The livery of Great British Railways – the new publicly controlled rail operator – will soon be carried by trains running through nearly every part of the country. This will be the largest change to the network since British Rail was privatised in the 1990s, and with it comes the potential for major change, not just for rail itself, but through the wider economic and social benefits it could unlock.
For the government, getting this transition right carries high political stakes. When GBR is up and running, it will be the third largest public sector employer in the country after the NHS and the armed forces – and yet it is remarkable how little attention this change is receiving outside the rail industry.
Consider this: a passenger misses an important appointment because their train from Birmingham to Manchester is delayed, cancelled, or overcrowded – who takes the blame? And where will a passenger direct their frustration if they board the service arriving in Southampton and find their carriage is strewn with litter or their seat is filthy?
The short answer is that a nationalised rail network will inevitably see the finger pointed at government. With track and train united under a ‘single directing mind’, Britain’s rail will become a physical demonstration of the condition of the country itself – and the government’s ability to run it. If services leave the public feeling let down, ripped off, or priced out, the buck now stops firmly with them.
Bringing the rail back into public control is undoubtedly popular. But this change alone won’t necessarily guarantee a better service. Take Japan and Switzerland, for example; both are viewed globally as paragons of a successful domestic rail industry. Japan’s network is privatised, but Switzerland’s is in public hands. Meanwhile, Germany’s state-owned Deutsche Bahn belies the stereotype of German industrial efficiency with years of poor performance. In short, nationalisation is a good start – but it’s no silver bullet.
The government knows this. Transport Secretary, Heidi Alexander, said herself; ’we can change the name of the holding company or the livery on the side of the train, but none of that guarantees a changed experience for the person on the platform’.
The question now facing government is how to move beyond the ‘what’ of rail reform and start considering the ‘how’. With the railways bill now entering report stage, there is a real opportunity to start answering this question by setting out a clear purpose for Britain's railways, laying strong organisational foundations, and setting the tone and culture for a new institution that can stand the test of time for decades to come.
The ‘Purpose Gap’
The biggest question facing the government is to define what GBR stands for, because right now, it seems this isn’t cutting through. A new report published last week by The Future Governance Forum found that, of the 60 policy and rail experts they spoke to, nearly everyone agreed GBR currently doesn’t have a clear overarching purpose.
Is the priority to make train travel more affordable for passengers? To reduce the cost of the railway to the taxpayer? To improve reliability? To deliver economic growth? To accelerate decarbonisation? It can be a combination of some of these but it can't be all of them all at once. If everything is a priority, then nothing is.
From boardroom to platform, GBR needs a clear sense of what it is for. It is this clarity of purpose that will allow the new leadership of GBR to make clear decisions about the long term direction of the organisation and its investment priorities.
Another concern which comes up repeatedly in the report is the threat of political micromanagement. No one wants this – and although the government has made clear this will not be the day-to-day reality for GBR, the risk will remain if it’s not set up with the right organisation and governance. GBR’s relationships with the Department for Transport and the Treasury will be crucial – and one of the biggest potential causes of industry success or failure. Given the fingers pointing at them, the temptation will be for ministers and officials to demand constant assurance from GBR on multiple fronts. But that is the road to distraction and poor performance. Much better for them to focus on a small, stable set of performance goals, and give GBR a high degree of autonomy and accountability in delivering them.
GBR also needs to succeed in the new landscape of devolution. Some of the most positive changes in public transport have been the result of action by mayors – whether the transformation of TfL or the Bee network in Manchester. The new rail reforms must be ‘done with’ rather than ‘done to’ the UK’s nations and region. Something similar is true for private capital: this will remain vital for success in many parts of the industry, but that needs both fair regulation and the right mindset in GBR.
Telling a better story
Rail is a complicated industry. But in a sector dominated by experts, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the ultimate measure of success will be what passengers and freight customers think and feel.
So if GBR is really to succeed it will need to tell a strong and simple story about how these changes will improve its customers’ experience – and then deliver on it. That doesn’t need to conflict with boosting growth or unlocking opportunity across the country, but the ultimate test for GBR will be in the hearts and minds of customers, not politicians. If GBR does this well, rail reform could just be one of the biggest achievements of this parliament.
Sir Philip Rutnam was permanent secretary at the Department for Transport from 2012-2017 . He was also perm sec at the Home Office from 2017-2020