Time for a national, publicly-owned, railway?

[vinteuil]

Has anyone any info on the Swiss rail model? I understand from acquaintainces that it is still as efficiently run, and ticketwise passenger-friendly, as it was when I was working in Switzerland in the late 60s.

... ah, but they don't have the problem of "the wrong kind of snow" in Switzerland

[Flosshilde]

What's on earth has Mr Souter's personal right to campaign against anything he wishes got to do with running the railways ...?

Why shouldn't I exercise my personal right to decide who my money goes to, & object to it going to people who campaign against causes I believe in?

[Simon]

Another interesting thread, if one ignores the irrelevancies/love-ins between our two most challenged posters and some baseless political jibes. (Lady Thatcher didn't "hate" the railways; she was frustrated by them being inefficient).

The facts are these.

BR was a costly mess, due mainly to incompetent management and to some restrictive practices. At its time of privatisation, rightly or wrongly the major political drive was for a massive reduction in government - in all areas. Conservatives have, historically, been against "big government", state involvement and debt; socialists tends to think the state should get involved in many more aspects of running the country.

However, as with so many political ideals, things went wrong when they hit reality. The first was that it was not thought through fully; civil servants aren't in general particularly thick or incompetent, but they generally don't have commercial experience and they have, historically, been quite secure in their positions unless they have made massive blunders, which has at times led to complacency. So those from the private sector involved in the bidding etc. were able to run rings around them, as indeed they did with other privatisations; there are more sharks in private equity organisations than in the Indian ocean! Add to this that not everyone involved will have behaved with complete integrity, and you have the foundations of trouble to come. (cf. the recently squashed "winning" bid for WCML).

As was said above, what interests the private sector is profit, rather than service. As Virgin has largely done, the two can be combined. But, again as has been said, if the two conflict then it is service that loses out and the customer suffers. The appalling situation that has led to companies in the past being able to walk away from debts and pass them on to the public sector is nothing less than an outrage; this again could be said to be due to a combination of incompetence on one side and sharp practice on the other.

What privatisation did for the railways was to prove that they could be run more efficiently and that service to the customer was a model from the private sector that could usefully transfer. What is took away was the pride in things going right and the sense of being a part of a great, historical industry that was the hallmark of the ordinary railwayman.

What should have happened, in my view, was a halfway house; more efficiency, the acceptance of some private sector practices and yet retained public ownership. (But the unions would perhaps not have stood for that.) I believe that the rail network is a public asset that the country needs, that benefits most people in the country and that we should be able to be proud of. Look abroad: DB is excellent and FS a marvel of links to the smallest of places - trains generally full and fares cheap.

The British system's inevitable decline post 1950s, due to the expansion of the road network and the affordability of cars, is a fact of life. But times have now changed, as some astute industry watchers prophesied years ago that they would; more people use the railways, if they are well run they produce profit, and investment in expansion should pay. But not expansion by building a new line to shave a few minutes from Birmingham to London's time - that's the wrong decision (though no doubt, as Frances has pointed out elsewhere) some vested interest will be quids in!) No, expansion to reconnect so many of those stations that are still there but unused and to reopen some of the branch lines closed for so long is what is needed, right across the country where there is an identifiable current or future requirement. That would create many jobs, as well as be of environmental benefit.

Taking all this into acount, I would certainly not be against a renationalisation, provided that somebody competent were engaged to run it!

[Serial_Apologist]

... ah, but they don't have the problem of "the wrong kind of snow" in Switzerland

Snow use worrying about it then!

[Frances_iom]

I must really be getting old - a sensible post from Simon I mostly agree with - I wonder if his proximity to Derby has provided some wisdom here - we cannot afford to build yet more motorways (the Birmingham M5 toll one tho private is mostly boycotted by the haulage industry and the costs are significant for the short distance - if this model was adopted driving London to Glasgow one way would cost well over £150 in tolls alone for a private car)
I agree with Simon that the economics of HS2 look decidely bizarre - the old GWR route to Birmingham could also be significantly improved (serving Oxford etc) - I don't know how much of the extension to Shrewsbury still survives in a state that could also be upgraded tho possibly insufficient traffic to justify it. The old GWR route London to Cardiff needs electrification )

[scottycelt]

Whatever one thinks of the merits or demerits of renationalisation the fact is that as far as the WCML is concerned Branson was proved correct. Like probably most folk who were at all interested I suspected he may have been chancing his arm and simply hoping a court action would go his way. He was however always adamant that he was being honest about the unreality of the FG bid and pointed out that such costly errors had history most obviously on the ECML. Well, if simple things like passenger numbers and inflation weren't even taken into account in the tests, as Patrick McLoughlin now claims, Branson, at the very least, did the country and taxpayer a service by refusing to shut up and go away.

However, despite my view that incompetent civil-servants should not get involved in the running of anything, even I find it difficult to believe that those involved were quite that incompetent and stupid. Call me an old cynic but I simply don't trust politicians of any colour who blame civil-servants for u-turns. My suspicion is that the government belatedly realised that Branson was actually correct in his claims and Cameron took the opportunity to do a re-shuffle of the cabinet and therefore a swift about-turn.

I would also add that, judging by the recent letters to my local newspaper, all the fears appeared to be about possible cuts to trains to London and elsewhere when FG was awarded the contract and not one criticised the current service provided by Virgin.

Not a very scientific gauge of opinion, admittedly, but it's certainly more in line with my own experience travelling on the WCML. I think that there may well have been quite a few eyebrows raised when the news came that Virgin had lost the franchise in the first place.

All so costly and unnecessary, imv.

[Frances_iom]

Branson is generally a smart operator (and most if not all of his concerns are actually joint ventures with other operators) tho I would be wary of buying a used car from him - he lost 3 ECML bids to companies that pulled out as they could not make it pay - he has stuck it thru the at times farcical and glacially slow upgrading of the WCML to see it turn into a highly profitable franchise with as far as I can see as a regular traveller no adverse passenger comments (more than can be said for the predatory companies operated directly by Souter) - I assume his accountants had come up with a bid that was pretty close to a solid case - the gap with FD case was so large that something had to be wrong in the evaluation especially given FD 'track' record with the GW route

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

What should have happened, in my view, was a halfway house; more efficiency, the acceptance of some private sector practices and yet retained public ownership. (But the unions would perhaps not have stood for that.) I believe that the rail network is a public asset that the country needs, that benefits most people in the country and that we should be able to be proud of. Look abroad: DB is excellent and FS a marvel of links to the smallest of places - trains generally full and fares cheap.

This actually more or less what happened prior to privatisation, and although there was a certain amount of mudslinging, with one "company" blaming another when things went wrong, this was perhaps the best period for the railways within living memory. Unfortunately, privatisation followed...

[Flosshilde]

I must really be getting old - a sensible post from Simon I mostly agree with

Me too - I had to check the name at the top! My only major disagreement is with the high speed line, & it's only a partial disagreement. It makes no sense to plan it only as far as Birmingham with vague noises about extending it. It should be planned all the way through to Aberdeen. That's the only way it wil make sense & do what it's claimed it will do - reduce air traffic.

The Scottish Government is building/reinstating disused lines several around Glasgow, & Edinburgh, & planning the 'Waverly line' through the Borders. They are also right to be furious (putting it mildly) with Westminster for not involving them in the decisions on the West Coast line.

EA is also right - before the planned destruction of British Rail by the Tories, long before Major privatised it, it was being managed properly & the Inter-city section was profitable.

[amateur51]

Will Hutton has his four pennorth ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/07/will-hutton-west-coast-rail

[Resurrection Man]

... ah, but they don't have the problem of "the wrong kind of snow" in Switzerland

And their demographics/size of population/size of railways/number of passengers etc are completely different and so any comparison is meaningless.

[amateur51]

And their demographics/size of population/size of railways/number of passengers etc are completely different and so any comparison is meaningless.

Sense of humour failure Nurse!

[amateur51]

Well, well, well ...

The fiasco of the west coast main line rail franchise bids could have been avoided if the government had not cancelled an external audit to save money, according to people who have worked at the Department for Transport.
It could end up costing the government up to £100m, while the financial audit would not have cost more than £1m.

Patrick McLoughlin, the minister of transport, will give a statement to the House of Commons this week on an investigation into the bid and the arrangements for management of the line when Virgin's contract runs out in December. The government has asked Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of Centrica, who also sits on the board of the DfT, to carry out an inquiry. Critics point out that Laidlaw's inquiry cannot be independent if he's a board member.

Civil servants and ministers say that it was normal practice to employ financial auditors, such as PwC, to check the calculations and methods used by civil servants in awarding contracts. An independent audit is also a useful way of deflecting charges or accusations of incompetence or bias.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oc...sco-audit-axed

[french frank]

This seemed to be the most appropriate existing thread. A so-called 'privately-run' railway in Switzerland (BBC television watchers may already have seen this). I think this must be the Rhaetian railway itself as it runs through Graubünden, and at the very end of the video you see the famous Landwasser viaduct near Filisur.

In a previous existence I interviewed the railway's PR officer and asked about the status of the railway - which runs through the most challenging terrain in Switzerland with amazing engineering feats: the fully electrified system has been operating since the early 20th century. He said that the company was indeed set up as a private company, though large shareholders were the canton of Graubünden and the federally owned SBB. The actual number of private shareholders was quite small, and there are statutory requirements to provide a social service for the small Alpine villages. Worth getting a Swisspass (you can use it on the postbus system too) and spending a holiday here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/63453747

[Frances_iom]

As a frequent user of the West Coast trains all I can say is that it has gone down hill ever since Virgin lost the contract - currently a mess with several trains cancelled so that services are merged leading to potential overcrowding and longer journeys - the main problem until the last 4 weeks when some rationality was applied was that you couldn't book any seats as it was clear that a train would actually run - but Avanti don't really seem to care about the reservation system in that on many trains it hasn't been downloaded - in other cases all seats are shown as reserved but the coach is less than half full. They have 'modernised' the pendolino stock in that the Virgin style has been changed, and power outlets now added to every seat as opposed to just the few table seats but the cattle class seating is still in use and often the on-train catering is suspended.