Time to change trains...building a better railway for the North

“Chris Grayling is probably not one of the most well-liked politicians. His tenure as secretary of state for transport has been marked by the near-collapse of rail services in the North and parts of the South-east, while he persists with the grand folly of HS2 and CrossRail 2. 

Yet, to be fair to the man, he has recognised that something is fundamentally wrong with how rail services are being delivered in the UK. Whether you are an earnest advocate of nationalisation, or still cling on to the belief that privatisation was the right thing to do back in the 90s, what we have today doesn’t work. It’s expensive (compared with the overall cost of running other railways across Europe) and services are often poor and unreliable, as well as being expensive. Staff are de-motivated and passengers fed up. 

Rail policy to be reviewed 

So, Mr Grayling has ordered a ‘fundamental review’ of rail policy and has appointed Keith Williams to chair it. He comes from an interesting background – former chief executive of British Airways and deputy chair of The John Lewis Partnership, the employee-owned retail chain. In addition, members of the review panel include respected railwayman Dick Fearn, former MD of Irish Rail.

The Government’s announcement in September said the upcoming review would:

 “...consider all parts of the rail industry, from the current franchising system and industry structures, accountability, and value for money for passengers and taxpayers”. 

Cynics will say that nationalisation, the holy grail of some on the Left, won’t be given a second thought. Maybe, maybe not. But the review does offer an opportunity to come up with some fresh ideas which could start to get us out of the current mess we’re in. 

It’s important that we are clear on what we want our railways to do. Getting people and goods ‘from A to B’ as fast as possible isn’t enough and can encourage perverse outcomes. Is it right that we should be encouraging people living in, say, Doncaster or Preston to commute to London most days? Rail is good at delivering longer distance journeys, but those trips into major centres for work, education and leisure are as important as longer distance inter-city journeys.  And, it tends to be the ‘regional’ networks that are under most stress at present, with inadequate rolling stock, lack of track capacity and poor quality stations. 

Climate change 

Rail is part of the solution to combating climate change. To get more people out of their cars it’s important to have a good quality alternative. And polluting diesel trains are not the answer. We need more electrification and – crucially – the determination to electrify the busy and congested Manchester – Huddersfield – Leeds route. But we need to have the right tools to do it, not separate organisations with differing priorities. 

A business based in the North, and for the North, would recognise this as an urgent priority, not something that takes its place in the queue behind CrossRail and HS2.  Advocates of ‘nationalisation’ should also understand that much of the railway is already state-owned, or publicly-specified. Infrastructure is owned and managed by Network Rail. 

Neither private nor public 

Trains mostly run as part of franchises that are specified and funded by Government (predominantly Department for Transport, but for the devolved governments for Wales and Scotland, plus Transport for London Overground and Merseyside Combined Authority for Merseyrail). Yet once franchises are let, operators can cut corners to extract maximum profit from their short-term contract. Arguably, what we have now is the worst of both worlds – not fully private, but not really public either.   Can I offer a few provisional conclusions which could help improve both regional and intercity networks, as well as encourage freight? 

The starting point should be structural change. The current system, based on the separation of infrastructure from operations (which are based on relatively short-term and highly expensive franchises) has not worked; bringing infrastructure and operations more closely together, but it will take time. A gradual approach is needed but the endgame must be an integrated railway. 

Forget about devolution 

For now, it’s important that Network Rail scraps its current devolution proposals which would see two regions covering the North (east and west) and goes for a single ‘Northern’ region which is fully aligned with the train operator.  At the same time, we don’t have to have a nationally centralised approach. It could work at a regional level. 

I’m suggesting, for the North, a new model – a revival of the pre-1923 ‘Lancashire and Yorkshire Railways’ brand – that would serve the major centres of the North. Basically, it’s about creating a regionally-based, integrated operation that is socially owned. The same approach could work in other parts of the UK. 

The most appropriate business model should be a social enterprise, in which profits are recycled back into the business to fund further improvements. A railway that is tied to Treasury control, as BR was, would not have the freedom to invest and look to the long-term, which is desperately needed. Instead of short-term franchises (typically less than 10 years), there should be long-term stability with periodic reviews by an appropriate public body. 

Transport for the North

For the suggested ‘Lancashire and Yorkshire Railways,’ this should be a strengthened to ‘Transport for the North’, a body which already exists. Within this model, there would be scope for employees and passengers to be much more fully engaged, including encouragement to invest in specific projects that could also include some private sector investment. 

There is a need for a UK-wide ‘guiding mind’ that can ensure coordination is there when it is needed. The railway does form a strong network and even in the pre-1923 days of scores of private (and vertically integrated) railway companies, there was coordination on ticketing, timetables and other national standards. 

For freight, the issue isn’t about ownership, it’s about having the right infrastructure, and fiscal regime, for freight to flourish. 

Huddersfield’s Institute of Railway Research

There is a great potential role for universities in the North. The University of Huddersfield has already made a name for itself in railway engineering with the Institute of Railway Research recently becoming a UK Centre of Excellence in Rolling Stock. 

We could build on that worldwide reputation by being part of new thinking on how we run our railways. Our town and university could not be more centrally placed at the heart of new thinking on how rail forms a key part in the North’s economy and how it can contribute to sustainable development.

Finally, I hope these suggestions avoid the current unhelpful fixation on ‘nationalisation’ without people really understanding what that means; opting for a social enterprise at arms’ length from the state but with clear social objectives, must be considered. The solution I’m suggesting could be as relevant to Labour’s thinking as to Mr Grayling’s.” 

• You can read more blogs by Paul Salveson at paulsalveson.org.uk.