Stefanie Foster
...or others will do it for us
“We must urgently ditch the ‘Do Not Travel’ message in favour of a more sophisticated, more nuanced explanation of what we’re doing to ensure people can travel safely if they need/want to.”
despair at the narrative surrounding the railway in recent weeks. It’s not just the mainstream media’s portrayal of events (we’re used to that prism). What I am uneasy with is the industry’s continuing compulsion to urge passengers to find any other way to travel except by train, however necessary that might have been in the peak infection period.
Over the past couple of weeks, there have also been reports of ‘secret talks’ (as commuter activists ABC put it) between train operators and Government to discuss supposed ‘bail outs’ beyond the Emergency Measures Agreements, which expire in September.
Let’s be crystal clear: EMAs are certainly not ‘bail outs’. Under DfT franchise agreements, train operators must meet a series of financial obligations with Government, based on determined levels of passenger growth in the tender documents against which franchisees bid. Quite rightly, Government told passengers to stay at home, thereby removing any chance of a financially viable number of passengers. Government policy made it impossible for all operators to meet their contracted obligations.
Without EMAs, no operator could have survived the financial ruin caused by the unprecedented 95% collapse in passengers, as a direct result of public policy. Putting that right is not a ‘bail out’ - it’s comparable with the job furlough support for individuals.
Government also recognised that ensuring our railways continue as a public service was vital - key workers relied on trains to get to work. Furthermore, given that railways will be fundamental in our economic recovery, it is obvious that allowing the railways to drift into financial ruin would have been madness.
And the reasons why we needed EMAs haven’t gone away. Passenger numbers are still only (at best) a paltry 15% of pre-COVID levels. And even with restrictions set to lift further in the coming weeks, social distancing rules (even at one metre plus) combined with still-shaky public confidence mean that the railway won’t be in a position to carry the numbers required to be viable - and for a long time, too.
It’s sad, but no surprise, that unions and others seized this opportunity to ‘demand’ complete renationalisation as the only answer (see pages 6-9). That is no answer at all.
I said in RAIL 906’s Comment that we must not allow unions to bounce Government into full public ownership and operation of the passenger railway. With discussions under way about what happens when EMAs end in
September, it’s all the more important that the correct long-term future for our industry is the considered outcome of careful debate - not dogma from left or right. Nationalisation isn’t the answer, any more than full privatisation.
We have struggled for more than 20 years to find the ‘sweet spot’ where publicly specified/ financed services are efficiently and effectively delivered by a private sector which earns a fair return. There will never be a better opportunity to find this sweet spot than in the next few months, while a blank canvas beckons.
Franchising as we knew it is dead. But it had been on life-support for years - reform was long overdue before COVID-19 brought it to a head. Who would sign up to any revenue-risk deal based on passenger numbers ever again?
The private sector has transformed the industry from a monolith hamstrung by the annual government spending cycle (which led to patchy progress and crumbling quality, amid some admittedly good work) into a thriving (if not problem-free) industry packed with substantial investment in new trains and infrastructure, and (prior to COVID) a record doubling in passenger growth. Nationalisation, at a time when the country is financially desperate, would be a catastrophic mistake, especially when we have such a significant challenge to rebuild public confidence.
I’ve heard many differing views of the way the railway has handled messaging since lockdown began in March. There are those who rightly insist that the ‘Do Not Travel’ message was an absolute necessity to stop trains from becoming overcrowded, and that because it reflected Government policy there was no other option. Network Rail Chairman Sir Peter Hendy CBE writes in this issue ( Open Access, page 35) to reinforce this position, as does Rail Delivery Group’s Chief Strategy Officer Andy Bagnall ( Guest Column, page 36).
But there are also many, including leading figures such as Sir Michael Holden, who passionately believe that the industry’s messaging is doing (and has already done) long-term damage to public perception of trains, especially at a time when the bus and coach industry is increasingly proclaiming risk-free, clean and reliable services.
When lockdown began, it was only right that the Government told the public to avoid public transport to protect meagre capacity for key workers. That train operators followed suit in this ‘Do Not Travel’ message was understandable - nobody knew how closely the public would follow Government’s advice, so they had to act fast and decisively. The public responded and stayed away, resulting in that protected capacity… and lots of empty trains.
We’re no longer in the height of lockdown. More and more non-essential shops, other businesses and service facilities are reopening. Now that Government has reduced the social distancing requirement to one metre plus, in line with World Health Organisation advice, capacity on the railway is set to increase - not sustainably in the longer term, but enough to welcome some passengers back.
We must urgently ditch the ‘Do Not Travel’ message in favour of a more sophisticated, more nuanced explanation of what we’re doing to ensure people can travel safely if they need/ want to - and we need to do it quickly. This is the only way we can start the long road to rebuild public confidence in trains.
Some operators had already evolved their messaging before the new rules came in, opting for something more positive (LNER was leading on its website with ‘Let’s travel together safely’). But alas, operators were not united with some still using the words ‘Do Not Travel’ or asking passengers if their journey is really necessary on a train. I even saw a photograph of a station sporting an advert urging passengers to take the car instead!
There are many things that are not in rail’s control: the science on social distancing, Government decisions, the spread of the virus. But we can and MUST be in control of our own, much more positive narrative. Urgently.
Pro-nationalisation chatter is getting louder, just as the public is becoming used to life without trains. That is dangerous. We must fight for a properly considered, practical future of this industry and take control of what the railway’s ‘new normal’ is going to look like. Otherwise, the rest of the transport industry is going to shape it for us. And we will not like that shape.
Nigel Harris is away... but not for much longer!
“We must take control of what the railway’s ‘new normal’ is going to look like.”