|
|
Post by AndrewPSSP on Mar 25, 2017 20:07:54 GMT
Hello, being new to this forum I don't know if this is the right place to post this. But...
Being a regular Southern and Southeastern commuter to get to school, I am usually late to get there because of the current problems with the trade unions.
I overheard my friend's father saying that when the mainline network was nationalised, there were less delays, more trains and better customer service which led me to think: if the railways were renationalised into British Rail and its sectors, i.e. Network SouthEast would the quality be better, or is it just wishful thinking?
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Mar 25, 2017 20:20:44 GMT
It wouldn't become any better by merit of being nationalised, no. It'd still be the same trains, same timetable, same infrastructure, etc. Just a different paint scheme and different fare systems. However, you could argue that a government that nationalised rail would be one that also invested in rail - which would bring improvements - but that is something that could be done with the privatised system if so wished.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 25, 2017 20:45:39 GMT
The are more trains running today than under British Rail.
The problems on Southern are caused by the government effectively deciding how the operations are to be run.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480 
|
Post by londoner on Mar 25, 2017 23:46:20 GMT
I believe how much a franchisee is willing to spend on improving infrastructure depends on the length of the contract. Chiltern were, I think, given a long term contract, allowing them to plan out long-term infrastructure improvements more easily, which may not have been possible for other franchisees
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 26, 2017 1:01:09 GMT
Hello, being new to this forum I don't know if this is the right place to post this. But... Being a regular Southern and Southeastern commuter to get to school, I am usually late to get there because of the current problems with the trade unions. I overheard my friend's father saying that when the mainline network was nationalised, there were less delays, more trains and better customer service which led me to think: if the railways were renationalised into British Rail and its sectors, i.e. Network SouthEast would the quality be better, or is it just wishful thinking? Honest answer - it's almost impossible to say as so much has changed since BR's days. If someone wanted to renationalise the rail network there are many, many issues that would need attention. I think some people have a view that a modern day "BR" would instantly lead to lower fares, thousands of new trains appearing in a matter of months and the abolition of delays. It doesn't work like that because railways are hard things to run well and to modernise effectively. BR had many decent attributes given the parlous funding levels it faced in the 80s but it had made many mistakes over several decades compounded by political interference. One key issue in a "new" BR would be keeping any central "bureaucracy" as small as possible while ensuring the operational and engineering departments were efficiently run and kept costs under control. If you could maintain efficiency, keep passenger growth and fund investment sensibly with coherent planning then it might be worth doing. There are risks, though, that a centralised state controlled BR would lose some of the commercial acumen that *some* TOCs display and passengers might not like to see that happen if they lost out financially (loss of cheap advance fares) or service quality fell. The TOCs you quote are, of course, London commuter TOCs and those services will *always* be under strain at peak times. They were under BR and the only difference now is that even more people are trying to crush onto trains. There is probably never going to be an ideal and "perfect" commuter railway in London and the media and some politicians keep stoking a false prospectus of a seat for everyone and perfectly reliable services. You might be able to ratchet up the reliability with new trains and better infrastructure but that will just pull in more people so no chance of a seat. As already said some of the issues on South Eastern (a poorly specced, dull franchise) and Southern (being used to crush the TUs) can be directly traced to the DfT and who would a new BR be ultimately accountable to? Oh yes, the DfT. Be careful what you wish for if you want a wholly nationalised system. IMO there are no easy answers but there are significant risks if people go "dabbling" with the structure of the industry with no coherent view of what the end result should be.  |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 26, 2017 1:28:54 GMT
I believe how much a franchisee is willing to spend on improving infrastructure depends on the length of the contract. Chiltern were, I think, given a long term contract, allowing them to plan out long-term infrastructure improvements more easily, which may not have been possible for other franchisees Network Rail owns the infrastructure not Chiltern. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 26, 2017 1:33:30 GMT
It wouldn't become any better by merit of being nationalised, no. It'd still be the same trains, same timetable, same infrastructure, etc. Just a different paint scheme and different fare systems. However, you could argue that a government that nationalised rail would be one that also invested in rail - which would bring improvements - but that is something that could be done with the privatised system if so wished. What the railways need is reintegration, with a single management structure controlling the service (both passengers and freight). the rolling stock and the infrastructure rather than the fragmentation into multiple units with their armies of lawyers and accountants arguing over who owes how much to whom. Since the collapse of Rail Track there is little private sector interest in managing the infrastructure (without even bigger taxpayer funded subsidy) so the only effective way to reintegrate the railways would be through nationalisation. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Mar 26, 2017 8:28:00 GMT
What the railways need is reintegration, with a single management structure controlling the service (both passengers and freight). the rolling stock and the infrastructure rather than the fragmentation into multiple units with their armies of lawyers and accountants arguing over who owes how much to whom. Exactly this. From a non political point of view, the privatisation of the railways and British Telecom were done in exactly the wrong way. If you wanted to privatise the railways, it would have been far better to use the model that was used for BT, whereby you would privatise entire railways (admittedly somewhat problematic in London if you split the railways into regions). Telecoms, on the other hand would have benefited from using the railways model so you would have the local loop (what is now Openreach) as one independent company. Then any number of companies for equipment and trunk routing, and any number of other companies for consolidation (Bringing together elements for the equipment and infrastructure companies and billing the consumer.) As it is, we have the worst of all possible worlds. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Mar 26, 2017 8:44:42 GMT
Noted a TV advert the other day for catching the train in general, which used the multicoloured version of the old BR logo. Can't find a video of it yet, but I'll keep looking.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 26, 2017 8:47:37 GMT
IMO there are no easy answers but there are significant risks if people go "dabbling" with the structure of the industry with no coherent view of what the end result should be. I sincerely hope you are not accusing the DfT of having a coherent view of what the end result should be... |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 26, 2017 9:01:03 GMT
TRT - Britain Runs on Rail
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Mar 26, 2017 9:06:06 GMT
That's the one. Thanks!
The double headed arrow is still used by the Rail Delivery Group, so it it they, presumably, who commissioned this advert. A previously unseen organisation, one wonders if they are increasing their visibility as a sort of demonstration of faux re-nationalisation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Mar 26, 2017 9:16:29 GMT
It wouldn't become any better by merit of being nationalised, no. It'd still be the same trains, same timetable, same infrastructure, etc. Just a different paint scheme and different fare systems. However, you could argue that a government that nationalised rail would be one that also invested in rail - which would bring improvements - but that is something that could be done with the privatised system if so wished. What the railways need is reintegration, with a single management structure controlling the service (both passengers and freight). the rolling stock and the infrastructure rather than the fragmentation into multiple units with their armies of lawyers and accountants arguing over who owes how much to whom. Since the collapse of Rail Track there is little private sector interest in managing the infrastructure (without even bigger taxpayer funded subsidy) so the only effective way to reintegrate the railways would be through nationalisation. But the trouble is the same people would be running the railways, just under one banner. The way the individual "sections" of a new BR would be organised would probably lead to this sort of conflict so that they can keep their budgets intact. Reintegrating the railways would necessitate (at least initially) completely separate infrastructure and operations departments. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Mar 26, 2017 10:19:50 GMT
That's the one. Thanks! The double headed arrow is still used by the Rail Delivery Group, so it it they, presumably, who commissioned this advert. A previously unseen organisation, one wonders if they are increasing their visibility as a sort of demonstration of faux re-nationalisation? I'm old enough to remember when this logo was first used. One columnist can't remember who said: "Very apt, they don't know whether they're coming or going." I suppose to give some 'sound track(?)' to the add we have 'clickety-click' throughout, when most rails these days are continuously welded |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 26, 2017 10:39:32 GMT
That's the one. Thanks! The double headed arrow is still used by the Rail Delivery Group, so it it they, presumably, who commissioned this advert. A previously unseen organisation, one wonders if they are increasing their visibility as a sort of demonstration of faux re-nationalisation? Previously ATOC (Association of Train Operating Companies) but with added input from the Freight companies, I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 26, 2017 10:57:08 GMT
IMO there are no easy answers but there are significant risks if people go "dabbling" with the structure of the industry with no coherent view of what the end result should be. I sincerely hope you are not accusing the DfT of having a coherent view of what the end result should be... Of course not. I felt that Patrick McLoughlin, previous SoS, was a decent enough minister who seemed to like his job and who was not overly partisan. He did, though, recognise the political risks of not doing something about the reletting of franchises in Northern England hence the decision to order new DMUs and to get some electrification under way. He also didn't stand in the way of TfL getting more devolved services. I was genuinely disappointed when he moved out of the department. Under Grayling I fear we will see a lot of "dabbling" which will be poorly considered and not thought through. The inevitable mess will, of course, not arrive while Grayling is still at the DfT. Some other poor soul will have the job of sweeping up the mess and the taxpayer will cover the costs. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 26, 2017 11:05:45 GMT
That's the one. Thanks! The double headed arrow is still used by the Rail Delivery Group, so it it they, presumably, who commissioned this advert. A previously unseen organisation, one wonders if they are increasing their visibility as a sort of demonstration of faux re-nationalisation? It's really just an industry lobby group that has a number of pan industry responsibilities tacked on (such as Rail Settlement Plan, Staff Travel and others). It was the former ATOC but, as stated already, added Freight and I believe Network Rail (despite it being a part of government). They're trying to persuade people there is some sort of "guiding mind" when RDG is nothing of the sort because each TOC / FOC is answerable to their shareholders and no one else (when push comes to shove). Passengers are a long way down the list and as for the presumed "ownership" of the "rail modernisation programme" I've never come across anything so laughable. If it belongs to anyone it's the DfT and then farepayers as they're the folk who are funding it. There's negligible risk with the private sector and they're not raising money without a high level of certainty that they'll get a pack back / it's funded within the franchise. I can't actually watch that advert without feeling deeply cynical about the thing. I have more time for those nauseating Virgin Trains adverts and they're bleepin' annoying.   |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 26, 2017 11:14:40 GMT
What the railways need is reintegration, with a single management structure controlling the service (both passengers and freight). the rolling stock and the infrastructure rather than the fragmentation into multiple units with their armies of lawyers and accountants arguing over who owes how much to whom. Since the collapse of Rail Track there is little private sector interest in managing the infrastructure (without even bigger taxpayer funded subsidy) so the only effective way to reintegrate the railways would be through nationalisation. But the trouble is the same people would be running the railways, just under one banner. The way the individual "sections" of a new BR would be organised would probably lead to this sort of conflict so that they can keep their budgets intact. Reintegrating the railways would necessitate (at least initially) completely separate infrastructure and operations departments. The whole point of reintegration is to have everything under a single management structure, you wouldn't have track access charges with the operator paying the infrastructure manager, you wouldn't have British Rail asking itself for compensation because a faulty train or a signal failure caused a delay and you wouldn't have the ridiculous situation where the Office of Rail & Road fines Network Rail for late engineering work; the taxpayer paying the taxpayer. Sadly it would mean that a fair number of the civil servants, consultants, executives, accountants and lawyers that have flourished under privatisation would no longer be required. Tragic....... |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Mar 26, 2017 11:29:28 GMT
I can't actually watch that advert without feeling deeply cynical about the thing. I have more time for those nauseating Virgin Trains adverts and they're bleepin' annoying. I have to admit, I shouted at the TV when I saw it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 13:13:54 GMT
Removing the stupid ban of UK companies bidding to operate franchises will be a wise move, the ban never made sense, as it has only led to capital flight out of the UK. (Think of the dividends and profit sharing being paid abroad for the last twenty years or so).
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Mar 26, 2017 14:44:00 GMT
Removing the stupid ban of UK companies bidding to operate franchises will be a wise move, the ban never made sense, as it has only led to capital flight out of the UK. (Think of the dividends and profit sharing being paid abroad for the last twenty years or so). What ban? The only 'ban' was on British Rail bidding for franchises as the privatisation process got going. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Mar 26, 2017 19:04:15 GMT
Removing the stupid ban of UK companies bidding to operate franchises will be a wise move.... What ban is this? |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 26, 2017 19:41:38 GMT
Removing the stupid ban of UK companies bidding to operate franchises will be a wise move. Until Scotland gets independence, both bidders for the SW franchise are British! |
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Mar 26, 2017 20:38:31 GMT
Re-nationalisation will not happen unless you get a Labour government and that looks less and less likely for the next 5-10 years minimum. If the railways were ever renationalised they would be at the total mercy of the unscrupulous Treasury (not to mention the even more unscrupulous Trades Unions) who would drain as much money out as possible - its what happened in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, in fact right up to privatisation. Let's also not forget that the Labour Party campaigned against Beeching then in 1964-5 once in office, changed their minds, implemented almost 90% of its recommendations and a lot more besides. Nationalisation in 1948 was only intended as a stop-gap whilst the government scaled down the industry to something more manageable but more importantly less financially draining. It didn't work hence Beeching and the rest really is history.
Chiltern was able to invest because it got a 21-year franchise from the SRA, so it borrowed to invest in infrastructure, e.g., evergreen; but once built the infrastructure was in effect 'sold' to NR and added to the regulatory asset base. This won't happen again as franchises are unlikely to ever be more than 8-10 years which is too short to achieve a suitable payback period for investment.
Privatisation WAS botched. Thats also history.
UK companies CAN and do bid.
The bigger issue is what comes next given that the current SofS knows nothing about Transport and is only interested in a) cutting costs (for political kudos) and b) placating the roads lobby.
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Mar 26, 2017 20:57:13 GMT
Re-nationalisation will not happen unless you get a Labour government and that looks less and less likely for the next 5-10 years minimum. If the railways were ever renationalised they would be at the total mercy of the unscrupulous Treasury (not to mention the even more unscrupulous Trades Unions) who would drain as much money out as possible - its what happened in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, in fact right up to privatisation. Let's also not forget that the Labour Party campaigned against Beeching then in 1964-5 once in office, changed their minds, implemented almost 90% of its recommendations and a lot more besides. Nationalisation in 1948 was only intended as a stop-gap whilst the government scaled down the industry to something more manageable but more importantly less financially draining. It didn't work hence Beeching and the rest really is history. Chiltern was able to invest because it got a 21-year franchise from the SRA, so it borrowed to invest in infrastructure, e.g., evergreen; but once built the infrastructure was in effect 'sold' to NR and added to the regulatory asset base. This won't happen again as franchises are unlikely to ever be more than 8-10 years which is too short to achieve a suitable payback period for investment. Privatisation WAS botched. Thats also history. UK companies CAN and do bid. The bigger issue is what comes next given that the current SofS knows nothing about Transport and is only interested in a) cutting costs (for political kudos) and b) placating the roads lobby. |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Mar 26, 2017 22:08:45 GMT
It's nearly 70 years since nationalisation & nearly 25 years since privatisation, so the world's turned a few times since! Which means the starting point for redoing it is going to be radically different from 1948.
For a start, in 1948, there were just 2.4 million cars in the UK. Last year, that was up to 25.8 million.
We've lost thousands of miles of railway since 1948, and two London Termini which ain't been replaced.
We've extended commuting trains in length from 6-8 to 8-10 & even 12-coaches & still they are overcrowded & you have to question just how anybody can get more trains running on the commuter lines.
So, that's just for starters & remember if you want renationalisation, you need to think about those sorts of things and how you can overcome them, plus whether you are bothered about it all making a profit or not.
None of which is designed to put anybody off supporting the idea, just to point out it is likely to be an exceedingly difficult challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 27, 2017 6:32:41 GMT
We've lost ..............two London Termini which ain't been replaced. Broad Street is one, but what is the other? Whilst the railway is radically different from 1948, it is not so different from 1994 (or even 1971, if you want to choose equal timeframes). And the infrastructure has already been re-nationalised. Reversing the franchising process would be simply a matter of taking each one back in-house as they expire. It wouldn't even require legislation, as the Railways Act already allows for this. Section 26ZA of the Railways Act 1993, as subsequently amended: "if ...........the appropriate franchising authority receives a tender but considers that the services would be provided more economically and efficiently if they were provided otherwise than under a franchise agreement.... the appropriate franchising authority may .....decide not to seek to secure the provision of the services under a franchise agreement." It is therefore always open to the franchising authority not to grant a franchise. But, as it never evaluates whether "services could be provided more economically and efficiently" by any arrangement other than franchise, it is failing to examine whether a franchise is the most economic way of providing the services. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Mar 27, 2017 7:31:39 GMT
That advert must be aimed at 'fifty-something' people.
Not just the old BR 'arrows of indecision', but the tired old two-tone horn and the clickety-clack all bring back the warm glow of the near-to-closure 'seventies.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Mar 27, 2017 7:40:13 GMT
We've lost ..............two London Termini which ain't been replaced. Broad Street is one, but what is the other? Sorry! I got sidetracked there. Holborn Viaduct is the other. |
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Mar 27, 2017 7:53:31 GMT
Everything will be ok. The Chinese have won the contract to run SW Trains.
|
|
