Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[Gareth Marston]

I assume you are aware that if the railways are renationalised, the type of relationship we want the Government to have will not count for anything.

Two things are certain: a Tory Government will be at first suspicious of and later hostile towards a nationalised industry; a Labour Government will sooner or later run out of money, and will not be able to finance anything adequately, least of all the railways.

The last 3 Labour Governments didn't "run out of money" though did they? And I'm not a Labour member or supporter lets be objective here not make things up.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Quite - and despite the hot air and blustering from Prescott (who comes from a family whose father was I think a Controller at Crewe or Chester) about the railway being a national disgrace , did the square root of nothing. Fast forward a little while to Tony Blair enthusiastically chumming up to Beardie at Euston for the launch of the 390's. Yes - nice one chaps. Los of hot air - zero delivery on deliverables.

One suspects the current Labour leadership share your view of this! Lets face it none of Blairs Governments had a transport policy they were just reactive to events - a decade wasted.

 

[Railsigns]

But isn't that comparing apples with oranges when you compare ridership under BR with today's passenger figures?

No, my point is still valid because increased ridership means increased revenue, and the fares are higher now too, so there should be less requirement for public subsidy (which is what the Tories actually promised), as opposed to the threefold increase that actually occurred.

Nationalisation is not the panacea many make it out to be.

I've never claimed it would be.

Most people who remember BR don't have great things to say about it.

Most? Do you have a verifiable reference for that, or is it just something you want to believe is true? A lot of people don't speak highly of the railway today. Just look at the negative comments made to TOCs on social media.

An amended version of privatisation with longer franchises, so that TOCs have an incentive to invest for the long term, would be a better bet than renationalisation, in my view.

Longer franchises will mean more billion pound bail-outs from the taxpayer and will do nothing to resolve the inherent inefficiency of the franchising model.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The last 3 Labour Governments didn't "run out of money" though did they? And I'm not a Labour member or supporter lets be objective here not make things up.

Clearly your memories of Labour Governments differ from mine. One outgoing member of Gordon Brown's Government left a jocular memo to his incoming replacement. I'm sure you remember what it said.

 

[richieb1971]

What actually changes if we re-nationalize? As far as I Can see the same people will do the same jobs and expect the same pay.

The only benefit I can see is sharing rolling stock. IF you could get infrastructure in house under a BR banner that would be a benefit as long as the government would support the continuous modernizing rollouts.

 

[HowardGWR]

Clearly your memories of Labour Governments differ from mine. One outgoing member of Gordon Brown's Government left a jocular memo to his incoming replacement. I'm sure you remember what it said.

It was supposed to b a traditional joke to his successor, but I see you accepted the tabloid story.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Clearly your memories of Labour Governments differ from mine. One outgoing member of Gordon Brown's Government left a jocular memo to his incoming replacement. I'm sure you remember what it said.

Wheres your independent verifiable evidence to say the country had "run out of money" in 2010? How did David Cameron manage to pay the nurses and Doctors if their was no money left by Gordon Brown? I was a civil servant in 2010 and my department had not "run out of money". Your talking absolute nonsense because you've been caught out.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One suspects the current Labour leadership share your view of this! Lets face it none of Blairs Governments had a transport policy they were just reactive to events - a decade wasted.

We could also note the investment freeze before 1994 (e.g cancellation of the full Networker plan , new stock for the WCML (Mk5) , the reduction in the Regional Railway Build - class 159's were not initally planned for the West of England route.

The disruption to BR daily work - by "preparation for franchising" and the formation of stand alone "profit centres" ranging from Ditton Sleeper depot (later closed of course) to your average TOC , FOC and infrastrucuture unit. (Guess who split the freight organisation into 5 units - only for 4 to be reformed under EWS and the latter - Freightliner - sold on about 3 times !)

As for the period after 1996 -one could argue that the collapse of Railtrack , the long series of bale outs to Generation 1 Franchises - and so on (wont talk safety here) could well have been avoided by NOT privatising the railway industry - or at least the BR part of it.

All very well to go on about the increases in ridership (if not freight - levels below 1984 at present one gathers) - butt the real bottom line of Major's experiment has never been and will never be , worked out.

Not to say of course -that had BR survived and been allowed inwards non Govt capital - that there would not have been change. We would at least been spared the interface heavy railway of today.

 

[NSEFAN]

No, my point is still valid because increased ridership means increased revenue, and the fares are higher now too, so there should be less requirement for public subsidy (which is what the Tories actually promised), as opposed to the threefold increase that actually occurred.

Revenue increases with increased ridership, but as soon as you have to buy new trains or improve the infrastructure to cope this extra profit is quickly wiped out. BR invested where it could, but you can't deny that it was very much a case of make-do-and-mend. This was acceptable back then because railway ridership was mostly declining. If BR was making a similar investment that the railway is making today, it would probably be in need of a similar subsidy level (maybe less, but probably not far off), not only because of the sheer number of upgrades/new trains but also the increased safety requirements (which are obviously a good thing, but make projects more expensive).

Longer franchises will mean more billion pound bail-outs from the taxpayer and will do nothing to resolve the inherent inefficiency of the franchising model.

Longer franchises actually bring the railway closer to how BR used to operate. Provided there is a sensible long-term plan for the franchise, it can be left to run itself at arm's-length from government, reducing the effect of changing political winds and transport ministers every 5 years. Chiltern is a good example of how a privatised railway can work, when realistic goals are set. The latest ECML "bailout" is largely the fault of the DfT, which naively accepted a wildly optimistic bid because it was greedy and completely blind to the problems it was creating by trying to make NR do too many projects at once.

 

[aylesbury]

With respect the last Labour government did in fact go into the red in a big way ,Mr Brown did not let us know the true picture ,borrowing was at a very high level and was not sustainable.It is a fact of life that certain parties are big spenders and equally big borrowers I have lived through seventy plus years of different governments and have seen the differences and effects on my life so I suggest you have a good look back over our history.

 

[EM2]

Clearly your memories of Labour Governments differ from mine. One outgoing member of Gordon Brown's Government left a jocular memo to his incoming replacement. I'm sure you remember what it said.

The Conservative Reggie Maudling left a note for Labour's Jim Callaghan when he became chancellor in 1964, which said: "Sorry to leave it in such a mess."

 

[ChiefPlanner]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/09/nationalise-rail-gas-water-privately-owned

Here is an option ?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The Conservative Reggie Maudling left a note for Labour's Jim Callaghan when he became chancellor in 1964, which said: "Sorry to leave it in such a mess."

As memorably related in Andrew Marr;s excellent "The Making of Modern Britain"

Mind you in the Attlee years we were technically bankrupt - but somehow manager to fund and from the NHS , a massive social housing programme and - er,......British Railways ?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Revenue increases with increased ridership, but as soon as you have to buy new trains or improve the infrastructure to cope this extra profit is quickly wiped out. BR invested where it could, but you can't deny that it was very much a case of make-do-and-mend. This was acceptable back then because railway ridership was mostly declining. If BR was making a similar investment that the railway is making today, it would probably be in need of a similar subsidy level (maybe less, but probably not far off), not only because of the sheer number of upgrades/new trains but also the increased safety requirements (which are obviously a good thing, but make projects more expensive).
.

Railway ridership went up and down with the cycle of the economy between the late 1960's and 1990's. Its a myth that it was "declining" this was only during recessions and then it grew again. BR only ever got a couple of years economic growth before the economy slipped back. Privatization coincided with an unprecedented 15 years of economic growth from 1992 to 2007 and population growth at rates not seen since pre Victorian times.

BR would have be investing without having to set aside a £ Billion for profits or pay for the inherent inefficiency of fragmentation so could have done what we have today at considerably less cost.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Wheres your independent verifiable evidence to say the country had "run out of money" in 2010? How did David Cameron manage to pay the nurses and Doctors if their was no money left by Gordon Brown? I was a civil servant in 2010 and my department had not "run out of money". Your talking absolute nonsense because you've been caught out.

I haven't been caught out and you're hiding behind semantic pedantry, but I'm willing to play your game for you.

If you take the phrase "running out of money" literally, then no British Government is ever in the position where it cannot pay the staff's wages or the electricity bill. What British Governments do is borrow in a variety of ways. Tony Blair's Government began by substantially paying off Government debt but gradually their finances deteriorated and eventually the national debt was higher than before. By the end Gordon Brown was hopelessly dependant on borrowed money because the revenue from taxes and excise duty was not nearly enough to pay all the bills. The reason your department was still being financed in 2010 was because the Labour Government had plunged our country into debt.

In normal plain English usage, the situation where someone has to borrow to survive is described as having run out of money.

 

[NSEFAN]

Railway ridership went up and down with the cycle of the economy between the late 1960's and 1990's. Its a myth that it was "declining" this was only during recessions and then it grew again. BR only ever got a couple of years economic growth before the economy slipped back. Privatization coincided with an unprecedented 15 years of economic growth from 1992 to 2007 and population growth at rates not seen since pre Victorian times.

BR would have be investing without having to set aside a £ Billion for profits or pay for the inherent inefficiency of fragmentation so could have done what we have today at considerably less cost.

I agree that there were peaks and troughs, mostly caused by issues in the economy, but usage was mostly declining during the BR era, at least according to this graph. BR today would be investing as much as the treasury would allow it to, although I agree that it would be more efficient by being vertically integrated. My point earlier was more that the running of the railway is more important than who owns it. It's important that the railway is left to get on with the job for many years at a time and not changing direction every 5 years, or being subject to a complete organisational change because it suits the DfT. I don't believe that a re-created BR as a state-owned company would have the luxury of arm's-length running that old BR had, primarily because of the sheer amount of taxpayer money being pumped in. As much as I'd like it to work, I'm not convinced that a re-created BR would be allowed to get on without the excessive DfT meddling experienced by the shorter franchises.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The reason your department was still being financed in 2010 was because the Labour Government had plunged our country into debt.

Ironic, really, that the strong and stable Conservatives have increased the national debt, both in real terms and in terms of a proportion of GDP, in their seven years of financial prudence. Debt's up to 88% of GDP from 75% at the end of Labour's reign, and in cash terms it has pretty much doubled to almost £2tn.

If BR was making a similar investment that the railway is making today, it would probably be in need of a similar subsidy level (maybe less, but probably not far off), not only because of the sheer number of upgrades/new trains but also the increased safety requirements (which are obviously a good thing, but make projects more expensive).

It's really hard to compare, because of just how splintered the current rail industry now is. I don't think that investment levels would need to be as high- we wouldn't be paying to rent trains that were built and paid for in full by BR, for one thing. We'd still have in-house engineering teams, both for infrastructure and hardware. This splintering is where the money goes- every job gets a new private contractor, and they all have their profit margin to maintain. Nobody will work for free but, as with trains, BR are now hiring in expertise that they previously owned outright.

It's hard to tell how much of the increased cost of infrastructure is because things have to be done to a better standard- the days of chucking up a wooden platform and a bus shelter and calling it a railway station are long gone. But I don't think it fully accounts for inflation. The myriad levels of contracting and subcontracting has a lot more to do with it, IMO.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As much as I'd like it to work, I'm not convinced that a re-created BR would be allowed to get on without the excessive DfT meddling experienced by the shorter franchises.

It could go either way. If the Transport Minister is politically accountable for their actions, then there is a chance that a better standard of decision making may result. The problem now is that the politicians driving the ideology get to duck behind the fat cats whenever something goes wrong. They're already spinning GoVia's spectacular failure as a one-off incident rather than a symptom of their broken ideology. To an extent yes, GoVia are run by the guy who gave us Connex, so it's no wonder they couldn't run a bath. But the joy of the privatised industry is that any awkward questions can get palmed off on some slimy suit from RDG/ATOC/whatever they're called this week.

 

[NSEFAN]

It's really hard to compare, because of just how splintered the current rail industry now is. I don't think that investment levels would need to be as high- we wouldn't be paying to rent trains that were built and paid for in full by BR, for one thing. We'd still have in-house engineering teams, both for infrastructure and hardware. This splintering is where the money goes- every job gets a new private contractor, and they all have their profit margin to maintain. Nobody will work for free but, as with trains, BR are now hiring in expertise that they previously owned outright.

It's hard to tell how much of the increased cost of infrastructure is because things have to be done to a better standard- the days of chucking up a wooden platform and a bus shelter and calling it a railway station are long gone. But I don't think it fully accounts for inflation. The myriad levels of contracting and subcontracting has a lot more to do with it, IMO.

I definitely agree, vertical integration is necessary IMO to save money. Another problem is the lack of a sensible long-term plan from the DfT is leading to a boom & bust approach to infrastructure investment, which is really wasteful because it takes time and money to train up skilled workers and for management to get the experience to do the job required. The tight deadlines imposed on NR then make it likely that things will go badly wrong. Then, once the upgrade work dries up, the staff are made redundant and the skills are lost until the next wave of money comes in. As you've said, we need the right people permanently employed by the railway, not swapping them between suppliers and diluting the work force.

It could go either way. If the Transport Minister is politically accountable for their actions, then there is a chance that a better standard of decision making may result. The problem now is that the politicians driving the ideology get to duck behind the fat cats whenever something goes wrong. They're already spinning GoVia's spectacular failure as a one-off incident rather than a symptom of their broken ideology. To an extent yes, GoVia are run by the guy who gave us Connex, so it's no wonder they couldn't run a bath. But the joy of the privatised industry is that any awkward questions can get palmed off on some slimy suit from RDG/ATOC/whatever they're called this week.

This is true, and is probably one reason why the railway is kept the way it is. Indeed, if it's this bad just from today's level of DfT micromangement then I dread to think what would happen if they assume direct control!

 

[Gareth Marston]

I haven't been caught out and you're hiding behind semantic pedantry, but I'm willing to play your game for you.

If you take the phrase "running out of money" literally, then no British Government is ever in the position where it cannot pay the staff's wages or the electricity bill. What British Governments do is borrow in a variety of ways. Tony Blair's Government began by substantially paying off Government debt but gradually their finances deteriorated and eventually the national debt was higher than before. By the end Gordon Brown was hopelessly dependant on borrowed money because the revenue from taxes and excise duty was not nearly enough to pay all the bills. The reason your department was still being financed in 2010 was because the Labour Government had plunged our country into debt.

In normal plain English usage, the situation where someone has to borrow to survive is described as having run out of money.

As Artic Troll has pointed out the country by your definition has now run out of money even more under Conservative rule.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I agree that there were peaks and troughs, mostly caused by issues in the economy, but usage was mostly declining during the BR era, at least according to this graph. BR today would be investing as much as the treasury would allow it to, although I agree that it would be more efficient by being vertically integrated. My point earlier was more that the running of the railway is more important than who owns it. It's important that the railway is left to get on with the job for many years at a time and not changing direction every 5 years, or being subject to a complete organisational change because it suits the DfT. I don't believe that a re-created BR as a state-owned company would have the luxury of arm's-length running that old BR had, primarily because of the sheer amount of taxpayer money being pumped in. As much as I'd like it to work, I'm not convinced that a re-created BR would be allowed to get on without the excessive DfT meddling experienced by the shorter franchises.

If you look at it from the late 60's the figure by the time of privatization wasn't too far away and on an upward curve that the private railway inherited. The dip point in 94 was much higher than that of 1982. If you look at the figures in a graph from the late 1960's to the mid 1990s only the decline is far from proved which belies the view that underpinned privatization that rail was in decline. Theirs no continual bleeding away of traffic.

The current set up will only see this level of Govt "interference" as nothing is being done to reduce costs significantly - DOO is no magic panacea. The RDG claim that the railway covers its operational day to day cost so Govt is in effectively paying for enhancements and renewals. Is it really going to cancel all investment? and of course it will want its say as its funding them. If Labour do get in then it will want to oversee the transition they will instigate- whatever anybody thinks in the short term we will have Government interference. A National Railways Investment Act is potentially a long term answer to short termism and change of Govt. If we enshrine a 25 year plan national rail infrastructure plan in law and create a body to oversee it then its hard for the next Govt to change everything without being seen to cancel investment. It can oversee a rolling programme of electrification of mainlines, suburban commuter routes around our big cities, light rail, national rolling stock strategy in combination with devolved body's.

 

[coppercapped]

As memorably related in Andrew Marr;s excellent "The Making of Modern Britain"

Mind you in the Attlee years we were technically bankrupt - but somehow manager to fund and from the NHS , a massive social housing programme and - er,......British Railways ?

As you say, the Attlee government had no money (for reasons which could fill a book!) and had to go cap-in-hand to the Americans in 1946 for an emergency loan of $3.75 billion (in then dollars). The Canadians chipped in a further billion. Nominally the loan was to cover post-war overseas expenditures (including payment for those Lend-Lease items in transit or in the UK after Lend-Lease was terminated in September 1945 as the War had finished), but as the Government could only have afforded its nationalisation programme and the welfare reforms if it withdrew from all of its overseas commitments immediately, essentially these domestic changes were funded by the Americans.

For the avoidance of doubt, this was NOT Marshall Aid money which came later, from 1948 to the end of 1951.

The final repayment of the loan was made in 2006.

 

[B&I]

Clearly your memories of Labour Governments differ from mine. One outgoing member of Gordon Brown's Government left a jocular memo to his incoming replacement. I'm sure you remember what it said.

Do you also remember the 2008 financial crisis, or Gideon Osborne's promise to eliminate the deficit by 2015? If you qant to criticise politicians for their fiscal management fine, but please take account of the context.

 

[B&I]

What actually changes if we re-nationalize? As far as I Can see the same people will do the same jobs and expect the same pay.

The only benefit I can see is sharing rolling stock. IF you could get infrastructure in house under a BR banner that would be a benefit as long as the government would support the continuous modernizing rollouts.

If the railway was renationalised in its current, ludicrously over-complicated state, little would be likely to change. Re-nationalisation brings with it the prospect of re-creating a single, workable national railway organisation, rather than the bureaucratic nightmare the 1993 Act created.

 

[quantinghome]

I'll just leave this here...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html

 

[B&I]

Follow the money. Work out who is really profiting from the present arrangement. Ask why the DfT gives franchises to TOCs promising entire new train fleets instead of to TOCs promising to run longer trains with far more seats.

Again, you seem to be pointing out the ills of privatisation by pointing out how TOCs tweak their bids to manipulate more cash out of the system.

 

[shredder1]

How do European Railways operate

 

[coppercapped]

How do European Railways operate

How long is a piece of string?

(Added in edit: I'm not trying to be flippant - but each country is different and each is worth at least an article. It's difficult to make comparisons with the UK because the history, legal framework, funding and demographics are so different. For example, in Germany there is a legal difference between 'Hauptstrecken' (Main Lines) and 'Nebenstrecken' (Secondary or Branch lines) which affects all sorts of things including safety).

 

[Olaf]

There is no benefit to nationalisation of the train operators unless it is fully within the context of providing a suitable public service:

That conversation would include, but would not be limited to:

• No strike clause as per public service employment
  
• No additional burden on Public Finances due to Pension commitments - pensions would have to be obtained via the private sector
• Review of pay levels to bring them back in line with comparable levels of remuneration for public sector employees
• Re-application for current jobs to put all prospective employees through a review of suitability for public sector work

The better option which we are moving to, is the break-up of Network Rail with route infrastructure combined with route service provider to give a single organisation operating and managing each given route with central functions provided by the rump of Network Rail and new bodies for cross organisation services.

 

[Railsigns]

The better option which we are moving to, is the break-up of Network Rail with route infrastructure combined with route service provider to give a single organisation operating and managing each given route with central functions provided by the rump of Network Rail and new bodies for cross organisation services.

That is absolutely the worst option. It would create a semblance of vertical integration at the cost of horizontal disintegration, with horrendously complex interfaces where different TOCs share the same tracks. Network Rail is the glue holding the fragmented industry together at present. We've already seen what happens when you hand control of the infrastructure to the private sector (Railtrack), and it wasn't pretty.

The Shaw Report made it quite clear that the public doesn't want Network Rail privatised, and with good reason. The only ones who support it are right wing zealots who want to ingrain rail privatisation as much as possible to make it harder to reverse.