The Case for Rail Nationalisation

British Rail came into being with the Transport Act 1947, and was the result of the big 4 railway companies from all over the country merging and being nationalised.

British Rail came into being with the Transport Act 1947, and was the result of the big 4 railway companies from all over the country merging and being nationalised. The nationalisation came into force in 1948 and within a few years there were massive upheavals, such as the move to electric trains.

However, the Railways Act 1993 privatised the railways and allowed for 25 franchises to be bought by private companies to operate trains across the country. Other areas of British Rail were subsequently split up and prepared for privatisation. The private company Railtrack took ownership of all the tracks and stations.

When the Labour Party came to power in 1997, more changes were made to the organisation of the former British Rail. After the Hatfield Rail Crash, Railtrack went downhill and eventually dissolved in 2002 and was replaced by the company Network Rail. Unlike Railtrack, however, Network Rail is (as of 2006) run by the government, although still technically a private company.

The aims of rail nationalisation were to improve customer services, improve efficiency, get value for money and for ideological reasons. Also, the railway network was badly damaged during World war II, and government control made recovery much quicker. However, over time and because of neglect, these aims were never satisfactorily achieved. This coincided with a shift in attitude that meant that the Conservative governments of 1979 – 1997 were in a position to starve the railways of nurture and then privatise them.

The aims of rail privatisation were very similar to the aims of nationalisation – improve customer services, improve reliability and lower prices. Prices on some tickets were actually lowered, but on uneconomical lines the prices actually soared – this combines with a lack of other public transport to mean that people in rural areas need cars, which has an adverse effect on the environment.

Another core aim of privatisation was to introduce a liberalised market economy into the the rail service. One of the fundamental arguments in favour of privatisation is that by having a liberal market with competition there is consumer choice and due to consumer demand the prices are kept down. However, rail privatisation can never actually work like this, because although there are 25 franchises there each operate in their own area and there is actually no consumer choice. So what the end result is is private companies with a total monopoly on rail transport.

The nature of private companies is that they want to make a profit for their shareholders. Companies make profits by increasing income from sales and keeping costs as low as possible. This inevitably means that they will have to 'cut corners' at some point in time and not spend as much on infrastructure or similar things than they really should. So for uneconomical train lines such as those in rural areas, the rail companies are not going to spend much because they do not make much money. This means dirty trains and poor customer service – something that privatisation was supposed to solve.

A nationalised industry does not have to make a profit. In fact, it does not even have to break even because the government would provide money for it. This means that corners are not cut and services can be more reliable.

The efficiency of the privatised railways is very dubious, as there is no single authority making decisions. It is safe to say that efficiency has not improved and will never improve under privatisation.

Improved customer services and punctuality have not been achieved due to cuts in infrastructure and because the general public certainly does not understand how the system works and who to complain to.

All of this is evidence that privatisation of the railways does not fulfil its purpose effectively.

Because of various scandals over the years either directly or indirectly caused by rail privatisation, the franchise owners are not doing particularly well. Network Rail is government funded, and taxpayers' money is being pumped into the system so that the franchise owners can stay afloat. Because of this no matter how much the government invests in Network Rail, the customers will never see any improvement in services. It is totally up to the private companies to improve services.

The only way the railways can actually improve and become more efficient is through nationalisation. Private companies will not improve and update the system because they are happy the way things are. They do not want to risk building a new line unless it is not as economical as they thought it would be.


Display: Sort:

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#1)

I'm sorry but little of this makes sense.

We can nationalise the railway, yes, but don't advocate that for the reasons given here.

The private companies running the railways do have to make a profit but that also means they have a disincentive to cut corners too, because if they are discovered doing that they could go out of business. A nationalised rail company would not have that incentive.

Furthermore, the money the government spends on the railway has to come from somewhere and is limited in size. So every £1 spent on the railway is £1 we cannot spend on hospitals or schools, or if it comes in tax, in money I can use to put food on the table.

The argument that we don't need to see a return on public capital is the most risible of all. Currently the government borrows £40 odd billion a year, paying maybe 4.5% interest on average. Are you saying we (the taxpayer) should pay that interest cost so we can pass that money on to someone who has no incentive whatsoever to seek a return on our money? They could just spend it all on cream cakes in their offices for all the difference it would make.

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#2)

By 'cutting corners' I didn't mean in an illegal way. What I mean is that they are less inclined to spend in areas such as cleaning on train lines that are uneconomical. The train that runs along the Welsh coast is very old and not really looked after at all.

On reflection it probably isn't good practice to aim to make less money than the service costs...breaking even would be preferable. But my point here is that a nationalised rail service would not have an obligation to shareholders to make money. It would, however, have an obligation to the government and the public to provide a reliable service and to be as self sustaining as possible - quite different from the obligations of a private company.

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#3)

There's an interesting discussion going on over at Guido's about the economic benefits of tarmac-ing over the rails and just having buses.

Interesting.

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#4)

There is a compelling economic and environmental case for promoting rail as an alternative to the incredibly environmentally damaging reliance upon road transport for freight.

I don't doubt the daft Tories over at Guido's are debating a loony right idea but I don't see why we should join in!

As for rail nationalisation well - the case is as strong now as the last time we did it. Private companies have to take a profit out of what they do. BR didn't have to do that.

The private sector is not more efficient or more effective than the public sector. Check out the fiasco of letting the private sector provide IT services to the NHS if you doubt this!

Let's get our public services back into the public sector. It's called socialism. It might just work :)

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#5)

clenches fist

Absolutely! To be honest the only people who argue against nationalisation on principal are those who either stand to loose from it or feel sympathy with those who stand to loose from it. I cannot see how anybody can seriously believe that privatisation will work better.

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#8)

Yes, nationalise all shops. Private shops have to make a profit, publicly owned shops would provide cheaper food.

And, who can possibly say that telecomms are better now we have competition and not a state monopoly. Bring back the GPO.

Don't forget Carlisle's pubs. That sell out Harold Wilson should have renationalised them after Ted Heath flogged them off. While we're at it, nationalise all the breweries. Private breweries have to make a profit, so pushing up the price of beer and anyway competition is wasteful.

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#11)

Not at all. Don't you see that there isn't actually any competition in the railways?! Private companies shouldn't have a monopoly. Either have private companies with a competitive free market or nationalise.

It is ludicrous to nationalise all the breweries and/or pubs. They'd all just become the same...But for something like the railways there is no consumer choice anyway so why should private companies be making money from it? The privateers have a total monopoly and it isn't right. It's a bad deal for the passengers and rip-off for the tax payers.

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#12)

Maybe we should tarmac them over and let mutiple private bus companies compete on the same routes for passengers.

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#13)

It would make a lot more sense than the present situation actually.

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#7)

I don't know a lot about it and don't have a strong view either way, but to ignore a debate just because you've decided that it's 'right wing' seems rather closed minded and counter productive.

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#6)

I consider myself a floating voter but I admit that I have voted Tory more often than Labour and politically my philosophy is slightly to the right of centre.

So I'm hardly a left-winger, and yet I think the privatisation of the railways was completely mad.  Indeed, I would go further and agree with the renowned rail expert Christian Wolmar when he describes rail privatisation as the biggest financial scandal since the second world war.

The privatisation broke up the railways into tiny pieces and this caused significant loss of economies of scale and irreplacable loss of expertise from the old BR.  Costs of operation have gone through the roof as a direct result of the fragmentation and the necessary response to the disasters that this caused.  The old BR needed something like 3 or 4 times less subsidy than the railways now receive, in real terms, and the service was safer and better then.

Of course the railways should be renationalised, it's common sense and in the medium to long term it would save money.  The vast majority of people in this country would support such a policy, Tory voters as well as Labour.

It is to Tony Blair's shame that he has let this shambles carry on for so long.

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#9)

Privatisation was a scandal. The question is what we do now that particular omlette has been made.

The fact that the Tories did a scumbag thing does not mean that the right policy option is to do exactly the opposite.

Are you proposing the state should compulsorily repurchase all sold council houses? If not, why not?

Re: The Case for Rail Nationalisation (#10)

The state can build more council houses, but they can't build another railway network. We have 1 rail network and it is in the interests of the passengers that it is state controlled.