• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming to power

Status
Not open for further replies.

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,898
Location
Plymouth
Of all the actions necessary to resolve the current issues in the rail industry, this plan addresses at least one of them and is therefore well thought out.

A single operator of currently DfT franchised passenger services under Great British Railways. The retention of open access passenger and freight is unfortunate, but with no interworking of loco hauled operations between passengers and freight and no capacity to reinstate the common carriers act etc, this is of little consequence. There may however be scope for GBR to cannibalise the passengers of open access operators a la bus deregulation and then simply lease and integrate their train fleets and hire their staff.

There is no reason though why on day 1, they can’t merge Network Rail with DOHL and adopt the name Great British Railways for a degree of vertical integration, merging the operations of Northern, TPE and LNER, pooling route and traction knowledge at every depot, especially in Yorkshire and the north east, regardless of former operator and beginning strategic training to eventually harmonise these, eliminating the railway’s biggest inefficiency. Any other functions that were duplicated between TOCs can also be eliminated and centralised, with GBR then preparing to integrate the next TOCs, which I believe are SWR and c2c, which may be able to find efficiency savings with the former southeastern. This is where Labour is able to find most of their £2.2 billion a year, more than scrapping profits.

There will be no TOCs in the new model. GBR’s own services won’t need track access on it’s own infrastructure. Devolved operators, both the already nationalised TfW, ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper and Elizabeth Line and London Overground which I expect will end up directly operated by TfL, however will not be directly controlled by GBR, which will largely represent the rest of England outside London, but this is unlikely to be problematic.

The one I am most concerned about is Merseyrail. Its contract expires in 2028, but it remains to be seen whether it joins the single operator, sharing resources with other services, or achieves devolution of infrastructure and becomes an island of fragmentation. Regions other than Merseyside will also want improvements to train services without splitting off from the newly unified network.
a
The Passenger Standards Authority sounds like a rebirth of the Strategic Rail Authority, taking some of the functions of the ORR and the best-price ticket guarantee is obviously true fare reform, the details of lwhich have not yet been worked out, because such a guarantee would be unworkable under the current fare structure.

New standard liveries and uniforms to go with a coherent national rolling stock strategy may also appear after a while. The new CrossCountry livery in particular I don’t expect to last long.
All of what you state would make complete sense, but surely none of that is what is being proposed? As another poster pointed out upthread, I don't see this as reducing fragmentation at all where it matters, in terms of combining traincrew and a common livery identity as opposed to the awful current mishmash. I say this as a Labour supporter, I'm just a little disappointed and don't think this will go nearly far enough.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,586
Not letting frachises as they expire is a very low cost option. Integration should offer advantages. We could go back to the days when train building wasn't boom or bust and when each operator (even within operator) had numerous small fleets of trains that won't couple together, operate differently needing lots of training and so on. OTOH dead hand of The Treasury will settle even more firmly on the railways. What of the ROSCOs? Like PFI for public buildings they've taken a lot of capital spending off the public balance sheet. None of it will solve the basic economic problem such as, for example XC having too little rolling stock to accommodate those who wish to travel, a need to electrify and alternative traction on non-electrified routes. It won't stop decisions being taken with an eye to a ballot box in a few years rather than the needs of the country in a decade.

Simply not re-letting franchises is a political win which won't really help other than the Labour party (which is fair enough) and allow some flannel about integration. I worked in the NHS where nothing really happened but each announcement produced flannel for the electorate.
 

KGX

Member
Joined
24 Jan 2015
Messages
140
Neutralises competition for labour within the industry. Can see this happening just for that reason alone.
 

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
1,692
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
On the face of it the proposals seem sensible. The problem is will they deliver when in power? The conservative proposals seem like 'more of the same'. Bringing rail companies back under a publically owned body as franchises expire makes sense. It will be interesting to revisit this thread in about 18 months to see what has actually happened.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,506
Location
UK
merging the operations of Northern, TPE and LNER, pooling route and traction knowledge at every depot,

Never gonna happen. Nationalisation isn't going to magically change the day today working.
 

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
1,843
Nationalised railways… because having DfT calling the shots right now works so well.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,306
Location
West Wiltshire
Never gonna happen. Nationalisation isn't going to magically change the day today working.
Appears to not be reverse of privatisation where people changed their day to day working patterns almost overnight from happy to help on anything, to only doing work for one TOC

Of course Labour also need to get into power and although they have roughly a 20 percentage point lead, they have dipped to about 43%, and lead is more due to Conservatives crashing whilst other parties like Reform and Greens grow. How it plays out nationally with new constituency boundaries is still to be tested.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,009
What about the job losses that this presumably will entail as duplication is expected to be removed? I can imagine unions being conflicted over that element.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,898
Location
Plymouth
Never gonna happen. Nationalisation isn't going to magically change the day today working.
And that's the issue with these proposals. Nothing that will actually save money is likely to happen. Just announcements about passenger fares going down and what not. Its a shame.
 

Harpers Tate

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2013
Messages
1,713
I think this fails to recognise the main issues that (from a user's perspective) the present structure presents. I'd suggest:
- we don't care who owns or runs the train, as long as it runs, is of sufficient capacity and frequency and so on, but
- we DO care about the disparate array of operators solely because they directly affect us when, for example, we board the wrong operator's train going to the same destination (depending on the ticket)
- we DO care about the added complexity in ticketing that arises from the operator fragmentation and their need to grasp/affect revenue allocation (such as permitted route restrictions that exist solely to direct revenue to a particular operator).
- we DO care when we can't get help, or redress for something that went wrong, unless we approach the right operator or vendor.

None of these things are necessary. They are only of advantage to the operators; they offer users no real benefit. It's too simplistic to think that offering a lower fare on a train operated by A (vs. A or B or any) is an advantage over offering an appopriate fare - likely to be that same figure - for any train operated by anyone over the same route or one of similar distance between the same points. On the contrary; it's a disadvantage to those who (for whatever reason) end up paying more.

There needs to be a major reform; absolutely. I don't think that nationalisation is either essential nor will necessarily magically provide what users actually want. It's nothing miore than a political headline with no real meaning/effect.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,112
Location
Yorks
This doesn't sound much different to what we already knew. I expect that there will be modest efficiencies to be made as parts of the railway come under the same umbrella, but lets not kid ourselves, this isn't going to set passengers' dreams on fire.

They still need something eyecatching and of tangible benefit to passengers and prospective passengers alike IMO.

A truly national railcard would be a true step forward in line with our sensible continental neighbours and would contribute towards levelling up. It would cost revenue though.

A more modest option might be to abolish peak fares on friday, which would assist the leisure economy.

There's still time before the manifestos come out !
 

32475

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2019
Messages
745
Location
Sandwich
Does anyone know how much of our railways are ‘nationalised’ already eg TOCs, track, infrastructure, stations, locomotives and rolling stock?
 

Mgameing123

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2023
Messages
145
Location
Denmark

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,726
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The proposals seem to me to be the same as the ones Andy McDonald proposed at the last election.
The difference being that the Corbyn Labour party stood no chance of implementing them.

So far I haven't seen anything on devolution or regional policy, or on ownership of HS1 (not to mention HS2).
While TOC franchising nationally is now out of the window, I can't see a single rail policy covering Wales and Scotland, let alone the local aspirations of people like Andy Burnham.
I can see less fragmentation by consolidating TOCs regionally, but not total uniformity across the piece - it depends how powerful the individual regions will be.

The ticketing system won't have TOC-specific tickets, but I bet GBR will find a way to discriminate between local, regional and long-distance fares, just as BR did.
EMR's contract lasts until 2030, and if TfL manage to let the London Overground contract before the election, that will push the end of private contracts even later.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,478
Location
London
This is increasingly not actually that much of a difference to how things are currently operating (albeit it probably is in the public perception!) - I am presuming we are excluding ROSCOs for obvious capital expenditure reasons.

Ideally it's the "arms length" body as was vaguely proposed in GBR that actually does most of the day-to-day stuff.

The decision to transfer TOCs into public ownership is a distinct move away from the concession model I think most had expected under the original GBR plans. It sounds a little too left-wing-ideological to me, as the concession system seems to work pretty well, and I would prefer continued private sector involvement where appropriate, rather than removing it for the sake of it.

Just announcements about passenger fares going down and what not.

They’ve been a little clever with the wording - the best price guarantee just means lowest available, not that prices will necessarily drop. The fare system has become ludicrously complicated so reform of that is a good thing, but it won’t necessarily mean cheaper fares overall. In fact it could mean the opposite (see the current LNER trial).

What isn’t known is whether Labour will reverse the longstanding government policy of rail users paying more and more of the railway’s costs via above inflation fare rises, and instead draw more subsidy from general taxation to lower fares. Frankly that seems pretty unlikely.

Louise Hague’s comments in the New Statesmen about working with unions rather than seeing them as adversaries (a la Welsh government etc.) certainly bodes well for a favourable resolution of the industrial dispute, both from the employees’ perspective but also for passengers, as that alone will lead to an improvement in reliability.
 
Last edited:

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,867
Location
Southport
All of what you state would make complete sense, but surely none of that is what is being proposed? As another poster pointed out upthread, I don't see this as reducing fragmentation at all where it matters, in terms of combining traincrew and a common livery identity as opposed to the awful current mishmash. I say this as a Labour supporter, I'm just a little disappointed and don't think this will go nearly far enough.
Labour specifically claims that £2.2 billion a year will be saved for the railway by eliminating profits and fragmentation. The likelihood of this promise being kept is a serious issue, but merging all DfT franchised TOCs into a single publicly owned operator is surely the only way this can be achieved.

If they can grow revenue as well, then that’s even more free money, but I would be more concerned about the basics of running the service with sufficient capacity, without cancellations or infrastructure failures for the next 5 years, before the single operator is fully integrated, being more unachievable.
What about the job losses that this presumably will entail as duplication is expected to be removed? I can imagine unions being conflicted over that element.
If we recall the delays associated with the renationalisation of TPE, it was cited that DOHL did not have the capacity to take on the running of more than the 3 TOCs (LNER, Northern and southeastern) that it already controlled.

May I suggest that staff otherwise redundant due to the merging of these existing operations could be retained to expand the capacity of DOHL (combined with Network Rail to form the basis of a vertically integrated GBR) ready to acquire SWR and c2c in 2025?

Also could more money be saved and working conditions be improved by insourcing cleaning and security staff?
Are Open Access Operators safe though?
I wouldn’t say safe at all. Just because the mechanism will still exist at first, with current operators continuing, doesn’t mean their businesses will be viable when competing with the efficiencies of a mature, state owned, national operator.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,910
What about the job losses that this presumably will entail as duplication is expected to be removed? I can imagine unions being conflicted over that element.
Presumably they would tend not to be front line staff though. The unions will push for no compulsory redundancies, as their usual starting point, for their members.
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
2,446
Location
SW London
This is something the Tories could very easily sabotage while in government (i.e. extend all the TOC contracts beyond the end of the next parliament)
Not so easy. If the duration of a contract is up for renegotiation, so are all the other Ts&Cs and the TOCs, particularly those who are struggling, will want a quid pro quo.
 
Joined
25 Jan 2016
Messages
549
Location
Wolverhampton
As a Labour member, this looks quite like the promises made in the last two Manifestos, with some tweaks here and there.

No doubt the conclusion of individual franchises at the end of contracts is the easiest option on the table, but will cost a fair bit.

With the timespan of 6 years, I suspect some won’t be too happy but if improvements are tangible and seen over time, then I am all for it.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,009
May I suggest that staff otherwise redundant due to the merging of these existing operations could be retained to expand the capacity of DOHL (combined with Network Rail to form the basis of a vertically integrated GBR) ready to acquire SWR and c2c in 2025?

Also could more money be saved and working conditions be improved by insourcing cleaning and security staff?
There are a vast amount of roles DOHL wouldn't need, and clearly there is duplication across TOCs and NR.
 

slowroad

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2021
Messages
124
Location
Wales
Typically private sector capital rates are much higher than the debt on government bonds as the state is almost certainly not going to default. Whatever the Treasury notionally charges other public undertakings through the PWLB (Public Works Loan Board) isn't really important

(EDIT: The real rate of return on index linked UK government debt is 1% or below for terms of up to 20+ years)

The real reason leasing is popular is because it allows politicians to spend tomorrow's money today. It reduces apparent public borrowing today at the cost of much higher borrowing after the next election.
The lower cost of public borrowing is illusory - at least in so far as it arises from the public sector’s ability to pass on to taxpayers cost overruns and other delivery failures.
 

Dan G

Member
Joined
12 May 2021
Messages
531
Location
Exeter
I'm listening to Louise Haig, the shadow minister being interviewed on Radio 4. All passenger services would be branded GBR and be state-run from 2027, when the last of the current contracts ends.

The politicisation of the railways sounds pretty miserable to me.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,910
Also could more money be saved and working conditions be improved by insourcing cleaning and security staff?
Support roles aren't outsourced solely for ideological reasons, so it must be seen as cheaper to outsource.

Clearly that saving often arises from inferior working conditions for the staff, but also from the costs of recruitment and management being borne by the company providing the service.

I doubt there has ever been a time when the railway has directly employed everyone involved in its operation.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,487
Labour specifically claims that £2.2 billion a year will be saved for the railway by eliminating profits and fragmentation. The likelihood of this promise being kept is a serious issue, but merging all DfT franchised TOCs into a single publicly owned operator is surely the only way this can be achieved.

Except £1.5bn of that £2.2bn is what had already been identified by the Williams review carried out for the current government as The Guardian has helpfully pointed out. So Labour "think" they've found another £ 700m by removing shareholder dividends and a bit of back office streamlining - I'd be sceptical about that.


Ownership aside, Labour’s plans for a separate arm’s-length body to run the railway are very much on the track laid out by the Conservatives – underlined by the endorsement of Keith Williams, who drew up essentially the same scheme for Boris Johnson and Grant Shapps.

The Tories claimed GBR would save £1.5bn annually, and removing the additional “friction costs” of private sector involvement could cut another £700m, Haigh claims.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,478
Location
London
Presumably they would tend not to be front line staff though. The unions will push for no compulsory redundancies, as their usual starting point, for their members.

Absolutely. The railway is chronically short of front line staff, and there is little duplication of functions, so that won’t be a difficult guarantee to give.

To be honest I’d question how much scope for efficiency savings there really is amongst other non front line staff, after three decades of privatisation, as private sector organisations tend not to employ unnecessary staff. Public sector organisations on the other hand…
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,306
Location
West Wiltshire
Are Open Access Operators safe though?
Ideally yes, but a lot will depend on rolling stock strategy, really there needs to be requirements for ROSCOs to offer spare stock and end of life stock, something like need to keep 5-10% of you fleet available for short term hire rather than long term lease.

Companies like Ouigo have got their hands on older stock, it is virtually impossible short term in UK to do same currently.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,910
To be honest I’d question how much scope for efficiency savings there really is amongst other non front line staff, after three decades of privatisation, as private sector organisations tend not to employ unnecessary staff.
The savings are in the back office, where only one set of central functions are needed. However, many of those staff may not be employed in railway specialisms.

The saving that people have always had their eyes on is from people like lawyers and other professional service providers who would no longer need to extract money from the railways because there would be fewer contracts to negotiate within the industry.

A common viewpoint appears to be that the railway hemorrhages too much money outside the industry in profit for suppliers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top