Paul Salveson is not holding his breath on real devolution needed for our railways
It’s a confusing situation on Britain’s railways with messages from the Government that are, to put it mildly, mixed. The overall picture is far from hopeful, at a national level. The Government has launched its consultation on the future of the railways (A Railway Fit for Britain’s Future), promising to “smash a broken rail system”. The body doing the smashing will be “Great British Railways”, a state body which will progressively re-integrate infrastructure and operations, “working with industry to rewire the railways and unite train and track, putting an end to outdated and inefficient processes which have resulted in poor performance, timetable chaos and complex fares and ticketing”.
If only the world was so simple. “Timetable chaos” is the result of many things, not least lack of capacity on the network. The government says that “The plans outlined in this consultation will deliver a rail system that is the backbone of a cleaner, greener public transport system, offering passengers and freight customers a better deal and greater value for money for taxpayer.”
These include a proposal for a new passenger watchdog, though giving the existing consumer body, Transport Focus, more teeth and resources – including regional bases – might have been a better approach.
So I hope we will see commitments to investment in the nation’s infrastructure including electrification, but I doubt it. The consultation re-states the commitment to devolution to the English regions, explored in further detail below. The proposal to establish Great British Railways, which will take over the role of Network Rail and also train operations, is Starmer’s “big idea” for making the railways “fit for Britain’s future”. The devil will be in the detail. What won’t be helpful is a new, centralised structure that prioritises long-distance inter-city services over everything else. Informal assurances that GBR will be attuned to regional needs – and those of the devolved regions –are all very well but large organisations can very easily slide into being bureaucratic and highly centralised.
So far, the Government’s record on rail hasn’t been good. The scrapping of its “Restoring Your Railway” scheme was a big disappointment to many local authorities who had reasonably developed plans for line re-openings. Reeves” budget announcements on rail were mainly about endorsing what was already happening – construction of the East-West link between Oxford and Cambridge, via Milton Keynes: hardly places that are experiencing a need for regeneration. It’s a classic Treasury approach, promoting areas that are already doing well. And yes, of course, the East-West Link will do well and it’s right that Government is funding it.
But what about up “ere? In the North, we need railways to support regional development and it’s needed urgently. Growth in the North-West is being stymied by the lack of capacity through central Manchester – the notorious Castlefield Corridor. It’s a classic example of one short section of railway holding up the expansion of the entire region. Meanwhile, the ambitious, realistic, ideas of Andy Burnham and West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker for a scaled-down “daughter of HS2” link between Manchester and Birmingham seem to have gone very quiet.
The key to developing the region’s railways, I’ve argued repeatedly, lies in real devolution – having the powers and the resources to make a difference. Potentially, it’s there in the Government’s proposals for English Devolution; Greater Manchester, along with its neighbours in Liverpool, are ahead of the game. The Liverpool City Region already has control of much of its local rail network (“Merseyrail”) and is pressing ahead with new station projects now that its fleet of new trains – procured by the city region themselves – has bedded in. The approach in Greater Manchester is slightly different – and much attention is currently focused on stations, which have suffered historic neglect. However, Andy Burnham has published proposals for some local routes to come under the wing (the right metaphor) of the Greater Manchester “Bee Network” which currently oversees the bus network. An early win will be in ticketing, with more integration of local fares. Having the power to specify local services (delivered by publicly-owned Northern) would continue for the foreseeable future.
The longer-term version of “Northern Powerhouse Rail” – a high-speed line linking Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds has, like other major schemes in the North, gone quiet. Network Rail is pushing ahead with its TransPennine Upgrade scheme which while necessary won’t provide the long-term capacity that is needed, for long-distance and local passenger services and for freight. A new link between Liverpool and Manchester via Manchester Airport using some existing and some disused alignment, has a lot going for it but the big problem is capacity when you get to Manchester and how it might link with the proposed Manchester-Birmingham high-speed line and get into already congested Piccadilly station. And this is much more than a “regional” scheme; it requires major intervention from Government.
Will GBR make everything better? Don’t hold your breath.