Nationalisation - Is it the best way forward?

[whole diary]

[RailCornwall]

Not wishing to drag this into a political discussion but there are some of us who are passionate European Union supporters. Think of the millions of inward investment (Falmouth line upgrade being just one example) that wouldn't have occurred. The EU^» (European Union - about) costs the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) next to nothing in real terms, when looked at in the whole (less than Surrey CC actually). The fallacies around astound me. I regard the EU as a safety net too, not letting Westminster get away with things. I don't want a Norway situation for the UK (comments on PMs please not in thread)

Back to Rail in the UK ....

I want to see the whole system given longer franchises, with the reclassification of services in England (and cross borders) into Inter City and regional.

No IC^▸ (Inter City) franchisee would be permitted to operate local services. I'd imagine around 6 IC franchises, out of Paddington, Euston, Kings Cross, Liverpool Street and Waterloo and Cross Country. Future HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) services would be run as separate franchises.

Wales and Scotland would manage their own networks apart from the IC services which would come under the above regime.

Regional Franchises would cover commuter and local services elsewhere, which would include the possibility of local authorities clubbing together to compete to run local franchises in their respective areas.

The Network would continue to be run by Network Rail except for services which were run exclusively and logically on RF lines where the maintenance of the infrastructure could pass to the RF. Signalling would be operated by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) throughout though. (Devon and Cornwall would see St Ives, Falmouth, Looe, Gunnislake, Barnstaple and Exmouth as candidates for infrastructure management.) Newquay and Paignton would remain with NR as IC services run on them. I'd give the possibility of a Stock Exchange listed NR another go too.
 
ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) would continue to operate but I would hope that with longer franchises that the Franchise holder would actually own their own stock and be able to operate a secondary market so as the reliance on them would reduce.

Freight operations would be operated as now but with free paths made available off peak to drive overnight freight.

Open Access would be encouraged over IC lines with RF operators encouraged to compete over some IC lines experimentally. Some IC weekend services could be operated 'out of region' by other IC operators (think NEXC operating a weekend service between Bristol and Paddington) where surpluses and deficits are shown.

With due apologies to some working in the industry I do not want to see the potential of the bad 1980's of a union stranglehold over the network ever again.

 

[Btline]

Think of the millions of inward investment (Falmouth line upgrade being just one example) that wouldn't have occurred. The EU^» (European Union - about) costs the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) next to nothing in real terms, when looked at in the whole (less than Surrey CC actually). The fallacies around astound me. I regard the EU as a safety net too, not letting Westminster get away with things.

Sorry, but I think that's rubbish.

Any "investment" from the EU is only our money coming back! We'd have more capital for investment if we were not paying ^106,000 a minute (latest calculation) to Brussels. You call the EU a safety net, when actually it is red tape! It creates bureaucracy and affects our lives

[willc]

Well we're quite good at homegrown bureaucracy actually - often being by far the most enthusiastic enforcers of EU^» (European Union - about) policies - and if you think the Treasury would be spending the money on things like the Falmouth branch, were we not in the EU, dream on.

[onthecushions]

As the Philosophers would say, "It depends what you mean by Nationalisation...."

A BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) Board (BRB^‡(resolve)), run (down) by Dft, used to balance public expenditure capital savings and to limit railway use in favour of roads......, well, no,.... although it was cheaper, technically competent and performed better (for the money spent) than the present, albeit improving, mess.

A BR plc, as a Chartered Company, with a public golden share and a technically competent Board, tasked with running IC^▸ (Inter City), NSE^▸ (Network South East), RR and Freight Sectors to optimum levels with state funding dependent on delivery, with  a required ROCE (return on Capital Employed) would work. The company should have the choice as to what was purchased privately and how. My guess is that (like similar operations) it would do its light and medium work in-house but would contract out specific tasks (as BRB did). Franchised TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s  could still work but as Service Contractors not revenue risk bearers. This would use the TOC's for what they do best, organise and run services, not cope with recessions.This is why Merseyrail works so well. Marketing should be on a Sector basis, so FGW^▸ (First Great Western), VWC and ?EC would appear a single simple IC entity again. NSE is already peeping above the parapet with the ON branding.

The essence of quality is a single mind both resourced and held accountable for a task, i.e point enablement and point accountability.

Dream on....

OTC

[TerminalJunkie]

We'd have more capital for investment if we were not paying ^106,000 a minute (latest calculation) to Brussels.

Is there a source for that, or did you make it up?

[Btline]

Calculation by Gerard Batten MEP^▸ (Member of European Parliament).

[inspector_blakey]

Would that be the same Gerald Batten MEP^▸ (Member of European Parliament) who is described on his website as a "founder member" of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) independence party, by any chance? So we can expect his calculations to be entirely unbiased. Just because someone who has an agenda (putting it mildly) has cooked up a number doesn't mean that it's correct.

Equally, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that his calculation is correct, that number is utterly meaningless unless it's given some context. Just to pluck a couple of examples out of the air, what is the cost to the UK of central government/local government/the Welsh Assembly by the same methodology? How does that relate to the supposed cost of the EU^» (European Union - about)?

[TerminalJunkie]

Gerard Batten was a founder member of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Independence Party

Ahh.

[vacman]

My view is that we should have larger regional franchises that are at least 20 years, by having IC^▸ (Inter City) and regional/NSE^▸ (Network South East) all under one franchise then the profitable routes would subsidise the un-profitable routes, therefore no or very little public subsidy.
The TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s should be set a minimum service level which should include capacity spec and be given more freedom to get on and run their business BUT also be given all the risks, for instances where capaicty and performence become sacrificed to save money etc then the TOC's should be fined heavily and if the same issue re-occurs 3 times then the franchise should be removed (3 strikes and out), I also believe that the successful bidder for any franchise should also pay a "Deposit" type payment up front to the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) so that if they decide to do an NX then they lose it when they walk away.

There would be no premiums or subsidies for any franchise but certain routes could be subsidised on an individual basis, maybe a percentage of profit could be taken by the DFT.

The infrastructure would still be owned by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) but with nearly all work taken in house so no expensive contractors.

[Zoe]

My view is that we should have larger regional franchises that are at least 20 years, by having IC^▸ (Inter City) and regional/NSE^▸ (Network South East) all under one franchise then the profitable routes would subsidise the un-profitable routes, therefore no or very little public subsidy.

Would that really be the case though?  A company may prefer to pay more of it's profits to shareholders rather than use them as subsidy for un-profitable routes.

[Btline]

That's how BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) worked. IC^▸ (Inter City) made profits, which were used to subsidise the loss making London commuter services, and some rural branch lines.

[Zoe]

That's how BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) worked. IC^▸ (Inter City) made profits, which were used to subsidise the loss making London commuter services, and some rural branch lines.

BR was owned by the government and didn't have shareholders to pay.

[Electric train]

It did, it had one a very greedy one and went by the name of HM Government at the slightest hint of a BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) profit the Government would say thank you very much BRB^‡(resolve) oh and now here is lest funding so no insentive for the BRB to even think about making a profit

[moonrakerz]

If nationalisation means that everything will be the same colour - I'll vote for that.
Have just seen a train leaving Warminster, 4 coaches; front two (158) in FGW^▸ (First Great Western) blue/pink, rear two (150) in Arriva turquoise/cream - Yuk !

[grahame]

If nationalisation means that everything will be the same colour - I'll vote for that.

I don't think it does.   I was brought up in the late '60s with green trains.  They started getting yellow ends and turning blue and when most of them were blue they started going blue and cream.  I think the repaints were less frequent (so there wasn't as much of my fare going on re-liverying), but even in those days it seemed that just as the fleet was starting to look nice and uniform, it changed!

Apart from the Arriva units, the loco hauled, and the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) unit, aren't FGW^▸ (First Great Western) now more or less all in the same colour scheme?