Jump to content
 

Scotrail to be Nationalised


Recommended Posts

This has been on the cards for quite a while and lets hope that it works ,the RMT must be over the moon but I hope that nobody loses out  ie jobs seniority.The east coast works as a stand alone company will Scot-Rail be the same the scots parliament does not have a good record on projects.What is hapenning with the sleeper?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Scottish Govt don’t actually have a good track record running anything . The two Calmac ferries now passing £230m , original contract price £97m  and 5  years late springs to mind .  There’s also Prestwick Airport and Bi Fab where the govt have stepped in and it’s been a failure . So I hope that they set up a competently run company  and leave it to its own devices . Actually I don’t think Abellio were doing a bad job immediately before Covid .  The HSTs were finally coming on stream .  My own railway service in Inverclyde was excellent . Incredibly for me , the last time I was on a train was coming back from Model Rail Scotland last February 

Edited by Legend
  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Good news then. Lets hope we get a sensible government in England who do the same.

 

Providing a nationalised railway can borrow money for investment, particularly with interest rates as low as they are, then the taxpayer will get good value for money and a much better service. We may even see more jobs created building trains here rather than somewhere else.

 

The current setup seems to be designed to maximise the number of contracts and thus increase costs and the time taken to do anything e.g. a modification to rolling stock to improve reliability.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the high expenditure due the current pandemic I would think that bringing back BR is the last thing on the governments agenda.If private operators are willing to take the risk let it be .I agree about the scots governments track record its not good but doubtless people will agree with them.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It never was 'privatised' to begin with. Almost anyone who's worked in railway management knows that it's the government that has the final say on almost all aspects of running the 'privatised' railway. Private companies are much better at innovation, raising capital and bringing supply to meet demand, than any part of the public sector. Everytime I suggest that the railways should be properly privatised, people tell me that private companies will do eveything on the cheap, gut the service and tear up railways left, right and centre to maximise profit; despite the fact almost all the railways in this country were built by private companies, and almost all the cutting of services and ripping up of tracks was done by BR. The same goes for almost every sector of infrastructure, private enterprise innovates and builds it, the government takes it over and runs it into the ground, before finally they 'privatise' it again, only with so much regulation that it cripples almost every positive aspect of privatisation.

 

If I was betting, my money would be on rail services in Scotland getting significantly worse, not better.

 

All the best,

 

Jack

  • Like 3
  • Agree 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

It never was 'privatised' to begin with. Almost anyone who's worked in railway management knows that it's the government that has the final say on almost all aspects of running the 'privatised' railway. Private companies are much better at innovation, raising capital and bringing supply to meet demand, than any part of the public sector. Everytime I suggest that the railways should be properly privatised, people tell me that private companies will do eveything on the cheap, gut the service and tear up railways left, right and centre to maximise profit; despite the fact almost all the railways in this country were built by private companies, and almost all the cutting of services and ripping up of tracks was done by BR. The same goes for almost every sector of infrastructure, private enterprise innovates and builds it, the government takes it over and runs it into the ground, before finally they 'privatise' it again, only with so much regulation that it cripples almost every positive aspect of privatisation.

 

If I was betting, my money would be on rail services in Scotland getting significantly worse, not better.

 

All the best,

 

Jack

It's amazing how many of the franchisees, are controlled, if not owned by foreign governments!

 

Surely the message is that foreign governments, do a better job than the British one, who endlessly considers that paying out subsidies to foreign companies is 'more efficient'.

 

Then the government says 'We don't want to be told what to do by Europe', which led to Brexit!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

It's amazing how many of the franchisees, are controlled, if not owned by foreign governments!

 

Surely the message is that foreign governments, do a better job than the British one, who endlessly considers that paying out subsidies to foreign companies is 'more efficient'.

 

Then the government says 'We don't want to be told what to do by Europe', which led to Brexit!

 

Hmm not sure about that.  For example I suggest you look at the financial history of Abellio Greater Anglia and perhaps ask Dutch tax payers if they agree with you. The franchise agreement that particular "smart" foreign investor signed up to made no financial sense and was teetering on the brink way before covid and Abellio had been begging for a revision to the franchise terms since 2018.  Not my definition of foreign owners calling the shots.  

  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 30368 said:

Good news then. Lets hope we get a sensible government in England who do the same.

 

Providing a nationalised railway can borrow money for investment, particularly with interest rates as low as they are, then the taxpayer will get good value for money and a much better service. We may even see more jobs created building trains here rather than somewhere else.

 

The current setup seems to be designed to maximise the number of contracts and thus increase costs and the time taken to do anything e.g. a modification to rolling stock to improve reliability.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

Trains are already assembled here (CAF, Alstom and Hitachi have assembly plants with Siemens building one). Train building is a global business now so we won’t return to BREL days of a full build (same as car & plane manufacture).

 

Nationalisation means full Treasury & DfT control. That will not end well.

 

current emergency measures contracts in England are effectively nationalisation (any expenditure over £5k needs formal approval by DfT apparently). Expect big cuts in service frequency and lay offs / headcount reductions to kick in over the summer as it becomes clear how COVID has reduced passenger numbers (and the lucrative season ticket sales). Treasury will not throw more / endless subsidy at Rail and will impose cuts.

Edited by black and decker boy
Clarification
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
36 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

Hmm not sure about that.  For example I suggest you look at the financial history of Abellio Greater Anglia and perhaps ask Dutch tax payers if they agree with you. The franchise agreement that particular "smart" foreign investor signed up to made no financial sense and was teetering on the brink way before covid and Abellio had been begging for a revision to the franchise terms since 2018.  Not my definition of foreign owners calling the shots.  

Fact is for well over a decade foreign owners have played a significant part. Obviously some did better than others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

Fact is for well over a decade foreign owners have played a significant part. Obviously some did better than others. 

 

Maybe but you chose to mention Brexit presumably to amplify what you considered to be an inconsistency between its stated objectives and organisations located within the EU which you believed were still milking the UK taxpayer.  Given that remain were expected to win the referendum easily then citing Brexit narrows the window to post 2016 when all the foreign owned operators have financially struggled very badly.  If you'd avoided the temptation to mention Brexit to try and make an unnecessary political point then your other comments would have had more validity.

Edited by DY444
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

Expect big cuts in service frequency and lay offs / headcount reductions to kick in over the summer as it becomes clear how COVID has reduced passenger numbers (and the lucrative season ticket sales). Treasury will not throw more / endless subsidy at Rail and will impose cuts.

 

Agreed, and true for all local countries (Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland and England).

 

Wishful thinking will say there will be a magic land full of trains 100% full of joyful passengers going back to work in full offices. Pragmatic thinking will look at the sheer scale of businesses that have realised Working From Home is working fine, and workers that have realised they are financially better off, and are in no rush to start spending money commuting again (even in Scotland).

 

The cost of Covid borrowing, grants and loans has yet to come to roost (even in Scotland). All the Treasuries will inevitably demand cut-backs in *all* services that have reduced demand post-Covid (especially nationalised services).  It's only a question of how much and how soon. Unless they kick the can down the road by borrowing more (even in Scotland).

 

In Scotland, hoping the price of oil goes up to cover the cost of borrowing. Not holding my breath on that one though.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

...

Private companies are much better at innovation, raising capital and bringing supply to meet demand, than any part of the public sector. Everytime I suggest that the railways should be properly privatised, people tell me that private companies will do eveything on the cheap, gut the service and tear up railways left, right and centre to maximise profit; despite the fact almost all the railways in this country were built by private companies, and almost all the cutting of services and ripping up of tracks was done by BR. The same goes for almost every sector of infrastructure, private enterprise innovates and builds it, the government takes it over and runs it into the ground, before finally they 'privatise' it again, only with so much regulation that it cripples almost every positive aspect of privatisation.

...


Quite right. It’s why I think it’s essential that the military is privatised as soon as possible...

 

I would suggest NHS management of the current vaccination programme demonstrates that not all public sector management is run by feckless incompetents. 
 

BR certainly didn’t strike me as worse-managed than most other British large-scale private-sector companies of that era, and in some respects it was pretty good (R&D, development and launch of bargain-basement HSTs, etc).
 

Paul

 

 

 

Edited by Fenman
Word snafu
  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, lmsforever said:

With the high expenditure due the current pandemic I would think that bringing back BR is the last thing on the governments agenda. If private operators are willing to take the risk let it be .I agree about the scots governments track record its not good but doubtless people will agree with them.

In the post-Covid world the English rail system will be run on concessions rather than franchises.  There will be no "risk" to the operators as in future the government will take all the revenue and reimburse the operators for their expenses plus an agreed profit margin.  This largely follows the model currently in place for London Overground where TfL contracts with Arriva Rail London as the operator.  The same applies with Crossrail and MTR Elizabeth Line.  The difference is that in both cases TfL specifies the service it wants and agrees the the terms then allows the operator to get on with it - there are heavy penalties for non-compliance; not just late or cancelled trains but also for things such as cleanliness and uncleared graffiti.  The fear is that in the case of the national network the mandarins at the DfT will not be prepared to take a similar arm's length approach but will micro-manage the operators even more than they do currently.

 

Remember, we have a privatised rail system in name only.  The actual operations may be by private companies but even under the franchises the level of service and most aspects of the day to day operation is directed by the DfT.  The public don't fully appreciate this which is why the operators get so much flak and that suits the government and its ministers and civil servants just fine.  Don't take the blame when you pass the buck.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fenman said:

Quite right. It’s why I think it’s essential that the military is privatised as soon as possible...

 

Good idea! ;)

 

Actually, a significantly high proportion of it already is privatised. "Front-line" troops in uniform is just what we see in the headline news. Behind that, many support services are contracted out to private companies. Not forgetting all the equipment and supplies that are purchased or leased from private companies as well.

 

We'll need a "really big war" to get it all "properly nationalised" again.

Edited by KeithMacdonald
Typo fix
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fenman said:


Quite right. It’s why I think it’s essential that the military is privatised as soon as possible...

 

I would suggest NHS management of the current vaccination programme demonstrates that not all public sector management is run by feckless incompetents. 
 

BR certainly didn’t strike me as worse-managed than most other British large-scale private-sector companies of that era, and in some respects it was pretty good (R&D, development and launch of bargain-basement HSTs, etc).
 

Paul

 

 

 

BR did well in the late 80s/90s with the funds it was given (though the constant reorganisations didn't help). Back then though the level of micro-management by DfT was significantly less than present and DfT are not going to relinquish their command & control any more than the Treasyru is going to keep signing blank cheques.

 

I agree that the 'privatised' structure imparts extra bureaucracy and less flexibility in resource utilization. I'm not convinced that many owning groups would agree it provides profit, let alone excess profit.

 

A day of reckoning looms.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

In the post-Covid world the English rail system will be run on concessions rather than franchises.  There will be no "risk" to the operators as in future the government will take all the revenue and reimburse the operators for their expenses plus an agreed profit margin.  This largely follows the model currently in place for London Overground where TfL contracts with Arriva Rail London as the operator.  The same applies with Crossrail and MTR Elizabeth Line.  The difference is that in both cases TfL specifies the service it wants and agrees the the terms then allows the operator to get on with it - there are heavy penalties for non-compliance; not just late or cancelled trains but also for things such as cleanliness and uncleared graffiti.  The fear is that in the case of the national network the mandarins at the DfT will not be prepared to take a similar arm's length approach but will micro-manage the operators even more than they do currently.

 

Remember, we have a privatised rail system in name only.  The actual operations may be by private companies but even under the franchises the level of service and most aspects of the day to day operation is directed by the DfT.  The public don't fully appreciate this which is why the operators get so much flak and that suits the government and its ministers and civil servants just fine.  Don't take the blame when you pass the buck.

Which is why a separate rail body is needed to manage it. The problem with politics is ideology - if, back in '92 BR had been required to start contracting out services the process could have been managed much more strategically but back then the political footballs were big, privatised utilities such as BT and British Gas (anyone remember Cedric the Pig?). So, much in the same that Brexit became ideological, the shout went up that privatisation must mean privatisation, with BR smashed into a million pieces and the contracts awarded to cuddly plucky local operators. Of course this was never going to be sustainable which is why the only people who could end up affording the franchising game were conglomerates (in many cases backed by other states). Meanwhile, like a supertanker slowly drifting, the long term strategic management capability of the industry has been lost. The DfT cannot fulfil this role, and bizarrely they assume that TOCs can do it even though both operationally and under Competition Law it is not possible to fill that strategic gap. The long delayed Williams (Shapps) review and White Paper is likely to point in the direction of needing strategic oversight.

Meanwhile, there is a whole generation out there who seem to think that by magically making something publicly owned it becomes well run. It doesn't matter who owns it provided it is properly structured, managed and capitalised.

As for those people that think public ownership means lower fares, higher wages, a better service, well that's what happens when the majority of the population was born after the 1970s..... 

Edited by andyman7
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

Which is why a separate rail body is needed to manage it. The problem with politics is ideology - if, back in '92 BR had been required to start contracting out services the process could have been managed much more strategically but back then the political footballs were big, privatised utilities such as BT and British Gas (anyone remember Cedric the Pig?). So, much in the same that Brexit became ideological, the shout went up that privatisation must mean privatisation, with BR smashed into a million pieces and the contracts awarded to cuddly plucky local operators. Of course this was never going to be sustainable which is why the only people who could end up affording the franchising game were conglomerates (in many cases backed by other states). Meanwhile, like a supertanker slowly drifting, the long term strategic management capability of the industry has been lost. The DfT cannot fulfil this role, and bizarrely they assume that TOCs can do it even though both operationally and under Competition Law it is not possible to fill that strategic gap. The long delayed Williams (Shapps) review and White Paper is likely to point in this direction.

Meanwhile, there is a whole generation out there who seem to think that by magically making something publicly owned it becomes well run. It doesn't matter who owns it provided it is properly structured, managed and capitalised.

As for those people that think public ownership means lower fares, higher wages, a better service, well that's what happens when the majority of the population was born after the 1970s..... 

Off topic buy the British Gas privatisation was "remember to tell Sid"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

Which is why a separate rail body is needed to manage it. The problem with politics is ideology - if, back in '92 BR had been required to start contracting out services the process could have been managed much more strategically but back then the political footballs were big, privatised utilities such as BT and British Gas (anyone remember Cedric the Pig?). So, much in the same that Brexit became ideological, the shout went up that privatisation must mean privatisation, with BR smashed into a million pieces and the contracts awarded to cuddly plucky local operators. Of course this was never going to be sustainable which is why the only people who could end up affording the franchising game were conglomerates (in many cases backed by other states). Meanwhile, like a supertanker slowly drifting, the long term strategic management capability of the industry has been lost. The DfT cannot fulfil this role, and bizarrely they assume that TOCs can do it even though both operationally and under Competition Law it is not possible to fill that strategic gap. The long delayed Williams (Shapps) review and White Paper is likely to point in the direction of needing strategic oversight.

Meanwhile, there is a whole generation out there who seem to think that by magically making something publicly owned it becomes well run. It doesn't matter who owns it provided it is properly structured, managed and capitalised.

As for those people that think public ownership means lower fares, higher wages, a better service, well that's what happens when the majority of the population was born after the 1970s..... 

Which of course we had, briefly, in the form of the Strategic Rail Authority.  Unfortunately it made too many good decisions - like the 20-year franchise award to Chiltern - so it had to go.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike_Walker said:

Which of course we had, briefly, in the form of the Strategic Rail Authority.  Unfortunately it made too many good decisions - like the 20-year franchise award to Chiltern - so it had to go.

That's a whole separate chapter in its own right. It became less about the organisations and more about the personalities (messrs Bowker & Winsor) and their relationships with Government. The crunch came when the Treasury realised that the post-2001 structure created the potential for Government money to be spent without Treasury agreement - that was the death knell. In a Three Act Tragedy, that was the and of Act II.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...