Nationalisation - how does it benefit the passenger?

[millemille]

I've worked on the railway, in rolling stock engineering for builders, maintainers, operators and consultants, for over 20 years now. I never worked for a part of British Rail, my work in the operational part of the business was post privatisation.

I'm neither pro or anti public or private ownership.

The obvious desire of the Labour party leadership candidates to curry public favour by planning on nationalising the railway confuses me (I'm a mechanical engineer - if I can't hit it with a hammer, or watch someone else hit it with a hammer and then tell them they've done it wrong then I'm at a loss....).

How will the average passenger benefit from nationalisation?

Correct me if I'm wrong or missed anything from the following list of what we, as an industry, are attempting to deliver to the average passenger;

1. The average passenger wants to depart and arrive at a clean, well lit, well eqippped station in a state of good repair?
   
2. The average passenger wants to feel that stations are a secure enviroment at all times of the day?
   
3. The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest information regarding the state of the service at the station and a clear and easy to understand timetable?
   
4. The average passenger wants their ticket to be as cheap as possible and for the pricing structure to be consistent, fair and easy to understand?
   
5. The average passenger wants a service that is affected as little as possible by seasonal conditions?
   
6. The average passenger wants a punctual and reliable service, with the journey taking as short a time as possible and seeing any timetable changes for the betterment of journey times?
   
7. The average passenger wants a service that is running whenever they want to travel and they want to wait for a train for as short a period of time as possible?
   
8. The average passenger wants to get a seat for the whole of their journey?
   
9. The average passenger wants to travel in a modern, clean, well equipped train?
   
10. The average passenger wants to feel secure on the train they are travelling on at any time of the day?
    
11. The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest on-train information about the service, in general and the train they are travelling on?
    
12. The average passenger wants service disruption to be as brief as possible and for the information and advice they are given during disruption to be accurate, honest and consistent?

If it is the case that the current railway does not deliver all of the above - and in some areas, such as fares structure and consistency, I don't believe it currently does - how will nationalisation better the current state of the 12 deliverables on the list above?

It seems to me that the desire for nationalisation is driven by the moral imperitive - the railway should not make money for private company shareholders - and a nostalgic harking to times past*, not one of bettering the lot of the average passenger.




* I'm involved in motorbike racing and the desire to return to nationalisation reminds me of the adage that the longer a bike racer has been retired the faster he was....

 

[Deepgreen]

I've worked on the railway, in rolling stock engineering for builders, maintainers, operators and consultants, for over 20 years now. I never worked for a part of British Rail, my work in the operational part of the business was post privatisation.

I'm neither pro or anti public or private ownership.

The obvious desire of the Labour party leadership candidates to curry public favour by planning on nationalising the railway confuses me (I'm a mechanical engineer - if I can't hit it with a hammer, or watch someone else hit it with a hammer and then tell them they've done it wrong then I'm at a loss....).

How will the average passenger benefit from nationalisation?

Correct me if I'm wrong or missed anything from the following list of what we, as an industry, are attempting to deliver to the average passenger;

1. The average passenger wants to depart and arrive at a clean, well lit, well eqippped station in a state of good repair?
   
2. The average passenger wants to feel that stations are a secure enviroment at all times of the day?
   
3. The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest information regarding the state of the service at the station and a clear and easy to understand timetable?
   
4. The average passenger wants their ticket to be as cheap as possible and for the pricing structure to be consistent, fair and easy to understand?
   
5. The average passenger wants a service that is affected as little as possible by seasonal conditions?
   
6. The average passenger wants a punctual and reliable service, with the journey taking as short a time as possible and seeing any timetable changes for the betterment of journey times?
   
7. The average passenger wants a service that is running whenever they want to travel and they want to wait for a train for as short a period of time as possible?
   
8. The average passenger wants to get a seat for the whole of their journey?
   
9. The average passenger wants to travel in a modern, clean, well equipped train?
   
10. The average passenger wants to feel secure on the train they are travelling on at any time of the day?
    
11. The average passenger wants up to date, consise, clear and honest on-train information about the service, in general and the train they are travelling on?
    
12. The average passenger wants service disruption to be as brief as possible and for the information and advice they are given during disruption to be accurate, honest and consistent?

If it is the case that the current railway does not deliver all of the above - and in some areas, such as fares structure and consistency, I don't believe it currently does - how will nationalisation better the current state of the 12 deliverables on the list above?

It seems to me that the desire for nationalisation is driven by the moral imperitive - the railway should not make money for private company shareholders - and a nostalgic harking to times past*, not one of bettering the lot of the average passenger.




* I'm involved in motorbike racing and the desire to return to nationalisation reminds me of the adage that the longer a bike racer has been retired the faster he was....

One thing that is lacking today is the concept of holding connections between different TOCs - I speak from bitter experience at Redhill where Southern run the station and most of the trains, but FGW run the Reading service. This is hourly/two hourly to the intermediate stations, but it is rare for a train to be held even for a couple of minutes to allow connections from a late-running train from London.

Yes, passengers will say they want punctual trains when that specific question is put to them, but most would actually value more highly a total journey that is not interrupted by a huge wait for want of a held connection.

 

[A0wen]

One thing that is lacking today is the concept of holding connections between different TOCs - I speak from bitter experience at Redhill where Southern run the station and most of the trains, but FGW run the Reading service. This is hourly/two hourly to the intermediate stations, but it is rare for a train to be held even for a couple of minutes to allow connections from a late-running train from London.

Yes, passengers will say they want punctual trains when that specific question is put to them, but most would actually value more highly a total journey that is not interrupted by a huge wait for want of a held connection.

Funny you should claim it's worse than it was - my son recently picked up a railway book which dated from 1988 - and there was an article there talking about boat trains - and the fact there was an advertised 'guaranteed' connection yet the author's daughter found that if the boat was late the train didn't wait as it would have impacted other connections further along the boat train's route. The author's complaint was the train should have been held for the boat.

For that reason, I don't believe BR were any more disposed to 'hold' trains for connection purposes - and therefore believe the odd occasion when it may have happened owing to exceptional circumstances e.g. weather, infrastructure problems etc have somehow passed into myth that it was BR's standard process, when it wasn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Many of the "disintegration" type problems with the present system are because of its structure, not because of its ownership; a "BR plc" would solve them just as well as actual nationalisation.

 

[thenorthern]

The ways nationalisation benefits the passenger changes depending on who you speak to.

Rail fares may go down if the railway was re-nationalised it would probably be easier to introduce new services as the abstraction of revenue clause wouldn't be there. As others have pointed out it may mean better connections at bigger stations.

There would be no competition though between operators which would mean routes with multiple operators such as London to Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester, Leeds to York e.c.t would probably loose their Virgin/London Midland/Chiltern/Northern only tickets causing a rise in restricted rail fares.

Overall though if the railways were re-nationalised it may be of benefit to certain passengers but it may make it worse for other passengers.

 

[Greenback]

Whether to hold a connection or not is a difficult decision and will often depend on circumstances. There was certainly a lot of criticism of BR back in the day for not holding trains. In general, I support not holding connections where there will be more people disadvantaged than are advantaged.

The difficulty often lies in determining whether this is the case, or the reverse.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Personally I am more pro regulation than nationalisation, but support the "nuclear option" if it is found that greater regulation still doesn't work.
But in general the arguments for nationalisation revolve around solving the many issues our fragmented railway has created.

Whether to hold a connection or not is a difficult decision and will often depend on circumstances. There was certainly a lot of criticism of BR back in the day for not holding trains. In general, I support not holding connections where there will be more people disadvantaged than are advantaged.

The difficulty often lies in determining whether this is the case, or the reverse.

I think the point about connections though was that it the decision should be as you describe. ToC should not come into it. There should not be a situation where ToC A doesn't hold their train because the incoming service is run by ToC B, but they would have if the incoming service was their own service.

 

[PHILIPE]

Just too much fragmentisation with the privatised railway. Many people just don't know who to contact for many things.
Wearing a hat which is neither pro or anti privatisation, the Railway industry was just an unsuitable industry to be broken up for privatisation with too many organisations doing their own thing instead of working together as one large team, so to speak.

 

[Greenback]

I think the point about connections though was that it the decision should be as you describe. ToC should not come into it. There should not be a situation where ToC A doesn't hold their train because the incoming service is run by ToC B, but they would have if the incoming service was their own service.

In these parts, there is good communication between ATW and FGW, and trains are often held for a few minutes to maintain connections between south west Wales and the rest of the world at Swansea!

If there are such situations as you describe, then that's wrong. But it must be difficult to know whether it;s because there are different TOC's involved rather than the decision being taken for more practical reasons.

There are bound to be mistakes made sometimes, but it's not always done deliberately because it's better for the company concerned.

 

[BRblue]

Very much determined by other factors, holding a train may seem to cause no obvious problem. But the impact further down the line could be huge if the train is unable to gain back the lost time... missed paths, platform changes and junction delays for instance. I am not saying this is always the case but it is not always as simple as just holding the train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just too much fragmentisation with the privatised railway. Many people just don't know who to contact for many things.
Wearing a hat which is neither pro or anti privatisation, the Railway industry was just an unsuitable industry to be broken up for privatisation with too many organisations doing their own thing instead of working together as one large team, so to speak.

I would love to have seen what a "BR plc" would have done, recognising that the real competition is the car. On rail competition is largely a complete fallacy, and providing for it has been a monumental waste of money in my view. Public transport is a natural regulated monopoly.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I do wonder if we had a national system like the one used in London, where everything is essentially managed on a level above the ToC's and dictated to them, then if we would have much call for nationalisation at all.

In these parts, there is good communication between ATW and FGW, and trains are often held for a few minutes to maintain connections between south west Wales and the rest of the world at Swansea!

If there are such situations as you describe, then that's wrong. But it must be difficult to know whether it;s because there are different TOC's involved rather than the decision being taken for more practical reasons.

There are bound to be mistakes made sometimes, but it's not always done deliberately because it's better for the company concerned.

Obviously I have not been privy to discussions being made, and maybe it was just staff rather than actual policy that have been the problem. But certainly I have had issues in the past with FGW and XC.

 

[highlander]

If the same amount of money is invested in the overall system as is invested at present, but the millions that are spent on profits are not removed but instead used for additional investment then the passenger will benefit

 

[Greenback]

I would love to have seen what a "BR plc" would have done, recognising that the real competition is the car. On rail competition is largely a complete fallacy, and providing for it has been a monumental waste of money in my view. Public transport is a natural regulated monopoly.

Cars are the major source of competition for passenger trains, but there are also aircraft and coaches to contend with, and even local buses can be in competition for rail for some local traffic.

The railway certainly didn't need internal competition forced upon it as well, but you don't necessarily need nationalisation to provide an integrated network without the problems caused by fragmentation.

I do wonder if we had a national system like the one used in London, where everything is essentially managed on a level above the ToC's and dictated to them, then if we would have much call for nationalisation at all.

Obviously I have not been privy to discussions being made, and maybe it was just staff rather than actual policy that have been the problem. But certainly I have had issues in the past with FGW and XC.

As I say, the issues may not have been simply because they are different company's. It may be that the decision taken, was one that didn't benefit you.

I don't think nationalisation is the cure for all ills. I believe that there would still be the same difficulties in holding connections under one company. I'm no big fan of privatisation, or rather the method chosen, but I'm not at all convinced that it's the cause of connections not being held.

 

[Pinza-C55]

I've worked on the railway, in rolling stock engineering for builders, maintainers, operators and consultants, for over 20 years now. I never worked for a part of British Rail, my work in the operational part of the business was post privatisation.

I'm neither pro or anti public or private ownership.

The obvious desire of the Labour party leadership candidates to curry public favour by planning on nationalising the railway confuses me (I'm a mechanical engineer - if I can't hit it with a hammer, or watch someone else hit it with a hammer and then tell them they've done it wrong then I'm at a loss....).

How will the average passenger benefit from nationalisation?

Correct me if I'm wrong or missed anything from the following list of what we, as an industry, are attempting to deliver to the average passenger;

It seems to me that the desire for nationalisation is driven by the moral imperitive - the railway should not make money for private company shareholders - and a nostalgic harking to times past*, not one of bettering the lot of the average passenger.




* I'm involved in motorbike racing and the desire to return to nationalisation reminds me of the adage that the longer a bike racer has been retired the faster he was....

These two statements
1) I'm neither pro or anti public or private ownership.

2) It seems to me that the desire for nationalisation is driven by the moral imperitive - the railway should not make money for private company shareholders - and a nostalgic harking to times past*, not one of bettering the lot of the average passenger.

are directly contradictory.

You are claiming to be neutral then saying you are not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cars are the major source of competition for passenger trains, but there are also aircraft and coaches to contend with, and even local buses can be in competition for rail for some local traffic.

True, and cars, aircraft and local buses are also often in collaboration. A rather complex situation, but in my view not one that is made better in any way by having the odd Open Access operator around to conduct ORCATS raids and abstract revenue, which is what they largely do.

(I wonder if there would be as many Open Access operations if they were denied access to ORCATS and had to operate their own ticketing?)

The railway certainly didn't need internal competition forced upon it as well, but you don't necessarily need nationalisation to provide an integrated network without the problems caused by fragmentation.

Exactly my point. You could also have differing degrees of commercial freedom in any arrangement - for instance, a contract could be let for the entire passenger railway with a level of freedom, but also with certain base levels of service specified. That is probably better than an entirely civil-service-run railway system in some ways, as often such things are not very innovative.

FWIW, I personally think bus services in small to medium towns would work best in that kind of way - one operator, one contract, but with a minimum service specification, a specified subsidy and a fair bit of commercial freedom above that.

I don't think nationalisation is the cure for all ills. I believe that there would still be the same difficulties in holding connections under one company. I'm no big fan of privatisation, or rather the method chosen, but I'm not at all convinced that it's the cause of connections not being held.

I would tend to agree; the UK's high frequency approach is largely what precludes holding connections with a few exceptions - and in a number of those exceptional cases (very low frequency services and the likes) they often *are* held.

 

[Barn]

These two statements
1) I'm neither pro or anti public or private ownership.

2) It seems to me that the desire for nationalisation is driven by the moral imperitive - the railway should not make money for private company shareholders - and a nostalgic harking to times past*, not one of bettering the lot of the average passenger.

are directly contradictory.

You are claiming to be neutral then saying you are not.

No he isn't, in my reading the second item was his analysis of what people seem to think, not necessarily his own views...

 

[70014IronDuke]

If the same amount of money is invested in the overall system as is invested at present, but the millions that are spent on profits are not removed but instead used for additional investment then the passenger will benefit

But, for critics of privatisation (at least the way it's been done on former BR) it's not just the profits extracted: it's also the massive cost and energy which goes into procedures which are needed to apportion blame and costs for each and every time something goes wrong.

Now, the counter argument was, and is (I suppose) that by identifying the problems, efficient, private management can make sure they are solved - whereas in the big, integrated industry that was BR, it was difficult to achieve this.

In fact, this problem was recognised relatively early on in the case of the workshops, which became BR Engineering in.... 1968 or so? (It was still a Labour government at the time - amazing!)

Even if still wholly owned by BR, it was an attempt to identify costs and inefficiencies.

 

[thenorthern]

One thing to remember with private companies is they want you custom as it makes them more money and they know if your not satisfied you will not use them and thus they don't make any money. With a public sector rail service there is less of an incentive for your custom. I remember under Regional Railways at one point for ever £1 they got in passenger revenue HM Government gave them £4 which meant it didn't really matter much if they carried passengers or not.

Also with the current system it allows money to stay in the area which the trains operate.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Surely the main reason why connections are no longer held is that the Performance Regime brought in on privatisation actually penalises TOCs financially for holding connections? The damaging split between Network Rail and the TOCs has not been mentioned. Overnight it meant that signalboxes no longer made announcements over long line pa's to unstaffed stations. The signalman now works for a different company and officially passengers are nothing to do with him. Network Rail is not directly in touch with passengers so for example will schedule major engineering work when there is a major sporting event. Station staff can no longer officially go on the track at stations. Only a handful of Network Rail staff can act as pilotmen for single line working. TOC employees are not able to do so so we virtually never have single line working.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Also with the current system it allows money to stay in the area which the trains operate.

Which I would argue is a bad thing as it means services that lose money are less able to be cross subsidised by more profitable routes as they can only rely on the profitable routes from the same ToC.

As I say, the issues may not have been simply because they are different company's. It may be that the decision taken, was one that didn't benefit you.

I don't think nationalisation is the cure for all ills. I believe that there would still be the same difficulties in holding connections under one company. I'm no big fan of privatisation, or rather the method chosen, but I'm not at all convinced that it's the cause of connections not being held.

My point of saying that I obviously was not privy to the discussions in both of those cases was that I don't know if staff were just giving that as an excuse because it is easier than explaining the actual reasons, or if that was the actual reason. Certainly one of the cases the guard on the incoming train said he wasn't going to bother seeing if the service would be held because it was another ToC and so they would never hold connections for his ToC. As I said that may be an excuse rather than the actual reason, but it still doesn't give a good impression to the passenger.

 

[meridian2]

With nationalisation you have a rail system that is run for what it's designed for: a service. It is not a business where it only serves fat cats and foreign companies at the expense of the ordinary passenger.

 

[thenorthern]

Which I would argue is a bad thing as it means services that lose money are less able to be cross subsidised by more profitable routes as they can only rely on the profitable routes from the same ToC.

I get your point but as rail fares are not set by distance it would mean many passengers getting an unfair deal. An example of this a worker at Sellafield from Carlisle pays half what a London Commuter from Hertford pays in fares and a third what a London Commuter from Basingstoke pays despite them all being a similar distance and the latter 2 being profitable journeys for the TOC and not subsidised by HM Government.

Many Northern Rail passengers I speak to reckon that if the railways were re-nationalised they would get newer better trains and more improved services but in reality I don't think its the case as given the company is by far the most subsidised and the cheapest the government would want the fares to increase to make sure the taxpayer is getting a better deal before investing in new rolling stock for Northern Rail.

 

[70014IronDuke]

With nationalisation you have a rail system that is run for what it's designed for: a service. It is not a business where it only serves fat cats and foreign companies at the expense of the ordinary passenger.

Absolutely! No fat cats, and no to fat cats!

It's clear as diesel that we want a peoples' railway, run by the people, for the people!

What's more, no need to re-invent the wheel!

It's already been tried, in the USSR, DDR, China and North Korea.

Oh, wait a minute .... perhaps it's not that simple?

 

[iwearahalo2]

How and why can the Germans, Dutch and French own our railways and us not theirs?
There must be a good reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How and why can the Germans, Dutch and French own our railways and us not theirs?
There must be a good reason.

DB AG, albeit Government-owned, is in many ways like what a semi-autonomous "BR plc" might have been like. Did we get it wrong there?

 

[iwearahalo2]

DB AG, albeit Government-owned, is in many ways like what a semi-autonomous "BR plc" might have been like. Did we get it wrong there?

No but it was more of a political statement, why is it ok for another Nation to own another Countries National assets and yet not open themselves up for tender? Maybe they don't agree with their own system being sliced up?

 

[The Ham]

How and why can the Germans, Dutch and French own our railways and us not theirs?
There must be a good reason.

Quite, there are no British TOC's operating in Germany.... Oh hang on a minute yes there are:
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2015/06/16-national-express-wins-two-more.html

NATIONAL EXPRESS has been named as the preferred bidder for two more German rail franchises.

The company said it was 'delighted'.

The contracts are for two of the three that cover the Rhine-Ruhr Express services between such cities as Cologne, Dusseldorf and Dortmund, in Germany’s most populous region. National Express services will carry 30 million passengers a year.

The first of the contracts starts in December 2018 and the second in December 2020. Both will run until December 2033.

These additional services in Germany will serve the same region and some of the same cities as the two contracts that National Express will begin operating in December this year.

National Express said the new contracts were expected to generate revenues of around €1 billion over their lifetimes.

 

[syorksdeano]

Someone earlier commented about holding trains if delays and in a way I agree if it's by the few minutes.

After all the train. Is apparent meant to get you from A to B......

Unlike me the other week at Birmingham were I arrived on the delayed service (by 4 mins) on platform xA just to watch the train I needed depart from the SAME platform on xB.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The obvious desire of the Labour party leadership candidates to curry public favour by planning on nationalising the railway confuses me

That seems a very cynical way of putting it. What makes you think the motive of the candidates is to 'curry public favour'? Isn't a rather more obvious reason for their public support for nationalization that they actually (rightly or wrongly, but genuinely) believe that's the best way of running the railways? After all, loads of people in the Labour Party do believe exactly that.

If it is the case that the current railway does not deliver all of the above - and in some areas, such as fares structure and consistency, I don't believe it currently does - how will nationalisation better the current state of the 12 deliverables on the list above?

It's not just whether it delivers the points you mentioned, it's whether it delivers them efficiently. Many people believe that privatization hugely harmed efficiency by fragmenting the railways, and resulting in resources needlessly being wasted on things delay attribution. Then there's also the costs of leasing rolling stock (widely accepted as being unnecessarily high), as well as the increased legal and administrative costs because now the railway is in private hands, the DfT has to figure out and monitor franchises - something that wasn't so necessary when the railways were run by an organization whose purpose was to provide a public service. Certainly, the vast increase in subsidy that's been required since the railways were privatized suggests (although doesn't prove) that those arguments have merit.