Re-nationalisation of British Rail

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The video above does seem to outline issues pretty well.

Given that there are several privatised train operating companies (TOC's) that have failed, and their services are now run by the government, it seems that some form of further "nationalisation" does makes sense.

I worked for British Rail myself, back in the day, and it was a complete joined up service. All aspects were interlinked under one organisation, rather than the fragmented current situation.

(Imagine if Amtrak had full oversight of all the stations, the tracks, the freight, the passenger trains, the rolling stock, and so could prioritise resources where they were needed...)

Rationality says that with global warming, the time of eco-friendly improved train travel is here. Humans.... Rational? :D :D
 
I do think this renationalization is a step in the right direction. But it will all come down to how much the government is willing to invest in the system. It seems to me that a number of short sighted decisions get made on the basis of cost, a classic example being HS2 which keeps getting trimmed back to the point where it now seems it will not deliver the improvements initially planned, especially if it ends at Old Oak Common and not at Euston. (Imagine if Amtrak's NEC ended at Newark and everybody had to take PATH to complete their trip into NYC).
 
A hybrid system that preserved some private operators might be the ideal compromise. For example, the ECML currently sees trains from four operators in semi-direct competition, with some overlap from even more. If in that example the mainline services of LNER became the "National" service would Grand Central, Hull Trains and LUMO survive?
 
A hybrid system that preserved some private operators might be the ideal compromise. For example, the ECML currently sees trains from four operators in semi-direct competition, with some overlap from even more. If in that example the mainline services of LNER became the "National" service would Grand Central, Hull Trains and LUMO survive?
Just like in the US all will depend on how well the National Service is funded and managed. There is no magic in the term Nationalized. It all depends on how it is structured, funded and managed. For example given a choice between funding NHS and Rail Passenger given a fixed finite pot of money, which choice would most want to opt for?
 
We will just have to wait and see what they actually fund at what level, since the budgetary situation in the UK is not going to look anything less than ugly in the foreseeable future. Hard to meaningfully speculate until the new government starts doing stuff.
 
A hybrid system that preserved some private operators might be the ideal compromise. For example, the ECML currently sees trains from four operators in semi-direct competition, with some overlap from even more. If in that example the mainline services of LNER became the "National" service would Grand Central, Hull Trains and LUMO survive?
The Open Access operators will not be directly affected by this. Since LNER is already government-owned and operated, I can't see there being much difference.
 
Last edited:
I do think this renationalization is a step in the right direction. But it will all come down to how much the government is willing to invest in the system. It seems to me that a number of short sighted decisions get made on the basis of cost, a classic example being HS2 which keeps getting trimmed back to the point where it now seems it will not deliver the improvements initially planned, especially if it ends at Old Oak Common and not at Euston. (Imagine if Amtrak's NEC ended at Newark and everybody had to take PATH to complete their trip into NYC).
Could happen if there's another Sandy before the new tunnels are in service (a decade or more), the old tunnels flood again, and are in such bad shape they can't be restored for years. Then it would be PATH or a ferry bridge on the NEC!
 
Was the nationalized British Rail of old really that bad? I experienced it for about 3 weeks in June of 1985, and compared to Amtrak it seemed like I had died and gone into train rider's heaven. I rode suburban trains around London, and after meeting my brother on his way back from a junior year abroad in Nepal, we did a circuit London - Oxford - Birmingham - Shrewsbury - Abergavenny - Cardiff -Bristol - Dawlish - St. Ives - Penzance and back to London.

It seemed like you could take a train to any decently sized town and there were usually multiple departures through the day on most routes. I don't recall any of our trains being delayed or having any mechanical breakdowns. Some of the equipment was old but seemed to be in good repair and clean. The second-class seats were roomy and reasonably comfortable, even if they didn't recline and were in groups two facing pairs of seats separated by a nice large table.

Not much on-board service: From a snack trolley, I bought a paper cup of tea made with a tea bag that made a mockery of this fine British tradition. We also treated ourselves to dinner in a restaurant car on the Penzance to London train that was a nice full course steak dinner but cost us 25 pounds each! And that was back in 1985. I especially appreciated the cheese tray served with dessert. The cheese was under a glass dome and properly warmed to room temperature, something that's hard to find even in fancy restaurants these days. The service was understated, but attentive even if my brother was dressed like some hippie in Indian cotton pajamas. All of this from a nationalized system that had no competition on the rails (but, of course had competition from people driving their cars, buses, and domestic airlines.)
 
Was the nationalized British Rail of old really that bad?
Not in my experience. My sense was that the government's decision to sell to private companies was an ideological one, not one based on problems with British Rail. I miss the quality of the past network every time I travel to the UK and have to depend on the current rail system.
 
Unless competition is restricted or prohibited. 🤔
Labour have stated they have no plans to interfere with open access operators (or freight, which will remain private).
It seemed like you could take a train to any decently sized town and there were usually multiple departures through the day on most routes.
Well, that's generally considered the bare minimum in Europe!
 
The video above does seem to outline issues pretty well.

Given that there are several privatised train operating companies (TOC's) that have failed, and their services are now run by the government, it seems that some form of further "nationalisation" does makes sense.

I worked for British Rail myself, back in the day, and it was a complete joined up service. All aspects were interlinked under one organisation, rather than the fragmented current situation.

(Imagine if Amtrak had full oversight of all the stations, the tracks, the freight, the passenger trains, the rolling stock, and so could prioritise resources where they were needed...)

Rationality says that with global warming, the time of eco-friendly improved train travel is here. Humans.... Rational? :D :D

No. I like train travel, but the USA is much more sparsely populated than Europe. And the fact that President Biden has decided that it’s necessary to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep gasoline prices is pretty strong evidence that there is not sufficient political will to divert significant resources from personal vehicle travel to make massive improvements to passenger rail.

Plus, remember, it’s not global warming. It’s climate change, crisis, emergency or catastrophe. Colder here, warmer there. Droughts here, floods there. And nobody is following through on their breakthrough pledges.
 
No. I like train travel, but the USA is much more sparsely populated than Europe. And the fact that President Biden has decided that it’s necessary to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep gasoline prices is pretty strong evidence that there is not sufficient political will to divert significant resources from personal vehicle travel to make massive improvements to passenger rail.

Plus, remember, it’s not global warming. It’s climate change, crisis, emergency or catastrophe. Colder here, warmer there. Droughts here, floods there. And nobody is following through on their breakthrough pledges.
I don't think trains might replace personal cars, but maybe they could replace some airline routes. The cities are pollution hotspots, so a better commuter rail system might reduce car use.
I think the expression global warming is fairly correct, in that the earth is warming up across the board, ice caps melting, increasing greenhouse gases?
It seems to me that the global warming, overall, is producing the changes in climate that you refer to?
 
Speaking of Labours alleged commitment to rail, is it likely that they will find money to restore the HS-2 project to its form before Rishi Sunak decapitated it?
No real idea about that. The current finances of the country are pretty stretched, from what the new Labour govt. have said, so I guess it will take a while before money for that appears, if at all. Just my guess.
 
Speaking of Labours alleged commitment to rail, is it likely that they will find money to restore the HS-2 project to its form before Rishi Sunak decapitated it?
Unlikely. In fact, there's better odds that HS2 Ltd. will sell off the land they acquired for north of Birmingham than keep it.
 
Speaking of Labours alleged commitment to rail, is it likely that they will find money to restore the HS-2 project to its form before Rishi Sunak decapitated it?
In full, almost certainly not. However with private funding and a cut-back scheme that only bypasses the major bottlenecks, perhaps.
 
Back
Top