Labour to nationalise train operators - ongoing discussion, merged posts

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

I'm pretty neutral on this although a little confused that many on these pages constantly bemoan the fact that the Government exerts too much influence over the day to day running of the railway but now express approval that they will have much more control going forward.

Can someone set something out, perhaps in bullet point form, how this proposal will benefit customers? I'm thinking in terms of services, reliability, capacity, infrastructure, cost, efficiency but avoiding ideology?

Many thanks! 

[Witham Bobby]

I'm pretty neutral on this although a little confused that many on these pages constantly bemoan the fact that the Government exerts too much influence over the day to day running of the railway but now express approval that they will have much more control going forward.

Can someone set something out, perhaps in bullet point form, how this proposal will benefit customers? I'm thinking in terms of services, reliability, capacity, infrastructure, cost, efficiency but avoiding ideology?

Many thanks! 

I'd say the list would be a short one

Nationalised industries, in their heyday, rarely achieved the advertised potential.  Maybe investments would be planned, and even started, but some crisis would come along, and The Treasury would just cut back the funding, leaving the project falling short or not happening at all.  Plus ca change

If anything is under the control of politicos, the only things that matter are the electoral cycle and the headlines.  And that applies whether the thing being controlled is in public investor or private hands.  Politicos are far more interested in their careers and in having control, than they are in making life better for the fools who elect them

[Noggin]

Certainly with FGW^▸ (First Great Western)/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), I always thought that the current set-up made for a fairly effective balance of powers.

GWR have to keep the trains running, the punters and the employees happy, whilst balancing the books.

GWR can't do anything too silly if they want to keep on operating services, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) are protected from doing anything too silly by GWR.

My concern is that in the event of a central Government-controlled railway, the "difficult bits" tend to get sacrificed to sacrifice the high profile / politically sensitive bits. So West Country lines will be left to rot for want of a few million here and there whilst billions are poured into a shiny new lines for the Labour voters of Liverpool and Manchester to keep Andy Street et al off Keir Starmer's back. 

[Mark A]

I'm pretty neutral on this although a little confused that many on these pages constantly bemoan the fact that the Government exerts too much influence over the day to day running of the railway but now express approval that they will have much more control going forward.

Can someone set something out, perhaps in bullet point form, how this proposal will benefit customers? I'm thinking in terms of services, reliability, capacity, infrastructure, cost, efficiency but avoiding ideology?

Many thanks! 

I'd say the list would be a short one

Nationalised industries, in their heyday, rarely achieved the advertised potential.  Maybe investments would be planned, and even started, but some crisis would come along, and The Treasury would just cut back the funding, leaving the project falling short or not happening at all.  Plus ca change

If anything is under the control of politicos, the only things that matter are the electoral cycle and the headlines.  And that applies whether the thing being controlled is in public investor or private hands.  Politicos are far more interested in their careers and in having control, than they are in making life better for the fools who elect them

It was different times, and so-called renationalisation doesn't imply that the times are returning: is there a bit of a hat-tip owed to British Rail that Intercity was working and was it covering its costs too? Also, Regional Railways was being developed in interesting ways, starting to enhance inter-regional passenger services in a way that was providing very positive returns and attracting passengers new to rail (and in the west, ok, it did not make money but at least we still had the anglo-scottish west country sleeper with a steady 50000 passengers per annum). And driver route knowledge was presumably not so much shackled to individual TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) and in some cases single routes, lending rail services more resilience.

Mark

[Red Squirrel]

I'm pretty neutral on this although a little confused that many on these pages constantly bemoan the fact that the Government exerts too much influence over the day to day running of the railway but now express approval that they will have much more control going forward.

Can someone set something out, perhaps in bullet point form, how this proposal will benefit customers? I'm thinking in terms of services, reliability, capacity, infrastructure, cost, efficiency but avoiding ideology?

Many thanks! 

Nigel Harris (late editor of Rail magazine) and Richard Bowker (formerly head of SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about)) explain it fairly well, I think. You'll need half an hour to spare:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLTxYZPEo3U

[Mark A]

Thanks for that. Also, a thread from @busandtrainuser on the ex-twitter comes with recommendations.

Mark

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783459251584655502.html

[TaplowGreen]

I'm pretty neutral on this although a little confused that many on these pages constantly bemoan the fact that the Government exerts too much influence over the day to day running of the railway but now express approval that they will have much more control going forward.

Can someone set something out, perhaps in bullet point form, how this proposal will benefit customers? I'm thinking in terms of services, reliability, capacity, infrastructure, cost, efficiency but avoiding ideology?

Many thanks! 

I'd say the list would be a short one

Nationalised industries, in their heyday, rarely achieved the advertised potential.  Maybe investments would be planned, and even started, but some crisis would come along, and The Treasury would just cut back the funding, leaving the project falling short or not happening at all.  Plus ca change

If anything is under the control of politicos, the only things that matter are the electoral cycle and the headlines.  And that applies whether the thing being controlled is in public investor or private hands.  Politicos are far more interested in their careers and in having control, than they are in making life better for the fools who elect them

Some very astute observations there.

This is a low risk strategy by Starmer I think - nothing like as risky or radical as messing around with Health, Education or Defence (sorry "defence"), far fewer votes at stake but it very much appeals to his party, especially those on the Left who remain to be convinced by him and wonder what he stands for.

I wonder what's next?

[a-driver]

All well and good Labour wanting to renationalise the railways but Labour aren’t always going to be in power. The long term picture needs considering, not just a 5 year period and for that reason alone I wouldn’t be in favour of nationalisation

[CyclingSid]

Usual considered opinion from Christian Wolmer
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/labours-rail-nationalisation-plan-will-put-our-trains-back-on-track-3024206

[TaplowGreen]

Interesting...........

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-claims-rail-reforms-would-save-taxpayer-2-2bn-a-year

[ChrisB]

Isn't it? Someone needs to @ Christian Wolmer with it.

That last paragraph that starts "“Our plan for publicly-owned passenger rail goes above and beyond the Government’s long-delayed rail reforms" what part does? What I read indicated them just doing what the Tories suggested back in 2021 & haven't implemented (as it states elsewhere in the article), so what more are they proposing?

[IndustryInsider]

Isn't it? Someone needs to @ Christian Wolmer with it.

That last paragraph that starts "“Our plan for publicly-owned passenger rail goes above and beyond the Government’s long-delayed rail reforms" what part does? What I read indicated them just doing what the Tories suggested back in 2021 & haven't implemented (as it states elsewhere in the article), so what more are they proposing?

It’s certainly very similar, though did the Tories commit to taking all the NRC’s ‘in house’ as they expire?

[ChrisB]

I thought so, under direction of GBR^▸ (Great British Railways). With no management fees but staff transferring to GBR payroll. There was going to be one overall colour scheme for the trains too.

[the void]

I don't believe there are plans to introduce one overall colour scheme for the trains - that would just make things very complicated. I believe the plans are to retain the separate TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) identifies, and management structures, it's just the ownership that will transfer. So rather than GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) trains having the 'A FirstGroup company' sub-branding, they would say 'A GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) company' (or something similar) instead.

That was the whole point in creating identities at arms length from the owning company (First Great Western to GWR). So the owning company could change with minimal impact.

If all the trains were branded the same, how would customers (and staff) be able tell them apart? e.g. at Reading there are four separate TOCs that operate out of the station - GWR, SWR^» (South Western Railway - about), XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) and Elizabeth Line. If all these trains were branded the same, it would be a nightmare.

Trying to merge all the TOCs into one conglomerous super TOC would be a monumental headache. It's too much for one single management team, so keeping the separate TOCs, just under one ownership, is the logical solution. LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about), TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) & Northern are already nationalised, but they have all retained their separate identities and management structures. I could be wrong, but believe all others will simply follow suit.

[Bob_Blakey]

.....There was going to be one overall colour scheme for the trains too.

And so there still should be when / if GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) starts operations. Making the railways better value for passengers / taxpayers means not spending money unnecessarily and the purchase of one appropriate brand/colour of paint is bound to be a cheaper option. The different TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) branding can be applied using vinyls.

I don't accept that, given the predominantly high quality of station PIS^▸ (Passenger Information System) displays and PA^▸ (Public Address) systems, passengers would not be able to board the correct service.

For the future it would be a good idea for all rolling stock to have digital display screens on the coach exteriors next to the doors, like the IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) & Voyagers, but with scrolling 'calling point' displays.