Scotland doesn’t have all the answers

Richard Clinnick’s Comment ( RAIL 864) was most interesting, as he described the far from satisfactory situation now faced by Britain’s railway system.

We have annual increases in fares (inviting bad publicity twice a year), late delivery of rolling stock, the failure of a large franchise, the late completion of rail projects by Network Rail, and continuing industrial relations problems.

So, Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling has organised reviews on fares, timetable problems, plus an overarching review. With regard to the review on fares, the Government could have invited your correspondent Barry Doe and saved themselves a mass of work.

I am inclined to believe that the devolution of some decisionmaking and rail management may provide the answer in the medium to long term. Although I am an ex-civil servant, I certainly do not believe that the Department for Transport has the answers. Nothing from history suggests that.

However, nor am I sure that Scotland’s experience provides the answer. The Scottish Government quickly caved in to the rail unions on the question of Driver Only Operation for new rolling stock. And the Scottish rail system seems to be very well-manned compared with the system in England - five staff on duty on a winter Saturday at the Kyle of Lochalsh seemed a tad excessive to me.

Having read the Comment, I turned to page 16 and the news item about spending on the railways.

The government subsidy per passenger km in Scotland is 20.9p. To subsidise the Caledonian Sleeper service takes an additional 18.6p per passenger km.

I note that Northern’s passenger subsidy is larger than Scotland’s, but I suspect that the number of people within the area of the Northern franchise is greater than the population of Scotland. In any event, until recently, no government has ever thought about spending money on railways in the North of England.

Just in case the Scots think I am picking on them, I did note the subsidy in Wales is 27.2p per passenger km. Keep this up, and one is quickly talking serious money!

The facts set out in RAIL 864 lead me to believe that better management, together with government throwing money at the system, may damp down some of the criticism. In the meantime, a few more rail carriages, softer seats and projects finished to time would considerably help matters.

As for the clamour for nationalisation, the only gain from that would be to appease the rail unions, especially their ever-moaning leaders with their spurious claims about safety issues. We have the safest rail system in Europe… unless somebody can produce facts to correct me.