Should the railways be renationalised?

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

The Transport Select Committee seem to think that the current franchising model is no longer fit for purpose.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38867199

My vote in this thread was for renationalisation. I'd settle for a concession model similar to that for heavy rail in and around London.

[Bmblbzzz]

The committee said while there could be no "single template" for franchises, there was "merit" in obtaining longer agreements covering smaller areas.
The opportunity of smaller franchises with less financial risk could lead to new companies appearing on the market, the MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) said.

Lower entry costs and more opportunities might lead to new entrants. But as long as there is one franchisee per area, there cannot be meaningful competition between companies. Longer franchises would allow more investment but also reduce the opportunities for new entrants. And smaller franchises might lead to poorer service for passengers, by necessitating more changes of train if services cover smaller areas.

[phile]

To sum it up:-

Who to blame before privatisation    - British Rail
Who to blame now                          - Pass the buck

[Bmblbzzz]

There's an article here from a lecturer in transport economics at Edinburgh Napier university arguing that because both full nationalisation and privatisation have flaws, the best thing is to carry on with the status quo, more or less.

Nationalisation was no panacea in 1940s. It was driven more by circumstances and political ideology rather than any great strategic vision for a modern railway. The investment errors of the 1950s look like a classic example of the ills of public sector management: poorly defined objectives, loss of focus, little sense of realities at senior management level and wasteful extravagance.


Tickets please!  Yoonki Jeong, CC BY-SA
The current model, on the other hand, exposes the private sector to excessive business risk and builds instability into the system. It also still depends heavily on state infrastructure investment or guarantees.

The best way forward is probably to optimise what we have: re-evaluate the rail franchising process and look at different ways to share business risk between the public and private sectors. That might include directly awarding some franchises without a tendering process, whether to a private or public operator, for example. It would be a step towards full nationalisation without throwing out the baby and the bathwater.

As an aside, with all the discussion on the Coffee Shop of the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train)/Class 800, I was initially suprised that I hadn't heard it referred to as the Hitachi Azuma^▸ (Brand name for Class 80x trains on LNER) before. But it seems this is Japanese for "east" so the name is only being used on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line).

[1st fan]

There's an article here from a lecturer in transport economics at Edinburgh Napier university arguing that because both full nationalisation and privatisation have flaws, the best thing is to carry on with the status quo, more or less.

Nationalisation was no panacea in 1940s. It was driven more by circumstances and political ideology rather than any great strategic vision for a modern railway. The investment errors of the 1950s look like a classic example of the ills of public sector management: poorly defined objectives, loss of focus, little sense of realities at senior management level and wasteful extravagance.


Tickets please!  Yoonki Jeong, CC BY-SA
The current model, on the other hand, exposes the private sector to excessive business risk and builds instability into the system. It also still depends heavily on state infrastructure investment or guarantees.

The best way forward is probably to optimise what we have: re-evaluate the rail franchising process and look at different ways to share business risk between the public and private sectors. That might include directly awarding some franchises without a tendering process, whether to a private or public operator, for example. It would be a step towards full nationalisation without throwing out the baby and the bathwater.

As an aside, with all the discussion on the Coffee Shop of the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train)/Class 800, I was initially suprised that I hadn't heard it referred to as the Hitachi Azuma^▸ (Brand name for Class 80x trains on LNER) before. But it seems this is Japanese for "east" so the name is only being used on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line).

The Japanese for West is "Nishi" which I think would go nicely with the IET.

[Noggin]

The Japanese for West is "Nishi" which I think would go nicely with the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train).

How about "Cattle" class ;-)

More seriously, here's what we could have had - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/885_series - White Sonic using on Kyushu Railways in the south west of Japan. Leather seats, even in standard class, something forbidden by UK^▸ (United Kingdom) fire regs apparently.

[Bmblbzzz]

I would have assumed leather was less flammable than most foam plastics – it's apparently the plastics that made the Liverpool car park fire spread so rapidly and so far. But if train foams are treated in some fire-retardant way which cars are not, then I'm happy to be wrong on this.

[ChrisB]

Here's what fare rises looked liked in the nationalised days. There's zero proof they'll drop/stay the same/go up less

I remember the fares in the 70s as I've commuted all my life.

[SandTEngineer]

Think you ought to acknowledge ChrisB that you pinched that table from here:
https://paulbigland.blog/2018/01/02/2018-and-the-usual-rail-fares-furore

[ChrisB]

And where did he pinch that from? :-)

I did 'pinch' it, with permission, but not from him. It was supplied to him via twitter by my contact too.

[IndustryInsider]

A very interesting chart... 

[ChrisB]

Isn't it?....people have either forgotten, chose to ignore or are simply too young to remember. Along with constant delays/faults and stock that was decades old (older than most stock now).

Other than 'saving' 3% that goes in profits to TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) (assuming we believe that), what are the benefits of nationalisation? And there's a lot of form that says nationalised outfits cost a lot more to run....easily wiping out that 3% (or more) without gaining anything.

[IndustryInsider]

Surely the RDG^‡(resolve) should be publicising this data and pushing it heavily to stop any collective amnesia?

[ChrisB]

You'd think so, wouldn't you?.....

[JayMac]

What fares does the chart refer too? Were these increases across the board, from Cheap Day to Open via Awayday, Saver, Super Saver and Apex^▸ (Advanced Purchase Excursion (fare))?

Without comparable journey details and ticket types (and even the number of available services a particular ticket type was valid on) the figures in the chart don't stand up to statistical analysis. There are no details on sources or methodology. I treat such 'statistics' with deep suspicion unless and until they can be verified.

All they do at the moment is aid the pre-existing bias of the pro-privatisation brigade. Paul Bigland among them.