Nationalisation and The British Government

[Fazaar1889]

People often want the railways to be Nationalised and I often do. In an ideal world where the railways are run to provide a good service and not to make profit, I would be very happy. However, in reality, it seems that the British Government just wouldn't handle it well. Looking at the construction of HS2 and the recent cancellation of the state-run ticketing app, it seems that the British Government can't run it well. Even beyond railways, the NHS is crumbling. In reality, would the British Government handle a nationalised railway well? Or is it just too idealistic?

 

[sytransport]

The issue with the (at least the current) government regarding railways is they’re constantly looking at new infrastructure rather than improving the current. The billions projected to be spent on HS2 was ludicrous and would be so much better spent improving existing infrastructure as they’ve now decided to do.

 

[SargeNpton]

If you want to see whether a nationalised railway could be run well, examine the history of the last 15 years of British Rail.

 

[JonathanH]

People often want the railways to be Nationalised and I often do. In an ideal world where the railways are run to provide a good service and not to make profit, I would be very happy.

What is it that nationalisation brings to the table? In your view, it is that there is no profit motive, but is it true that nationalisation is the same as 'not for profit'?

The Treasury would no doubt want costs and subsidy to be minimised. Is there more money for the railway with or without private investment? The Treasury as single shareholder might appreciate a nationalised railway having a profit objective, or cuts to minimise costs

Would staff be paid more under nationalisation? Would there be more or less waste of money? It isn't as simple as nationalisation being a simple panacea for all to enjoy.

 

[Clansman]

If you want to see whether a nationalised railway could be run well, examine the history of the last 15 years of British Rail.

Are you taking into account government resource allocation in that examination too?

 

[SargeNpton]

Are you taking into account government resource allocation in that examination too?

I was replying to the OP's question: "In reality, would the British Government handle a nationalised railway well?" as where they could start to look for an answer.

 

[Railsigns]

In reality, would the British Government handle a nationalised railway well? Or is it just too idealistic?

When the railways were nationalised, British Rail was left to manage its own affairs. Government interference only became necessary because of the grotesque fragmentation inherent in the insane privatisation model dreamt up by Tufton Street free-market lobbyists and adopted by the Major government (leading to higher fares and a threefold increase in public subsidies to the railways).

The billions projected to be spent on HS2 was ludicrous and would be so much better spent improving existing infrastructure as they’ve now decided to do.

Cancelling part of HS2 hasn't freed up any money to spend on other projects. Don't let a shambolic and dishonest government con you into believing that it has.

 

[Fazaar1889]

a threefold increase in public subsidies to the railways).

Hold on, you're telling me, privatising the railways increased the subsidy by the government???? And this government also believes in decreasing funding to increase market efficiency??

 

[sytransport]

Cancelling part of HS2 hasn't freed up any money to spend on other projects. Don't let a shambolic and dishonest government con you into believing that it has.

It’s not freed up money but it’s prevented anymore being wasted on a ridiculous project.

 

[Fazaar1889]

If you want to see whether a nationalised railway could be run well, examine the history of the last 15 years of British Rail.

Apologies, I wasn't alive during that time, please could you point to the aspects about British Rail you refer to?

 

[Railsigns]

Hold on, you're telling me, privatising the railways increased the subsidy by the government????

That's exactly what happened, and the official data shows it. The Tories promised lower fares and reduced subsidies but delivered the opposite. The Tories are con artists.

It’s not freed up money but it’s prevented anymore [sic] being wasted on a ridiculous project.

A 'ridiculous project' that would have transformed long-distance and local rail travel, enabled modal shift, provided a financial return to the government, and is supported by most of the public?

 

[SargeNpton]

Apologies, I wasn't alive during that time, please could you point to the aspects about British Rail you refer to?

BR changed from being an operating-led organisation to being a commercial-led organisation, with the creation of three passenger sectors: InterCity, Network SouthEast and Regional Railways (and a freight sector that concentrated on specific markets rather than being a common carrier that was obliged to affect all traffic).

This article on the RailStaff magazine's website is a good introduction to it...

The fall and rise of Britain's railways - RailStaff

Part 6: Sectorisation This year sees the fiftieth anniversary of Richard Beeching’s ‘The Re-Shaping of British Railways’. Colin Garratt reports 2013 also sees the thirtieth anniversary of the Serpell Report. These two events mirrored the tempestuous undertones of railway policy in the years...

www.railstaff.co.uk

Under sectorisation British Rail changed from its inherited regional structure to a series of business units.

At least that was the idea. Up until the 1980s BR had operated five regions – largely based on the old railway companies inherited by the British Transport Commission after the Second World War.

These were London Midland, the Southern, Western, Scottish and Eastern – which spliced together North Eastern and Anglia in an arranged marriage put through in 1967 – the summer of love for some.

The Board believed the best way of answering the remorseless pressure from government to cut costs was to refashion itself into a series of businesses – some of which could turn a profit.

 

[Ben427]

The issue with the (at least the current) government regarding railways is they’re constantly looking at new infrastructure rather than improving the current. The billions projected to be spent on HS2 was ludicrous and would be so much better spent improving existing infrastructure as they’ve now decided to do.

Except none of the projects they've decided to do (although no decided to do, because NN is speculative, existing work or just plain nonsense) will improve capacity which is needed.

The additional issue with improving existing infrastructure is that it is incredibly disruptive - any significant infrastructure improvements to provide additional capacity where it's needed instead of new lines/stations will have massive economic impacts.

 

[Grumpy]

If you want to see whether a nationalised railway could be run well, examine the history of the last 15 years of British Rail.

Ah yes the golden era 1982-1997. Rolling out the class 142's, class 92, Nightstar sleepers, singling Dore etc etc

 

[yorksrob]

Ah yes the golden era 1982-1997. Rolling out the class 142's, class 92, Nightstar sleepers, singling Dore etc etc

InterCity 125, InterCity 225, 442's, 156's, 158's, comfortable EMU's and DEMU's with buffet cars and compartment carriages, Network days etc.

Take me back !

 

[Ken H]

When the railways were nationalised, British Rail was left to manage its own affairs. Government interference only became necessary because of the grotesque fragmentation inherent in the insane privatisation model dreamt up by Tufton Street free-market lobbyists and adopted by the Major government (leading to higher fares and a threefold increase in public subsidies to the railways).

No they weren't. The had to go cap in hand to the Treasury for every bit of capital spend. And installing CWR was capex, not maintenance.
And we had the treasury offering underfunded improvements. Which is why ECML electrification was done on the cheap. And HST's were funded in tiny tranches.

The problem was BR existed at a time when government was concerned about government borrowing, or Public Sector Borrowing Requirement. We had Denis Healey having to go to the IMF because of overspend. Privatisation was seen as an end to the straightjacket of treasury borrowing limits restricting investment. A view that continued well into Blairs period as PM.

I need to be convinced the treasury will fund a nationalised railway properly. They will divert cash to schools and hospitals etc.

Of course 75% of the railway is already nationalised. OK they could bring the TOC's in house. But I think the leasing companies would be just too expensive to nationalise.

 

[Topological]

Would we have seen Pendolino on the West Coast under BR? Rightly, or wrongly, would Operation Princess have happened?

BR could innovate and the 158s (after the AC issue) and IC225 were great trains. It will always feel like it took privatisation to really unlock the wave of new stock that we got 20 years ago.

Could a new national railway do better? I am not convinced and indeed would argue the long contract incentives to innovate should be back as soon as possible.

 

[6Gman]

It’s not freed up money but it’s prevented anymore being wasted on a ridiculous project.

Well, it's an opinion but you did suggest in your original post that scrapping HS2 was linked to additional investment in the existing railway.

Do you have any evidence for that?

 

[Arkeeos]

People often want the railways to be Nationalised and I often do. In an ideal world where the railways are run to provide a good service and not to make profit, I would be very happy. However, in reality, it seems that the British Government just wouldn't handle it well. Looking at the construction of HS2 and the recent cancellation of the state-run ticketing app, it seems that the British Government can't run it well. Even beyond railways, the NHS is crumbling. In reality, would the British Government handle a nationalised railway well? Or is it just too idealistic?

A nationalised body would ideally be arms reach and would not have significant input from the government.

The issue with the (at least the current) government regarding railways is they’re constantly looking at new infrastructure rather than improving the current. The billions projected to be spent on HS2 was ludicrous and would be so much better spent improving existing infrastructure as they’ve now decided to do.

This is basically a total inversion of the truth. The government historically underinvests in new infrastructure focusing on upgrades because they are more palatable in the short term financially. I'm curious what upgrades you think are even left on the WCML that wouldn't be incredibly disruptive. Because further upgrades were already looked at and decided against.

 

[sytransport]

Well, it's an opinion but you did suggest in your original post that scrapping HS2 was linked to additional investment in the existing railway.

Do you have any evidence for that?

HS2: Rishi Sunak’s £36bn in transport funding – is it new or just repackaged? | Rail industry | The Guardian

Labour says ‘almost all’ rail and road projects have been announced already and are not new investments

amp.theguardian.com

It’s not linked to ‘additional’ investment, not what my post meant so apologies if it seems that way. Supposedly the money has been redirected to enhance existing infrastructure instead of being spent on HS2 - as others have said re: Tory government though, we know what they’re like.

 

[Railsigns]

It will always feel like it took privatisation to really unlock the wave of new stock that we got 20 years ago.

And definitely nothing whatsoever to do with the government tripling the amount of public subsidy to the railways post privatisation.

 

[Grumpy]

InterCity 125, InterCity 225, 442's, 156's, 158's, comfortable EMU's and DEMU's with buffet cars and compartment carriages, Network days etc.

Take me back !

Inter City 125 was mainly rolled out in the previous decade. As for the "DEMU's with buffet cars and compartment carriages" I seem to have missed those. We only got the Sprinters as a result of the PTEs' reluctance to have the over-expensive class 210 foisted on them by BR

 

[Ken H]

Inter City 125 was mainly rolled out in the previous decade. As for the "DEMU's with buffet cars and compartment carriages" I seem to have missed those. We only got the Sprinters as a result of the PTEs' reluctance to have the over-expensive class 210 foisted on them by BR

thread on DMUs with buffets

Dmu's with buffet cars

As tread title says,does anyone know which dmu's had buffet cars. I know the class 124 had them but we're their anyothers

www.railforums.co.uk

Quite a few EMU's with buffets. Think they were all on the 'Southern'. Cant think of any north of London.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Ah yes the golden era 1982-1997. Rolling out the class 142's, class 92, Nightstar sleepers, singling Dore etc etc

InterCity 125, InterCity 225, 442's, 156's, 158's, comfortable EMU's and DEMU's with buffet cars and compartment carriages, Network days etc.

Take me back !

As someone born after this, I've always been told that BR was incredibly inefficient and just not very good during this supposed "Golden Era" is that false or is there somewhat of a truth to it?

 

[Railsigns]

As someone born after this, I've always been told that BR was incredibly inefficient

The honest truth is that British Rail was one of the most efficient railways in the world. It suffered from underfunding, but did incredibly well with what it had. It produced some world class innovation too.

 

[irish_rail]

Nationalisation would prove effective if it led to genuine integration and eliminated inefficiencies. The ability to move rolling stock around the network where it was needed, not restricted by the TOC colour scheme on the outside. Where staff could drive all applicable services, not just ones applicable to their individual TOC. Privatisation has fragmented the railway in a massive way, and nationalisation could reverse this (if implemented properly, ie without too much government control!)

 

[Fazaar1889]

The honest truth is that British Rail was one of the most efficient railways in the world. It suffered from underfunding, but did incredibly well with what it had. It produced some world class innovation too.

If that's the case, why did they privatise it?

 

[Arkeeos]

If that's the case, why did they privatise it?

To appear to be doing something to improve the railway, politicians fallacy. The method of privatisation chosen was chosen because it was easy to explain to the public, when I believe Major wanted it to be more akin to Japan or the big 4 with the companies running trains and owning track.

 

[Railsigns]

If that's the case, why did they privatise it?

Like all Tory privatisations, it was a scam to divert taxpayers' money to their rich friends in the private sector, some of which would be donated to the Conservative Party as a "thank you". They had most of the mainstream media on their side, so they were able to present it as being in the public's interest.

 

[Fazaar1889]

@SargeNpton @Railsigns if we were to nationalise it tomorrow, would it take 30 years again to get it to BR golden age standards like it did from 1948-82 or do you think it would happen far more quickly?