Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[Olaf]

That is absolutely the worst option. It would create a semblance of vertical integration at the cost of horizontal disintegration, with horrendously complex interfaces where different TOCs share the same tracks. Network Rail is the glue holding the fragmented industry together at present. We've already seen what happens when you hand control of the infrastructure to the private sector (Railtrack), and it wasn't pretty.

The Shaw Report made it quite clear that the public doesn't want Network Rail privatised, and with good reason. The only ones who support it are right wing zealots who want to ingrain rail privatisation as much as possible to make it harder to reverse.

Perhaps you do not understand the structure and how it works now.

 

[Railsigns]

Perhaps you do not understand the structure and how it works now.

I do, as it happens.

 

[Olaf]

I do, as it happens.

Clearly not.

 

[Railsigns]

Clearly not.

Is this your way of avoiding answering any of the points I made? Clearly it is.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

As Artic Troll has pointed out the country by your definition has now run out of money even more under Conservative rule.

Both of you seem not to have noticed that I have not at any time or in any way suggested that the Tories are any better. This thread is about Labour's policy of renationalising the railways so Labour's credibility is in question. If a separate thread makes Tory credibility an issue, I may surprise you.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Do you also remember the 2008 financial crisis, or Gideon Osborne's promise to eliminate the deficit by 2015? If you qant to criticise politicians for their fiscal management fine, but please take account of the context.

Oh dear, someone else who assumes that anyone who mistrusts Labour must support the Tories. If you want someone to defend George Osborne, don't come to me!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Again, you seem to be pointing out the ills of privatisation by pointing out how TOCs tweak their bids to manipulate more cash out of the system.

You have misunderstood my post.

 

[B&I]

Both of you seem not to have noticed that I have not at any time or in any way suggested that the Tories are any better. This thread is about Labour's policy of renationalising the railways so Labour's credibility is in question. If a separate thread makes Tory credibility an issue, I may surprise you.

Doesn't a thread about the merits of nationalisation necessarily entail discussion of the merits of the privatised status quo?

 

[B&I]

You have misunderstood my post.

You said follow the money. I followed it from Johnny Taxpayer to the TOCs. Where should it have led me?

 

[158756]

What actually changes if we re-nationalize? As far as I Can see the same people will do the same jobs and expect the same pay.

The only benefit I can see is sharing rolling stock. IF you could get infrastructure in house under a BR banner that would be a benefit as long as the government would support the continuous modernizing rollouts.

I doubt much rolling stock would be 'shared' nowadays. It might make sense to combine some operations currently split between franchises, but I'd be surprised if training staff and clearing all manner of different units for occasional visits was a priority for any nationalised operator. The near total disappearance of LHCS probably makes it substantially more complicated than when BR existed.

I'm not sure what is meant by bringing the infrastructure in house - it is already nationalised and accounted for in the public sector. If you mean do away with contractors and employ all the staff directly, it'd be a heck of a job to set up, and it doesn't seem to be the way many organisations work nowadays.

What most non-railway people want when they say nationalisation really seems to be a government willing to double the operating subsidy (whilst also cutting it, because BR survived on a shoestring).

There may well be economies of scale from nationalisation. The ROSCOs also look an easy target for reducing costs. The danger would be that governments or taxpayers baulk at the upfront purchasing costs. And whether it is wise to give the incompetent DfT even more control.

 

[FQTV]

What most non-railway people want when they say nationalisation really seems to be a government willing to double the operating subsidy (whilst also cutting it, because BR survived on a shoestring).

I think that what most non-railway people want when they say 'nationalisation' really seems to be a set up which makes it clear who is responsible and accountable for the service that they receive and/or the subsidy that their taxation goes towards providing.

 

[MG11]

I think that what most non-railway people want when they say 'nationalisation' really seems to be a set up which makes it clear who is responsible and accountable for the service that they receive and/or the subsidy that their taxation goes towards providing.

IMO, and judging by what I see on Facebook, it tends to be anti-capitalists who favour re-nationalisation.

 

[Railsigns]

IMO, and judging by what I see on Facebook, it tends to be anti-capitalists who favour re-nationalisation.

Polls show that even a majority of Tory voters think the railways should be renationalised.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Doesn't a thread about the merits of nationalisation necessarily entail discussion of the merits of the privatised status quo?

Yes, but that's not the same thing as Tory credibility.

 

[158756]

I think that what most non-railway people want when they say 'nationalisation' really seems to be a set up which makes it clear who is responsible and accountable for the service that they receive and/or the subsidy that their taxation goes towards providing.

I doubt many would be much happier with a nationalised service with above inflation rises to fares already perceived to be too high, advance tickets, overcrowding, strikes, signal failures, cuts to investment etc.

 

[Olaf]

Is this your way of avoiding answering any of the points I made? Clearly it is.

No you do not.

 

[AndrewE]

I doubt many would be much happier with a nationalised service with above inflation rises to fares already perceived to be too high, advance tickets, overcrowding, strikes, signal failures, cuts to investment etc.

I don't understand you, are you saying those are the inevitable consequences of an industry being in the public sector?
Or are you saying that the situation we have now would continue, but be would politically unacceptable if the politicians themselves were accountable? If so , then bring it on, I think that is why people say they want it!

 

[158756]

I don't understand you, are you saying those are the inevitable consequences of an industry being in the public sector?
Or are you saying that the situation we have now would continue, but be would politically unacceptable if the politicians themselves were accountable? If so , then bring it on, I think that is why people say they want it!

What I'm saying is that people seem to think nationalisation equals a much better and cheaper service. Politicians are already responsible for most things on the railways. We could have £5 walk up tickets from Aberdeen to Penzance, 20 coach trains every 2 minutes on commuter lines, but successive governments of all shades have decided that rail users must pay more of the cost and that there isn't the funding for enhanced services or infrastructure.

Take Corbyn's difficulties finding a seat on the ECML. The line is congested and running the longest trains available. A nationalised operator would provide zero extra capacity (beyond the new trains already on order). Fares could be made cheaper, but politicians could already do that if they so wished, and doing so would worsen crowding.

 

[The Ham]

Finally, what we call the funding is big part of the problem. Railways get "subsidy" but roads get "investment". The M1 isn't expected to deliver profits for shareholders.

However the M1 (and M25 as well as others) do, one such company is called "A one +" (although there are others), who's parent companies include ch2m.

https://www.aone.uk.com/about-us/clients/

Highways England is effectivity a nationalised organisation, but a LOT of the work is done by private companies.

I would expect that any modern BR would likely have a similar setup. As such most people would likely be disappointed with the outcome of any such nationalisation of the railways.

 

[AndrewE]

What I'm saying is that people seem to think nationalisation equals a much better and cheaper service. Politicians are already responsible for most things on the railways. We could have £5 walk up tickets from Aberdeen to Penzance, 20 coach trains every 2 minutes on commuter lines, but successive governments of all shades have decided that rail users must pay more of the cost and that there isn't the funding for enhanced services or infrastructure.

Take Corbyn's difficulties finding a seat on the ECML. The line is congested and running the longest trains available. A nationalised operator would provide zero extra capacity (beyond the new trains already on order). Fares could be made cheaper, but politicians could already do that if they so wished, and doing so would worsen crowding.

Not quite true. No-one is looking for ridiculously cheap transport, but it's the Tories (and maybe Blair) who have deliberately decided to move more of the railway cost onto the users, whereas the fuel duty escalator has been frozen for years now, and I'm paying much less in car tax nowadays as well.
Instead of offering cheaper fares replacing the current money-go-round could fund a lot of extra investment (track or rolling stock) that would go a long way towards addressing our current capacity problems.
They also fail to recognise that by using rail, passengers are not polluting or causing congestion but are taking personal inconvenience and cost on the chin - and producing a public good onto the bargain.
I noted the stunning silence about transport, electrification and modal shift in the environment "strategy" a day or two ago...

 

[DarloRich]

There is no benefit to nationalisation of the train operators unless it is fully within the context of providing a suitable public service:

That conversation would include, but would not be limited to:

• No strike clause as per public service employment
  
• No additional burden on Public Finances due to Pension commitments - pensions would have to be obtained via the private sector
• Review of pay levels to bring them back in line with comparable levels of remuneration for public sector employees
• Re-application for current jobs to put all prospective employees through a review of suitability for public sector work

The better option which we are moving to, is the break-up of Network Rail with route infrastructure combined with route service provider to give a single organisation operating and managing each given route with central functions provided by the rump of Network Rail and new bodies for cross organisation services.

oh dear - they are not the only aspects off offering a suitbale public service - but they do let you bash the awful commie unions eh comrade

btw what exactly does:

Re-application for current jobs to put all prospective employees through a review of suitability for public sector work

actually mean? How do you define that? Are you the one deciding on the terms of this review? I suspect in your mind that means willing to work for peanuts and accept/demand no protections. The tribunals of the decent, striving not skiving, hard working right wing working people perhaps?

 

[Olaf]

btw what exactly does:

Re-application for current jobs to put all prospective employees through a review of suitability for public sector work

actually mean?

It is the mechanism by which those lacking a suitable work ethic are filtered out. I don't think that you would need to worry about the details.

 

[The Ham]

This article makes for an interesting read:

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...the-rich-the-truth-about-rail-nationalisation

Welfare for the rich: The truth about rail nationalisation
By James Ball

There are some ideas in politics which seem like such good common sense, and so popular with the public, that it's hard to understand why they weren't done years ago. They’re almost universally bad ideas – and high on the list are proposals to tackle UK rail fares.

At the start of each new year, increases in fares dominate the political agenda in an otherwise quiet week. This is because fares rise nationwide at the same time and by a regulated amount. When you factor in that the people most affected by the rise in commuting fares (especially season tickets) are middle-class and often located in marginal constituencies, rail fares get a lot of political attention.

This makes the focus of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party on rail fares somewhat confusing: Corbyn's supporters and detractors alike agree he has shifted the party to the left, to concentrate on the party's 'real' voters and issues. But the structure of Labour's plans for rail renationalisation and caps on fare increases stand to benefit relatively well-off voters in the south east – a group not generally seen as core to Labour's welfare efforts.

At present, trains are used far more by the wealthy than the poor. The highest-earning 20% of voters take around four times as many train journeys each year as those in the bottom 40%, and twice as many as those in the middle. Around 70% of people in managerial and professional jobs say they've taken a train in the previous year, versus just 43% of people in manual occupations.

Rail use is also highest in the south east – one of the richest areas in the UK – compared with the rest of the country. Sixty six per cent of adults here have used trains in the last year, versus just 40% in Wales.

A fairly obvious and sensible response to the above figures is to suggest this shows trains are already too expensive for poorer adults to use, and so makes the case well for action. There is a problem with this line of reasoning, though. Put simply, rail fares have been too expensive for low earners for a long time – to make them affordable enough so that poorer adults use them at a similar rate to rich adults would require major cuts to fares, and therefore a major increase to taxpayer subsidy.

That would cost considerably more money than fare freezes or capped rises – which are already quite expensive – but would also dramatically increase demand on Britain's already overcrowded railways. Without much more investment, the network would not be able to cope with the huge increases in passenger numbers – and even with greatly boosted investment, it would be a long time until the network was ready to take them on.

Freezing fares will put more money predominantly in the pockets of richer Brits, while dramatically cutting them is simply not an option in the short-term. It may not even be actual commuters who reaped the rewards of fare freezes or cuts: good and affordable transport links are rapidly translated into increases in rents and in house prices in the areas they cover. This isn't some abstract thesis of economists: we can see the effects of it when new stations are built in the commuter belt: house price rises along stations which will soon be on London's forthcoming Elizabeth Line (formerly known as Crossrail) have outstripped those in the rest of London.

There's also the question of how high (or unfair) UK rail fares are, and what causes that. The conventional wisdom about how much higher UK rail fares are versus their European counterparts is likely overstated. The standard trick is to take a UK single anytime ticket bought on the day of travel, and to compare that to a comparable distance journey in another EU nation.

This gets the most dramatic fare - and there's a good case to say that these fares are astronomical - but it's not particularly representative. UK rail fares are far lower if booked even a day in advance, and return fares are only £1 more than single fares. UK rail fares are, however, generally higher than in other EU nations, because the UK subsidises commuters – who as we saw earlier are generally better-off – less than other nations.

To look at this in practice, we could think about a train from London to York. If I want to suggest to you that UK trains are far too expensive, I can take the walk-up price of £127 for a peak time single. However, I could also pick any train leaving after 9:30 and the fare would be £109. Or to reduce it still further, I could get an off-peak return for just £110, or £55 each way.

I could make it lower still by booking an advance ticket to travel in just over an hour's time for £37. With just an hour's notice, I can – if I am bothered about the price I pay to travel – change the cost of my fare by £90. Working out the real picture of UK fares versus those in other European countries is complex, but the gap in price is nowhere near as severe as some reports make out.

Rail companies receive no subsidy revenue through commuter fares in the UK, because the government doesn't throw cash towards holding down fares. But analysis by CityMetric suggested that 46% of commuter revenue in other European nations comes from subsidies. UK subsidy for regional fares is comparable to other European nations, though long distance subsidy is lower.

Bailouts of rail operating companies, such as that recently offered by Chris Grayling to two operators, rightly attract public criticism. After all, rail operators get to take profits when things go right, so it's not clear why they should get bailed out when things go wrong. But it's worth remembering that rail companies have very slim profit margins. The UK's rail companies make about three per cent profit, lower even than the average for supermarkets.

So even if we nationalised the railways and redistributed the profit they make, it would only result in a one-off fare drop of about four per cent. That would cancel one year of rises, but no more.

It's hard to make the case that rail would be dramatically more efficient under Labour’s plans for public ownership, as the party has committed to several things which would keep costs high – though could easily also result in better service. These include pledging to support guards on trains, safe staffing levels, improving the service, and expanding accessibility. These are all commendable, but they don't suggest the service would run at a much lower cost.

Labour’s focus on campaigning on rail fares, then, is essentially a policy offer based around political popularity which would benefit better-off voters, possibly in marginal constituencies. There is an alternative. Focus on bus transport, which poorer workers rely on, and which is becoming less frequent and more expensive in areas across the country.

Compromising with the electorate to prioritise a policy appealing to the middle-class rather than a genuinely progressive one is, of course, an entirely legitimate approach for a political party. It's just one more generally associated with the Labour party of Tony Blair than the party of Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[DenmarkRail]

I do not believe that the railways should be nationalised, but I do think it was a mistake to do in the first place.

Why I don't support Re Nationalisation:
1. Since privatisation, the majority of BR stock has been replaced, or will be replaced in the next 3 years. This means, Britain will have one of the newest fleets in Europe
2. Given inflation since the mid ninties, ticket prices are virtually what I'd expect for a competitive business.
3. More from the point above, the extra competition, forces operators to improve their service offering, and offer lower prices.
4. We now have a clock face time table, at the majority of stops, meaning, you will almost always have another train, if you miss the last one.
5. Stations are now mostly in a better shape than they were 20 years ago, with infrastructure improvements at stations & on lines themselves, allowing for faster and more pleasent journeys.
What Needs to Change
1. There needs to be a new look at the franchising system, which has, in my opinion, outlived itself. A new system could be introduced which allows the regions to play a much bigger part in the awarding of franchises, similar to how the 'West Midlands Trains' branch of Abellio will be operated. Obviously, most operators don't spread into a single region, so the individual councils could work together to award the franchise, taking the responsibility from soley the DFT.
2. In my opinion, there needs to be a bigger move to loco hauled stock on mainline routes, rather than multiple units. I'm not saying, lets scrap the 390s, but I feel in hindsight, if the the order was today, it should have been 60 11 car 390s, and then instead of voyagers, have a fleet of 150 MK5s, and a few locos. This would allow a less constrained service, allowing for extra carriages to be added, dependent on demand. I like what TPX is doing about this, although I hear they won't be able to add and remove carriages, pending on demand.
3. This is more of a govermental issue, but I think there needs to be more intergration, with the bus networks, and the rail networks. For example, at Stafford, the train station is about a mile away from the train station, which is ridiculous, considering the only buses from the station are the replacement buses to Stoke. Buses to Eccleshall, go from another stop, away from the station. I've seen this mimicked across the country.
4. There needs to be a move to more phone friendly ticketing, as standard, rather than as an option. Big moves have been taken to fix this, but I've had a ticket scanned onboard, just looked at. Anyone can make a replica ticket. This needs to be looked at more soon.

 

[Railsigns]

1. Since privatisation, the majority of BR stock has been replaced, or will be replaced in the next 3 years. This means, Britain will have one of the newest fleets in Europe

In actual fact, Britain's trains are oldest since records began, figures show.

5. Stations are now mostly in a better shape than they were 20 years ago, with infrastructure improvements at stations & on lines themselves, allowing for faster and more pleasent [pleasant] journeys.

Which just goes to show what injecting billions of pounds of public money can do. Don't be fooled into thinking private investment has done this.

 

[Olaf]

In actual fact, Britain's trains are oldest since records began, figures show.
.

That headline has more to do with making a political point than with being fully open with the facts (there was a little judicious selection of the numbers).

 

[AndrewE]

(there was a little judicious selection of the numbers).

Please enlighten us! It seems a straightforward calculation, maybe you are saying a weighted average should have been used?

 

[Railsigns]

That headline has more to do with making a political point than with being fully open with the facts

Pot/kettle/black.

Also, when has the Telegraph ever tried to make a political point against the Tory Party?

 

[Olaf]

Pot/kettle/black.

Also, when has the Telegraph ever tried to make a political point against the Tory Party?

If in doubt, look at the numbers.

All the time - depending on who's the current target.

 

[DarloRich]

It is the mechanism by which those lacking a suitable work ethic are filtered out. I don't think that you would need to worry about the details.

i am afraid to say i am a little confused - how do you examine a "suitable work ethic"?