Labour’s
plans


for
the
passenger
railway
have
received
plenty
of
attention
during
the
past
few
days,
although
some
of
the
general
media
coverage
was
ill-informed
or
potentially
misleading

(writes
Sim
Harris).

The
BBC,
for
example,
said
‘private
train
companies
have
overseen
a
boom
in
rail
usage
in
Britain’.

It
is
right
to
say
that
passenger
figures
have
risen
sharply
since
the
1990s
(until
Covid,
anyway),
but
this
sentence
could
have
been
taken
to
imply
that
the
increase
in
demand
was
the
result
of
privatisation.

In
fact,
passenger
figures
had
started
to
rise
in
the
mid-1990s
before
the
franchises
could
have
made
any
difference
to
the
quality
of
services,
although
it
is
also
the
case
that
after
privatisation
the
internal
ticketing
system
tended
(and
still
tends)
to
inflate
the
totals
because
each
train
used
during
a
journey
is
counted
separately.

Leaving
the
knotty
problem
of
statistics
aside,
some
sources
talked
about
‘UK
Rail’,
when
Northern
Ireland
is
nothing
to
do
with
this,
but
few
commentators
seemed
to
notice
the
quiet
change
of
the
status
of
Great
British
Railways
from
‘guiding
mind’,
as
suggested
in
the
‘Williams-Shapps
Plan
for
Rail’
of
2021,
to
‘directing
mind’
in
Labour’s
document.

Another
change
was
the
treatment
of
the
private
sector
operators
who
currently
have
National
Rail
Contracts,
as
successors
to
the
former
franchises.
In
the
Keith
Williams
version,
Great
British
Railways
was
to
be
a
facilitator,
not
an
operator.

He
had
said:
‘Great
British
Railways
will
specify
the
timetables,
branding,
most
fares
and
other
aspects
of
the
service
and
agree
a
fee
with
the
competitively-procured
passenger
service
operator
to
provide
the
service
to
this
specification.
In
most
contracts,
fare
revenue
will
go
to
Great
British
Railways,
with
operators
delivering
to
the
specification
and
managing
their
costs
in
doing
so.’

In
other
words,
the
new
train
operators
would
have
concessions
rather
than
old-style
franchises,
similar
to
those
already
awarded
by
bodies
like
Transport
for
London
for
the
operation
of
London
Overground
and
the
Docklands
Light
Railway.
Confusingly,
the
operating
contracts
for
bus
routes
in
London,
Manchester
and
probably
other
places
soon,
although
under
the
firm
control
of
the
local
authority,
are
now
being
referred
to
as
‘franchises’.

The
Government’s
draft
Rail
Reform
Bill,
published
earlier
this
year,
steered
clear
of
Great
British
Railways,
creating
instead
an
‘Integrated
Rail
Body’,
which
would
be
‘the
appropriate
franchising
authority’.
Although
the
Bill
is
very
brief,
this
did
suggest
that
private
sector
operators
would
be
eligible
to
bid
for
operating
franchises,
although
not
necessarily
on
the
previous
model.
Nothing
is
said
in
this
Bill
about
any
kind
of
‘mind’,
guiding
or
otherwise.

Labour
has
now
suggested
yet
another
structure.
Under
its
proposals
there
would
also
be
a
Great
British
Railways,
but
this
will
not
be
awarding
operating
contracts.
Instead
it
would
be
‘responsible
for
the
day-to-day
operational
delivery
of
the
railways’.
Labour
says
the
reforms
set
out
in
Keith
Williams’
Rail
Review
‘do
not
go
far
enough’,
because
‘they
will
not
fix
the
fundamental
problems
that
beset
the
industry
–
continuing
fragmentation,
inefficiency
and
waste’.

Labour
says
its
proposed
Railways
Act
would
transfer
‘expiring
train
operator
contracts
directly
to
the
new
statutory
body’
and
remove
‘the
requirement
to
return
franchises
to
the
private
sector’.

The
word
may
not
appear
in
Labour’s
plans,
but
this
is
renationalisation.
The
result
will
be
a
curious
hybrid,
with
most
passenger
trains
and
all
the
infrastucture
controlled
by
a
state-owned
body,
while
the
private
sector
will
be
allowed
to
continue
with
train
leasing,
train
building,
open
access
passenger
services,
most
freight
services,
ticket
retailing
and,
presumably,
running
charter
trains.

Great
British
Railways
has
already
been
given
a
temporary
headquarters
in
Derby.
If
all
this
comes
to
pass,
it
is
going
to
need
a
bigger
building
to
get
the
job
done.