Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• John Porter, Leeds

  A very interesting debate, prompted by a misleading chart. Scheduled train kilometres would have been a better metric.
  Northern, LNER & Transpennine route kilometres overlap to such an extent that the TransPennine route km ought to be discounted. Similarly Scotrail, Avanti & Caledonian where Caledonian should be discounted. CrossCountry runs largely on other operators tracks. That yields nationalised at 10,269 versus Private Sector 8,961 CORRECTED route kms ie 46%.
  Whatever new system emerges a way of incentivising prompt running is needed. My system would be to regard the reliability of cross country mileage in each operating area as part of the area’s reliability.
  [Statistics can be interpreted in many ways. We chose ours, and as the basis was clear we do not agree that it was misleading.--Ed.]

• david C smith, Bletchley

  Indeed, these developments listed were all to the good, and many commentators recognised the benign effects from Sectorisation. Let me say now that I'm not a supporter of any political party or particular economic setup, but I do perceive that the potential benefits of the privatised railway in GB seem to have been progressively lost , due largely to governmental activity. At the same time, our railway in GB involves a wide range of activities , so that a uniform "one size fits all" structure ultimately can't work. The one thing I'd really like to witness would be a more "horses for courses" setup , where each "sector" runs in "free enterprise" mode ( Railfreight , Intercity passenger ,ROSCOs ) or as public sector natural monopoly organisations under direct democratic control ( local / commuter passengers , Infrastructure ) based on the City Regions.

• david C Smith, Bletchley

  Yes, agreed and point taken - whatever terminology used, though, it seems that a problem with the nationalised BR was that its size and "top down" monolithic structure acted against efficiency* and progress , whilst Parliamentary Accountability didn't stand much of a chance amongst all the other demands on parliament's time.
  
  The point I'm trying to make is the desirability of regional , directly elected transport co mmissioners , each based on a major conurbation, to take charge of non- commercial , natural monopoly service in their area, with the ability to concentrate on the particular problems pertaining to the area concerned.
  
  [*In the 1980s, BR was the most efficient railway administration in Europe. The regions, and later the businesses, diluted any 'top down' effect from HQ. Progress included considerable electrification and the development of the HST, which turned out to be a most valuable investment. To quote a news release from BML2 received this morning: ‘The Government controlled the purse strings of the nationalised railway and therefore investment, making the industry subject to political whim and interference.’ Doesn't that sound familiar?--Ed.]

• david C Smith, Bletchley

  "Nationalisation" implies something on a national scale.* Monopoly operations that need to be in the public sector would , probably suit best being on a Conurbation / City region scale ; while in "radical mood", let each such body be headed by a directly elected Transport Commissioner,
  
  Meanwhile, let the private sector get on with operating commercial services in competition with each other.
  
  [*That is not the definition of nationalisation. The Oxford English Dictionary says it is 'a conversion from private ownership to public ownership'. In other words, a business enterprise owned by government or some other public body, but not necessarily a nation-wide concern.--Ed.]

• Chris Jones-Bridger, Buckley Flintshire

  Policy drift is placing the rail industry in a very dangerous position. We have a government led by a Prime Minister who shows little if no outward enthusiasm for public transport. It increasingly looks unlikely that the enabling legislation for GBR will be enacted before the next general election and if not before then ever. That the Williams review exposed the structural flaws of the franchising system, the foundation of rail privatisation, has been a bitter pill to swallow by government ministers wedded to the ideology and dogma of the market. Already push back against Williams is being seen by the Transport Secretary as he is lobbied by former colleagues and architects of the failed structure.
  
  The Transport Secretary and other government ministers talk of the need for modernisation and reform yet without addressing the elephant in the room the unwieldy bureaucratic structure the industry has been saddled with during the privatised years the industry continues to hemorrhage cash without adding value to taxpayer or paying customer. The Williams reforms and the establishment of GBR may not be perfect but were at least a start on addressing the structural problem.
  
  It is ironic that in the vacuum created by the government's, a Tory government no less, indecision that over half the passenger services have now been 'nationalised'. But beware it is not in the privateers interest for the directly operated operations to be seen to succeed. Let us hope that a level playing field prevails.

• david C Smith, Bletchley

  Thanks to Ed for pointing out the dubious role of government in this - the political axe grinders on both sides seem to be quite prepared to wreck the railway if that brings them the power they want , but maybe this applies to all the main parties ?
  
  This all reflects on human nature , which varies a lot ; hence the wishes for a "horses for courses" railway where the commercial operations and the natural monopoly sectors are managed somewhat differently. I beleive, for example that the current Labour opposition have no manifesto wishes to renationalise railfreight ?
  
  I guess any uniformly organised railway would never be able to encompass the necessary breadth of approach to suit the whole range of possible users and raiwaymen/women.

• david C Smith, Bletchley

  Yes to king Arthur! We seem to have had largely destructive wielding of state power ever since the Strategic Rail Authority was created soon after privatisation. We have now reached a situation where the TOCs and freight operators, too, will have effectively no decision making powers at all, and hence no good reason to exist in a manager role.
  
  One doesn't need to be all party political to see the absurdity of where we have landed up in this. The whole idea of privatisation was, presumably the giving of power to innovate, raise investment capital , and be enterprising.*
  
  The railway is in reality a collection of considerably diverse operations , some that can be made accountable through intermode and intercompany competition, but others which are captive market monopolies that need to be in democratic public ownership. This latter was exemplified by people such as Chris Green and Adrian Shooter ,to be appointed through local / regional direct elections
  
  [* That was the official line, but in reality the Conservatives wanted to break up state monopolies to limit the power of the unions. This plan was set out in an internal document before the 1979 election, and I can send you a copy. Ironically, it is also available on the Thatcher Foundation website.--Ed.]

• John B, London

  Who said the Tories have achieved nothing in 13 years? Stealth renationalisation is one of the best things to have happened to the railways in many years. Fingers crossed that the GBR nonsense is consigned to the bin.

• king arthur, buckley

  When the prime minister makes decisions like this it's hard not to start believing some of the conspiracy theories. Every day the government and its institutions relentlessly make statements and release reports on the importance of 'sustainability' and environmentalism, and the need to reduce car traffic and cut those planet killing CO2 emissions. But at the same time they seem oddly keen to continue the inexplicable managed decline of the rail industry that has been in progress since the end of the war.