Richard Clinnick considers key pointers for the Rail Review.

Key pointers to a Rail Review that delivers answers

“In the days of rolling 24-hour news channels, it’s easy to focus on disgruntled commuters and interpret that as a sign that the system is failing.”

With an independent Rail Review launched by Government, it is clear that things need to change.

As RAIL has stated before on this page, 2018 was supposed to be a glorious year: the introduction of the biggest timetable change ever; more trains than at any previous time running through the Thameslink Core; the North finally receiving new fleets; electrification stretching ever further west; and the start of Crossrail trains running under the centre of London.

Instead, the year’s events have been nearcatastrophic for the railway’s reputation, with cancellations, delays and sustained industrial action. Timetables have not been delivered, infrastructure designed to enable new trains to operate was not ready in time, and new orders were met with legal action or delayed introductions.

High-profile new trains that were introduced have been criticised for their ‘ironing board’ seats, while yet another private operator (Virgin Trains East Coast) bit the dust on the East Coast Main Line owing to financial problems. And that’s all without the continuing uncertainty of Brexit! 2018 is turning into a year the industry must work incredibly hard to recover from.

That’s why I cautiously welcome the decision to carry out a review into how the system can be improved. Frankly, it’s needed, although what emerges has to be right for everyone - passengers, freight and customers.

I hope it is brutally honest, that no stone is left unturned, and that if harsh realities need to be pointed out, then they should be. What the industry doesn’t need is a review that ‘states the obvious’ or ‘kicks the can’. We need answers and resolutions.

It is therefore good to hear from senior managers such as GB Railfreight Managing Director John Smith, who is demanding that the Government understands the needs of the rail freight sector and supports it, otherwise it will fail (see pages 8-9).

Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling revealed the terms of reference for the review on October 11, as well the make-up of an independent board that will advise the independent chairman Keith Williams (see pages 10-11). These terms of reference mention commercial models as well as fares and industrial action. These need addressing urgently.

Ticket prices and industrial action will always be major headline grabbers for a national media that increasingly looks to target the rail industry as a source of discontent. In the days of rolling 24-hour news channels, it’s easy to focus on disgruntled commuters and interpret that as a sign that the system is failing. Add daily press releases from unions, a shadow transport minister who is very vocal on Twitter, and the message gets out quickly. And the railway takes a battering.

That’s one reason why the calls for nationalisation are getting louder, as passengers increasingly seek an end to a world of delays and cancellations.

For me, the mere mention of the industry structure is interesting. The terms of reference state a “rail industry structure that promotes clear accountability and effective joint-working for both passengers and the freight sector”.

At a time of planned Network Rail devolution to the regions, joint-working is essential both for passenger operators and freight companies. Two days before Grayling made his announcement, Smith had voiced concerns about what might feature in the review, including that new NR Chief Executive Andrew Haines was to continue NR’s rollout of devolution.

While speaking highly of Haines, Smith was clear that discussions were needed regarding the impact that devolution could have not only on his business and sector, but also others that cross new boundaries. He is right.

And yet… there is still plenty of good news around. Passenger numbers have reversed a recent decline, more freight is being carried (even the amount of coal moved by rail is up), and new trains are being delivered to the UK every week.

We have the safest major railway in Europe, while an overseas train manufacturer is keen to build a factory in the UK that could create up to 1,000 jobs and also export trains. There could be six train factories in the not-toodistant future - a far cry from the start of the decade, when we had only Litchurch Lane in Derby. Training and diversity is also being taken far more seriously.

Nevertheless, I find myself gazing longingly at the positive environment that has been established north of the border.

The Scottish Government has a transport team led by experts who know what they want and how it should be achieved. And the results are impressive - new railways, new stations and new trains. The Borders Railway reopened more than three years ago, and is carrying numbers far higher than had been projected.

New stations are being built on upgraded routes. New trains are being introduced, and while there have been teething problems, they have still been largely welcomed by a grateful public.

The service in Scotland is likely to get even better in the near future, with the introduction of refurbished High Speed Trains on inter-city routes. These are late, but again ScotRail has a plan. As with the delays to Class 385s, when SR agreed a short-term deal to use redundant Class 365s in their place (and branded them ‘Happy Trains’ in a clever marketing move), so ‘classic’ HSTs will be used to cover the new December timetable requirements.

Perhaps Scotland provides answers for the Rail Review. For somehow, I cannot imagine this happening in England, due to the constant interference from the Department for Transport when it comes to fleets.

On many days, I pass rows of redundant Mk 3s at Ely. Can they not be used to bolster overcrowded CrossCountry trains, for example? With the DfT looking to offer Arriva a fiveyear Direct Award, surely those redundant HSTs (as well as those coming off-lease next year) should be used by XC? It’s the type of proactive thinking you could see in Scotland.

So maybe that’s the answer to the mess: run the railways like in Scotland, where track and trains have one Managing Director, and Government decisions are made with customers at heart and by those who know the railway. Problems are tackled head-on and usually dealt with quickly. There may be shortterm pain, but the result is long-term gain.

For rail, a ‘can do’ attitude is needed now, otherwise the number of negative stories will continue to rise. If it wants to maintain some control over its destiny, the railway cannot let that happen.

Nigel Harris is away.