Topic: The British Rail Thread - Re-nationalisation incoming.

[Red Beret]

Seemed a good idea to consolidate all the discussion into a single thread as policy details emerge. It's hopefully great news for the country as a whole, especially given the number of franchises being operated by the government right now anyway.

But this isn't going to be an overnight thing like the original rail nationalisation. It's going to take years just to secure the franchises. Rolling stock is a pipe dream given the shambles of the country's finances.

But this is one long term project we can all get behind!

[bradders1011]

Christian Wolmar's recent history of BR is a very good read.

I've never understood the rationale of giving out 'competition' in natural monopolies. So many areas of life where we can just CTRL-C, CTRL-V what the Dutch, Germans, French, Scandis do into our policy and put things on a better path overnight.

[killer-heels]

Great news.

[RedDeadRejection]

Certainly a vote winner to anyone with an active brain.

[redbyrdz]

Christian Wolmar's recent history of BR is a very good read.

I've never understood the rationale of giving out 'competition' in natural monopolies. So many areas of life where we can just CTRL-C, CTRL-V what the Dutch, Germans, French, Scandis do into our policy and put things on a better path overnight.

Funnily the German railway now has different private companies operating some services. And guess what, its gone to shit. It was ok for the first years when it was just the odd company running the odd local service route. Now its lots of different ones and the whole network has huge problems with trains being delayed and getting cancelled left right and centre.

[Red Beret]

I like the idea of private rail companies being allowed to take over derelict or unused portions of the network to set up branch lines, commuter routes etc. The risk and responsibility to make them profitable would be on them, and they would reap the rewards. As part of a larger, nationalised network, they would have to charge competitive prices.

Perhaps they could borrow government funds in order to renovate infrastructure, but the loans could then be repaid to the benefit of the public purse?

[Red Beret]

There's a Wikipedia article about the creation of GBR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Railways

As news articles have indicated, this is a plan essentially started by the Tories, from the Williams–Shapps Rail Review, that Labour have taken the next logical step with. There's nothing as yet in the article detailing Labour's proposals.

[stoa]

Funnily the German railway now has different private companies operating some services. And guess what, its gone to shit. It was ok for the first years when it was just the odd company running the odd local service route. Now its lots of different ones and the whole network has huge problems with trains being delayed and getting cancelled left right and centre.

That's not an issue of the different railway companies though. It's an issue of Germany not having invested in the infrastructure and everything being pretty run down. That causes issues due to a lack of capacity, delays due to technical problems and delays due to work being done to modernise everything. The rail network has decreased from 40k kilometres in 1994 to 33k kilometres in 2022. Loads of places don't have a railway connection anymore and loads of tracks are still not electrified. Some of the infrastructure is also very old and prone to breaking down so that causes issues as well. Add a lack of personnel and everything gets even worse. I live in Austria close to the Swiss and German borders and even the Swiss have become fed up with constant delays in Germany. There's a train between Zurich and Munich that runs seven times a day or so, but it's rarely on time due to delays in Germany, because their infrastructure is not up to speed. There are long stretches where there's only one track so trains have to wait for it to become available and delays fuck the whole thing up even more. Switzerland would love an hourly connection to Munich but they just can't do it, because the German network is not fit for purpose at the moment.

[redbyrdz]

Agree about running the infrastructure down. But then instead of fixing it, the just hand out a route to a private provider, in the hope that they'll magically make it work. That's pretty much what has been happening in the UK for a a few years longer. The additional problem is that the private companies try and operate for a profit, while at the same time pretend to offer really cheap services. Something's got to give, and that's reliability and investment.
I find it interesting that it's got so far that re-nationalisation is actually on the cards in Britain, and that similar problems are now appearing in other countries that went down the privatisation route a bit later.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I find it interesting that it's got so far that re-nationalisation is actually on the cards in Britain, and that similar problems are now appearing in other countries that went down the privatisation route a bit later.

It's as though you cannot have competition to drive down fares and drive up standards where there is single private provider.

[redbyrdz]

It's as though you cannot have competition to drive down fares and drive up standards where there is single private provider.

You don't need competition to drive down fares. If there is a single state provider, you can instead have a debate of what's a reasonable fare, and what service the state should provide.

Germany actually set a great example, when, despite the privatisations, they introduced the Deutschlandticket - first as  Covid-recovery strategy, but then they kept it because it was so popular. It's a monthly ticket for travel all over Germany, first for 9 euros per month!! Then in the second version, for 49 euros per month. It's likely it'll get extended again. Each time the fare was decided in discussion  trying to find a balance between different interests.

[Red Beret]

Agree about running the infrastructure down. But then instead of fixing it, the just hand out a route to a private provider, in the hope that they'll magically make it work. That's pretty much what has been happening in the UK for a a few years longer. The additional problem is that the private companies try and operate for a profit, while at the same time pretend to offer really cheap services. Something's got to give, and that's reliability and investment.

I find it interesting that it's got so far that re-nationalisation is actually on the cards in Britain, and that similar problems are now appearing in other countries that went down the privatisation route a bit later.

What do you mean by infrastructure? Tracks and stations are administered by Network Rail, which is publicly owned.

You don't need competition to drive down fares. If there is a single state provider, you can instead have a debate of what's a reasonable fare, and what service the state should provide.

Germany actually set a great example, when, despite the privatisations, they introduced the Deutschlandticket - first as  Covid-recovery strategy, but then they kept it because it was so popular. It's a monthly ticket for travel all over Germany, first for 9 euros per month!! Then in the second version, for 49 euros per month. It's likely it'll get extended again. Each time the fare was decided in discussion  trying to find a balance between different interests.

Yeah. In the UK I believe the regulator sets a price cap on fares - and virtually all the operators immediately raise their fares to 0.01% below that cap. It's absolutely taking the piss out of commuters who are already being financially squeezed.

[thaddeus]

We had the Channel 5 documentary on British railways on in the background last night: https://www.channel5.com/show/the-great-british-train-scandal

No great insights but the first half is worth a watch as a 101 about the state of British railways (the second half felt like mostly filler with a long section about the quantities of iron particles in the air in the London Underground and germs on the surfaces of Underground trains).  It was likely over-dramatized but it seems like there's also been a long-standing under-investment in Network Rail to the extent that they're well behind on safety inspections of the infrastructure.

One thing it didn't cover which I've never really seen explained is that the number of passengers increased sharply since privatisation and whether or not that would have happened anyway (e.g. it dropped as road vehicles became more affordable and rose once roads became congested):

[Lusty]

We had the Channel 5 documentary on British railways on in the background last night: https://www.channel5.com/show/the-great-british-train-scandal

No great insights but the first half is worth a watch as a 101 about the state of British railways (the second half felt like mostly filler with a long section about the quantities of iron particles in the air in the London Underground and germs on the surfaces of Underground trains).  It was likely over-dramatized but it seems like there's also been a long-standing under-investment in Network Rail to the extent that they're well behind on safety inspections of the infrastructure.

One thing it didn't cover which I've never really seen explained is that the number of passengers increased sharply since privatisation and whether or not that would have happened anyway (e.g. it dropped as road vehicles became more affordable and rose once roads became congested):

There's likely a million different factors causing that.  Really the uptick starts in the 80s and probably coincides with financial services deregulation and a shift in employment into central London and Canary Wharf which was only built in the 90s.

You've also got whole new lines that didn't exist in the 80s like HS1, Thameslink, and London being being better connected through DLR, Jubilee line extension and the Elizabeth line.  A lot more people now live in commutable range of London than used to because they can easily get to hubs like Stratford or St Pancras.

One thing that almost certainly didn't cause the increase is privatisation itself.

[Jiminy Cricket]

You don't need competition to drive down fares. If there is a single state provider, you can instead have a debate of what's a reasonable fare, and what service the state should provide.

Germany actually set a great example, when, despite the privatisations, they introduced the Deutschlandticket - first as  Covid-recovery strategy, but then they kept it because it was so popular. It's a monthly ticket for travel all over Germany, first for 9 euros per month!! Then in the second version, for 49 euros per month. It's likely it'll get extended again. Each time the fare was decided in discussion  trying to find a balance between different interests.

It's as though you cannot have competition to drive down fares and drive up standards where there is single private provider.

[redbyrdz]

I don't know what you mean to be honest. You don't have "competition" if there is only a single provider, regardless of it being the state or a private company.

[redbyrdz]

What do you mean by infrastructure? Tracks and stations are administered by Network Rail, which is publicly owned.

Think at least some stations are being run by the train operators? For example Chester station is run by TfW afaik.

What I mean with running the infrastructure down is that there has been a lack of investment for keeping tracks in prime condition. I don't think there is any incentive for Network rail - if the trains can't run properly, they'll blame the train operators. And the train operators blame Network rail. I think it's a general problem, rail tracks are fairly robust, so for a while, not much needed to be done, so money was spent elsewhere. But now they are old, and need repairing/replacing more regularly, and there's no funding for it. There is also a lack of interest - network rail just blame the train operators, and the train operators blame the state of the tracks.


Also I think the definition of "value" has changed. Countries like Britain and Germany used to be proud of their railway. Investment went into it with a sense of pride of the great national infrastructure (same as the NHS, hah!). Now everything has to measured with regards to the profit it brings.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I don't know what you mean to be honest. You don't have "competition" if there is only a single provider, regardless of it being the state or a private company.

Private monopolies do not work. If you you are going to have services provided by private companies, there should be competition (and regulation, of course). It is different for state run services, but the lack of competition can be a problem of course. Still, if it is going to be a single provider (which is rather inevitable for some services), it really should be a state-operated provider.

[Red Beret]

Think at least some stations are being run by the train operators? For example Chester station is run by TfW afaik.

What I mean with running the infrastructure down is that there has been a lack of investment for keeping tracks in prime condition. I don't think there is any incentive for Network rail - if the trains can't run properly, they'll blame the train operators. And the train operators blame Network rail. I think it's a general problem, rail tracks are fairly robust, so for a while, not much needed to be done, so money was spent elsewhere. But now they are old, and need repairing/replacing more regularly, and there's no funding for it. There is also a lack of interest - network rail just blame the train operators, and the train operators blame the state of the tracks.


Also I think the definition of "value" has changed. Countries like Britain and Germany used to be proud of their railway. Investment went into it with a sense of pride of the great national infrastructure (same as the NHS, hah!). Now everything has to measured with regards to the profit it brings.

Yeah, not all stations are managed by Network Rail - Merseyrail stations are in-house, as is everything on the local network. But the vast majority is, which is what I was referring to.

But yeah, it makes perfect sense that the Tories would run Railtrack into the ground, because it's pretty much what they've done with every single public service they've ever laid their hands on.

This is a decent video series for people looking to grasp the basics behind some of the failed rail franchises:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/n19YOUXQL88&amp;ab_channel=Vanmanyo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/n19YOUXQL88&amp;ab_channel=Vanmanyo</a>

What's notable in this one is it emphasises that not all of Arriva's failings are down to their own mismanagement - although it doesn't absolve them of responsibility either. But it does point out the failings and broken promises of NR and the DfT, which of course are handled by the government.

[stoa]

Agree about running the infrastructure down. But then instead of fixing it, the just hand out a route to a private provider, in the hope that they'll magically make it work. That's pretty much what has been happening in the UK for a a few years longer. The additional problem is that the private companies try and operate for a profit, while at the same time pretend to offer really cheap services. Something's got to give, and that's reliability and investment.
I find it interesting that it's got so far that re-nationalisation is actually on the cards in Britain, and that similar problems are now appearing in other countries that went down the privatisation route a bit later.

That's not the case though in Germany. The state is still funding the network and infrastructure and that's where they made the mistake of not spending enough on it. Which is not helped by the state also trying to make rail-travel more attractive by offering the Deutschlandticket you mentioned. It's great that it works, but at the same time it also increases the pressure on the railway system that was on its knees even before that. It should happen the other way around. Make the system better and then get more people on it. The problem is, it costs a lot to maintain and improve the infrastructure and up until recently most countries just didn't bother, because they were more focussed on other forms of travel like roads. It's changing though and more and more people seem to realise that mass transport comes at a cost for society, but also offers a lot of advantages that might very well be worth the money you spend. Switzerland is the country to look at in terms of railway both for people and for goods. They're doing a great job even if they aren't perfect either. The thing is, they spend serious money on it.

[thaddeus]

There's likely a million different factors causing that.  Really the uptick starts in the 80s and probably coincides with financial services deregulation and a shift in employment into central London and Canary Wharf which was only built in the 90s.

You've also got whole new lines that didn't exist in the 80s like HS1, Thameslink, and London being being better connected through DLR, Jubilee line extension and the Elizabeth line.  A lot more people now live in commutable range of London than used to because they can easily get to hubs like Stratford or St Pancras.

One thing that almost certainly didn't cause the increase is privatisation itself.

Thanks.  I hadn't really factored in all the new lines, particularly in/around London.

Apparently only 35.2% of train journeys last year were for leisure so you're probably right about the growth in numbers of commuters.  My wife takes the train for work sometimes and it's paid for by the company she works for (if not she'd drive as it's always really expensive).  I expect there are lots of people in the same situation.

[Red Beret]

I never minded Virgin trains when they had the west coast mainline franchise, but why are they applying for a license now of all times?

Can the Tories fast track this? It smacks of throwing a spanner into Labour's plans. It's a special license to allow Virgin to run trains alongside Avanti. Very niche, very specific.

Seems to me Branson wants the publicity of being the last private operator running on a nationalised network; as if he's hoping it will leave people with a skewered perception of how "good" private operators were when compared to a national operator.

[rob1966]

I never minded Virgin trains when they had the west coast mainline franchise, but why are they applying for a license now of all times?

Can the Tories fast track this? It smacks of throwing a spanner into Labour's plans. It's a special license to allow Virgin to run trains alongside Avanti. Very niche, very specific.

Seems to me Branson wants the publicity of being the last private operator running on a nationalised network; as if he's hoping it will leave people with a skewered perception of how "good" private operators were when compared to a national operator.

I was thinking this myself, they couldn't wait to fuck him off and get Avanti/TrenItalia in (are they still in special measures), yet all of a sudden they wany Virgin trains running again?

Will Virgin run a train to replace the ones Avanti cancel? Went to London on the 11th, train before ours got cancelled and the next was an hour later - train was only a 9 car too, so was rammed at Piccadilly, the Premium economy got changed to economy and were a free for all and there were people sitting on the floor by the time we got to Stoke.

What I would say, is if Branson can run the private trains to the standards we want, then I'd be happy for him to run the nationalised version. When they are nationalised, they need tobe ran professionally, not for shareholder profit. I'm happy with them initially making profits, for the sole purpose of the money to be ploughed back in to staff wages, more staff, improving stations,getting new rolling stock - built in the UK - then once done, profits to be reigned in.

[Red Beret]

I was thinking this myself, they couldn't wait to fuck him off and get Avanti/TrenItalia in (are they still in special measures), yet all of a sudden they wany Virgin trains running again?

Will Virgin run a train to replace the ones Avanti cancel? Went to London on the 11th, train before ours got cancelled and the next was an hour later - train was only a 9 car too, so was rammed at Piccadilly, the Premium economy got changed to economy and were a free for all and there were people sitting on the floor by the time we got to Stoke.

What I would say, is if Branson can run the private trains to the standards we want, then I'd be happy for him to run the nationalised version. When they are nationalised, they need to be ran professionally, not for shareholder profit. I'm happy with them initially making profits, for the sole purpose of the money to be ploughed back in to staff wages, more staff, improving stations,getting new rolling stock - built in the UK - then once done, profits to be reigned in.

From what I've seen, this is a very special license that will allow Virgin to run specific trains. Here's a link to an article from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/19/virgin-plots-rail-return-with-proposal-to-run-west-coast-routes

Virgin has submitted proposals to operate separate train services between London Euston and Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Glasgow Central respectively, on an open access basis.

In a direct challenge to Avanti West Coast – run by Virgin’s old rival FirstGroup – two of the services would rely on train paths, or timetable slots, whose rights are now held by Avanti. The Manchester trains would also go to Rochdale, a destination that FirstGroup itself hopes to serve with its Lumo brand.

Applications for more open access rail services, such as Lumo or Grand Central, have been encouraged by government in the name of competition with the leading line operators. They remain controversial with rail industry leaders who see them as inefficient, while the RMT union regards them as “parasitic”.

This seems like a government ploy and private companies are being encouraged to apply for these "special" licenses. It seems that Avanti would have to give up specific time slots to Virgin trains. They're not intended to replace cancelled Avanti trains - but I bet Virgin would jump at the chance if they have a train available and waiting in the wings.

I know the Tories had their own extensive report on the state of the railways done, and that Labour used that report as a basis to justify re-nationalisation. I've not seen the report myself, but perhaps these spec-licenses were a recommendation in that report? Or maybe the Tories anticipated Labour's move and are trying to counter it?

Edit: I thought Avanti were still in special measures, but this Wikipedia list seems to discount that:

Operator of last resort

Current

London North Eastern Railway has operated the InterCity East Coast franchise since 2018, after Virgin Trains East Coast defaulted.

Northern Trains has operated the Northern franchise since 1 March 2020, after the Arriva Rail North franchise was terminated by the Department for Transport.

Transport for Wales Rail has been the Welsh Government's operator of last resort since 7 February 2021, after the Wales & Borders franchise operated by KeolisAmey Wales became unviable as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

SE Trains has operated the South Eastern franchise since 17 October 2021, after the previous Govia-owned operator Southeastern (legally London & South Eastern Railway) was stripped of the franchise for not declaring £25 million of revenue. The new operator has continued to use the Southeastern brand.

ScotRail, controlled by Scottish Rail Holdings for Transport Scotland, has run the ScotRail franchise since 1 April 2022, after the previous operator Abellio ScotRail 7 year contract ended.

TransPennine Trains Ltd took over from First TransPennine Express Limited on 28 May 2023 after the DfT terminated the contract on the grounds of poor service.

Scottish Rail Holdings took over Caledonian Sleeper from incumbent operator Serco on 25 June 2023.

Past

South Eastern Trains operated the South Eastern franchise from 2003 until 2006, after the Connex South Eastern franchise was terminated by the Strategic Rail Authority.

East Coast operated the InterCity East Coast franchise from 2009 until 2015, after National Express East Coast defaulted. 

Looks like the South East and East rail network is especially problematic.

[Red Beret]

A BBC article seems to shed more light on the issue:

  Virgin Trains could return to running rail services on the West Coast route between London and Glasgow five years after losing the franchise.

It means that Virgin would be competing with Avanti West Coast, the train company it lost the contract to in 2019.

Virgin Trains had operated the service, which runs from London Euston via Birmingham and Manchester to Scotland, for 22 years before it was disqualified from bidding for the franchise.

Virgin Group confirmed to the BBC that it had applied to the Office of Rail and Road, the regulator, for an Open Access licence.

Under this type of licence, a firm does not receive any state subsidies and takes on the risk of running a rail service itself. In contrast, a franchised operator, such as Avanti, holds a contract with the government to run the route.

A spokesperson for Virgin Group said: "While this application is just the first step towards exploring what might be possible, we think Open Access is the way forward.

"Open Access increases consumer choice and competition both of which Virgin has always supported."

Since taking over the franchise, Avanti has faced fierce criticism over delays and cancellations.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ggn8k166xo

I saw a stub floating in google suggesting Avanti had actually had its franchise extended, but I've not been able to verify that. But this seems to be an attempt to clog up the network with private operators as the nationalised services start running.

And because they will only have a handful of routes and times, they can put all their resources into making them look space age levels of efficient when compared to the nationalised services, as Labour tries to sort out the mess of privatisation.

[Jiminy Cricket]

A BBC article seems to shed more light on the issue:

I saw a stub floating in google suggesting Avanti had actually had its franchise extended, but I've not been able to verify that. But this seems to be an attempt to clog up the network with private operators as the nationalised services start running.

And because they will only have a handful of routes and times, they can put all their resources into making them look space age levels of efficient when compared to the nationalised services, as Labour tries to sort out the mess of privatisation.

Labour should state that any franchises awarded now will be cancelled without compensation when they take over Government.

[Yosser0_0]

This documentary highlights the fact that despite privatisation the railways are still costing the taxpayer a lot of money, in fact it is costing them more than when it was British Rail. Money has been spent on new infrastructure like the £19Bn Elizabeth line in London but places in the North East cannot get £1Bn to re-open a strategically important line. Levelling up eh?

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/ZHjPeC1dGv4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/ZHjPeC1dGv4</a>

[RedDeadRejection]

This documentary highlights the fact that despite privatisation the railways are still costing the taxpayer a lot of money, in fact it is costing them more than when it was British Rail. Money has been spent on new infrastructure like the £19Bn Elizabeth line in London but places in the North East cannot get £1Bn to re-open a strategically important line. Levelling up eh?

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/ZHjPeC1dGv4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/ZHjPeC1dGv4</a>

Feel ashamed on some of the networks I drive on regarding infrastructure. It's the drivers that get all the blame for costs and not the leeches taking dividend regardless of any profits made.

[thejbs]

Passengers from Belfast can pay double to Dublin https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jj3d4kwkzo

Absolutely scandalous cross border rail service in NI. If you buy a ticket from Belfast to Dublin, you have to pay £33 in NÍ. If you buy one from Dublin to Belfast (same train) it’s £13.50. Translink excuse: it’s because the ROI are subsidising 20% off rail tickets… some interesting maths.

Our public funded railways and buses are an absolute joke. Regularly miss their punctuality targets and raise prices above inflation.

[Red Beret]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/12/labour-summons-bosses-of-worst-performing-train-operators-to-meetings

Labour summons bosses of worst-performing train operators to meetings

Network Rail route directors will also attend next week as UK government aims to reform railways quickly

Labour has summoned the bosses of some of the worst-performing train operators, including Avanti West Coast and TransPennine, for meetings next week as it seeks to rapidly reform the railways and reset industrial relations.

The transport secretary, Louise Haigh, will bring in Network Rail route directors to attend all talks with the train companies, signalling the move towards an integrated railway.

After Haigh vowed to “move fast and fix things”, legislation to kickstart Great British Railways is expected to be announced in the king’s speech next week, and officials are beginning work to set up the new structure before the summer parliamentary recess.

Haigh has already met rail union leaders at the Department for Transport as the new government looks to facilitate an end to the long-running rail dispute. Haigh said her meetings with Mick Whelan and Mick Lynch, the general secretaries of Aslef and the RMT respectively, were a departure from “the days of antagonism and gimmicks” and the start of “an era of grownup industrial relations”.

Avanti and TransPennine Express are the first of a number of failing operators expected to meet the transport secretary in the coming week, with Labour warning it will be making a clear break with the previous government, which it claimed “failed passengers”.

It is understood that the party is seeking legal advice over when performance constitutes a contractual breach sufficient to swiftly terminate contracts. The government will otherwise bring train services into public ownership under GBR as contracts expire.

Haigh has long criticised Avanti in particular, accusing it during the election campaign of providing a “woeful service” – and this week several newly elected MPs immediately experienced cancellations and disruptions on their journeys on the intercity line from the north to parliament in London.

Figures from the rail regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, show Avanti had the third worst reliability of all operators in Great Britain in the 12 months to the end of March, cancelling almost 7% of trains. It was twice given short-term extensions to its contract under the Conservatives with warnings to improve, before being awarded a long-term contract in late 2023. 

Improved industrial relations and an end to the wider rail dispute may help Avanti, which has partly suffered from drivers unwilling to work overtime and occasional high rates of staff absence.

Aslef has said “anything is possible” in terms of a resolution to its long standoff over pay and conditions. Whelan said the previous government was an “obstructive puppet master” above the train companies and hoped Labour would allow them to deal freely, without imposing preconditions.

[ToneLa]

roll on the changes I reckon

or a more fitting way to put it: full steam ahead!

I'd love my trips to London to be more cost friendly. Reliability has been alright, but I've only used 6 trains so far this year, whereas others rely on it for daily travel (poor souls).

[Red Beret]

Back in 2016 I could get an advance 1st Class single to London for about £45 without a railcard. Now it would cost me around £75 to £90 WITH a railcard (a disabled persons' railcard is worth about a third off a 1st class ticket, so the full price would be closer to around £120).

Prices have effectively tripled in under a decade. I don't see how this helps the economy because it badly damages tourism. Not to mention the environment, as in many cases it's cheaper to fly abroad, which then becomes all about carbon footprint etc.

This site shows who actually owns the rolling stock

https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/who-we-work-with/industry/rolling-stock-companies

Even once Labour renationalise, they'll only own the routes and the track. It'll take years to gain control of rolling stock - most likely a fair chunk isn't fit for purpose anyway.

If only the government could set up it's only train manufacturing company as well.

[So… Howard Philips]

Back in 2016 I could get an advance 1st Class single to London for about £45 without a railcard. Now it would cost me around £75 to £90 WITH a railcard (a disabled persons' railcard is worth about a third off a 1st class ticket, so the full price would be closer to around £120).

Prices have effectively tripled in under a decade. I don't see how this helps the economy because it badly damages tourism. Not to mention the environment, as in many cases it's cheaper to fly abroad, which then becomes all about carbon footprint etc.

This site shows who actually owns the rolling stock

https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/who-we-work-with/industry/rolling-stock-companies

Even once Labour renationalise, they'll only own the routes and the track. It'll take years to gain control of rolling stock - most likely a fair chunk isn't fit for purpose anyway.

If only the government could set up it's only train manufacturing company as well.

Government doesn’t have a good record of owning manufacturing plants though - did you ever own a BL car? 

I’m sure there were sound train manufacturers in this country but those jobs have probably been exported and they ain’t comin’ back.

[oldfordie]

Government doesn’t have a good record of owning manufacturing plants though - did you ever own a BL car? 

I’m sure there were sound train manufacturers in this country but those jobs have probably been exported and they ain’t comin’ back.

Nobody is arguing to nationalise manufacturing plants are they, what I mean by that is the government producing goods to sell to the Public, it's about services.
I think the arguments against Nationalisation will probably bring up records showing just how inefficient some of these services like BL were. the image Nationalised services had back then. it's not telling the full story, all of British industry was inefficient and un competitive back then, the country had to change to survive and it has, we are now efficient and competitive, any Nationalised company's would also be efficient with the right people running it. 
We will not go back to the 60-80s days practices so the scare story comparisons the Torys etc will make have no credibility.

[Red Beret]

OF is right. Now Labour can make the case that privatised has been tried and results have been mixed at best. Two areas where it has clearly failed are water and the railways.

But Labour can also point to the effective nationalisation of banks during the financial crisis, and the replacement of Railtrack with Network Rail as proof there is room for nationalised industry and services, and that they can be run effectively and efficiently.

[bradders1011]

or a more fitting way to put it: full steam ahead!

[So… Howard Philips]

State owned LNER cancels trains today due to staff shortage. If they’ve dipped out of working to watch the match that’ll be an open goal for the likes of the Mail and Telegraph;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5jevlyr94o

[Eeyore]

State owned LNER cancels trains today due to staff shortage. If they’ve dipped out of working to watch the match that’ll be an open goal for the likes of the Mail and Telegraph;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5jevlyr94o

I think it is more a case of the fact that understaffing has meant they are completely reliant on people choosing to do overtime. People aren't pulling a sickie they are just choosing not to do voluntary overtime.

[Red Beret]

I think it is more a case of the fact that understaffing has meant they are completely reliant on people choosing to do overtime. People aren't pulling a sickie they are just choosing not to do voluntary overtime.

Yeah. Happened over at Avanti a couple of years back. I had to cancel a trip because they couldn't guarantee my train. What was annoying as Avanti describing it as "unofficial industrial action" when the reality was it was a bunch of train staff who had been doing voluntary overtime for years and wanted a break.

Strange that we seem to have a staff shortage in the rail industry though. You would think being a train driver would be a nice earner if you can get through the training. Obviously you need other staff as well, like attendants - not particularly glamorous work, but still very important.

[So… Howard Philips]

I think it is more a case of the fact that understaffing has meant they are completely reliant on people choosing to do overtime. People aren't pulling a sickie they are just choosing not to do voluntary overtime.

It’s just the timing.

But if this is the “renationalised” line (and I know it was done under the auspices of a series of incompetent Tory Transport Secretary’s of State) you would think that they would have resolved staffing levels?

Oh wait…….I just answered my own question.