Should the railways be renationalised?

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

Surely EU^» (European Union - about) law makes this debate academic to a certain extent anyway, it couldn't simply be renationalised without allowing private operators access to the tracks under a number of EU directives?

I think the key one is EU directive 91/440?

I am not suggesting for a moment that this might happen, but an opt out from EC91/440 might be something that Cameron could achieve in his renegotiation of our relationship with the EU. 

The reason for this was to allow competition - I really cannot see Cameron arguing for less competition.  In cross border freight the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) have been the beneficiaries mainly. 

[Bmblbzzz]

The EU^» (European Union - about) is a red herring here. It doesn't require privatisation, only separate accounting and access. Several EU countries have a nationalised railway, allowing others to run over their rails and billing them accordingly. In fact, do we have international trains in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)? Apart from Eurostar, which isn't quite the same.

Regardless of that, what privatisation has not delivered is competition and "customer choice". It's hard to envisage a technically possible way that could even happen, but perhaps advances in signalling will allow trains to run close enough together that in effect you have a choice between the First GW^▸ (Great Western) at 09.00 and the Virgin Express at 09.05 to Paddington, for instance?

[ellendune]

The EU^» (European Union - about) is a red herring here. It doesn't require privatisation, only separate accounting and access. Several EU countries have a nationalised railway, allowing others to run over their rails and billing them accordingly. In fact, do we have international trains in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)? Apart from Eurostar, which isn't quite the same.

You are quite correct - though some of the nationalised concerns have had their knuckles rapped for not playing by the rules (SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) for one).

Regardless of that, what privatisation has not delivered is competition and "customer choice". It's hard to envisage a technically possible way that could even happen, but perhaps advances in signalling will allow trains to run close enough together that in effect you have a choice between the First GW^▸ (Great Western) at 09.00 and the Virgin Express at 09.05 to Paddington, for instance?

You are correct again for the UK.  But UK freight operators have benefited from breaking of the monopoly of some of the nationalised operators on the continent who were trying to impose arcane rules and huge costs fro transporting freight through their country.

I am absolutely sure that nationalisation of rail is not on Cameron's agenda, and so no reason why the 99/440/EC should be in anyway a concern for him.

[Visoflex]

The concept of a railway "service" has gone, but I don't think that nationalisation is the answer. However I do think that some kind of structural change needs to be done.  At the moment, the fragmentation of the industry and the pursuit of profit by the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s and ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about)'s is doing the railway no favours at all.  The plethora of stakeholders, each with their own agenda, short term government thinking and coupled with Network Rail fighting a rear-guard action against a hostile media makes the whole shebang keep going around in circles, using up energy, time and costs that could be put into improving the network.

What is not generally appreciated by the Twitterati is that much more was done "in house" in BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) days.  Signalling scheme design to rolling stock manufacture both spring to mind.  Both of these are major elements of railway expenditure previously done "at cost".  So if a government were to nationalise the railways, would they nationalise the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) operations of Siemens, Bombardier and Alcatel too?  I suspect not.  What we'd end up with is some half baked compromise which pays lip service to the government of the day, satisfies EU^» (European Union - about) directives, and doesn't offend vested interests such as incumbent operators and the unions.

[TaplowGreen]

...........the other (amongst many!) elephant in the room of course - how would it all be paid for?  How would all the businesses, shareholders etc be compensated?

[IndustryInsider]

...........the other (amongst many!) elephant in the room of course - how would it all be paid for?  How would all the businesses, shareholders etc be compensated?

That's the principal reason why it won't happen.

[onthecushions]

...........the other (amongst many!) elephant in the room of course - how would it all be paid for?  How would all the businesses, shareholders etc be compensated?

But 75% of it is already in the public sector, paid for by compensating Railtrack shareholders ages ago.

Already, NR^» (Network Rail - home page) is designing its own OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") systems and specifying much else. BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) did buy out an awful lot from various suppliers and contractors like Pirelli Cables, Balfour Beatty, Grant Lyon Eagre, ML, Westinghouse B&S,, GEC etc etc. Successor companies to these exist, even if foreign owned. There is no need to end franchises or franchising, although it could be simplified to everyone's benefit.

The next stage would be to merge ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) with the Rail(way) Executive. Watch this space.

OTC

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Labour would renationalise railways 'line by line,' says Jeremy Corbyn

A Labour government would renationalise the railways by regaining control of franchises as they expire, new leader Jeremy Corbyn is expected to reveal.

The party is to set up a task force that will consider how to implement the plans - expected to be outlined at the party conference next week.

Mr Corbyn told the Independent on Sunday there was "overwhelming support for a People's Railway".

But the Conservatives dismissed the plan as an "ideological joyride".

International Development Secretary Justine Greening warned it would waste millions of pounds of taxpayers' money at a time when the railways were enjoying record levels of investment on schemes like HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). She told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show it was important to "get on with the plan we have in place".

But shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn told the same programme it was the Conservatives that were being "ideological" and the recently re-privatised East Coast line had shown that publicly-owned rail could work. He said Britain needed an "integrated transport system" without passengers having to buy different tickets for different lines.

Mr Corbyn has previously said the railways should be renationalised along with Royal Mail and has opposed the high speed railway line HS2. The Labour leader said: "We know there is overwhelming support from the British people for a People's Railway, better and more efficient services, proper integration and fairer fares. On this issue, it won't work to have a nearly-but-not-quite position. Labour will commit to a clear plan for a fully integrated railway in public ownership."

The incremental renationalisation policy is expected to leave around two thirds of lines privately run after the first term of a future Labour government. Its task force will also consider rail reforms such as simplified ticketing and better integration of services with other modes of transport.

The Independent on Sunday said Mr Corbyn would make rail renationalisation Labour policy at the party's conference in Brighton on Sunday 27 September. Labour argues an incremental approach to renationalisation, advocated by Mr Corbyn's leadership rival Andy Burnham, would be a cost-effective solution.

But Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said Labour's approach was "a backwards-looking policy which would cost billions of pounds and leave less money to spend on improving services".

John Major's government split British Rail up into franchises 20 years ago. Since then the number of passengers travelling on the railways has doubled, but the public subsidy has risen.

[ellendune]

Mystified that anyone thinks this is news.  It was in their manifesto at the last election!

[JayMac]

Ahh, but that manifesto was at the tail end of old New Labour. This is new old Labour. 

[Penzance-Paddington]

I know voting is closed, but I would say no.

[grahame]

From Cat Hobbs, director of We Own It - to us as a "rail user group". [ https://weownit.org.uk/about-us ]

Dear rail user groups

I'm getting in touch from We Own It, a campaign for public services for people not profit.

We released some polling this week about rail privatisation and fares (attached FYI^▸ (for your information)) which was covered in the Mirror, Guardian and on Sky News. The key results are:
* 58% think rail privatisation has been a failure
* 28% think it has been a complete failure
* Only 1% think it has been a complete success
* Nearly half (48%) believe fares would be lower under public ownership
* Only 13% think fares would be higher under public ownership

We're planning to put together a response to this polling online from political parties, rail user groups, unions and the public.

It would be fantastic if you could give a quick quote (a couple of sentences) with your response to the findings which we'll add to our website.

If you're interested, could you send me your quote, your name and the name of your group asap? (We're planning to launch this on Friday but can keep adding to it after that.)

Many thanks

Cat

I'm writing to Cat (who we know from her time at FOSBR^▸ (Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways) and CBT^‡(resolve)) to invite her to sign up / post on her own behalf / pick up questions - see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=17842 for details of how and why I'm encouraging this.    However, as this is Cat's first request and time is of the essence to her, I have posted here pending her joining.

I have temporarily mirrored the data Cat refers to at http://atrebatia.info/privatisation_survey_dec_2016.pdf - hopefully Cat can give me an alternative shortly.


Questions I have

a) The survey is all about people's views on the success of privatisation - "think" and "believe" in every bullet point. Can you correlate people's views on privatisation - a pretty involved and technical issue - with the degree to which it has actually been a success.    It may be a measure of sentiment only, driven by media, marketing and campaigns rather than by the unbiased facts of the case.

b) What background / authority does "We own it" have to put together a response on behalf of "political parties, rail user groups, unions and the public"?   I would be very reluctant to provide any quotes on behalf of the organisations I'm concerned with, but happy for my questions aired personally in (a) and (b) to be shared in full.

[ChrisB]

I'd like Cat to be completely transparent & advise us of the whereabouts her funding comes from too

[grahame]

I'd like Cat to be completely transparent & advise us of the whereabouts her funding comes from too

There's somewhat an answer at https://weownit.org.uk/about-us/funders

We Own It has received funding from:

The Network for Social Change
The Barry Amiel and Norman Melburn Trust
Betterworld
Lush Charity Pot
The Andrew Wainwright Reform Trust
The Lipman Miliband Trust
Donations from generous individuals who support our cause
 
We are happy for donors to fund specific pieces of work which are in accordance with our mission and our values. However, we don't take money with strings attached and donors don't have a role in our governance structure.

and for me that answers one question with another about the governance structure ...

[ChrisB]

Day-to-day funding of running costs, I mean....