|
Time to renationalise?
I'd be interested to hear views on McNulty report and the fact that it will imoact on rail workers (of which I am one). I have to say I found the assertion on the BBC website that McNulty thought rail workers are overpaid, a strange one. Yes there are some well paid people on the railway but clerical grades and ticket office workers are not amongst them, yet it is likely from what I read, that this is where the axe will fall.
One possible answer is renationalization which could drive down duplication of costs and remove the so called profit from the railway (which is funded by our taxes anyway). What are the up sides to this? What are the down sides? All comments welcome. |
Well I for one have let my views known on other threads.
Railways are never meant to be profitable and are an aid to the movement of people and goods that help the bigger ecconomy to benefit. It is my view that they should be re-nationalized to serve the people of this country and should be subsidized. Get goods and people off the roads and onto the rails at a cost that is realistic. Others in Europe manage the same and have a far superior rail network than the UK could ever dream of! Just where did it all go so wrong for us here, in what was once the world leading authority on railways! Best wishes Phil |
Quote:
Look at any Government run operation and it's NEVER the excess number of MANAGERS that gets pruned check out my old firm the NHS to see what I mean |
I have to agree with Phil, if the government had given half the amount of money to British rail that they have contributed to private rail companies in subsidies, i feel sure we would have a better and cheaper rail system.
Most governments in Europe realise that railways are not going to make money but recognise the fact that they are able to move people and goods in vast quantities. Wake up Britain! |
Quote:
It was reported on the BBC News this morning that the annual rail fare from London to Woking costs in excess of £3,000 and that a similar fare in Italy costs just over £300. Appears to me our European counterparts have got this one right. It's got nothing to do with profit.....has it? Stuart |
There has been a long discussion on another forum on this issue. It generated an excellent and well informed response.
Beware of simple solutions. SNCF are in big trouble. They have proved to many experts that a nationalised railway is incapable of penetrating the logistics market for freight movement. The railway can no longer deliver the complete door to door product, that is done worldwide by logistics companies, not state owned institutions. These private sector companies prefer to work with their own recources and with their own kind -that is why Tesco goods on rail are moved by Eddie Stobart. There are many other examples all over the world. Passenger trains can work with state ownership but SNCF for one, apart from the TGV's, is a poor quality operator on many other services. |
Good Topic:cool:
More people are travelling on our railways (with a third less reduction of the system following the Beeching Era) (1 point to privatisation), They run generally more on time (2 points to Privatisation), and are a lot cleaner (3). Profits to a public service are totally wrong (1 point to re nationalisation), and too much is 'syphoned' off for bonuses (2 points to re nationalisation). Fixed formations/over crowding don't work at crucial times (3 points to BR days then) For me, I'll go for a nationalised system with profits totally re invested back into the network, with more 'flexible' stock formations, but with all 'slack' removed...problem solved :D |
Quote:
BR was in the process of fixed formations long before privatisation. There was a huge public outcry at over crowding, when the first sprinters hit the rails. The central Wales route lost its loco hauled trains - many up to six and more coaches - to two car 150's. Fixed formations are now the recognised way - across the world - to achieve savings and improve operating efficiency. BR's policy on the high density routes (still used today) was to price people off the railway at peak times rather than increase capacity. Re nationalisation won't change that I'm afraid. |
Re. Belmont Rd's opinion on overcrowding in B.R's day, this was true but the fault was the governments in not giving financial aid as they do now for the private companies, by the way, i recently stood all the way from Stafford to Southampton and my partner has stood many times from Leeds to New St. B-ham.
As many of you are aware some modern main stock such as Pendilino's are hired in from companies owned by the Banks, therefore generating indirect income to other private corporations. I think we should give BR a chance with the same financial support as private companies get. |
Would nationalisation put money into say Sir Richard Branson's pocket. Its all about money these days especially, only have to look at gas, electric and now water companies wanting meters in homes to bump the bills up. Not to mention the increase in stealth taxes etc.
|
Quote:
|
Although nearly 10 years old the below link is still interesting reading and quite an objective insight into the Network Rail business model, which in essence mirrors that of the CAA air traffic model.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/cri.../9_Plummer.pdf |
There are a number of views here that suggest that renationalisation in some part of the network would be welcomed. Are the new alliances between some TOCs and NR a step in this direction?
There are several reasons to support the status quo but one of reasons not to is that it is very expensive and there is a lot of waste. Is it right to put more people on the dole to support daft ideas like buying your tickets in the library? Or is it better to reform a system that sees a lot of our money benefitting the shareholders of ROSCOs and TOCs. My view is that the rolling stock fiasco should be taken back in the national interest and a not for profit company used to purchase and upgrade new rolling stock. One of the reasons rail fares are high is that these trains have to be leased on a year by year basis. The FOCs function well where they are and should be left as such. The passenger TOCs need some sort of reform. The government has disappointed by not improving the franchise process and it seems more goes out of the railway than goes in. I would have hoped Hammond and Greening would have come up with more co-operative and innovative solution to see investment in infrastructure and rolling stock rather than shareholder welth increasing. The trick has to be to get operators to recognise this. Lets be honest, the railway will not ever be re-nationalised because no one wants to hand the keys of the railway to Bob Crow. Dave |
Some good points in this latest reply.
We tend to remember the things we liked about BR. However, strikes were one thing that were fairly common. I was stranded more than once by these. Part of the splitting up meant that a national rail strike was very difficult to achieve. The NUR now the RMT have a had a proud history but I do feel that the current leadership is more involved in political change than representing their members. The leasing companies have had a bad press. But would BR have gone down the same route? Many think so. It would - on paper - have saved millions on the capital account and reduced subsidy in the short term - whenever did politicians think long term? However, leasing is the norm in other transport. Almost all large bus companies do it as do many airlines. It does make good business sense, otherwise they wouldn't do it. The railway model was investigated a few years back and the ROSCo's were found to be efficient. Britain's railway needs reform to get costs down, there are many things wrong. Not least on a practical level - rescuing broken down trains - one area being where one failed unit can disrupt an entire days operation. Caused entirely by the TOC's not investing in standby locos etc. Apparently it is cheaper to pay compensation than to have rescue infrastructure in place. There are many examples of perverse regulations in the industry that should be swept aside. |
Quote:
Having read a lot of view points in this thread and understanding the issues with nationalization in the past, and I fully accept times when BR became a disfunctional company, I still maintain that re-nationalization woulkd be the way to go. We can learn so much from the issues the French had and also the past, but I firmly believe that with the right management we can once again become great. We can have a system where railways service the greater ecconomy in all areas of our country. We can vastley reduce polution from the burning of fossil fuels, cost of building roads and maintenace for example. OK I agree door to door would be difficult but there is nothing wrong with providing local delivery services. That would provide additional opportuities for local businesses to bloom! Yes it would require commitment and huge investment but done correctly we could once again be world leaders. All the best Phil |
Re. Silver Fox and Belmont Rd, two well constructed opinions.
|
Surely, with privatisation of the roads on the cards, re-nationalisation of the railways would be a terrible retrograde step. Remember, the concept was based on Marx's (that's Karl - not Groucho) idea of the proletariat gaining control of the means of production: a pure communist theory, designed to equalise wealth. Efficiency and profitability was not part of the equation.
Marxism and Communism has been an abject failure resulting in terrible injustice and inefficiency and has totally failed to deliver on any of it's promises. This has been true in the UK where little remains of the of the nationalised industries of the past - BT, British Coal, British Steel and Ports, to name but a few.. Surely, people must remember the restrictive practices, collective bargaining, overmanning, terrible waste, strikes organised by communist shop stewards and the utter failure of the industries concerned to compete in a modern world. There is nowhere in the world today where a return to nationalisation is being contemplated: with the last bastions like Cuba, N Korea and Belorus struggling to even feed their own people. I for one, shudder at the prospect of a return of the nationalisation of the rail industry and can only think that those proposing it just fear the uncertainty of the future and prefer the safety of the past without giving due consideration to the consequencies.. |
Good sense in this latest response.
Whatever is said on this forum, there is no political will, certainly in England to re-nationalise. I say England because the SNP seems to be talking up the idea a bit and making - in my opinion - stupid statements such as not allowing English Railway Companies past Edinburgh and Glasgow. Have they forgotten that First Group is not a Scottish Company? The Welsh National Party have come up with some similar daft ideas on railways in the past. I think the Northern Ireland railways are still in public ownership - is that right? |
The SNP and the Welsh Nationalists may talk about nationalisations in the event of obtaining independance, but this is a ploy to gain support from all those who are rooted in the past and can't face up to the exciting challenges of the future.
The reality is that to proceed with any nationalisation would contravene EC competition regulations and this would leave them outwith the EU devoid of grants, bailouts and investments.. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I hope I don't upset anyone for this, but personally I think that he unions need seeing to before any renationalisation is thought of.
Why? Well back in the early days when some railwaymen could expect a 40 hour shift (The cambrian rialway was particularly bad I believe) and wages were pitiful, the unions were a stroke of genius. Now though, I think they take the ****. I mean, there was an instance a few months back where Arriva drivers wanted a pay rise, so went on strike. They must have been earning 35-40K at that time per annum, so that is just greed, not suffering. I fear that this is becoming a serious problem, and these unions need to realise that the public is not on their side at all, in fact, they probably haven't had much public support for over thirty years. They used to achieve fairness, reducing poverty and cementing modern moral values. Now? All a strike achieves now is wounding the precarious public support for the railways in general and losing millions for the network, which, I add, is already in debt amounting into billions. I'm not saying get rid of the unions, but they need to take a hard look at themselves. At present, I feel that a fractured system where the focus is on competition is the only thing nursing the railway's battered work ethic in many places. In concluding I think I should praise the hard working people who get a bad name from these jobsworths, and in general, they are not too hard to find on Britains railways. A shadow hangs over them sadly. We need to get our railways to the position where they are the very best in the world once more, if not better. If nationalisation is going to be done at all, it needs to be done correctly and with pride. BR had one chance already, and that should have been enough. |
Mmmh!.....Well, I don't know where to start really.
I'm 66yrs old now....so I've seen a few things. I've worked in several industries as an Electrical Engineer. To start off with...The Private railway companies were knackered and dying BEFORE WW2! They entered it in poor shape, they were kept going during the war years by public money and virtual NATIONALISATION. It was an inevitable consequence after the war because the private railways were bankrupt! The owners snatched the governments hands off when they were offered good money for a dead investment! The Labour Gov after the war had more pressing things on it's mind so did not invest in more modern traction other than new BR standard Steam (the workshops already existed for those and many other industries like the mines depended upon them). Has with the much maligned motor industry, (who were also denigrated) were also responsible for the building the Spitfires, Hurricanes, Lancasters, tanks, Guns, Heavy artillery, etc, etc, etc ......That saved this Country! So did places like Crewe, Doncaster, Derby, Swindon Glasgow, and Eastleigh.... Yes...I mean the railway works! Could YOU have turned around in those days and said: "Sorry you're ALL sacked"? A civil war would have then ensued! Civil industries that before the war were dying on their knees had life breathed into them and kept aloft by Nationalised public money. These were the people, many thousands of them, who had worked during the wars years to save this Country and the Labour Gov of 1945 was quite rightly NOT ready to now shoot them in the back by putting them all out of work just like the Tory 20 and 30's.... Now I agree, that the former car industries like Austin, Morris, Hillman, Humber, Triumph, Rover, Jaguar, who had ALL been involved massively in war work during the conflict AND had the living daylights bombed out of them because of it.......should have been slowly returned to private industry. But with regard to the people and their previous efforts. Instead, all they got was a Tory Goverment who wanted to sack them all instantly!... Now,....I don't think that was "fair treatment of a loyal workforce" ....do you? Next: Industrial Action! Yes, the..."Strike" Now unless you have lived on another planet from me or something, and I suspect that that is the majority of Tory people. IN ALL my lifetime! I have NEVER......EVER! heard from the Paper Rags! the Radio or TV media any REAL honest explanation of any Industrial dispute that there has ever been ever! And if YOU are still being fooled by that tactic, then you'd better re-evaluate your views very quickly because YOUR world is soon going to change....DRASTICALLY! How much more proof do you want? Other than to listen to the Tories who have who whilst giving themselves £40,000+ tax reduction (thanks to the "so called" Liberals) I, a pensioner have so far been hit 3 times to pay more tax this year! Finally, Privitisation! That savior of the Nation....Which serves only to move the burden from "the Government" coffers to the "Consumer" of those "services". The Private owners of which have only their own private profit in mind. NOT....the benefit to the Nation! Is YOUR GAS, ELECTRIC, WATER, PHONE ETC, ETC...bill smaller since the so called more "efficient" Privatisation?....I think NOT! If it is so, it's probably because the working people are having to work for LESS! Do you never think YOU may be next? This Yanky led Experiment will never work, other than to drive working wages down!....... Worst than that however, it will lead us to a new age of global feudalism. It seems futile of me now doesn't it to say that ...YES......I think that the railways SHOULD indeed be re-nationalised for the benefit of the nation. They are MORE heavily subsidised NOW than EVER under BR.... If we carry on on this insane tory way we had better get our coolie hats and rickshaws ready.......... |
What ever the pros and cons in the present economic climate it is a non starter. They can't manage to open some of the 19602s closed lines. For example the Portishaed to Bristol line is in situ eg Portishead to Bristol where the A 369 is choc a bloc. Outside my room is the ex LWR Exeter to Salisbury which is mostly singled. Beeching wanted to close it. I would prefer nationalisation but it wouldn't change the high costs of travel.
Chris |
Unfortunately Christopher, the people who are making the decisions these days don't live in Britain. The decisions are.."Global".....i.e. Made in the USA!
For many years now, since Thatcher in fact.........take note: When listening to the Radio.......The TV....or indeed reading a newspaper........just how many of the so called: "experts", called on to speak about any of our UK problems, on ANY subject! etc etc are;....................American! I'll Betcha that you will soon loose count!......... Don't we have any "Experts" of our own now? or are they really "telling" us how we should think?.......or else? |
Quote:
I see good work being done a daily basis where my union and management sit down and successfully resolve problems that affect the running of the railway, but all the media has given us in the last is 60 years is UNION BASHING and lousy films like 'Carry on at your convenience'. The bottom line is I'm afraid, that if you believe what you're told by the TV or Papers nowadays you're a gullible idiot. ------------------------------------ Here's an example fom my personal experience: 1) Union asks for a 2.5% anual pay increase coupled with conditions change to give increased productivity in the roster 2) Company responds with a 5% pay increase - but with an increase to +/- 3 hours movement 3) Union ballots members with a postal vote 4) Overwhelming rejection of offer because this means that with a week of 05:00 spare you could start at 02:00 one day and 08:00 the next, plus any variation following 5) TV & Papers report "GREEDY TRAIN DRIVERS REJECT GENEROUS 5% PAY OFFER" - not "company tries to introduce dangerous rostering pattern" And this 'misreporting' mischief happens every time there's a dispute. :rolleyes: |
In the start of this thread was one question = "One possible answer is renationalization which could drive down duplication of costs and remove the so called profit from the railway (which is funded by our taxes anyway). What are the up sides to this? What are the down sides?"
OK Politics aside and the beating up of unions and governments done away with! The simple fact remains that in todays world we have a drastic need to change our ways. We have to find solutions to the ever growing population and thier needs, especially within our city's as to how we are going to move them about. That includes the growing demand for consumer products. We all want them yet we are constantly having to put up with the growing problem of our roads being totally congested. If even the most minor issue like a breakdown or small bump occures we become gridlocked and deliveries are delayed and people become unable to get to their destinations on time causing even more friction and anger! Polution is a major issue in the ever growing amount of traffic on our roads. Most families these days have upward of two and three cars each! Our living areas are massive car parks with people parking on footpaths etc. Look around and tell me your street or road is not just that! The government has to take over the management of the railways and put back investment to ensure we have a rail network that can supply the needs of local areas as well as the major cities. Reduce the vast amount of costs accociated with building our roads and motorways, this can't be the solution as we are running out of space! In another 50 years time technology will be well advanced from today, look at how it has advanced in the last 50 years, frightning!! So there will be a need to change how we manage our logistics and that has to come from a central point. We have learned lessons over the years, and we can put that to good use for the better of our country! Nationalise and make it work for the good of everyone! Wishing us all a better future! Regards Phil |
Maybe I'm biased but this is what I think a nationalised railway should be like;)
The tunes not bad either so turn up your sound. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVndl...yer_detailpage |
Quote:
Cheers Phil |
I think what should happen is that all the TOCs, FOCs and ROSCOs should be taken over by Network Rail, then they will be renamed ti let say "Brit Rail"
What should then happen is that taxpayer support should (legaly) consist of 60-75% of the DFT budget, this company should take cntrol of the roads and introduce road charging (fully under their control), the road tax revenue would be used as a government subsidy for the roads. Lastly, the government should make it legally binding for this company to maintain a high quality rail and road network (both) covering the whole of the Great Britain On that point, the "new" BR should only allow Mainland National European Rail Companies (DB, DNCF etc) can operate services from Europe to the UK and only the "new" BR can operate train services in the UK The Railways of Northern Ireland do this already |
Quote:
That would be rather like handing over the running of the Bank of England to its painting & decorating department. FP |
Railways needed nationalizing post WW2 as they had been run down and stripped by private owners. Without state intervention the nation would have fell apart without the key transport mechanism - railways. The government had to act for the greater good of the nation.
The 19th century rail magnets hyped up investment bumph of the new wonder transport, as did Thatcher with Railtrack. They would invest and get small investors along as the fall guys. The railway would be built and they would buy land adjacent to the railways before and under construction of the railway. After completion they would cash in, even if they never made money and drew out it never mattered, and leave the capital debt of railway construction to the small investors. Dividends were never paid. The rail companies were then left with lucrative land they bought for pennies. The railway lines hyped land prices. They could charge high rents around the railways. That is how the legalised scam worked. That is what happened with the Bishops Castle Railway. The administrators ran it for 70 years. The landowners around the railway gained because of the economic growth the railway brought, not what they particularly did. Thatcher said the railways and coal mines (most output went to power stations) were not making a profit. She did not have the intelligence to see that they were creating economic growth. The massive gap in the governments 18th century accounting system did not detect the money leaking away via a massive sluice, the LAND market, as landowners creamed it off. The sluice should have been closed and the money captured and cycled back into the mechanism that assists in creating the growth in the first place - transport. This sluice is still wide open. Private monopoly Railtrack was bound to fail, as the private railways failed in the mid 20th century falling into the arms of the state, as they did in 1948. The taxpayers picked up the tab as the rail companies went off with thousands of acres of lucrative increased value land. Railtrack was a repeat of the 19th century rail rip-offs, but created and backed by a modern Tory government. thousands of small investors lost a lot of money on failure. Instead of the private rail magnets preying on the small investors, it was the government. Rail Networks, like Metros, Create Economic Growth Many have no idea what influence rail networks have on a community - they are a part of the economic growth of a community and sometimes the key aspect, as in rapid-transit rail in cities. Full metros create economic growth all around. Real Gains From Railways is in Land Values Look at British rail magnet George Hudson in the early to mid 1800s. He made his money from the increased value of the land the railways created, not charging for tickets. He knew where the money was made with railways - it was not in running them. Hudson had his own construction company and bought up land in prime spots where his railways went. He knew before others where his railways would go and where the stations would be. He creamed it off in increased land values and charging high rents, and allowed the railways to fall into disrepair as ticket prices were just enough to maintain the network in the long run, with the government having to take it over it was so neglected. Private profit and the debts socialised with us picking up the tabs. Some people misguidedly say we should privatise all railways, and all to do with them - so they can cream it off again, and yet again the taxpayer picks up the debts in the end. And they then blame public ownership as being useless and inefficient, when all the taxpayer did, or will do, is pick up the shambles - as usual. And the private sharks make off with the gains. Politician, Morrison at the same time as Hudson wanted the French system of public ownership and renting the lines, or time on the lines, and use the rents to maintain the infrastructure. He was overridden by a lobby by Hudson. The railways eventually declined to the point of being ramshackle all over the country. We are going to make all the same mistakes again. The Current Tax System is Destructive - Encourages Free Riders The difference between a highway robber and a free riders is that the free rider does not have to draw a gun to take what belongs to others. |
We do not need nationalization. We need to close the open gap in the funding circle where money pours out. Firstly we have to understand some economic basics. Economic growth created by a community, pubic & private, soaks into land and crystallizes as land values. That is where the land values come from, not the landowners. When a house raises in value, it is not the bricks that rise in value. The land and the capital (the bricks) have to be split to gain understanding. The capital depreciates, like a car. The land appreciates as community created economic growth soaked into it creating the values.
Transport infrastructure is a major aspect in that economic growth creation. Taking community created land values (wealth locked into land) and using that to fund transport the funding circle is complete. Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, etc do this. Hong Kong built a whole new metro by not using taxes on people's incomes, just reclaiming wealth the community created that was locked into the land. In short socially created wealth was socialized and used for social purposes. Privately created wealth was left alone. It works brilliantly. The cost of the Jubilee Line extension was £3.4 bn. The land values around the lines and stations rose by £14 bn. This wealth created by the rails and tunnels was not cycled back into the costs rail and tunnels. Landowners took windfalls. Close the London Tube tomorrow for good. Land values would drop like a stone as economic growth, assisted by the underground rail network, is not created. People would leave the city in droves. The fats urban rail tracks as essential in economy of London. Railways are generally self-financing. However we use an 18th century accounting system that does not recognise where economic growth crystallized and doesn't know how to capture this wealth to pay for the transport that greatly assisted in that growth creation. Use the right funding mechanism, reclaiming the values in land, and the UK can have the finest rail network in the world - which would be self funding. This mean no cities or regions need go with begging bowls to the DfT in London to extend, or update, their rail networks. "The Far Eastern countries are densely populated: they cannot afford to waste space. The market-based tools they developed to deal with that pressure are revealing. Hong Kong and Singapore are rated at the top of the most comprehensive Index of Economic Freedom. Japan’s record is also not contested: she came from nowhere after World War II to create the secondlargest economy in the world. Comparing their transport policies with those of the UK and USA may help to sharpen the insights that have emerged in this study. We focus our analysis in terms of three hypotheses. Hypothesis I: Taxpayer subsidies are an inevitable part of mass transit systems The durability of this assumption was affirmed by the spokesman for Britain’s Strategic Rail Authority. David Thomas (2003) claimed that there are only two types of income for rail projects: fares and subsidy. The demand for subsidies is rationalised by a political vocabulary that presupposes the inability of railways to pay their way. The collateral damage of this doctrine to the fabric of political institutions is significant. If subsidies are to be extracted from taxpayers and transferred to railways, government has the right to control the industry One consequence is the touting of solutions that are selfdefeating. Take the case of the need to increase fares to pay for infrastructure. This proposition was advanced by Richard Bowker as chairman of the SRA. He argued that upkeep of the rail network rests too heavily on taxpayers and that ‘passengers should pay more’ (Bream, 2004). To raise fares closer to the actual cost of rail travel would be likely to price more passengers off the railway. This would render rail companies even less able to cover their operating costs, let alone the costs of capital, and consequently increase the demand for more subsidies. Hong Kong rejects the subsidy mentality. Is this the product of a philosophy of public finance that does not favour taxes that deliver deadweight losses? Hypothesis II: Efficient railways are those in public ownership The House of Commons Treasury Committee, after reviewing a decade’s worth of evidence in running privatised railways, endorsed this view in The Future of the Railway. The view was shared by the head of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union, who claimed that rail privatisation was ‘an act of vandalism that tore apart our national railway network and handed it in 113 pieces to the private sector to bleed dry’ (Crow, 2003). In the British circumstances, there was force to his claim that separating the ownership of tracks from the operation of the trains ‘would be an act of dangerous folly – and that the only way profits would be made by the private sector was by taxpayers and passengers subsidising them’. But had the nationalised British Rail (BR) been a paragon of operational efficiency? Transport Minister Kim Howells told the House of Commons Transport Committee that BR had been ‘an appalling service’. It had employed some managers who were ‘rubbish’. An eight-year-old child could have come up with better cost estimates than those managers, he asserted. Japan’s railways may provide evidence to help us resolve some of the contentious issues. Her rail network is a rich mixture of public and private enterprises, and the latter have not prejudiced the ability of the Japanese to operate an efficient economy. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:04. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.