Labour brings c2c into public ownership - What does this mean for you?
On Sunday, c2c became the latest train operating company to be publicly owned as part of Labour's scheme, which will eventually see the creation of Great British Railways.
The change means services from Fenchurch Street station on the London, Tilbury and Southend line are now in public hands.
It was owned by Italian state-owned rail operator Trenitalia, which purchased the franchise from National Express in 2017.
At the time of the takeover, c2c had one of the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the country at 89 per cent.
This was the joint sixth best performance out of 22 operators.
Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here.
Although the second operator to be brought into public hands, c2c will be the sixth train company managed by the Department for Transport (DfT), which is now in charge of 40 per cent of all rail journeys.
As well as c2c, Department for Transport Operator (DfTO) now runs TransPennine Express, LNER, Northern, Southeastern and South Western Railway, the latter which became the first directly state operated network in February.
c2c will soon be joined by neighbouring operator Greater Anglia, which is due to be nationalised in October.
c2c, a shortened version of the phrase 'city to coast', operates services between London and Essex.
The bulk of its trains leave from Fenchurch Street Station, with Liverpool Street Station used as a backup London terminus during engineering works.
It operates four trains per hour to Shoeburyness via Basildon and Southend-on-Sea.
Another two hourly services go to Southend via Ockendon and Tilbury in Essex and another to Grays, calling at Rainham.
In its 2024 manifesto, Labour promised to bring railways back into the public sector following years of complaints from passengers about high fares and poor service.
The Labour scheme also includes taking over responsibility for managing rail infrastructure, including stations and lines currently handled by Network Rail.
Following the privatisation of British Rail in the 1990s, rail services were franchised out to a variety of private firms.
However, despite an initially positive reaction, public support began to tilt in favour of a return to government ownership amid grievances with overcrowding, increasing fares and unreliable services.
Concerns over poor performance of private operators led the previous government to take control of LNER, Northern, Transpennine Express and Southeastern via operators of last resort.
Labour says the new nationalised network will help standardise the service, improve reliability and cut costs for travellers.
c2c followed South Western Railway in returning to public hands, having previously been operated by National Express before being acquired by Trenitalia.
The Italian state operator will continue to have a foothold in British railways through its stake in Avanti West Coast, until that goes public next year.
Speaking about the latest step, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: 'Whether you're shopping in Lakeside or walking along the beach in Southend-on-Sea, from today you will be able to get there on a train service run by the public, for the public.
'Public ownership is already tackling deep-rooted problems we see on the railway that's led to spiralling costs, fragmentation and waste.
'A unified network under Great British Railways will take this further with one railway under one brand with one mission – delivering excellent services for passengers wherever they travel.'
However one highly profitable aspect of the railway is likely to stay in private hands – the trains themselves.
Rolling stock has for three decades been controlled by Rolling Stock Companies or ROSCOS, dominated by three major players, Eversholt Rail Group, Porterbrook and Angel Trains.
Due to the prohibitive cost of buying the stock back, Great British Railways will instead lease the trains from these firms for the foreseeable future, trade publication Railtech reported.
This means that the fees from use of the trains will remain in the private sector.
Under its public ownership scheme, Labour has promised better quality and more reliable services.
While the branding of services will remain the same for now, passengers can expect some changes to how they operate.
For example, tickets will be valid for all publicly-owned services, meaningin the event of major disruption or line closure, passengers can travel on other routes without extra charge.
This already works in the North West, where commuters are able to switch between Northern and TransPennine Express services, both of which are operated by DfT.
For c2c passengers, the benefits may become more visible after the neighbouring Greater Anglia network is nationalised in October.
In addition, the Government says it will leverage the new control to increase services and capacity on some routes. More Trending
As well as improvements to services, ministers and rail bosses say public ownership will save the taxpayer up to £150 million each year.
Rob Mullen, the managing director of c2c, said: ' A unified and focused railway can deliver more for our communities, including better growth, jobs and houses. If we are thriving as a train operator it helps our communities to thrive.
'This is the positive feedback loop we are excited to deliver, supported by better and closer collaboration with our partners in the lead up to GBR.'
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: 'Elegant' UK seaside town gets new direct train to London after it was axed five years ago
MORE: Inside the fight against graffiti on trains across the UK's railways
MORE: 'Pole hogging' is the latest Tube habit tormenting commuters on the London Underground
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reeves abandons inheritance tax raid on grieving military families
Rachel Reeves has abandoned plans to impose new inheritance tax changes on the grieving families of military personnel. The Chancellor has dropped a proposal to tax death in service payments, which are tax-free lump sums given to the families of deceased Armed Forces members. Changes unveiled in the October Budget would have made off-duty death in service payments subject to inheritance tax for the first time, if not going to a spouse or civil partner. It would have meant that children or partners of unmarried servicemen and women would have had to pay death duties on the benefit from April 2027. The Treasury has been forced to abandon the proposals after pressure from Armed Forces organisations, which said the move would have a 'corrosive' effect on trust among servicemen. The Government said that following its consultation, it had decided not to go ahead with the reform. 'Another U-turn' by Labour Mark Francois, the shadow Armed Forces minister, told The Telegraph that he welcomed the decision, 'even though it represents another U-turn by this Labour Government'. He added: 'It was always unfair that married partners of service personnel would be exempted from these changes to inheritance tax liabilities, while unmarried partners, in long-term relationships, would not. 'We highlighted this to ministers, on behalf of service families on multiple occasions and I am pleased for their sake, that common sense has now finally prevailed.' It comes after Ms Reeves's department had to water down proposals to scrap the universal winter fuel payment and reforms to the welfare system. The Government said: 'From 6 April 2027 all death in service benefits payable from registered pension schemes will be out of scope of Inheritance Tax, regardless of whether the scheme is discretionary or non-discretionary.' The HMRC document said that the new plans were 'in line with the broader policy objective of removing inconsistencies in the Inheritance Tax treatment of different types of pension benefits'. Labour 'standing up' for service personnel? Death in service payments are usually a lump sum paid to named beneficiaries of a worker who dies while on the company payroll. It is typically the equivalent of four-times the late individual's salary. For members of the Armed Forces, these are paid whether or not the individual was 'on duty' at the time of their death. Those who die 'on duty' were to continue to benefit from a separate tax-free arrangement on their death in service payments from 2027. But a military worker who dies while technically 'off duty', such as by sudden illness or accident, would have been stung by the proposed inheritance tax rules. Maj Gen Neil Marshall, the chief executive of the Forces Pension Society, told The Telegraph in January that military servicemen and women are unable to put the payment into trust, because they are part of the Armed Forces pension scheme. Labour sought to shore up support from the Armed Forces community at last year's general election, declaring the party would be 'standing up' for service personnel and veterans. The party was successful in winning over voters from military backgrounds, most notably winning in Aldershot, the site of a major garrison, for the first time in more than a century.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain cannot afford to keep Rachel Reeves any longer
How bad does Britain's economic performance have to be before Sir Keir Starmer fires Rachel Reeves from the Treasury? Ever since she sat crying on the Treasury Bench three weeks ago the data have become worse. She ought to be crying a lot more. The Government's Labour Force Survey shows that the number of payrolled employees has fallen by 178,000 in the last year, and by 41,000 in the last month alone, since the Chancellor's higher National Insurance contributions for employers took effect. How many more unemployed must be created before the Government admits that higher taxes drive formerly productive people out of the workforce, creating more claimants on an already tottering welfare state? Vacancies in the last quarter also fell, by 56,000, with openings decreasing in 14 of the 18 industrial sectors denominated by the Government. The UK economy contracted in May for the second consecutive month, by 0.1 per cent after falling 0.3 per cent in April. The fall was mainly caused by lower industrial output and less work in the construction sector. Inflation rose to 3.6 per cent. The Chancellor seems to have no conception of the link between the supply of money and the rise in inflation; the Government's failure to keep its promise to cut the welfare bill – which the Prime Minister himself described as a 'moral' question – will further increase borrowing, the cost of debt and prices. Labour governments always do this, and appear unable to snap out of it. And if the effect of taxing people more heavily to create jobs is proving disastrous, the effect of taxing the very rich, who can with ease leave and pay their taxes elsewhere, is to drive down the tax take and force yet higher borrowing. On what appears to be a point of principle, Labour will not reduce the tax burden on those who create jobs and wealth. As a result, there are fewer jobs, and fewer people to tax. As a result the choice of whom to tax will narrow, until Labour's 'working people' – who usually cannot afford to flee abroad – end up paying more and more, as the Government avoids the obvious course of cutting its extravagant public spending programmes on what the Victorians called 'the undeserving poor'. The word is that Sir Keir will hold a reshuffle after the summer recess, which starts this week. He has implied that Ms Reeves's job is safe; but if she cannot, or will not, implement policies that help create wealth rather than destroy it, she simply becomes a dead weight dragging down an already deeply unpopular administration. Also, the more articles such as this, suggesting she is not up to her exceptionally demanding job, appear in the media, the more Sir Keir will dig in his heels and seek to avoid sacking her, uttering the old mantra that he will not allow his administration to be chosen by political commentators. Even someone with so few natural political instincts as he possesses must realise that he, and the country, cannot go on like this. You cannot on the one hand pontificate about growth and then take every possible measure to eliminate it, by driving people out work, companies out of business and the rich out of the country. Ms Reeves seems to find all of those things entirely acceptable. Eventually reality will force Sir Keir to conclude that there will have to be changes, both of personnel and of policy, or the money will run out. What he must try to decide is what constitutes the point of no return for his inept Chancellor.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
When will you be able to retire... and will it be with a state pension?
A stark warning has been sounded that the state pension age could have to rise to 74 for those under-30s. The Institute for Fiscal Studies' pronouncement in the same week that the government announced a state pension review set the cat amongst the pensions. But would Labour - or any party - really hike the state pension age that high? Wouldn't it be political suicide and spark protests in the street? The IFS warning hinged around the triple lock and balancing the books, but it's clear that the risk of the state pension age rising from its current timetable's maximum 68 is high. On this episode of the This is Money podcast, Georgie Frost, Helen Crane and Simon Lambert, discuss what could happen to the state pension, when we might be able to retire and what we all need to do to get there. Pension saving is also under the spotlight and the team discuss how to make the most of your work scheme or a Sipp. Plus, a double tax hit on inheritances is on the way, as pensions are pulled into the net. Does the government need to change tack rather than plough on with a levy that will reach 64 per cent for many affected? The FTSE 100 finally broke through 9,000 this week, is 10,000 on the cards and why is the UK stock market doing well? And finally, buy and hold is the traditional investment mantra, so why does one bitcoin expert say you shouldn't do that and should trade it instead? Listen to the This is Money podcast We publish the podcast every Friday on This is Money and at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music and more. Search for it at your favourite podcast platform. To download Apple Podcasts go to the App store. On Android devices, go to the Google Play store to download the podcast app of your choice. You can press play to listen to this week's full episode on the player above, and wherever you get your podcasts please subscribe and review us if you like the podcast. You can also listen to the latest episode, find the archive and join in the debate in reader comments on the This is Money podcast page.
