The case for re-nationalising Britain's rail network

We'll have all this lot back for a start. Image: Bruno Vincent/Getty.

Labour leadership hopefuls Jeremy Corbyn and Andy Burnham have both spoken of re-nationalising the UK’s railways, and the case for national ownership of such a crucial piece of a country’s infrastructure is the source of much debate. But the evidence suggests that integrating the UK’s expensive and fragmented rail network under public ownership could save hundreds of millions and also provide a better service.

At a smaller level, Transport for London shows the success of an integrated network run by the public sector. If a similar model was applied to national rail, all profits made in the sector would be reinvested, fares could be cut and government subsidies reduced. This compared to how costly and inefficient privatising the national rail network has been.

The latest two YouGov Surveys indicate majority support for taking rail back into public ownership. Opposition to the idea has fallen from March to August.

The overwhelming reason for this is a belief that rail fares would go down as a result. For example a YouGov Survey of 2014 found the top three reasons for re-nationalising the railways were that:

  • Railways would be accountable to the taxpayer rather than shareholders;
  • Rail fares would go down;
  • It would be more cost effective overall.

Only a third think ticket prices would go up under public ownership. Half think the fares would fall. Image: Survation, May 2014.

The belief is justified. In 2013, journey prices were 23 per cent higher in real terms than in 1995, the year rail was fully privatised. Research by Transport for Quality of Life indicates creating a unified publicly owned railway could save enough to fund a 10 per cent cut on regulated fares, which constitute half of all tickets sold, including season and day return tickets.

This month trade union campaigners Action for Rail suggested regulated fares rose 25 per cent between 2010 and 2015 alone. Prices have risen fastest on long distances, which are often unregulated.


A costly experiment

Today’s part public, part private system is a reflection of the Great British rail privatisation experiment. The 1993 Railways Act split responsibility for physical rail infrastructure and the train services. Railtrack, a for-profit company, took on infrastructure; meanwhile, the passenger rail network was split into 25 companies, each to be run by the private sector.

Infrastructure has since been returned to public ownership. After four fatal rail accidents around the millennium exposed Railtrack’s dangerous under-investment and spiralling project costs, Network Rail, a not-for-dividend company, was created to replace it. Its high dependence on subsidy and government-guaranteed borrowing then required its reclassificaion from a non-profit company to a central government body.

The result of all is this total rail subsidies have increased from around £2.75bn in the late 1980s to around £4bn today. An integrated network could reduce excessive costs of fragmentation through cooperative working, coordinated planning and knowledge sharing.

Total subsidy to the rail network in each financial year. Subsidy include Network Rail and Train Operating Subsidy, 1995-2012. Prices shown are 2012 prices. Source: House of Commons Transport Committee (2013) Rail 2020 - Seventh Report of Session 2012-13.

There has also been significant growth in Network Rail debt – from £9.6bn in 2003, to £34bn in 2014. The debt has grown in an effort to upgrade the under-invested infrastructure inherited from Railtrack, but also due to the cost of servicing existing debt. With Network Rail now a central government body, rather than borrowing from the City, it can do so through the Treasury, which is slightly cheaper.

Passenger rises

In terms of the rail network, privatisation was meant to bring “higher quality of service and better value for money”. But the hope that private sector management efficiency would mean that the system could run without subsidy has not been fulfilled.

As the graph below shows, at no point in recent history has the British railway network managed to cover its costs. On average, passenger fares have made up 60 per cent of total rail income in the past 25 years – peaking at 85 per cent in the year the network was privatised.

Indeed, the 1992 White Paper on rail privatisation, drafted to inform the 1993 Railways Act, recommended that rail infrastructure remain publicly owned as there was no record of profitability.

Passenger fare revenue as a percentage of total GB rail system revenue. Source: A Bowman (2015) An illusion of success: The consequences of British rail privatisation.

 

Supporters of privatisation point to the growth in passenger numbers as evidence for its success. Average annual passenger numbers rose 4 per cent between 1997 and 2012 compared to 1.73 per cent between 1982 and 1996, and the annual journeys per head rose from 14.9 in 1997-98 to 22.4 in 2010-11.

But passenger revenue has not been able to cover costs, despite this significant growth, which has outstripped European peers. And the rise in passenger numbers is arguably symptomatic of wider trends such as urbanisation, centralisation of employment and non-car lifestyle choices, particularly of millenials, rather than credit to the privatisation of the rail industry.

These lifestyle changes are reflected by growth in the frequency of journeys over individual journey distances, as shown below.

Overall gowth in rail passenger travel per person 1995-2010. Image: Le Vine and Jones (2012) On the Move.

The route to nationalisation

Britain’s railways could be taken back into the public sector one piece at a time, at no cost. As franchises expire, contractual break points are reached, or franchises under-perform, routes could be taken back into public ownership. By 2020, eleven current franchises will expire.

 

Source: Department for Transport - Rail Executive (2015) Rail franchise Schedule, July 2015.

If franchises were taken back under public control as they expire, an integrated rail network could grow as shown in the map below:

 

Image: Nicole Badstuber. Original map: Barry Does (2015) 2015 Great Britain National Rail Passenger Operations - 31st edition. Franchise expiry dates: Department for Transport (2015) Rail Franchise Schedule July 2015.

Savings to be made

Nationalising the railways has the potential to bring a number of obvious savings to the UK government.

1. Shareholder dividend payments

The latest dividend payments by the train operating companies amounted to approximately £200m a year. Instead of being paid to shareholders, this amount could be reinvested into the railway and reduce the taxpayer’s contribution.

2. Subcontrators

Transport for Quality of Life estimates that £76m a year could be saved on private subcontractors by re-creating the staff positions in house.

3. Bidding costs

Under the current system, the various train operating companies bid to run each rail franchise. The problem is, central government ultimately pays for the costs involved in these bids: the train operators are not directly reimbursed for the incurred cost of bidding, they will recoup it by factoring it into the franchise price.


Scrapping the bidding process would cut this cost, which was conservatively estimated to be £15-20m per franchise competition in 2010 (though the competition for Great Western’s services in 2012 cost a total of £40m). So, if three franchises are up for renewal a year from now until the end of 2019, between £45m and £120m could be saved by scrapping these competitions and managing the rail routes under one umbrella.

4. Administration costs

If the franchising system was abolished, more than £2m a year could be saved on in-house Department for Transport administration costs. Cutting the external consultants and contractors involved in franchise specification and procurement would save the department an additional £4m a year.

Additional savings could be reaped from an integrated structure such as getting rid of duplicate senior management and marketing.

In other words, the case for re-nationalising all of Britain’s railways is a strong one. Privatisation has proven extremely costly – and an integrated national network would be better value for both consumer and government.The Conversation

Nicole Badstuber is a PhD researcher and research assistant in transport policy and governance at University College London, University College London.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

17 things the proposed “Tulip” skyscraper that London mayor Sadiq Khan just scrapped definitely resembled

Artist's impression. See if you can guess which one The Tulip is. Image: Foster + Partners.

Sadiq Khan has scrapped plans to build a massive glass thing in the City of London, on the grounds it would knacker London’s skyline. The “Tulip” would have been a narrow, 300m skyscraper, designed by Norman Foster’s Foster & Partners, with a viewing platform at the top. Following the mayor’s intervention, it now won’t be anything of the sort.

This may be no bad thing. For one thing, a lot of very important and clever people have been noisily unconvinced by the design. Take this statement from Duncan Wilson, the chief executive of Historic England, from earlier this year: “This building, a lift shaft with a bulge on top, would damage the very thing its developers claim they will deliver – tourism and views of London’s extraordinary heritage.”

More to the point, the design was just bloody silly. Here are some other things that, if it had been built, the Tulip would definitely have looked like.

1. A matchstick.

2. A drumstick.

3. A cotton ear bud.

4. A mystical staff, of the sort that might be wielded by Gandalf the Grey.

5. A giant spring onion.

6. A can of deodorant, from one of the brands whose cans are seemingly deliberately designed in such a way so as to remind male shoppers of the fact that they have a penis.

7. A device for unblocking a drain.

8. One of those lights that’s meant to resemble a candle.

9. A swab stick, of the sort sometimes used at sexual health clinics, in close proximity to somebody’s penis.

10.  A nearly finished lollipop.

11. Something a child would make from a pipe cleaner in art class, which you then have to pretend to be impressed by and keep on show for the next six months.

12. An arcology, of the sort seen in classic video game SimCity 2000.

13. Something you would order online and then pray will arrive in unmarked packaging.

14. The part of the male anatomy that the thing you are ordering online is meant to be a more impressive replica of.

15. A building that appears on the London skyline in the Star Trek franchise, in an attempt to communicate that we are looking at the FUTURE.


14a. Sorry, the one before last was a bit vague. What I actually meant was: a penis.

16. A long thin tube with a confusing bulbous bit on the end.

17. A stamen. Which, for avoidance of doubt, is a plant’s penis.

One thing it definitely does not resemble:

A sodding tulip.

Anyway, it’s bad, and it’s good the mayor has blocked it.

That’s it, that’s the take.

(Thanks to Anoosh Chakelian, Jasper Jackson, Patrick Maguire for helping me get to 17.)

Jonn Elledge is editor of CityMetric and the assistant editor of the New Statesman. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.