tier Inter City Routes (Midland Main Line being one) , as well as to provide a better Regional Railways service "offer" - there were well developed MK5 plans in the early 1990's for both West and East Coast lines.

Cheese paring DfT officials of course knocked these back , second guessing BR commercial and operating experts , and the Treasury of course supported the (by and large anti-rail DfT) , whilst BR did some low cost refreshing of the better first generation DMU stock , they had no real wish to persue the 141/142 option , but were forced into it.

and of course let's not forget the original Thameslink programme which was a success from day 1 of operation...unlike this present privatised shambles!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

and of course let's not forget the original Thameslink programme which was a success from day 1 of operation...unlike this present privatised shambles!

Pleased to say I travelled on the very first 319 on the Wimbledon loop (from Haydon's Road) , transformed the service from scruffy 4EPB's (poorly loaded off peak) to Holborn Viaduct.

 

[bramling]

and of course let's not forget the original Thameslink programme which was a success from day 1 of operation...unlike this present privatised shambles!

Depends how you define success. Back in the 1990s the service to St Albans from KX Thameslink was 4tph non-stop and 4tph all stations. Yet so often I waited half an hour for a train. And it was pretty common for the service to be completely up the wall such that it was necessary to find another route. I distinctly recall many St Albans folk held Thameslink in poor regard for various reasons.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Depends how you define success. Back in the 1990s the service to St Albans from KX Thameslink was 4tph non-stop and 4tph all stations. Yet so often I waited half an hour for a train. And it was pretty common for the service to be completely up the wall such that it was necessary to find another route.

hmm... but then again, being a regular user from Luton at the time I can honestly say that I never ever suffered a cancellation... and even being more than a few minutes late was a rarity! and let's be honest there is no comparison between the minor problems back then compared to the absolute shambles that has unfolded over the last few weeks is there?

 

[thenorthern]

One thing to remember as well is that British Rail existed in a world before devolution not just in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but also in London, Merseyside, The West Midlands and Greater Manchester. While some regions are obvious such as MerseryRail being run by the Liverpool City Region and London Overground being run by the Greater London Authority other areas would be less clear such as would Govia Thameslink be a joint GLA - Westminster operation and what about the West Coast Main Line services.

 

[pt_mad]

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!

Private train operators with some big shares owned by other state operated railways whereas we can't bid as a state ourselves. Does seem a bit bizarre.

We live in a nation where majority rules so if the appetite becomes strong enough and if this were to actually be at the top of most voters' agenda (it isn't, but if for whatever reason in five years time it is) and one major political party, you know the one, were to stand on a manifesto of full renationalisation of the railways (they are doing) then theres every chance it could happen.

What strong objectors would do then I don't know? Leave employment in the railways? Refuse to travel on them? Or get on board and support the change? Would they support the new regional operators or would they demand for the reinstatement of the private train operating companies as soon as possible? Would those running the railways get on board and support running the operators under the new structure of state ownership? Would they be able to speak out against the new state owners and support reprivatisation? And would they be in charge if they did?

Would those who did not vote for a political party supporting nationalisation (if the party they voted for lost the election), would they have faith in the majority of voters and get behind it or would they insist they (the majority) were wrong as they have no industry expertise?

Food for thought.

 

[The Ham]

No, I'm suggesting that when thinking of a career, it's something that people should consider more.

The problem is the world has changed quite a lot in the last 20 years, let alone over the circa 40-50 years that people work for.

If someone started work in 1990 their choice of employment could be different to what would be available now. However, even if they made a decision to take a local job then it could be that they now have to live a long way from where they live.

 

[The Ham]

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.

How do you propose putting all the money back into the railway when the ROSCO's exist?

How do you define the cost of taking the car? Many on here define it as fuel costs, so upto 15p per mile. Alternatively do you take it as the amount you can claim tax free for business milage, at 45p per mile.

12p per mile would mean that the trains were so popular that it would nearly be impossible to use them due to being so busy (and would leave no money to invest), at 36p per mile there would be a lot of train tickets (including some off peak tickets) which would be more expensive. Although there would be some that be cheaper.

 

[yorksrob]

BR of course , wished to expand the 125 fleet to give a much better coverage on the second tier Inter City Routes (Midland Main Line being one) , as well as to provide a better Regional Railways service "offer" - there were well developed MK5 plans in the early 1990's for both West and East Coast lines.

Cheese paring DfT officials of course knocked these back , second guessing BR commercial and operating experts , and the Treasury of course supported the (by and large anti-rail DfT) , whilst BR did some low cost refreshing of the better first generation DMU stock , they had no real wish to persue the 141/142 option , but were forced into it.

Indeed. Similar story to the missing trans-pennine 185 carriages during the privatised era.

In terms of the current railway, yes it gets the job done (most of the time) and there are definately some improvements in the pipeline (I've made use myself of some of the enhanced timetable improvements certainly East of the Pennines).

But we shouldn't kid ourselves that there aren't some real issues with value for money when it comes to fares. Yes we have some very competitive advanced fares on some routes, but I think these are used as a bit of a fig leaf for poor value on many medium distance walk up fares for the types of journeys one wouldn't expect to plan months in advance. In these circumstances, why shouldn't passengers look to less 'commercial' systems where the whole population has the option of a railcard, or where an annual season ticket provides country wide travel.

In terms of fares I think there needs to be a rethink in terms of National policy, as well as more of a guiding mind in terms of the management of the railway which needs to go beyond tinkering with the current commercial interests.

In my view, aside from who owns it, the very worst thing that could happen to the railway politically would be for it to become the "rich man's toy" that Phillip Hammond once alluded to.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

hmm... but then again, being a regular user from Luton at the time I can honestly say that I never ever suffered a cancellation... and even being more than a few minutes late was a rarity! and let's be honest there is no comparison between the minor problems back then compared to the absolute shambles that has unfolded over the last few weeks is there?

You don't remember the DOO dispute that preceded Thameslink, keeping new 317s in the sidings for months?
Or the awful quality of the BedPan line DMUs (or LT&S EMUs)? Misery lines both.

 

[yorksrob]

You don't remember the DOO dispute that preceded Thameslink, keeping new 317s in the sidings for months?
Or the awful quality of the BedPan line DMUs (or LT&S EMUs)? Misery lines both.

LT&S EMU's were getting on for forty years old at the time of the 'Misery Line' tag and were unsurprisingly showing their age. Nevertheless that doesn't mean to say that they didn't provide reliable and comfortable service for several decades from when they were built. Problems on that route were exacerbated by an even older signalling system, which is why it was next in line to have one of Network SouthEast's total route modernisation programmes, which would have seen a massive improvement without privatisation.

 

[geoffk]

One thing to remember as well is that British Rail existed in a world before devolution not just in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but also in London, Merseyside, The West Midlands and Greater Manchester. While some regions are obvious such as MerseryRail being run by the Liverpool City Region and London Overground being run by the Greater London Authority other areas would be less clear such as would Govia Thameslink be a joint GLA - Westminster operation and what about the West Coast Main Line services.

One thing we can probably agree on is that the Government is far more closely involved in running the railways now than they ever were under BR. Decisions which used to be made by railway professionals are now made by civil servants - from specifying the timetable to deciding what rolling stock goes where and fiddling with the franchise map. There is no champion of the railways who is a well-known figure like Sir Peter Parker or the two Bob Reids. The English regions have not shared the success of the devolved rail systems in London, Scotland, Wales and Merseyside in reopening lines and stations and (in the case of Scotland) a rolling programme of electrification. The only part of the rail system which is fully "private" is rolling stock ownership. The ROSCOs make a lot of money and in 2006 they were investigated by the OFT but nothing seems to have come of it.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

LT&S EMU's were getting on for forty years old at the time of the 'Misery Line' tag and were unsurprisingly showing their age. Nevertheless that doesn't mean to say that they didn't provide reliable and comfortable service for several decades from when they were built. Problems on that route were exacerbated by an even older signalling system, which is why it was next in line to have one of Network SouthEast's total route modernisation programmes, which would have seen a massive improvement without privatisation.

The LT+S also did not have a carriage washer in those days at Shoeburyness (where a vast % of the stock berthed overnight) , hence the poor external condition, low off peak loadings also contributed to some serious internal vandalism.

The Inner Kent Lines also had indifferent carriage washing , + compartments. (until the Networkers came along - a fleet that was allowed to be trashed by the Connex regime of not spending any money above the solebar on cleaning etc) - mind you it cost them in the long run.

NSE with "Operation Sparkle" made a good effort at improving the ambience of stock , forcing local management to up their game on train presentation , with carriage cleaning becoming less of a penal sentence and a more important role in service provision.

The LT+S was (after Chiltern) to be the next total route upgrade bus we know what happened to delay that.

 

[yorksrob]

The LT+S also did not have a carriage washer in those days at Shoeburyness (where a vast % of the stock berthed overnight) , hence the poor external condition, low off peak loadings also contributed to some serious internal vandalism.

The Inner Kent Lines also had indifferent carriage washing , + compartments. (until the Networkers came along - a fleet that was allowed to be trashed by the Connex regime of not spending any money above the solebar on cleaning etc) - mind you it cost them in the long run.

NSE with "Operation Sparkle" made a good effort at improving the ambience of stock , forcing local management to up their game on train presentation , with carriage cleaning becoming less of a penal sentence and a more important role in service provision.

The LT+S was (after Chiltern) to be the next total route upgrade bus we know what happened to delay that.

The inner Kent EPB's never struck me as particularly dirty, and the facelifted ones seemed positively light and airey. But that may have something to do with the never ending hosepipe bans in Kent at around that time which meant that the CEP's and VEP's often had a coating of grime.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, lots of them.

In particular calls for Virgin and DB AG to get involved...

 

[Bletchleyite]

BR of course , wished to expand the 125 fleet to give a much better coverage on the second tier Inter City Routes (Midland Main Line being one) , as well as to provide a better Regional Railways service "offer" - there were well developed MK5 plans in the early 1990's for both West and East Coast lines.

Cheese paring DfT officials of course knocked these back , second guessing BR commercial and operating experts , and the Treasury of course supported the (by and large anti-rail DfT) , whilst BR did some low cost refreshing of the better first generation DMU stock , they had no real wish to persue the 141/142 option , but were forced into it.

They wanted the 210, basically a diesel 455, but didn’t get it as it was too expensive.

 

[B&I]

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.

But what if the sudden post-privatisation splurge of public money had been available pre-privatisation ? It is the perversity of British politicians and civil servants which held the railway back under BR, not the fact of nationalisation

 

[Moonshot]

But what if the sudden post-privatisation splurge of public money had been available pre-privatisation ? It is the perversity of British politicians and civil servants which held the railway back under BR, not the fact of nationalisation

BR were replacing actual rail at the rate of 1% per year when it should have been 2%. Then when a rail disaster happened at Hatfield, it was decided to significantly up the rate of replacement because of the safety implications.

 

[Rail Blues]

Yes today’s “DB” is very much a shambles in alarmingly similar ways to our system. It’s been balkanised to death in the name of competition. Those who hold up the old DB are talking of a very different system that was far, far better - when it was all one that actually worked as a system.

I wonder people mention how wonderful French and German railways are if they're comparing like with like. They'll travel on the TGV or ICE but generally won't get the German or French equivalent of the 8am commuter service they get every working day in the UK.

In principle I strongly support nationalisation, but wonder if the system is too entrenched now that a full scale renationalised system is viable even in the medium term. I bemoan the political cowardice and the craven attitude to big business shown by New Labour who changed their policy either shottls before or after the 1997 election.

 

[B&I]

No matter how strong the arguments for nationalisation, some of those displayed against it here are absolutely comical. From 'we need private companies to continue demanding vast state subsidy or the government will stop investing in the railways' to 'if you nationalise the railways you'll have to nationalise taxis, egg production and duvet sales as well' to 'I hate the unions' to 'I hate Corbyn' to 'there's no point as most people drive anyway' to 'railways should remain private because they were up until 1948' to 'it would just be like the LT&S c 1990' to 'it couldn't possibly be anything like a unified single rail company in the 21st century' to 'if you accede to public support for this you'll have to bring the death penalty back'.

I've yet to see a single argument advanced to explain how a privatised railway actually leads to a better, more efficient service.

 

[DanDaDriver]

I’d argue that the public misconception of the “greedy, profligate, fatcat TOC’s,” (that it suits the RMT to argue) would be better directed at the ROSCO’s.

BR would have made its money back hundreds of times over on a 153 for example. They’d be paying for their own maintainance and then some by now.

Whereas HSBC or whoever is making X£100,000 p/a off leasing clapped out rolling stock they don’t even maintain themselves!

 

[DanDaDriver]

[QUOTE="B&I, post: 3511012, member: 58909] I've yet to see a single argument advanced to explain how a privatised railway actually leads to a better, more efficient service.[/QUOTE]

And vice versa.

Other than “I like the trains we had in the 70’s when everything was cheaper, you could leave your door open all night and we had proper milkmen and bobbies on the beat. You tell the kids of today that and they don’t believe you.”

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But what if the sudden post-privatisation splurge of public money had been available pre-privatisation ? It is the perversity of British politicians and civil servants which held the railway back under BR, not the fact of nationalisation

What magic bullet would have released money for BR?
It was regarded in government as a basket case.
The big funding post privatisation was to "get it off our hands" and was supposed to be temporary until the private nirvana of true competition kicked in after the first round of franchises.
But then we got Hatfield and WCRM which sank Railtrack, and the 5-year infrastructure bonanzas carried on.
NR (in public hands) is consuming £10 billion a year now.
What the TOCs do is by contrast small beer really, and is pretty much funded by fares.

The other serious problem for BR in a corporate sense was its lack of transparency.
The government couldn't work out what it did with its money, or where the true costs were.
Breaking it up made all that visible, making it easier to micro-manage.
BR also never consulted on anything, refunded any money, or published Route Utilisation Studies or service plans (like today's franchise ITTs).
It was, to an outsider, impenetrable.
That's what we must not return to.

 

[tbtc]

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!

I appreciate that this is an emotive issue for some people, but I didn't expect Godwin's Law this early in the discussion

That's a very unbalanced view of rollong stock history.

Yes, the despised pacers were introduced by BR due to financial constraints. But they also introduced much better rolling stock, both before and after pacers

...essentially, you think that everything good that BR did was because BR were wonderful and everything bad that BR did was someone else's fault.

Fair enough - there's no point in trying to argue with a True Believer.

How do you define the cost of taking the car? Many on here define it as fuel costs, so upto 15p per mile. Alternatively do you take it as the amount you can claim tax free for business milage, at 45p per mile.

12p per mile would mean that the trains were so popular that it would nearly be impossible to use them due to being so busy (and would leave no money to invest), at 36p per mile there would be a lot of train tickets (including some off peak tickets) which would be more expensive. Although there would be some that be cheaper.

Good points - the idea of train tickets being 80% of the cost of driving would flood some services so that they wouldn't be able to cope, whilst leaving the railway with much reduced revenue.

The only part of the rail system which is fully "private" is rolling stock ownership. The ROSCOs make a lot of money and in 2006 they were investigated by the ORR but nothing seems to have come of it.

The ROSCO market has changed a lot in that intervening years though - we've got Hitachi supplying over a thousand carriages directly, we've got two TOCs taking on 230s from Vivarail, we've got other TOCs owning stock directly - it's not "the big three or nothing" any more - hence Porterbrook trying to repackage 319s as 769s, they are sitting on lots of assets that might be unwanted before long - they need to innovate because the cash cow is drying up.

No matter how strong the arguments for privatisation, some of those displayed against it here are absolutely comical. From 'we need private companies to continue demanding vast state subsidy or the government will stop investing in the railways' to 'if you nationalise the railways you'll have to nationalise taxis, egg production and duvet sales as well' to 'I hate the unions' to 'I hate Corbyn' to 'there's no point as most people drive anyway' to 'railways should remain private because they were up until 1948' to 'it would just be like the LT&S c 1990' to 'it couldn't possibly be anything like a unified single rail company in the 21st century' to 'if you accede to public support for this you'll have to bring the death penalty back'.

I've yet to see a single argument advanced to explain how a privatised railway actually leads to a better, more efficient service.

Do you want to actually argue, instead of dismissing?

Some people rely on trains, therefore some enthusiasts think that trains are "the fourth emergency service" and should be nationalised as a vital asset for the good of the nation. But the same can be said of lots of things. Are you wanting to nationalise anything and everything that some people rely upon? Or is it just a case of "I like trains therefore I want the Government to own then"? The awkward truth is that most people don't actually use heavy rail on a regular basis, it's nothing like as important to the general public as it is to railway enthusiasts.

Then we move to the idea that its immoral for private companies to make money from vital services, which can again be taken to extremes.

You're going to need to come up with better arguments for change. Why would your version be better than the Status Quo? Given the well documented problems with public services in our Age Of Austerity, why would a nationalised railway be held in such high regard that it would be able to avoid the kind of cuts to things like Fire Stations, front line policing numbers, Nurses etc? If the Government are prepared to cut my local library/ police station/ fire station and cut real terms funding per pupil to my local school, why would I trust them to keep a station open with only a thousand passengers a year, or keep lines open with only a couple of trains a day? At least if they are in a ten year contract with Stagecoach/ First etc those levels of service are protected.

You want nationalisation - convince me why it'd be practically better for passengers. And given that the public sector Network Rail is burning through millions of pounds per year, it needs to be more substantive than "we wouldn't have to re-paint trains quite so often" or some nostalgia about "Proper Railway Men".

 

[Mutant Lemming]

You don't remember the DOO dispute that preceded Thameslink, keeping new 317s in the sidings for months?
Or the awful quality of the BedPan line DMUs (or LT&S EMUs)? Misery lines both.

Absolutely pointless argument - like saying go back to the 1930's before nationalisation or to before 1923 and the grouping. A modern nationalised rail network would be a completely different beast to the 1948 variant.