You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Nothing particularly stealthy about it though is there? And in truth the railways were never fully privatised anyway, it was just a thin veneer, which, in my opinion anyway, was useful in the early days, but had lost its way in recent years.
Excellent news. Has been on the way for some time now
(agree with Timbog that it's not really stealthy though- the Abelio cancellation was announced in 2019 iirc and a publically owned provider always looked like the likely option even before the pandemic)
Is there a problem with having the Rail System re-nationalised?
From spending best part of 10 years as a rail commuter at the mercy of London Midland's crap local service I don't think it would be a bad thing!
LNER was always good under public ownership. I assume it still exists. It's been a while since I've been to Wakefield Westgate.
Is there a problem with having the Rail System re-nationalised?
Not for me. I fully expect a steady shift from private to public control over the next 20 years. It's always been a mix of both anyway, but the balance will change as government(s) accept that in the end they are always ultimately responsible for our rail network and the services we use on it... the buck always stops with them. I find it interesting that many politicians of all colours accept this, but when taking the actions needed to take more control, they do all they can not to call it "re-nationalising". Remember Railtrack? There has not been enough talk (in the media or by government) about whether its nationalisation (although rarely called that) was the start of a long process of re-nationalisation for the railways in near totality, or just an aberration in an ultimate journey to a mostly privately run system. Was it a step in the right direction, or just a temporary retreat from privatisation that should one day be "fixed"?
Excellent news.
Privatisation did nothing except line a few people’s pockets, allow infrastructure to deteriorate and piss off passengers.
The whole lot should be nationalised and run to provide a decent service to the passengers rather than providing dividends.
The main point is that it should be a fully unified system so far as passengers are concerned. If individual bits are contracted out because that works better, no problem, but when you find that your ticket on the 16:20 isn't valid on the 16:30 because it's run by a different company, that's daft. Making different lines 'compete' with each other was always pointless - compete with cars or aircraft, fine, but nobody who needs to get to Leeds will go to Manchester because the train is cheaper.
but when you find that your ticket on the 16:20 isn’t valid on the 16:30 because it’s run by a different company, that’s daft.
Or having to extend your commute home by 40 minutes because a service has changed from northern to transpennine, who require you to book a bike on in advance, but never have any spare slots.
I admit that’s oddly specific, but still.
Nothing particularly stealthy about it though is there? And in truth the railways were never fully privatised anyway, it was just a thin veneer, which, in my opinion anyway, was useful in the early days, but had lost its way in recent years.
Only "useful" if you were one of the few souls who benefitted massively from the likes of Porterbrook or one of the other ROSCO's creation and subsequent sell-off.
which, in my opinion anyway, was useful in the early days, but had lost its way in recent years
Would you mind elaborating of this please @timbog160 ? I’ve always thought of rail privatisation as being mostly about making money for shareholders and I’m genuinely curious about any other reasons
TBH rail is a natural monopoly, so privatisation without monopolisation or very limited competition was always going to be a mess. That's sometimes used as an excuse for the failures of privatisation but really it's a critisicm of the decision to go ahead with it anyway.
The really mad thing is that we have mostly nationalised rail anyway. It's just that it's not this nation. Abelio being 100% Dutch state owned, frinstance. Why are the Italian government a better option to run trains in the UK than the UK or Scottish government? It's amazing.
People need to remember that many voted for what we've got now, back in May 1992. The South East commuters particularly voted for Major's Tory party, and their key manifesto statement was to privatise BR. So I have little to no sympathy there as they got what they voted for.
It was a privatisation to allow the rail system die it's own slow natural death, whilst the Tory Party could shrug its shoulders as say, 'market forces'. Whilst in the short term their mates made a £££ killing.
But of course the rail system, despite the infrastructure being neglected under private ownership (up to rhe Hatfield crash at least) actually picked up.
Now, whilst I did NOT vote for privatisation and still think it a bad idea, people are naive fools to think all was rosy under BR. And after nearly 30 years, if anyone thinks letting Network Rail take a role in the train service side of things is a good idea to reform BR, they are insane.
What is missing despite multiple governments and 20 years is any long term joined up thinking about transport in Britain and how it's needed to help support and drive the whole economy, rather than piecemeal bits that are judged in an isolated, insular way. For example? Why is the Midland Mainline still not electrified past Corby ? Nationalisation won't fix that as it was the Gov that pulled the plug on it.
Robertajobb has it - railways were in decline and had been for years. A different approach did succeed in bringing new innovations to the railway, and sometimes competition DID work - you want examples - well the good folks of Sunderland and Hull would never in a million years have got direct services to London, without competition forcing the private operators to look for new markets, which they then grew very successfully..
Yes there were lots of problems with privatisation and I’m not defending it as stridently as some of you might imagine, just saying nationalisation will not be the panacea people think it is.
Job no 1 for the nationalised railway will be to significantly reduce the power of unions and tackle the ‘unsustainable’ railway pension scheme. The government has already started to recruit for exactly that role.
the good folks of Sunderland and Hull would never in a million years have got direct services to London
Wait, it's a benefit to be able to get to London quickly? I thought that was only for the benefit of Londoners so they could suck everyone else dry. That seems to be the argument against HS2 at any rate.
The really mad thing is that we have mostly nationalised rail anyway. It’s just that it’s not this nation.
And that is one of the reasons I think the continued slide away from "private" provision is now inevitable. We are going to become a less favourable country for European state owned providers to operate in.
just saying nationalisation will not be the panacea people think it is
Agreed. But it is almost inevitable in the short to medium term... just expect it not to be called "nationalisation". It will cause it's own problems though. Political problems as well as operational ones. The public can get very reactionary about the state properly investing in the rail network, especially if with a started aim to reduce car and air travel... they can feel under attack by anything they feel is an acting against "the driver" and/or flying.
well the good folks of Sunderland and Hull would never in a million years have got direct services to London, without competition forcing the private operators to look for new markets, which they then grew very successfully.
"He who doesn't know history..."
The Hull Pullman (then Hull Executive from 1978) ran from Hull to London and back every day, and wasn't the only straight thru connection pre-privatisation.
It still runs - it just isn’t called the Hull Executive any more. As the Wikipedia entry points out though HT (pre COVID) ran 7 services per day. But I agree my language was sloppy. I should have said ‘would never in a million years have got the level of direct services’...
Nothing particularly stealthy about it though is there? And in truth the railways were never fully privatised anyway
Privatized when it comes to profits, public when it comes to needing investment.
Privatized when it comes to profits, public when it comes to needing investment.
This.
I'm no socialist, but national services should be national. See also, Public health & social care.
I’m no socialist, but national services should be national. See also, Public health & social care.
Agreed. Also energy and water.
good news
As I’ve said on a few other rail based threads, whilst the current system has its faults it’s important to remember how bad BR was.
Certainly my area in the midlands is vastly better under semi-private control than it was under BR. We have more trains, that are cleaner, better timetabled and better routes.
robertajobb
Full MemberBut of course the rail system, despite the infrastructure being neglected under private ownership (up to rhe Hatfield crash at least) actually picked up.
Yep, but the biggest investor into the railways is still us and the taxpayer spends 3 times more in real terms on the privatised railways than we did before privatisation. The average UK government direct spending on the railways in the 5 years before privatisation was £1.6bn (corrected for today's money). Since privatisation it's been an average of £5bn.
So whenever someone says "yeah but BR sucked", you just really have to ask if that'd still have been true if the government funding had been literally 3 times as much, every year for over 2 decades.
you just really have to ask if that’d still have been true if the government funding had been literally 3 times as much, every year for over 2 decades.
Same should be said for refuse collection.
Prior to private companies taking over it was local councils who employed hundreds of local people. They shut council refuse points and now we pay private companies 10x the amount at least. For a lesser service and lesser jobs, most of who are low paid in comparison.
I'm just waiting for buses to be regulated again, with a requirement to provide a universal service. There's a bus stop right in the middle of our drive, so you think it would be convenient for us to catch the bus to get in and out of town. But nah, sporadic service; bus stops well away from the station and pubs, last bus at 6pm. Total waste of time. We've lived here for 5 years, eligible for bus passes but have never got on it. Prefer to ride into town.
There has been a recent push to allow local councils to do something akin to “Operator of Last Resort” for buses, and run routes themselves where the public sector is failing people, but the government pushed back. Councils still barred from offering that kind of new or replacement service with their own new operator. [This nonsense no longer applies in Scotland though].
our local council has just started doing the collections again themselves after years of outsourcing to Serco, who were ****ing useless. I just do not understand* why councils outsource this kind of thing, it makes sense for a task you perform rarely, not something you do virtually every day of the ****ing year.Same should be said for refuse collection.
*I actually understand perfectly, it’s so some nobhead can fiddle the books one year to make himself look great, before sloping off and leaving someone else to sort out the mess. That’s the problem with most public officials, they’ll just quietly move on rather than being held accountable for their poor decisions. Should be made to personally pay back the money they’ve squandered, or at least be publicly whipped in the town square.
I just do not understand* why councils outsource this kind of thing, it makes sense for a task you perform rarely, not something you do virtually every day of the **** year.
Basically because the Govt makes life difficult for them if they don't.
Not sure you've noticed the political strategy of the Govt we've had in power for the last decade or so...
I’m no socialist, but national services.....
I've got bad news for you i'm afraid, comrade.
I’m just waiting for buses to be regulated again, with a requirement to provide a universal service. There’s a bus stop right in the middle of our drive, so you think it would be convenient for us to catch the bus to get in and out of town. But nah, sporadic service; bus stops well away from the station and pubs, last bus at 6pm. Total waste of time. We’ve lived here for 5 years, eligible for bus passes but have never got on it. Prefer to ride into town.
Bus deregulation was a disaster - says a lot that the only place that has seen increase in bus usage over the last 20 years has been London where they were not deregulated. Everywhere else is a mess of competition.
Near where my sister lives there are 2 buses an hour into York, each one run by a different company. You'd think that'd be one every 30 mins, but no. Bus A is scheduled at 20 mins past the hour so Bus B goes for 15 mins past in order to take all the passengers that turn up for the 20 past.
Bus A retaliates by rescheduling for 10 past, Bus B timetable change puts it at 05 past. And so on.
In Manchester there were at one point about 40-odd bus companies (a mix of short/medium distance and intercity coach type) and between them they had about 500 possible ticket types. Most of which were not interchangeable.
Well said crazy legs - I came to manchester in 94 and I can remember the midweek night bus services, they were the first to go, the bus service changes that TGFM are pushing for can't come soon enough. 64million dollar question is whether we can get cars out of the city centre commuting to allow the buses to operate because the congestion is the problem.
I personally think that bus services are more important than trains, this country needs to invest really heavily in 21st century bus travel, which would mean that local rail services can be restructured and free up capacity (which means you don't need HS2 but that's a different thread). And road pricing to pay for it.
I’ve always thought of rail privatisation as being mostly about making money for shareholders and I’m genuinely curious about any other reasons
I think there is an argument that huge public sector organisations are very inefficient and resistant to change so by privatising you can drive improvement better. Potentially you can also fight harder against the unions as many private companies that one UK wide organisation - your perspective on that being good or bad may depend on whether you are in the union or not!
I think there is an argument that huge public sector organisations are very inefficient and resistant to change
They are, if you run them badly. But when we look enviously across the Channel and North Sea at all those lovely railways, most of them are state owned aren't they?
Surely to some extent its not who owns them, its who runs them.
Railways on the continent are owned by the governments but that doesn't necessarily make them better. Do you really think this current government would run them well? I imagine they'll just stick more tax payer cash into them then privatise the lot again.
Surely to some extent its not who owns them, its who runs them.
It's two sides of the same coin.
What you actually need is Network Rail (or whatever equivalent you can come up with) managing track, stations, signalling, infrastructure etc and the repairs and enhancements to those. where necessary, station management can be co-cliented with a local council, a local group of volunteers or a landowner (if NR is not the landowner)
You then need a company to manage the timetables, the service frequencies - sort of British Rail equivalent if you like.
And then you need some Train Operating Companies who are contractually obliged to deliver on that, not run what they want when they want it - that way you can get a variety of types of train best suited to that particular area, line, capacity and so on.
Currently (believe it or not), Network Rail are not actually obliged to do any enhancements, they're only obliged to repair - not necessarily "upgrade" or make better or enhance. So any enhancements that are required need to go through a convoluted process of suggesting it to DfT (who fund NR), hoping that DfT approve it and fund it and then procuring/contracting the upgrades and then giving it to NR to actually to the work. That process can take 5 years. It's SUCH a mess.
Railways on the continent are owned by the governments but that doesn’t necessarily make them better.
No but my point was the opposite - it doesn't necessarily make them worse, which is what a lot of Brits would be queueing up to suggest.
Nationalisation is great on many levels...
It led to the large scale decline in the Railway, the nice thing about the franchising model was that actually there was an element of having to think about how to make money and a guarantee of a set amount of state funding.
One of the real risks of Nationalisation of service provision again is that this level of funding compulsion disappears and we're back to the bad old days of the Railways being the easiest thing to cut funding from.
The obvious answer to that would be arms length control of the Railway with profits being returned into the system and a long term agreed level of government funding. Which I guess would be the ideal apart from it's essentially not democratic. Then the argument gets to be well al services should be run that way and you're into well what does government do.
An at arms length expenditure organisation with long term set goals would be great because it would allow tweaking round the edges and investment over a minimum. Something I think Annalise Dodds has discussed.
It's not a simple thing to make sure we see the positive changes and growth of railway use we need and ensuring that growth remains where it is.
I think this is the constant battle of infrastructure and public services is to make sure that there's accountability, arms length government intervention, but still public control.
poly
Free MemberI think there is an argument that huge public sector organisations are very inefficient and resistant to change so by privatising you can drive improvement better.
An argument but in this specific case it's an argument that was absolutely false (and which the government knew to be false- though their own reporting underestimated how badly)
BR was incredibly efficient and that was known at the time, in fact the pre-privatisation benchmarking found it was the most efficient of all of the european rail providers they looked at. Nobody liked the service they gave by the end, but that's because they had to do it on a shoestring, not because they were bad at the job and certainly not because they were inefficient or resistant to change. But it's pretty easy to accuse a failing service of inefficiency even as you underfund it to death, and certainly when your train is overcrowded, late or cancelled it's easy to believe it's inefficiency rather than underinvestment.
Course, it certainly doesn't follow that if you'd given them three times as much money, like we have with the privatised railway, that they'd have stayed efficient- since the savage budget cuts were the main driver of efficiency. Or for that matter that the privatised service couldn't have been pretty efficient if they'd faced the same financial constraints instead of being given three times the money.
BR at the end was super lean and organised it had to be, spot on.
With current funding levels it'd potentially been amazing, there's faults with both public and private sector organisations, but classing one as better than the other is lazy.
Maybe a UK wide model like TFL would work, with a minister being responsible political and it having a distinct management team, that was left to do the work set by the elected leadership.
I guess the crux is guaranteeing funding
Railways on the continent are owned by the governments but that doesn’t necessarily make them better.
they are generally better tho IME
But it’s pretty easy to accuse a failing service of inefficiency even as you underfund it to death, and certainly when your train is overcrowded, late or cancelled it’s easy to believe it’s inefficiency rather than underinvestment.
Exactly what they are doing with our NHS... It is an old story and we, to our shame have let it continue...