Comment: GBR must step out of the shadows and show intent

In a couple of years’ time, a new organisation - Great British Railways - will employ some 110,000 people and run much (though not all) of the rail industry.

But its gestation has been as slow and painful as an elephant pregnancy. And there is some dissatisfaction within the industry about the lack of progress and the uncertainty this is causing.

It is quite difficult to pin down what is happening with the Shadow Great British Railways as, in effect, it does not exist.

At the moment, GBR consists of a chair and one employee. The organisation has no official status, although the chair (Laura Shoaf) has fortnightly meetings with the core team in charge of the railways: Robin Gisby, chief executive officer of DfT Operator Ltd, which runs the government-controlled franchises; Andrew Haines, chief executive of Network Rail; and Alex Hynes, Director General, Rail Services at the Department for Transport.

Other people are occasionally invited, but there are no published minutes and no accountability, because legally the organisation does not exist as the legislation creating it has not yet been passed.

Shadow Great British Railways therefore exists in a strange limbo land, although despite the murmurings from some in the industry about the lack of direction, Shoaf is generally well regarded.

She is dynamic and keen to work to the five parameters set by Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, which include improving performance, fares and ticketing, integration, and innovation. Overriding all this is what the railways are for - how they contribute to societal and environmental benefits.

Apart from the meetings with these senior railway personnel, Shadow GBR has few weapons at its disposal, although ministers have suggested that some progress could be made before legislation is passed.

Indeed, there had been hopes that the core of a plan would be published around Christmas. But then in November, previous Transport Secretary Louise Haigh resigned over a minor scandal which had nothing to do with the railways.

Her replacement, Heidi Alexander, seemingly had different ideas about the future structure of the railways, and therefore GBR had to go back to the drawing board.

This was rather strange, given that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had seemed to endorse the scheme to create GBR - which begs the question as to why a change in Transport Secretary should result in a reconsideration of the strategy for the new body.

GBR now hopes to publish a strategic plan in the summer, but there are still fundamental questions to answer over how it will run the railways.

Firstly, it should be noted that this will not be the re-creation of British Rail. There will be vast swathes of the industry which are outside its purview, such as the supply industry, the rolling stock and engineering companies, and even quite a few operations - the likes of ScotRail, open access trains such as Lumo and Grand Central, Heathrow Express, London Overground and the Elizabeth line, as well as freight services.

GBR will be the big beast, but what powers will be left with the regulator to ensure access for these trains?

There is some hostility among ministers over the idea of an independent regulator, but the rules could be written in such a way as to constrain their freedom. The devil will be in the detail.

There is a further complication which will need to be resolved.

GBR will be an ‘arm’s-length’ body, with its budget set by government but with a certain amount of freedom to make decisions.

The issue is: how long will the arm be?

If the organisation is to be genuinely separate from government, then it will have to be quite long.

That is open to question, but to be successful it will need to be able to take risk - for example, invest in schemes that may not work, or create new services that might not attract sufficient passengers to be worthwhile. If it is not allowed that commercial freedom, it may as well be run from Whitehall.

But hold on a minute. Just a couple of weeks ago, we saw the demise of another ‘arm’s-length’ body, with the unlamented death of NHS England. A quango employing some 10,000 people, it was widely felt to be man-marking decisions of the Department of Health and Social Care, and consequently creating widespread duplication. NHS England has now been killed off precisely for the crime of being ‘arm’s-length’ and therefore unaccountable.

There is potential for a contradiction here. GBR supporters need to demonstrate that its creation will not result in duplication - otherwise in a couple of years it could face the same fate as NHS England.

The answer to this is that GBR must not create its own new bureaucracy, but simply take on existing personnel from the industry and the DfT.

The test will be if the number of civil servants working for the DfT on transport - and indeed to the Treasury - is greatly reduced. That will be a key measure of the success of the new organisation.

Another positive pointer will be if GBR re-creates successful bits of British Rail.

One of BR’s strengths was marketing. Remember those fabulous TV ads for InterCity and the excellent posters for Network SouthEast.

Marketing budgets are often the first to go in cutbacks, and in these constrained times it will take a brave manager in GBR to spend money on trying to generate new business.

But that is essential to show that the railways are not only important socially, but that they also have commercial intent. GBR, like BR, has to perform those differing roles effectively.

Another positive will be the creation of apprenticeships. Vast numbers of employees are reaching retirement age, and they need to be replaced not by people drifting into the railways for want of other work, but rather by young people seeking a career in this great industry. Again, that will be a key measure of success.

In the meantime, while we await the strategic plan and the legislation, GBR could put pressure on Network Rail to speed up the introduction of new technology, and to be clearer about what contracts it is letting (as it has a habit of announcing schemes and then withdrawing them).

It could ensure that operators taken in-house quickly stop playing games over delay attribution, and consequently cut staff.

No one could claim that the railway is in a perfect (or indeed a good) state. Therefore, to show a few quick wins would demonstrate that GBR will be a force for change. At the moment, it seems a shadow of a shadow…