Feature CHRISTIAN WOLMAR


Words: Christian Wolmar Sub editor: Deborah Maby


T


he idea of giving more power to local authorities over train services is appealing. Localism is all the rage in political circles and railways are generally seen as popular by the public. Both local councils and local people would like greater control. Delivering it, however, is another matter.


The Government is currently consulting over how it could be done but the issue is fraught with complexity and difficulty. The consultation paper looked at a variety of options. These ranged from microfranchising – allowing a single line to be run by local interests rather than as part of a large franchise – to giving a whole group of local authorities control over the huge Northern franchise.


In a way this is a win-win situation. As well as seeking to pursue its localism agenda, the Government would like to be less involved in the railways. In fact, the whole basis of privatisation was to enable government to distance itself from them completely but somehow, with the day-to-day involvement of the Department for Transport (DfT) in franchising and major investment decisions still resting with ministers, the opposite has happened.


Therefore, some form of devolution is seen as desirable. The advantage for local authorities is that railways are viewed as popular, even among those who don’t use them. As a result, being involved in the provision of services would be seen as a positive move. Devolution has already been successful in stimulating rail. In London, Merseyside and Scotland, powers


The advantage for local authorities is that railways are viewed as popular, even among those who don’t use them


to let the local franchise have been devolved to regional bodies and in each case the result has been more investment in rail.


In Scotland, the Scottish Government has full responsibility for ScotRail through Transport Scotland and there has been a renewed emphasis on investing in railways with, most notably, the long-mooted reopening of the line between Airdrie and Bathgate that creates a new connection between the country’s two main cities, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Other schemes, such as electrification of the Falkirk route and the reopening of the Waverley line, are proceeding, too.


London has seen the transformation of the East London Line from a backwater of the Underground system into part of the gleaming new London Overground, which has new trains and permanently staffed stations. The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, is now pushing for London Overground to be the franchising authority for more services on suburban routes in the capital, although this will lead to possible conflicts between different operators at overcrowded stations over who would have priority to put on additional trains. The Merseyrail franchise, too, which has been devolved to the local Passenger Transport Executive, has also been widely seen as a success, with excellent performance figures.


It would seem, therefore, that devolution of further powers to local authorities is a no-brainer. However – and that comes with a capital H – there are obstacles and pitfalls aplenty, both practical and financial. Take the Northern franchise, the most ambitious scheme in the Government’s proposals. The basic idea would be that local authorities, which already have a say in the franchise through the Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs), would take over the letting of the franchise. However, because the franchise is so extensive, covering the whole of the north from Blackpool and Workington to Whitby and Cleethorpes, a vast number of local councils are involved. They would need to agree about providing the funding for the franchise, which is heavily dependent on subsidy.


According to Jonathan Bray, director of the Passenger Transport Executive Group, a new body to run the franchise would be needed. “It could be like a Strategic Rail Authority for the North. The PTEs would get together and


form a united body that would manage the franchise,” he says.


Creating this new organisation and ensuring that the various councils are all pulling in the same direction would not be an easy task. There are innumerable hurdles, such as defining precisely who would be on this new body and exactly how the franchise would be funded in the future. Of course there would be a legacy payment from the DfT, but the local authorities will not take on the franchise if there is not a guarantee of a substantial level of funding for the foreseeable future.


Time is not on the side of radical change. The Northern franchise is due for renewal by the spring of 2014, a very short time frame. The other big candidate for devolution is, obviously, Wales, which does however have time to sort out a new arrangement. There has been widespread dissatisfaction with the way that the current franchise, which was won by Arriva, operates. It was let as a 15-year franchise, back in 2003 by the UK government, on the basis of very little investment and growth. Now the Welsh Assembly is seeking to assume the same powers as its Scottish counterpart with the idea of modernising lines and improving services. In particular, the campaign to electrify the Welsh valley lines has been gathering pace, along with ensuring that the proposed Great Western electrification reaches Swansea rather than stopping at Cardiff.


Local campaigners in both Wales and the north of England are also looking at using the process of devolution to bring about a change in the way that the franchises are operated, or indeed whether services should be franchised out at all. There is support in both areas for integrated railway companies, perhaps socially owned through a co-operative that would control both the infrastructure and services.


There is no doubt that decentralisation offers a lot of exciting possibilities for rail, but such radical changes are very difficult to achieve in a climate of cuts, since they may well require an initial injection of extra funding to smooth over the transfer of power. Since the Government sees decentralisation as a way of reducing costs, this money is unlikely to be available and this could stifle these initiatives. That would be a huge shame.


RailCONNECT 27


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80