Rail nationalisation: ideas, suggestions, predictions etc

[Gigabit]

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

 

[swt_passenger]

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

Thats not permitted under planning law.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In the anticipated merging of TOCs into GBR, some services will lose focus now there re no franchise boundaries.
With no 7-ish-year review of provision and shuffling of resources, there will be winners and losers.
The main lines are likely to get all the attention, with their regional links suffering from lack of attention (as was the case under BR's regions).
eg in a battle for Northern/TPE priorities and funding, TPE will win.
Where does XC and its particular problems fit into a regional structure dominated by WCML/ECML/GWML/MML?

 

[Gigabit]

Thats not permitted under planning law.

But why not? It literally makes no sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thats not permitted under planning law.

The law is not immutable.

 

[swt_passenger]

But why not? It literally makes no sense.

It’s because of the way NR "permitted development rights" are allowed. Work such as putting up a GSM(R) mast is considered an update to the signalling system, and updates to operstional systems were generally allowed by the original Acts allowing the railway to be built in the first place. Public communication infrastructure is not a permitted development so every mast or aerial is subject to the planning rigmarole, allowing masses of local objections usually based on questionable science. i can see why NR wouldn't want the hassle factor.

 

[Gigabit]

It’s because of the way NR "permitted development rights" are allowed. Work such as putting up a GSM(R) mast is considered an update to the signalling system, and updates to operstional systems were generally allowed by the original Acts allowing the railway to be built in the first place. Public communication infrastructure is not a permitted development so every mast or aerial is subject to the planning rigmarole, allowing masses of local objections usually based on questionable science. i can see why NR wouldn't want the hassle factor.

They could easily change the law if they wanted to.

Allow masts up to a certain height under permitted development close to a railway and then allow MNOs to build on Network Rail land.

 

[yorksrob]

See I'm not convinced that what's necessarily a "good move" is to continue to have the existing fares structure fixed in aspic as it has been for the last thirty years. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that DB and SNCF have the same fares structure in 2024 that they did in 1994! Certainly BR didn't have the same fares structure in 1994 that it had in 1964 and if anyone tries to persuade me that in an alternate universe where BR wasn't broken up and privatised it would have in 2024 the same structure as it had in 1994 then I'm sorry but I simply don't believe that's credible. One of BRs strengths was its commercial flexibility and nous when it came to the products it offered.

So just saying "We should stick to the fares structure we've had for 30 years and bring back off-peak tickets" isn't necessarily a good move.

What it actually requires is honest (none of this LNER BS about it being an unalloyed good for passengers) reform which isn't beholden to HM Treasury dogma (see the kneecapping of flexi-seasons) and isn't potentially fractured across a dozen odd different operators all doing something slightly different from each other and sowing confusion (see fares in general to be quite honest). There will be winners and losers in this scenario come what may, of course there will, but we need to accept what worked in the 1990s, sort of worked in the 2000s, began creaking alarmingly in the 2010s and is now potentially harming the industry in the 2020s needs to be reformed.

Ah, but I didn't say keep the fares system in aspic. I said commit to fares regulation and keep off-peak.

Actually, I think we need more fares regulation not less - an open return between Leeds and manchester seems to haven got ludicrously expensive these days.

I'm already expected to pay full tax to support the railway as well as full fare most of the time. If "honest reform" means more price hikes for me, I'm against it.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ah, but I didn't say keep the fares system in aspic. I said commit to fares regulation and keep off-peak.

But you've already baked in the existing system by saying we must keep fares regulation and keep off-peak tickets. That instantly closes down a wide range of options!

Actually, I think we need more fares regulation not less - an open return between Leeds and manchester seems to haven got ludicrously expensive these days.

That's less a matter of fares regulation and government policy as to the level of support provided in subsidy.

I'm already expected to pay full tax to support the railway as well as full fare most of the time. If "honest reform" means more price hikes for me, I'm against it.

There will be winners and losers. Right now it's all losers as far as I'm concerned but I don't think it's helpful either to simply bake in the outcome by committing to off-peak fares and the existing form of fares regulation which means we don't even get to see what "honest reform" might look like as the outcome has been pre-determined by saying there must be off-peak fares!

That rules out, for instance, abolishing off-peak fares on say short journeys on Northern. For instance Redcar Central to Middlesbrough has an Off-Peak Day Return (valid after 0859) priced at £4.80 and an Anytime Day Return for 90p more at £5.70. If we outlaw the abolition of Off-Peak Fares then sure, we could get rid of the Anytime and remove restrictions from the Off-Peak but then we're left with the confusion of an Off-Peak fare valid in what people would consider to be the peak? Surely it would be better to get rid of the Off-Peak and either reduce the price of the Anytime Day Return or heck, its 90p just have the Anytime as the only fare and be done with it.

 

[JonathanH]

That rules out, for instance, abolishing off-peak fares on say short journeys on Northern. For instance Redcar Central to Middlesbrough has an Off-Peak Day Return (valid after 0859) priced at £4.80 and an Anytime Day Return for 90p more at £5.70. If we outlaw the abolition of Off-Peak Fares then sure, we could get rid of the Anytime and remove restrictions from the Off-Peak but then we're left with the confusion of an Off-Peak fare valid in what people would consider to be the peak? Surely it would be better to get rid of the Off-Peak and either reduce the price of the Anytime Day Return or heck, its 90p just have the Anytime as the only fare and be done with it.

Fares on flows like Redcar to Middlesbrough seem highly likely to be set on a single fare basis in due course as part of the roll out of regional Contactless / PAYG fares. That will remove a lot of the confusion. A blanket 0930 morning restriction and an afternoon peak window seems possible.

 

[ainsworth74]

Fares on flows like Redcar to Middlesbrough seem highly likely to be set on a single fare basis in due course as part of the roll out of regional Contactless / PAYG fares. That will remove a lot of the confusion. A blanket 0930 morning restriction and an afternoon peak window seems possible.

That is certainly true! It still feels unwise to insist on quite a chunky fixed outcome when considering any reform however such as "there must be off-peak fares".

 

[yorksrob]

But you've already baked in the existing system by saying we must keep fares regulation and keep off-peak tickets. That instantly closes down a wide range of options!

That's less a matter of fares regulation and government policy as to the level of support provided in subsidy.

There will be winners and losers. Right now it's all losers as far as I'm concerned but I don't think it's helpful either to simply bake in the outcome by committing to off-peak fares and the existing form of fares regulation which means we don't even get to see what "honest reform" might look like as the outcome has been pre-determined by saying there must be off-peak fares!

That rules out, for instance, abolishing off-peak fares on say short journeys on Northern. For instance Redcar Central to Middlesbrough has an Off-Peak Day Return (valid after 0859) priced at £4.80 and an Anytime Day Return for 90p more at £5.70. If we outlaw the abolition of Off-Peak Fares then sure, we could get rid of the Anytime and remove restrictions from the Off-Peak but then we're left with the confusion of an Off-Peak fare valid in what people would consider to be the peak? Surely it would be better to get rid of the Off-Peak and either reduce the price of the Anytime Day Return or heck, its 90p just have the Anytime as the only fare and be done with it.

Well, we must definitely keep regulation and as for fares being a product of Government policy, isn't that the whole issue ?

In terms of your fares example, "off-peak" merely means the affordable level of fares. Surely you wouldn't agree to a reform getting rid of that ? If we want meaningful reform, we could always do a Scotland and get rid of the peak fares.

 

[ainsworth74]

In terms of your fares example, "off-peak" merely means the affordable level of fares. Surely you wouldn't agree to a reform getting rid of that ? If we want meaningful reform, we could always do a Scotland and get rid of the peak fares.

Not especially no, see my criticism of the LNER trial! But I'd also rather not instantly box ourselves into a specific position either. If one of the goals of reform is, speaking broadly, to "make fare more affordable" then that's fine and I have no objection to that in principle. But to me saying "there must be off-peak fares" isn't the same thing. The Off-Peak Return from Edinburgh to Bristol is £224.70. I'm not convinced that's especially affordable! So perhaps we need to have a slightly broader goal in mind than just "there must be off-peak fares"?

 

[yorksrob]

Not especially no, see my criticism of the LNER trial! But I'd also rather not instantly box ourselves into a specific position either. If one of the goals of reform is, speaking broadly, to "make fare more affordable" then that's fine and I have no objection to that in principle. But to me saying "there must be off-peak fares" isn't the same thing. The Off-Peak Return from Edinburgh to Bristol is £224.70. I'm not convinced that's especially affordable! So perhaps we need to have a slightly broader goal in mind than just "there must be off-peak fares"?

Ok, perhaps I worded it wrong. I'm not specifically committed to a two tier walk on fares structure. Instead the cheaper tier should be the default.

 

[ComUtoR]

Free travel for under 18s and state pension recipients
Rail Precept added to all council tax
Free Staff travel (Nationally)
Full pension reduced to 35yrs with EJRA (Employers justified retirement age)
Unified livery
Paperless ticketing

 

[yorksrob]

Free travel for under 18s and state pension recipients

Only after the rest of us get our railcard !

 

[Thirteen]

I think with the London metro services, it wouldn't too hard to transfer some services to TfL. Southern has a few services that could transfer to London Overground and some of the services that serve parts of Surrey could fall under TfL purview.

South Western Railway has a few routes that could easily be transferred to TfL like the Kingston loop and the Shepperton and Hampton Court branches plus perhaps the lines that go to Dorking could be contender. If it served by London buses like Epsom for example then it should be part of a wider London Overground.

 

[eldomtom2]

But this is because we don't charge a 'flat rate per mile' for train journeys (and never have)

Oh no it isn't! Japanese railways charge flat distance-based fares, and split ticketing is still a thing there. To quote the google translation of JR West's FAQ:

Why is it sometimes cheaper to buy separate tickets at stations along the way than to buy them all at once?​

○JR fares are divided into 5 km increments from 11 to 50 km, and 10 km increments from 51 to 100 km, and fares are calculated using the business km in between the categories. To do. Therefore, depending on the business kilometer of the section you are using and the fare increments, the fare may be higher or lower if you purchase it in installments.

○JR fares may have different fare rates depending on the section of travel you use. In the Kansai area, a lower rate of rent will be applied if you only use ``Osaka Loop Line'' or ``specific train sections.'' Therefore, if you wish to use the fare beyond this section, the fare may be higher or lower if you purchase it in separate installments.

○For some sections in the Keihanshin area, we have set specific low fares from the perspective of transport market trends such as competition with private railways. Therefore, if you use a sector that includes this sector, the fare may be higher or lower if you purchase it separately.

Please note that, in principle, tickets must be purchased as a whole from the departure station to the destination station, and that it is not possible to determine the optimal dividing station between all stations, and that tickets that have been divided cannot be refunded or refunded. Customers may be treated unfavorably when handling transportation problems. For this reason, we do not propose segment divisions to our customers.

 

[JonathanH]

I think with the London metro services, it wouldn't too hard to transfer some services to TfL. Southern has a few services that could transfer to London Overground and some of the services that serve parts of Surrey could fall under TfL purview.

South Western Railway has a few routes that could easily be transferred to TfL like the Kingston loop and the Shepperton and Hampton Court branches plus perhaps the lines that go to Dorking could be contender. If it served by London buses like Epsom for example then it should be part of a wider London Overground.

It isn't wise to underestimate the costs involved in splitting operations. It is odd that people are calling for one nationalised operator and less confusion, yet a view is also taken that services could be hived off to TfL. What could more easily happen is for TfL to take a closer degree of control in specifying the service levels and for some branding to change, but for the operations to remain integrated within the nationalised operator.

 

[Thirteen]

It isn't wise to underestimate the costs involved in splitting operations. It is odd that people are calling for one nationalised operator and less confusion, yet a view is also taken that services could be hived off to TfL. What could more easily happen is for TfL to take a closer degree of control in specifying the service levels and for some branding to change, but for the operations to remain integrated within the nationalised operator.

So a joint venture with GBR for some services? That could work but I suspect that TfL won't let GBR have any control of London Overground or the Elizabeth Line.

 

[HST43257]

A joint booking system (as in National Rail but better). So many people book with Trainline (ugh) because they think you can only book, say, with LNER for LNER journeys. Also ideal if it allows split ticketing. Also, simply fares terminology as well as simplifying fares themselves. The LNER website shows a First tab and a Standard tab, each displaying Fixed, Semi-Flexible and Fully Flexible, and a simple description. IMO thats it should be.

An actually integrated rail and bus system, Britain-wide, might help.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I want nationalisation to re-introduce the safeguarded benefits once lost.

Why? This is a step backwards. Currently as staff travel basically everyone has the equivalent of a blue status pass, ie free travel in your region. Going back to safeguarded benefits would see that replaced by a number of free days travel per year and having to either date a box or buy a priv ticket to travel in your local area unless you were of a grade eligible for a status pass.

 

[whoosh]

I think we'll see Rail Alphabet 2 rolled out a lot more quickly, and a uniform for front line staff as well.
I would think it possible that the successes of 'Intercity' and 'Network SouthEast' identities may make a comeback.

Forward planning for Rolling Stock should be more coordinated.

It'll be interesting to see if they (Labour) feel the same about buses!

 

[Thirteen]

I would guess that local transport bodies like TfW, Scotrail, Merseytravel and TfL will retain their powers with perhap more control on what they can do and in some cases like TfL, get long term subsidy restored.

 

[irish_rail]

I think we'll see Rail Alphabet 2 rolled out a lot more quickly, and a uniform for front line staff as well.
I would think it possible that the successes of 'Intercity' and 'Network SouthEast' identities may make a comeback.

Forward planning for Rolling Stock should be more coordinated.

It'll be interesting to see if they (Labour) feel the same about buses!

Intercity would be lovely, but I'll believe it when I see it. I think the plan is more regional than type of service.

 

[Andyh82]

Slightly worried that simplifying tickets could actually mean tickets are more expensive, especially for those of us, I imagine that includes many here, who play the system.

Take Leeds to York, you can get Northern only singles, TPE only, any permitted, and no doubt various advances as well.

Which would be kept, the any permitted one?

 

[43066]

Slightly worried that simplifying tickets could actually mean tickets are more expensive, especially for those of us, I imagine that includes many here, who play the system.

It’s very likely to mean that, yes.

Of course the travelling public lack the knowledge to play the system, don’t benefit from the savings, so won’t view simplification in the negative way many on here do.

A lot of people seem to think fares will be going down. They won’t be, and Labour have been careful to avoid expressly suggesting they will, but if people believe that it shows their message has been delivered exactly as intended!

 

[OneOfThe48]

Slightly worried that simplifying tickets could actually mean tickets are more expensive, especially for those of us, I imagine that includes many here, who play the system.

Take Leeds to York, you can get Northern only singles, TPE only, any permitted, and no doubt various advances as well.

Which would be kept, the any permitted one?

Labour’s shadow transport secretary said that they would be simplifying fares and that they wouldn’t necessarily get any cheaper.

The answer is right now is that we don’t know which one they’d pick to continue, but I doubt they’ll pick the cheapest!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Intercity would be lovely, but I'll believe it when I see it. I think the plan is more regional than type of service.

Although you have just pointed out in another thread how much more efficient GWR is by not having intercity and local trains separated.

 

[infobleep]

Another way of putting that is:

Goodbye those overpriced "any permitted" (etc) fares which cost a premium to not restrict yourself to a given TOC (and therby place yourself at risk of making an easy mistake and being penalised for it).

But will those go? I suspect not but may be you want to see them go, given this is the speculation thread.

If nationalisation does happen, I would like more service figures released for individual routes, to justify why some services have not returned. For example, only one fast train hour between Guildford and Clapham Junction, for most hours, Monday to Friday and all hours on Saturday except between 6 am and 7 am! There are two an hour on Sundays.

There will be statistics to back up why the other train has not returned so these should be published. I don't think they are but correct me if I am wrong. So I guess broadly speaking I would like more transparency.