I think lots of people in the industry are worried too. But it's a mistake to assume Labour had no plan. Their diagnosis was that railways were an electoral issue because (a) they always seemed to be on strike and (b) they always seemed to be cancelling trains. They were persuaded that poor industrial relations were the cause, and these were made worse because the conservatives were egging on the TOCs to make tough demands. So Labour's remedy is to buy favour with the rail unions by eliminating private ownership (dogma) and offering generous pay deals and no changes in conditions. The goal is a railway that seems to the user to work, in the sense of being reliable. The astute reader will note that this does nothing about underlying structure and costs, nor does past history offer any cause for optimism that state ownership leads to better long term industrial relations. But the bet is that there will be enough good news, or at least absence of bad news, to make it look like something has been done.
this both makes a lot of sense and is even more worrying! That's basically the playbook of 1974 Labour government which did not end well, either for Labour or the country.
I think there is a general pattern that Labour in opposition believed that the system (not just the railways, the whole apparatus of the state) was fundamentally sound, but that the Conservatives were useless at managing it and were motivated by penny pinching and cruelty. With a bit more money, common sense management, and kindness, all would be fine. The NHS is a good example of this. Some in Labour are now starting to wonder if the system is actually the problem, but most are still hoping they can just about make it work well enough to stave off electoral disaster.
There are many unfoirtunate parallels with the mid-1970's in all this. The question is who will play the Margaret Thatcher role at the end of the decade?
I would add a third factor that privatisation was unpopular - rail fares rising every year, which voters attribute to greedy profit-driven companies, rather than industry-specific inflation. Hence the decision to freeze fares, which the article notes cuts off the needed funding.
It sounds as if a lot of cooperation between GBR and National Grid will be required, going forward? There being a great synergy between setting up and running a future-proof railway system and a future proof grid, even down to schematics?
Fantastic article, very much setting out the feeling amongst many in the rail community in the UK. I myself have just been examining the potential policy impacts of vertical integration, but you consider so much more!
The introduction of the Arterios were planned when SWR was in private hands. And we’re not saying that GBR will mean nothing will get better – some things will improve! But we are concerned that it won’t fix the underlying issues with Britain’s railways.
Actually, a lot of work was done on this in the 2019 GBRail policy document, authored by Labour in opposition when Andy MacDonald was the Shadow SoS. It had a well researched and relatively complete plan for the reorganisation of the business, but was quietly buried in the subsequent policy reset.
A key factor behind high rail use in Switzerland is urban form: dense cities with very high apartment share. It’s not just about the quality of the network (which I am not disputing and which clearly plays a part).
One reason for high electrification costs in UK is the small “loading gauge” which necessitates a lot of (expensive) work to structures. This means that a lower than average share for electrified railways may have been optimal. Developments in battery technology seem to be changing things, and in this context a “pause” to conventional electrification may be a reasonable response (particularly when in the interim new diesel electric bimode train will deliver a very similar service to pure electric ones).
For sure topography plays a massive role too. Constraints drive creativity! But there are elements of the UK that have had higher density with rail. The car played a stronger role in the UK too in setting the urban landscape.
The thing we have to do when we fetishize other places is not make it about copying and focus on how to apply the principles in the different context.
BR had those constraints and worked around them very successfully and delivered economic projects. the only that changed at privatisation was the unleashing of an army of consultants that generated bullet proof designs and environment for delivery where no risk could be taken so the price shot up. Until we get back to the can do culture that pervaded in BR along with engineers that were allowed to be pragmatic nothing will happen.
The industry needs an outsider in the Peter Parker mould to lead it as those left are too contaminated with the last 30yrs ways of working.
Agreed. But topography surely the key factor in Switzerland (and the cities themselves are dense). Also UK used to have high rail share which didnt result in Swiss urban form.
The problem with tying transport to regions is the stark differences in population and affluence. London can soak up most of the attention and infrastructure because of its sheer density - 26 million daily trips. By comparison, Cornwall has only half a million inhabitants, it's one of the poorest regions in Europe and it's infrastructure was crushed by the Beeching cuts. Even if it did get an ambitious mayor, the business case does not exist for a railway expansion, or the funds to pay for it. The only way you can justify doing so is to look at the impact on the rest of the UK (4 million people visit the peninsula each year). It's the same for North Yorkshire.
I don’t think that comparison really applies. Swiss cantons are minuscule: only four of them have more people than Cornwall! They are able to raise their own money.
In Cornwall’s case, electrifying the branch lines could conceivably make sense given how many tourists use them. It might not be a good idea. But the crucial point is that it should be Cornwall’s choice how it wants to spend its own money, not central government’s.
This "One of the key drivers of those higher costs is Britain’s habit of running electrification as a series of one-off projects. Every time a programme finishes, the workforce disperses or goes overseas; every time a new scheme starts, the system has to re-create capacity from scratch."
Is very interesting many years ago a friend told me about the problems working on the rural payments agency. One problem was that contractors only had their contracts renewed at the last moment - by which time they had often found a new job which wasted a lot of time.
The real issue is the case was made for a rolling programme of electrification 15yrs ago and was supported by a Tory government but the rail industry managed to catastrophically shoot itself in the foot with execution. Its no wonder politicians are so reluctant to invest.
I think lots of people in the industry are worried too. But it's a mistake to assume Labour had no plan. Their diagnosis was that railways were an electoral issue because (a) they always seemed to be on strike and (b) they always seemed to be cancelling trains. They were persuaded that poor industrial relations were the cause, and these were made worse because the conservatives were egging on the TOCs to make tough demands. So Labour's remedy is to buy favour with the rail unions by eliminating private ownership (dogma) and offering generous pay deals and no changes in conditions. The goal is a railway that seems to the user to work, in the sense of being reliable. The astute reader will note that this does nothing about underlying structure and costs, nor does past history offer any cause for optimism that state ownership leads to better long term industrial relations. But the bet is that there will be enough good news, or at least absence of bad news, to make it look like something has been done.
this both makes a lot of sense and is even more worrying! That's basically the playbook of 1974 Labour government which did not end well, either for Labour or the country.
I think there is a general pattern that Labour in opposition believed that the system (not just the railways, the whole apparatus of the state) was fundamentally sound, but that the Conservatives were useless at managing it and were motivated by penny pinching and cruelty. With a bit more money, common sense management, and kindness, all would be fine. The NHS is a good example of this. Some in Labour are now starting to wonder if the system is actually the problem, but most are still hoping they can just about make it work well enough to stave off electoral disaster.
There are many unfoirtunate parallels with the mid-1970's in all this. The question is who will play the Margaret Thatcher role at the end of the decade?
I would add a third factor that privatisation was unpopular - rail fares rising every year, which voters attribute to greedy profit-driven companies, rather than industry-specific inflation. Hence the decision to freeze fares, which the article notes cuts off the needed funding.
It sounds as if a lot of cooperation between GBR and National Grid will be required, going forward? There being a great synergy between setting up and running a future-proof railway system and a future proof grid, even down to schematics?
Fantastic article, very much setting out the feeling amongst many in the rail community in the UK. I myself have just been examining the potential policy impacts of vertical integration, but you consider so much more!
Thanks Chris!
And yet South Western Trains is delivering increases in capacity into Waterloo:
https://www.southwesternrailway.com/other/news-and-media/news/2025/december/30th-arterio-enters-service
The introduction of the Arterios were planned when SWR was in private hands. And we’re not saying that GBR will mean nothing will get better – some things will improve! But we are concerned that it won’t fix the underlying issues with Britain’s railways.
Actually, a lot of work was done on this in the 2019 GBRail policy document, authored by Labour in opposition when Andy MacDonald was the Shadow SoS. It had a well researched and relatively complete plan for the reorganisation of the business, but was quietly buried in the subsequent policy reset.
Interesting. I did not know that existed (in my defence I didn't live in the UK at the time!) but I'll take a look.
This is right? https://www.bringbackbritishrail.org/reports/gbrail.pdf
A key factor behind high rail use in Switzerland is urban form: dense cities with very high apartment share. It’s not just about the quality of the network (which I am not disputing and which clearly plays a part).
One reason for high electrification costs in UK is the small “loading gauge” which necessitates a lot of (expensive) work to structures. This means that a lower than average share for electrified railways may have been optimal. Developments in battery technology seem to be changing things, and in this context a “pause” to conventional electrification may be a reasonable response (particularly when in the interim new diesel electric bimode train will deliver a very similar service to pure electric ones).
For sure topography plays a massive role too. Constraints drive creativity! But there are elements of the UK that have had higher density with rail. The car played a stronger role in the UK too in setting the urban landscape.
The thing we have to do when we fetishize other places is not make it about copying and focus on how to apply the principles in the different context.
BR had those constraints and worked around them very successfully and delivered economic projects. the only that changed at privatisation was the unleashing of an army of consultants that generated bullet proof designs and environment for delivery where no risk could be taken so the price shot up. Until we get back to the can do culture that pervaded in BR along with engineers that were allowed to be pragmatic nothing will happen.
The industry needs an outsider in the Peter Parker mould to lead it as those left are too contaminated with the last 30yrs ways of working.
A factor behind Switzerland’s urban form is high rail use … there is push and pull here. Likewise, Switzerland is not exactly wildly dense either.
Agreed. But topography surely the key factor in Switzerland (and the cities themselves are dense). Also UK used to have high rail share which didnt result in Swiss urban form.
The problem with tying transport to regions is the stark differences in population and affluence. London can soak up most of the attention and infrastructure because of its sheer density - 26 million daily trips. By comparison, Cornwall has only half a million inhabitants, it's one of the poorest regions in Europe and it's infrastructure was crushed by the Beeching cuts. Even if it did get an ambitious mayor, the business case does not exist for a railway expansion, or the funds to pay for it. The only way you can justify doing so is to look at the impact on the rest of the UK (4 million people visit the peninsula each year). It's the same for North Yorkshire.
I don’t think that comparison really applies. Swiss cantons are minuscule: only four of them have more people than Cornwall! They are able to raise their own money.
In Cornwall’s case, electrifying the branch lines could conceivably make sense given how many tourists use them. It might not be a good idea. But the crucial point is that it should be Cornwall’s choice how it wants to spend its own money, not central government’s.
This "One of the key drivers of those higher costs is Britain’s habit of running electrification as a series of one-off projects. Every time a programme finishes, the workforce disperses or goes overseas; every time a new scheme starts, the system has to re-create capacity from scratch."
Is very interesting many years ago a friend told me about the problems working on the rural payments agency. One problem was that contractors only had their contracts renewed at the last moment - by which time they had often found a new job which wasted a lot of time.
It is a problem across the whole of government sadly. Even defence procurement is often restricted by 1 year capital expenditure budgets!
The real issue is the case was made for a rolling programme of electrification 15yrs ago and was supported by a Tory government but the rail industry managed to catastrophically shoot itself in the foot with execution. Its no wonder politicians are so reluctant to invest.