• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

2024 election and party Railway policies

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,921
Location
Sheffield
Elaborate.
For starters go back to, say, 1900. Most big companies built their own locomotives and rolling stock. British Railways still did at Derby, Doncaster, York, etc. Lots of jobs now hived off were performed by employees of the railway companies, including in their own station hotels.

Across the industry far less is now under the direct control of BRs successor TOCs and probably won't immediately change even if their day today operations may be brought under more direct public control. My station is cleaned and maintained by ISS for Northern. Train catering is mostly provided by Rail Gourmet. Trains may be maintained by Hitachi or Siemens. Network Rail trained former employees still do much of the work, but for contractors. TOCs themselves are effectively outsourced.

Some will contend this is more efficient, and there's the conflict. How much further can that go, and how much should it be reined back? As an example, Northern outsourced their call centre work until - the provider went bust and they had to hurriedly take it back in house.

I see the proliferation of assorted rolling stock being ordered with probably over 5 years through specification, order, testing and eventual full introduction with a likely service life of 30 years or more. By which time the whole market will have changed enormously. Within 10-15 years more or less will be needed. Double the passenger numbers over the next 30 years, that should be a minimum aim. Lots of small fleets with limited compatibility making operations increasingly difficult.

So we might have decades of this before a central nationalised railway has imposed enough standard, compatible rolling stock that can go anywhere built in house. But that can't work unless station platforms are made longer and junctions and tracks remodelled and we decide if we're going to electrify or not - and how.

I see continued chaos ahead, no matter who's in power.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,222
Anecdotal evidence suggests that if the Tories get back in, they'll make the trains run on time.

They'll reduce the service to being so infrequent that it'll be difficult for the remaining trains to not run on time. ;)

Too true I think we'll end up with a hung parliament. Kier just doesn't light my fire and he reminds me a bit of John Major grey and boring.

This doesn't consider how much many people dislike the Tories right now.

There'll almost certainly be a Labour majority of some kind, albeit perhaps a small one, just because people are absolutely fed up of the Tories.

Tory rail policy recently is scarcely an encouragement to vote for them, for one thing. Dictating to TOCs that they must run their service with less than the required stock is a monumentally stupid policy.

And even if Starmer is boring, who is the competition?
 
Last edited:

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,496
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%

Took until post 3 in this thread....
Finding myself as unenlightened by this response as I was upthread, I resorted to that oracle Wikipedia, which indicates thus:

Oh well.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,408
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
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.


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 .
A business that is guaranteed to make a loss, thus requiring a greater state subsidy than if publicly-owned?

Elaborate.
It certainly is, that's the problem...
 

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
1,553
For starters go back to, say, 1900. Most big companies built their own locomotives and rolling stock. British Railways still did at Derby, Doncaster, York, etc. Lots of jobs now hived off were performed by employees of the railway companies, including in their own station hotels.

Across the industry far less is now under the direct control of BRs successor TOCs and probably won't immediately change even if their day today operations may be brought under more direct public control. My station is cleaned and maintained by ISS for Northern. Train catering is mostly provided by Rail Gourmet. Trains may be maintained by Hitachi or Siemens. Network Rail trained former employees still do much of the work, but for contractors. TOCs themselves are effectively outsourced.

Some will contend this is more efficient, and there's the conflict. How much further can that go, and how much should it be reined back? As an example, Northern outsourced their call centre work until - the provider went bust and they had to hurriedly take it back in house.

I see the proliferation of assorted rolling stock being ordered with probably over 5 years through specification, order, testing and eventual full introduction with a likely service life of 30 years or more. By which time the whole market will have changed enormously. Within 10-15 years more or less will be needed. Double the passenger numbers over the next 30 years, that should be a minimum aim. Lots of small fleets with limited compatibility making operations increasingly difficult.

So we might have decades of this before a central nationalised railway has imposed enough standard, compatible rolling stock that can go anywhere built in house. But that can't work unless station platforms are made longer and junctions and tracks remodelled and we decide if we're going to electrify or not - and how.

I see continued chaos ahead, no matter who's in power.
You haven't really said anything though. No one's saying a nationalised operator should bring everything in-house.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,408
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
They'll reduce the service to being so infrequent that it'll be difficult for the remaining trains to not run on time. ;)



This doesn't consider how much many people dislike the Tories right now.

There'll almost certainly be a Labour majority of some kind, albeit perhaps a small one, just because people are absolutely fed up of the Tories.

Tory rail policy recently is scarcely an encouragement to vote for them, for one thing. Dictating to TOCs that they must run their service with less than the required stock is a monumentally stupid policy.

And even if Starmer is boring, who is the competition?
Give me boring over clowns any day.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,222
Answering the question, I think that Labour, even if they do not re-nationalise, they should move towards integration.

The messy and fragmented British railway system needs to become coherent again and I think they should run with the GBR branding at least, even if they contract private companies to run the services.

The big thing though is to allow the railway to operate with enough stock to meet demand. This is the number one problem with today's railway.
 

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,754
They'll reduce the service to being so infrequent that it'll be difficult for the remaining trains to not run on time. ;)



This doesn't consider how much many people dislike the Tories right now.

There'll almost certainly be a Labour majority of some kind, albeit perhaps a small one, just because people are absolutely fed up of the Tories.

Tory rail policy recently is scarcely an encouragement to vote for them, for one thing. Dictating to TOCs that they must run their service with less than the required stock is a monumentally stupid policy.

And even if Starmer is boring, who is the competition?
I think we’ll just see the Tory seats that were gained from the Lib Dem’s in the last election return to the Lib Dem’s.
I doubt Tory rail policies will affect many seats.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,222
I think we’ll just see the Tory seats that were gained from the Lib Dem’s in the last election return to the Lib Dem’s.
I doubt Tory rail policies will affect many seats.

And not Red Wall seats returning to Labour? That would differ from most analyses. Sunak doesn't appeal to the Red Wall in the way Johnson did.

(I don't think the Tories gained many, if any, seats off the Lib Dems last time. They gained quite a few in 2015, though).
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,496
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.
Did Carlisle feature in the so-called 'Union Connectivity Review'? perhaps as a focus for freight disaggregation/ assembly point for the Irish Sea tunnel?

Worcestershire? Is that the same demographic as Worcester? I recall Peter Walker, a Conservative former Environment secretary of state, and his son Robin the current member for Worcester (a hereditary post?). All six Worcs constituencies are currently represented by Conservative MPs; there were only four between 1997 and 2005; the Tory % of the vote in 2019 was over 60% compared with 21% labour and 11% Lib-dem, so possibly not a significant target?
How many 'election winners' wanting more direct Worcs Parkway to Bristol, Manchester or Scotland?

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.
'Happy memories' being revived of Mr 'Good day to bury bad news' Byers and the inattention to maintenance- of which we are also reminded by Carmont, Fisherton tunnel and the Culham and Yarnton bridges! Bad days indeed. Lessons learned?
 
Last edited:

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,754
And not Red Wall seats returning to Labour? That would differ from most analyses. Sunak doesn't appeal to the Red Wall in the way Johnson did.

(I don't think the Tories gained many, if any, seats off the Lib Dems last time. They gained quite a few in 2015, though).
Sorry you’re right, was a really badly written post. I meant to include the red wall seats retuning to labour.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,408
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
Answering the question, I think that Labour, even if they do not re-nationalise, they should move towards integration.

The messy and fragmented British railway system needs to become coherent again and I think they should run with the GBR branding at least, even if they contract private companies to run the services.

The big thing though is to allow the railway to operate with enough stock to meet demand. This is the number one problem with today's railway.
A cohesive national railway system needs to have proper strategic plans applied at a national/network level to rolling stock, passenger information, fares and ticketing, service timetabling and connectivity, route modernisation and freight provision, amongst many others. None of these things exist or are effective under the present system.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,222
A cohesive national railway system needs to have proper strategic plans applied at a national/network level to rolling stock, passenger information, fares and ticketing, service timetabling and connectivity, route modernisation and freight provision, amongst many others. None of these things exist or are effective under the present system.

One very prominent symptom of the fragmentation of the past 20-odd years is the collection of incompatible rolling stock across the former Southern Region. Compare that to BR days when you had all those different unit classes and locos which could work with each other.

NSE had plans for a new generation of compatible rolling stock across the Southern, I believe (the 471) but sadly privatisation got in the way and each fragment of the former Southern Region went off and did its own thing.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,141
Did Carlisle feature in the so-called 'Union Connectivity Review'? perhaps as a focus for freight disaggregation/ assembly point for the Irish Sea tunnel?
No not that I’m aware, the best case scenario would’ve been reopening Dumfries - Stranraer alongside the proposed tunnel, all about as likely as snow in June as I & presumably most voters thought. 8-)
 
Last edited:

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,123
Worcestershire? Is that the same demographic as Worcester? I recall Peter Walker, a Conservative former Environment secretary of state, and his son Robin the current member for Worcester (a hereditary post?). All six Worcs constituencies are currently represented by Conservative MPs; there were only four between 1997 and 2005; the Tory % of the vote in 2019 was over 60% compared with 21% labour and 11% Lib-dem, so possibly not a significant target?
How many 'election winners' wanting more direct Worcs Parkway to Bristol, Manchester or Scotland?

Worcester was held by Labour during the Blair years so it is certainly winnable for Labour. According to the latest projections Labour have an 88% chance of winning the seat.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,408
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
One very prominent symptom of the fragmentation of the past 20-odd years is the collection of incompatible rolling stock across the former Southern Region. Compare that to BR days when you had all those different unit classes and locos which could work with each other.

NSE had plans for a new generation of compatible rolling stock across the Southern, I believe (the 471) but sadly privatisation got in the way and each fragment of the former Southern Region went off and did its own thing.
Indeed so - the definition of fragmentation. I recall seeing the mocked-up 471 at Victoria, by the way.

No not that I’m aware, the best case scenario would’ve been reopening Dumfries - Stranraer alongside the proposed tunnel, all about as likely as snow in June as I & presumably most voters thought. 8-)
I suggest you look up June 1975's weather! Those were the days...
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,222
Indeed so - the definition of fragmentation. I recall seeing the mocked-up 471 at Victoria, by the way.
Indeed. I never got why, if they had to break up the network into multiple TOCs, they did not have a "Greater Southern" TOC consisting of the SW, Central and SE divisions. That would have surely made far more sense, but hey, I'm not a Conservative politician. ;)

Worcester was held by Labour during the Blair years so it is certainly winnable for Labour. According to the latest projections Labour have an 88% chance of winning the seat.

Reminds me of so-called "Worcester woman", who was a pollsters' stereotype of someone who was socially conservative but economically less so, I believe. Not entirely sure why the gender was significant, though. Sounds like it is this kind of demographic that Labour are attempting to target now, as they aren't being quite as socially liberal as they could - this demographic could presumably still vote Tory so they have to be careful.
 
Last edited:

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,949
Indeed. I never got why, if they had to break up the network into multiple TOCs, they did not have a "Greater Southern" TOC consisting of the SW, Central and SE divisions. That would have surely made far more sense, but hey, I'm not a Conservative politician. ;)
They were separate divisions in NSE days, effectively managed on an individual basis. It would have been too big to franchise as one entity.

As for moving rolling stock around, isn't it suggested that Southern might be giving up 17 377s to Southeastern, and the 707 fleet has moved between SWR and Southeastern. Southeastern units have operated for Southern in the past.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,222
They were separate divisions in NSE days, effectively managed on an individual basis. It would have been too big to franchise as one entity.
Why though? It just seems to be splitting things up for the sake of it, perhaps because it fit Conservative political philosophy of the day.

Surely better to have an integrated system, isn't fragmentation one of the big problems with today's railway? We have all these TOCs all competing for paths rather than having a cooperatively designed system.

If there was more fragmentation than there could have been in BR days, that wasn't necessarily a reason to keep it (and make it far worse).

An integrated "Greater Southern" means that you could design such a pan-Southern timetable cooperatively, rather than the different fragments competing for paths. You could have a pan-Southern approach to planning paths in the Havant area, for example, aiming for the best possible passenger experience across the Greater Southern - rather than the South Western fragment and the Southern fragment competing for access into Portsmouth. It would more easily allow for innovative cross-divisional services.. And of course it would mean we could still have a fleet of compatible units (471s, or whatever) as we did in the good old days of CIGs and VEPs.

Wasn't one of the main motivations behind NSE an integrated London commuter area network? It thus seems very much a retrograde step to then break it up again.

You could always havce a single Greater Southern TOC with multiple divisions, mirroring the BR situation.

Certainly from my POV the biggest problem with privatisation wasn't necessarily privatisation per se, but the fragmentation that came with it.

Isn't it easier to design nationwide timetables if you don't have separate entities competing for paths? Is it not better to design the timetable on a country-wide basis, considering the needs of all passengers?

Same goes with the wider network with great flexibility in BR days involving (on the one hand) the fleet of MkI/II/III coaches which could be hauled by just about any loco, and (on the other hand) the inter-compatible Sprinter/Pacer family. Wouldn't it be better nowadays if we had the modern equivalent, e.g. a standard and compatible family of IC-grade DMUs, for example, which could run not only XC but also TransPennine, MML, etc?
 
Last edited:

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,090
Location
Taunton or Kent
No party is going to offer anything grand/radical on the railways, because no-one will offer anything radical on anything for fear of it being too much to deliver in one Parliament and losing the next election as a result. HS2 and Crossrail are the closest to radical railway policies in recent years, but only got out due to bipartisan support and strong business cases at the time.
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,606
Location
North West
I don't believe Louise Haigh will last very long because I don't trust Starmer very much. I suspect we will end up with a 'Blairite' cabinet and someone like Douglas Alexander, Mary Creagh or Pat McFadden will probably become Transport Secretary in short order.

EDIT: having just looked it up though I'm amazed Stephen Byers only lasted a year though as he was such a major Blairite figure in the government who had to deal with the mess of railtrack.
Douglas Alexander may well be in the running to be Transport Secretary. He already had that job before.

I think Stephen Byers resigned rather than losing his job in a Cabinet Reshuffle.

Depending on how short-term the contracts with the TOCs are post-franchising, it should be easy to just let them expire and come back into public hands. As it is, those that are in the hands of foreign national rather than UK stock exchange companies will not cause controversy for big business if negotiated to terminate early.
 

DJP78

On Moderation
Joined
26 Nov 2019
Messages
157
Location
Bristol
British railways are in a desperate state. Fragmented, chaotic, lacking investment, politically misunderstood and IMHO, diametrically opposed by the Tories due to the unions.

Early termination of contracts, turning to state run entities would be seen by many as positive. Reinvested revenue could be used to acquire more rolling stock and modernise IT systems. Harmonised working practices and eradicating duplication would lead to greater efficiency and cost reductions.

Foreign companies skimming £billions for their own gain would stop. So might chronic shareholder / investor short-term prioritising of dividends over quality and longterm planning.

A politer more constructive approach to union relations might re-engage the work force and repair some of the damage that the last 3 years of hostilities have inflicted. A fully functioning railway relies on the goodwill of its members to cover overtime and help out. Goodwill is currently in scarce supply.

I'd trust Labour to make a better fist of running the railways. Anything's better than the current Tory circus tent.
 
Last edited:

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
9,708
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
If you're going to do it then you need to do it properly and not just fiddle about with how day-to-day passenger operations and perhaps the odd bitter freight are run, you need to bring the whole thing including infrastructure and rolling stock and everything else back in house, this would be ruinously expensive and very time consuming but no matter which color your political rose tinted spectacles are you cannot claim true relationalisation until you either done this or at least put the wheels in motion to do it, simply fiddling around with day to day passenger operators is no better than what the current government are doing and therefore it's a bit of a cheap for any other political party to claim the doing something different, by all means claim their carrying on with the program instigated by their predecessors though
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,123
Reminds me of so-called "Worcester woman", who was a pollsters' stereotype of someone who was socially conservative but economically less so, I believe. Not entirely sure why the gender was significant, though. Sounds like it is this kind of demographic that Labour are attempting to target now, as they aren't being quite as socially liberal as they could - this demographic could presumably still vote Tory so they have to be careful.

Think it was the stereotype of a mother in medium sized settlements in their 30s who is middle class with children. What would she want from a government. At the time also they had Mondeo Man who was the male version of Labour's target voter in the 1997 election. A big part of both of them was for Labour to appeal to the middle class. The Mondeo was a big part as the Ford Mondeo was still a relatively new car at the time and popular with middle class families.

I know at the 2019 election the Conservatives had Workington Man who was the type of voter the Conservatives targeted. Workington man was a middle aged self employed tradesman type person who would normally vote Labour but also voted for Brexit. Typical policies would be things like Workington Man cared about the cost of Diesel for his van rather than Kashmir or Palestine (both of which featured in Labour's 2019 Manifesto).
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
9,708
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
The interesting to see what analogies if any the different parties try and use this time round, the conservatives are certainly going to have difficulty with working tone man should they choose to revive him this time, given that less than six months after the election the vast majority of the self-employed in Britain were hung out to dry by them and their largely unnecessary covid restrictions
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,496

Top