Comment: The path to a railway that “serves passengers better”

Passengers can expect a boost in rail punctuality from 2026 - but not necessarily because more trains are running on time.

The boost comes simply from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) moving the punctuality goalposts to give train operators and Network Rail an easier time.

Instead of measuring how many trains arrive within one minute of scheduled arrival, ORR will instead allow trains running three minutes late to count as punctual. On current performance, this instantly lifts punctuality from around 66% to about 84%.

Unsurprisingly, ORR reports that rail companies largely agreed with its proposed loosening. It says that measuring ‘Time to 3’ is more realistic and sensible, arguing that “a large proportion of on-time failures [are] difficult to attribute given current systems available”.

ORR claims passenger support for the change, having commissioned Transport Focus to look into the matter. What TF’s report shows is that three minutes is the most that ORR and the rail industry could get away with, as they sought paper improvements in performance.

When TF asked people what they would consider to be punctual when travelling by train, it gave them four options - one, three, five and seven minutes.

In response, 97% said they considered one minute to be punctual. Thereafter the percentages fell (in order) to 89%, 72% and 49%. Given the drop between three and five minutes, then three minutes was the most passengers would stomach for a punctual train.

TF found that passengers were not keen on trade-offs between different measures of success. It asked what mattered most out of improved punctuality, avoiding cancellations, fewer days of disruption, or getting a seat.

It said: “This revealed a notable reluctance to accept compromises, in particular between punctuality and cancellations. The proportion saying fewer delays and fewer cancellations was most important was broadly equal.

“This indicates that passengers tend to regard success ‘in the round’ and want the railway to deliver punctual trains that aren’t cancelled, and which provide a seat for them to sit on.”

That gives some context to 2026’s move to a nationalised rail network, with Great British Railways (GBR) in overall charge as the “directing mind”.

Rail Minister Lord Hendy gave some hints of what’s coming when he answered questions in front of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee before Christmas. He talked about “really serious change” to the railway’s structure and “profound change” in the way it works.

“There are issues about access and charging that will be matters of legitimate concern, if only because there will continue to be commercial operators on the railway,” he told MPs.

“Those are two examples of what we will consult about, so that all the interested parties can understand how the railway will work in the future, how it might affect them if they are a business, and how it will interact.”

This reflects the government’s continued commitment to private rail operations - in the form of open access for passengers, and freight.

Consultation will cover how Combined Authority Mayors become more closely involved.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner made this clear a few days after Hendy spoke, when she published her English devolution proposals in a White Paper. She talked about rewiring England and ending any hoarding of power by Whitehall.

“If we are going to build an economy that works for everyone, we need nothing less than a completely new way of governing - a generational project of determined devolution,” she said.

Rayner talked of giving Mayors a “statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network” and a “clear right to request greater devolution of services, infrastructure and station control where it would support a more integrated network”.

This certainly sounds like a shift back to the days of Passenger Transport Authorities and Executives. Of course, Mayors will need funds to deliver their new rail responsibilities.

The government plans to continue with the idea of integrated settlements that it inherited from previous Conservative ministers, initially for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. This removes centralised controls and will let Mayors decide how to spend their funds. It will let them move funds between different policy areas.

Whether or not this sees more or less money going into local and regional rail services depends on what those services deliver. Should rail be seen as difficult to work with or poorly performing, then Mayors could move money away. But if Mayors see rail as successful and willing to help deliver local priorities, then more money should come its way.

Hendy said as much to the Transport Committee: “To be successful, GBR has to lift its head up and look at what passengers and freight want, and address the country’s needs. The railway is not an end in itself. Connectivity drives economic growth, jobs and housing.”

Labour’s promise is that nationalising former franchises and moving train operations closer to infrastructure will produce a better railway.

Hendy told MPs: “By the end of this Parliament, we should have a railway that is more coherent, serves passengers better, costs the taxpayer less, and generates more revenue.”

He suggested there were serious savings to be made by removing the costs of contractualising train operations, and a real opportunity to have one person responsible for train operations, staff, rolling stock and infrastructure.

Yet we’ve heard for years that Network Rail has been working closely with train operators. Apparently not, if this tale from Hendy about former Transport Secretary Louise Haigh calling in track and train operators to her office is anything to go by.

“Those sessions have been very revealing. In one, one of the parties gave a very optimistic account of how closely they worked together, while the other person shook their head in disbelief. Those two people were together providing a train service for a significant area of the country. I won’t say where.”

Not did he say which worked for NR and which for the operator. Yet that sort of closer working shouldn’t need legislation, so shouldn’t need GBR. It could be done today. Done now.