Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[yorksrob]

...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.

Oh please, we've crossed swords enough for you to know that I don't think that everything BR did was wonderful - the disasterous closure programme you may have noticed me mention for one.

I just find it laughable that people justify the status quo on the basis that BR built the pacers "so it could only build rubbish rolling stock" or that the whole network was run down on the basis of one or two routes nearing the end of their investment cycle.

 

[driver_m]

You need an asset base. The govts of the 80s and 90s flogged most of them. The private sector time and time again has proven that in many cases, it cannot be trusted. Our energy supply effectively now subsidises France and Germany, our railways, well its been said many a time, then there are the 'national treasures' of business took over, look at Cadburys, once highly thought of, now whoring its products into pretty much anything it can and exporting jobs out the UK. BHS ruined by Philip Green One of my local major employers was taken over, had it's pension fund asset stripped, and everyone left unemployed. A proper scandal that would have been in every paper had it happened down south. Nationalisations time has come again. You right wingers haven't made enough good cases to support it .

 

[Deepgreen]

I readily admit to not having read this entire thread, but, to answer the title's question:

There is a current examination (I don't think obsession is the right word) of the alternatives, as the TOC/NR operating model has proved not to work in so many cases, and the main alternative is a form of national(-ised)/integrated system. The fundamental issue is the tension between the provision of a public service and the generation of profit/returns for shareholders, which are mutually-exclusive. The concept of the national network for passengers (rather than that for maintenance) has been overlooked. This means that properly planned connections, timetabling, through ticketing, information consistency and facilities (among other things) have all been sacrificed for individual TOCs' own cost targets. The current privatisation model was based on the principles of competition and profit, neither of which are available in any meaningful way.

To compare any potential national rail network model with BR is inappropriate, as so many elements of the industry have changed so much. The problem may well be the difficulty in finding enough people to plan and manage the railway who have the experience and drive to make a properly integrated national system work well.

 

[Deepgreen]

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.

In your first line, did you mean arguments displayed for privatisation, rather than "against it"?

 

[yorksrob]

You need an asset base. The govts of the 80s and 90s flogged most of them. The private sector time and time again has proven that in many cases, it cannot be trusted. Our energy supply effectively now subsidises France and Germany, our railways, well its been said many a time, then there are the 'national treasures' of business took over, look at Cadburys, once highly thought of, now whoring its products into pretty much anything it can and exporting jobs out the UK. BHS ruined by Philip Green One of my local major employers was taken over, had it's pension fund asset stripped, and everyone left unemployed. A proper scandal that would have been in every paper had it happened down south. Nationalisations time has come again. You right wingers haven't made enough good cases to support it .

Very true. This is a argument which reaches far beyond the railways to the whole spectrum of casino capitalism

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

You don't remember the DOO dispute that preceded Thameslink, keeping new 317s in the sidings for months?

That dispute preceded Thameslink by a number of years... seeing as though Thameslink wasn't even thought of then... the 317's were the original EMU stock introduced when the BedPan line was electrified.... they in turn were replaced by 319's on the introduction of Thameslink IIRC

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

EasyJet, Stena Line and National Express coaches don't rely on government support for their business.

They do, to a not insignificant extent. Indirect subsidies of road and air transport is manifested, for example, in the fact that fuel duty has been frozen for several years and therefore falling in real terms. Rail fares - even those which are regulated - certainly haven't been overall! And does anyone think that RFL (road tax) anywhere near covers the cost of building and maintaining roads, let alone the police efforts required to keep them safe and to account for the environmental and health damage caused by the emissions? What about jet fuel not having anywhere near the same level of taxes as road fuel?

The railways are directly subsidised. Most other methods of transport are indirectly subsidised by a lot more money (though likely less in relative terms).

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

They do, to a not insignificant extent. Indirect subsidies of road and air transport is manifested, for example, in the fact that fuel duty has been frozen for several years and therefore falling in real terms. Rail fares - even those which are regulated - certainly haven't been overall! And does anyone think that RFL (road tax) anywhere near covers the cost of building and maintaining roads, let alone the police efforts required to keep them safe and to account for the environmental and health damage caused by the emissions? What about jet fuel not having anywhere near the same level of taxes as road fuel?

The railways are directly subsidised. Most other methods of transport are indirectly subsidised by a lot more money (though likely less in relative terms).

A bit of an odd assertion... that roads get as much subsidy as railways... and then you mention Fuel Duty..... when I fill my car 80% of the price is accounted for by Fuel Duty and VAT... and incidently the Fuel Duty is added to the price before VAT is added meaning I am paying tax on a tax.... what is the current level of Duty and VAT on fuel for diesel trains? oh yes, that's right 0%!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The current privatisation model was based on the principles of competition and profit, neither of which are available in any meaningful way.

Because the architects of the franchising process (a) Put in Moderation of Competition and (b) Wrote Passenger Service Requirements which basically ossified much of the social railway to the run down levels forced on BR by funding cuts (think Whitby , where the minimal service of 1994 is essentially still in place.

To compare any potential national rail network model with BR is inappropriate, as so many elements of the industry have changed so much. The problem may well be the difficulty in finding enough people to plan and manage the railway who have the experience and drive to make a properly integrated national system work well.

Said this before most of them are now retired , or have no appetite for the contractual railway. One of the reasons I retired before the age of 60.

 

[thenorthern]

With EU law I don't think that the government would be allowed to create a BREL again, I know that after Brexit this would change however even in a post Brexit world with Labour running the country I can't see a BREL being created again.

If railway re-nationalisation did happen I know there would be a lot of compromises as at the moment we have very vague statements from the Labour Party about how they want to do it.

 

[Rail Blues]

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.

Well this was patent nonsense, on most routes there is no or little competition. The franchise holders often have a near total monopoly on rail travel between two given destinations. It is empty Tory rhetoric.

 

[thaitransit]

There is an interesting example of Re Nationalisation of railways in the mid 2000s in Victoria Australia. A company called national express operated the Victoria regional railway network from the mid 1990s to mid 2000s under the former state owned operators name Vline. In the mid 2000s the operation went broke and the Victorian government took control.

About 25 years ago when privatisation was done the vline system was crumbling with 19th century signalling and timber sleepered track. Some of the rolling stock dated back to the 1930s or 1950s. The government at the time had considered shutting down the entire regional railway network and replacing the trains with buses! They thought privatisation would bring investment unfortunately it didn't and the system went into long term meltdown. This only changed after re nationalisation of vline tracks were upgraded and faster trains introduced. Even new lines were built or re opened.

Since then billions of dollars have been spent upgrading large parts of the Vline network. Hundreds of new diesel railcars were built locally in the last 10 years for the vline system. The state owned operation has generally been a massive success so much so that they can't build the railcars fast enough to keep up with demand.

More people ride V lines trains today than at any point in history. The impact is so great it has changed the growth of regional areas and created a property boom that is still ongoing for the last 15 years. All this occurred thanks to re nationalisation of vline.

The example of re nationalisation in Victoria Australia is a clear example of how
Keeping the railways in state hands is the only way forward for the british railway system however the government must invest in upgrading the system and expanding it. Status Quo cannot continue .

Currently the UK is home to some of the most expensive train fares for the distance covered in the world. You can travel from Melbourne to Brisbane (1800km) return in 1st class by train for less than a single 1st class train trip from London to Preston (400km). Although Melbourne to Brisbane takes 28 hours by train compared to 3 or 4 hours for London to Preston.

Just the need for cheaper fares at any time is one good reason for state owned operation of British Rail.

 

[158756]

Currently the UK is home to some of the most expensive train fares for the distance covered in the world. You can travel from Melbourne to Brisbane (1800km) return in 1st class by train for less than a single 1st class train trip from London to Preston (400km). Although Melbourne to Brisbane takes 28 hours by train compared to 3 or 4 hours for London to Preston.

Just the need for cheaper fares at any time is one good reason for state owned operation of British Rail.

It is government policy (and has been for multiple governments of various shades) that fares should cover more of the costs of the railway. They have also encouraged, or at least not tried to stop, the growth of advance tickets (a concept arguably introduced by BR).

Well this was patent nonsense, on most routes there is no or little competition. The franchise holders often have a near total monopoly on rail travel between two given destinations. It is empty Tory rhetoric.

Surely in a system where you give out contracts to run a service the competition is supposed to be for the contracts (with the government taking the highest bid, even if unfeasibly high a la VTEC) rather than subsidising multiple contracts to duplicate each other? Of course the same politicians wanting to abolish franchising on the railways want to expand it on the buses, because competition for passengers is bad so they say.

 

[B&I]

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!

Isn't that an argument against privatisation, or at least the 1993 model of privatisation ?

 

[B&I]

[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.

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.”[/QUOTE]


1. No private involvement = no diversion of funds which should be going on providing a service into private profit.

2. Single nationalised rail company = end to the immense financial waste and administrative difficulties which arise from our pointlessly fragmented industry. See your own point about profiteering by leasing companies.

3. Single nationalised company also = clear lines of responsibility and democratic accountability, rather than endless buck-passing.

There's 3. I'm sure other people will be able to think of some others.

 

[B&I]

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.

So, let's privatise, with all the associated problems, because you think BR enjoyed too much independence, despite being financially strangulated for decades by the Treasury ? Couldn't this problem have been solved by changing BR's operating procedures without privatisation ? Did it make any difference to the quality of service ?

And are you really arguing that today's railway is more open to scrutiny, or a government which is addicted to doing things without democratic scrutiny really cares ?

 

[pt_mad]

People are saying there'd be a serious lack of investment if the state owned the TOCs. But why? Surely if the railways are profit making (the NHS and councils aren't) and you remove the premiums that the operators currently have to pay, you'd be well into the black and paying money back into the treasury? Add to that the millions which is taken out in the three percent profit, that'd go back into the treasury wouldn't it or back into investment?

Would the subsidy be reduced if it were stated owned? Well the profit currently being paid out from the company would also be removed so would we need such a huge subsidy?

Are we saying we need the private operators for their expertise? Because I'm fairly confident if the TOCs were transferred to state ownership as the franchises come up that the current leadership would stay and lead for the state railways anyway.

What investment do the private operators put in that isn't generated from income from their operation or our subsidy? If they invested more than they took in profit surely the TOC would go into the red? I.e. if your premium payments are more than you make and you are committed to an extravagant investment programme regardless, you're in trouble. (Like VTEC). And if you remove the profit factor from this it certainly brings every operation such as the East Coast much closer to being permanently in the black surely?

 

[B&I]

Do you want to actually argue, instead of dismissing?

Do forgive me, I thought that (following your example) being incredibly dismissive, usually with a side order of being remarkably patronising, was standard etiquette on this board.

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".

There's no real point in me setting out my arguments for nationalisation, as you've already assumed what they all are, so I posted them in response to anither pist by someone who.was bot already omnisicient.

However, your argument in favour of privatisation seems to be that the government will only continue spending anything on the railways for so long as it provides a means of diverting public funds to the private sector. This may be the best argument in favour of privatisation, but it doesn't say much for us as a country

 

[B&I]

In your first line, did you mean arguments displayed for privatisation, rather than "against it"?

You're quite right, I meant to type 'against nationalisation' but was too busy being a smart Alec to notice (as per usual)

 

[Mutant Lemming]

With the pro and anti nationalisation support being split basically along political lines it seems odd that one of the most staunchly conservative and right wing parts of the UK is the only one to have a state controlled rail & bus network.

 

[B&I]

Very true. This is a argument which reaches far beyond the railways to the whole spectrum of casino capitalism

Despite which, the crowd of spivs to whom this country has been parcelled up and sold off seem to have a surprisingly large fanbase among people who are probably made poorer by theur antics, on a daily basis

 

[B&I]

They do, to a not insignificant extent. Indirect subsidies of road and air transport is manifested, for example, in the fact that fuel duty has been frozen for several years and therefore falling in real terms. Rail fares - even those which are regulated - certainly haven't been overall! And does anyone think that RFL (road tax) anywhere near covers the cost of building and maintaining roads, let alone the police efforts required to keep them safe and to account for the environmental and health damage caused by the emissions? What about jet fuel not having anywhere near the same level of taxes as road fuel?

The railways are directly subsidised. Most other methods of transport are indirectly subsidised by a lot more money (though likely less in relative terms).

But remember kids - if public money's being spent to support corporate profits, that's investment, which is GOOD. If it's being spent to make ordinary's people's lives better, that is socialism, which is VERY VERY BAD

 

[pt_mad]

Views do seem to become very strong and tensions rise with this subject. People feel very strongly especially people who have e an interest in the railways as we see here.

But I can't help feel that whether we argue one way or the other here between railway staff, industry, experts, comontators, customers, passengers and enthusiasts, the real arguement is amongst the wider court of public opinion. We on the forum will not make the decision, the electorate will. Politically it feels like it's probably maintain the status quo on the whole at the moment just about. But definitely with the question of nationalisation of the railways the arguement is lost the public want it and it's only a lack of a specific vote for such a thing (that's never going to happen re a referendum type thing) that stops it happenning.

 

[takno]

A bit of an odd assertion... that roads get as much subsidy as railways... and then you mention Fuel Duty..... when I fill my car 80% of the price is accounted for by Fuel Duty and VAT... and incidently the Fuel Duty is added to the price before VAT is added meaning I am paying tax on a tax.... what is the current level of Duty and VAT on fuel for diesel trains? oh yes, that's right 0%!

Last I checked the duty is 11p/litre. The additional duty paid by road users would struggle to cover rent on all the land that's filled with roads, let alone the cost of their maintenance and policing

 

[pt_mad]

Despite which, the crowd of spivs to whom this country has been parcelled up and sold off seem to have a surprisingly large fanbase among people who are probably made poorer by theur antics, on a daily basis

Who's that? The staff working for the railways? Or the middle classes? Or someone else??

I must admit there's nothing wrong with a bit of national pride with regards wanting in principle for it to be a railway owned totally by the people, run by the people for the people. The railway is a proud national asset whether it's one of our favourite national moans or not,and it's the safest in the world. And we should have confidence that we could make it work under the state and would not be doomed to failure due to saying goodbye to private corporations. We'd still have the talent.

 

[158756]

With the pro and anti nationalisation support being split basically along political lines it seems odd that one of the most staunchly conservative and right wing parts of the UK is the only one to have a state controlled rail & bus network.

Politics in Northern Ireland is nothing like the rest of the UK. One's beliefs on abortion or flags don't necessarily correlate with economic policies.

 

[B&I]

Well this was patent nonsense, on most routes there is no or little competition. The franchise holders often have a near total monopoly on rail travel between two given destinations. It is empty Tory rhetoric.

A good rule of thumb should be that, if something is a natural monopoly, it should be in the public sector, as the competition which is crucial to driving down prices and improving service will not exist otherwise. It is hard to see railways as anything other than a natural monopoly, unless you have so many people travelling that you can justify the cost of multiple routes between the same pairs of destinations

 

[B&I]

Who's that? The staff working for the railways? Or the middle classes? Or someone else??

I must admit there's nothing wrong with a bit of national pride with regards wanting in principle for it to be a railway owned totally by the people, run by the people for the people. The railway is a proud national asset qhethew it's one of our favourite national moans or not. And we should have cibfidconf that we could make it work under the state and would not be doomed to failure due to saying goodbye from private corporations from the operators. We'd still have the talent.

Well, anyone who supports that crowd and is not a multi-millionaire, really

 

[B&I]

With the pro and anti nationalisation support being split basically along political lines it seems odd that one of the most staunchly conservative and right wing parts of the UK is the only one to have a state controlled rail & bus network.

Politics in Northern Ireland is nothing like the rest of the UK. One's beliefs on abortion or flags don't necessarily correlate with economic policies.

True. Given Northern Ireland is an economic basket case, both Sinn Fein and the DUP are by default economically interventionist parties, as without immense state subsidy the country would collapse. Also frees them.from worrying about proper policies on economic development and public services, leaving them plenty of time to stir up pointless bigotry

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Last I checked the duty is 11p/litre. The additional duty paid by road users would struggle to cover rent on all the land that's filled with roads, let alone the cost of their maintenance and policing

oh God help the railways 11p per litre? absolute peanuts compared to the duty on motorists... or, dare I say it, bus operators!