Comment: How Great British Railways can help to lift the gloom

A feeling of gloom has descended on the whole country, like one of the smogs which I am old enough to remember from my childhood.

Those smogs were dealt with by a series of environmental measures - including two Clean Air Acts (in 1956 and 1968 respectively) which restricted the use of domestic coal and provided grants for people adopting alternatives.

And, of course, most relevantly to readers of this magazine, steam engines were replaced by (relatively) cleaner sources of power.

I mention this to emphasise a key point. Governments can change things - and indeed change things for the better. It was action - quite brave action - which ensures that we had cleaner air. In a world dominated by the outpourings of crazed billionaires, it is all too easy to forget that.

But governing is hard. Look at the flip-flopping of Labour, calling inquiries because the opposition wants it to, retreating over taxing non-doms because of unfounded claims that millionaires are all heading for cheaper climes, and then dithering about what to do about the railways.

In a keynote speech, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has tried to join a few of the dots about Labour’s plans.

As I mentioned in RAIL 1027, there has already been some retrenchment around open access, although I had an interesting conversation with First Rail Managing Director Steve Montgomery, after writing that piece.

FirstGroup has invested a lot of both real and political capital in open access, and therefore there is no doubt that the company was a bit taken aback with Alexander’s letter to the Office of Rail and Road, which seemed to rein back on the party’s enthusiasm for the concept.

But Montgomery was unfazed. He said that the Department for Transport was supportive of the company’s plans, and that First was proceeding with all its applications - which involve expanding existing Lumo services, as well as running trains from London Euston to Rochdale and to Stirling, and from London Paddington to Carmarthen and to Paignton.

We shall see, but I suspect that First faces a bumpier ride than it had expected. (You can listen to my interview with Steve Montgomery on the latest edition of my Calling All Stations podcast.)

It is not surprising that there is confusion over the open access opportunities for rail companies, given the scale of Alexander’s plans for Great British Railways.

She wants it to be a big beast, second only to the NHS in terms of the size of government organisations.

In her first speech on GBR (could they not just drop the Borisonian Great?), we learnt of some of the ideas that will shape the organisation, when she set out five concepts that will underpin GBR’s strategy.

At its heart, there will be the idea of what she called “non-negotiable” integration between operators and Network Rail. It was necessary to “rip out duplication” and “simplify the management of track and train”.

Spot on. Many of the failings of the privatised system have been the result of the fragmentation of the industry. Indeed, long-time readers of this column will remember that I highlighted this issue throughout the period in the mid-1990s when the railway was being broken up and sold.

The breaking-up did far more harm than the selling. The excuse for carrying out this wanton vandalisation was to argue that British Rail, an integrated public business, was not fit for purpose.

However, this was not the case. It had become an efficient and economic organisation thanks to the reforms of the 1980s, progress which was ignored in the interests of an ideological attachment to privatisation and the free market.

Interestingly, Alexander seems to be aware of the opposite risk - that imposing an ideological solution (albeit a very different one) will not work either.

She stressed that renationalisation was not “a silver bullet”, but rather that “we must get the basics right”. That is very reassuring. Good management is at the heart of running a successful railway.

Alexander’s second injunction is that GBR should “drive up operational performance”.

That should be axiomatic, but it will take more than a magic wand. The key is inspiring the staff to be on board with that aim. They are the ones who can deliver a better performance by going the extra mile and giving that extra smile to passengers.

Her third challenge is probably the most difficult: “reforming the fares structure and ticketing processes”.

I have previously set out plans for this - having a basic fare based on the current price of an off-peak return, and then using that to make busy trains more expensive by adding a percentage to the fare and vice-versa for off-peak services.

Simple and doable, although I somewhat suspect that GBR will struggle with this because of the present complexity, rather than simply abandoning the whole system.

There will be winners and losers, but having a clear pricing policy will attract more users to the railway. My advice is: keep it simple. And if that means no more £15 returns from London to Liverpool, so what?

Then there is Alexander’s reiteration of the need for new things, with “world-leading innovators, particularly around AI” to “create a better passenger experience and greater efficiency”.

Hmmm, we’ve heard that before. And the mere mention of AI makes me cringe, as it’s an all-encompassing technology that is still too new to assess its impact.

The railways have not yet managed to install decent WiFi on all (or indeed any) of its trains… or even decided on a way to do that.

Alexander is right that innovation is important, but she should be aware of how difficult it is to introduce on a railway with countless stakeholders involved.

The creation of GBR should make this easier, but the way that Network Rail has at times stifled innovation suggests there will have to be a clear-sighted strategy for introducing change. Getting WiFi sorted would be a good start.

She then rounded this off with the requirement that GBR should be “a force for positive change beyond the tracks”.

Actually, although that could be dismissed as waffle, I rather like it. The new organisation needs to be a champion for the railways - representing and defending them in bad times, but also, just as importantly, emphasising their importance in the economy.

British Rail, with its fabulous logo and innovative advertising campaign, did this well.

GBR needs to do this - both because every extra ticket sold means less cost to taxpayers, but also because of the wider benefits of getting more people on trains.

Despite the lack of detail and any firm information on GBR’s structure and functioning, this is a good and ambitious start. But it will be a long journey.