Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming to power

[Silverlinky]

Agreed, although the idea of the separate GBR entity is they decisions can (in theory at least) be taken by people who aren’t politicians.



Why not? They sign the route AIUI.

If you mean they wouldn’t because they are due a PNB, there’s no reason why that situation would change under the new regime for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

I doubt we’ll be seeing a move back to massive route and traction cards of BR, simply because they weren’t particularly efficient, and standards of training, requirements for competence retention etc. are far higher now.

Because there is no "cross cover agreement" between former Central and former Silverlink depots. Still, if Labour can achieve wholesale change in 5 or 10 years when we haven't seen the simplest of things change in 16 years then all is good!

 

[ainsworth74]

This is also telling I think regarding Open Access:

The Office of Rail and Road will also continue to make approval decisions on open access applications on the basis of an updated framework and guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

If it's the ORR that are still making the decisions then Open Access still has a role to play even in the brave new world as it won't be up to GBR who would, understandably, be inclined to say "Not on your life my friend!" but the devil would be in the detail of what this "updated framework and guidance" actually say about Open Access.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm surprised no-one else appears to have mentioned what seems quite a significant shake up in the passenger rights side of things! We appear to be getting a new organisation, the Passenger Standards Authority, which will take on the roles of Transport Focus, the Rail Ombudsman and some of the ORRs regulatory functions:

Hasn't it always been the case of "Be careful what you wish for" ?

 

[ainsworth74]

Hasn't it always been the case of "Be careful what you wish for" ?

Yes, but if we applied that attitude to everything then we'd never actually change anything ever again which seems equally unwise!

 

[irish_rail]

On the same note.. theres no reason why Sprinter drivers say at York, couldnt also drive Azumas along the same route (after training). There are so many chances for cross cooperation if everything is put together....

Absolutely. GwR is a decent example of how productivity can be improved. Plymouth drivers (to give one example), drive both Intercity IETs to London , as well as Sprinters to Paignton, Gunnislake and Newquay, as well as various other traction. This could be replicated around the country. I would also have more depots driving XC stuff, no good reason why a Plymouth GWR driver cannot drive a XC voyager to say Exeter, especially as we already drive Voyagers on the depot!
The trouble is traincrew efficiencies are just not sexy in the way fare reductions are, and I fear Labour will focus on what will be politically popular as opposed to what will actually save the railway money and bring in efficiencies.

 

[ComUtoR]

Yes, but if we applied that attitude to everything then we'd never actually change anything ever again which seems equally unwise!

I'm all for change. Stagnation and 'tradition' is bad. But....

 

[Topological]

Absolutely. GwR is a decent example of how productivity can be improved. Plymouth drivers (to give one example), drive both Intercity IETs to London , as well as Sprinters to Paignton, Gunnislake and Newquay, as well as various other traction. This could be replicated around the country. I would also have more depots driving XC stuff, no good reason why a Plymouth GWR driver cannot drive a XC voyager to say Exeter, especially as we already drive Voyagers on the depot!
The trouble is traincrew efficiencies are just not sexy in the way fare reductions are, and I fear Labour will focus on what will be politically popular as opposed to what will actually save the railway money and bring in efficiencies.

I think there will be some pressure to save money and bring efficiencies, so we may actually see more cross working once the respective franchises end (remembering CrossCountry have quite a long time left).

It seems very unlikely that there will be major improvements by the next election (2029/30) and so Labour will be conscious that they will need something concrete to show for this policy. Over a longer time span I could see potential for improvement, btu the electorate will look at what has happened in the first 5 years. Cost savings will help make the case.

There is a second open question about whether reducing fares is a good idea. The present private operators see the current pricing strategy as optimal, so it would mean that either GBR would have different optimisation problem, or they would be reducing their own revenue.

I see a lot of disappointment ahead.

 

[ComUtoR]

I doubt we’ll be seeing a move back to massive route and traction cards of BR, simply because they weren’t particularly efficient, and standards of training, requirements for competence retention etc. are far higher now.

I would foresee a return to link working; akin to your old place, working for those people. Horribly inefficient and not very productive.

 

[P Binnersley]

Hasn't it always been the case of "Be careful what you wish for" ?

Yes, but ultimately it is the "attitude" of the controlling minds (politicians) that will determine what happens. British Rail saw the modernisation plan and the beeching axe.

Labour will focus on what will be politically popular as opposed to what will actually save the railway money and bring in efficiencies.

Currently they are focused on being popular now. When/if elected their focus will be on being popular in five years time and they can ride over short term unpopularity.

Politically transport (like most portfolios) is like being a goalkeeper. You get little credit for doing a good job, but woe betide you if you mess up.

 

[Krokodil]

I doubt we’ll be seeing a move back to massive route and traction cards of BR, simply because they weren’t particularly efficient, and standards of training, requirements for competence retention etc. are far higher now.

There's a middle ground where you merge the depots with large overlaps. I've already given Newcastle as one example, but also take Manchester Piccadilly. West Coast and XC have a lot in common, and the Anglo-Scottish TPE services almost entirely duplicate West Coast routes. Merge them together and there's no need to worry about running one train per day via an unusual route (such as XC via Crewe or AWC between Manchester and Preston) to maintain route knowledge because you'd have it as regular work instead. Likewise you'd merge the Northern depot and the rump of the TPE depot together.

Having every link sign every conceivable route and traction is a non-starter, I agree.

 

[43066]

Because there is no "cross cover agreement" between former Central and former Silverlink depots. Still, if Labour can achieve wholesale change in 5 or 10 years when we haven't seen the simplest of things change in 16 years then all is good!

That’s interesting. Where I am what would happen is that the driver would be requested to take the train forward, and whether they agreed or not would depend on how tired they felt etc. Cross cover agreements, which we do have, relate to diagramming rather than disruption. Appreciate these things differ, and the specifics will be off topic, but it’s another example of a huge variation that exists.

To be honest I wouldn’t hold out much hope that many of these things can be harmonised - as you say if it hasn’t changed in 16 years that suggests it’s
neither easy or cheap to achieve, and that situation is unlikely to change just because ownership has changed.

It’ll be interesting to see the detail, as it seems these proposals have been thought up in outline by politicians who have no idea what happens where the rubber hits the road in the railway industry.

I would foresee a return to link working; akin to your old place, working for those people. Horribly inefficient and not very productive.

Down to one link and over establishment when I left due to the Thameslink work disappearing! Memories .

It depends on location but multiple links can make sense where there’s a massive route/traction variety within a depot. Where everyone does the same routes and traction, one link makes more sense.

 

[domcoop7]

Given the poor quality of journalism nowadays I shouldn't be surprised, but... the quality of the public debate on this is appalling (bearing in mind that those of us on here are not the public!)

It is quite clear that most people (including a lot of journalists and commentators) don't realise the majority of the passenger railway system is already nationalised. It seems nobody has mentioned the fact that the non-DfT TOCS are on National Rail Contracts and therefore already under Government control. And certainly from what I've seen on Twitter the majority of opinion thinks fares are going to go down massively, that trains won't be late anymore and that everyone will get a seat. The minority of Twitter opinion thinks the Labour government will have to spend billions buying up privatised companies and we'll get British Rail sandwiches reintroduced.

My thoughts are, that firstly this just shows how inept the current Conservative government is. As even The Guardian has pointed out, the underlying premise of this is the current government's official stated policy, but with all TOCS being in-house whereas the Shapps-Williams plan envisaged concessions. Of course we all know that the GBR plan has been sidelined, but on paper at least it remains the current policy. Yet they've had Tory politicians doing the media round today to oppose Labour's proposal outright!!! It's popular, and it's near enough what they say they were going to do anyway. They even have a Transition Team, selected a headquarters and started work on designing a branding, but now they're pretending they are against it!

Open Access is dealt with in the Labour Party's policy document. The plan is that the Office of Road and Rail will remain as the statutory regulator for Track Access, so Open Access will still be allowed, however what they also say is that there will be "updated guidance" given to the ORR. The document also singles out for specific criticism the West Midlands franchise contract, as it says the growth in West Midlands was abstractive of revenue from other TOCs. So reading between the lines I expect that they will be much harder against revenue abstraction, so probably that's the end of Lumo, etc.

I like the fact that they are aware of the tension between City Regions having control of their networks and the interests of the national network. I posted at length about this on another thread about Andy Burnham's plans for the Bee Network to take control of local rail services, and it's fair to say most of the posters on here don't see the problem. The current government also don't see the problem, hence them agreeing to devolve rail to the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, but - surprisingly - Labour's plans do recognise the problem, which is good to see. It looks like GBR will be responsible for all services, including in City Regions, but that the elected Mayor will be able to influence and specify services (presumably with them paying any extra costs). This is a return to the 1980s system where the PTEs were able to specify services if they paid BR the extra costs of doing so.

Ironically this would give the City Regions less control than they would if the current Conservative plans for wholesale devolution continued (which envisages more of a Merseyrail / London Overground arrangement), but I guess Labour can get more leeway with things like that, because their own politicians won't oppose them in the way they would oppose a Tory government.

Overall - and I'm not a Labour supporter by any means - I think the proposals are positive.

There are downsides, but these would have occurred anyway even if the Williams-Shapps plan went into force.

The downsides as I see them are:-

• Customer service for a unified large organisation will probably be worse. There's no incentive for them to do otherwise and quite a lot of incentives for them to decide it's the passengers' fault. See Euston overcrowding for an example.
• "Accountability" will in theory be to the Government, who funds them and takes the political risk for their decisions. So expect a lot more politician's excuses to be rolled out when things go wrong - "lessons to be learnt", "it may be bad but it was worse under the last government", "it was the wrong type of snow", "we're asking passengers to take responsibility to help us by not boarding trains", etc.
• Incentives to reduce capital expenditure that will go on government books and have to be diverted from building hospitals and schools. Not necessarily a bad thing, but things done on the cheap like Pacers, singling lines, maybe even line closures, all justified as being "enhancements that save the taxpayer money and deliver improved reliability".
• Industrial relations. Unless they throw huge chunks of cash at staff, which seems highly unlikely, unifying different TOCs to a single employer is going to be a source of friction and an opportunity for the Unions to do their job - enhance the benefits for their members. The chances this won't spill over into more strike action are pretty slim.
• Political tinkering.

The last bullet point is the riskiest one. It depends to an extent on who gets elected to Parliament and with what majority. If Labour get in with a slim majority, and have to rely on their crackpot MPs things would be different than if they have a 100 seat majority and can just ignore the Zarah Sultanas, Rebecca Long-Baileys and Richard Burgons of the party. There may be pressure to do stupid things such as abolish peak time fares, abolish First Class, compulsory seat reservations, etc. which would play well to the student activist contingent but lose the railway lots of money for little benefit.

 

[43066]

There's a middle ground where you merge the depots with large overlaps. I've already given Newcastle as one example, but also take Manchester Piccadilly. West Coast and XC have a lot in common, and the Anglo-Scottish TPE services almost entirely duplicate West Coast routes. Merge them together and there's no need to worry about running one train per day via an unusual route (such as XC via Crewe or AWC between Manchester and Preston) to maintain route knowledge because you'd have it as regular work instead. Likewise you'd merge the Northern depot and the rump of the TPE depot together.

Having every link sign every conceivable route and traction is a non-starter, I agree.

Yes that’s a fair point. There will be examples where things could improve - the TPE approach has been disastrous so hopefully that will be unwound. The Thameslink approach to depot specific route knowledge, with few driver changes en route, makes good sense operationally, but does make cross coverage more difficult as a trade off.

 

[norbitonflyer]

That's a bit unfair as a criticism of GA - they inherited a real "Heinz 57" of a fleet - including the 30 x 379s which were 'non standard' in their fleet, so took a decision to streamline and standardise their fleet, which they've succesfully done onto 3 basic classes which will have made training, maintenance etc all much easier - and of course one of those selections was for a Bombardier product built at Litchurch Lane.

Not intended as a criticism of GA, but of the system which meant thatthere was no overall "guiding mind" to co-ordinate a sensible cascade. see also the farcical situation on SWT/SWR, where the 707s were deemed surplus to requirements before any of them had even enetered service. (and have now found their way to a TOC in which theyb are equally incompatible with anything else.

Had TOCs been in place 45 years ago, we would probably still have 508s trundling round Surrey, alongside the 455/8s and 455/9s, with 3-car 455s on Merseside mixing it with the last 507s.

 

[A0wen]

Exactly - extremely versatile.

But not standardised - 6 different designs with different engines, electrical systems and even transmissions - hardly standardised.

 

[Xavi]

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...

The inefficient market for train drivers between multiple TOCs and freight operators was a major factor in increasing real salaries until the franchising system collapsed.

 

[ComUtoR]

It depends on location but multiple links can make sense where there’s a massive route/traction variety within a depot. Where everyone does the same routes and traction, one link makes more sense.

Which doesn't solve the issue where you get multiple TOCs on the same route / traction because you will still need to contend with different Drivers in a different link not having the ability to crossover.

One of the weirdest situations I found myself in was that Driver A didn't sign the sidings (for a turnback move) and the other Driver didn't sign the traction but signed the sidings. Add in the local instructions and the unit couldn't move and the running line was blocked. I stepped in purely by chance because I had both and did it as a favour and managed to get the back of my turn covered.

'On paper' it looks great and sounds awesome politically but the on the ground reality has a lot of hurdles to overcome and the cost will be something hidden in the small print.

where the 707s were deemed surplus to requirements before any of them had even enetered service. (and have now found their way to a TOC in which theyb are equally incompatible with anything else.

Which has been the case for over 20yrs

 

[norbitonflyer]

Can somebody just explain to me how it can possibly be that flying can be cheaper than taking a train. I just cannot conceive how that can be possible.

Once the plane is in the air there are no infrastructure costs until it lands again, except air traffic control - and that involves no physical lights on sticks, points etc.

 

[Topological]

Once the plane is in the air there are no infrastructure costs until it lands again, except air traffic control - and that involves no physical lights on sticks, points etc.

Way off topic, but once you have an air traffic control radar the skies can be filled with limited marginal cost.

Likewise, the airports can handle a lot of extra planes as each one only needs the runway for a limited time. It feels like airports cope better than stations in terms of throughput.

 

[ComUtoR]

Once the plane is in the air there are no infrastructure costs until it lands again

Do planes not have to pay for "pathways" or is it genuinely, fly in any airspace for free in any direction you want ?

, except air traffic control - and that involves no physical lights on sticks, points etc.

Air traffic control is basically "air signalling" you still need software and hardware on board to say where you are and software and hardware on the ground to verify location of everything and direct traffic. Air traffic control is basically a signal box for planes.

 

[Horizon22]

Current legislation means Merseytravel (LCR) would plan to run a competition to replace Serco/TUK in 2028.
With the Labour GBR legislation in place they are almost certainly going to run the operation themselves, much as the Welsh Government has done with TfW.
TfL also faces the same dilemma on what to do with London Overground and Elizabeth Line when their contracts expire.
In all of the above cases Network Rail maintains the infrastructure, not Merseyrail/TfL (except the EL core, maybe).

Elizabeth line concession is being done now, so it might be a long wait!

Yet a Bletchley driver upon arriving at Northampton and finding no relief because the Coventry driver is running late, can't drive the same train that they've just driven on to Rugby to be relieved by that same late running Coventry driver!

Completely unrelated to route learning - that's driver T&Cs regarding driving times, relief points and diagrams. Something that would be highly unlikely to change under nationalisation (and indeed might be even stronger) as they are all very clear arrangements

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Or what's the difference between a TPE driver at Newcastle and an LNER one? They both sign 80x, they both sign Edinburgh-Newcastle-York.

In terms of the driver; Different pay, different terms and conditions, different rostering.

 

[Gigabit]

HEx would likely remain as is, with the contract with GWR passing to GBR. Removing GatEx is not popular with the airport, and I suspect the DfT like the money.

It does matter, changes to permitted development go through Parliament and are voted for by MPs.

I don't mind cell sites but I don't agree with quick changes to bypass planning laws when it suits the civil service. We live in a democratic society and GSMR poles have been allowed on the promise that they are only for the railway, any change to this promise should go through planning permission, or Parliament if all were done at once, like everyone else.

Providing dark fibre and cell sites (like the Brighton main line) would be good and would be feasible, but I still believe that you're initial 'allow access to all assets' is unreasonable. This is doable without GBR, the infrastructure is all owned by NR after all...

Planning permission should be reformed to allow building of masts wherever they are need. Sod anyone rejecting them for "visual pollution".

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Planning permission should be reformed to allow building of masts wherever they are need. Sod anyone rejecting them for "visual pollution".

Why reformed just for masts?

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder, this is a thread to discuss the actual proposals Labour have to renationalise the rail network.

If anyone would like to discuss anything else, please create a new thread (if there isn't one already), or use an existing one.

For any posts related to the subject of nationalisation, but of a speculative nature, please use the following thread:

Rail nationalisation: ideas, suggestions, predictions etc

Mobile coverage on all lines, by using Network Rail assets.

www.railforums.co.uk

For any posts related to the subject of nationalisation, but of a political nature, please use the following thread:

Political discussion regarding Labour's rail nationalisation promise

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/labour-promises-rail-nationalisation-within-five-years-of-coming-to-power.266599/ Just like they promised to stop the implementation of the Beeching report in 1964, but actually went on to implement more of it than the previous...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[WAB]

One benefit of this could be the reinstatement of a national management trainee scheme, with placements in all parts of the railway (including freight) to put it in context at an early stage. At the moment, it is very clear that many of the post-BR starters have a limited understanding of what goes on beyond their own little silo.

There are a vast amount of roles DOHL wouldn't need, and clearly there is duplication across TOCs and NR.

Not disagreeing with that, but Id certainly expect a lot of MK to be at risk.

Agreed, and I think in the wider sense (i.e., beyond planning) a lot of the functions may be provided at regional hubs or HQ at Derby. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing - nothing I've heard about planning at MK convinces me that it's a good place with sufficient staff and experienced people.

We are also at risk of allowing Network Rail to transition into GBR. I genuinely believe this would sabotage GBR from the off with the bad habits inherited from Railtrack - over-centralisation, lack of customer focus, and more interest in engineering projects than running the railway. It is notable that they have been pretty vociferous at retaining/growing their power and influence, particularly whenever anyone suggests that anyone else should get more power.

Another example of saving will be that GBR is going to be big enough to run its own specialist functions. Some Owning Groups make money through HQ consulting fees with their own TOCs so presumably that will also end.

A common viewpoint appears to be that the railway hemorrhages too much money outside the industry in profit for suppliers.

I can agree with this; so much work is contracted out that could and should be provided in-house - whether as departments of TOUs or as shared services bidding for work at the TOUs.

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.

At the moment, DHOL TOCs still mostly act as TOCs doing TOC things, just with a different set of owners. Only a new structure and a new set of values and vision will enable a more functional organisation.

Management and clerical grades have always been rather precarious, with periodic clearouts of Directors of Paperclips when economy drives happen. They're usually represented by TSSA (if they're unionised at all) who are known as "Total Surrender, Straight Away" for a reason.

Given the age profile of management, and a lack of focus in developing the talent to create a cadre of competent managers (a fair few operators are still underpinned by the last cohort of BR managers and clerical grades), I don't think we need to worry too much about losing people. If it's done right, all that'll happen is the deadwood will be shuffled out and some will take early retirement.

Or what's the difference between a TPE driver at Newcastle and an LNER one? They both sign 80x, they both sign Edinburgh-Newcastle-York.

I doubt we’ll be seeing a move back to massive route and traction cards of BR, simply because they weren’t particularly efficient, and standards of training, requirements for competence retention etc. are far higher now.

There's a middle ground where you merge the depots with large overlaps. I've already given Newcastle as one example, but also take Manchester Piccadilly. West Coast and XC have a lot in common, and the Anglo-Scottish TPE services almost entirely duplicate West Coast routes. Merge them together and there's no need to worry about running one train per day via an unusual route (such as XC via Crewe or AWC between Manchester and Preston) to maintain route knowledge because you'd have it as regular work instead. Likewise you'd merge the Northern depot and the rump of the TPE depot together.

Well, quite. And even if you wanted to keep TOCs as separate entities like under Organising for Quality with separate establishments, you could have arrangements for 'selling' traincrew to other operators on a cost-plus basis.

I like the fact that they are aware of the tension between City Regions having control of their networks and the interests of the national network. I posted at length about this on another thread about Andy Burnham's plans for the Bee Network to take control of local rail services, and it's fair to say most of the posters on here don't see the problem. The current government also don't see the problem, hence them agreeing to devolve rail to the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, but - surprisingly - Labour's plans do recognise the problem, which is good to see. It looks like GBR will be responsible for all services, including in City Regions, but that the elected Mayor will be able to influence and specify services (presumably with them paying any extra costs). This is a return to the 1980s system where the PTEs were able to specify services if they paid BR the extra costs of doing so.

Yes, I think it is well established that substantial control of services passing to PTEs is unlikely, except perhaps Northern's north-eastern operations.

• Customer service for a unified large organisation will probably be worse. There's no incentive for them to do otherwise and quite a lot of incentives for them to decide it's the passengers' fault. See Euston overcrowding for an example.

It does not have to be entirely unified - BR managed a coherent network despite Sectorisation and Organising for Quality.

• Industrial relations. Unless they throw huge chunks of cash at staff, which seems highly unlikely, unifying different TOCs to a single employer is going to be a source of friction and an opportunity for the Unions to do their job - enhance the benefits for their members. The chances this won't spill over into more strike action are pretty slim.

More strike action? Whatever will we do????

 

[KM1991]

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.

Of course it would have happened without privatisation.

The TOCs haven’t invested anything to do with any of what you’ve stated.

 

[Krokodil]

In terms of the driver; Different pay, different terms and conditions, different rostering.

And yet they're doing the same job for (ultimately) the same employer.

 

[Topological]

Of course it would have happened without privatisation.

The TOCs haven’t invested anything to do with any of what you’ve stated.

Whether or not the private companies are doing the investing is immaterial in the world of politics. IF the government had spent as much as the private companies have* then we would have seen a public outcry about how much was being spent on railways versus other ideological uses of funds.

All new stock is built by someone and paid for by someone. It may be the ROSCO rather than the TOC, and it may be that it all comes back to pension funds etc behind the ROSCO, but that level of investment on a non-core element of the economy would not be made easily by the state.

It is telling that the Labour plan does not propose to change who is responsible for investment on the railways.

 

[Dan G]

Some of us see it as nothing more than political hot air.
Some see it as Labour capitalising on the current state of the Railway and promising something as nothing more than a political pledge to garner votes.
Some want it to happen for their own reasons
Some of us couldn't give a flying proverbial
Some of us see the reality of what needs to happen.
Some just like to believe in the Fae

Tbf to Labour, they have looked at the polling and the polling says the most popular potential policy is build more houses, and the second most popular is to nationalise things. The railways is the easiest sector to "nationalise" in some way.

Politically it's quite clever really.