East Coast main line nationalised -again.

Stagecoach have pulled out of their franchise deal with the Government early. So South Yorkshire passenger to London from Doncaster and Retford will see their line nationalized yet again.

So as not to call it Nationalization the Government are linking the running of the line with the nationalized Network Rail track -the owner and maintainer company and calling it a Partnership.

Good news for us. Each time the line has operated the Government recieve a bigger profit.

As Stagecoach also own East Midlands Trains we might get some competition retun to routes from South Yorkshire to London.

Nationalised with an S ffs

Nationalised with an S ffs

Shakespere uses the "-ize" ending reflecting its Greek origin. So did everybody else until influenced by the French fashion of the 19th century.

The "-ized" ending was the original form and remained so in the USA, away from the French fashion. The original form has not been superseeded here, and like many other examples, we have a choice.

Technically if the original word is Greek it should be "-ized" and if Latin or French as "nation" is it should be "-ized" but I still do what I was told by my English teacher and be "consistent".

I would never spell it " nationaliSed " as you suggest.

Good news indeed, and very much a model for what a nationalized industry would/will look like in the 21st century. I.e., run on a commercial basis for the benefit of the public, both as customers and owners.

The finance figures for these are very murky though.

The previous East Coast franchise paid near a billion to the government (which is quite good) but I assume they paid no licencing fee's ontop of that?

They also received a stock of freshly refurbished trains and needed to spend no extra money on them, nor plan or budget to buy future trains.

Stagecoach took over in 2015 on an 8 year lease, promising £3.3bn.

They had to refurbish the interiors of the trains they inherited from East Coast and make plans to replace most of the fleet within the next few years.

East Coast did a good job and returned good money, but they were left in the best possible position - they had fresh trains ready to go and didn't have to put much thought into future operations.

Literally just run the trains and collect the money.

Each time the line has operated the Government recieve a bigger profit.

As Stagecoach also own East Midlands Trains we might get some competition retun to routes from South Yorkshire to London.

Right there, in that nugget, you have the information that gives the lie to the success of "nationalisation". The Government ran at a so called "profit" because it didn't have to pay for the train set, a license, and it already owned the lines. It makes it somewhat easier to turn a profit.

Right there, in that nugget, you have the information that gives the lie to the success of "nationalisation". The Government ran at a so called "profit" because it didn't have to pay for the train set, a license, and it already owned the lines. It makes it somewhat easier to turn a profit.

I did not make myself clear, it was my intention to say when operated by the government it raised more money for the Government than when privatised.

The DfT and private companies who own the TOCs have never made things clear but when Stagecoach say they lost more than £84 million last year and it said it will more money loose this year and next, you know something wrong.

The Government created stories about the East Coast carriges knowing that all rolling stock are maintained and receive their midlife refurbishment in a cycle known to everyone beforehand.

Stagecoach do not own any trains, neither did their predecessors, they are separately owned.The leases and contracts are significant aspects of the bid for the franchise so are the leasing costs of the new trains and are known and negotiated in advance.

Despite significantly increasing costs of fares Stagecoach have failed and are "handing back" (-nationalize) the franchise to the DfT who will create a partnership with Network Rail (-nationalize).

The profits will go to paying off the £45 billion debt which the Government borrowed to create its "successful" privatisation of the railway.

I did not make myself clear, it was my intention to say when operated by the government it raised more money for the Government than when privatised.

 

The DfT and private companies who own the TOCs have never made things clear but when Stagecoach say they lost more than £84 million last year and it said it will more money loose this year and next, you know something wrong.

 

The Government created stories about the East Coast carriges knowing that all rolling stock are maintained and receive their midlife refurbishment in a cycle known to everyone beforehand.

Stagecoach do not own any trains, neither did their predecessors, they are separately owned.The leases and contracts are significant aspects of the bid for the franchise so are the leasing costs of the new trains and are known and negotiated in advance.

Despite significantly increasing costs of fares Stagecoach have failed and are "handing back" (-nationalize) the franchise to the DfT who will create a partnership with Network Rail (-nationalize).

The profits will go to paying off the £45 billion debt which the Government borrowed to create its "successful" privatisation of the railway.

The guardian reports here that it raised £208.7m in one operating year. At the same time it reports here that it will pay £1bn for 2015-2020. That's £200m a year. It promised to pay £3.3bn to 2023 so that would have been £412m a year. That's about double what it was earning in public hands. Am I missing something?

Right there, in that nugget, you have the information that gives the lie to the success of "nationalisation". The Government ran at a so called "profit" because it didn't have to pay for the train set, a license, and it already owned the lines. It makes it somewhat easier to turn a profit.

You just made an excellent case for nationalising more rail services.

It promised to pay £3.3bn to 2023 so that would have been £412m a year. That's about double what it was earning in public hands. Am I missing something?

They were due to pay £2bn of that in the final years of the contract, but as it's ending early they will only pay a fraction.

It's unlikely we'll know how much was raised between 2015-2020 as it's clear the government are letting private companies off the hook when they fail to deliver on their contracts.

First group running the GWR were allowed to dodge £800m in payments not long ago as well.

The guardian reports here that it raised £208.7m in one operating year. At the same time it reports here that it will pay £1bn for 2015-2020. That's £200m a year. It promised to pay £3.3bn to 2023 so that would have been £412m a year. That's about double what it was earning in public hands. Am I missing something?

Yes:

inflation

moving out of recession

increase in first class revenue

more seat capacity

new trains

a real increase in rail fares of 5% per year

You just made an excellent case for nationalising more rail services.

You think? Why on earth people think that the government should suddenly become better at running train sets than train operators is beyond me.

Here's the case against nationalisation, and you can do all the work.

Name three services that YOU think the government has run well for the last 20 years. Just three.

All rail services shoud be nationalized, this franchise con has gone on long enough. The Government says it must get as much as possible for each franchise to protect the TAX PAYER - sounds good, but the more a company pays the higher the fares have to be.

The government get Billions from the franchise, and Billions from the tax the companys pay on profits. The only losers are, as usual s the man in the street.