2024 election and party Railway policies

[Sad Sprinter]

Will this see more widespread use of the BR logo?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Something like £2.5bn five year agreement with TfL would be something I could see and indeed that sort of money would pay for the various upgrades and renewals.

That crossed my mind too. Assuming Sadiq Khan is re-elected as Mayor of London in May, I can imagine he'd be putting a lot of public pressure on an incoming Labour Government to restore some subsidies to TfL - especially considering all the noise he's made in the past about London (allegedly) being the only city of its size in Europe where public transport receives no subsidy. However, I'm not sure he'll get very far considering that Labour is going to have to be very tight with finances, and giving more support to London is not going to look good in the North of England.

 

[Busaholic]

Because, although the full text makes it clear that Labour will simply allow contracts to end, the headline doesn't. The headline is 'Labour to renationalise train operators with no compensation' - and that evokes the bad old days of decades ago when the left of the Labour Party was pushing a 'nationalization without compensation' policy in which the Government would simply commandeer industries it wanted to nationalize, ignoring basic property rights. The Labour Party no longer believes in doing anything like that, and hasn't done for some decades, but the headline looks to me like it's designed to make people think Labour is proposing that. Remember, 'nationalization' usually means, the Government actually taking over companies: Historically, it's quite unusual to hear the word 'nationalization' used when all you mean is that the Government will allow private contracts to lapse at the end of their normal terms.

It's basically a classic case of a headline that gives a misleading impression of something, where you have to read the full story to discover things aren't what the headline implies.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, scaremongering with its 'Reds under the bed' style rhetoric, but the Telegraph readership declines even more than other newspapers as the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells-ites go to their graves. I don't discount the likes of GB News and Talk TV. though, jumping on the bandwagon with Rees-Mogg, Farage and Isabel Oakeshott getting in on the act. Actually, I suspect a Starmer government will find a way of 'compensating' some of those TOCs anyway to placate them for no longer being part of the gravy train, but maybe I'm too cynical.

 

[brad465]

That crossed my mind too. Assuming Sadiq Khan is re-elected as Mayor of London in May, I can imagine he'd be putting a lot of public pressure on an incoming Labour Government to restore some subsidies to TfL - especially considering all the noise he's made in the past about London (allegedly) being the only city of its size in Europe where public transport receives no subsidy. However, I'm not sure he'll get very far considering that Labour is going to have to be very tight with finances, and giving more support to London is not going to look good in the North of England.

Unless they give a good deal of support to the North of England at the same time. Also if further Tube stock orders keep Goole running, that will be a policy that benefits both areas at once. For this reason I also think new rolling stock orders will be approved fairly swiftly if Labour enter Government, to keep factories in the north and midlands going.

 

[Thirteen]

Unless they give a good deal of support to the North of England at the same time. Also if further Tube stock orders keep Goole running, that will be a policy that benefits both areas at once. For this reason I also think new rolling stock orders will be approved fairly swiftly if Labour enter Government, to keep factories in the north and midlands going.

I agree, the Goole factory is dependent on the Deep Level Tube Upgrade Programme so I think National Labour will provide the money to ensure it doesn't have to close in 2027 plus the age and reliability of the current stock means that it is becoming more urgent for those replacements to happen.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It means they don’t have to pay the Owning Group for bringing the TOC back into public ownership. It is a long held legal position that if the UK Government nationalises anything, the owner has to be compensated. But as this nationalisation will take place at contract end or contract break point (the Core Term Expiry Date of an NRC), the Government can take the TOC back at no cost.
It doesn’t have anything to do with passenger compensation.

Contract compensation is neither here nor there anyway in the grand scheme of things.
What matters is the structure of the industry, and how the "money-go-round" works from fares revenue to NR's periodic funding (already set for the next 5 years - CP7).
That's about organisation, not ownership.
Neither party has made it clear how it will organise the industry - the original Tory aims for GBR seem to be dead, and Labour hasn't given us a template.

If you have any private TOCs (freight etc), and allow new entrants and competition (OA etc), you need the apparatus of fair access charges and a regulator, just as now.
And will Network Rail be the umbrella for the industry, or some other structure, and where will DfT sit?
How much power will local Mayors have on their patches?
Where will HS1 and HS2 fit?

 

[yorksrob]

Labour made a stupid declaration that they would renationalise the railways once elected. But it wasn't in their manifesto as it was just a sound bite to appeal to the left wing rabble, exactly the same as this pronouncement which I bet will not be seen in their manifesto.
I'm not saying privatisation was the right answer, certainly not in the way it was done. But the say it could just be undone easily is fantasy.

I'd say there's a bit of a difference between implying that you're going to reverse everything "just like that" as Labour did before 1997, and saying that you're not going to re-let contracts when they expire.

Arguably the current governments management contracts are a stepping stone to public management. By letting the contracts expire as they are proposing, will just remove the sham private sector element by default. Not very difficult at all.

 

[thenorthern]

Unless they give a good deal of support to the North of England at the same time. Also if further Tube stock orders keep Goole running, that will be a policy that benefits both areas at once. For this reason I also think new rolling stock orders will be approved fairly swiftly if Labour enter Government, to keep factories in the north and midlands going.

Voters won't see it as benefiting both areas, in the East Riding of Yorkshire there would be some who would see it that way but in other parts of the North and the Midlands it will be seen as London getting new trains while the rest of the country is stuck with old trains.

 

[Thirteen]

Voters won't see it as benefiting both areas, in the East Riding of Yorkshire there would be some who would see it that way but in other parts of the North and the Midlands it will be seen as London getting new trains while the rest of the country is stuck with old trains.

Are you suggesting that London should have keep using rolling stock that is well part its useful life? Like it or not, London is the engine of the UK,

 

[thenorthern]

Are you suggesting that London should have keep using rolling stock that is well part its useful life? Like it or not, London is the engine of the UK,

Nope I was pointing out how voters think at election time and many in the north (often incorrectly) think that the south gets new stock while the North is stuck with older stock.

 

[BrianW]

Godwin's law!!!!

Who?

in regards London I don't think there will be much change if Labour wins as Labour's focus at the next election will be outside London. Areas such as Mansfield, Carlisle, Stoke-on-Trent and Worcester I think will be the areas Labour focuses on as they are winnable areas. Conversely the Conservatives may do the same in order to hold onto these areas. In particular Stoke-on-Trent, the Potteries and Staffordshire as a whole I think will be the biggest focus for Labour as in 2005 Labour had 9 of the 12 Staffordshire constituencies while in 2019 they didn't win any.

Carlisle? Worcester? Are they 'red wall' areas with possible 'quick win'/ shovel ready rail projects? Staffordshie, Derbyshire, Durham good candidates.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Voters won't see it as benefiting both areas, in the East Riding of Yorkshire there would be some who would see it that way but in other parts of the North and the Midlands it will be seen as London getting new trains while the rest of the country is stuck with old trains.

Except that this time this is not likely to be the case. We already have a known CAF order for replacement and expansion on the ecml, and new stock for Avanti west coast rolling off the Newton a cliff production line as we speak. Going forward the entire 15x fleet and very possibly the 323 will be replaced within the next decade and certainly by the end of the next parliamentary term orders will have been placed and indeed factories could well be at that point churning out the first series of units so the north is hardly hard done by this time round




Personally I'm taking the usual noise from labour about re-nationalisation with a pinch of salt as they've promised this every time we've gone to the poles in recent years and not only has it failed to ignite enough interest to generate significant share of the vote but like so many other of labors planned at the moment it seems to have little in the way of detail, in fact in all my adult life, (40 this year) I don't think I've ever seen a party of any creed or color approach an election with so many grand promises of how they will do it better than the current incumbents but yet have so few publicly known plans as to how they'll do it. Smoke and mirrors or piss and wind might buy them votes from a disenfranchised electorate but will the reality wants they get in to power be that actually they just carry on with a large the unchanged selection of less than half baked microwave ready policies of their predecessors?



If anyone out there is casting votes with transport policy and particularly railways in mind I think the liberal democrats policy of looking very seriously at the cost of fares and a general tweak of ticketing might be the way forward but unfortunately apart from some areas I don't think they are going to get very far, the already known conservative policy of harmonizing pay and workforce and generally smoothing things out looks good on paper but they're going to need someone or in fact several people better at their jobs in terms of the transport department then the current occupants to actually bring it to reality. Personally speaking I'll be almost certainly voting conservative as my current MP is very good and a good local politician is worth their weight these days, politically though I generally find I sit in the center although I'm frequently accused of being a right wing extremist because I support stopping the boats.

 

[thenorthern]

Who?

Carlisle? Worcester? Are they 'red wall' areas with possible 'quick win'/ shovel ready rail projects? Staffordshie, Derbyshire, Durham good candidates.

In regards Carlisle I was thinking along the lines of that it was Labour from 1964 until 2010 so in winnable for Labour. In regards Worcester I remember back in 1997 Labour had a target voter nicknamed "Worcester Woman". While Worcester may not have any physical shovel ready projects however there are always railway things that can be improved such as the promised Bristol - Manchester/Scotland services actually stopping at Worcestershire Parkway.

 

[Falcon1200]

Do you happen to know if that applied to drivers too?

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

So not every link would sign MPVs, but the main traction (at say Plymouth) would be 80x and Voyagers which everyone would sign.

Which raises the question I asked earlier; Are GWR and XC Drivers based at say Plymouth on the same rate of pay; If not, how would pay be harmonised if the depots were merged? Plus of course XC has depots at locations shared with other TOCs, eg Avanti and LNER.

 

[Seehof]

Didn’t John Prescott plan to renationalise the railways?!

 

[winks]

He wanted

Didn’t John Prescott plan to renationalise the railways?

He wanted to.

But was told I think at the first cabinet meeting that it would be too expensive

 

[Signal_Box]

1996 Deputy Transport Secretary announces commitment to renationalise the railways if they won the election.

2024, repeat…

 

[Efini92]

Which raises the question I asked earlier; Are GWR and XC Drivers based at say Plymouth on the same rate of pay; If not, how would pay be harmonised if the depots were merged? Plus of course XC has depots at locations shared with other TOCs, eg Avanti and LNER.

I suspect it would be like where other TOCs have merged depots in the past.
They’ll stay on their original T&Cs.
So you’ll end up with multiple t&c’s, the northern franchise springs to mind, three different sets of conditions.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Didn’t John Prescott plan to renationalise the railways?!

Railways were "not a priority" for the Blair government after 1997.
Byers (under Prescott) did essentially renationalise Network Rail after Railtrack went insolvent, though its status was ambiguous until the Tories stopped its ability to borrow on the market.
Prescott did set up the Strategic Rail Authority to provide semi-detached control (which gave us, among other things, no-growth franchises).
Alistair Darling then dismantled the SRA in order to micro-manage rail from within the DfT.
He also stopped the regulator being able to force funds for Network Rail from the Treasury.

 

[Falcon1200]

I suspect it would be like where other TOCs have merged depots in the past.
They’ll stay on their original T&Cs.

Possibly, but would the Drivers and ASLEF accept that situation?

 

[lordbusiness]

I don't think nationalisation would solve the industries problems. Whether under public ownership or what we have now it will still require a significant input of public money to keep going. Unless of course they are happy to let the Railway continue to drain public money.

Arguably there are savings that could be made from nationalisation, especially in people costs by rationalising regional operations, but it would be interesting to see how that went if there were significant job losses involved. On the other hand, most publicly owned industries tend to be inefficient and people heavy!

My other worry is the return of the 'don't give a damn railway' which tbh we're starting to see now, aka 'I'm still going to get paid so why should I put myself out to make things better or make my company more successful?'

I hope they have done their sums right.

Possibly, but would the Drivers and ASLEF accept that situation?

Seeing as they have been pushing for nationalisation for years a small pay cut or some changes in T and Cs for the greater good wouldn't be a problem surely?

 

[talldave]

So years of Labour and unions bickering, lots of money wasted achieving very little to nothing and zero discernable improvement for passengers. Sounds like Labour through and through. I'm sure that's a vote winner.

 

[yorksrob]

So years of Labour and unions bickering, lots of money wasted achieving very little to nothing and zero discernable improvement for passengers. Sounds like Labour through and through. I'm sure that's a vote winner.

But possibly a functioning railway system - which is more than can be said for the last two years.

 

[irish_rail]

I suspect it would be like where other TOCs have merged depots in the past.
They’ll stay on their original T&Cs.
So you’ll end up with multiple t&c’s, the northern franchise springs to mind, three different sets of conditions.

Exactly. We already have this at Plymouth with the HSS and GWR drivers on completely different Ts and Cs etc.

 

[JonathanH]

But possibly a functioning railway system - which is more than can be said for the last two years.

What are you expecting to change that would make it a functioning railway system? Will the unions drop their wage demands? Will the Treasury change its view on the cost of the railway? DfT / Treasury control of the railway is no panacea.

 

[yorksrob]

What are you expecting to change that would make it a functioning railway system? Will the unions drop their wage demands? Will the Treasury change its view on the cost of the railway? DfT / Treasury control of the railway is no panacea.

A new Government could provide a new steer on both of these issues.

It could take a less confrontational approach to T&C's in industrial disputes.

In terms of treasury, it could be as simple as giving the railway control of its revenue - instead of having funding going out of one government department and repayments going into another. This has been called for by various people high up in the industry past and present.

The reality is that the Government, through their mismanagement of the railway over the last two years, have given opposition parties a silver bullet against any criticism of their plans.

 

[HSTEd]

I think nationalisation is essential, although not sufficient, to make any progress on the intractable problems in the railway industry. The previous system has failed utterly, it just took until 2019 to become clear just how badly it had done so.

There would be a great many sacred cows to slaughter, and it would involve fighting every single interest group in the industry almost at once.

But I am skeptical that the likes of Starmer will ever dare propose it.

 

[43066]

So years of Labour and unions bickering, lots of money wasted achieving very little to nothing and zero discernable improvement for passengers. Sounds like Labour through and through. I'm sure that's a vote winner.

What exactly do you think has been happening over the past two years?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

What are you expecting to change that would make it a functioning railway system? Will the unions drop their wage demands? Will the Treasury change its view on the cost of the railway? DfT / Treasury control of the railway is no panacea.

This is what I was about to say. As much as I romanticise British Rail and NSE, a public system, needs to be free from the God-awful Treasury to really work well. In fact the whole economy needs to be freed from the clutches of the Treasury.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

According to the thread title and the date this thread started it will be in March 2024 when the Labour Party will set out its plans for the said nationalisation of the railways, so it follows that nothing official from them will be heard whilst they formulate their "good news". Since February is a short month, I am sure that the speculation brigade will have plenty of time to be "rife" in the intermediate time.

NOTE ....This posting was made BEFORE the thread title was altered to its current wording.