Revive Clearing House

Regarding the nationalisation of our railways, Ian Taylor has done the industry a service by highlighting the many problems that face passengers whose only wish is to travel from A to B without hassle, or indeed receive value for their hard-earned money.

Nevertheless, having read the diverse opinions on this subject ( RAIL 843), and having had time to reflect on the points of view, it seems that there is a division over this resurgent issue between actively involved railway people and politically motivated bystanders - especially because our existing railway system is now seen as indispensable (which certainly was not the case in the 1960s).

With a government facing on a day-to-day basis the issues of defence, law and order, education, health and all the rest of its accepted primary responsibilities, BR was always at the back of the queue for funding and subsidies.

And I fail to see how a renationalised railway could avoid falling into the same treadmill of short-term funding (or the denial of it).

It really does appear that the current political proposal is more to appease a fringe tendency using perceived but correctable shortcomings to argue for a renationalisation.

Would it not be better to encourage (and indeed enforce) a protocol of co-operation and co-ordination between all franchised operators and other rail transport providers, including Network Rail, for the benefit of the travelling public and freight shippers.

I believe that this essential reform might be achieved by the re-creation of an updated version of the former Railway Clearing House, to seamlessly co-ordinate and eliminate the gaps that exist between franchised operators.

The occurrences causing Dr Taylor’s “litany of complaints” could be eliminated by the efficient operation of a revamped Clearing House, which might also be a body that could take over the task of timetabling and enquiries.