“For a variety of reasons, we have to think of rail in the long term - we cannot have a short-term vision. I think the British public will take that into consideration, that they will see the benefits, in a gradual manner. They will see that where we are at the moment with various operators, sometimes not offering the appropriate level of services, 19,000 services have been cut.”
Public operation will also “give us the opportunity to bring down fares”, says Dhesi.
“At the moment, we feel that rail fares are too high. In fact, they’re 49% higher than they were in 2010, and also fares have risen twice as much as wages. Now, if we price ourselves out, people will not be going by rail - it will be a car-led recovery after the lockdowns and the pandemic. That’s why we want to take charge of the service level as well as, obviously, the tracks.”
But Labour will also have to deal with the demands of the workforce and the trade unions, which still enjoy a close relationship with the party. Having criticised the Conservatives’ approach to industrial relations so forcefully, what will Labour do differently?
“Under a Labour government, rather than the current Conservative approach, you will have a government that is focused and recognises the importance of industrial relations, that recognises the importance of the suggestions and views of various stakeholders within the industry, and also taking into full consideration the views of passengers,” Dhesi says.
“That is why I’ve said recently on the floor of the House that what we actually have is a Government that has been gunning for strikes. The strikes have been Government-induced, in that they wanted to create a wedge issue to divert attention away from whether it was Partygate or Pinchergate or various other problems that they’ve had.”
Dhesi focuses on the importance of dialogue.“In fact, I asked the previous Transport Secretary : ‘If I, as the Shadow Rail Minister, can sit down with the chief executive of Network Rail, can sit down with the various operators, can sit down with the general secretaries of the rail unions, what is stopping the Transport Secretary from doing so?’
“That’s where that leadership needed to be from government ministers, rather than hiding behind somebody else or given that they have a mandate. That’s where it’s incumbent upon them to show leadership, to show that they can resolve the impasse as soon as possible. That’s the difference that you’ll see under a Labour government.”
Although Labour in government last time round did not turn the tide on the franchising system, there were always many in the party - not just on the left - who favoured ending it.
When Corbyn shifted Labour’s policy to public ownership in 2015, few voices were raised in opposition. And with Tom Harris, probably the most passionate supporter of the free market to have served as Rail Minister under Labour, having quit the party during Corbyn’s leadership, there are now even fewer.
However, one lone sceptical voice in the party ranks is Lord Berkeley, a former civil engineer who worked for Eurotunnel for ten years from 1985, and later became chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
“It all comes back to what you mean by public ownership,” he tells RailReview.
“Public ownership is something that’s an essential part of Network Rail - you couldn’t envisage having the infrastructure owned by anyone other than the state, the same as the state owns all the roads.
“When it comes to what goes on the track, freight is pretty much all in the private sector, and it has its attempts to get more capacity - sometimes it wins, sometimes it doesn’t. I'm assuming doesn’t want to nationalise the manufacturers - you couldn’t really.”
Berkeley continues: “I’m not convinced public ownership is in the national interest. What are we trying to achieve? We’re trying to achieve an efficient, reliable and safe railway, that fits with whatever politicians decide should be.
“I question whether the state will do it any better, rather than having the private sector reporting, responsibly, to the state to try and give the passengers the best possible deal. What’s becoming clear on the continent, and here on the East Coast Main Line, is that on the long-distance traffic, competition grows the market.”
GB Rail calls for a “case-by-case review to determine the best ownership arrangements for the existing privatised rail freight operators”, with Direct Rail Services (already state-owned through the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority) transferred to the GB Rail freight business unit.
The document sets out the need for “Chinese walls” within the unit, to ensure DRS does not get preferential access. But the rail consultant interviewed by RailReview is sceptical that this would work. “Will it artificially reduce the share prices of the other FOCs?” he asks.
However, Dhesi’s focus when it comes to freight is not ownership, but volume: “The key concept is to have annual targets. If other nations can have those annual targets… for example, even in Scotland we’ve got that. There’s been a great deal of work in Wales as well with the publicly owned Transport for Wales.
“We want to make sure that there are annual targets, that the level of freight is increased. That can only be done if we have increased capacity in the system. That’s why we are firmly in favour of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, because it would open us up to increasing the capacity to have more freight.
“To tackle the climate crisis, to ensure that we are decongesting our roads, we need to have a focus on freight. And that can only be done by increasing capacity. And I think that will lead many in the logistics industry to seriously consider using the train for freight.”
But if this is the aim, how will Labour incentivise a modal shift from road and air to rail?
“Once we have that capacity, once people within the logistics community realise that we can, that they’ve got a government that’s investing”, the rest will follow, Dhesi believes.
It’s about making it clear “that they can move their freight around a lot easier than always being subservient to passenger services”, he adds, saying that sometimes means “they cannot even operate that freight service, and therefore they do not even have an option”.
For the rail consultant, the logistics sector is unlikely to favour rail on the scale that is needed for as long as it is cheaper to move freight by road. But there are ways of navigating this, he believes, such as taxing road freight - unpopular as this might be. New freight operators, some using repurposed passenger rolling stock, could also play a part in bringing the price per unit down for smaller and mixed loads.
It’s an aspect of the policy which could end up being played off against other commitments in Labour’s manifesto. Might the rail industry and rail unions have to compete with the interests of other sectors?
