It's not often we refer to Parliamentary business, but with a new Government who are pushing ahead with a form or nationalisation of the UK's railways. The train simulator licensing landscape will surely change. For those who don't want to read the document linked below. The interesting bit is... "It is unclear which would be the first franchise to be nationalised after this bill receives Royal Assent. The Greater Anglia and West Midlands Trains contracts expire in September 2024, but the government has not indicated whether these contracts will be renewed. Chiltern Railway and Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern (TSGN) have core terms ending on 1 April 2025, so may be the first to be nationalised. If the government does not end these contracts at the end of their core term, then the first contracts to be nationalised may be South Western Railway on 25 May 2025 and Essex Thameside (operated by c2c) on 20 July 2025. However, some media reports have indicated that underperforming train operators may be nationalised sooner if they are not meeting performance targets." Given that DTG will almost certainly have plans for releases through 2025, will this hinder them in the short term because of the uncertainty? I mean, if you released a route involving, just as an example, WMT and Avanti but by the time of release both franchises have been replaced by GBR would that lead to a release being shelved or will working with just one organisation, GBR, make licensing easier? Could existing DLC have to be removed, reworked and/or rebranded? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10058/
I think when the current franchise runs out say on Southwestern railway it will be go to Great British Railway. I think that's what will happen. But it may not help DTG or a 3rd party get those licences. Don't think DTG know what will happen at current
I don't think nationalization would cause existing DLC being removed or reworked since we might already had an example, in 2022, the goverment take control of Southeastern rail franchise from Govia after a fund scandal, but DTG can still make and release SEHS in September, we can still buy and download it today. And DTG can still sale GWE after their lost GWR license. It seems that getting licenses from DfT would be easier since we have 3 of 4 TOCs owned by DfT OLR Holdings Limited（Northern, LNER and Southern). The formation of GBR may make getting licenses easier or it can be harder, and only time can give us answer.
Everything will stay virtually the same. Apart from going back into public ownership, all that'll change (for at least a few years) will possibly be the names of the different TOCs and liveries.
Government policy is to return all of British railways to public ownership under the Great British Railways organisation. This was in the Labour Party manifesto before the election. In fact this was also (more or less) the policy of the previous government under the "Shapps-Williams Plan". Perhaps it should be called the "Williams Plan", as Grant Shapps only involvement was to ask Keith Williams to produce a plan. Work to establish GBR started before the election, the HQ building will be in Derby. If GBR agree to licence DTG, then that would eventually cover the whole country with one licence. If GBR say "No" then DTG are going to have a huge problem.
It mostly depends on what branding GBR uses. While GBR will exist as a brand, it may be the case that franchise brands (many of which the government already owns) are retained. Many of the brands created in the last few years of franchises being given out were designed to be 'forever brands' that did not change with different TOCs. It is worth noting that DTG have had no issues getting the licenses for brands that the DFT own such as South West Trains, and as GBR will be publicly owned the branding may be free to use - AP have never needed to include BR branding in their branding patches, and DTG have rolled back to using BR brands when needed, such as with the Huddersfield Line in TS and West Cornwall Local in TSW. I fully expect that there will not be any issues though, but I hope that DTG and other developers have a plan B in case there are issues. While I doubt GBR will improve the railways in the slightest - since the OLR took over Southeastern the service has got worse - I think Labour are pretty set on it. My ideal railway would be to have long-term franchises, more than 20 years long, with requirements to make improvements to the railway as part of that. Considering the enormous improvements that the franchises made to the network in the early years when looking at the bigger picture, I find it hard to believe that there will be any major improvement in the railways within at least ten years of GBR existing. Remember that BR had major issues for most of its existence and only really became good in the last ten years of it existing, and even then was still a massive burden to the taxpayer... Albeit I doubt as much as the NHS is now, but that's a story for another day. I could continue, although I think it would best be saved for the RailUK Forums.
While day to day operations are highly likely to remain the same for years to come, the main difference will be that a nationalised body won't need to make a profit*, so in theory all surplus revenue should be ploughed back into improving the network and the myriad other factors for passenger rail *In the sense that there are no shareholder dividends required to be paid out
Although for me that's where the problems begin. As far as I'm aware InterCity was the only profitable part of BR and I don't expect GBR to make an overall profit either. At that point it'll be bankrolled by the taxpayer I assume. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on your own political beliefs, and as much as I'd like to get into that I think it's best saved for other sites.
I think it will depend on whether the inherent bias towards London/south east England that (I believe) was prevalent in the BR days rears its head again with regard to budget/project allocation. I assume it was largely eliminated with franchising since each TOC isn't competing for money with other TOCs, but there's every chance with a national organisation it will creep in again
Well if GBR say no* then we can look forward to a mix of TfL, ScotRail and British Rail content. *They won't.
I think it was only during Arriva Rail North's tenure that thought was put into trains for the north, bar the TransPennine and Class 333 fleets. It did feel like there was a lack of interest in replacing Pacers for most of the privatisation era, especially since there was more than enough money to pay for near complete fleet replacements in the south.
The privatised railway actually cost the taxpayer more in subsidising the pockets of greedy private companies, so this 'BR was a burden on the taxpayer' is not entirely true... BR wasn't perfect, but it done the best with the funding it had. Privatisation initially led to investment in rolling stock, but with some companies (particularly in the South East) it wasn't a matter of investment in rolling stock for the benefit of passengers, they were forced to with their hands twisted behind their back, because of the compliance with safety regulations after the Clapham rail disaster that made it clear that Mk1 rolling stock needed to be replaced as soon as possible by law. This was eventually completed 2005 with the replacement of Mk1 EMUs... (Obviously, with the exception of the 'Lymington Flyer' CIGs, 1497 & 1498 that were given a derogation to run heritage services on the Lymington Branch until 2010) (And lets also not forget the Class 424 'Networker Classic' that was initially proposed as a cheaper alternative to new rolling stock! It was a Electrostar body on Mk1 rolling stock chassis!) If we look at companies like GNER, Connex, National Express East Coast, and even the infrastructure company that replaced BR, Railtrack, they all failed. So the model in which BR was privatised was a disaster and to rectify the problems caused by it cost the tax payer billions of pounds. BR wasn't perfect but it was alot better then the private system that replaced it, and given the right funding it certainly could of been a world leader in railway technology. In the last 20 years of its life it was rather impressive... The APT, HST, Mk3 EMUs/DMUs, Networkers, Sprinters, and sectorisation, creating a tightly run ship... And it cost a lot less then the privatised system that replaced it. It did have some issues, but it was down to the way government funded it through out its life. But during sectorisation it certainly improved those issues. It was run for people, not for profit... Which is the right model and motto. In regards to the licencing, and the proposed model of nationalisation (GBR), I asked about this in the Q&A of the last road map and Matt gave a good and clear answer which was along the lines of "we have worked with the DfT before (who would own the GBR licence) and they have been quite good to work with" or words to that effect.
Totally OT but if the rumour about the energy cap going up by 77% in October is true, renationalising the railways should not be the priority of this government!
The inherent problem with the so-called "privatisation" was that it wasn't; it created a Frankenstein that was neither fish nor flesh, neither private nor public, and so managed to be the worst of both. Far better in my view would have been a complete, genuine privatisation, returning to the status quo ante 1947 (except, perhaps, spinning off British Railfreight as a separate carrier)
With the way Railtrack panned out I'd avoid that type of privatisation altogether... Personally it shouldn't of been privatised (my personal opinion), what should of happened is, follow the European model, have a national operator, but allow private competition like Open Access operators and allow paths for private competition. That way you'd always have a safety net of a national operator and it wouldn't cost the taxpayer a penny if a private company went bust. Anyway I think I've said enough about my political views on it! The DfT who would own GBR, seem quite open to work with and grant licenses so I think it could open many doors to routes that were previously inaccessible.
It's strange how you never hear people calling for the Privatisation of the road network isn't it? The railways can be underfunded and mismanaged whether under private ownership or as a public entity. The result is the same. A modern, safe, affordable railway network will always need government subsidies. It's a public service, it should be run first and foremost for the greater good of the public. The William's Report isn't perfect but it's a step in the right direction.
Highways already are starting including the M6. Europe Of the 11,000 kilometers of France's highways, 8,000 km are under private concession. 3,120 kilometers of Italy's highways (comprising 56% of the country's toll roads) are controlled by Autostrade Concessioni e Costruzioni Autostrade. According to Forbes, "Autostrade was an early Electronic Age entry, computerizing to its highway system in 1988". The M6 Toll was the first private toll motorway in the United Kingdom. The project was described by urbantransport-technology.com as a "43 km dual three lane (plus hard shoulder), £485.5 million motorway" with six toll stations
I remember using the M6 Toll when it opened. It was heralded as the start of a new era of travel but ended up just being a way of getting around Birmingham faster. It made away football trips to the NW slightly quicker. Aside from a few river crossings also having tolls it didn't catch on here in the UK.
UK road tolls tend to be mega expensive. I remember when I had to travel between Swindon and South Wales for work, shifts I couldn’t use the train ended up driving and crossing the Severn Bridge was something like £5, this back in the late 90’s. The charge was only levied going into Wales so you could argue it was £2.50 each way, but still quite pricey.
