Nationalisation

[scawsby steve]

Labour to re-nationalise the railways within 5 years.

Let's hope so.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I think it'll be an interesting one in future years. To make sure it's not a huge drain on public finances how is it going to be run?  Rail likely needs a fundamental change with people travelling less. Not an easy thing to get right.

[drfchound]

SKS will have a plan.

[SydneyRover]

I think it'll be an interesting one in future years. To make sure it's not a huge drain on public finances how is it going to be run?  Rail likely needs a fundamental change with people travelling less. Not an easy thing to get right.

Public transport should be subsidised, improved and expanded to get cars off the roads. The majority of road trips involve one person travelling in a vehicle designed to carry four and train systems are subsidised atm, pud

Some facts about cars from the RAC.

https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#:~:text=A7)%20In%20England%20in%202022,were%20parked%20in%20other%20places.

[drfchound]

That’s a great link Syd.
Some really interesting stuff.

[Herbert Anchovy]

You'll notice that Labour are pledging to nationalise "most" of the railways, not all. Re-nationalisation won't see us go back to the old style British Rail but instead we will move to the European model of railway ownership where private firms are used sparingly to provide services and must adhere to very strict controls around cost and service etc. There are a couple of completely private firms at the moment in the UK such as Lumo and Hull Trains that would probably be allowed to continue as they're self financed I believe and, from what I understand, offer a very good service, but the others will come back under public ownership.

This is absolutely the right approach and should be a serious vote winner for Labour. 

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I do agree Herbert that hybrid approach is quite sensible.  I don't know how they can bring it back in to public hands and prevent a risk of that costing and meeting public expectations.  They appear to also be saying ticket prices will be unchanged so will be interesting to see how they propose a benefit to the end consumer.

The stats in Sydney's link are interesting, but they're also difficult to overcome. Look at Doncaster as an example. There's no real way you'd ever see mass train travel to replace cars simply because there aren't many stations and many of them are not in the right places nor have the right services. That's not going to change any time soon.

[roverstillidie91]

We are governed by the super  rich do we really believe Labour will do this?

[SydneyRover]

We are governed by the super  rich do we really believe Labour will do this?

The tories have had 14+ years to think about it ............. and as the trope goes 'they're all the same'' so it's no

[roverstillidie91]

We are governed by the super  rich do we really believe Labour will do this?

The tories have had 14+ years to think about it ............. and as the trope goes 'they're all the same'' so it's no

It is unfortunate not enough people realize that Tories and Labour are the same.

As George Galloway says who is a divisive figure  however they are the same in the phrase he used.

Remember all the pledges he made only to renege on them which in theory was a scam to be elected Labour leader.

[Herbert Anchovy]

I do agree Herbert that hybrid approach is quite sensible.  I don't know how they can bring it back in to public hands and prevent a risk of that costing and meeting public expectations.  They appear to also be saying ticket prices will be unchanged so will be interesting to see how they propose a benefit to the end consumer.

The stats in Sydney's link are interesting, but they're also difficult to overcome. Look at Doncaster as an example. There's no real way you'd ever see mass train travel to replace cars simply because there aren't many stations and many of them are not in the right places nor have the right services. That's not going to change any time soon.
[/quote

I'd have been amazed if they'd said that ticket prices would come down, given the amount of rail infrastructure improvements required. I suspect that the benefit they'll propose will be around improved service and better value for money as opposed to cheaper travel costs.

[Herbert Anchovy]

We are governed by the super  rich do we really believe Labour will do this?

If they'd have stated that they were going for a full re-nationalisation of the trains, tracks and infrastructure then I wouldn't have believed. However, because they're proposing something that's already successfully in place across parts of Europe and is a model that works, I'm inclined to believe it will happen.

[roverstillidie91]

We are governed by the super  rich do we really believe Labour will do this?

If they'd have stated that they were going for a full re-nationalisation of the trains, tracks and infrastructure then I wouldn't have believed. However, because they're proposing something that's already successfully in place across parts of Europe and is a model that works, I'm inclined to believe it will happen.

Working on the railway myself I hope it does as it doesn't cost these companies money and they don't invest anything in the infrastructure that it serves.

I also believe that ALL of the national services should be brought back into public ownership where possible as private ownership has failed.

Look at water, energy etc

[ncRover]

We are governed by the super  rich do we really believe Labour will do this?

The tories have had 14+ years to think about it ............. and as the trope goes 'they're all the same'' so it's no

It is unfortunate not enough people realize that Tories and Labour are the same.

As George Galloway says who is a divisive figure  however they are the same in the phrase he used.

Remember all the pledges he made only to renege on them which in theory was a scam to be elected Labour leader.

Starmer announces a bread and butter left wing policy and you still think he’s a Tory?

[Sprotyrover]

I think you will find that the Government have been taking over most Rail operators and would control them all by 2030 in any case, so nothing new here really!

[SydneyRover]

''Following privatisation in 1993, British Rail – a publicly owned company responsible for running the railway – was divided into over 100 separate companies. The private sector became responsible for buying and leasing trains (rolling stock companies), running passenger and freight services (train operating companies and freight operating companies) and managing the infrastructure. The then Conservative Government’s privatisation of the railway in Great Britain was unprecedented. The Transport Select Committee at the time outlined that no other country with a comparable railway was even considering the degree of changes proposed within the Railways Bill.

Privatisation introduced greater private sector involvement and competition into the rail industry. Franchising, the commercial model by which private operators took over responsibility for running passenger services, coincided with a significant growth in passenger numbers. However, these reforms also introduced extra complexity'' .....................

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8961/

'British Rail was divided into 100 separate companies' ........... hmmm

[SydneyRover]

Of course the masters of the universe have a history of running the railways .......

''The Beeching cuts were a major series of route closures and service changes made as part of the restructuring of the nationalised railway system in Great Britain in the 1960s. They are named for Richard Beeching, then-chair of the British Railways Board and the author of two reports – The Reshaping of British Railways (1963) and The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes (1965) – that outlined the necessity[citation needed] of improving the efficiency of the railways and the plan for achieving this through restructuring.

The first report identified 2,363 stations and 5,000 miles (8,000 km) of railway line for closure, amounting to 55% of stations, 30% of route miles, and the loss of 67,700 British Rail jobs,[1] with an objective of stemming the large losses being incurred during a period of increasing competition from road transport and reducing the rail subsidies necessary to keep the network running. The second report identified a small number of major routes for significant investment. Such was the scale of these cuts that the programme came to be colloquially referred to as the Beeching Axe, though the 1963 report also recommended some less well-publicised changes; including a switch to the now-standard practice of containerisation for rail freight, and the replacement of some services with integrated bus services linked to the remaining railheads.

The result

''By 1968, the railways had not been restored to profitability and Beeching's approach appeared to many to have failed. It has been suggested that by closing almost a third of the network Beeching achieved a saving of just £30 million, whilst overall losses were running in excess of £100 million per year.[8][page needed] However, the precise savings from closures are impossible to calculate.[35][page needed] The Ministry of Transport subsequently estimated that rail operating costs had been cut by over £100 million in the wake of the Beeching Report but that much of this had been swallowed up by increased wages. Some of the branches closed acted as feeders to the main lines, and that feeder traffic was lost when the branches closed; the financial significance of this is debatable, for over 90% of the railways' 1960 traffic was carried on lines which remained open ten years later.[40][page needed]

Whatever the figures, towards the end of the 1960s it became increasingly clear that rail closures were not bringing the rail system out of deficit and were unlikely ever to do so.[6][page needed] Transport minister Barbara Castle decided that some rail services, which could not pay their way but had a valuable social role, should be subsidised. Legislation allowing this was introduced in the Transport Act 1968. Section 39 made provision for a subsidy to be paid by the Treasury for a three-year period. This was later repealed in the Railways Act 1974. Whether these subsidies affected the size of the network is questionable: the criteria for reprieving loss-making lines had not altered, merely the way their costs appeared in the railways accounts—previously their contribution to the railways' overall loss was hidden in the total deficit''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts#Critical_analysis

[danumdon]

If privatisation of the rail network did anything it was certainly to see all staff employed in the industry achieve very good remuneration for their labours.

Some did better than others with market forces driving up competition and demand for ceratin competencies.

If it had remained in public control then the vast majority of staff would have had to continue to work long hours and a great deal of overtime to achieve what would be described as a decent wage.

Today, average working hours are 35hrs per week with far superior basic wages.

So when people who work in the industry talk about wishing they would renationalise they need to bare that in mind.

All staff who worked previously for private employers who were then TUPE'd back into NWR (government run)have over time had their pay realigned with NWR norms, this has resulted in many loosing a great deal of money.

[wilts rover]

You'll notice that Labour are pledging to nationalise "most" of the railways, not all. Re-nationalisation won't see us go back to the old style British Rail but instead we will move to the European model of railway ownership where private firms are used sparingly to provide services and must adhere to very strict controls around cost and service etc. There are a couple of completely private firms at the moment in the UK such as Lumo and Hull Trains that would probably be allowed to continue as they're self financed I believe and, from what I understand, offer a very good service, but the others will come back under public ownership.

This is absolutely the right approach and should be a serious vote winner for Labour. 

I presume also Eurotunnel wont be taken over as that is a joint UK/French company.

So what will happen to the HS2 line? Will Eurotunnel be allowed to extend their service? Or will Great British Railways trains run on Eurotunnels tracks?

[Glyn_Wigley]

I think it'll be an interesting one in future years. To make sure it's not a huge drain on public finances how is it going to be run?  Rail likely needs a fundamental change with people travelling less. Not an easy thing to get right.

Isn't the £25billion pa the government currently subsidise the railways already a huge drain on public finances? At least when privatised that money won't be siphoned off into shareholders pockets instead of actually being spent on the rail service.

[Herbert Anchovy]

You'll notice that Labour are pledging to nationalise "most" of the railways, not all. Re-nationalisation won't see us go back to the old style British Rail but instead we will move to the European model of railway ownership where private firms are used sparingly to provide services and must adhere to very strict controls around cost and service etc. There are a couple of completely private firms at the moment in the UK such as Lumo and Hull Trains that would probably be allowed to continue as they're self financed I believe and, from what I understand, offer a very good service, but the others will come back under public ownership.

This is absolutely the right approach and should be a serious vote winner for Labour. 

I presume also Eurotunnel wont be taken over as that is a joint UK/French company.

So what will happen to the HS2 line? Will Eurotunnel be allowed to extend their service? Or will Great British Railways trains run on Eurotunnels tracks?

I think you’re probably right about Eurotunnel and they won’t be in Labour’s sights. I’d imagine it’d be far too complicated to bring any of that under national ownership. I’m not sure about HS2 though. The original premise way, way back was that there’d be a seamless line between LGV Nord and HS2. That’ll probably still happen in some way, but much less than originally intended. Nothing to do with rail nationalisation though.

[ncRover]

In terms of rail infrastructure, Network Rail was re-nationalised in 2002. Most delays in my experience are signalling issues.

In terms of the day to day running of trains, passenger numbers have risen a lot since privatisation in 1997/98. As this graph shows.

From privatisation until 2019-20, the number of rail journeys had increased by 128%. The link for the Office for rail and road won't work for that but here is The Guardian reporting the trend back in 2015.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/14/train-journey-numbers-double-since-privatisation-railways-uk-report#:~:text=Number%20of%20UK%20train%20journeys%20has%20doubled%20since%201997%2C%20report%20finds,-This%20article%20is&text=The%20number%20of%20train%20journeys,compared%20with%20801m%20in%201997.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I thought it was interesting point made yesterday when they were discussing this on 5live.  Supposedly each journey makes the operators 12p in profit.  That really surprised me, but it shows just how difficult it is to make rail travel work.

I do think pricing is an issue. I looked for Gillingham tomorrow. £100+ each was the cheapest I could do. It's just not viable compared to a car journey.

[SydneyRover]

That's part of the problem pud, if drivers had to pay the cost to the environment when buying fossil fuel it would be a whole different story.

[ncRover]

Erm… car tax and ULEZ?

How would making car travel more expensive make rail travel cheaper?

[SydneyRover]

Erm… car tax?

How would making car travel more expensive make rail travel cheaper?

Making users of fossil fuels pay the full cost to the environment would not make rail travel cheaper it would make car travel a whole lot more expensive and therefore rail would be comparatively cheaper.

Here's some older US figures

https://reneweconomy.com.au/2000-a-year-the-environmental-cost-of-your-petrol-car-30821/

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

That's part of the problem pud, if drivers had to pay the cost to the environment when buying fossil fuel it would be a whole different story.

I have 2 EV's. Yes one is hybrid so does use petrol on long journeys but not on short and a renewable energy tariff.  So it doesn't work for that, which most in future will switch to.

[SydneyRover]

Which is why the change over has to happen, but if every family in the country had two cars regardless how they were powered there would not be room on the roads.

Japan is a leader on this front as there is very limited street parking available. Cost of private cars don't really add up when you take into consideration the amount of time a very expensive lump of technology just sits there doing nothing except devaluing.

Confession time, I do own an ice car.

[albie]

The opening post is over egging the offer.
Labour are not renationalising the rail industry.

To do that they would need to remove the Rolling stock leasing companies, who are a channel for public money to relocate in tax havens.
You can hear Eddie Dempsey from the RMT explain it here;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1543275879689863170/pu/vid/1096x696/H4NIW3K-8l0pAojq.mp4?tag=12

Labour are taking a small step in the right direction, but it is simply a continuation of the current trend as underperforming train operating companies leave the field.

[Sprotyrover]

The opening post is over egging the offer.
Labour are not renationalising the rail industry.

To do that they would need to remove the Rolling stock leasing companies, who are a channel for public money to relocate in tax havens.
You can hear Eddie Dempsey from the RMT explain it here;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1543275879689863170/pu/vid/1096x696/H4NIW3K-8l0pAojq.mp4?tag=12

Labour are taking a small step in the right direction, but it is simply a continuation of the current trend as underperforming train operating companies leave the field.

As I said earlier it’s been gradually happening for at least 5/6 years now.