2024 election and party Railway policies

[JonathanH]

I think nationalisation is essential, although not sufficient, to make any progress on the intractable problems in the railway industry.

By nationalisation, do you just mean direct operation of passenger rail services, or reversal of all outsourcing associated with the railway, eg cleaners, fleet maintenance, renewals, freight, business systems, construction of railway vehicles etc?

 

[Killingworth]

We're unlikely to see much perceptible change whoever's in charge, the whole of modern life is too complex. Contracts, systems, timescales, heritage infrastructure. However a change in the mood music might help to lighten up the current confrontational atmosphere.

 

[HSTEd]

By nationalisation, do you just mean direct operation of passenger rail services, or reversal of all outsourcing associated with the railway, eg cleaners, fleet maintenance, renewals, freight, business systems, construction of railway vehicles etc?

Ultimately, the latter.
Direct operation of passenger rail services will achieve (by itself) very little, the problems associated with the TOCs are a symptom of the broader malaise, not the cause. Fragmentation is the true problem, it prevents coordinated responses to emerging problems or timely adoption of solutions developed elsewhere to old problems.

 

[43096]

Why not get 800s running ECML, NE/SW and GWR?

Because it won’t give you any efficiencies. Even under BR pre-sectorisation the HST fleet was configured differently for different markets (eg CrossCountry had a different formation with less first class). The only real common fleet was between ECML and MML.

 

[43096]

It makes no reference to the ROSCOs. Are all train leasing deals due to expire in the next 5 years?

It doesn’t matter if they do or not. The assets belong to the ROSCO so Labour either has to compulsory purchase them (very costly and reputationally damaging for Government) or buy new trains to replace them (even more costly).

 

[Bantamzen]

We're unlikely to see much perceptible change whoever's in charge, the whole of modern life is too complex. Contracts, systems, timescales, heritage infrastructure. However a change in the mood music might help to lighten up the current confrontational atmosphere.

Until the first round of pay talks post nationalisation, when a Labour government realises they can't afford the union's demands...

 

[12LDA28C]

Will this see more widespread use of the BR logo?

Renationalistation won't happen but if and when GBR gains momentum you might see more use of the double arrows anyway.

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!

And what about the huge upfront cost of buying all the stock off the ROSCOs, or are you advocating keeping leasing arrangements in place, which would not align with full renationalisation.

 

[geoffk]

Youre right it should. Flexibilty is the key amongst Crew, stock, rostering, facilities etc. It is stupidly fragmented.

Also all the lawyers and accountants necessary to police the many contracts which bind the bits of the fragmented railway together. How much are they costing?

 

[lordbusiness]

Renationalistation won't happen but if and when GBR gains momentum you might see more use of the double arrows anyway.



And what about the huge upfront cost of buying all the stock off the ROSCOs, or are you advocating keeping leasing arrangements in place, which would not align with full renationalisation.

No opinion either way, as I said in my original post

I hope they do their sums right!

 

[Deepgreen]

You're referring only to TOCs.
What about freight?
What about the infrastructure?
What about the maitnenance facilties?
The ROSCOs?
The R&D?
The land?
The commercial elements?
Marketing?

Where do all the people required to run and manage the "new" BR come from given most of the experienced people will remain with all these other organisations when you take a few TOCs back into public ownership/control?

Once you demolish something it's demolished and it's a massive task to rebuild. Doesn't matter if it's been demolished a day or a decade. It would have been impossible to recreate the BR that was broken up and privatised.

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 don't think anyone on this forum has ever claimed it could be undone easily. The Tories have used a 'slash and burn' process in so many of their failed privatisation schemes such that rebuilding is deliberately difficult/expensive. A similar attitude has been shown regarding HS2's northern section.

Also all the lawyers and accountants necessary to police the many contracts which bind the bits of the fragmented railway together. How much are they costing?

Quite, and even then, they don't bind the fragmentation together anyway! Largely money for nothing. As I have said before, for privatisation in general to have any chance of working to the users' and the economy's benefit, there have to be genuine competition at point of use, and genuine profit. Neither exists on the railway.

 

[Killingworth]

The 1923 groupings were supposed to solve the problems on the railway. They didn't and closures were already happening back then, albeit with some brighter spots. 1948 nationalisation didn't solve all the ills either. Society is constantly evolving and railways are too rigid in too many ways to adapt quickly enough. With much of the infrastructure 150-200 years old, many trains still running over 30 years since they were designed and working practices- I'll not go there.

The flexibility of personal cars, vans and truck load freight from door to door can't be matched for most journeys by rail. How subsidies are managed to best effect is the key, how various contractors, sub-contractors and others are controlled. I think they call that procurement! That's the place to be, or a lawyer.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Can anyone name a nationalised European railway (of the scale of the UK) to use as a forward template for the UK?
I don't think any of them are particularly successful, and they are all deep in debt.
Most have a strict demarcation between long-distance and regional/local services, often under separate funding and control.
Strikes are common, notably in Germany and France.
They do all have big investment in high speed lines, and/or in new Alpine base tunnels.
Stock is generally leased, and no railway builds its own stock.
Generally they tender services periodically, often taken on by other public rail operators (some being cross-border eg RATP in Germany).
There's some private freight and open access operation, including state railways operating competitively in other countries (eg SNCF in Spain).
Switzerland is often offered as an example to follow, but structurally it is a complex mix of ownership and operation, some of it semi-private.
Germany is slipping down the league tables of reliability and maintenance backlog.
France is trying to restructure and change terms and conditions (pensions etc) with much opposition.
Maybe Belgium has it nearest right, but its scale is a lot less than the UK.

 

[JonathanH]

How subsidies are managed to best effect is the key, how various contractors, sub-contractors and others are controlled. I think they call that procurement! That's the place to be, or a lawyer.

I think the consensus being expressed above is that there aren't any contractors or subcontractors involved

Funnily enough, I get the impression that a fully funded workers co-operative would be closer to what people actually want than nationalisation.

 

[D Williams]

Of course, if it is rolled into huge conglomerate , when we re-enter the EU the track and the trains will have to separated again.

 

[HSTEd]

Can anyone name a nationalised European railway (of the scale of the UK) to use as a forward template for the UK?
I don't think any of them are particularly successful, and they are all deep in debt.

Nationalised railways are de-facto forbidden by the EU, so there is no real exemplar to seek there.

 

[bahnause]

Nationalised railways are de-facto forbidden by the EU, so there is no real exemplar to seek there.

In France, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Italy, Polan and more countries, passenger rail is overwhelmingly run by nationalised and state owned railways.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nationalised railways are de-facto forbidden by the EU, so there is no real exemplar to seek there.

But the vast majority are still publicly owned.
Which is where we seem to be headed (a public/private mix with strong regulation).
Monolithic closed state corporations (like BR was) are what the EU doesn't like (with the UK government, even when Labour was in charge, egging them on until Brexit).

 

[class ep-09]

Nationalised railways are de-facto forbidden by the EU, so there is no real exemplar to seek there.

As long as the national railways operators are run as a business there is no issue with the EU regulation .
Even subsidies are allowed as long as there is higher benefit to the economy as a whole.

Renationalistation won't happen but if and when GBR gains momentum you might see more use of the double arrows anyway.



And what about the huge upfront cost of buying all the stock off the ROSCOs, or are you advocating keeping leasing arrangements in place, which would not align with full renationalisation.

Nationalised / regional railway operators can buy its own stock, when the leased one becomes life expired ( and any leasing contracts end that way).
In the EU many small and big regional and countrywide operators own their stock and only lease some more when there is extra demand .

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Of course, if it is rolled into huge conglomerate , when we re-enter the EU the track and the trains will have to separated again.

Only in terms of financial accounting and separation of funding for the infrastructure and operations side. There is no actual requirement for full organisational separation. This was a fallacy seemingly dreamt up in the UK!

Basically if you can clearly demonstrate that public funds are not ultimately being used to obstruct access to the rail market - i.e. limiting competition - then you’re good.

 

[Facing Back]

Can anyone name a nationalised European railway (of the scale of the UK) to use as a forward template for the UK?
I don't think any of them are particularly successful, and they are all deep in debt.
Most have a strict demarcation between long-distance and regional/local services, often under separate funding and control.
Strikes are common, notably in Germany and France.
They do all have big investment in high speed lines, and/or in new Alpine base tunnels.
Stock is generally leased, and no railway builds its own stock.
Generally they tender services periodically, often taken on by other public rail operators (some being cross-border eg RATP in Germany).
There's some private freight and open access operation, including state railways operating competitively in other countries (eg SNCF in Spain).
Switzerland is often offered as an example to follow, but structurally it is a complex mix of ownership and operation, some of it semi-private.
Germany is slipping down the league tables of reliability and maintenance backlog.
France is trying to restructure and change terms and conditions (pensions etc) with much opposition.
Maybe Belgium has it nearest right, but its scale is a lot less than the UK.

I understand that the Russian railways run very closely to timetable and customer satisfaction scores are very high. The European part of Russia is considerably bigger than the UK and its biggest city is more populous than London.

They don't seem to have a problem with state control of industries.

 

[Trestrol]

I understand that the Russian railways run very closely to timetable and customer satisfaction scores are very high. The European part of Russia is considerably bigger than the UK and its biggest city is more populous than London.

They don't seem to have a problem with state control of industries.

And if they don't run efficiently then someone mysteriously falls out of a window. I wouldn't necessarily believe anything spouted by the Russian state.

 

[Killingworth]

I think the consensus being expressed above is that there aren't any contractors or subcontractors involved

Funnily enough, I get the impression that a fully funded workers co-operative would be closer to what people actually want than nationalisation.

Strange consensus to have. There are, and will continue to be, many other businesses interacting with the railway at all levels. Outsourcing is the name of the game whatever overall structure there may be.

I'm currently watching a big railway construction project for Network Rail. When our local line was built over 100 years ago there were several main contractors for sections of the line, each using subcontractors. It's similar today, two major firms in partnership with many subcontractors, many of whom may be further subcontracting parts of the work. There are many different vans and names on jackets.

There are many more subcontracting arrangements around all parts of the railway and that's unlikely to change - except there'll no doubt be clamours for elements to do so. Long experience suggests that there will be gains and losses by doing that. Which it is may depend upon who's telling the story.

I should have added recruitment agencies to lawyers and procurement personnel who are likely to gain from changes. Those in the right places may well end up with enhanced salaries for doing much the same job as the merry-go-round turns. Heh, ho, better services, lower fares, higher wages, lower costs to the Treasury, who's been at the magic mushrooms?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Well all I have to add is, things can not continue the way they are. Something has to change.

 

[eldomtom2]

Strange consensus to have. There are, and will continue to be, many other businesses interacting with the railway at all levels. Outsourcing is the name of the game whatever overall structure there may be.

You do appreciate that there are degrees of outsourcing?

 

[12LDA28C]

Nationalised / regional railway operators can buy its own stock, when the leased one becomes life expired ( and any leasing contracts end that way).
In the EU many small and big regional and countrywide operators own their stock and only lease some more when there is extra demand .

Which will be in many years' time, in the case of many operators in the UK. So leasing costs will still be incurred, potentially for decades unless that stock is bought outright from the ROSCOs in the meantime.

 

[Broucek]

Who? [in respect of "Godwin's Law"]

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%

Took until post 3 in this thread....

 

[HSTEd]

In France, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Italy, Polan and more countries, passenger rail is overwhelmingly run by nationalised and state owned railways.

Only because the process has not yet had time to shatter the industry to the extent of the British one. In 20 years it will resemble what we had pre coronavirus.

Competitive tendering, which the EU requires, inevitably leads to fragmented ownership. Meanwhile the artificial separation of infrastructure and operations will lead to the malaise and paralysis we have developed in Britain since privatisation.

As long as the national railways operators are run as a business there is no issue with the EU regulation .
Even subsidies are allowed as long as there is higher benefit to the economy as a whole.

A business with a costly and artificial separation of infrastructure and operations, and compulsory and counterproductive repeated competitive tendering (introduced under the Fourth Rail Package).

None of these things are conducive to actually running a successful and economic railway. All they do is make a lot of financiers and lawyers extremely rich.

 

[JonathanH]

There are, and will continue to be, many other businesses interacting with the railway at all levels. Outsourcing is the name of the game whatever overall structure there may be.

I think the view is that every instance of outsourcing takes money, and more importantly, profit out of the railway's funding.

 

[Killingworth]

You do appreciate that there are degrees of outsourcing?

Exactly, and that's where the trouble will start.

 

[eldomtom2]

Exactly, and that's where the trouble will start.

Elaborate.