Trains win central place in Tory transport policy

Margaret Thatcher never liked them but David Cameron is planning to put trains at the heart of Tory transport policy.  "If we are to meet our international obligations on climate change, it is clear that we need a major increase in rail use. Trains are the most environmentally effective way of getting around," he said yesterday. The Independent:

"The Tories will try to overcome their record as the architects of rail privatisation with a challenge to ministers to spend up to £8bn from increased franchise deals on tackling overcrowding. Chris Grayling, the shadow Transport minister, will call on the government to back projects such as the expansion of Birmingham New Street station and the expansion of the London Thameslink service to make an immediate impact on journeys."

Statement on conservatives.com.

Comments

[Sally Roberts]

I don't mind travelling by train - but there are two major things which put me off; firstly the complicated ticket-buying system which I can sometimes make head nor tail of - and secondly, the fact that if you travel at weekends you are frequently subject to long delays because of "engineering works". These two issues must be addressed urgently so that more people will use a mode of transport which really is more environmentally friendly - as Virgin are cleverly pointing out in their current advertising campaign!

[Richard]

Has anybody ever suggested completing privatisation by ending controls on pirces and abolishing all rail subsidies?

Then we'd see just how much people really want to use trains.

[Peter Harrison]

Yes, ending price control and abolishing subsidies has been proposed. It might make sense if subsidies on other forms of transport were also ended.

[Peter Hatchet]

This is a positive move.

I've heard (through the grapevine) that we are seriously considering splitting up Network Rail and creating a number of "regional" rail companies who will own track, stations, signals and trains holistically.

Good.

Railways are vertically integrated systems that require close co-ordination. Mr. Major managed to botch privatisation by assuming railways would act the same as deregulated airports - one owner for the airport (railtrack) and leased slots for the planes (franchised operators) - they won't and don't.

Having said that, had the government not trampled and bullied Railtrack so much, subsidies might not have spiralled out of control (up from 1 billion to 5 billion over the last 6 years). Our track is clapped out and needs renewing, but this is a legacy of underinvestement whilst nationalised. Not due to private sector penny-pinching, as is commonly believed.

We also need to lift planning restrictions on opening new lines, extended platforms and improving facilities. Also, why not try what France does and pay double market price for property affected by new rail lines to ease the planning process? Much, much more freight needs to be carried by rail. HGVs do most of the damage to Motorways and dual carriageways and cause significant congestion - new freight railyards would relieve much of this congestion (the M40 and A34 being two trunk routes in desperate need of this).

Railways will always need some sort of partnership between public and private sector, but it needs to be led - and managed - privately.

[Mark Wadsworth]

All good stuff, good comments, I'm no expert but I like trains, especially in the South East where ticket prices seem to be fairly stable. It's the long distance journeys where the prices seem to vary between £30 and £200 depending on all sorts of seemingly random factors.

[Madge]

I'd like to use the trains more often for the longer trips, but hate fighting for a seat on some of them. I'd be more forgiving if I was guaranteed a seat instead of having to stand for half the journey!

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Madge - you forget - you should not expect a seat - the Department of Transport said as much! (And we let these people run our transport systems!).

Im not sure allowing prices to increase is sensible. I really think that the £650+ every month my wife pays for an 80 minute jourey to London is more than enough.

[Andrew Woodman]

Are we still looking at Bullet trains I wonder?

[Adam]

If we're really serious about wanting to see a revolution in train use we need to build some new track - on east-west lines. For example, a couple of new lines like Huntingdon-Peterborough-Corby-Kettering-Northampton-Milton Keynes would be good.

[Matthew Dear]

I totally agree with this.

I wonder whether all those people who are calling for an end to price-controls and subsidies would be happy to see and end to government funding for roads and all roads funded entirely from tolls?

[Andrew Woodman]

Improving train times on Midland Mainline as well would be a help. Two hours between Derby and London isn't really good enough.

[Umbrella man]

Will the revenue from the extra taxes that the Cameroons are intending for domestic flights be used for rail investment?

[HW]

I hope they are serious about the "expansion" of Birmingham New Street, the present administration merely wish to refurbish. Still better would be a huge new terminus further to the north.

Please don't give into the guilty pleasure of coveting the French rail system, massively funded by the tax payer. Most of the users of it's high speed system are leisure passengers, not commuters.

[Simon Chapman]

Great news that the party is taking trains seriously at last. As often posted before now, for too long our transport policy has been imbalanced towards roads. I agree with Sally Roberts & Jonathan Shepphard's comments too.

[Alan S]

We should have proper road pricing and that should pay for a major expansion of rail travel.

[William Norton]

Alan S: We should have proper road pricing and that should pay for a major expansion of rail travel.

No. The argument for road pricing would be that it is a more efficient means of reflecting the external environmental costs of road traffic, i.e. that without it the true costs of travel are not being borne by the user and cars are receiving a secret subsidy. You should not be using road-pricing as a stealth tax to subsidise the railways because that arguably over-prices road travel. In theory train travel already has a form of rail-pricing called tickets but what the price of a train ticket is supposed to represent is anyone's guess.

[Alan S]

Thank you William. I do not think we are necessarily in disagreement. Road pricing ensures that the externality of car use is recognised and the revenues from that recognition should be put into rail travel rather than into general Exchequer funds.

[George Hinton]

Oh goody, can I be the fat controller?.
Before a penny of state money goes anywhere near the railways, the unions need to be emasculated, no more strikes, no more tenure deals, no more closed shops, no working practices restrictions. Find a wall for Bob Crow and the rest of that shower of dinosaurs.
Then, put together a proper plan, allow BR/RailTrack or whatever, to raise the finance privately and spend it on infrastructure upgrades tht bring immediate rewards. If necessary scrap routes, do we need an East and West Coast route to Scotland? Get rid of the franchises, we don't need the bearded one to tell us how to ruin a business. But for heaven sake stay away from the consultants.

[NigelC]

The governemnt is planning massive house building in the Stansted/M11 corridor as well as expanding the airport. The rail line is already overcrowded.
One problem is the number of road crossings. As the number of peak hour trains increases these crossing are closed for longer and longer in the rush hours leading to road congestion and more pollution.
We need a coherent housing and transport policy but perhaps we could start by opposing more house building where the transport infrastructure is about to collapse.

[William Norton]

Nigel C: The governemnt is planning massive house building in the Stansted/M11 corridor as well as expanding the airport. The rail line is already overcrowded.

Let's put tracks down on the roads for the trains, which addresses both carriage congestion and global warming; let aeroplanes use the old tracks as take-off ramps, which saves having to build another London airport; and fill in the canals for the cars to use, because canal users are all vegetarian types with no friends. Transport planning is a doddle.

[Brandon Lewis]

This is really good news. Areas such as Norfolk are in clear need of improvement, as will otehr areas be. At present many rural areas (including parts of my patch) are poorly covered with poor service and to get people off the roads we need to ensur ethe rail service is top class and godo enough to temp them off raods, not because they want to help the environment (that is good but rare) but because it is a better option. I hope we, as a Party, can deliver that.

[Richard]

"I wonder whether all those people who are calling for an end to price-controls and subsidies would be happy to see and end to government funding for roads and all roads funded entirely from tolls?"

I'd be happy to see them funded by road tax providing there were tax cuts elsewhere to make up for any increases required.

[DavidTBreaker]

I wouldn't say Margaret Thatcher disliked trains, she does after all own one (a gift from China held at the National Railway Museum) and it was her government that relaunched the Channel Tunnel project over 1984-87 (Wilson had earlier dumped the project as "barmy"). She also held back those who wanted to turn them into motorways, and the more business-based reforms through the 1980s were the first time the railways improved since before WW2 really. Conservatives also pushed through the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, while Labour rejected its Northern extension for "lorry on train" traffic (http://www.central-railway.co.uk/ ).

The problem with the railways is that the state bankrupted them 1914-1947 with a state regulated price ceiling (while also subsidising roads), then took them over in 1947/8. Politicians should stick to their Hornby train sets really. The railways should be splut back into local companies operating individual lines, which they own and maintain themselves.

[Sally Roberts]

HW @ 11:54 - yes you're right, but the commuters of the Paris environs DO use the RER which is a great deal better than anything we have here!

[NigelC]

William 13.56
It is unclear what point you are trying to make with the odd ball proposals you posted.

I am arguing for a coherent and joined up set of housing and transport (both rail and aviation) policies.

[David Sergeant]

Could DavidTBreaker's comments (14.51) be put in big letters over Central Office which seems to be staffed by right wingers who are not happy with any "social progress", like railways, made in the 18 years so don't publicise what has happened and lose millions of votes.

But, there is the point that however good railways are people have still got to get to the stations!

[Oberon Houston]

It's good to have a trains policy, as this is one form of transport people often feel strongly about. However, what really worried me about this was the leaking of emails to the Independent about finance options and disagreements within the shadow cabinet. If we start having recurring leak problems, it will seriously undermine us. I hope someone is busily ‘fixing’ this problem if it exists.

[comstock]

road pricing ensures that the externality of car use is recognised and the revenues from that recognition should be put into rail travel

Your proposition assumes people have a choice. If they do not, it simply becomes taxation, and fairly regressive taxation at that. Remember the main reason a lot of poorer people own cars is to get to work, so a lot of people would be forced to pay the peak time charge.

Remember also the only model we have for this so far is Central London, where most workplaces are within a short walk of a railway station. That simply isn't the case elsewhere.

[comstock]

improving train times on Midland Mainline as well would be a help. Two hours between Derby and London isn't really good enough.

Hi again, Andrew.

The simple problem is MML isn't electrified. The Trent Valley line does London to Lichfield (OK very slightly nearer to London) in between 1:10 and 1:20...... it's practically a commutable journey from there!!!

When was the last time we had a new electrification project??

[Andrew Woodman]

About time we had another then Comstock.

[sjm]

Other than for carrying commuters or cargo, a trains is a dreadful means of transport.

If you need to take a suitcase with you, where do you put it? If you're shorter than 6', you can't put it overhead, and if you leave it at the end of the carriage, what's to stop someone from stealing it?

And the toilets stink.

And the fare-structure seems to depend on whether you book during the third Thursday before Lent in a leap-year, providing your Granny's maiden name started with an M.

I'll continue to use the car.

[comstock]

SJM, use a battered old suitcase from a jumble sale.

Totally agree over the fare structure. It's ridiculous.

[Peter Hatchet]

Surely we should commend the fare structure, over the choice it offers? We are Conservatives - we don't struggle with choice, right?

True, it could be made simpler to choose and understand, but all the fares are available for those who care to look at the National Rail Enquiries website or enquire at a ticket office.

Also, there are some dirt cheap tickets available on GNER and Virgin available - some widely advertised.

This would never have happened under BR when the best you could get was a "super-saver" - marginally cheaper than a saver.

The real problems with the railways are;

(1) Split ownership structure
(2) Onerous planning restrictions
(3) Unions

Some lines are never going to earn big-bucks but a lightly regulated and independent rail sector would work wonders.