Labour's plans for the railways

[adb968008]

2 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Of course there's nothing behind it.

We better get used to it, there's a general Election coming.

If only there was a way of turning all the B/S into money..... 🤣

 

Set up an election leaflet printing & media company.

[Andy Kirkham]

38 minutes ago, 4630 said:

I’m reminded of the phrase that correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. 

 

The statistic that patronage doubled after privatisation is often quoted by its supporters. But what I've not heard them say is what exactly it was that the privatised railway did that was so much better than BR. One trend of the privatised era was more frequent but shorter trains; however that was started by BR. Can it be argued that the doubling would have happened anyway if BR had continued?

[Trainshed Terry]

6 hours ago, Harlequin said:

new version of BR, run by railway professionals,

 

More like run by university graduates who could not arrange a piss up in pub.

Terry.

Edited April 25 by Trainshed Terry
missing word.

[Chris M]

With all this talk of re-nationalisation it should first be remembered that  the land, the track, the stations etc etc are all government owned anyway. Labour are being somewhat misleading by saying they want to renationalise the railways - what they plan to do is have a central government controlled body to run passenger trains in place of private companies. I have mixed feelings about this. At one level it seems very sensible and it should make the railways more efficient. It should be simpler for travellers buying tickets. There will probably be a sensible training programme rather than a policy of poaching staff from other companies because poaching is cheaper than training in the short term.  On the other hand it has to be said that passenger numbers and indeed passenger service are far better now that they ever were under British Rail. Many stations have three times the number of trains now compared to the 1960s & 1970s. How much of that is down to private companies and how much down to other factors I don't know. I do know that, in order to make a profit, private companies generally strive to increase revenue (in this case by increasing passenger numbers) whereas anything that is public sector run  tends to be all about cutting costs in order to reduce losses and closing things down. That is the bit that concerns me about this plan.

[4630]

15 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

The statistic that patronage doubled after privatisation is often quoted by its supporters. But what I've not heard them say is what exactly it was that the privatised railway did that was so much better than BR. One trend of the privatised era was more frequent but shorter trains; however that was started by BR. Can it be argued that the doubling would have happened anyway if BR had continued?

It could be argued, yes.  And with supporting evidence of what might have happened it may be possible to convince some.
 

But as BR didn’t continue there isn’t and can’t ever be conclusive proof - one way or the other. 
 

The irrelevance of the graph in isolation though is shown by what happened in 2021.  The graph shows a massive dip.  Clearly privatisation had failed.  Oh wait.  How about some context.  Ah yes.  COVID. 

 

That’s the point.  It’s the context that’s important to help support, interpret and explain the movements highlighted on the graph. 
 

 

Edited April 25 by 4630

[Hroth]

22 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

The statistic that patronage doubled after privatisation is often quoted by its supporters. But what I've not heard them say is what exactly it was that the privatised railway did that was so much better than BR. One trend of the privatised era was more frequent but shorter trains; however that was started by BR. Can it be argued that the doubling would have happened anyway if BR had continued?

 

More frequent but shorter trains is just a reversion to the principles of the Midland Railway...

 

[Neil]

52 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

The statistic that patronage doubled after privatisation is often quoted by its supporters. But what I've not heard them say is what exactly it was that the privatised railway did that was so much better than BR. One trend of the privatised era was more frequent but shorter trains; however that was started by BR. Can it be argued that the doubling would have happened anyway if BR had continued?

 

41 minutes ago, Chris M said:

.....  On the other hand it has to be said that passenger numbers and indeed passenger service are far better now that they ever were under British Rail. Many stations have three times the number of trains now compared to the 1960s & 1970s. How much of that is down to private companies and how much down to other factors I don't know. I do know that, in order to make a profit, private companies generally strive to increase revenue (in this case by increasing passenger numbers) whereas anything that is public sector run  tends to be all about cutting costs in order to reduce losses and closing things down. That is the bit that concerns me about this plan.

 

I'm not convinced that increase in passenger numbers is necessarily down to things that the railway does, other factors I suspect are in play. I'm thinking of the huge increase in house prices in cities, particularly London, which must have led to big increases in commuting. Things like how we spend our leisure time, how affordable or desirable private motoring is will also have a bearing on the issue. The privatised railway companies may simply be responding to increased demand rather than creating it.

[Fen End Pit]

I'd thoroughly recommend the Green Signals podcast on the subject.

 

 

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, Neil said:

I'm thinking of the huge increase in house prices in cities, particularly London, which must have led to big increases in commuting.

Commuting is down, leisure travel is up. (more days off due to WFH)

[John M Upton]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Commuting is down, leisure travel is up. (more days off due to WFH)

 

I can see the whole WFH thing being squeezed and reduced in the near future, there seems to be lots of people out on leisure pursuits whilst their bosses think they are working!

 

The general consensus is that with a General Election iminent, all the public sector pay disputes, railways included will suddenly be magically resolved to try and make the current Government look good to Mr & Mrs Voter.

 

Of course we all know (as do they) that the current Government are going to lose the General Election, it is just a question of how badly.

 

That means they can harvest the forest of magic money trees, promise absolutely anything they like, throw tons of money around like confetti and then leave the actual paying for it all and sorting out the resultant mess on the ever growing 'Let Kier Stamer deal with it' pile...

 

 

[david.hill64]

Having listened to the Green Signals special edition I am rather more positive about the future, if things happen as planned.

I would imagine that everyone - of whatever political persuasion - must agree that the current situation of micro-management (or is it macro-mismanagement?) by DfT has to be done away with. If successful rail professionals are allowed more control, that has to be a good thing.

One disadvantage with the current structure is the duplication of posts that are essential in the structure of the operating companies but must yield savings when combined. Head of Safety, Chief Engineer, Head of Finance, Head of HR etc. If removal of some of these frees up money for front line posts that is good.

But I do see some difficulties especially if there are currently different conditions of service for staff doing similar jobs in different companies.

The ASLEF dispute needs to be settled. Drivers deserve to be rewarded well for their job, but they also need to realise that it is a 24/7 railway. It is clearly a nonsense when Sunday working is entirely voluntary. So get everyone round the table and work out what the industry can afford and how staff can benefit.

[jjb1970]

12 hours ago, 4630 said:

I’m reminded of the phrase that correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. 

 

Usually one of the first things taught in statistics 101, and then universally ignored by politicians, the media, commentariat etc.

[jjb1970]

The problem isn't so much privatization as the way governments have managed railways and allowed DfT to micromanage. As with any idea, it can be done well or done badly, Japan privatized JR before BR was privatized and made a much better job of it than we did (which in fairness isn't unique to railways, Japan did did and does a lot of things better than the UK).

[Daddyman]

37 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The problem isn't so much privatization as the way governments have managed railways and allowed DfT to micromanage. As with any idea, it can be done well or done badly, Japan privatized JR before BR was privatized and made a much better job of it than we did (which in fairness isn't unique to railways, Japan did did and does a lot of things better than the UK).

Interesting article here: 

https://www.ft.com/content/9f7f044e-1f16-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d

[D826]

Just observing that BR was doing some very good things very well which augured well for the future just before privatisation.

 

Chiltern is often cited as an example of how things went well.  My recollection, (which may be incorrect) is that Chiltern total route modernisation was undertaken by Network South East.

 

I find the current approach to ticketing baffling.  An example of an open return to Tiverton from Paddington costing £301, was illustrated on LinkedIn the other day. That is just bonkers.

 

Given the interrelationships between efficient public transport and what should be other policy objectives/ targets. There should be major benefits from an integrated approach to  transport policy and what it can, or could deliver. The Venn diagram of overlaps in a world where both politicians and media seem to concentrate on very narrow matters and never mind the interrelationships.

 

 Weaponising and choosing to make a political football of climate change, and misrepresenting HS2 - all to create division are amongst the worst decisions of the current Government in my humble.

 

I can only hope whatever happens, it doesn't cost 300 quid to travel by train to Tiverton and back.

 

With all politicians, watch the cups - listen carefully to the words !

 

Best regards

 

Matt W

Edited April 26 by D826
Sense !

[KingEdwardII]

13 hours ago, Legend said:

At one stage I think we had more 125mph trains than anywhere else

Yes, but that did not make any impact on passenger numbers, as the graph shown by @AndrueC shows. The upturn in numbers occurred much later and only after privatisation.

 

Yours, Mike.

[KingEdwardII]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

Japan did did and does a lot of things better than the UK

Like High Speed Railways?  ;-)

 

Yours, Mike.

[AndrueC]

1 hour ago, david.hill64 said:

If removal of some of these frees up money for front line posts that is good.

I doubt it will work like that. The money saved will just be retained by the owners. I don't think it's likely that it would be redistributed to there lower echelons. And even if it did - top level management might be paid well but when you divide it by the thousands of people doing front line work it won't amount to much.

[Bernard Lamb]

13 hours ago, AndrueC said:

It brings to mind this graph which appears to show an unfortunate corelation between ownership and passenger numbers.

 

Yep. Around 1952 the level of private car ownership started to increase rapidly.

Bernard

[ruggedpeak]

I think much of this largely academic, regardless of what any politician wants, it is the Civil Service that has to deliver it, and any concept of a properly run railway means taking control away from DaFT. We've seen repeated examples of the Civil Service actively undermining Government policy and pursuing its own agendas, or just not bothering to work at all. The DaFT turkeys aren't going to vote for Xmas. So even if Labour have a suitable plan, DaFT will probably not implement it.

 

13 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Exactly. I remember taking ages (nearly half an hour) to buy a S-Bahn ticket at Munich airport, as there were only 2 or 3 tickets machines (poorly located on the platforms) with a big queue. In a UK airport you could have bought your ticket in the airport building before you even got to the station with its dozen or so ticket machines. UK railways are actually really good at a lot of things. 

Gatwick station is exactly the same as Munich despite having many machines, partly because many passengers are newly arrived foreigners fresh off a plane and struggling to work out the ticket machine. It is telling that the quickest sales are via rail staff with their handheld ticket machines who provide additional capacity to the machines.....if ever there was a location needing proper ticket offices Gatwick is it. As a Brit it is frustrating to have to stand in a large queue knowing I can buy a ticket in a few seconds if I could get to the damn machine!! Why has no one got to grips with this and realised that self service does not work when you have large volumes of passengers not familiar with the system?

Edited April 26 by ruggedpeak

[Neil]

12 hours ago, Neil said:

.... I'm thinking of the huge increase in house prices in cities, particularly London, which must have led to big increases in commuting. .....

 

8 hours ago, melmerby said:

Commuting is down, leisure travel is up. (more days off due to WFH)

 

I was thinking more long term, since the privatisation of rail rather than post Covid.

[phil-b259]

15 hours ago, AndrueC said:

It brings to mind this graph which appears to show an unfortunate corelation between ownership and passenger numbers.

 

Try adding the level of state subsidy to that graph!

 

Its a FACT that towards the end of its exsistance British Rail was very efficient in terms of using the subsidy extracting the maximum it could from every pond it spent.

 

However HM Treasury realised that the level of subsidy BR was getting was far too low to make privatisation work - all these extra players with their contractual interfaces and a need to return a profit to shareholders would increase administrative costs and start taking money out of the industry as dividends.

 

Therefore the level of subsidy the privatised industry got was something like 4 times that British Rail received - yet in fact progress in many areas like new trains electrification and resignaling schemes stalled - sometimes for decades!

 

Although the original intention of HM Treasury may have been to wind the subsidy levels back down - that was in the assumption there was lots of ‘waste’ and ‘public sector inefficiencies’ which the private sector could eliminate. In reality (and something which caused several of the original franchise owners to almost go bust) BR was VERY efficient and there simply wasn’t any ‘waste’ to cut - so subsidies have remained way above what British Rail received - with a good chunk of it wasted on legal / administrative costs or taken out as dividends.

 

Roger Ford, the very respected of modern railways magazine fame has tracked these extra post privatisation costs (including factoring into account inflation etc)

 

Back in 2003 he said the following to a Transport select committee

 My submission is that a railway costing twice its historical average cannot represent value for money, even if quality of service had been maintained. While this submission has focused on infrastructure costs, the subsidies to franchises are also increasing. As an indication of the likely scale of the problem, the recently signed Southwest Trains franchise will pay more subsidy in each of the three years than the whole of Network SouthEast—that is, all London commuter services—received in 1990-91.

 

Just stop and think about that for a minute - ONE TOC was costing the taxpayer MORE than it cost BR to run the WHOLE of NSE for a year!

 

In subsequent years he had contracted to track this trend calling it the ‘Ford Factor’ and has shown that for every £1 BR would have spent the privatised industry now has to spend £4 to achieve the same result. That extra £3 is not coming out of the private sector - they existing to make money for shareholders - not lose it! Thus it is the taxpayer who is ultimately paying for this extra cost - something persons of a certain political perspective completely refuse to acknowledge when they bang on about passenger rises or ‘record investment’

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/145/145web50.htm

Edited April 26 by phil-b259

[Olive_Green1923]

On topics such as this I feel a duty to be the Cassandra. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what Labour announce, the railways will remain vastly under-funded and therefore will not become the system that we enthusiasts dream of, nor the land of milk and honey that Labour will promise it to be. 

 

Firstly, because they will have numerous other promises which will need money, and secondly, because as we all know, the DfT is actually the Department for Roads, and the Treasury too has a culture of being anti-railways. These dispositions and dogmas will remain engrained within them, regardless of which political party is in power.

[GrumpyPenguin]

Interesting discussions.

 

However, where is the money coming from ?

(unless I've missed that bit).

[ruggedpeak]

11 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Try adding the level of state subsidy to that graph!

 

Its a FACT that towards the end of its exsistance British Rail was very efficient in terms of using the subsidy extracting the maximum it could from every pond it spent.

 

However HM Treasury realised that the level of subsidy BR was getting was far too low to make privatisation work - all these extra players with their contractual interfaces and a need to return a profit to shareholders would increase administrative costs and start taking money out of the industry as dividends.

 

Therefore the level of subsidy the privatised industry got was something like 4 times that British Rail received - yet in fact progress in many areas like new trains electrification and resignaling schemes stalled - sometimes for decades!

 

Although the original intention of HM Treasury may have been to wind the subsidy levels back down - that was in the assumption there was lots of ‘waste’ and ‘public sector inefficiencies’ which the private sector could eliminate. In reality (and something which caused several of the original franchise owners to almost go bust) BR was VERY efficient and there simply wasn’t any ‘waste’ to cut - so subsidies have remained way above what British Rail received - with a good chunk of it wasted on legal / administrative costs or taken out as dividends.

 

Roger Ford, the very respected of modern railways magazine fame has tracked these extra post privatisation costs (including factoring into account inflation etc)

 

Back in 2003 he said the following to a Transport select committee

 My submission is that a railway costing twice its historical average cannot represent value for money, even if quality of service had been maintained. While this submission has focused on infrastructure costs, the subsidies to franchises are also increasing. As an indication of the likely scale of the problem, the recently signed Southwest Trains franchise will pay more subsidy in each of the three years than the whole of Network SouthEast—that is, all London commuter services—received in 1990-91.

 

Just stop and think about that for a minute - ONE TOC was costing the taxpayer MORE than it cost BR to run the WHOLE of NSE for a year!

 

In subsequent years he had contracted to track this trend calling it the ‘Ford Factor’ and has shown that for every £1 BR would have spent the privatised industry now has to spend £4 to achieve the same result. That extra £3 is not coming out of the private sector - they existing to make money for shareholders - not lose it! Thus it is the taxpayer who is ultimately paying for this extra cost - something persons of a certain political perspective completely refuse to acknowledge when they bang on about passenger rises or ‘record investment’

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/145/145web50.htm

This is spot on, my only remark is that this is a general issue across all aspects of the public sector, not just railways.

 

The consultancies have worked with the private sector over several decades to convince simple minded or corrupted politicians and venal senior civil servants that the public sector is inefficient and wasteful with lots of powerpoints and charts. Yet the costs of carrying out even simple tasks under these privatised operations are far higher than doing it in-house. PFI is another example, but there are plenty of others. This is in part why the despite the alleged efficiency of the private sector public sector borrowing continues to grow. As part of the game the civil servants and public sector managers hand over their actual management responsbilities yet have seen substantial pay rises on various false pretexts. Yet as soon as something goes wrong it is amazing how many senior civil servants have to have an operation that happens to coincide with a public inquiry etc.

 

4 minutes ago, Olive_Green1923 said:

On topics such as this I feel a duty to be the Cassandra. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what Labour announce, the railways will remain vastly under-funded and therefore will not become the system that we enthusiasts dream of, nor the land of milk and honey that Labour will promise it to be. 

 

Firstly, because they will have numerous other promises which will need money, and secondly, because as we all know, the DfT is actually the Department for Roads, and the Treasury too has a culture of being anti-railways. These dispositions and dogmas will remain engrained within them, regardless of which political party is in power.

I think it is more than that now, it is the EU style tecnhnocratic approach that some over-promoted civil servant thinks they know more than experience, competent people and a refusal to tackle the real issues as that means hard work and tough decisions that require them to take responsibility. Ideology and personal belief are the driving forces, not reality, proper research and competent management etc.

 

The current shenanigans north of the border are a good example - political meltdown over gender ideology and ridiculous Net Zero targets. No one of any party is really focused on the real issues that matter to real people like the serious failures in health, education, building a boat to service remote islands etc. And this is not a political comment, the same problem is replicated across all parts and levels of the UK, whether devolved, national or local governments. The Scottish thing is just a relevant high profile example today.