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

[yorksrob]

A *very* slective memory there. Yes NSE repainted stations and trains so they looked a bit brighter and did some advertising, but many NSE lines were run down operated with decrepit rolling stock and poor reliability - think lines like the Gospel Oak - Barking, Euston DC lines or the Marylebone suburban lines.

There have always been lines that have been fairly decrepit. Any line run primarily with 142's in later years.

NSE introduced new rolling stock, and often where it couldn't do that, provided high quality refurbishments to existing trains.

It also offered genuine fares innovation of the sort that actually benefitted passengers such as the Network Railcard, rather than the current "innovation" designed to rinse passengers as much as possible.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Does this include nationalising open access operators and freight?

Freight should be at least partially nationalised, say GBRF is nationalised but someone like Freightliner stays private to offer competition. I think OAOs should stay as they are, they exist in many countries which have nationalised rail operators, think Italy, Germany, Spain, Austria and others.

Has anyone discussed about the possibility to purchase train production sites in the UK, such as purchasing Derby works and putting it under something like BREL?

 

[mike57]

Freight should be at least partially nationalised

Is freight a problem? Most passenger services require subsidy, and the current system isn't working, so yes, nationalise, but would freight services improve if say GBRF were to be nationalised, or would the intention be to subsidise to encourage mode switch. In that case however those subsidies would have to be available to all operators.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Is freight a problem? Most passenger services require subsidy, and the current system isn't working, so yes, nationalise, but would freight services improve if say GBRF were to be nationalised, or would the intention be to subsidise to encourage mode switch. In that case however those subsidies would have to be available to all operators.

A nationalised operator could lower freight rail prices (using subsidies) to attract more customers and give the Government more income. That's why I said that a private operator should remain to provide said nationalised operator with on-rail competition, as roads and air will provide competition to rail freight as well.

 

[Gaz67]

Is freight a problem? Most passenger services require subsidy, and the current system isn't working, so yes, nationalise, but would freight services improve if say GBRF were to be nationalised, or would the intention be to subsidise to encourage mode switch. In that case however those subsidies would have to be available to all operators.

DB Is the obvious choice to return to state control. It is losing work and wants out , this will at least preserve Crewe Electric and Toton and prevent freight loco maintenance being turned into a cottage industry.

 

[mike57]

It is losing work and wants out

But then it will be a millstone around the taxpayer neck. What advantage would state control bring? Passenger operations are a mess with 4 ToCs already under state control, and one or two others who have escaped by the skin of their teeth (Avanti?), so bringing all passenger operations back under one operation has advantages if done right, but I cant see how the same approach would benefit freight.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

But then it will be a millstone around the taxpayer neck. What advantage would state control bring? Passenger operations are a mess with 4 ToCs already under state control, and one or two others who have escaped by the skin of their teeth (Avanti?), so bringing all passenger operations back under one operation has advantages if done right, but I cant see how the same approach would benefit freight.

But this proposal doesn’t bring all passenger operations under one operation. Take the ECML that would only be 1 out of 4 London Intercity Operators would be under state control.

 

[Gaz67]

But then it will be a millstone around the taxpayer neck. What advantage would state control bring? Passenger operations are a mess with 4 ToCs already under state control, and one or two others who have escaped by the skin of their teeth (Avanti?), so bringing all passenger operations back under one operation has advantages if done right, but I cant see how the same approach would benefit freight.

Pretty sure its still profitable , think it would be advantageous for the state to have a presence in the freight sector going forward and as I said I think TO and CE need protecting, if and when electric traction is in vogue again it would be a shame if the 90/92 couldnt be returned to use. The overhead for these 2 sites is something the other freight operators dont really have, cant see another private venture wanting them. All this is assuming of course DB do want out and TO and CE are drains on DB finances , maybe its no on both counts.

 

[Mike Machin]

There's already far too much government involvement with the railways already. The network should be under state control, as is the case with roads. I would like to see regional/metropolitan passenger services come under the control of local/regionally-funded transport authorities, but the long-distance inter-city type services should be completely opened-up to private operators on an open access basis without subsidies and let the market decide what level/type of service the customer wants or is prepared to pay for. Some services would do incredibly well, others would probably fall by the wayside.

Freight should definitely remain firmly in the private sector.

 

[coppercapped]

Freight should be at least partially nationalised, say GBRF is nationalised but someone like Freightliner stays private to offer competition. I think OAOs should stay as they are, they exist in many countries which have nationalised rail operators, think Italy, Germany, Spain, Austria and others.

Has anyone discussed about the possibility to purchase train production sites in the UK, such as purchasing Derby works and putting it under something like BREL?

Hmm...

I would suggest that some of the differences in theory and practice between private and nationalised companies need to be better understood. A private company has a simple purpose: it is there to make money for its owners or shareholders. In some rare cases they are intended to deliver some other defined aim, for example Cadbury was privately held but had objectives other than just making a profit although, of course, it was only by making a profit that it could fulfil its philanthropic ambitions.

Nationalised companies are very different beasts. Essentially there are four arguments for their existence:

1. to make money (the "why give the profits to shareholders when the whole country can have them?" argument)
2. to deliver a vital service that otherwise would either not be delivered or would be more expensive
3. to reduce the "waste" of competition
4. to create or maintain employment (makework)?

The usual claim is a combination of 1, 2 and sometimes 3, but it almost always ends up as 4.

I am not saying that nationalisation is, per se, bad, but that one should be very clear on what the objectives are and whether there might be other more effective ways of obtaining the same objectives.

Remind me, for how long have the users of Felixstowe harbour been campaigning for the doubling and electrification of the branch line and the removal of bottlenecks at Ely and Haughley Junction by the nationalised Network Rail and the DfT? So, my response is that if one wants to kill the railfreight industry in this country a certain way is to force shipping transport and logistics companies to deal with a nationalised industry...

Edit: Simplify text and added reference to the DfT.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Freight should definitely remain firmly in the private sector.

Going to have to disagree with you there. While I agree the Government micro-manages the railway, I think a state-owned freight company managed at "arms-length" could really grow the freight rail market, whilst taking over struggling competitors (like DB Cargo UK) with some subsidies, whilst competing with other private freight operators like Freightliner.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Hmm...

I would suggest that some of the differences in theory and practice between private and nationalised companies need to be better understood. A private company has a simple purpose: it is there to make money for its owners or shareholders. In some rare cases they are intended to deliver to shareholders some other defined aim, for example Cadbury was privately held but had objectives other than just making a profit although, of course, it was only by making a profit that it could fulfil its philanthropic ambitions.

Nationalised companies are very different beasts. Essentially there are four arguments for their existence:

1. to make money (the "why give the profits to shareholders when the whole country can have them?" argument)
2. to deliver a vital service that otherwise would either not be delivered or would be more expensive
3. to reduce the "waste" of competition
4. to create or maintain employment (makework)?

The usual claim is a combination of 1, 2 and sometimes 3, but it almost always ends up as 4.

I am not saying that nationalisation is, per se, bad, but that one should be very clear on what the objectives are and whether there might be other more effective ways of obtaining the same objectives.

Remind me, for how long have the users of Felixstowe harbour been campaigning for the doubling and electrification of the branch line and the removal of bottlenecks at Ely and Haughley Junction by the nationalised Network Rail? So, my response is that if one wants to kill the railfreight industry in this country a certain way is to force shipping transport and logistics companies to deal with a nationalised industry...

I personally think a nationalised freight operator would cover 1, 2 and 4 of your points. It could provide vital rail freight services, whilst maintaining employment and any money made would go to the Government. I don't think #3 will happen to a large extent, perhaps someone like DB Cargo UK would be purchased, but the likes of Colas Rail Freight and Freightliner would still be very strong competitor to a nationalised operator.

 

[A0wen]

There have always been lines that have been fairly decrepit. Any line run primarily with 142's in later years.

But not that were carrying anything like the same number of passengers.

NSE introduced new rolling stock, and often where it couldn't do that, provided high quality refurbishments to existing trains.

Those things would have happened regardless. The DMUs running out of Paddington & Marylebone were life expired by the late 1980s - the only thing NSE really did was to style them a bit differently - had NSE not existed then another class of Sprinter with 23m coaches and 1/3 2/3 doors would have been introduced.

And in refurbs the "London South East" sector had already refurbished some EMUs wjich were repainted into "Jaffa cake" livery.

It also offered genuine fares innovation of the sort that actually benefitted passengers such as the Network Railcard, rather than the current "innovation" designed to rinse passengers as much as possible.

Again, balderdash. The Travelcard (as the Capitalcard) long predated NSE. The Network Railcard was simply a promotional device to encourage off peak rail usage. London and the south east had, unlike the rest of the country, a huge amount of off peak capacity because of the capacity needed to get commuters into London at peak times.

More recent "innovations", mainly online, offer passengers far more than any "one size fits all" discount model that the Network Card does. Which is why, despite the growth in rail use, the number of Network Cards in circulation is 30% less than its 1990s peak. Even now, if I want to go into London tomorrow for less than £20 on an advance ticket - which is cheaper than a NC discount on a regular priced ticket.

 

[yorksrob]

But not that were carrying anything like the same number of passengers.



Those things would have happened regardless. The DMUs running out of Paddington & Marylebone were life expired by the late 1980s - the only thing NSE really did was to style them a bit differently - had NSE not existed then another class of Sprinter with 23m coaches and 1/3 2/3 doors would have been introduced.

And in refurbs the "London South East" sector had already refurbished some EMUs wjich were repainted into "Jaffa cake" livery.

And yet you'd be amazed how many people seem to attribute every piece of rolling stock introduced after 1997 to "privatisation" as though the network had never seen a new train before.

The L&SE sector was a branding forerunner to NSE, so you're basically making my argument that it was perfectly capable of refurbishing and introducing trains.

Again, balderdash. The Travelcard (as the Capitalcard) long predated NSE. The Network Railcard was simply a promotional device to encourage off peak rail usage. London and the south east had, unlike the rest of the country, a huge amount of off peak capacity because of the capacity needed to get commuters into London at peak times.

Again, thank you for coming up with more examples to bolster my argument that BR's south eastern sector managed to come up with genuine fares innovation that actually benefits passengers.

More recent "innovations", mainly online, offer passengers far more than any "one size fits all" discount model that the Network Card does. Which is why, despite the growth in rail use, the number of Network Cards in circulation is 30% less than its 1990s peak. Even now, if I want to go into London tomorrow for less than £20 on an advance ticket - which is cheaper than a NC discount on a regular priced ticket.

Yes, lots of fascinating ways of offering the one trick that the "pony" of the privatised railway actually offers in terms of value for passengers. Advanced Purchase.

Advanced purchase, however you dress it up, is about taking away the freedom that people have to catch a different train - made all the more apparent by LNER's withdrawal of off-peak fares.

I'm sure that most of us whom the industry seems to studiously avoid offering a network wide railcard to would welcome a "one size fits all" discount scheme that other, less badly governed countries manage to, but I'm sure the money is better spent on yet another fuel duty freeze and running Rishie's helicopter.

 

[mike57]

I think a state-owned freight company managed at "arms-length" could really grow the freight rail market

I think the issue here is arms length, irrespective of political hue governments like to be seen to be 'doing something' and I dont think think the arms length set up would survive one government, let alone a change of government.

The big problem the railways have is that the investment cycle is much longer than the political cycle.

Advanced purchase, however you dress it up, is about taking away the freedom that people have to catch a different train

I dont mind advance purchase for a leisure journey, but they rarely are practical for work related travel. In common with quite a few others my rail travel falls into 3 categories:

Leisure/discretionary journeys, where I will accept restrictions to save money and/or maybe look to upgrade from standard to 1st class
Non-reimbursable work journeys, these are the thorniest for me. I want to minimise expenditure, as its 'money down the drain' but have to retain some flexibility. Recent LNER changes are making these journeys using LNER expensive, so I may have to look at a different mode (probably driving)
Reimbursable work journeys, Ultimately I will go for a flexible ticket, if the cost increases it wont directly affect me. If 1st class is allowed and available I will use it. Convenience and journey time are the deciding factors.

The railways need to cater for all these segments, and compete with other modes of transport. I think the biggest downside with the current arrangements are fragmentation, one national passenger operator would address this.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I think the issue here is arms length, irrespective of political hue governments like to be seen to be 'doing something' and I dont think think the arms length set up would survive one government, let alone a change of government.

The big problem the railways have is that the investment cycle is much longer than the political cycle.

Agreed, even though BR was in theory at "arms-length", Governments (both the Conservatives and Labour) did a lot of meddling in BR despite not being experienced rail workers.

 

[A0wen]

I think the issue here is arms length, irrespective of political hue governments like to be seen to be 'doing something' and I dont think think the arms length set up would survive one government, let alone a change of government.

The big problem the railways have is that the investment cycle is much longer than the political cycle.

I dont mind advance purchase for a leisure journey, but they rarely are practical for work related travel. In common with quite a few others my rail travel falls into 3 categories:

Leisure/discretionary journeys, where I will accept restrictions to save money and/or maybe look to upgrade from standard to 1st class
Non-reimbursable work journeys, these are the thorniest for me. I want to minimise expenditure, as its 'money down the drain' but have to retain some flexibility. Recent LNER changes are making these journeys using LNER expensive, so I may have to look at a different mode (probably driving)
Reimbursable work journeys, Ultimately I will go for a flexible ticket, if the cost increases it wont directly affect me. If 1st class is allowed and available I will use it. Convenience and journey time are the deciding factors.

The railways need to cater for all these segments, and compete with other modes of transport. I think the biggest downside with the current arrangements are fragmentation, one national passenger operator would address this.

Though the second of those - non reimbursable work journeys - basically means commuting to / from a single place of work, because virtually all employers would reimburse where an employee needs to travel elsewhere. And since most people are doing such a journey more than once a week, things like season tickets do cover that scenario for most people.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Going to have to disagree with you there. While I agree the Government micro-manages the railway, I think a state-owned freight company managed at "arms-length" could really grow the freight rail market, whilst taking over struggling competitors (like DB Cargo UK) with some subsidies, whilst competing with other private freight operators like Freightliner.

This is basically DRS, which seemed to be expanding outside its core business a few years back but seems to be very quiet these days. Either they weren't successful or maybe the Government told them to wind it back as they were, in their view, 'distorting' a free market.

Edit: actually DRS still seem pretty busy outside their core area.

 

[YorkRailFan]

This is basically DRS, which seemed to be expanding outside its core business a few years back but seems to be very quiet these days. Either they weren't successful or maybe the Government told them to wind it back as they were, in their view, 'distorting' a free market.

Perhaps a DRS-GBRF merger with the DFT being the owner could be a solution?

 

[coppercapped]

Perhaps a DRS-GBRF merger with the DFT being the owner could be a solution?

To which particular problem?

 

[eldomtom2]

There's already far too much government involvement with the railways already. The network should be under state control, as is the case with roads. I would like to see regional/metropolitan passenger services come under the control of local/regionally-funded transport authorities, but the long-distance inter-city type services should be completely opened-up to private operators on an open access basis without subsidies and let the market decide what level/type of service the customer wants or is prepared to pay for. Some services would do incredibly well, others would probably fall by the wayside.

This is a great way to end up with a fragmented and incoherent system.

Remind me, for how long have the users of Felixstowe harbour been campaigning for the doubling and electrification of the branch line and the removal of bottlenecks at Ely and Haughley Junction by the nationalised Network Rail and the DfT? So, my response is that if one wants to kill the railfreight industry in this country a certain way is to force shipping transport and logistics companies to deal with a nationalised industry...

How likely is it that a private infrastructure owner would have done those things?

 

[WAB]

Bring back Regional Railways with its 'hand me down' rolling stock too!

A substantial portion of the Regional Railways fleet was already renewed by the time of privatisation, and if RR still existed today, it would have a substantial portion of newer units (because even by the 80s, the futility of InterCity cascades had been realised). Maybe the Chiltern and GWR turbos and the 159s would have ended up with RR by now, but that's it.

 

[renegademaster]

state-owned freight company managed at "arms-length"

So DRS?

 

[mike57]

And since most people are doing such a journey more than once a week, things like season tickets do cover that scenario for most people.

I am a slightly odd case, as I mainly WFH. Depending on the contract this may mean I have to pay for travel to the parent office, but I always add a rider in the contract to make it reimbursable after say 3 journeys per month. Typically at the moment its twice per month.

Current personal moan are journeys using Northern and LNER, different ticket strategies means you have to split tickets to get the best value where advance tickets will not work. This is why I would like to see a national rail operator, with a consistant ticket policy

 

[YorkRailFan]

To which particular problem?

The problem that DRS doesn't tend to focus a lot on things like container freight whereas GBRF does, and container freight is a big market for rail freight.

 

[Manutd1999]

The more I consider it, the more I believe a modern version of sectorisation would be the best way forward:

One arms-length government body (i.e. GBR) is responsible for organizing the timetable, coordinating with Network Rail, and running InterCity services. InterCity tickets would be mostly advances, priced "airline style" according to demand. A small number of flexible / off-peak tickets would be retained.

Local and regional services, as well as management of all stations, would be devolved to regional bodies: Scotland, Northern, North-East, Midlands, Wales, Western, Devon/Cornwall, South-East, East Anglia.

The regional bodies would be similar in setup to Transport for the North, managed by a combination of local politicians. The head could even be a separate, publicly elected, position similar to Police and Crime Commissioners etc. They would receive a subsidy from central government but after that would have full commercial control, free to introduce different ticket types, services etc. They would also be responsible for their own driver recruitment and rolling stock maintenance.

Finally, local authorities (Merseyrail, TfL etc.) would continue to operate self-contained local routes, light rail, buses etc. Opportunities to devolve lines from regional to local bodies should be pursued where sensible (e.g. tram-trains for some lines in Manchester).

Open-access and freight operators can bid for paths as per today, taking full commercial risk. The current "abstractive" restrictions would be completely removed, allowing true competition against the state operation.

 

[Meerkat]

The regional bodies would be similar in setup to Transport for the North, managed by a combination of local politicians. The head could even be a separate, publicly elected, position similar to Police and Crime Commissioners etc. They would receive a subsidy from central government but after that would have full commercial control, free to introduce different ticket types, services etc. They would also be responsible for their own driver recruitment and rolling stock maintenance.

If it relies on central government money then their freedom is restricted - look at the UKG V TfL (or more relevantly Khan) battles over what TfL can spend money on.
Though I was surprised DfT/Tories let Merseyrail cave in to the guards.
Didn’t a similar system cause issues to local governments in Germany when federal subsidies got slashed?

 

[JonathanH]

This is why I would like to see a national rail operator, with a consistant ticket policy

Isn't that what the DfT are working towards with the changes it is making on LNER and in the South East? DfT is a national body. Advance purchase for long distance, and Contactless for local travel. Once expanded across the network, it could well be a consistent ticket policy implemented by a national body.

'Nationalisation' is not a one way bet to a more customer friendly fare structure.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Advance purchase for long distance, and Contactless for local travel

That is very much what the DfT favour, it’ll be up to the private sector in the form of open access to provide competition to that.

 

[JonathanH]

That is very much what the DfT favour, it’ll be up to the private sector in the form of open access to provide competition to that.

I dont see how open access can counter that, as I am sure they too would be happy to move to a similar structure, given the frequency at which they run. They might be willing to offer a lower anytime fare than the interavailable one, but that would be about it.