A Railway Fit for Britain's Future

In February the Department for Transport (DfT) published a consultation document, A railway fit for Britain's future ready for the putting forward of a Railways Bill.

It outlines the UK Government's thoughts on the setting up and running of Great British Railways. This will see the fully nationalised train operation and the current government-owned Network Rail being brought into one organisation. The document's introduction, by Heidi Alexander MP rather optimistically describes this as "consolidating functions currently spread across Network Rail, the Department for Transport, and 14 separate rail operators into a single organisation with a single, cohesive strategy". Optimistically, because in reality the railways in Scotland and Wales are devolved. The plans acknowledge this, and suggest ways to make it function as intended. Scotland is already running its railway more or less according to this model, even though Network Rail Scotland is not fully under Scottish Government control.

Clearly the new arrangements must be right for Scotland, and it is important for us that we lose none of the current advantages which have flowed from the close working relationship of ScotRail and Network Rail in the Alliance (Scotland's Railway), which has been working since long before ScotRail was nationalised.

In the 50-page document the section headed "Scotland" lays out the way the relationship is seen. There is an interesting phrase, "jointly owned by the two governments", which is not explained further.

A compilation containing all references to Scotland in the document is available.

Transform Scotland's Response

We are Scotland's alliance for sustainable transport. Our diverse membership brings together over 70 public, private and third sector organisations from across Scotland. Our response principally focuses on the railway in Scotland and Anglo-Scottish routes. However, given the GB-wide nature of the consultation and the likely financial impacts on Scotland, we also make some general comments.

Coordinated approach

The aim to bring track and train together is to be welcomed as this should aid planning, both short and long term, increase efficiency of operations, and reduce overall costs. The cost base of the railway has steadily increased in a variety of areas, but in particular the cost of new infrastructure. There is a pressing need to tackle this cost escalation so that further enhancements to the network are deemed affordable.

Another area driving cost increases is the over-zealous regulation of the railway and its operations in terms of safety. This increases the cost to passengers and makes the railway less appealing resulting in transfer to other modes, particularly the private car which is a mode of transport many times more dangerous than the railway. A more holistic view is needed here where safety across all modes is considered rather than looking at the railway in isolation. While this example lies outside Scotland we would highlight the presumption by regulators against the extension of third rail electrification. This has led to significant increases in operational costs, a less efficient railway, and a failure to decarbonise.

The consultation document fails to set out a clear vision for the railway or a real sense of direction. A longterm strategic plan is required which outlines how the railway will grow and contribute to government targets to drive economic growth, regenerate towns and cities, aid social inclusion and help to tackle climate change. Crucially there is a need to ensure that business plans include the need to grow revenue not simply to cut costs and timescales, and targets for this and modal shift to rail should form part of business plans. Clearly governments have a key role to play here in their wider policy decisions on transport economics and land use planning and we return to this subject in the later section on 'Freight services and The Impact on Scotland'.

Five year funding cycles for operation, maintenance and renewal are to be welcomed but this needs to extend to the whole railway as a key element of a long-term strategic plan. The rail supply industry must have confidence in long-term plans on matters such as electrification and rolling stock replacement to allow them to make their own plans; this will reduce costs and increase efficiency. We must never see a return to the 'hand to mouth existence' typified by annual settlements, while suffering from the short-term whims of government ministers. These conditions only serve to undermine trust in the UK and to increase costs: it is only to be expected if suppliers decide to focus on overseas markets if they deem the UK to lack long-term plans, and is seen to be unreliable with regard to whatever plans may have in place at any given time.

Economic benefits of rail

The devolved nature of the railway in Scotland has helped to create a more joined-up approach and a better understanding of the wider value of the railway to Scotland as a whole. Numerous studies have demonstrated the wider value that Britain's railway brings to society, and it is unreasonable to categorise the cost of the railway as merely a balance between money raised from fares and taxpayers. This ignores the significant role the railway brings to the economy and society. The 'ScotRail Economic Impact Report 2024', published on 31 March, outlines the railway's contribution to supporting jobs, driving regional growth and making Scotland's society and economy greener. The annual social and economic contribution is shown to be more than £4bn.

What is notable in Scotland is the number of railway and station re-openings and progress with electrification since the devolution of rail powers, benefiting local communities and reducing Scotland's reliance on fossil fuels. It is essential that these devolved powers are maintained and enhanced. Great British Railways will inherit Network Rail's infrastructure remit and there is a need for this area of the railway to be fully devolved for the railway operating wholly within Scotland. That will allow a single directing mind to have overall control of track and train within Scotland.

For Anglo-Scottish services there will be a need for close co-operation with the Scottish Government to ensure that the correct balance is struck between long distance and local commuter services within Scotland. The new ECML timetable highlights the earlier failure of a joined-up approach to the development of the railway. Infrastructure enhancements were planned and not fully implemented and not coordinated with the railway timetable and new rolling stock. More and improved Edinburgh to London services are to be welcomed and are a key towards modal shift from air to rail but local commuter services to Edinburgh have been compromised at a time of large population growth in the East Lothian catchment.

Governments north and south of the border have ambitions and targets for the growth of rail freight. This is to be welcomed and it is essential that the new railway creates capacity for this growth. However, as with passenger services, the affordability and convenience of rail sits within the broader context of overall government policy on transport. For freight, there are well-known schemes for infill electrification which would allow electric traction to become the dominant mode for many freight flows. This would increase efficiency and reduce cost for the operators and crucially increase the capacity of the network as a whole as freight could more easily mix with passenger flows. This is a 'win win' for the network across the UK and should be actioned as a priority.

Equally government policy on fuel duty plays a key role in the choice of mode for both passenger and freight services. For freight, access charges have increased by 105% for bulk and over 80% for intermodal since 2010 while fuel duty on road transport has been frozen since 2010 and further reduced since 2022. Electricity costs for freight operators are another key element in the attractiveness and affordability of electric traction. Here we've had the bizarre consequence of operators reverting to diesel traction on electrified sections of railway which runs counter to any decarbonisation aims and eats into valuable capacity on the network.

A strong voice for passengers is to be welcomed. However, many journeys are multi-modal so a focus on the end-to-end journey will be important at all times but crucially at times of disruption. It is not clear if the Passenger Standards Authority's powers will extend to Scotland, and clarification is required on the role of the PSA in Scotland or whether an equivalent alternative for Scotland is being proposed.

There is clearly a role for Open Access operators who have in the past created rail services to towns and cities previously underserved and helped to grow rail's modal share. While in Scotland this is confined to Anglo-Scottish routes there are notable examples in England where established operators either by their own choice or under the influence of the DfT have failed to fully develop the market or in some cases have withdrawn services. Hull Trains stands out as a good example of the need for, and success of, an Open Access operation.

However, there is a clear need to balance all passenger and freight services with the capacity available on the network to ensure that reliable services can be delivered. That capacity should not be fixed for the longterm and strategies should be put in place to increase capacity to run more passenger services of all types as well as develop the freight market.

The overall aims for the establishment of Great British Railways are to be welcomed. There will clearly be many overlaps with devolved governments and regional authorities and a key element of the success of the new railway will be the careful and productive management of these relationships.

The planning, development and operation of the railway all require long-term and consistent strategies. For it to be a success and play a key role in economic, social and environmental policies this has to sit within the appropriate broader government policies on transport and land use planning. Recent evidence here suggests that there is a need for a fundamental reform in the approach of governments north and south of the border if we are to develop a more efficient and sustainable transport network.

We must move away from the simplistic approach that considers the cost of the railway as merely a balance between money raised from passengers and taxpayers to a wider understanding of the value delivered to society as a whole.