There was a major political event last week, but you could have been forgiven for missing it. I am talking about the renationalisation of the railways. South Western Railway was taken into public ownership and a new sticker proclaiming Great British Railways was stuck to some carriages. Most of the visiting journalists were more exercised by the fact that one of the first trains on the new network had to have a rail replacement bus.
The process will take until 2028 when the last of the private rail franchises will expire. Then, presumably, all the companies will be merged into Great British Railways. Nationalising the railways was always a Labour Party objective. I have seen a poster from 1910 stating “Our Railways Should be Nationalised” and privatising them under the Conservatives was not a big success. Although investment improved and passenger numbers increased, many operators found it difficult to make a profit, although the system as a whole receives a subsidy of £12.5 billion a year. Although the main lines operate largely successful services, the less glamourous lines on which many people rely are far less reliable. Some franchises are already publicly owned, including Transpennine and Northern in our region, hardly bywords for reliability. Commentators do not see much difference between the 13 non-nationalised services and the six nationalised ones.
The answer?
What is the answer? Transport is a major issue, particularly if we are to move towards net zero and reduce the problems of congestion and pollution. The railways need a public subsidy, so it is right that they be under public control. I am not sure that one big, nationalised conglomerate is the answer. Mick Lynch would love it. It would give his union more power. But would it improve services? I am not sure.
The best model I am aware of is that of Transport for London, where a public body, TFL controls the infrastructure and is under the control of the mayor, who then specifies what services will run and how often and how much they will be paid. The contracts are them awarded to operators. If an operator cannot manage it, another one will be contracted instead. Additionally bus tube and train services are coordinated, making for a much more comprehensive system. Yes, it has to be subsidised, but TFL controls how much operators receive, and they must operate the service required. Manchester is moving to this system.
Train services are different. The main lines are different from the smaller operators. I would think a more sensible system would be for Great British Railways to control the track and franchise services to operators, specifying the level of service they must provide. The amount of subsidy would be limited, and operators would have to be efficient to run the service within the contract they are offered. Operators would be able to raise the capital to buy new trains.
Transport policy
This makes me think about the whole issue of transport policy. It has never been high on the government’s agenda. The only people who have really taken it seriously were John Prescott and Boris Johnson with his enthusiasm for buses. This government is now awarding welcome funds for new projects, but in the past the turnover of Secretaries of State for Transport was very high. We need some thought into what a transport policy would look like.
Look at the statistics first. Railways receive £12.5 billion per year in subsidy, buses about £2 billion. The number of passengers on trains is about 1.8 billion, bus passengers 4.5 billion according to the latest figures I can find. Bus journeys have halved since 2008, whereas railways have increased. More people still use buses than trains. As the population ages more people will use buses if they can no longer drive, and if the service became more reliable and frequent then more people would use them. But two facts stand out. Bus passengers receive less subsidy than rail ones, and the subsidy for transport in London is over five times that for the rest of the country.
So what should a government’s transport policy be? To move towards net zero, and perhaps even more importantly to reduce congestion , we should encourage people to use public transport when they can. This is not some “war on the motorist” so beloved by some newspapers, but rather a “modal shift” where people use public transport more, and cars less. The new Northumberland line is a good example of what I mean. Use of the line has exceeded expectations, but that does not mean people in Ashington have abandoned their cars but rather are using them less.
There is general agreement that regional mayors should now be responsible for franchising bus and local train operators, so we are moving to a coordinated system, although this will take time. The government’s announcement of a metro extension to Washington will be a big boost for this, The aim should be for an efficient integrated service that makes public transport more efficient and easier to use. That will both provide a service to those who do not have cars but encourage “modal shift” by those who do. Subsidies must be more fairly distributed between buses and trains and between different parts of the country. But ownership of operators is not so important as an effective way of controlling and integrating the system.
