Nationalisation - Is it the best way forward?

[whole diary]

[matt473]

Considering the recent problems with National Express along with the complaints of poor investment in UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railways in rolling stock and electrification, the question of nationaisation has been coming up not only in many topics on many different railway forums but also in the media. The question I ask is nationalisation really the way forward as some people think and what would you have nationalised or run privately in the UK.

I feel complete nationaisation is not the solution to the current railways. Ensureing Network rail, leasing companies and maintenance facilities are nationalised should help to create a system where costs are reduced in maintenance due to lack of profit margins whilst we also rid ourselves of the current farce of leasing companies unwilling to buy stock to lease as it is not profitable. The FOCs^▸ (Freight Operating Company) should remain privately owned as some have been successful, however DBS^» (Deutsch Bahn Schenker - UK website) should be forced to handover closed maintenance depots to network rail who can then reopen some for all rail companies to use for a fee. This would enable new FOCs to start up possibly whilst also giving new Open Access operators access to maintenance facilities at reasonable prices.

Pasesenger services are difficult to work out if they should be run as franchises or as a nationalised network. Maybe the solution would be a nationalised network but working closely with Open Access operators with OA cherry picking routes to a degree but only if passengers were to benefit overall through the OA operator running the services instead of a nationalised railway.

This is just one idea I have on how to potentially solve some of the problems on the railways dealing with the years of underinvestment, a fragmented system along with dealing with some of the failures and positives of both the privatised and nationalised railways.

It would be nice to hear the views of others on the subject, be it from an occasional traveller to someone who has worked their whole life on the railways. It would also be nice if we could find out if some ideas suggested in the topic are realstic such as my idea for Network rail maintenance facilities avaialable for all to use for example. I hope this topic can be used to inform people on what can be a very interesting subject instead of what has the potential to be a topic that can cause heated debate so can we maintain respect for what other people post please.

(I'm sorry if this topic is in the wrong place or not needed. Please delete or move topic if needs be)

[Chris from Nailsea]

I hope this topic can be used to inform people on what can be a very interesting subject instead of what has the potential to be a topic that can cause heated debate so can we maintain respect for what other people post please.

(I'm sorry if this topic is in the wrong place or not needed. Please delete or move topic if needs be)

A couple of points from me, matt473 (albeit in reverse order!):

- Yes, this topic is in the right place, and indeed it may well prove to be 'needed' here!

- This forum's 'acceptable user policy', to which every member signifies their agreement when they join, should ensure that your request is met.

Thanks for raising such an interesting topic! 

[RailCornwall]

I think I've expressed my views before. No way back, it wouldn't be permitted anyway. I'll go into detail later.

[Btline]

This is what I would do:

Have 5 companies or regions: Great Western, London Midland, North Eastern, Eastern, Southern. Routes would be handed out to maximise competition. e.g. Chiltern route would be GW^▸ (Great Western); WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) would be LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise). e.g.2 GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) would be GW; WoEML^▸ (West of England Main Line.) would be SN, etc.

They would not only operate the trains, but also the infrastructure.

Franchises would be no less than 20 years - but they could still be stripped early a la Connex/NX etc.

Everything else would be nationalised, with uniform branding across the whole country like in Scotland currently. Basically - British Rail font for all signage, and a standard livery with colour differences for the regions. Hmm, Brown for GW, Purple for LM, Green for SN........

[willc]

Are you John Major in disguise? Because that's what he wanted to do before he was persuaded to carve it up into fragments instead.

[Tim]

This is what I would do:

Have 5 companies or regions: Great Western, London Midland, North Eastern, Eastern, Southern. Routes would be handed out to maximise competition. e.g. Chiltern route would be GW^▸ (Great Western); WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) would be LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise). e.g.2 GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) would be GW; WoEML^▸ (West of England Main Line.) would be SN, etc.

They would not only operate the trains, but also the infrastructure.

Franchises would be no less than 20 years - but they could still be stripped early a la Connex/NX etc.

Everything else would be nationalised, with uniform branding across the whole country like in Scotland currently. Basically - British Rail font for all signage, and a standard livery with colour differences for the regions. Hmm, Brown for GW, Purple for LM, Green for SN........

I prefer your model to the current situation, but a few points I would make are:

1) I don't think that we need another round of upheaval at the moment.  Any changes should be gradual and carefully thought out/tried out before being introduced nationwide.

2) There is no reason to assume that a one-size fits all policy is the way to go.  Certain self contained routes/networks (and Merseyrail is always suggested here. but there are plenty of others - the cornish branchlines, the S. Wales valley lines for example) could be re-vertically integrated and others kept with NR^» (Network Rail - home page).  I am sure it would be healtly for NR to loose its staus as monopoly suplier of infrastructure. 

3) the current franchise system is a mess.  All the profit passes to the private sector but hardly any of the risk.  The terms are too short to allow investment.  But longer terms will entail more risk for the franchisee and therefore a less good deal for the tax payer.  I think you either need to go complely private and sell off the routes or you need to have First and the likes running their trains on a contact basis only- like London buses)

4)The rolling stock leasing situation is a mess.  TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) should be allowed to buy their own stock outright and longer contracts would encourage this.

5) It may seem a small thing but the ticketing and fares system is in complete and utter disrepute.    The TOCs have demonstrated an inability to be fair, consistant or even logical on fares.  And some of the Competion rules and fare capping make it hard for them to be those things even if they wanted to.  Confusion and customer abuse (ie extortionate "reservation fees", ^1.60 for a cup of tea or ^20 for a days parking - all the kind of tricks Ryanair specialises in) is endemic.  Responsibility for setting all walk on fares must be removed from the TOCs and given to someone else (NR, ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here), PF^▸ (Penalty Fare), DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)? or perhaps local/regional authorities for local fares) who need to start from scratch and develop a far less complicated system with uniform rules on upgrades, penalties, buying on board, breaking journeys, compensation and peak time restrictions.  We currently have a system where huge amounts of public money are used to to pay for upgrades and them private companies set fares that discourage propper use of that infrastruction. (ie, WCML - ^8bn of taxpayers money spent to give Manchester a 20 minute "walk up" frequency to London,  then Virgin sets high walk up fares with loads of restructions at the same time as selling very cheap AP fares which mean that for many people, the only option is AP, which is fine, but way bother with a walk up frequency is most passengers are limited to travelling on a single train?).  On a smaller scale Bath is currently arguing over a new bus lane along the old midland railway line.  The plan has signifiant flaws and is not cheap (up to ^20m), but when you ask folk what improvement they would like to see to their buses or when you ask drivers what would tempt them out of their cars the reply is usually "cheaper bus fares".  But the council cannot set the fares nor can it use ^20m on subsidising fares (nor do they know if the fares First set are in any way reasonable - imformation on First's costs and margins is "commercially secret").  So their only real option (apart from going nothing) is to build this new bus road at a great cost and once it is build the buses will be run by a private firm (probably First which has a repuation in Bath for being very expensive) who will set their own fares.  So the Council can't even promise that the new buses will be cheap enough to attract the huge number of uses needed to justify teh costs and acually achieve the reduction in congestion promised.



[/quote]

[eightf48544]

My view is that Btline has the basis of the solution with the additons by Tim.

The essence of the railway is that it is a vertically integrated system and every line requires one fat controller who is totally reposible for everything that goes on between the boundary fences for the line they are responsible for.

It's funny that although we pioneered railways we don't seem to learn from history. They tried open access with the Stockton and Darlington in 1825 it was a disaster with fights and scuffles breaking out at passing loops. Good job it mostly horse worked and mostly freight. Thus when the First Intercity railway in the form of the Liverpool and Manchester opened in 1830 it was a completely intergrated company and eventually became part of one the then largest joint stock companies in the form of the LNW.   

I am not too bothered who provides the fat controller for each line that could be private or nationalised body, however it will require some firm direction regarding running powers for other companies to run services on other lines.

Therefore what I do think is required is a much stronger ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) to plan enhancements including a rolling programme of electrification and other capacity enhancements.

I also agree with Tim that fares need to be sorted out. I would suggest a national system of tariff unions for all local public transport fares. Probably hexagonal areas rather than annular like London and long distance fares set with slightly higher advanced fares say ^30 instead of ^20 and cheaper walk on fares. There was a suggestion on the board of three levels with trains colour coded as to what fare applies. That seems worth exploring.

[moonrakerz]

slightly higher advanced fares say ^30 instead of ^20 and cheaper walk on fares.

From ^20 to ^30 = 50% increase = slightly higher  = 

It is understandable for people who commute to perhaps feel a little hard done by when they see the level of some advance fares. But what are these fares actually for ? They are to get people who probably wouldn't travel by train at all, onto trains that would probably run empty. Not forgetting of course some reduction of overcrowding by shifting people from peak hour trains to off peak. They are not there purely to annoy someone paying a higher fare. "Normal" fares are not pitched at that level to subsidize the "advance" traveller.
People don't complain about the full price of a sandwich in Tesco when they sell them off at 50p at the end of the day - or do they ?

I use the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) to W'loo service from Warminster. When the train arrives it is not very busy, usually with about 20 people waiting here. I would hazard a guess and say that many are on cheap advance tickets. It arrives as 3 coaches, at W'loo it is 9, all pretty full ones.
The advance fare from Warminster is ^18 ret, if there are 50 people on the train (generous estimate) at this point with half on advance fares, a "slight" increase of ^10 brings in an extra ^250, say a similar number on the other "half" of the train from the West, that's ^500.
9 coaches at Waterloo fairly full, say 80%, = 450 passengers (based on SWT's figs for seats on a 159). ^500 divided by 450 doesn't give much of a "cheaper walk on fare": about ^1.10 off, that really is a "slight" reduction.
That relies on the very generous assumption that everyone on an advance ticket, especially if it's a couple, carries on using the train and doesn't decide to use the car after all.

Last week my wife and I went to Birmingham via Worcester, our single advance tickets to Worcester were ^2.95 (railcard) - a walk up passenger without a railcard would have paid ^23, if we couldn't have got that advance fare we would have driven.

If all advance fares were done away with, it could well have the opposite effect to what people might think - reduction in income could increase "normal" fares and reduce the number of services available.

[Electric train]

One of the utter calamities of the privatised railways which NR^» (Network Rail - home page) is slowly unpicking is the amount differing standards that all the various maintenance companies set up to carry out their works; there were something like 42,000 line standards at one time.

As a Nation we need the common infrastructure owner, maintainer and operator however NR needs to be kept on its toes to ensure to get its cost down

[John R]

But what are these fares actually for ? They are to get people who probably wouldn't travel by train at all, onto trains that would probably run empty. Not forgetting of course some reduction of overcrowding by shifting people from peak hour trains to off peak.

Though if that is the case dirt cheap advance fares would not be available on trains running in the rush hour, which they are (except for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services)).

[Zoe]

Are you John Major in disguise? Because that's what he wanted to do before he was persuaded to carve it up into fragments instead.

He wasn't able to due to an EU^» (European Union - about) directive requiring that track and trains be separated at least for accounts.

[Timmer]

He wasn't able to due to an EU^» (European Union - about) directive requiring that track and trains be separated at least for accounts.

There's a surprise. EU meddling had to be involved somewhere in all this.

[Btline]

It's about time we tell the EU^» (European Union - about) where to go. The only reason I would vote Tory is to stick two fingers up at Brussels. They have NO right to meddle in our affairs when we pay the amount we do. Of course, I support UKIP's proposal to enter into a trade agreement with the EU (like Switzerland) but end all political ties. The EU is the most corrupt "democracy" in the western world. They won't be happy until they've dragged the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to mirror a typical EU state, enforcing the Euro and total metrification on us.

[devon_metro]

It's about time we tell the EU^» (European Union - about) where to go. The only reason I would vote Tory is to stick two fingers up at Brussels. They have NO right to meddle in our affairs when we pay the amount we do. Of course, I support UKIP's proposal to enter into a trade agreement with the EU (like Switzerland) but end all political ties. The EU is the most corrupt "democracy" in the western world. They won't be happy until they've dragged the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to mirror a typical EU state, enforcing the Euro and total metrification on us.

For once, I agree 

[Zoe]

The only reason I would vote Tory is to stick two fingers up at Brussels.

I wouldn't be so certain you would get that result with Cameron.