Government will always remain involved with railways in some role. The current Westminster administration is pushing devolution, which for TOCs could mean switching from central government to some form of local government. Whatever happens, passengers will complain to MPs or councillors when they feel the railway is not providing for them.
Shaw calls for government to produce a long-term vision for Britain’s railways and update its role and relationship with NR. Britain’s railways were not built to a central plan, but to the needs of business. Funds to build lines were raised locally with Parliament (rather than government) authorising their construction.
She lists what she calls compelling reasons for such a national plan. These include describing network-wide priorities, providing context for rail to meet transport implications of growth, providing a framework to manage political interest and expose trade-offs, and to help suppliers plan their businesses.
Such a plan sounds alluring, but forgets that politicians rarely paint themselves into corners - they prefer to take decisions on the hoof, rather than according to any national plan. It also forgets that governments change colour and change priorities - the support to rail that continued from Labour through the Coalition to today’s Conservative government is perhaps the exception that proves the rule.
The on-off history of electrification over the last century and the stop-go nature of rolling stock orders more recently both illustrate the need for a national plan, while simultaneously revealing why such a plan is impractical - governments change their minds.
GOVERNMENT’S ROLE
Shaw illustrates clearly the pervasive role of government in rail. She recommends that DfT’s position as client for enhancements be strengthened. She acknowledges that government will continue to be NR’s funder and will continue to be the indirect client for operations, maintenance and renewals. In other words, NR is the DfT’s, and it must do what the DfT wants and what the DfT pays for.
Her use of the word ‘client’ is interesting. Dictionary definitions usually include the word customer, making the two synonymous. Elsewhere she stresses the need for NR to listen to its customers, meaning train and freight operators… and by extension passengers and shippers. So NR must do what its client wants and do what its customers want. There’s clear tension here, and no easy answer if it’s passengers being considered rather than the TOCs, which remain DfT’s contractors.
Despite championing the needs of passengers and shippers, Shaw places them low in the list of those the Government should consult when creating its national strategy.
