Renationalisation to be Labour policy?

[The Stationmaster]

I do, however, believe that the privatisation needs to be revisited. Part of the problem was the carry over of attitudes from the old system into the privatised system. (and I do not just mean employees and unions, but also the relaxed and inexperienced management and management structure). ..... Workers generally in a non-competitive management structure of business just cannot comprehend the real world where being competitive, making a profit and investing for the future are a natural way of working.

I'm sorry Kenton but you seem to have a very odd impression of what went on in the final decade or so of BR. The biggest problem with privatisation has probably been that a lot of the attitudes from the BR era have not carried over or if they have they have been extinguished by people who are unable to think beyond their own cabbage patch with no idea of a network and, in not a few cases, minimum grasp of how to effectively use assets, especially manpower and frequently with a fear of industrial relations 'difficulties' which would be laughable if it wasn't so financially ruinous.

 

There is good , bad and indifferent among all shades of life and experience and acumen etc but I must admit to be surprised at seeing hard nosed moneymen - some of them self-made (and deservedly so) cheerfully accepting considerable injection of long term extra operating costs for little more reason than fear of their staff. I have seen, and know of, several utterly stupid decisions made at vast expense which would never have happened within the financial approvals system which operated on BR in its final couple of decades

 

To describe the BR management structure as 'relaxed and inexperienced' is, to be honest an insult to what was acknowledged in many quarters outside the railway to be an industry which paid more attention to the quality of its management training than many other British companies and which offered senior management training courses at its staff college on which places were regularly purchased by other companies. Equally I'm sure that the Henley Management College would be none too happy to hear some of its past course attendees spoken of in that way.

 

Yes some inexperienced folk occasionally got to senior positions - fortunately to then usually be held in check by their colleagues - but I wonder in just how many large companies that didn't happen in in Britain? And yes some people - as in every major company - were promoted beyond their ability (and usually subsequently carefully put to one side or kicked out) but generally the BR management development system worked and was recognised as one of the better ones in British industry in terms of both development and career planning.

 

And the main reason why privatisation actually worked in its earlier years - i.e. those before costs rocketed - was because ex BR people who cared about delivering a service set-to and made it work notwithstanding massive upheaval to both the industry and their own lives with new procedures to learn and make work and new relationships and disciplines to understand. The fact that it worked in such circumstances was all the more remarkable but due almost entirely to people who had been trained and had developed experience on BR (on a largely irrelevant personal note but illustrative perhaps of upheaval that comes with organisational change I occupied 4 different posts in not many more months during the changeover period as a result of redundancy, the offer to go somewhere instead of the place I didn't want to go, and finally promotion - those jobs were in two different places a mere 80 miles apart and in all of them, except the one I avoided, I was expected to continue performing to a new set of objectives and in completely different areas of expertise one of which was operational safety. BR training and experience enabled me to do that - hardly a'relaxed and inexperienced' approach to life - and I was far from unique, I was just another railway manager looking to keep bread on the table and do a good job in the process of earning it).

 

Sorry to rant but it's perhaps only to be expected at times ...

 

Edit to correct typos

[Bernard Lamb]

 

In these days of private transport the need to travel by train is less widespread. Although admittedly many still do so there is absolutely no reason why those that do so should be subsidised from the public purse just as there is no justification of the public purse being used to subsidise my chosen transport medium.

 

 

So trying to protect the health of the general population of cities like London, by the use of low polluting electric trains rather than high polluting private cars, is not a valid reason?

There is also a case to be made for the private motorist having to pay the true cost of their choice of transport. Or at the very least to price rail and road on the same basis.

Bernard

[trisonic]

Thanks to Mike for taking the time to explain, unlike me who just took a cheap poke at BR's purse strings.

 

I know that there is some black humour in this thread but curtailing other people's freedoms for one's own agenda is not likely to win friends and influence people...it is a peculiarly British way, however!

 

Best, Pete.

[Coldgunner]

I would support re-nationalisation. I see the railways as a public service that is necessary.

[arran]

I would support re-nationalisation. I see the railways as a public service that is necessary.

 

HI All

 

So was freight a public service!!! look how that went under BR, anyone cant seriously think that taking that into public ownership is a good thing.

 

As for passenger services what would BR have done, put up prices to put people of like they used to, if demand went up.

 

BR is in the past now so cant every one not just move on.

 

Regards Arran

[The Stationmaster]

So was freight a public service!!! look how that went under BR, anyone cant seriously think that taking that into public ownership is a good thing.

As for passenger services what would BR have done, put up prices to put people of like they used to, if demand went up.

BR is in the past now so cant every one not just move on.

Regards Arran

 

Freight, fortunately but far too late, ceased to be a public service' in the 1960s when BR at last lost its common carrier obligation and could actually try to compete for traffic where it was able to do so. And what went went for mainly political reasons and a changing country - BR was very good at some freight business and far too expensive in other areas - and that was before the politicians forced it to put yup its prices or shed the traffic.

And in BR days price was indeed used to 'dampen' (i.e reduce) passenger demand - a specific result of govt policy (whatever colour the Govt was) and it wasn't until the privatisation legislation that the overall dead govt hand of price control was partially prised away - with the natural result that passenger numbers shot up.

[Kenton]

I guess I am a lone voice and exceptional on a "railway" forum that is bound to be heavily biased towards the railways. But I am far from convinced that BR in any respect did us a service much beyond the 50's. I am not saying either that the result of privatisation has been much better. As a transport network it fails in almost in every respect since Beeching's attempts to make it "pay" removed most of the lines that would have been a true public service. The arguments against cars are based on environmentalist lobby, if more of the taxes actually paid by motorists were channeled into road improvements and technology the overcrowding argument would vanish into obscurity along with the environmental one. But now the road users subsidises rail users. But then I don't expect to win any votes on a railway forum for such beliefs and those who work and use the railways will always want it to be cheaper/free for them no matter at what cost to the rest of the country.

[trisonic]

I would support re-nationalisation. I see the railways as a public service that is necessary.

 

I'm glad I will not be in the country to pay for it with yet more taxes...

 

It's in the past, let it RIP.

 

Best, Pete.

[JohnR]

As far as I recall, it was a certain chap (who had vested interests!) that "invented privatisation as it happened wheras John Major had an idea of privatising on a regional basis....revert back to the "big 4" if you like, this chap made sure the system was fragmented to the point where a new Labour government simply couldn't re nationalise at the stroke of a pen.....

 

Maybe I have read too much RMT stuff over the years

 

The person you are thinking of is Sir Steve Robson, former Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, who, against the advice of the then BRB chairman his Chief Executive and all the officials at the Department of Transport - and indeed the personal desires of the PM, came up with the dogs breakfast that is rail privatisation. He was ably assisted by a lawyer, one Tom Winsor, who later became Rail regulator, and is now about to become Inspector of HM Constabulary.

[PhilH]

But renationalise? Probably not - you can't go back to a place you left nearly 20 years ago and find it is just as it was then.

 

But could it not be, with the benefit of lessons maybe learnt, a better place now?

[Kris]

Given that most of the current TOC's seem to be working successfully there would seem to be little point trying to renationalise the railways.

[4630]

Perhaps the focus should be on how to improve the current structure rather than on yet another reorganisation that throws all the pieces of the jig saw puzzle up in the air in the vague promise (to a possibly gullible audience) that the order they land in will solve all the problems of the past. Some hope!

 

I would suggest the following as starting points to develop (and hopefully improve) what is already in place. This obviously is not an exhaustive list, is in no particular order and concentrates on the passenger business.

 

1. Longer franchise agreements (Chiltern is a good model I believe).

2. Franchise agreements to be much more tightly specified in terms of the service to be delivered. For example, I still find it unbelievable that the vast majority of TOCs do not provide a service of any sort on Boxing Day. It should be a standard provision across the entire network, engineering work not withstanding of course.

3. Network Rail to work much more closely with TOCs (which would be easier with longer franchise agreements). The model for this is currently being trialled between South West Trains and Network Rail on the former BR(S) lines out of Waterloo.

4. Standardisation of peak/off-peak/shoulder peak start and end times across the network for all TOCs, and included in the franchise agreement.

5. TOCs to share a greater element of the financial risk of running their franchise. The current cap and collar arrangements seem to me to favour TOCs rather than the tax payer. They should also be required to put a larger 'performance bond' up front at the start of each franchise. If they 'hand back' the keys for any franchise they should be required to relinquish all other franchises that they operate. Why this wasn't done with National Express when they handed back the East Coast franchise is beyond me. These are private companies with competent legal and financial departments. They should judge all the risks when making a franchise bid and it should be their shareholders that shoulder ultimate cost - not the tax payer.

6. Department for Transport. My impression (and I don't think I'm alone with this) is that the DfT micro-manages the railway industry to a far closer degree than any of the other transport modes for which it has responsibility. Its micro-management, to my eyes, is not in the overall best interest of the rail industry, rail passengers or even the tax payer. I do accept however that the current franchise structure does require an agency to maintain some overall strategic control and set the direction for the industry within whatever financial framework can be agreed with HM Treasury. But it shoudn't be the DfT. I always thought that the idea of the Strategic Rail Authority was on the right lines (no pun intended), although as originally conceived and run it wasn't a great success. The DfT shouldn't be specifying rolling stock. That role should fall to the TOCs, aided by Network Rail.

7. Fares. All 'standard' fares (that's all those bought at the time of travel as opposed to those bought in advance) should be regulated. I don't think that's the case presently. Regulation should be based on on the Consumer Prices Index, without any additional percentage. TOCs should be free to price fares for 'advance' purchases and any others that are not regulated as they see fit as part of their normal commercial decision making.

8. Branding and marketing. One of the key elements that was lost at privatisation in my view was the notion that the country had a 'rail network'. Personally, irrespective of whichever franchisee is running the service, my view is that the branding and marketing should be more uniform across all services, including the rolling stock.

 

Those are my starters. What would you add?

 

[S.A.C Martin]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

 

I simply don't get why everyone assumes "Nationalization" suddenly means a plethora of rainbow coloured steam trains and rolling stock, or all over banger blue diesels and electrics doing exactly the same things we saw in 1948, 1976, 1985 and before 1993. Why do we always go back to this idea? That nationalization is a dirty word, that if you do it means more taxation, and so on and so forth...of course you shouldn't do things exactly the same with the benefit of history and hindsight!

 

There's merit in keeping things under a central body, and having regional networks. It has worked, and with better coordination between who owns the track, the rolling stock and the infrastructure we should just get a system which works.

 

I mean, what other country in the world has split their railways apart so much as us, where the track, and the buildings, the trains and the people who run them, are all more or less owned or run or leased out by several different concerns, all with different ideologies and aims?

 

I certainly don't want things to go back to British Railways or British Rail, but I do believe there's merit in making the railways a public service through and through, and actually being able to provide a service which - while it might cost the tax payer in the short term in a changeover - has long term goals of improving the infrastructure, the trains which run on it and making damn sure it can actually cope with what's asked of it on a daily basis.

 

But what is so overwhelmingly frustrating is that there's such a collective desire to deliberately neglect or underspend on transport infrastructure in this country, and yet millions upon billions are squandered elsewhere in very short periods.

 

I hate to pick on the NHS but it's the best example; it has £33 Billion spent on it and no one would advocate getting rid of it altogether, like the railways have been, more or less, by successive governments through privatization. It's a wonder we ever got HS1 or Crossrail, neither of which I would say directly benefit enough people like the electrification of the Great Western mainline would.

 

I would argue railways are almost as vital for the workforce of this country and if a similar amount was spent on the railways each year (!!!) the improvements to the system would be astounding.

 

But nobody ever wants to argue for spending more, and doing more with, the railways.

[The Stationmaster]

 

I mean, what other country in the world has split their railways apart so much as us, where the track, and the buildings, the trains and the people who run them, are all more or less owned or run or leased out by several different concerns, all with different ideologies and aims?

 

Australia as it happens - some of the Track Access Conditions, e.g the ones used by the national network (which is not the only network owner but admittedly a state system of govt makes a difference) are an exact copy of the original British Track Access Conditions.

[Guest Max Stafford]

NHS is BIT different but they still waste money like it going outta fashion.....I'd privatise the lot if it was owt to do with me, and if the privateers diddnt save money ( as oppose to make some) Id hang em from the forearm........

 

Mickey, I'd say it was the PFI snake oil salesmen that are the root of the problem in the NHS. Not a real field of expertise of mine, but whoever hatched those schemes must have had experience with Barclays!

 

Dave.

[Eggesford box]

Hi,

as someone who in the past has worked 18 hours as a pilotman when things where going wrong with engineering work, most of that time soaked to the skin with no access to food and drink and as a BR employee I find Kentons remarks that I am simply unable to comprehend the pressures of the 'real world' somewhat offensive. Chiltern Railways is often held up as a model of a privatised company and who was in charge of it for most of that time? Adrian Shooter, a former BR management trainee.

 

My gripe with the privatised railway, from my perspective, is that it makes me a less effective employee. At one time I covered platform and shunters jobs as well as my existing duties, now as a Network Rail employee I am divorced from such things. Indeed, one of the station managers told me the other day that she wished she had my assistance at a time of service disruption. I do not think this is the attitude of someone completely divorced from commercial reality. Whilst this is only on a small scale I believe such things are repeated wholesale over the privatised industry.

 

I would like nothing better than a return to a sectorised British Rail but with the level of public investment that we have nowadays. Will it ever happen? I very much doubt it. To many people have done very nicely thank you out of it and certainly on Network Rail there are lots of management who know nothing else and think that this is the way the railway should be run. Apart from a few tweaks here and there I doubt there will be much change. Just carrying on trying to make the best of a bad job.

 

Normal and obvious caveat that this is my own opinion and not that of my employer.

[Matloughe]

I don't usually get involved in these sort of discussions (infact its my first date on such a discussion) but I have seen points online previously which I thought were rather interesting. I should point out I am a child of the NSE era and that interests me greatly - especially when facts and figures pop up to say that during the Sectorisation era BR was actually getting back on its feet after a hardship in funding from Government. Interesting points I have seen include:

1) Intercity Sector was paying its way - and making a profit

2) Network South East was effectively paying its way and showing profit with projected passenger rises

3) Subsidy from National Government was less during sectorisation then it is today! Ludicrous considering the passenger operations are in *private* hands.

 

Rather then renationalise the network why not redraw the TOC map as franchises's come up for renewal the likes of Worst *cough* First removed from the map and managers from say Chiltern invited to take on a new reformed NSE area? Sectorisation from what I can see was working at the time - its progress was stalled by privatisation. NSE had planned to remove ALL of its slam door stock within five to ten years after Clapham Junction... with Privatisation we had them until 2005/6 in daily service. I think that says something...

Of course while this was going on I was under the age of double digits and waving to red,white & blue trains from the bridge over Battersea Rise.

~ Gary

[Glorious NSE]

I think the idea that you could (partly) re-nationalise just by stopping the ongoing franchising process is plausible, but I think misses a few things.

 

You can't just roll everything together, you need to maintain at least financial separation of track and operations. You probably don't want to do more than that either as you do need to allow fair access for FOCs etc!

You're still funding the ROSCO's to supply your trains, unless you can find lots of money either to buy them out or buy new ones to replace the trains they lease.

The clincher? Any government that does this takes back responsibility for running the railway. The big advantage of the current setup is that when you complain about old trains, overcrowding, poor performance, ticket prices or whatever they can......putting it plainly, lie, and say it's got nothing to do with them (even when most decisions do boil down to what our successive governments have chosen to do) - I'm unconvinced that any of our parties would be up for taking that responsibility back.

 

I'm not sure what such a re-nationalisation for it's own sake would really achieve.

 

Quick reply to Gary's thoughts:

 

NSE had planned to remove ALL of its slam door stock within five to ten years after Clapham Junction... with Privatisation we had them until 2005/6 in daily service. I think that says something...

 

What NSE planned and what the government would have found the money to pay for are not necessarily the same thing though! In the mid 90s many of Southern's slammers were only 20 years old so central government funding replacements for trains which were only at half their planned service life would have been a very hard sell!

[Matloughe]

However they did have plans to rebuild their fleet with better body-shells rather then entirely build new trains which as you rightly said were only at half-life. Class 424 project springs to mind in that case - pity it never got past a single driving trailer. The entire plan was positively "Southern" in its ingenuity.

Plus their plans for more Notworkers - the South East might've been decidedly different.

 

Who knows.

~ Gary

[Glorious NSE]

That (networker classic?) was a post-privatisation plan from Bombardier though wasn't it?

[kevinlms]

Must say that I think its more than an argument about whether or not a privatised railway is better or worse than a nationally owned one. To me the problem seems to be one of no one knows what the aim of a railway service is meant to be.

 

The problems goes back a very long way, perhaps to the end off WW2, where the Government reneged on paying the railways what the arrangement had been agreed to at the outbreak of war. Basically the country was bankrupt and couldn't pay that sort of money required.

 

Since then it has been an ongoing political football, with decisions being made in the main to allegedly reduce cost, often AFTER huge amounts of money has been spent on wrong choices. Examples being the Marshalling Yard plan, the sudden phase out of steam (yes there were many areas where it had to done, as decent staff couldn't be found - but writing off locos after only a handful of years service was plain silly), raising many bridges for larger containers, the NetRail disaster and doubtless countless others.

 

Surely the problem stems from a management that is inconsistent & both government & private operators are equally guilty?

 

 

Kevin Martin

[Richard E]

We have a number of TOC's, one is state owned, it is one of the worst performing ones. I would ask what does that say about the process?

 

There are other possible reasons, the number of changes of ownership for the franchise over the past 5 years possibly impacting upon staff morale for instance.

 

I do not see re-nationalisation as happening due to the massive costs involved and the current economic conditions.

[simonhaynes72]

Yup, I sometimes wonder about all the advertising and other costs, let alone the costs of bidding for and implementing franchises.

Though services are good in most instances, it is interesting to compare companies in their 'home' countries with those here.

Cheers

Simon

[Debs.]

It boils down to one consideration:

 

Are politicians (with all their short-term thinking and propensity to tinker fiscally, for political gain) fit to altruistically administer a huge transport network, with ONLY public-service as it`s raison d'être.........experience perhaps indicates that is not the case.

 

Now....if one removed the politicians and the profit-led motives and properly invested in the long-term (only for public good)........then we`d be on to something!

 

....dream-on, Missus!

[Guest Max Stafford]

The fact that so many OCs are ultimately owned by banks doesn't bid well for long term thinking.

 

Dave.