“A Conservative government would also build on the growing success of the franchising programme to make sure new franchises include investment for growth, including in the North and East Anglia, where franchises let by the last government held back investment. The newly restructured franchise process that demands quality as well as cost assurances would be maintained. We must ensure that Network Rail delivers on its obligations and works closely with operators to deliver long-term improvements on each line.”
McLoughlin continued: “When it comes to Britain’s railways, there is a clear choice at the election. I am confident the competence this Conservative-led government has demonstrated, in being prepared to make the tough decisions needed to deliver better railways and rail services, will be rewarded by continuing growth in the use of trains by people and businesses.”
The Liberal Democrats, according to the first draft of their manifesto document, state: “We need better transport infrastructure, faster broadband, a modern railway system and less congestion on our roads.
“We will set out ten-year rolling capital investment plans, develop a comprehensive plan to electrify all suburban and major rail routes, re-open many smaller stations, restore twin-track lines to major routes, and proceed with HS2 as the first stage of a high speed rail network to Scotland.” (Much of this chimes with pre-existing CP5 plans.)
The party also says it would support a new generation of light rail and ultra-light rail schemes “in towns and cities where local people want them”. It would also support the expansion of smartcard ticketing systems, a previously stated government aim.
The Lib Dems say electrification is all about ‘greening’ the rail network, and that they have an “ambitious plan” for electrification. In terms of capacity, the party says it is committed to HS2 to Leeds and Manchester as the first stage of a high-speed network that will benefit Scotland to ease north-south capacity, as well as looking at feasibility studies for line re-opening elsewhere in the country.
The bigger issue of the deficit also comes into play: “We are committed to paying down the deficit during the next parliament, but have highlighted railways as one area of capital spend where we would be willing to borrow in order to invest once the books are balanced.
“The Tories will continue to shrink the state and investment from an ideological standpoint, even after the deficit has been paid off. Labour’s plans involve paying off the deficit so slowly that it will take longer to balance the books, and general borrowing will duly increase.”
Intriguingly, the issue of Network Rail’s status appears to be a grey area - suggesting a return to the private sector or even a break-up of the organisation.
“We’ll look at the NR issue,” says the party’s spokesman. “However, it may not be in public hands forever, and we have to strike a balance that is fair for everyone.”
The party claims that its influence forced the Conservatives to abandon plans for RPI+3% fare rises, and so has kept prices down. “Reduced flex will keep working for the best deal for rail passengers going forwards,” the party says, no doubt with continued controversy over fare rises in recent years in its mind.
The lack of detail from either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats - two parties that are hopeful of being in power either as a majority or as a coalition partner in a post-2015 government - is baffling.
Of all the major parties asked for their positions on the five specific questions put to them by RailReview, only Labour was prepared to respond fully.
Asked about the main issues for the railway in the months and years ahead, Shadow Rail Minister Lilian Greenwood told RailReview: “In the immediate term, the most pressing concern - apart from the rising cost of travel - must be the overspend and overruns on the CP5 enhancement programme that is vital for improving the network’s capacity.
“The cost of Midland Main Line and Great Western electrification alone has doubled, and other projects such as TransPennine electrification have been allocated funding, but the plans themselves have not yet been costed.
“As the Transport Select Committee said in January, all the Government’s plans for 2014-2019 have now been called into question. So one of the immediate priorities for the next Government and the industry must be to get CP5 back on track.”
The next point on which Labour responded was very much on their territory - the proposition was their own in the first place, and a concept advocated by the industry’s leading commentators since the abolition of the Strategic Rail Authority.
Would the creation of a ‘guiding mind’ for the railway - an agency of the government to oversee electrification strategy and renew rolling stock - be beneficial?
“We strongly believe that for all the positive work that is being done in the industry, the railway is still in need of a guiding mind to contract routes and co-ordinate services and skills,” said Greenwood, unsurprisingly.
“The West Coast franchise collapse, the connected job losses in the supply chain, and the TPE rolling stock fiasco were painful reminders of the fragmentation in the industry. That’s why we want a proper long-term plan for procuring rolling stock.
“At a time when fares are rising faster than wages, we believe that the lack of passenger representation is unacceptable. We would ensure that passengers are represented and that, unlike the Government’s Rail Delivery Group, the guiding mind is accountable to both Parliament and the travelling public.”
(For all the supposed synergy between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, a well-placed source at the latter tells RailReview: “This isn’t something we are considering. The Department has a Minister for Rail and rail is a high priority for the Department.”)
The guiding mind (a reborn Strategic Rail Authority - an organisation introduced and then scrapped by the last Labour government) could bring NR together with a new representative passenger rail body to contract routes, co-ordinate services and skills in the industry, oversee stations, fares and ticketing, and ensure customer satisfaction across the network. However, given the cost of both major infrastructure and rolling stock, the question of finance is crucial. What would Labour do?
“Network Rail’s funding is fixed until 2019, and indeed the current Government has set out overall spending plans for rail until 2020/21.
“In the medium to long term, there are substantial efficiency savings that can be made through better planning of major infrastructure projects. We’ve too often seen a ‘stop-start’ approach to investment from successive governments. That’s why, as Ed Balls has announced, we will include legislation to establish an independent National Infrastructure Commission in our first Queen’s Speech.”
Greenwood envisages a commission with a chairman appointed on a cross-party basis, with the organisation able to better identify, plan and deliver the infrastructure that the country needs.
Should the debt on Network Rail’s credit card (the ‘regulatory asset base’) be written off, given that the company is now back on the public books? Or should NR continue to borrow in this way, to fund major projects?
