Rail nationalisation: ideas, suggestions, predictions etc

[LUYMun]

I would hope that the consolidation of TOCs would enable easier transfer of rolling stock to cover shortages elsewhere in the network - the Marston Vale, for example, would've had a service return sooner if GBR (or Labour's idea of it) was enacted already.

 

[Meerkat]

I would hope that the consolidation of TOCs would enable easier transfer of rolling stock to cover shortages elsewhere in the network - the Marston Vale, for example, would've had a service return sooner if GBR (or Labour's idea of it) was enacted already.

Who would have lost stock for that?

 

[WAB]

I wonder which jobs in the industry will become obsolete as a result of renationalisation? I reckon most frontline staff will still be required, albeit, there may be a more multi-skilled all-purpose focus on station operations/on board. I wonder whether engineering will tend towards being more generalist or specialist in the roles that are offered?

Jobs I could potentially see on the chopping block are actually a lot of managerial positions. It will be interesting how signalling, control, delay attribution etc work when everyone suddenly works for the same company. Lots of financial and marketing roles will probably be cut too. Personally I'd like to see a sustained commitment to frontline staffing with the savings being made at a management level instead.

Head office roles may contract, but given the churn a lot of these roles have (support roles in particular), I don't think we'll be looking at mass redundancy; instead, recruitment freezes. I suspect a lot of the attrition will be focused in the interface roles. In control for example, you'd probably still have running controllers (ex-NR) and service controllers (ex-TOCs) but they would more likely be co-located and the liaison roles (where they exist) would go. Delay attribution would become less adversarial, but will remain as part of the performance regime - again, more of a contraction through churn than redundancies. Signallers will still be following regulation policies, but these may be written more holistically than is currently the case. As for engineering, what changes are you expecting? I would expect more of a grafting of the NR teams into wherever they sit within the new structure, but the nature of the job won't have changed.

Are there any specific management roles you think may be for the chop?

The problem is, in Reid's day the railway also had a number of very senior managers who were excellent operators but I just don't see that calibre of manager on todays railway, certainly not the passenger railway. The most prominent exception I'd suggest would be John Smith of GBRf who I think would make a decent choice as Chairman. Labour could also do a lot worse than consult with some of those still around with BR experience.

Yes, plenty of those are willing to chew your ear off if you choose the right pub! At the same time, I think we need to develop new talent with that breadth of experience. A new Operations graduate scheme built along the lines of the old BR traffic management training scheme, with placements across the function (as well as some commercial dabbling) including a secondment to FOCs, with the requirement to get a certified frontline skill (contingent signaller, guard, dispatcher or controller) by the end of the scheme. As it stands, only Network Rail and TfW offer operations graduate schemes, and some of the Network Rail grads leave the scheme with some pretty terrible gaps in their basic ops knowledge. The culture at NR towards operations is not encouraging, either.

One issue we now have is that the upper supervisory grades and the lower management grades have been thinned out in the sort of roles which would give useful experience as an operator (much fewer assistant station managers etc.) so it's actually harder to reach the top with useful operational knowledge. You also have TOCs moving towards apprentices who specialise very early on in specific roles, which increases competition for roles and doesn't give enough space for a varied rail career for those on their way up.

A lot of Network Rail ops grads end up in projects or as LOMs, but I don't think this gives them the right experience. A lot of people also use train planning as a way up but this is very office-based and doesn't give enough experience of the way the railway works on the ground. There are ways up, but I don't think it gives the right number of leaders with a strong operational and commercial background.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Yes, plenty of those are willing to chew your ear off if you choose the right pub!

I once met a former BR manager a few years ago and yes, he had a LOT to say

 

[Dr Hoo]

I once met a former BR manager a few years ago and yes, he had a LOT to say

Unfortunately having lots to say cannot always be equated with being the most helpful to listen to. (Probably true in many fields.)

 

[Halwynd]

Yes, plenty of those are willing to chew your ear off if you choose the right pub! At the same time, I think we need to develop new talent with that breadth of experience. A new Operations graduate scheme built along the lines of the old BR traffic management training scheme, with placements across the function (as well as some commercial dabbling) including a secondment to FOCs, with the requirement to get a certified frontline skill (contingent signaller, guard, dispatcher or controller) by the end of the scheme. As it stands, only Network Rail and TfW offer operations graduate schemes, and some of the Network Rail grads leave the scheme with some pretty terrible gaps in their basic ops knowledge. The culture at NR towards operations is not encouraging, either.

One issue we now have is that the upper supervisory grades and the lower management grades have been thinned out in the sort of roles which would give useful experience as an operator (much fewer assistant station managers etc.) so it's actually harder to reach the top with useful operational knowledge. You also have TOCs moving towards apprentices who specialise very early on in specific roles, which increases competition for roles and doesn't give enough space for a varied rail career for those on their way up.

A lot of Network Rail ops grads end up in projects or as LOMs, but I don't think this gives them the right experience. A lot of people also use train planning as a way up but this is very office-based and doesn't give enough experience of the way the railway works on the ground. There are ways up, but I don't think it gives the right number of leaders with a strong operational and commercial background.

I remember the BR scheme and how it operated, but to be honest I know little about how things work today - so that was an informative read for me - thanks for taking the time.

 

[E27007]

I was reading the Labour Leave webpages, Labour Leave made the point, renationalisation of the Railway would have faced a major obstacle of EU competion law, in that markets must be open and subject to cross-border competition, a nationalised railway is a market monooply for rail travel.
For academic interest, we are not in the EU (obviously) could Brussels have exerted their powers to prevent renationalisation? True or False?

The link below leads to the Labour Leave opinion (2016 pre-referendum)

Why can't we renationalise the railways?

 

[FGWHST43009]

INTERCITY shouldn't be diluted as a brand - all the primarily long distance stuff should take the full brand and full service concept, including e.g. TPE Liverpool-Newcastle and the TfW Mk4 operated services (but probably not the rest, and not any of those Northern services).

There should additionally be a national inter-regional express brand and service concept* for the sort of service you're talking about.

* By service concept I mean standard of accommodation, catering etc. To make INTERCITY a strong brand, it should be the same across all services so people can see at a glance what they're getting, even if that means "loss leader" catering on some services to maintain the strength of the brand.

I think if there were sectors, ie Intercity, Regional etc it should be clear what each operator does. I think Intercity should focus more on running fast trains between the bigger stations, with inter-regional/regional express and normal regional services calling at the smaller stations. That said, compromises will have to be made, especially as line capacity is limited. Alternatively, there could be standard Intercity services and faster Intercity Express services that just run the busiest routes and only connect the major stations.

 

[Energy]

I was reading the Labour Leave webpages, Labour Leave made the point, renationalisation of the Railway would have faced a major obstacle of EU competion law, in that markets must be open and subject to cross-border competition, a nationalised railway is a market monooply for rail travel.
For academic interest, we are not in the EU (obviously) could Brussels have exerted their powers to prevent renationalisation? True or False?

They can be publicly owned (they are somewhat already under Network Rail) but must provide access for competitors, like Italo in Italy. Going by Italos effect on fares, this is a good thing.

 

[coppercapped]

I was reading the Labour Leave webpages, Labour Leave made the point, renationalisation of the Railway would have faced a major obstacle of EU competion law, in that markets must be open and subject to cross-border competition, a nationalised railway is a market monooply for rail travel.

There is nothing in the EU law forbidding the infrastructure and train operations being operated by a state-owned organisation. However separate accounts have to be kept to ensure that any subsidy or grant paid to the infrastructure operator is not passed on to the train operator and vice versa.

Fundamentally, any subsidies or grants paid by the state have to be transparent and not lead to distortion of competition between the parties involved.

Open access operations, both passenger and freight, are also permitted although some countries have been dragging their feet, by playing bureaucratic games, in allowing them to happen.

Cross-border competition, in the sense of a business in one country operating trains or supplying goods and services in other countries is not specifically a railway thing but comes under the Single Market framework.

For academic interest, we are not in the EU (obviously) could Brussels have exerted their powers to prevent renationalisation? True or False?

If we were still in the EU then as long as the structure aligns with the various Directives then the EU does not mind who owns the various parts of the railways. Now we are outside the EU it doesn't matter and the EU has no jurisdiction on this aspect of internal UK affairs.

Added in edit: For all sorts of reasons such as devolution and changes in the legal and financial frameworks over the years a monolithic organisation such as the British Transport Commission set up by the 1947 Transport Act could not be repeated.

The link below leads to the Labour Leave opinion (2016 pre-referendum)

Why can't we renationalise the railways?

 

[eldomtom2]

There is nothing in the EU law forbidding the infrastructure and train operations being operated by a state-owned organisation. However separate accounts have to be kept to ensure that any subsidy or grant paid to the infrastructure operator is not passed on to the train operator and vice versa.

Fundamentally, any subsidies or grants paid by the state have to be transparent and not lead to distortion of competition between the parties involved.

Open access operations, both passenger and freight, are also permitted although some countries have been dragging their feet, by playing bureaucratic games, in allowing them to happen.

Isn't there a degree of mandatory tendering as well?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I would hope that the consolidation of TOCs would enable easier transfer of rolling stock to cover shortages elsewhere in the network - the Marston Vale, for example, would've had a service return sooner if GBR (or Labour's idea of it) was enacted already.

There will always be organisational boundaries on the railway, and each section will protect its own, as happened under BR with its Regions and Sectors.
Fewer TOCs might help, but neither political party wants to tell us how that might be achieved (along with parallel Network Rail rationalisation).
Somebody will have to pay for stock transfers anyway, leases are not "free issue".

 

[coppercapped]

Isn't there a degree of mandatory tendering as well?

As I understand the situation any procurement of goods or services, meeting certain criteria, by Government or other state organisations must be put out for competitive tendering. It is not a specific requirement on railways.

The European Union's website at https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/public-procurement_en includes the following text:

Public procurement refers to the process by which public authorities, such as government departments or local authorities, purchase work, goods or services from companies.

To create a level playing field for businesses across Europe, EU law sets out minimum harmonised public procurement rules. These rules govern the way public authorities and certain public utility operators purchase goods, works and services. They are transposed into national legislation and apply to tenders whose monetary value exceeds a certain amount. For tenders of lower value, national rules apply. Nevertheless, these national rules also have to respect the general principles of EU law.

 

[John745]

Going back to tickets, couldn't a fare system similar to Greater Anglia's "Hare Fares" be implemented?

Say, journeys within a certain distance or time travelled category can fall into different price categories, so if a journey from London to Birmingham is 1hr 30 (on average), or 110 miles, a price of £15 could be charged for journeys between 100 and 150 miles, while journeys less than 10 miles or so could have a fixed single rate of £1, so they aren't too expensive, and there could be a cap of £60 per single for journeys more than £600.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Going back to tickets, couldn't a fare system similar to Greater Anglia's "Hare Fares" be implemented?

Say, journeys within a certain distance or time travelled category can fall into different price categories, so if a journey from London to Birmingham is 1hr 30 (on average), or 110 miles, a price of £15 could be charged for journeys between 100 and 150 miles, while journeys less than 10 miles or so could have a fixed single rate of £1, so they aren't too expensive, and there could be a cap of £60 per single for journeys more than £600.

That's basically zonal fares. There's plenty of that goes on, e.g. Weekend First type upgrades. The downside of it is that at some point you get a big jump between two adjacent stations.

Generally it makes a lot of sense for urban fares but less so for long distance where the jump can be huge.

 

[John745]

Couldn't one charge 1.5*(miles/10) so a journey of 10 miles would be charged £1.50, and in this case unless the stations are far apart, the price wouldn't rise too significantly.

(Or any other viable way of working out prices)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Couldn't one charge 1.5*(miles/10) so a journey of 10 miles would be charged £1.50, and in this case unless the stations are far apart, the price wouldn't rise too significantly.

(Or any other viable way of working out prices)

Mileage based rates have anomalies unless you're going to make routeing completely prescriptive, i.e. I'd need to go and get an excess if I wanted to go via Northampton between Brum and Euston rather than the mainline even though now they're both valid. They also cause issues where the rail route is quite indirect but the crow flies route is quite short.

 

[John745]

Ah, I do see your point. Could the distances be measured in a straight line instead of the rail route length? This could also relieve some mainline services which are packed full, as people could use the non-mainline route which goes to the same destination via a different route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, I do see your point. Could the distances be measured in a straight line instead of the rail route length? This could also relieve some mainline services which are packed full, as people could use the non-mainline route which goes to the same destination via a different route.

That creates other anomalies. Why for instance would one buy a Liverpool-Preston ticket when one could buy an Ormskirk-Preston ticket for cheaper on a Sunday and use it from Liverpool with no way to enforce otherwise?

(That isn't permitted any more, but in BR days it was considered Reasonable)

There's basically no way to avoid anomalies of some kind in fares unless you do a bus- or airline-style "one ticket per vehicle journey" approach.

 

[Meerkat]

Going back to tickets, couldn't a fare system similar to Greater Anglia's "Hare Fares" be implemented?

Say, journeys within a certain distance or time travelled category can fall into different price categories, so if a journey from London to Birmingham is 1hr 30 (on average), or 110 miles, a price of £15 could be charged for journeys between 100 and 150 miles, while journeys less than 10 miles or so could have a fixed single rate of £1, so they aren't too expensive, and there could be a cap of £60 per single for journeys more than £600.

I may have missed an earlier post but why?

 

[Snow1964]

Appears Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is not impressed with delays to GBR

MPs have warned that rail subsidies are at unsustainable levels, criticising the Government for delays in rail reforms.​

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) highlighted the billions of pounds spent supporting passenger rail services in a recent report on rail reform progress.

The PAC stated: “Much of the proposed reforms and associated benefits are now largely on hold until the next Parliament. The Department for Transport has not yet established Great British Railways(GBR), the new organisation intended to act as the ‘guiding mind’ for the whole rail system, originally planned to be operational by March 2024. Meanwhile, no one is prioritising the needs of passengers and taxpayers.”

Passenger train companies received £4.4 billion in subsidies in the 12 months to March 2023, down from the £11.7 billion provided in the 2020-21 financial year, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2019, the industry required a relatively modest £1.7 billion in subsidies, leading to speculation that the sector could become financially self-sustaining—a goal considered the holy grail of rail operations.

Labour has pledged to continue the Government’s commitment to establishing GBR, proposing it as a reincarnation of British Rail to directly run train services. Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, stated that Labour would use GBR to take over private operators as their contracts expire.

According to analysis, based on data from the Office of Rail and Road, private operators received just under £58 million in dividends last year. Train companies generated £8.4 billion from fares and onboard catering.

The PAC’s report underscores the urgent need for rail reform and highlights the financial burden on taxpayers, stressing that the current level of subsidies is unsustainable and necessitating immediate action to prioritise the interests of passengers and taxpayers alike.

MPs Declare Rail Subsidies 'Unsustainable' Amidst Stalled Reforms

MPs warn that rail subsidies remain unsustainable, urging immediate reforms as the establishment of Great British Railways is delayed.

bmmagazine.co.uk

 

[yorksrob]

Appears Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is not impressed with delays to GBR

MPs Declare Rail Subsidies 'Unsustainable' Amidst Stalled Reforms

MPs warn that rail subsidies remain unsustainable, urging immediate reforms as the establishment of Great British Railways is delayed.

bmmagazine.co.uk

To be fair, they seem to be saying that the DfT considers subsidy levels to be unsustainable (when asked, the DfT failed to come up with what they thought was a sustainable level, which suggests that they are talking claptrap).

In reality, this is a political decision and no more "unsustainable" than the various tax giveaways some of the political parties are proposing.

 

[Meerkat]

In reality, this is a political decision and no more "unsustainable" than the various tax giveaways some of the political parties are proposing.

They are sustainable if they are popular. Whether you like it or not paying less tax is popular, spending taxpayers money on railways less popular.

 

[yorksrob]

They are sustainable if they are popular. Whether you like it or not paying less tax is popular, spending taxpayers money on railways less popular.

It depends on which taxpayers. It also depends on scale. However much small state advocates might bluster, subsidy of rail transport is still a miniscule slither of government spending and tiny in comparison to the big items such as social security, health etc. This more than makes up for the fact that not everyone uses trains directly.

 

[Meerkat]

It depends on which taxpayers. It also depends on scale. However much small state advocates might bluster, subsidy of rail transport is still a miniscule slither of government spending and tiny in comparison to the big items such as social security, health etc. This more than makes up for the fact that not everyone uses trains directly.

The tax burden is historically high, and still doesn’t cover spending. You win elections by not increasing taxes - see Labour’s pledges despite being way ahead in the polls. It’s a major flaw with democracy - we can vote for nice stuff and vote not to pay for it……
“it’s not much….” is a very poor way of running a budget, and let the crayons loose and the numbers start to get rather big.
It’s not just a case that ‘not everyone’ uses trains - the majority rarely use them.

 

[Sorcerer]

Seeing as the railway is an expensive investment for any government, I've been wondering for a while now whether or not Great British Railways could implement a rail plus property model similar to Hong Kong's MTR and with Brightline in Florida. I'm sure that some retail outlets will already be paying tenancy for operating in railway stations, but rail plus property would also give GBR land development rights around stations and depots. Obviously this might be harder than the MTR and Brightline given that the railway passes by a lot of developed land already, but for a nationalised industry it would be nice to consider discussing ideas to reduce the cost on the taxpayer.

 

[JamesT]

Seeing as the railway is an expensive investment for any government, I've been wondering for a while now whether or not Great British Railways could implement a rail plus property model similar to Hong Kong's MTR and with Brightline in Florida. I'm sure that some retail outlets will already be paying tenancy for operating in railway stations, but rail plus property would also give GBR land development rights around stations and depots. Obviously this might be harder than the MTR and Brightline given that the railway passes by a lot of developed land already, but for a nationalised industry it would be nice to consider discussing ideas to reduce the cost on the taxpayer.

You mean like https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/network-rail-property/ ?

Network Rail Property is the commercial division of the organisation accountable for the management of all of Network Rail’s land and property assets.

 

[yorksrob]

It’s not just a case that ‘not everyone’ uses trains - the majority rarely use them.

Most people use the railway at least some of the time.

Saying subsidy is "unsustainable" but not having any idea of what is unsustainable, is also not a good way to run a budget. It means that crackpot rightwingers can say that any amount of subsidy is "unsustainable".

 

[JonathanH]

Most people use the railway at least some of the time.

Those people make a calculated decision about the cost of using the railway.

Saying subsidy is "unsustainable" but not having any idea of what is unsustainable, is also not a good way to run a budget. It means that crackpot rightwingers can say that any amount of subsidy is "unsustainable".

Is the purpose of subsidy to make fares lower, run more railway, enable people to make journeys that only they feel are necessary, or improve the railway? Which causes are sustainable?

 

[yorksrob]

Those people make a calculated decision about the cost of using the railway.


Is the purpose of subsidy to make fares lower, run more railway, enable people to make journeys that only they feel are necessary, or improve the railway? Which causes are sustainable?

And you've just illustrated why the Governments concept of "unsustainable", which seems to have been plucked out of its a**e, is meaningless.