| Hallelujah! on 08:06 - Apr 25 with 1562 views | StokieBlue |
Unfortunately it's irrelevant unless this bit is changed:
Ms Haigh said the guarantee would not necessarily mean cheaper prices but that the system would be "more transparent and clearer".
We need a cheap, nationalised rail service in order to get people to use it ahead of alternative and more carbon intensive methods of transport.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
|  |
| Hallelujah! on 08:10 - Apr 25 with 1525 views | homer_123 |
| Hallelujah! on 08:06 - Apr 25 by StokieBlue |
Unfortunately it's irrelevant unless this bit is changed:
Ms Haigh said the guarantee would not necessarily mean cheaper prices but that the system would be "more transparent and clearer".
We need a cheap, nationalised rail service in order to get people to use it ahead of alternative and more carbon intensive methods of transport.
SB |
Arguably a step in the right direction though?
Will they make the same pledge and deliver on utilities as well? |  |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 08:13 - Apr 25 with 1514 views | StokieBlue |
| Hallelujah! on 08:10 - Apr 25 by homer_123 |
Arguably a step in the right direction though?
Will they make the same pledge and deliver on utilities as well? |
Sure, however they have said it won't likely impact prices so how does it help and where are all the profits which currently go to shareholders going? Why aren't those profits directly applied to reducing fares?
It's a half-measure.
SB [Post edited 25 Apr 8:19]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 08:16 - Apr 25 with 1500 views | NthQldITFC |
| Hallelujah! on 08:06 - Apr 25 by StokieBlue |
Unfortunately it's irrelevant unless this bit is changed:
Ms Haigh said the guarantee would not necessarily mean cheaper prices but that the system would be "more transparent and clearer".
We need a cheap, nationalised rail service in order to get people to use it ahead of alternative and more carbon intensive methods of transport.
SB |
A step in the right direction though. More transparency and clarity from top to bottom should bring efficiency and cheapness given a bit of time to reinvest the money which otherwise would have been extracted by 'investors'. |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 08:30 - Apr 25 with 1425 views | blueasfook |
The investment needs to be in modernisation of the railway. It is operating often on infrastructure that is 100+ years old. Also can a govt be trusted to run a train project after the HS2 disaster? |  |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 08:43 - Apr 25 with 1383 views | Lord_Lucan |
I've always been pretty much in favour of rail nationalisation as one of the governments most important jobs is to get the public to work on time at a reasonable price.
Unfortunately I remember when they were nationalised and it was absolutely terrible - as you will agree.
Also, just because they are nationalised (if and when) there is absolutely no guarantee that the service will be better or cheaper. Governments need money!
Proof is in the pudding I suppose.
It's part nationalised now anyway. |  |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 08:46 - Apr 25 with 1364 views | jayessess |
| Hallelujah! on 08:10 - Apr 25 by homer_123 |
Arguably a step in the right direction though?
Will they make the same pledge and deliver on utilities as well? |
Definitely a step in the right direction.
Amongst all the privatisations since the 1980s it's hard to make the case that any of them worked particularly brilliantly. British Telecom is probably the success story, but even then I think it's hard to unpick how much of that can be attributed to the way telecommunications technology leapt forward rather than privatisation per se.
No guarantees that re-nationalisation flips a switch and everything suddenly improves - success depends on good long-term governance (and public investment!) which has been short supply in Britain for a very long time. But at least decisions in a nationalised utilities are going to be aimed at the public good rather than private profit and at least the public can exert democratic pressure on the people running it. |  |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 08:53 - Apr 25 with 1331 views | NthQldITFC |
I don't see any reason why 'New' nationalisation needs to be the same as old 1970s nationalisation. Modern technology and management and (dare I say it) more pro-active unions ought to make something decent possible. It's the 'transparency' message I approve of as much as anything - nowhere to hide for cheats and slackers at any level in the organisation and a decent level of accountability to the public.
Oh, and take the assets back from the failed and thieving private companies for a nominal fee. Tough titties to the shareholders - the modus operandi of the corrupt system has been obvious to everybody for so long, no-one can grumble if decency and public good takes over from individual acquisitiveness on the gravy train. | |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hallelujah! on 09:21 - Apr 25 with 1225 views | DJR |
| Hallelujah! on 08:43 - Apr 25 by Lord_Lucan |
I've always been pretty much in favour of rail nationalisation as one of the governments most important jobs is to get the public to work on time at a reasonable price.
Unfortunately I remember when they were nationalised and it was absolutely terrible - as you will agree.
Also, just because they are nationalised (if and when) there is absolutely no guarantee that the service will be better or cheaper. Governments need money!
Proof is in the pudding I suppose.
It's part nationalised now anyway. |
The nationalised industries were denigrated by the Tories and right wing press in order to justify privatisation and much the the mud (which in my view was not justified) has stuck.
This, from a recent edition of Private Eye, indicates that British Rail was not a disaster, but Labour's proposals do not involve the rolling stock.
"The government seems to have learned nothing from the disjointed train procurements of the last 30 years, judging by its latest "overview" of new trains.
Britain supplied trains and components to itself and countries worldwide until privatisation halted British Rail's research and development and made domestic orders ludicrously erratic. Now only Derby has a mass-production factory belonging to, er, a French multinational: other trains are imported complete or as kits.
The hiatus after the pre-pandemic boom in train orders now puts more than 1,000 jobs at risk in Derby. He insisted the government was "committed to supporting a world-class UK-based engineering industry", but his list of future orders shows no contract awards until next year, for delivery years later.
Merriman expects four train operators (three owned by DfT) to order trains separately, rather than DfT buying in bulk for cheaper prices. Even geographical bedfellows Northern and TransPennine Express (TPE) - both DfT owned - will order individually. Nothing learned, then, from their disconnected orders for different train types in 2016, which triggered huge disruption for passengers while staff were trained on each type. Disruption is sometimes amplified because Northern drivers can't drive TPE trains, and vice versa.
To simplify operations, last year TPE jettisoned one of its new fleets, which would be ideal for DfT-micromanaged Chiltern Railways. But Chiltern is now jumping through procurement hoops while money is spent keeping costly ex-TPE trains serviceable and idle.
Rolling-stock companies (ROSCOs) and other train financiers have paid shareholders whopping dividends as train-leasing costs rocketed. But even in the current cash squeeze Merrryman says the government is committed to keeping manufacturers and their "financiers and ROSCOs" informed on future orders. Ker-ching again!" [Post edited 25 Apr 9:22]
|  | | |
| Hallelujah! on 09:24 - Apr 25 with 1198 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Hallelujah! on 08:53 - Apr 25 by NthQldITFC |
I don't see any reason why 'New' nationalisation needs to be the same as old 1970s nationalisation. Modern technology and management and (dare I say it) more pro-active unions ought to make something decent possible. It's the 'transparency' message I approve of as much as anything - nowhere to hide for cheats and slackers at any level in the organisation and a decent level of accountability to the public.
Oh, and take the assets back from the failed and thieving private companies for a nominal fee. Tough titties to the shareholders - the modus operandi of the corrupt system has been obvious to everybody for so long, no-one can grumble if decency and public good takes over from individual acquisitiveness on the gravy train. |
Privatisation only works if there is competition, two companies serving each line. |  |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 09:26 - Apr 25 with 1175 views | NthQldITFC |
| Hallelujah! on 09:24 - Apr 25 by Pinewoodblue |
Privatisation only works if there is competition, two companies serving each line. |
Indeed, and only then when there are not dodgy backroom goings-on. | |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 09:31 - Apr 25 with 1144 views | Guthrum |
| Hallelujah! on 08:06 - Apr 25 by StokieBlue |
Unfortunately it's irrelevant unless this bit is changed:
Ms Haigh said the guarantee would not necessarily mean cheaper prices but that the system would be "more transparent and clearer".
We need a cheap, nationalised rail service in order to get people to use it ahead of alternative and more carbon intensive methods of transport.
SB |
Nationalisation does remove one cost burden, namely the (theoretical) requirement for profitability and payments to shareholders. Also there should be economies of scale on purchasing (tho that will be relatively minimal, as Network Rail already does much of the heavy lifting in that regard).
However, a lot of the core costs (particularly wages) won't change when the system is nationalised. Short of subsidisation - which would be expensive - there won't initially be a lot of room to cut fares.
There should be a lot more ticketing efficiency. Not having to pay extra because you've used the wrong company's train on part of your route. But less ability to reduce cost by splitting tickets. |  |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 09:33 - Apr 25 with 1134 views | StokieBlue |
| Hallelujah! on 09:31 - Apr 25 by Guthrum |
Nationalisation does remove one cost burden, namely the (theoretical) requirement for profitability and payments to shareholders. Also there should be economies of scale on purchasing (tho that will be relatively minimal, as Network Rail already does much of the heavy lifting in that regard).
However, a lot of the core costs (particularly wages) won't change when the system is nationalised. Short of subsidisation - which would be expensive - there won't initially be a lot of room to cut fares.
There should be a lot more ticketing efficiency. Not having to pay extra because you've used the wrong company's train on part of your route. But less ability to reduce cost by splitting tickets. |
"However, a lot of the core costs (particularly wages) won't change when the system is nationalised. Short of subsidisation - which would be expensive - there won't initially be a lot of room to cut fares."
The entirety of the dividend should be used to cut fares immediately, unless we are saying that is needed for improvements due to mismanagement as a private entity which would just highlight that this should have happened a long time ago.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 09:33 - Apr 25 with 1128 views | rodney76 |
I've always thought that the railways should be expanded, cheap to use and treated as a loss-leader in order to get people off the roads.
Cheaper in the long run, imo.
Better for air pollution too. |  | | |
| Hallelujah! on 09:36 - Apr 25 with 1103 views | footers |
| Hallelujah! on 09:33 - Apr 25 by rodney76 |
I've always thought that the railways should be expanded, cheap to use and treated as a loss-leader in order to get people off the roads.
Cheaper in the long run, imo.
Better for air pollution too. |
Reverse Beeching. |  |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 09:44 - Apr 25 with 1059 views | Guthrum |
| Hallelujah! on 08:53 - Apr 25 by NthQldITFC |
I don't see any reason why 'New' nationalisation needs to be the same as old 1970s nationalisation. Modern technology and management and (dare I say it) more pro-active unions ought to make something decent possible. It's the 'transparency' message I approve of as much as anything - nowhere to hide for cheats and slackers at any level in the organisation and a decent level of accountability to the public.
Oh, and take the assets back from the failed and thieving private companies for a nominal fee. Tough titties to the shareholders - the modus operandi of the corrupt system has been obvious to everybody for so long, no-one can grumble if decency and public good takes over from individual acquisitiveness on the gravy train. |
Thing is, it wasn't 1970s nationalisation, it was 1940s nationalisation. Grey wartime trains, austerity and sentimental memories of the old operating groups. The change to less glamorous diesel.
By the late '70s - another time of marked economic troubles - there had been a lot of anti-train propaganda, often contrasted with the freedom of having a car. Beeching was not the devil some rail enthusiasts believe, but he was convinced that the future lay with road transport. Finally, it became another battleground in the struggle between governments and militant unions. Everyone grumbled about BR, but it was certainly no worse than the current situation. | |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 09:47 - Apr 25 with 1049 views | Guthrum |
| Hallelujah! on 09:24 - Apr 25 by Pinewoodblue |
Privatisation only works if there is competition, two companies serving each line. |
Which is not really practicable on a railway. And the reason there was much duplication of lines serving the same places in the first 90 or so years. | |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 09:52 - Apr 25 with 1014 views | Guthrum |
| Hallelujah! on 09:36 - Apr 25 by footers |
Reverse Beeching. |
A lot of Beeching's cuts were necessary. Local branch lines with almost no traffic, or where the goods traffic which originally justified them no longer existed. That and duplicated lines serving the same places, built by rival companies. Cuts were being made before his report and continued for some time after. | |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 09:54 - Apr 25 with 997 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Hallelujah! on 09:26 - Apr 25 by NthQldITFC |
Indeed, and only then when there are not dodgy backroom goings-on. |
You missed the Post Office scandal then…
I agree with privatisation of the railways, there’s no actual competition, and when it’s cheaper to fly to Europe than get a peak time train from Ipswich- you know the system is broken.
But I don’t quite get the level of trust that people hold in state run organisations, as if greed and incompetence are suddenly no longer a thing. Just as not-for-profit Welsh Water is still dumping sh1t in our rivers, the trains will still be poorly run and over- priced (and most likely still run by the same incompetent managers). At least we won’t be subsidising rail networks in Europe any more I guess. | | | |
| Hallelujah! on 09:56 - Apr 25 with 994 views | Guthrum |
| Hallelujah! on 09:33 - Apr 25 by StokieBlue |
"However, a lot of the core costs (particularly wages) won't change when the system is nationalised. Short of subsidisation - which would be expensive - there won't initially be a lot of room to cut fares."
The entirety of the dividend should be used to cut fares immediately, unless we are saying that is needed for improvements due to mismanagement as a private entity which would just highlight that this should have happened a long time ago.
SB |
I think that latter is an accurate depiction of the situation, but not sure how much of a dividend actually exists. How profitable were these franchises really? | |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 09:57 - Apr 25 with 986 views | jayessess |
| Hallelujah! on 09:47 - Apr 25 by Guthrum |
Which is not really practicable on a railway. And the reason there was much duplication of lines serving the same places in the first 90 or so years. |
The inefficiencies of the old rail operators were rather lost in the rush to destroy the post-war settlement. There was a reason why the Conservative governments of 1951-1964 didn't reverse nationalisation. | |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 10:01 - Apr 25 with 952 views | Guthrum |
| Hallelujah! on 08:46 - Apr 25 by jayessess |
Definitely a step in the right direction.
Amongst all the privatisations since the 1980s it's hard to make the case that any of them worked particularly brilliantly. British Telecom is probably the success story, but even then I think it's hard to unpick how much of that can be attributed to the way telecommunications technology leapt forward rather than privatisation per se.
No guarantees that re-nationalisation flips a switch and everything suddenly improves - success depends on good long-term governance (and public investment!) which has been short supply in Britain for a very long time. But at least decisions in a nationalised utilities are going to be aimed at the public good rather than private profit and at least the public can exert democratic pressure on the people running it. |
And at least decisions can be kept "in house", rather than overseas owners dictating policy on, for example, European gas requirements rather than specifically the UK's situation. | |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 10:02 - Apr 25 with 944 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Hallelujah! on 09:56 - Apr 25 by Guthrum |
I think that latter is an accurate depiction of the situation, but not sure how much of a dividend actually exists. How profitable were these franchises really? |
Greater Anglia was owned by the Dutch state so no divi, but nice little subsidy for their own network.
It’s a win win for the operators as some of those that were making losses handed the franchises back to the government. Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses - it’s the Tory mantra. | | | |
| Hallelujah! on 10:19 - Apr 25 with 887 views | lowhouseblue |
| Hallelujah! on 08:13 - Apr 25 by StokieBlue |
Sure, however they have said it won't likely impact prices so how does it help and where are all the profits which currently go to shareholders going? Why aren't those profits directly applied to reducing fares?
It's a half-measure.
SB [Post edited 25 Apr 8:19]
|
this suggests that using the rail franchisee dividends to reduce fares would have a completely minimal effect - c. 1% and it would do nothing to address the bigger issue which is the scale of investment which is needed across track as well as trains.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/algdbizg/rail-industry-finance-uk-statistica |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Hallelujah! on 11:26 - Apr 25 with 804 views | DJR |
The thing I find astonishing is the cost of anytime returns which one might need to make at short notice if there were a family emergency.
For example, an anytime return from Euston to Liverpool costs from £341 upwards. [Post edited 25 Apr 11:26]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
