‘One Railway’ - or back to BR?

RDG’s new plan should have taken this question head-on

On Monday October 30, a document entitled ‘ In Partnership for Britain’s Prosperity’ was launched at St Pancras International by a comprehensive pan-industry selection of rail executives, accompanied by a commendably diverse (gender/ethnicity) group of rail staff.

Staged by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) under the ‘Britain Runs on Rail’ badge (featuring the rainbow- coloured BR ‘arrows of indecision’ logo) the 50-page document is “a plan to change, invest and secure prosperity for Britain” through four clear commitments: Strengthen rail’s economic contribution. Increase customer satisfaction on what is claimed to be Europe’s top-rated railway.

Boost local communities through local decision making/investment.

Create more jobs, rewarding careers and increased diversity.

Nothing controversial there... nothing to dislike? All laudable aims and aspirations - and even better as commitments?

Yet in this issue Wolmar is scathing about the initiative. On pages 66-67 he says the plan comes from “the rather desperate executives of the ineptly-named Rail Delivery Group”, which, in his view, has “failed miserably”.

Rail union the RMT also fumed, “exposing double accounting and phoney figures” and “slamming the industry bosses club the RDG.” The words bogus, propaganda, racketteering, fleecing, profiteers and fraud were all prominent in its angry dismissal of the “Tory party cheerleaders in the self-styled RDG.”

ASLEF General Secretary Mick Whelan was equally critical, but more measured, tweeting that RDG is “there to be the PR arm of the private vested interests you represent, so doubt you even know what public service is.”

On Twitter, Labour Transport shadow Andy McDonald MP welcomed operators accepting that “the system doesn’t work”, claiming “we need integration under public control” and that Labour will “run our railway for the passenger.” He dubbed it a “failed system.”

I have mixed views about this initiative. The launch event was no better or worse than most other industry events. Speeches were short, pan-industry executive representation was comprehensive and the main thrust of the plan briefly communicated. Yes, it is easy to be cynical about the diverse group of rather selfconscious front line staff, who stood behind the speakers. But this gesture at least made clear a growing awareness of the industry’s wider diversity issues. Better to give cynics something to chew on than run the risk of another ‘white, pale and male’ onslaught? This is a classic case of ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’, and as awkward as it might have felt, this was a step in the right direction, even if it was a bit faltering.

That said, I do have problems with the RDG document, which is too long, not sufficiently focused, not at all well-written and poorly organised. It contains a torrent of numbers which needed sharper prioritisation because the important ones are rather lost. Critics are also correct in that it contains little that is new.

What critics failed to see is that a key strength of this document is that for the first time in 22 years I saw the rail industry gen- uinely stand shoulder-to-shoulder, pulling together national improvements and attempting to explain how it intends to perform better in a more integrated manner. I suspect unions and some politicians understood this only too clearly and do not like it one bit. If you’ve nailed your strategic policy colours to the nationalisation mast then the last thing you’ll want to see is the existing industry acting as ‘One Railway’. For Labour, whose nationalisation rhetoric has enjoyed growing public resonance, it would be disastrous if the railway came to be seen as working more effectively.

At the launch, Christian posed an important question - which RDG Chief Executive Paul Plummer dodged. “Why now?” asked Christian. “What are you afraid of?” Plummer’s deflecting answer summed up a key weakness of this initiative’s framing.

I believe that the answer Plummer avoided is that the possibility of a Labour Government is inching closer, with the prospect of nationalisation which the industry has pooh-poohed - up to now. RDG is attempting to show that nationalisation isn’t necessary because we’re all now working as ‘One Railway’.

I’m grateful to Labour and its nationalisation plans (creating a rebooted 21st century BR Board and taking all the franchises back into Government - see News) because they have succeeded brilliantly where I have failed utterly. I have banged on for more than ten years about how rail abdicated it’s big conversation with the British people after the political and media mauling of the Southall/Hatfield/ Ladbroke Grove/Potters Bar era. I have consistently urged a resumption of this national conversation on the basis that if the rail industry doesn’t set the agenda then media, unions and politicians will. And they have done just that. There was an arrogant complacency that this conversation wasn’t necessary because there was no chance of a Labour Government.

Now, there is - and finally the industry has reacted. But the railway now has no experience of how to run a major national awareness campaign. Thus, it has misfired in planning, presentation and execution. A fatal flaw is that a suspected fear amongst TOC owners of triggering a wider nationalisation discussion has resulted in the ‘n’ word playing no part. Big mistake! Unions and Labour saw immediately what this is about, hence the ferocity of their response to this unspoken but crucial strategic objective. This initiative therefore comes across as woolly and undefined - like hearing the punchline, without the joke. A properly experienced campaign team would have seen this. If you don’t convey a clear objective and strategy then you end up with a tactical plan which obfuscates, rather than illuminates.

Nevertheless, my thanks to long-standing RAIL reader Jeremy Corbyn, for galvanising the rail industry into finally coming up with a plan to try to prove to the public that private delivery of the publicly-owned railway which we already have is the best option for rail and its funders. Thanks also Jeremy for making the industry see that it MUST resume the national conversation it has complacently avoided for a decade and more. Even five years ago, this initiative would have been unthinkable.

Given that I’ve been pushing for both things for so long I cannot condemn the underlying objective of this initiative. But the plan as delivered lacks clarity - and I hope future updates are openly strategically sharper.

RDG has a year to learn these lessons because in October next year, RAIL expects to be invited to an updated document launch, with clear headings, including: “What we committed to” and “What we’ve delivered”.

If there’s significant, measurable, clear progress, then that crucial conversation with the British people will be under way again.

If not....

“So, my thanks to... RAIL reader Jeremy Corbyn for galvanising the rail industry into finally coming up with a plan...”