Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming to power

[mike57]

People always think that change will produce noticeably different outcomes

If external forces are driving a system towards a particular state, then change internally may not affect outcomes. However if the problems are internally generated then change will.

My view is most of the current immediate rail problems relate to fragmentation. It affects rolling stock, manning, timetables, ticketing, everything. If it could be rectified then I think the passenger experience would improve. There are other problems, capacity, ageing infrastructure to name two, which will be harder to fix, but as I said in another thread if you deal with the stuff you can change then the other problems will not seem as bad.

I personally think the Labour plans look sensible, and this comes from someone who would not normally be a Labour supporter. They also need to keep the DfT and the Treasury from day to day micromanagement. I hope they are successful.

Taking this nugget as a case study of possible ‘quick wins’/‘low hanging fruit’ that might be available for GBR; how many drivers are based at Gloucester? How much effort would it take to get Class 170s on all of their traction cards and keep that competence up to date?

And longer term if there was centralised procurment of rolling stock there would be less types to have knowledge of.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The specific wording on Open Access Operators, as on Page 6 of Labour’s full document (linked below):

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/GETTING-BRITAIN-MOVING-Labours-Plan-to-Fix-Britains-Railways.pdf

Not a bad read. Not too polemical, and builds on recent industry changes anyway.
Just once does it mention the key term "single employer" for GBR - that's a huge task, and will take years to deliver.
Devolution does get a reasonable mention, but no hint of how it will work beyond the devolved bodies being part of GBR decision-making.
Nor does it say how the new ticketing setup will work - will we have a single web site/app for purchases, or will they simply contract Trainline to do the job?
Where do third party retailers fit in the new model?

I like the "Day 1" management intentions, getting the current government bodies to work together.
They will have to be quick with their "Shadow GBR" top appointments to ensure momentum.

 

[thenorthern]

Given open access operators were partially the result of EU directives it could get interesting. I am aware we are now outside of the EU so in other words we can do what we want but given Labour have said they want closer ties to the EU it could get interesting.

Realistically though I think we will end up with something similar to what Labour pledged in 2015 whereby a state operator can bid for franchises on the same basis as private companies.

 

[ainsworth74]

I’m struggling to see the problem here. Taxpayers are already subsidising (or at least underwriting) the TOCs and the infrastructure is mostly in public ownership anyway.

It's more about structure and interfaces than it is about funding exactly. There is, in my view, a strong argument that the current structure introduces inefficiencies and often perverse incentives not aligned with what's actually good for the industry and its passengers nor staff leading to additional costs and poor outcomes. So even though the source of the funding won't particularly change a different structure will, hopefully, yield a better railway for everyone.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Yes, I think it would. The TOC expertise would outweigh that of NR as they have the knowledge of diagrams and inner workings. It would remove a lot of transactional processes.

You'd still have open access freight and the concessions so you will still need some kind of bid/offer process.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

On page 9 of the Labour plan, as part of the preamble, it says "EMR took 1000 seats out of service on DfT direction and sold them to Turkey".
What exactly does that mean?

 

[Xavi]

Just once does it mention the key term "single employer" for GBR - that's a huge task, and will take years to deliver.

Yes, alignment of T&Cs would take a very long time. One employer but maintaining existing T&Cs with intent to align over time may be the more likely option.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes, alignment of T&Cs would take a very long time. One employer but maintaining existing T&Cs with intent to align over time may be the more likely option.

The rail unions will be delighted with a single employer, as national bargaining will restore their ability to bring the entire network to a halt.
Beer and sandwiches at No 10 awaits...

 

[HullRailMan]

Open access that serves an underserved market in economically deprived areas (GC/HT) would be politically difficult to get rid of, especially as they serve solid Labour areas. Of course they could just absorb it into GBR but fares would likely increase and there’s the perceived loss of a ‘local’ service, particularly with HT. Lumo on the other hand may be harder to justify long term without full length trains.

Fun to see that page 25 of the Labour document is a full page image of a, erm, Northern Irish train!

 

[manmikey]

Has it all been so bad? for balance I thought it's worth highlighting some great achievements at my TOC since privatisation with Anglia Railways, National Express and latterly Greater Anglia and of course Network Rail....for example..

Resignalling the following lines; Wherry Lines (Yarmouth & Lowestoft), Norwich to Cambridge, Felixstowe branch including some doubling, East Suffolk Line including a loop at Beccles enabling an hourly service.

Many new sevices and increased frequencies introduced.

Remodeling and resignalling Shenfield, Colchester and Stratford stations.

New stations at Cambridge North and Soham, with Cambridge South & Beaulieu under construction.

An entire fleet replaced with mondern fit for purpose stock including bi mode DEMUs.

Refurbished depots as part of new fleet introduction.

Replacement of the entire OHLE between Liverpool St and Chelmsford.

National GSMR radio Comms introduced, transforming Comms between drivers & signallers.

New junctions and chord at Ipswich for freight moves from Felixstowe to the midlands.

The floor of Ipswich tunnel lowered for route clearance for larger containers.

Huge improvements with level crossing closures, better sighting and replacement of Half barriers with full barriers.

Plus of course the huge increase in passenger numbers.

Of course these things could of happend regardless of privatisation, we will never know, but we do know that they did happen under privatisation. I fear we are already seeing signs of a treasury controlled railway where cost is everything. Savings made under nationalisation will almost certainly be savings made for the treasury rather than used to enhance the service.

Uncertain times ahead indeed.

 

[Hellboydce]

Would be interesting to see if they expected the higher paying toc’s like mine to have no pay rise until the other toc’s caught up with them

 

[Dr Hoo]

On page 9 of the Labour plan, as part of the preamble, it says "EMR took 1000 seats out of service on DfT direction and sold them to Turkey".
What exactly does that mean?

I presume that it’s a reference to the withdrawal of the HSTs in (belated) compliance with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations introduced under, err, Labour, in 2010.

Did the scrap metal get exported to Turkey?

 

[physics34]

Has it all been so bad? for balance I thought it's worth highlighting some great achievements at my TOC since privatisation with Anglia Railways, National Express and latterly Greater Anglia and of course Network Rail....for example..

Resignalling the following lines; Wherry Lines (Yarmouth & Lowestoft), Norwich to Cambridge, Felixstowe branch including some doubling, East Suffolk Line including a loop at Beccles enabling an hourly service.

Many new sevices and increased frequencies introduced.

Remodeling and resignalling Shenfield, Colchester and Stratford stations.

New stations at Cambridge North and Soham, with Cambridge South & Beaulieu under construction.

An entire fleet replaced with mondern fit for purpose stock including bi mode DEMUs.

Refurbished depots as part of new fleet introduction.

Replacement of the entire OHLE between Liverpool St and Chelmsford.

National GSMR radio Comms introduced, transforming Comms between drivers & signallers.

New junctions and chord at Ipswich for freight moves from Felixstowe to the midlands.

The floor of Ipswich tunnel lowered for route clearance for larger containers.

Huge improvements with level crossing closures, better sighting and replacement of Half barriers with full barriers.

Plus of course the huge increase in passenger numbers.

Of course these things could of happend regardless of privatisation, we will never know, but we do know that they did happen under privatisation. I fear we are already seeing signs of a treasury controlled railway where cost is everything. Savings made under nationalisation will almost certainly be savings made for the treasury rather than used to enhance the service.

Uncertain times ahead indeed.

Totally agree it hasnt all been bad...because it has created accountability..... but connectivity, money taken out of the industry, loss of skills have been big negatives.

 

[DanNCL]

On page 9 of the Labour plan, as part of the preamble, it says "EMR took 1000 seats out of service on DfT direction and sold them to Turkey".
What exactly does that mean?

The destination is wrong, and also the origin of the stock in question, but I think this is in reference to Mark 3s ending up in Mexico and Nigeria.

 

[CdBrux]

The specific wording on Open Access Operators, as on Page 6 of Labour’s full document (linked below):

Which makes it easy to define in such a way to make sure the answer is "no"

 

[eldomtom2]

Safety has been one positive about Privatisation... (eventually after Hatfield and Ladbroke Grove!), because privatisation created a point of accountability.. a person to point the finger at, and a loss of profits as a result. Another is the replacement of slam door stock...

I think you will find that the railway of 1993 was dramatically safer than the railway of 1948.

 

[Goldfish62]

Thas national bargaining will restore their ability to bring the entire network to a halt.
Beer and sandwiches at No 10 awaits...

Have you not noticed what's been happening over the past couple of years?

 

[Nigel K Thomas]

Front page on several of tomorrows papers

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...lisation-within-five-years-of-coming-to-power

This is in advance of key speech by Lousie Haigh tomorrow


Sounds like no role for private operators going forward but ROSCOs remain. Personally OLR can't be the long term solution though and hopefully we will now get something closer to vertical integration.

I find this very hard to believe!

 

[irish_rail]

Have you not noticed what's been happening over the past couple of years?

Indeed. This was one of the original 90s arguments for privatisation. Yet the unions can quite easily bring the country to a stand at a national level as we speak, so nothing changes there.

 

[Horizon22]

Indeed, and given that privatisation happened 30 years ago, many people have no experience of BR at all; Which is not to say that BR was anything like as poor as it was often portrayed, but nationalisation did not, and will not, put an end to delays, cancellations and overcrowding.

Yes - as I often say to people, a lot of the network is already “nationalised”, there’s no silver bullet to fix many of the core problems, public transport will always have some issues and 90% will likely appear unchanged.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Have you not noticed what's been happening over the past couple of years?

The network never stopped entirely, but the NR strikes came close.
TfW, Scotrail, Merseyrail and the TfL concessions were/are not part of the current disputes with DfT-managed TOCs.
These organisations won't take kindly to a GBR takeover (if that is what is intended).

 

[sh24]

Indeed, and given that privatisation happened 30 years ago, many people have no experience of BR at all; Which is not to say that BR was anything like as poor as it was often portrayed, but nationalisation did not, and will not, put an end to delays, cancellations and overcrowding.

Very true. The Horizon debacle at the nationally owned Post Office is very clear proof that state ownership isn't a magic pill to fix all of the ills of the world.

 

[Djgr]

Has it all been so bad? for balance I thought it's worth highlighting some great achievements at my TOC since privatisation with Anglia Railways, National Express and latterly Greater Anglia and of course Network Rail....for example..

Resignalling the following lines; Wherry Lines (Yarmouth & Lowestoft), Norwich to Cambridge, Felixstowe branch including some doubling, East Suffolk Line including a loop at Beccles enabling an hourly service.

Many new sevices and increased frequencies introduced.

Remodeling and resignalling Shenfield, Colchester and Stratford stations.

New stations at Cambridge North and Soham, with Cambridge South & Beaulieu under construction.

An entire fleet replaced with mondern fit for purpose stock including bi mode DEMUs.

Refurbished depots as part of new fleet introduction.

Replacement of the entire OHLE between Liverpool St and Chelmsford.

National GSMR radio Comms introduced, transforming Comms between drivers & signallers.

New junctions and chord at Ipswich for freight moves from Felixstowe to the midlands.

The floor of Ipswich tunnel lowered for route clearance for larger containers.

Huge improvements with level crossing closures, better sighting and replacement of Half barriers with full barriers.

Plus of course the huge increase in passenger numbers.

Of course these things could of happend regardless of privatisation, we will never know, but we do know that they did happen under privatisation. I fear we are already seeing signs of a treasury controlled railway where cost is everything. Savings made under nationalisation will almost certainly be savings made for the treasury rather than used to enhance the service.

Uncertain times ahead indeed.

But as you say, your post is just one side of the coin and needs to be read in that context.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Has it all been so bad? for balance I thought it's worth highlighting some great achievements at my TOC since privatisation with Anglia Railways, National Express and latterly Greater Anglia and of course Network Rail....for example..

Resignalling the following lines; Wherry Lines (Yarmouth & Lowestoft), Norwich to Cambridge, Felixstowe branch including some doubling, East Suffolk Line including a loop at Beccles enabling an hourly service.

Many new sevices and increased frequencies introduced.

Remodeling and resignalling Shenfield, Colchester and Stratford stations.

New stations at Cambridge North and Soham, with Cambridge South & Beaulieu under construction.

An entire fleet replaced with mondern fit for purpose stock including bi mode DEMUs.

Refurbished depots as part of new fleet introduction.

Replacement of the entire OHLE between Liverpool St and Chelmsford.

National GSMR radio Comms introduced, transforming Comms between drivers & signallers.

New junctions and chord at Ipswich for freight moves from Felixstowe to the midlands.

The floor of Ipswich tunnel lowered for route clearance for larger containers.

Huge improvements with level crossing closures, better sighting and replacement of Half barriers with full barriers.

Plus of course the huge increase in passenger numbers.

Of course these things could of happend regardless of privatisation, we will never know, but we do know that they did happen under privatisation. I fear we are already seeing signs of a treasury controlled railway where cost is everything. Savings made under nationalisation will almost certainly be savings made for the treasury rather than used to enhance the service.

Uncertain times ahead indeed.

Nearly all of that list was delivered by (nationalised) Network Rail, not the TOC

The one thing entirely down to the TOC was replacement of the entire fleet, (including the ten-year old Classs 379s, with no plans for their redeployment), which has contributed to the boom-and-bust, feast-and-famine, of rolling stock orders which has now left Litchurch Lane facing closure.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

Well delivery failures in the private sector still get paid for by the taxpayer, albeit indirectly.
That just causes leasing (and other) charges to be higher so that the providers can insure against those losses.

There is no free lunch.

Insuring against a failure, as a private company must do to avoid existential losses, will always be more expensive on average than simply absorbing the losses (as the state always can).

Otherwise, the insurer wouldn't take the contract!
EDIT:
But noted we are going off topic so I will stop now.

 

[JonathanH]

Very true. The Horizon debacle at the nationally owned Post Office is very clear proof that state ownership isn't a magic pill to fix all of the ills of the world.

The critical thing in the public's eyes however is that state ownership is perceived to keep all the money in the system, that is all the public funding and fares revenue goes to the railway. This view of how the world should work applies to all industries that people perceive to be delivered for the public good.

Whether that is true or not is a different matter.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If Labour's GBR was up and running today, how would the procurement of the IC225 fleet replacement have gone?
That's the one that ended up with an order for 10 bi-modes from CAF (assembled at Newport).

And how about the ECML timetable issues?
There will still be open access and freight constraints to agreeing a solution, even if the passenger TOCs all agree.

 

[mike57]

I have just skim read the full Labour document, rather than the BBC digest, and it looks to pass both the acheivable and sensible criteria to my way of thinking. There will be costs associated with the changes, but there are no real big 'elephants in the room'.

Most of the issues identified in the Labour document have been highlighted in various threads on here, and the solutions proposed seem practical. My only concerns:

Can they acheive this in one political cycle
Freight is mentioned, and the capacity issues, but no real solutions are proposed mainly because more capacity needs money, at least there are no unrealistic promises
Open access seems a bit of a grey area. I get the feeling that whatever is said any new open access operations will be less likely to succeed. As a regular user of Hull Trains due to my geographical location I would be sorry to see them go as even going back into BR days Hull was an afterthought with very few through services

 

[A0wen]

Very true. The Horizon debacle at the nationally owned Post Office is very clear proof that state ownership isn't a magic pill to fix all of the ills of the world.

Or the various scandals within the NHS - all of which were under state management.

The critical thing in the public's eyes however is that state ownership is perceived to keep all the money in the system, that is all the public funding and fares revenue goes to the railway. This view of how the world should work applies to all industries that people perceive to be delivered for the public good.

Whether that is true or not is a different matter.

What people haven't actually addressed is how much money has "left" the industry - usually it's dividends people focus on, but anyone who's actually bothered to look at the accounts for the likes of First Group or Stagecoach will have found that the profit margins they are getting are well below 5% on their rail operations. There needs to be a proper focus on where the costs of running the rail network really are - and, in common with most other industries, the biggest bill is staff, both number of and amount it costs to employ.

 

[Bradford1]

If I was in charge of this policy in Labour I'd have held off announcing this until the election is called and parliament is dissolved. 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) and force Labour to u-turn simply for being undeliverable.

Maybe but if the Tories did this, it would make themselves even more unpopular