At their conference in Bournemouth, the party approved a motion calling for an end to the "failing" rail franchise system and replacing it with one "that prioritises the passenger over higher premium payments".

Moving the motion, Sandy Walkington, prospective parliamentary candidate (PPC) for St Albans, said there are "so many negatives" about the way the rail system was privatised.

"This motion is about the future because it focuses on passengers," he said.

Walkington bemoaned the fact that "we are all customers now".

"Being called a customer implies there is a choice, but for most rail passengers there is no choice."

He pointed out the taxpayer now contributes more than when the rail system was nationalised.

Prateek Buch from Epping Forest said: "You cannot run a reasonable service on a commercial basis. We have got to take it back into public ownership."

Jill Hope, PPC for Milton Keynes North, expressed the frustration of the thousands of passengers forced to use the commuter services from the town.

But there were dissenting voices.

"Do we seriously believe there will be more investment from a state-run industry?" asked Mark Hunter, MP for Cheadle.

He said the present situation "is no panacea and that is why we are advocating longer franchises to encourage investment".

Hunter called the nationalisation amendment "wishful thinking" and "damaging to the party's credibility".

Lembit Opik was cheered by the party faithful as he asked: "Mark, I have always regarded you as a socialist – what went wrong?"

Opik said most of the problems are caused by the "Conservative dogma of privatising the railways".

"Where is it written that we have to abandon good ideas simply because Labour and the Tories have abandoned them too?" he asked.

The MP argued that given the level of public subsidy handed to the rail industry, "it's virtually nationalised anyway, we just pretend it is not".

He added: "If you take the profit motive out there is more money for investment, not less. Mark in his heart knows we are right."

Opik told conference it was time to stop "pretending" that all the European countries that have a state-run network are wrong.

"Germany has a superb rail network, particularly because it is state-run," he insisted.

But Norman Baker, the Lib Dem transport spokesman, said the railways had "settled down" since privatisaion

Punctuality has improved overall and passenger numbers are at record levels he said, but fares are a "major problem".

The amendment for nationalisation is "where the heart takes you but not the head."

"The railways are being sorted out, do we really want to throw everything up in the air?" he asked.

"Is our priority to concentrate on navel-gazing, on process?"

He proposed 30-year franchises, being "much harder" on the rail companies. He said he would "force" them to reopen lines and stations.

"I want to use their money to grow the network," he added.

The policy motion that was passed calls on the government to retain control of the East Coast franchise to act as a public sector comparator to drive up standards and drive down costs across the rest of the network.

It also calls for an end to the "failing" franchise system.

The motion said it should be replaced with one that "prioritises the passenger over higher premium payments; new franchise conditions must lead on quality of service and of passenger experience, including, where possible, fare reductions, with rolling reviews to ensure standards are being met".

The government should guarantee that any surpluses from franchise payments will continue to be invested in rail improvements, more rolling stock and, where economically viable, the reopening of stations and lines.

Overall annual increases in rail fares should be at no more than inflation "as soon as possible", as part of the wider agenda of promoting green forms of travel.

See also:

Opik calls for rail renationalisation

Public Service News: September 22, 2009

Railways should be renationalised because it would be a more logical system that would protect passengers from steep fare increases, Lembit Opik has said, writes Matthew George from the Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth.

The high-profile Montgomeryshire MP told a fringe meeting that renationalisation was the policy of the Welsh party. It should not happen for romantic reasons, and would be horrendously expensive if done the wrong way. But it would be affordable if the current rail franchises were returned to public ownership when they ended.

Opik said fare increases under British Rail tended to be modest, but they rocketed by 7.6 per cent in 2008-09. Under BR there were seven different kinds of tickets, but there were 70 separate fares under the current fragmented system, and 776 qualifications and conditions. And the railways do not pay for themselves – the government has to subsidise them by £5.6bn a year, about half the operating costs.

"We are putting more money into the system than when it was under national control, and we are getting an inferior service to much of Europe," Opik said.

Cheadle MP Mark Hunter, a Lib Dem transport spokesman, said supporting renationalisation was a "heart over head issue" and he did not think it would ever happen. "The railways should remain in the private sector but under conditions which need to be dramatically revised," he said.

The current franchises – which tend to be around seven years – are far too short and do not encourage train companies to make long-term investment, he argued. "We would advocate them being up to 30 years but with reviews every five years – as long as the train operating companies meet specific targets every five years they would be allowed to continue with the franchise."

The targets could include upgrading track, improving stations, increasing the number of carriages and limiting fare increases.

"That is the only way we are going to maintain high levels of innovation and efficiency in our railways," he said. "The privatised rail network is here to stay but the way it is being run has to change drastically."