Vote Boris, get Corbyn policies

[Ossian]

So basically this 'nationalisation' is keeping the private companies running their services and having to make a profit whilst putting a layer on top. Wow, what could go wrong?

Only like much of the rest of the public sector where services are commissioned.

A least there's still a profit motive *somewhere* so it can never be as bad as BR.

Why are you using BR as a benchmark and not the directly comparable operators of last resort which have shit on the private sector owned franchises in punctuality and service?

Those arrangements have delivered improved outcomes (which is supposedly the primary objective) for both passengers and the treasury, particularly on the east coast main line. And then had to do the same all over again because the ideological zeal to return the franchises into private hands at the first opportunity couldn't be resisted.

[Protheroe]

So basically this 'nationalisation' is keeping the private companies running their services and having to make a profit whilst putting a layer on top. Wow, what could go wrong?

Only like much of the rest of the public sector where services are commissioned.

A least there's still a profit motive *somewhere* so it can never be as bad as BR.

Why are you using BR as a benchmark and not the directly comparable operators of last resort which have shit on the private sector owned franchises in punctuality and service?

East Coast was a rinse and repeat disaster in the private sector, and completely starved of investment each time it went into the public sector. Even then it's not that simple when you factor that the promises of franchisees were based on service / passenger growth that could only be achieved via significant (and unforthcoming) investment from Network Rail.

I use BR as a comparable because that's the last time the entire rail system was in public ownership.

[Borin' Baggie]

But the ECML has been profitable and provided a good service under East Coast and LNER which the private sector has been unable to replicate, and it's happened twice now. Services have also significantly improved in Wales over the last few months now TfW Rail is directly operated by the Welsh government. You can't blame the staff or investment here as the staff is the same and the private sector franchises got more investment from Network Rail, the only thing that changed was the management structure and the introduction of the introduction of a supposed "profit motive". And let's not forget, East Coast managed it during the period with the least amount of investment into the ECML and with aging rolling stock that was only replaced when Virgin-Stagecoach came in. If it's the profit motive that's important in driving innovation and then all signs point to the state doing a better job at that as well as providing services.

And let's not get started on criticising Network Rail in this context shall we? Otherwise I'll bring Railtrack into the argument who are a prime example of how the private sector can fuck up managing critical infrastructure even while being tightly regulated. Hell, the ECML in particular has been a heavy focus of Network Rail in addressing the fuck ups by Railtrack.


You can't compare British Rail to the modern railway network. The state tried to wind down rail usage the entire time in contrast to embolden public transport since the franchise model was introduced. Let's not forget British Rail itself was sabotaged in its operation by Ernest Marples, in a textbook example of Tory cronyism might I add, which the franchises have not been. Hell, the state is spending more money on the railway now than they were before the Beeching cuts even when adjusted for inflation and it's been that case for decades at this point.

[Ossian]

But the ECML has been profitable and provided a good service under East Coast and LNER which the private sector has been unable to replicate, and it's happened twice now. Services have also significantly improved in Wales over the last few months now TfW Rail is directly operated by the Welsh government. You can't blame the staff or investment here as the staff is the same and the private sector franchises got more investment from Network Rail, the only thing that changed was the management structure and the introduction of the introduction of a supposed "profit motive". And let's not forget, East Coast managed it during the period with the least amount of investment into the ECML and with aging rolling stock that was only replaced when Virgin-Stagecoach came in. If it's the profit motive that's important in driving innovation and then all signs point to the state doing a better job at that as well as providing services.

And let's not get started on criticising Network Rail in this context shall we? Otherwise I'll bring Railtrack into the argument who are a prime example of how the private sector can fuck up managing critical infrastructure even while being tightly regulated. Hell, the ECML in particular has been a heavy focus of Network Rail in addressing the fuck ups by Railtrack.

You can't compare British Rail to the modern railway network. The state tried to wind down rail usage the entire time in contrast to embolden public transport since the franchise model was introduced. Let's not forget British Rail itself was sabotaged in its operation by Ernest Marples, in a textbook example of Tory cronyism might I add, which the franchises have not been. Hell, the state is spending more money on the railway now than they were before the Beeching cuts even when adjusted for inflation and it's been that case for decades at this point.

All true: the halcyon period for private operators on the ECML was the first period of the GNER franchise, prior to the renewal and resubmission for tender. The primary reason for that being the generous level of subsidy during that period - far in excess of anything like the level of state support the route ever received under BR. GNER's parent company - Sea Containers - quoted unrealistically to eliminate any competition and secure the renewal, then subsequently reneged on the bond they'd signed; so much for private sector accountability. That should have been the only lesson needed, but we all know the subsequent history.

And you are right to also mention Railtrack for context: whatever criticisms there might be of Network Rail, they have at least managed to stop killing passengers as a consequence of shoddy infrastructure work. That's what I'd call an outcome.

[Protheroe]

But the ECML has been profitable and provided a good service under East Coast and LNER which the private sector has been unable to replicate

As an opco with no investment, yes. If you want to franchise on that basis I doubt the results would be much different.

[Borin' Baggie]

But we're comparing them with GNER, NXEC and VTEC which were all disasters both in terms of finances and quality of service despite having more going in their favour in terms of infrastructure and rolling stock. So we already have results, and the results are very different and very much in favour of East Coast and LNER.

[Shabby Russian]

Just to point out. Don't think BR was as bad as some of the privately owned rail companies operating today.

And as someone who is old enough to have travelled on BR trains, was it bad at all?

[Ossian]

Just to point out. Don't think BR was as bad as some of the privately owned rail companies operating today.

And as someone who is old enough to have travelled on BR trains, was it bad at all?

BR was patchy, which is pretty much the case today.

BR also suffered from chronic underinvestment; not all of the private operators have been able to say that post '97. Some of them have done very nicely and not been averse to handing back the keys when the going got tough.

[Protheroe]

Just to point out. Don't think BR was as bad as some of the privately owned rail companies operating today.

And as someone who is old enough to have travelled on BR trains, was it bad at all?

As someone old enough to have worked for BR as a college student, it was awful.

[bradesbaggie]

More Tory successes.