Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming to power

[LNW-GW Joint]

Open Access Operators and Freight Operators existing means that a level playing field will need to be created, so that the OAO et al cannot sue over unfair practices or whatnot.
For example, the entire apparatus associated with track access and revenue distribution, as well as the legal portions of the delay attribution apparatus will have to be retained.

And probably driver licensing?

The SRA was somewhat micromanagerial (though not to the same level as the current DfT) and not particularly strategic. Cutting the class 185 order from 56 to 51 units comes to mind...

And I'm sure GBR will be doing some of that as well.
I remember Richard Bowker saying "We are not going to throw more money at (Arriva) XC" when they asked for more stock.
GBR will have to live within whatever budget is set by DfT, which is where those kind of decisions came from (and also "no-growth" franchises).
BR frequently had to cut its cloth according to funds available.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The press reports say that the franchises are all up for renewal (or break clauses) by 2029, but I can't see any due in that year.
According to Wikipedia, those not already run by DOR or the devolved governments are:
GTR (1/4/25 - break clause)
SWR (28/5/25)
C2C (20/7/25)
WMT (20/9/26)
Anglia (20/9/26)
EMR (16/10/26 - break clause)
Avanti (18/10/26)
Cross Country (15/10/27)
Chiltern (12/12/27)
GWR (25/6/28)

So it looks like GWR, who ran the first privatised service (even if it was a rail-replacement bus!) may well run the last one (possibly the Night Riviera on Sunday 25th June '28?)

Concessions:
Elizabeth Line (July 2025)
London Overground (13/5/2026)
Merseyrail (19/7/28)

Already in public ownership:
Caledonian, LNER, Northern, Scotrail, South eastern, Transpennine, TfW

EDIT: GTR break clause added and clarification of concessions

Wiki has got this wrong. The remaining 10 privately run DfT TOCs are all on NRCs. Two of them (SWR and c2c) are on the old term+ contracts which had a fixed term and up to 26 periods extension. Those extensions have been enacted and the two contracts are now due to expire in 5/25 and 7/25 respectively. A procurement exercise is under way to award Direct Awards (to the incumbents), which will be the now standard NRC style with a Core Term Period of 3 years and a final Expiry at a much later date. Presumably, when Labour take power, that exercise will cease or the contracts will be cancelled before they start.

The remaining 8 are on the now standard NRC style with the Core Term. Those contracts can be terminated at three periods notice between the Core Term Expiry Date (CTED) and the final expiry date. There is no break clause and no formal extension process, they just run on unless the DfT terminates them, which it can do, at no cost, at any time between the CTED and the final Expiry Date.

The CTED for those 8 are (from each NRC on the DfT website) as follows;

15/9/24 - GA and W.Midlands
1/4/25 - TSGN and Chiltern
22/6/25 - GWR
18/10/26 - Avanti and E.Midlands
17/10/27 - XC.

So Labour can roll them up whenever they want to after those dates. I suspect that there will be a focus on SWR and c2c as they are near final expiry date but those significant TOCs that roughly match an NR route could fall quickly if the incoming Government are after some quick cross industry savings.

Next year could be quite a busy one for DOHL.

 

[Energy]

So Labour can roll them up whenever they want to after those dates. I suspect that there will be a focus on SWR and c2c as they are near final expiry date but those significant TOCs that roughly match an NR route could fall quickly if the incoming Government are after some quick cross industry savings.

It'll be interesting to see what they focus on. c2c would be a good start, being fairly self-contained there wouldn't be much more than a TUPE across of staff and some rebranding. However, I'd expect Labour to want something more dramatic for their first TOC than just more of the same.

Next year could be quite a busy one for DOHL.

Indeed, it'll need a name change to DfT Operator of Current Resort

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Wiki has got this wrong. The remaining 10 privately run DfT TOCs are all on NRCs. Two of them (SWR and c2c) are on the old term+ contracts which had a fixed term and up to 26 periods extension. Those extensions have been enacted and the two contracts are now due to expire in 5/25 and 7/25 respectively. A procurement exercise is under way to award Direct Awards (to the incumbents), which will be the now standard NRC style with a Core Term Period of 3 years and a final Expiry at a much later date. Presumably, when Labour take power, that exercise will cease or the contracts will be cancelled before they start.

The remaining 8 are on the now standard NRC style with the Core Term. Those contracts can be terminated at three periods notice between the Core Term Expiry Date (CTED) and the final expiry date. There is no break clause and no formal extension process, they just run on unless the DfT terminates them, which it can do, at no cost, at any time between the CTED and the final Expiry Date.

The CTED for those 8 are (from each NRC on the DfT website) as follows;

15/9/24 - GA and W.Midlands
1/4/25 - TSGN and Chiltern
22/6/25 - GWR
18/10/26 - Avanti and E.Midlands
17/10/27 - XC.

So Labour can roll them up whenever they want to after those dates. I suspect that there will be a focus on SWR and c2c as they are near final expiry date but those significant TOCs that roughly match an NR route could fall quickly if the incoming Government are after some quick cross industry savings.

Next year could be quite a busy one for DOHL.

What relevance are the PINs that DafT have issued for C2C and SWR? Can they legally make an award in advance of the current contract expiry dates that would be legally binding?

 

[43066]

Is there anything stopping the current Gov kyboshing the whole thing by merely handing out franchise extensions for another 4 years or so? Surely that would then be game over for the plan?
On another note, bit gutted us at GWR will be the longest wait to get nationalised. Hopefully Labour can persuade the owning groups to consider handing back the keys earlier?

Only that it would be such nakedly obvious, spiteful political vandalism that they would be pilloried in the press for it, and would win very few votes. Never say never but seems unlikely at this late stage.

Ofcourse, by doing that the government would essentially be conceding that T&C would remain unchanged forever. (EDIT: Or at least for the foreseeable future)

They wouldn’t be doing anything of the sort, as has been discussed over and over again. Working collaboratively with unions as industry stakeholders is the proposed approach, as stated by Louise Haigh. That more grown up stance should be welcomed by those who want the trains to run, rather than a continuation of the industrial strife and unreliability we’ve seen over the last two years.

And probably driver licensing?

Why would that change? Likely it’ll remain as now; open access and freight either poach qualified drivers or train their own, but competency will have to be standardised to drive on NR (or GBR) infrastructure.

It'll be interesting to see what they focus on. c2c would be a good start, being fairly self-contained there wouldn't be much more than a TUPE across of staff and some rebranding. However, I'd expect Labour to want something more dramatic for their first TOC than just more of the same.

Indeed. C2C already functions very well AIUI, so the key will be showing an improvement in the bits that aren’t in a politically acceptable timescale.

 

[Stephen42]

What relevance are the PINs that DafT have issued for C2C and SWR? Can they legally make an award in advance of the current contract expiry dates that would be legally binding?

Under the "Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023" the PIN should be made a year before any contract award. The legislation doesn't have much teeth, but having to override advice to enter into the contract and likelihood of an "acted unlawfully" judgement makes it a questionable strategy even if the contract still stands in the end. The first PIN had to be made this month, the others it makes sense to publish at the same time and is in line with standard practice.

 

[Clarence Yard]

If SWR and c2c are negotiated but the effective commencement date hasn’t been reached by the time Labour get in power, then they could be cancelled off and that would be that.

The owning groups might try and bill the DfT for their wasted management time but I don’t think they would get very far because there is usually no guarantee for that in the process if the procurement is cancelled.

Despite what they or the RDG might wish (or say), the Owning Groups are now looking at a possible and fairly rapid end to their involvement in running DfT TOCs.

 

[MTR380A]

GTR is actually 1/4/25 with up to 3 years extension on DfTs discretion.... wonder if GWR is the same.

As stated on GWR's website:

GWR has been awarded a National Rail Contract to continue operating the Great Western network, which shall run up to 21 June 2025, with the potential for a further three years at the Secretary of State’s discretion.

Source: https://news.gwr.com/news/great-western-railway-planning-to-restore-direct-bristol-oxford-services#:~:text=GWR has been awarded a,.com/about-us.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I believe that under the Williams Shapps GBR plan, GBR would work closely with devolved transport bodies like TfL and TBH Labour aren't going to start taking things like LO, The Elizabeth Line and put them under GBR because they're run well but also it would create confusion

The catch is that LO and EL are, while managed by TfL, part of National Rail with private contracts (EL is a joint TfL/DfT operation).
So GBR will need to take over the DfT aspects of those operations.
That includes things like EL access rights on the GWML/GEML.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I still think it will make little difference, all labour are proposing is taking over the TOCs, still little incentive to improve services and even less incentive to reduce overcrowding. Infrastructure will be the same as now, it's just political ideology that's driving this.

There's been positives and negatives from privatised TOCs which have been discussed many times, when a well run TOC is running it everything is rosy, badly run everything is dreadful. If there's regional GBR then a well run region will have good performance and other regions will have their problems, pretty much like today.

 

[Goldfish62]

I still think it will make little difference, all labour are proposing is taking over the TOCs, still little incentive to improve services and even less incentive to reduce overcrowding. Infrastructure will be the same as now, it's just political ideology that's driving this.

There's been positives and negatives from privatised TOCs which have been discussed many times, when a well run TOC is running it everything is rosy, badly run everything is dreadful. If there's regional GBR then a well run region will have good performance and other regions will have their problems, pretty much like today.

The taking over of TOCs isn't the significant part. What is is removing civil service micromanagement and putting railway professionals back in charge of running the railways.

Positive reactions from Modern Railways magazine and Richard Bowler among others says to me Labour are striking the right balance and understand what needs to be done to get the railways out of their current death spiral.

 

[43066]

I think TfL could take over some routes where feasible. The Northern City line would fit quite well for example as well as some of the outer London routes on SWR and Southern.

The problem will be the “where feasible” bit. Just as with Southeastern, it wouldn’t be possible to neatly hive the chosen routes off; the crews and stock will all interwork with other routes that wouldn’t be suitable for transfer, and the whole thing rapidly becomes much too complicated.

Then, as above, what would TfL taking over these routes actually achieve? Probably one for another thread, but it isn’t immediately obvious how GBR will change any of the above vis a vis TfL and the near-London suburban network.

I still think it will make little difference, all labour are proposing is taking over the TOCs, still little incentive to improve services and even less incentive to reduce overcrowding. Infrastructure will be the same as now, it's just political ideology that's driving this.

There's been positives and negatives from privatised TOCs which have been discussed many times, when a well run TOC is running it everything is rosy, badly run everything is dreadful. If there's regional GBR then a well run region will have good performance and other regions will have their problems, pretty much like today.

It does seem ideological, and smacks of “private sector bad, public sector good” dogma.

With either approach, the main difference going forward will be the new “guiding mind” for the industry, so in many ways the Tory version of just changing the existing TOCs into concessions, while still delivering the “guiding mind” via GBR seems a more straight forward version of the same thing, and one where the benefits of the private sector eg the ability of commercial incentives to drive behaviour can be implemented.

The difference with Labour’s approach is bringing the TOCs into public ownership (not just control). So the question is what benefits that additional step brings, and whether those will justify the cost of doing so. It’s not immediately clear that they will; there will be some savings in terms of removal of duplication, as noted above, and TOC profits could be regarded as a cost, but their margins aren’t exactly huge.

It also risks entrenching one of the biggest problems with the current arrangements: namely that operators are being paid whether they run trains or not, and take no revenue risk. Fully nationalising them will remove any ability to introduce commercial incentives eg allowing operators to offer deals to encourage patronage/drive revenues.

 

[yorksrob]

I still think it will make little difference, all labour are proposing is taking over the TOCs, still little incentive to improve services and even less incentive to reduce overcrowding. Infrastructure will be the same as now, it's just political ideology that's driving this.

There's been positives and negatives from privatised TOCs which have been discussed many times, when a well run TOC is running it everything is rosy, badly run everything is dreadful. If there's regional GBR then a well run region will have good performance and other regions will have their problems, pretty much like today.

The proposed Passenger Standards Authority could bring about improvements if its given powers.

 

[Meole]

Few would argue that the public owned LNER, Northern and SE have been more successful than the previous private operators.

 

[Zontar]

How will the current union structure work under GBR? I've no idea how it was in BR, but presumably it won't change too much just a few positions rejigged/removed?

 

[317 forever]

The proposals seem to me to be the same as the ones Andy McDonald proposed at the last election.
The difference being that the Corbyn Labour party stood no chance of implementing them.

So far I haven't seen anything on devolution or regional policy, or on ownership of HS1 (not to mention HS2).
While TOC franchising nationally is now out of the window, I can't see a single rail policy covering Wales and Scotland, let alone the local aspirations of people like Andy Burnham.
I can see less fragmentation by consolidating TOCs regionally, but not total uniformity across the piece - it depends how powerful the individual regions will be.

The ticketing system won't have TOC-specific tickets, but I bet GBR will find a way to discriminate between local, regional and long-distance fares, just as BR did.
EMR's contract lasts until 2030, and if TfL manage to let the London Overground contract before the election, that will push the end of private contracts even later.

I think the Wales franchise was nationalised early.

Going back a bit, and when Boris pledged to withdraw London's bendibuses, this was intially based on contract expiry dates for the routes in question. Then for the few that stretched beyond the subsequent Mayoral election in 2012, a "fudge" was arranged in which those routes were tendered early with replacement buses specified.

So, a Labour government could negotiate early termination of a few TOC contracts such as EMR.

 

[DanNCL]

Few would argue that the public owned LNER, Northern and SE have been more successful than the previous private operators.

TPE on the other hand absolutely is more successful under public ownership than it was under First.

 

[Meole]

TPE on the other hand absolutely is more successful under public ownership than it was under First.

The exception that proves the rule !

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think the Wales franchise was nationalised early.
So, a Labour government could negotiate early termination of a few TOC contracts such as EMR.

Yes, I hadn't read the full Labour document when I made the above post.
The TfW franchise was taken over by WG early as part of the Covid impact, Keolis-Amey being happy to give up the contract (while keeping a big chunk of work on delivering Metro infrastructure and TfW's rolling stock introduction, both still in progress).

Labour could indeed negotiate early handback of other franchises when it has the powers (after passing GBR legislation, which might take a year).
GBR might also have its hands full integrating the OLR-run TOCs.
While OLR runs all four today, they have made no attempt to integrate them as the legal position was/is to return them to the private sector as franchises.
There will be big issues like whether to merge TPE and Northern, or to split both between Network Rail's CNW and Eastern Regions.

The Tories can help or hinder the GBR process in the time it has left.

 

[43066]

Few would argue that the public owned LNER, Northern and SE have been more successful than the previous private operators.

TPE on the other hand absolutely is more successful under public ownership than it was under First.

Albeit ownership hasn’t had any material bearing on how the railway is run since the National Rail Contracts regime was introduced, as the DfT is now calling the shots at private operators.

As an example of this, TPE was nationalised, but the improvement in performance came from a RDW deal being agreed with ASLEF. Exactly the same thing then happened at Avanti which remains private.

 

[Goldfish62]

Albeit ownership hasn’t had any material bearing on how the railway is run since the National Rail Contracts regime was introduced, as the DfT is now calling the shots at private operators.

As an example of this, TPE was nationalised, but the improvement in performance came from a RDW deal being agreed with ASLEF. Exactly the same thing then happened at Avanti which remains private.

Avanti's performance still isn't anywhere near acceptable. Just look at the list of cancellations today for example.

 

[Meerkat]

Its all ideological hot air unless there is more money, and is rail really going to be a priority - particularly as it will lose the privatised companies lobbying on its behalf and the protection of their contracts (back to Treasury lead instant service cuts).
For example it says they will take the government meddling out of industrial relations, yet the meddling is funding - if they dont fund higher labour costs then they will have to be funded by cuts elsewhere to balance the railway budget.
Standardising trains? By the people who brought you IET procurement! Plus cascades that dump the rubbish on unfavoured lines, by political priority.
I love the dream that the profits will remain in the system as savings, rather than disappearing in inefficiency, and conveniently forgets the losses - which the taxpayer will have to suck up. And of course all failure will be funded by the state - no one to fine and no one to sack.
And of course bringing up the delay attribution chestnut - get rid of that and the promised performance improvement would soon disappear.

 

[Goldfish62]

How will the current union structure work under GBR? I've no idea how it was in BR, but presumably it won't change too much just a few positions rejigged/removed?

I'd argue that LNER is doing at least as well as pre-Covid VTEC. There's no post-Covid VTEC to compare.

Northern - you can sit on the seats now without having to put your clothes in the wash afterwards - the improvement was almost immediate. Overall I'd say Northern isn't as bad as it was.

Southeastern - I'd agree, really no change, but again it's hard to know how a private v public SE would perform had Covid not happened. Certainly when it spent its first spell in public hands after the awful Connex performance did perform.

 

[43066]

Avanti's performance still isn't anywhere near acceptable. Just look at the list of cancellations today for example.

That may be true, but many would say the same about OLR owned Northern’s performance. My point is simply that the issues aren’t affected by ownership directly, so it’s a little naive to assume that moving the operators into the public sector will resolve them (I realise you’re not suggesting it will).

Its all ideological hot air unless there is more money

There is a lot of truth in this, albeit it isn’t just about money. The current totally disinterested approach of the government is also a direct cause of many issues, so a fair bit could be achieved just by changing that.

 

[Goldfish62]

That may be true, but many would say the same about OLR owned Northern’s performance. My point is simply that the issues aren’t affected by ownership directly, so it’s a little naive to assume that moving the operators into the public sector will resolve them (I realise you’re not suggesting it will).

I agree. It's the structure that's important.

What we have at the moment is a complete disaster. Zombie TOCs with subservient management being ordered around by Civil Servants who don't even understand that it's the difference between costs and revenue that matters, not absolute costs.

The deputy editor of Modern Railways summarised Labour's plans well. The TOCs are all going to rely on public funding for the foreseeable future. Why pay someone else to run them when you can do so yourself? Remove control from the DfT and put ii in the hands of railway professionals, the best of which will hopefully be attracted back to the industry (if only the titans of sectorised BR were younger). Oh, and fix the industrial relations issues started on purpose by the current government.

I completely disagree with those who suggest the railways should just carry on as they are as much as I disagree with those who think public ownership is akin to waving a magic wand. Even worse are those who think the ROSCOS and FOCs assets should be sequestrated. They go silent when I point out that not even Corbyn proposed that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'd argue that LNER is doing at least as well as pre-Covid VTEC. There's no post-Covid VTEC to compare.
Northern - you can sit on the seats now without having to put your clothes in the wash afterwards - the improvement was almost immediate. Overall I'd say Northern isn't as bad as it was.
Southeastern - I'd agree, really no change, but again it's hard to know how a private v public SE would perform had Covid not happened. Certainly when it spent its first spell in public hands after the awful Connex performance did perform.

The "doing well" criteria seem to exclude meeting revenue/cost targets, on which they are all failing.
GBR will be at least as much under the budget cosh as the franchises were.
They may be more able to switch resources and priorities between its components, but the overall spend ceiling will be fixed by the (new) DfT.
Some operations will lose out to others, without individual business cases to support them.
In BR days this meant Regional services losing out to Intercity and NSE.
"Railway professionals" will include finance, HR and marketing functions, not just engineering/operations specialists.

 

[317 forever]

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....

I had heard of times when following privatisation there was a shortage of drivers at York for one toc but other available, trained drivers for another toc were not allowed to drive trains on behalf of the toc experiencing staff shortages.

This must still prevail today, but hopefully not long-term now.

As stated on GWR's website, "GWR has been awarded a National Rail Contract to continue operating the Great Western network, which shall run up to 21 June 2025, with the potential for a further three years at the Secretary of State’s discretion. "
Source: https://news.gwr.com/news/great-western-railway-planning-to-restore-direct-bristol-oxford-services#:~:text=GWR has been awarded a,.com/about-us.

In which case the (by then) Secretary of State, probably but not necessarily Louise Haig, could just decline the extension and arrange for GWR to be taken in-house.

 

[DanNCL]

Albeit ownership hasn’t had any material bearing on how the railway is run since the National Rail Contracts regime was introduced, as the DfT is now calling the shots at private operators.

As an example of this, TPE was nationalised, but the improvement in performance came from a RDW deal being agreed with ASLEF. Exactly the same thing then happened at Avanti which remains private.

There’s a lot more to TPE’s improvement than just RDW. The timetable was cut back to something more achievable and major progress was made in reducing the training backlog. Iirc both of those were OLR implementations.

 

[Gigabit]

I think at worst it makes no difference. I do not see how the TOCs provide any material benefit to the railways and how they are run. And nobody ever seems to be able to provide any evidence to dispute that.

What a single entity would do, with economies of scale is allow things like large-scale electrification, 4G/5G, IT savings (de-duplication of systems), simplified ticketing.

I cannot see a reason not to do what Labour is suggesting. Can anyone seriously suggest that the current system is fit for purpose - what do the TOCs actually do? I actually think the policy is incredibly un-ideological. Ideological was privatising it in the first place.

London Underground seems to be run better and more reliable in almost every conceivable way. There's an example where public ownership has actually worked.

 

[Barry169]

About time.

Water and other utilities next, please.