Could the railways be renationalised under Labour and what should happen in the meantime?

[GWVillager]

The key Labour personalities at the moment (with Starmer) are Rachel Reeves (Shadow Chancellor) and Louise Haigh (Shadow Transport SoS).
I don't envy their challenge in making sense of the rail brief when they start work, and there's time for the Tories to make further irreversible changes in the next year.
I doubt the DfT will be given funds and scope to implement the 2020 proposals.

So do I, as you say a huge amount has changed since then. But it does look (to me) as if it was a genuine proposal, rather than just a personal opinion.

Even Andy Burnham is proposing to franchise out Greater Manchester's bus services to the private sector, as happens in London.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this because the Bus Services Act 2017 allowed franchising but no new powers for public ownership?


We’re getting horribly off topic, though. Did the King’s Speech (or the more detailed bills) mention GBR specifically?

 

[Chester1]

Has that ever been stated by Labour? I wish to God they would reintroduce the intercity brand but I don't recall Labour ever mentioning this?

I don't think they have been more specific than public ownership of passenger services. UK government control over TfW Rail and Scotrail is unthinkable in 2023. Taking over Merseyrail and Northern would be doable but cause a lot of internal problems for Labour. The path of least resistance would be merging the intercity franchises as they fall into public ownership

 

[YorkRailFan]

I don't think they have been more specific than public ownership of passenger services. UK government control over TfW Rail and Scotrail is unthinkable in 2023. Taking over Merseyrail and Northern would be doable but cause a lot of internal problems for Labour. The path of least resistance would be merging the intercity franchises as they fall into public ownership

Northern is already an OLR.

 

[baz962]

We still have that on my part of the railway!

Although the way you drive you would think it's a heritage railway. .
But in all seriousness it doesn't feel like it sometimes . Stuck behind everyone and their dog these days.

 

[Chester1]

Northern is already an OLR.

Yes but its the joint responsibility of DfT and TfN and is operationally seperate from the other nationalised ToCs. That is very different to it becoming part of a recreated BR. Labour seems to be commited to public ownership, not necessarily a new BR.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Yes but its the joint responsibility of DfT and TfN and is operationally seperate from the other nationalised ToCs. That is very different to it becoming part of a recreated BR. Labour seems to be commited to public ownership, not necessarily a new BR.

True, but I am all for local authorities owning and operating TOCs. Its being discussed here:https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...how-existing-tocs-could-be-integrated.257387/

NPR also appears to still be on the agenda as NPR posted/tweeted on Twitter/X here: https://twitter.com/NP_Partnership/status/1722212739098333353

It's a huge relief to see legislation for Northern Powerhouse Rail has survived. Dropping it would have meant losing a key section of the NPR route between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport - adding many years to final completion.

NPR also linked to this website: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-11-08/HCWS6 in the tweet/post.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

We still have that on my part of the railway!

As far as I'm aware, the DfT own the rights to that brand so it would be extremely easy to re-introduce it for the longer distance express services, even now.

 

[70014IronDuke]

On a similar - but slightly different basis - I believe that the class 50s were originally owned by English Electric and leased to BR. ISTR that the was a small plate on the bodysides of each loco proclaiming the fact.

Indeed so.

 

[Deepgreen]

Not having any trains owned in house under a nationalised business is hardly semantics!

Bearing in mind NR is already nationalised as are some of the TOCs ir is only a very modest change to todays setup which is proposed.

Hmm - modest-ish, but still possibly long-term and expensive to execute. Yes - stock needs to be state-owned to be properly nationalised, otherwise we retain the same shambolic stock ordering and allocation situation.

 

[camflyer]

Not having any trains owned in house under a nationalised business is hardly semantics!

Bearing in mind NR is already nationalised as are some of the TOCs ir is only a very modest change to todays setup which is proposed.

Having a nationally owned service doesn't mean every piece of equipment has to be publicly owned or operated. Plenty of parts of the public sector will lease equipment, rent premises or contract out services on commercial terms. Outright ownership doesn't always make sense.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Hitachi 800/1 (IEP) fleets will be privately leased and maintained for the next 20 years.
Plenty of "state" operators in Europe lease their rolling stock.
British finance houses are very active in the EU train leasing market.
Train maintenance is increasingly in private hands, often by the manufacturer.

 

[irish_rail]

As far as I'm aware, the DfT own the rights to that brand so it would be extremely easy to re-introduce it for the longer distance express services, even now.

Isn't intercity owned by the guy who runs those charter trains out of Crewe, all decked out in Swallow colours? Could be wrong, sure i read that somewhere. Hopefully it is still Dft owned, as it was a popular brand back then, and is still a by word for long distance trains in this country today.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Isn't intercity owned by the guy who runs those charter trains out of Crewe, all decked out in Swallow colours? Could be wrong, sure i read that somewhere. Hopefully it is still Dft owned, as it was a popular brand back then, and is still a by word for long distance trains in this country today.

Has been discussed here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ex-br-branding-who-owns-it.38243/

 

[Deepgreen]

Having a nationally owned service doesn't mean every piece of equipment has to be publicly owned or operated. Plenty of parts of the public sector will lease equipment, rent premises or contract out services on commercial terms. Outright ownership doesn't always make sense.

However, having the rolling stock owned and therefore deployable at short notice (without complex and inhibitive contractual arrangements) wherever is best IS vital.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It would be good just to change leasing so that we no longer have situations as we do right now with the 379s- perfectly good rolling stock with nobody to use them, all because the leasing costs are so high.

When CDPQ bought out Akiem im pretty sure the loss of the lease was know about so i bet they got them below book value so they could lease them at a lower cost now. Problem is its not just the leasing cost its all the driver and maintenance staff training that would be required which adds to cost but also has potential to disrupt existing services.

 

[Energy]

As far as I'm aware, the DfT own the rights to that brand so it would be extremely easy to re-introduce it for the longer distance express services, even now.

DfT owned, just licenced out.

 

[camflyer]

However, having the rolling stock owned and therefore deployable at short notice (without complex and inhibitive contractual arrangements) wherever is best IS vital.

I would imagine that buying all existing rolling stock off the owners would be financially impossible when there would be much higher priories for a new government than buying some train sets. As I understood it, the Labour 2020 policy paper just proposed that newly ordered rolling stock would be publicly owned (though maybe not purchased outright upfront) but existing contracts would remain.

 

[Chester1]

I would imagine that buying all existing rolling stock off the owners would be financially impossible when there would be much higher priories for a new government than buying some train sets. As I understood it, the Labour 2020 policy paper just proposed that newly ordered rolling stock would be publicly owned (though maybe not purchased outright upfront) but existing contracts would remain.

Potentially a Labour government could be opportunistic if any of the Roscos are up for sale or want to do a deal for individual fleets. I don’t know the correct term for the contracts but the "all inclusive" ones with maintenance included would be a financial and practical nightmare to unravel. Starmer isn't particularly ideological and therefore is unlikely to want to waste capital on buying existing fleets.

 

[contrex]

I fully agree, even just rebranding SE into NSE and gradually adding GTR, SWR and C2C once their franchises end. (Note that this is purely speculation.)

And the livery, of course, and Chris Green.

 

[Facing Back]

As I understood it, the Labour 2020 policy paper just proposed that newly ordered rolling stock would be publicly owned (though maybe not purchased outright upfront) but existing contracts would remain.

I'm curious on the mechanism by which the stock could be publicly owner but not purchased outright up-front?

We still have that on my part of the railway!

Where do we have the intercity brand?

The Hitachi 800/1 (IEP) fleets will be privately leased and maintained for the next 20 years.
Plenty of "state" operators in Europe lease their rolling stock.
British finance houses are very active in the EU train leasing market.
Train maintenance is increasingly in private hands, often by the manufacturer.

Anybody know how much state operators in Europe pay as a premium to least their stock compared to the UK?

 

[camflyer]

I'm curious on the mechanism by which the stock could be publicly owner but not purchased outright up-front?

No different to buying a car on finance. I'm sure the likes of Siemens and Hitachi would be happy to discuss some flexible payment terms.

 

[Facing Back]

No different to buying a car on finance. I'm sure the likes of Siemens and Hitachi would be happy to discuss some flexible payment terms.

If you buy a car on finance, it remains the property of the finance company until you pay it off so the car wouldn't be publicly owned. You can of course borrow the money to buy the car in which case it would be publicly owned. Of course Siemens et al would bend over backwards to have their corporate banks support you - but you either add to the national debt or you don't own the assets. If you are going to borrow to buy them, why not simply issue gilts and not incur the finance charges from Siemens/ROSCO/bank of your choice? (That was a rhetorical question)

 

[Deepgreen]

I would imagine that buying all existing rolling stock off the owners would be financially impossible when there would be much higher priories for a new government than buying some train sets. As I understood it, the Labour 2020 policy paper just proposed that newly ordered rolling stock would be publicly owned (though maybe not purchased outright upfront) but existing contracts would remain.

Yes, and that is why it is such a huge mountain to climb that no-one is likely to commit to. It should be done, but can't. The Tories have knowingly presided over a slash-and-burn process that is all-but irreversible.

No different to buying a car on finance. I'm sure the likes of Siemens and Hitachi would be happy to discuss some flexible payment terms.

Except that, if the rolling stock were to be 'recalled' owing to non-payment, there would be no-one else that could use it under a nationalised system, unlike a car, which could be sold on to any other buyer. The rolling stock is specific to the UK network and unusable elsewhere (at least not without major and expensive modifications).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

However, having the rolling stock owned and therefore deployable at short notice (without complex and inhibitive contractual arrangements) wherever is best IS vital.

You do remember how much trouble BR had in getting any rolling stock procurement approved?
You'd be back to annual limits on capital spend, and have to choose between (say) rolling stock and signalling investment.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

You do remember how much trouble BR had in getting any rolling stock procurement approved?
You'd be back to annual limits on capital spend, and have to choose between (say) rolling stock and signalling investment.

Late 80's BR was knocking out plenty of 321's and sprinters as well as resignalling lines. The difference then is it was being done economically so Treasury were supportive.

 

[Facing Back]

Except that, if the rolling stock were to be 'recalled' owing to non-payment, there would be no-one else that could use it under a nationalised system, unlike a car, which could be sold on to any other buyer. The rolling stock is specific to the UK network and unusable elsewhere (at least not without major and expensive modifications).

I’m not quite sure of your point. Are you suggesting that the uk default on the payments/agreements as the roscos cant resell their assets and therefore won’t bother to repossess them?

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes - stock needs to be state-owned to be properly nationalised, otherwise we retain the same shambolic stock ordering and allocation situation.

The current shambolic state of rolling stock ordering and allocation is more down to fragmented nature of the industry than the ownership of the rolling stock. A "guiding mind" taking a long term view of requirements on, at least, a England basis would be able to make decisions on procurement and re-deployment on a far more holistic basis than the farcical situations we've seen in recent years where a change of ownership means the extinction of a brand new fleet in favour of another brand new fleet (707s for 701s on SWR), units being withdrawn and then having nowhere to go because the numbers in the bid made new stock more attractive (379s for 745s on GA), a famine of orders followed by feasts followed by famines again, etc.

That's got nowt to do with who owns the rolling stock and everything with the lack of anyone to sit down and work out what the rolling stock requirements will be across the entire network over the next ten, twenty and thirty years. Then develop a strategy to procure the right stock to meet the relevant requirements of replacing life expired stock or introducing new stock on the to meet the needs of the highest revenue services whilst cascading the replaced stock that has useful life to give to replace life expired stock elsewhere.

ROSCOs aren't going to care where exactly their asset is being used at any one time as long as their bills are getting paid so the loss of flexibilty is negligible if any loss occurs at all. I can't recall any cascade ever having fallen through because the ROSCO said "actually no thanks, we'd rather our asset sit in a siding somewhere costing us money and earning us very little if it's all the same".

 

[irish_rail]

You do remember how much trouble BR had in getting any rolling stock procurement approved?
You'd be back to annual limits on capital spend, and have to choose between (say) rolling stock and signalling investment.

I can't help but think this wouldn't be a bad thing, we may actually focus on decent refurbs of the trains we have , rather than buying all singing all dancing fancy stuff that might look good but doesn't cut it.....

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The current shambolic state of rolling stock ordering and allocation is more down to fragmented nature of the industry than the ownership of the rolling stock. A "guiding mind" taking a long term view of requirements on, at least, a England basis would be able to make decisions on procurement and re-deployment on a far more holistic basis than the farcical situations we've seen in recent years where a change of ownership means the extinction of a brand new fleet in favour of another brand new fleet (707s for 701s on SWR), units being withdrawn and then having nowhere to go because the numbers in the bid made new stock more attractive (379s for 745s on GA), a famine of orders followed by feasts followed by famines again, etc.

That's got nowt to do with who owns the rolling stock and everything with the lack of anyone to sit down and work out what the rolling stock requirements will be across the entire network over the next ten, twenty and thirty years. Then develop a strategy to procure the right stock to meet the relevant requirements of replacing life expired stock or introducing new stock on the to meet the needs of the highest revenue services whilst cascading the replaced stock that has useful life to give to replace life expired stock elsewhere.

ROSCOs aren't going to care where exactly their asset is being used at any one time as long as their bills are getting paid so the loss of flexibilty is negligible if any loss occurs at all. I can't recall any cascade ever having fallen through because the ROSCO said "actually no thanks, we'd rather our asset sit in a siding somewhere costing us money and earning us very little if it's all the same".

Spot on but a bit of decent leadership within the industry could have sorted this. For me this is sort of initiative RDG should have delivered on but they've proven to be the most inept organisation to arise out of privatisation.

 

[Danfilm007]

That's got nowt to do with who owns the rolling stock and everything with the lack of anyone to sit down and work out what the rolling stock requirements will be across the entire network over the next ten, twenty and thirty years. Then develop a strategy to procure the right stock to meet the relevant requirements of replacing life expired stock or introducing new stock on the to meet the needs of the highest revenue services whilst cascading the replaced stock that has useful life to give to replace life expired stock elsewhere.

Hear, hear! Considering how much the DfT loves to meddle it is amazing it doesn't have more plans. Although they did get flak on all sides on the IEPs so maybe not...