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

[43066]

Where do we have the intercity brand?

My TOC’s long distance services are adorned with the intercity name, which presumably means they’ve licensed it from the DfT, who own the IP rights to the ex BR brands AIUI.

 

[Facing Back]

My TOC’s long distance services are adorned with the intercity name, which presumably means they’ve licensed it from the DfT, who own the IP rights to the ex BR brands AIUI.

OK cheers. I like the brand name and it would be a step forward (IMHO) if there was a clearer and more consistent level of service associated with Intercity services as opposed to commuter services - perhaps 2+2 seats, a reliable catering offer and provision of first class. It's mostly there but there seems to be constant dilution. On longer routes where there are multiple operators - London to Crewe is the example relevant to me - the service offered by Avanti and West Midlands are quite different - which is great - although Avanti seem to be striving to unilaterally close the gap in service but not in price, a trend I wish would stop.

 

[irish_rail]

OK cheers. I like the brand name and it would be a step forward (IMHO) if there was a clearer and more consistent level of service associated with Intercity services as opposed to commuter services - perhaps 2+2 seats, a reliable catering offer and provision of first class. It's mostly there but there seems to be constant dilution. On longer routes where there are multiple operators - London to Crewe is the example relevant to me - the service offered by Avanti and West Midlands are quite different - which is great - although Avanti seem to be striving to unilaterally close the gap in service but not in price, a trend I wish would stop.

I suppose one of the problems is the Dft have made it a grey area. At Plymouth for example, the intercity train heading off to London is an 80x, meanwhile the all stations stopper to Exeter or Penzance is also an 80x.

 

[Facing Back]

I suppose one of the problems is the Dft have made it a grey area. At Plymouth for example, the intercity train heading off to London is an 80x, meanwhile the all stations stopper to Exeter or Penzance is also an 80x.

Yeah. I'm old fashioned enough not to like that kind of bleed - I like a brand to be be clear and distinct. Intercity should be exactly that - a few stops, great service and running as fast as physically possible (IMHO). Modern marketeers make the case that this kind of thinking is ante-diluvian and that overlap adds great value.

 

[domcoop7]

There is zero chance of Labour renationalising rail in the way the word "renationalise" is commonly understood to mean. A policy paper from the Corbyn era is meaningless. Andy McDonald MP who wrote it has had the whip removed from him and isn't even a Labour MP now. It's just naivety and wishful thinking with a sprikling of nostalgia to say otherwise and start planning the livery and brand names.

There is a possibility Labour take a few more franchises into OLR, and a greater possibility that Northern Rail gets split up in Labour Metro-Mayor areas into smaller companies run by the local PTE. There's an outside chance they'd even take the likes of Avanti and XC into OLR, but that is less likely. In any event it is all entirely speculation. What a Labour government under Sir Keir Starmer will not do is use capital expenditure to buy the goodwill and assets of any currently private business or stock (which is what nationalisation means). The ideological purpose of nationalisation of the British Transport Commission's subsidiaries back in the day was so that the proletariat as represented by the government owned the means of production. They were kept nationalised by subsequent Conservative governments because the assets were useful and because they had better things to do than try to sell them. Until 1994. Starmer's Labour has zero interest in proletariats or means of production. So it won't happen as there is no reason for them to even waste the time thinking of how to do it, let alone spend any money on it.

In any event, this speculative off-topic guesswork arose from an indication in the King's Speech that a Green Paper would be issued on rail. The government briefing as revealed in Railnews suggests the draft bill will set out how the "guiding mind" of the rail industry will work. In other words it is GB Railways. It likely won't even be passed as a law, before the General Election, let alone restrict what any future Labour government will do.

 

[yorksrob]

There is zero chance of Labour renationalising rail in the way the word "renationalise" is commonly understood to mean. A policy paper from the Corbyn era is meaningless. Andy McDonald MP who wrote it has had the whip removed from him and isn't even a Labour MP now. It's just naivety and wishful thinking with a sprikling of nostalgia to say otherwise and start planning the livery and brand names.

There is a possibility Labour take a few more franchises into OLR, and a greater possibility that Northern Rail gets split up in Labour Metro-Mayor areas into smaller companies run by the local PTE. There's an outside chance they'd even take the likes of Avanti and XC into OLR, but that is less likely. In any event it is all entirely speculation. What a Labour government under Sir Keir Starmer will not do is use capital expenditure to buy the goodwill and assets of any currently private business or stock (which is what nationalisation means). The ideological purpose of nationalisation of the British Transport Commission's subsidiaries back in the day was so that the proletariat as represented by the government owned the means of production. They were kept nationalised by subsequent Conservative governments because the assets were useful and because they had better things to do than try to sell them. Until 1994. Starmer's Labour has zero interest in proletariats or means of production. So it won't happen as there is no reason for them to even waste the time thinking of how to do it, let alone spend any money on it.

In any event, this speculative off-topic guesswork arose from an indication in the King's Speech that a Green Paper would be issued on rail. The government briefing as revealed in Railnews suggests the draft bill will set out how the "guiding mind" of the rail industry will work. In other words it is GB Railways. It likely won't even be passed as a law, before the General Election, let alone restrict what any future Labour government will do.

Indeed. There is an element of railway people navel gazing in the concentration on ownership.

As I said earlier in the thread, something eyecatching which captures the imagination of the travelling public is what is needed by any party approaching a GE.

 

[GWVillager]

There is zero chance of Labour renationalising rail in the way the word "renationalise" is commonly understood to mean. A policy paper from the Corbyn era is meaningless. Andy McDonald MP who wrote it has had the whip removed from him and isn't even a Labour MP now. It's just naivety and wishful thinking with a sprikling of nostalgia to say otherwise and start planning the livery and brand names.

There is a possibility Labour take a few more franchises into OLR, and a greater possibility that Northern Rail gets split up in Labour Metro-Mayor areas into smaller companies run by the local PTE. There's an outside chance they'd even take the likes of Avanti and XC into OLR, but that is less likely. In any event it is all entirely speculation. What a Labour government under Sir Keir Starmer will not do is use capital expenditure to buy the goodwill and assets of any currently private business or stock (which is what nationalisation means). The ideological purpose of nationalisation of the British Transport Commission's subsidiaries back in the day was so that the proletariat as represented by the government owned the means of production. They were kept nationalised by subsequent Conservative governments because the assets were useful and because they had better things to do than try to sell them. Until 1994. Starmer's Labour has zero interest in proletariats or means of production. So it won't happen as there is no reason for them to even waste the time thinking of how to do it, let alone spend any money on it.

In any event, this speculative off-topic guesswork arose from an indication in the King's Speech that a Green Paper would be issued on rail. The government briefing as revealed in Railnews suggests the draft bill will set out how the "guiding mind" of the rail industry will work. In other words it is GB Railways. It likely won't even be passed as a law, before the General Election, let alone restrict what any future Labour government will do.

I would disagree. Regardless of the validity of the definition, I would say that “nationalisation” is generally understood to mean the Government taking control of and running passenger rail services. This is definitely not out of the question, and could be far more ambitious than just expanding the OLR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would disagree. Regardless of the validity of the definition, I would say that “nationalisation” is generally understood to mean the Government taking control of and running passenger rail services. This is definitely not out of the question, and could be far more ambitious than just expanding the OLR.

I think the image most people have of "nationalisation" isn't just changing the ownership of a franchise (LNER, Northern, TPE etc) but rather recreating something vertically integrated like BR, even if it might in reality be "Rail England" due to significant devolution since BR existed.

 

[Purple Train]

I suppose one of the problems is the Dft have made it a grey area. At Plymouth for example, the intercity train heading off to London is an 80x, meanwhile the all stations stopper to Exeter or Penzance is also an 80x.

Indeed, I found it very confusing when I was down at Temple Meads watching the 80xs waiting on the fast London trains, while 802013 sneaks in on the 15.51 to Taunton, next stop Bedminster!

The railways currently are just so fragmented that no kind of decent brand-image would be possible. I'd love a return to Sectorisation, but maybe that's just my general enthusiasm for most things NSE creeping through.

 

[Facing Back]

I would disagree. Regardless of the validity of the definition, I would say that “nationalisation” is generally understood to mean the Government taking control of and running passenger rail services. This is definitely not out of the question, and could be far more ambitious than just expanding the OLR.

I would disagree with you and suggest that nationalisation is generally understood to mean the public owning the means of production. But I'm of a certain age. I'll ask my partner's grandkids what they think.

 

[eldomtom2]

Wiktionary defines "nationalisation" as "he act of taking formerly private assets into public or state ownership". I'd say that most people don't consider "nationalisation" as something that inherently means something that is ideologically justified by wanting the proletariat to own the means of production.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The railways currently are just so fragmented that no kind of decent brand-image would be possible. I'd love a return to Sectorisation, but maybe that's just my general enthusiasm for most things NSE creeping through.

Back in the late 70s, BR (WR) was so awash with HSTs it used them on some Oxford-Reading stoppers.
They were sniggeringly announced at Oxford as "Inter-Village HSTs".
Luckily with sectorisation the WR had to give up some HSTs to the MML and XC to operate more commercially-valuable services.
Nationalisation is not necessarily the solution to all ills, and there will always be boundaries and localism and dis-integration along the borders, whatever they are.

 

[Bartsimho]

Back in the late 70s, BR (WR) was so awash with HSTs it used them on some Oxford-Reading stoppers.
They were sniggeringly announced at Oxford as "Inter-Village HSTs".
Luckily with sectorisation the WR had to give up some HSTs to the MML and XC to operate more commercially-valuable services.
Nationalisation is not necessarily the solution to all ills, and there will always be boundaries and localism and dis-integration along the borders, whatever they are.

An ides to deal with the overlaps. Maybe the regions overlap somewhat to create a desire to serve those outer reaches. Almost slight competition within an organisation due to those overlaps with the timetable planners acting as mediators to ensure coherent services. Also an internal minimum service level timetable for each station to receive

 

[D6130]

Back in the late 70s, BR (WR) was so awash with HSTs it used them on some Oxford-Reading stoppers.
They were sniggeringly announced at Oxford as "Inter-Village HSTs".

I and my friends referred to them as 'Inter-Village 25s'....as opposed to Inter-City 125s.

 

[renegademaster]

What is with this forums obsession with messing about with the present franchise operations? Most of the current structure makes sense, all I can think of in my neck of the woods that could change is trading some of the southern metro services with London overground

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is with this forums obsession with messing about with the present franchise operations? Most of the current structure makes sense, all I can think of in my neck of the woods that could change is trading some of the southern metro services with London overground

The "one regional TOC per London terminus" thing largely does work, because most journeys are into London (though I'd agree some of the inner metro services would be better with TfL). However away from that it isn't as clear-cut. In particular Northern is unmanageably big and how they interface with TPE is extremely awkward.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

how they interface with TPE is extremely awkward.

How does it interfere?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How does it interfere?

There is significant overlap between what both TOCs do, and this causes silly distractions like them "competing" with each other by offering Advances 10p cheaper than a walk-up rather than working together for the benefit of passengers.

On the other hand, merging them in would accentuate the "Northern is too big" issue. But as most of their operation is east of the Pennines the immediately post privatisation setup of it being part of "Regional Railways North East" was probably a better compromise.

 

[Sorcerer]

To be honest I don't see Starmer's Labour being the one to renationalise the railways. I think they might instead just go with the Great British Railways idea and have it run like Transport for London where private operators are granted concessions. I might be wrong but I just don't get the impression of a proper alternative to the Conservatives under Labour except maybe being a lite version in red ties. Things might change come actual election time but at the present I think nationalisation is too dirty a word for the party that has been working to purge the Corbynista factions from their front benches.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

There is significant overlap between what both TOCs do, and this causes silly distractions like them "competing" with each other by offering Advances 10p cheaper than a walk-up rather than working together for the benefit of passengers.

On the other hand, merging them in would accentuate the "Northern is too big" issue. But as most of their operation is east of the Pennines the immediately post privatisation setup of it being part of "Regional Railways North East" was probably a better compromise.

Make:

TPEX North West - part of Avanti
TPEX North East part of LNER
Cleethorpes service part of EMR

Perhaps that might help?

 

[Bletchleyite]

TPEX North West - part of Avanti

Yes. Splitting this out was just based on who had rolling stock, it never really made sense, and is totally different from their other operations in that it is true InterCity, i.e. most passengers are travelling from Manchester to Scotland or vice versa, not making overlapping intermediate journeys as are the majority of those on TPE.

The 7-car 802s would be ideal for this.

TPEX North East part of LNER

Not convinced. LNER is mostly a long distance TOC, while TPE is mostly a regional express service despite liking to shout about being InterCity and having fancy trains with pointy noses.

Cleethorpes service part of EMR

I would be inclined to agree with that.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Yes any ideas for splitting up Northern now?

 

[507020]

TPEX North West - part of Avanti
TPEX North East part of LNER
Cleethorpes service part of EMR

Perhaps that might help?

But this - thinking in terms of a fragmented industry - is the disease of privatisation as we have it and the 2nd most important thing that needs to be resolved.

How about ALL of TPE, along with ALL other passenger services, to a SINGLE OPERATOR, which can then run them in a well organised way, without worrying about who is Avanti, who is LNER, who is TPE, who is Northern, who is EMR etc. The single operator could even use special InterCity branding on it’s most prestigious services and arguments about which present TPE services deserve this is unhelpful.

The most important thing to resolve is the abolition of ROSCOs and (compulsory) purchase of assets in the form of rolling stock. Obviously it is a lost cause renationalising 30 year old ex-BR units, however it is certainly cheaper in the long term for Labour to take ownership of currently privately owned rolling stock more like 5-10 years old at current value, than for any operator to continue to haemorrhage money on a perpetually increasing lease, for no benefit.

Even with all private TOCs, fragmented or otherwise, for them to lease publicly owned rolling stock directly for the government, as opposed to private ROSCOs, would generate revenue for the taxpayer rather than simply allowing this money to be lost from the industry in perpetuity and I would prefer this to a solution of nationalised operators leasing stock from private ROSCOs originating from the Railways Act 1993.

Devolution of ScotRail and TfW is not an issue. If Scotland and Wales are separate countries with separate railways, then they can maintain their own infrastructure within their own borders and have full control of any services that do not cross those borders. Any that do would be international services be required to be jointly operated with the co-operation of “English Rail” in the same way as InterCity services, although this would be more of a problem for the many TfW services (and some presently GWR operated services that would deserve this distinction under a single operator) that cross into England, than for ScotRail’s only cross-border services between Carlisle and Dumfries.

Obviously, the present TfW’s Chester - Crewe/Lime Street services that do not enter Wales, would be the sole responsibility of “English Rail” unless extended into Wales.

InterCity and NSE’s branding was flawless, although the distinction between their services was not *cough* Gatwick Express *cough* but it is “Regional Railways” I take issue with. So everywhere outside London and the south east not on a main line is insignificant, but Exeter and Weymouth are in the south east? Clearly this would have to be split up with great local control over the single operator’s local services for PTE/Combined Authority/Metro Mayor areas and the emergence of ScotRail and TfW fits well into this.

 

[DJ_K666]

When I moved from the NE to the SE in 1990, I thought that NSE were fantastic. I had grown up thinking trains were something we only used on special occasions but here I was in an area where people used them every day. The separate branding from British Rail made them feel like a totally different service. It was the BR brand which brings back less than fond memories.

Creating a new brand of "GB Rail" (Labour) or "Great British Railways" (Conservative) from nothing is going to be hard. Chances are that people will just call it British Rail anyway

I still do call thd national network British Rail as it's easier and more convenient for me.

Plus it brings image like this to mind. Doesnt it look fantastic?

Google Image Result for https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6b/ad/bc/6badbcc7b2decf1809afe2eed28ebffe.jpg

Let's face it, a new return to Nationalisation is unlikely to be the same as what we had, even if J would prefer a more 'De-Privatisation' middle over a 'Renationalisation'. To my mind they're not quite the same. I'd prefer us to go back to April 1st 1997 and go 'the other way'. To me this means 1997 group standards, the old sectorisation liveries and identities and hopefully more locomotive hauled trains.
(with the addition of one or two of the post privatisation safety features of course. And a mandate to reopen as much as possible. Maybe bringing stations back in more convenient locations than first built)


Another thing I'd certainly do would be to build a new type of coach, with the crashworthiness exceeding the latest mk5 stock but visually indistinguishable from a mk1 or 2. The idea is we can get back to sanity after the mistake of privatisation.

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.


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?

I'd love to see the NBC return.

Re-reading the 2020 document, it comes over as Andy McDonald's* personal view of rail reorganisation, with an Ian Taylor largely credited for the detail.
There was also an earlier union-sponsored study along similar lines.

There are several elephants in the room which have emerged since 2020.
The first is financing of the rail industry, with the current model broken and a shortfall of a couple of billion a year in rail funding.
Second is the way TOC contracts are now let (NRCs), and the retreat of foreign involvement (the exit of NS and DB from TOC contracts).
Third is the political changes to do with post-Brexit/Covid/Ukraine economic woes, high inflation/taxes etc and the general crisis in public services.
Fourth would be the recent cancellation of HS2 beyond phase 1, and "Network North".

The current Labour leadership is understandably very cautious about making funding commitments, and intends to stay within the Tory government spending limits for its first parliament (as Gordon Brown did post-1997).
So the scope for radical change is less than Andy McDonald's blue sky approach.
Kier Starmer also wants to be business-friendly, and cancelling private sector involvement in rail is not the way to do that.
Even Andy Burnham is proposing to franchise out Greater Manchester's bus services to the private sector, as happens in London.

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.

* Andy McDonald was Shadow Transport SoS in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet, 2016-20.

What is Louise Haigh's view on the railways? We had some pretty questionable Transport secretaries under the last Labour government iirc

 

[Tetchytyke]

Splitting this out was just based on who had rolling stock, it never really made sense, and is totally different from their other operations in that it is true InterCity

The transfer made sense at the time, as it linked the service in nicely with the former First North Western express services to Blackpool and Barrow/Windermere which also transferred to TPE. The busiest part of the Manchester-Scotland service is still south of Lancaster, which in terms of feel is very similar to the TPE Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds core.

Sadly the Blackpool and Barrow/Windermere expresses have gone back to Northern, with a service standard to match. It’s telling how many people for Preston and Lancaster will let the Northern train go and wait for TPE.

The better split was when it was RRNE and RRNW to be quite honest.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Sadly the Blackpool and Barrow/Windermere expresses have gone back to Northern, with a service standard to match. It’s telling how many people for Preston and Lancaster will let the Northern train go and wait for TPE.

Tbh I'll wait for the northern as I'm more likely to get a seat especially if it's a 6 car
B

 

[Backroom_boy]

The transfer made sense at the time, as it linked the service in nicely with the former First North Western express services to Blackpool and Barrow/Windermere which also transferred to TPE. The busiest part of the Manchester-Scotland service is still south of Lancaster, which in terms of feel is very similar to the TPE Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds core.

Sadly the Blackpool and Barrow/Windermere expresses have gone back to Northern, with a service standard to match. It’s telling how many people for Preston and Lancaster will let the Northern train go and wait for TPE.

The better split was when it was RRNE and RRNW to be quite honest.

I'd let the metro areas run their own services (Liverpool, Manchester, West Yorkshire, Tyneside) Scottish services to Intercity (or even Scotrail) and any residual services combined back into TPE.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I'd let the metro areas run their own services (Liverpool, Manchester, West Yorkshire, Tyneside) Scottish services to Intercity and any residual services combined back into TPE.

I personally, without any professional judgement whatsoever, would like to see Euston to Glasgow services taken over by Scotrail. I think having a more “Scottish” feel to these services like the sleeper has, would be a great brand for the railway and might attract new tourist custom.

 

[Backroom_boy]

I personally, without any professional judgement whatsoever, would like to see Euston to Glasgow services taken over by Scotrail. I think having a more “Scottish” feel to these services like the sleeper has, would be a great brand for the railway and might attract new tourist custom.

Good idea.

 

[renegademaster]

I personally, without any professional judgement whatsoever, would like to see Euston to Glasgow services taken over by Scotrail. I think having a more “Scottish” feel to these services like the sleeper has, would be a great brand for the railway and might attract new tourist custom

It'd be a pretty expensive microfleet for scotrail. Plus if it is like the current timetable, the first train crew would have to take the whole journey down to London first without serving customers in order to run the first train , unless you have a scotrail depot inside England. Caledonian sleeper is outsourced , not ran by scotrail themselves