Tony Lodge is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) and author of Rail’s Last Chance – a four point plan to save the railways, published by the CPS
Andy Burnham’s decision to take the plane instead of the train to open ‘No. 10 North’ last month was unsurprising to those who regularly endure the failing West Coast Main Line and its Avanti trains. The company has just announced 12 per cent cuts to its summer services and its drivers are balloting for strike action. The service will be nationalised next year.
Though these are early days for state-run trains, the signs are not good. Labour’s much vaunted Great British Railways (GBR) does not yet legally exist, as the Railways Bill makes its way through Parliament. When it is formed, and Labour ends most private sector involvement in passenger trains, GBR will be the third biggest public sector employer in Britain, after the NHS and the military. Rail will once again have to compete against nurses, police and soldiers when it comes to funding. Last year, taxpayers had to put £21.6 billion into rail, whilst tickets sales raised £11.5 billion.
John Major’s privatisation of the railways in the early 1990s had its challenges, but the benefits to passengers, the economy and social mobility were undeniable. Extracting civil servants from running loss making and subsidy-drunk train services brought huge benefits. It delivered a huge increase in capital investment, a new focus on innovation, ticketing, better trains, better safety and gave passengers what they wanted – rather than what British Rail (BR) thought they needed. It also delivered early passenger train choice.
Until Covid, privatisation brought a clear focus on rail passenger numbers that had been missing under nationalisation. BR oversaw the long-term decline in passenger journeys from around one billion in 1950 down to 750 million in 1992. Privatisation reversed this 40 year decline; with an impressive 1.7 billion journeys made in 2019.
The new plan to nationalise most passenger train services contains no passenger growth target or cost control safeguards. Instead, GBR risks facing Whitehall micromanagement, high subsidy, ageing trains and political interference. It is an all-too-familiar tale, with the old BR board regularly begging ministers for more taxpayer support to run more loss-making trains. And how independent will GBR’s ‘Fat Controller’ really be once a panicking Transport Secretary starts trying to stem losses?
If passenger numbers and their growth are no longer to be the key driver of GBR’s success then what will it be? If its primary ambition is to increase reliability; then this risks just being a code for a reduction in services. It is, in effect, just disguising failure by state-run Network Rail and GBR.
Look at Avanti services on the West Coast Main Line (WCML), Britain’s busiest railway. It will soon be nationalised and has been directed by Whitehall to cut one in seven services to save money. Similarly, Govia Thameslink was nationalised in May and was then ordered by the Department for Transport to strip hundreds of services from the timetable. The troubled East Midlands Railway is also cutting services before they are nationalised in October.
In a desire to reduce rail subsidies, ministers are resorting to cuts when they should be following a clear plan to deliver growth and use spare capacity. An evidence based 25-year case study exists on Britain’s most competitive and popular route – the East Coast Main Line (ECML) between London, the North East and Scotland. This should be the template for a successful and forward- looking railway where performance and growth is high and subsidies fall.
New figures from the Transport Focus watchdog show that the highest overall satisfaction rating amongst long-distance train services is on the ECML where the dominant and state run LNER competes with three unsubsidised private open-access intercity operators: Hull Trains, LUMO and Grand Central.
According to the new stats, Hull Trains has an eye-catching 94 per cent satisfaction rating, with LNER on 93 per cent, showing how competition keeps LNER on its toes. This is considerably above other operators. LUMO (75 per cent) and Hull Trains (73 per cent) had the highest value for money ratings within the long-distance sector – well above Avanti West Coast at 50 per cent. Interestingly, there is no longer a business case for flights between Leeds and London and the service was axed in 2020. ECML trains have delivered this modal shift, unlike in the North West where Manchester to London flights still compete with the train despite passengers having to travel out of central Manchester and London to reach the airports.
If GBR is to grow, reduce its over-reliance on taxpayer subsidy and deliver better services, modal shift and value for money, then its services should be made to compete with open-access operators – private companies which pay to run trains on certain routes. New statistics show that LNER’s subsidy is reducing – down 23 per cent – (£88.8m to 68.1m) over the year despite it facing fierce competition. Let’s hope those designing GBR have noticed how competition delivers growth, cheaper fares, happier passengers, more routes and falling subsidies.
More open access is also key to keeping the British train building industry in business. LUMO and Grand Central’s owners have recently placed orders worth £800 million for new trains from the important Hitachi train plant in Durham. Though open-access operators only account for 1 per cent of all rail services they are responsible for 19 per cent of new train orders.
The train can certainly beat the plane if services compete and give passengers what they want. Andy Burnham should look East if he wants to make sure ‘No 10. North’ has first-class connections, not to mention the rest of the country.
Tony Lodge is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) and author of Rail’s Last Chance – a four point plan to save the railways, published by the CPS
Andy Burnham’s decision to take the plane instead of the train to open ‘No. 10 North’ last month was unsurprising to those who regularly endure the failing West Coast Main Line and its Avanti trains. The company has just announced 12 per cent cuts to its summer services and its drivers are balloting for strike action. The service will be nationalised next year.
Though these are early days for state-run trains, the signs are not good. Labour’s much vaunted Great British Railways (GBR) does not yet legally exist, as the Railways Bill makes its way through Parliament. When it is formed, and Labour ends most private sector involvement in passenger trains, GBR will be the third biggest public sector employer in Britain, after the NHS and the military. Rail will once again have to compete against nurses, police and soldiers when it comes to funding. Last year, taxpayers had to put £21.6 billion into rail, whilst tickets sales raised £11.5 billion.
John Major’s privatisation of the railways in the early 1990s had its challenges, but the benefits to passengers, the economy and social mobility were undeniable. Extracting civil servants from running loss making and subsidy-drunk train services brought huge benefits. It delivered a huge increase in capital investment, a new focus on innovation, ticketing, better trains, better safety and gave passengers what they wanted – rather than what British Rail (BR) thought they needed. It also delivered early passenger train choice.
Until Covid, privatisation brought a clear focus on rail passenger numbers that had been missing under nationalisation. BR oversaw the long-term decline in passenger journeys from around one billion in 1950 down to 750 million in 1992. Privatisation reversed this 40 year decline; with an impressive 1.7 billion journeys made in 2019.
The new plan to nationalise most passenger train services contains no passenger growth target or cost control safeguards. Instead, GBR risks facing Whitehall micromanagement, high subsidy, ageing trains and political interference. It is an all-too-familiar tale, with the old BR board regularly begging ministers for more taxpayer support to run more loss-making trains. And how independent will GBR’s ‘Fat Controller’ really be once a panicking Transport Secretary starts trying to stem losses?
If passenger numbers and their growth are no longer to be the key driver of GBR’s success then what will it be? If its primary ambition is to increase reliability; then this risks just being a code for a reduction in services. It is, in effect, just disguising failure by state-run Network Rail and GBR.
Look at Avanti services on the West Coast Main Line (WCML), Britain’s busiest railway. It will soon be nationalised and has been directed by Whitehall to cut one in seven services to save money. Similarly, Govia Thameslink was nationalised in May and was then ordered by the Department for Transport to strip hundreds of services from the timetable. The troubled East Midlands Railway is also cutting services before they are nationalised in October.
In a desire to reduce rail subsidies, ministers are resorting to cuts when they should be following a clear plan to deliver growth and use spare capacity. An evidence based 25-year case study exists on Britain’s most competitive and popular route – the East Coast Main Line (ECML) between London, the North East and Scotland. This should be the template for a successful and forward- looking railway where performance and growth is high and subsidies fall.
New figures from the Transport Focus watchdog show that the highest overall satisfaction rating amongst long-distance train services is on the ECML where the dominant and state run LNER competes with three unsubsidised private open-access intercity operators: Hull Trains, LUMO and Grand Central.
According to the new stats, Hull Trains has an eye-catching 94 per cent satisfaction rating, with LNER on 93 per cent, showing how competition keeps LNER on its toes. This is considerably above other operators. LUMO (75 per cent) and Hull Trains (73 per cent) had the highest value for money ratings within the long-distance sector – well above Avanti West Coast at 50 per cent. Interestingly, there is no longer a business case for flights between Leeds and London and the service was axed in 2020. ECML trains have delivered this modal shift, unlike in the North West where Manchester to London flights still compete with the train despite passengers having to travel out of central Manchester and London to reach the airports.
If GBR is to grow, reduce its over-reliance on taxpayer subsidy and deliver better services, modal shift and value for money, then its services should be made to compete with open-access operators – private companies which pay to run trains on certain routes. New statistics show that LNER’s subsidy is reducing – down 23 per cent – (£88.8m to 68.1m) over the year despite it facing fierce competition. Let’s hope those designing GBR have noticed how competition delivers growth, cheaper fares, happier passengers, more routes and falling subsidies.
More open access is also key to keeping the British train building industry in business. LUMO and Grand Central’s owners have recently placed orders worth £800 million for new trains from the important Hitachi train plant in Durham. Though open-access operators only account for 1 per cent of all rail services they are responsible for 19 per cent of new train orders.
The train can certainly beat the plane if services compete and give passengers what they want. Andy Burnham should look East if he wants to make sure ‘No 10. North’ has first-class connections, not to mention the rest of the country.