Patience please ...Britain’s rail revolution is still on track
The man in charge of reform has said franchising cannot continue. So, what’s next for the railways, asks Oliver Gill
On Oct 9 1990, just weeks before the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, the then transport secretary Cecil Parkinson addressed the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. On the future of British Rail, he was unequivocal. “The question now is not about whether we should privatise it, but how and when,” he said.
The “when” would be addressed by John Major’s government over the years that followed. The “how” saw Britain’s rail network carved up and sold to train companies that operated under a franchise system. The infrastructure – the tracks, points and stations – was swept into a single entity that started out in private hands (called Railtrack) before being pushed onto the public balance sheet. Now it’s known as Network Rail.
Since privatisation, rail use has doubled. Struggling to keep up with the necessary investment, the country’s train network has been bursting at the seams for a number of years; it was a case of when – not if – the Government would need to think of a new way forward.
The catalyst for change came in two parts. First, sweeping timetable changes – billed as the biggest in Britain’s history – spectacularly backfired in May 2018.
Then there was slow motion calamity of the East Coast main line. After racking up a £200m loss it was renationalised for the third time in a decade last summer. And so it was that Keith Williams, the former British Airways chief executive (and current Royal Mail chairman), was appointed
to conduct a “root and branch” review of the rail network. Rather than “evolution”, “revolution” on railways was in the offing, he promised.
Williams has spoken on several occasions on what he has found since taking on the task and hasn’t pulled his punches. The rhetoric suggests a paradigm shift.
So, amid reports that an appointment of “Fat Controller” type figure, independent of the Government, was to be one of his key recommendations, Williams addressed an audience in Bradford yesterday. Desperate for detail rather than high-level hyperbole, the eyes of the rail industry were set on him. They were left disappointed: “I won’t be setting out my recommendations today.”
At least Sir Richard Branson was impressed. “We completely agree,” he said when Williams trotted out his revolution versus evolution line. However, as Sir Richard pointed out: “The challenge will be making it stick.”
The fluffy thrust of his speech is that the conclusions of the Williams Review will be guided by “10 fundamental, evidence based, passenger needs”. Core requirements included “reliability and punctuality” (in other words, running trains on time) and making them “value for money”.
Yet there were a few glimmers of light for those desperate for something substantive. Williams is targeting better compensation for delayed trains. He wants to shift the burden of responsibility onto the train companies to tell passengers when they are due money back.
Consumer groups responded with tentative optimism. “Moves to speed up compensation claims are welcome,” said Neena Bhati of Which? “But to really improve the dire levels of trust, the rail review should recommend fully automatic compensation.”
Williams also suggested increased devolution is on the cards. “Wherever we get to, I’m clear that the railway needs a structure that enhances strategic planning, including at the local level, and facilitates better engagement on specification, and delivery of regional enhancements,” he said. This impressed Anthony Smith of passenger group Transport Focus. “Passengers will welcome the potential for increased local and national accountability,” he said.
But other than this, there was little material divergence from previous forthright commentary. There needs to be “a new relationship between the public and private sectors”, he said. In isolation, a revolutionary remark. But in reality it was similar to one made in February. “Put bluntly, franchising cannot continue the way it is today,” Williams said then. Even the concept of replacing government meddling with an independent “fat controller” is hardly groundbreaking.
The Rail Delivery Group, the trade body that represents train companies and Network Rail, welcomed the plans for an arms-length organising body. Why? Because this is one of their own recommendations.
While broadly positive, the RDG kept its reserved judgment on Williams’ direction of travel. “Passengers across the country have told us that they want easier fares, increased accountability and a system which allows rail companies to focus more fully on delivering for customers. While we await the detail, it’s very encouraging to see these areas being prioritised,” said operations chief Jacqueline Starr.
Williams has until the autumn to deliver his findings to the Transport Secretary and Prime Minister “whoever that may be”, as he put it. The Government will then incorporate his conclusions into a white paper on the future of Britain’s railways.
The “when”, therefore, is clear – although this comes with the caveat that the Department for Transport is becoming synonymous with delayed delivery. “The fact is that the railway in 2019 is hugely different from the railway as it was following privatisation,” Williams said. “The sector, on the other hand, is much the same. I won’t be recommending what comes next here today, but the principles are clear,” he told the conference.
Passengers and train operators will have to wait for his version of the “how”, it seems.
‘The fact is that the railway in 2019 is hugely different from the railway as it was following privatisation’