Rail rationalisation

RAIL 863 contained several references to bringing track and train together, in some unspecified way.

Dr Beeching’s second report, in particular, attempted to ‘rationalise’ our rail infrastructure by closing duplicatory lines between given centres. An inescapable consequence in a rationalised network is that different train operating companies (TOCs) and freight operators have to share common infrastructure.

So, how could vertical integration work? If, for example, the East Coast Main Line is administered by (currently) LNER, where does this leave freight operators and other (often competing) TOCs who use the route?

Currently, there is very little outright competition between passenger TOCs. This is another problem (too involved to go into here), but suffice to say that vertical integration would

prevent competition with companies being geographically defined.

The CrossCountry TOC was mentioned in RAIL 863. Along with other operations - passenger and freight - that would need to cross boundaries between geographically defined companies, problems would arise.

Dare I suggest that vertical integration is not practicable (unless we go back to a single monopoly BR Mk 2)? Other possibilities might be: - (a) Since the 1990s we have had Railtrack, which as a private monopoly was financially efficient but reckless in safety terms. Then Network Rail Mk 1 had a strange “not for profit, limited by guarantee’ constitution which resolved the safety problem but seemingly lost cost-effectiveness. Now we have NR Mk 2 - in effect a nationalised industry. Could the NR Mk 1 ‘stakeholder managed’ model be developed further, to include more incentivisation for economic efficiency?

(b) Look more closely at the Swedish ‘horizontal integration’ model where rail, road and water infrastructure are within one organisation (Trafikverket).

Perhaps Chris Grayling could visit the Swedes to investigate further? David Cooper-Smith, Bletchley