‘Richard Beeching’ is a curse among railway circles. The impact of his 1963 report on the British railway network was devastating; the network shrank by some 4,000 miles in the following decade, and shed some 3,000 stations in the process - this is to say nothing of the depot, goods yard, railway worshop, signal box and other subsidiary facilities that fell victim to the report. The central ethos of the report was to try and make Britain’s railways pay for themselves in an age where the road haulage industry and car ownership were rapidly growing challenges to the industry, by cutting away unprofitable lines. In this, the report failed - the railways did not pay for themselves, even after this colossal act of self-mutilation. 

Now, however, more people are travelling by train than any other time since the end of the Second World War. According to an industry group, the percentage of Britain’s freight being carried by train has been growing again in recent years as well. The railways are clearly providing for an ever increasing share of our transport needs as the century progresses, and even with the impact of the recession, one cannot see a realistic scenario where this would suddenly reverse over the longer term.

The current government has committed to a programme of reform of the way that the rail network is managed; the Rail Value for Money Study published earlier this year laid out a broad array of proposals to help make Britain’s railways more efficient, to try and restrain spiralling costs for users and enable those with an interest in the railways to get more out of them. Broadly, I support what I have seen of the McNulty report - I believe that the current franchise system is far too inefficient to deliver the railway that Britain needs if it is to continue to develop economically, and if it is to become a much greener place. Coupled with proposed reforms to the planning process outlined in the Plan for Growth, I would hope that the government is beginning to develop an overall attitude towards railways that is far more supportive of their interests than previous governments have been.

In the last election, the Liberal Democrats proposed several policies on the railways - one of which I was particularly impressed with; a plan to re-open closed lines by diverting money from the major roads construction budget (pg. 78). Incidentally, their plan to bring Network Rail under the FOI Act (pg. 78) was also a winner, though I was less impressed by their plan to lock companies into downwards ticket prices (pg. 54). The Conservatives, for their part, proposed reforms to the franchise system (pg. 23) and a moratorium on building on former lines to facilitate future re-openings (pg. 24). They also proposed making Network Rail more transparent (pg. 24); unlike the Lib Dems, they also made a firm, specific commitment to back key rail electrification projects (pg. 24). 

The Coalition Agreement shows a balanced synthesis of these two approaches - more transparency for Network Rail, reformed franchises, support for Crossrail and electrification and so on (pg. 31). But the key Liberal Democrat promise - to divert road money into the railways - has vanished. Though we have since seen pledges to invest more money into the railways, such as £85 million in the 2011 Budget for the Ordsall Chord in Manchester, we are yet to see such a bold idea from the Coalition - at least for England. As a recent program on Radio 4 has made clear, though, the devolved areas of Wales and Scotland have both seen comparatively large track and station re-opening programmes, as opposed to sluggish progress in England outside London commuter routes. Personally, I would use this as part evidence for an English Parliament - but the message on the railways should not be lost.

We need a radical programme of investment in the railways. If the Green Investment Bank truly is a creature of the Liberal Democrats, and has been imbued with enough of the proposed UK Infrastructure Bank in their manifesto (pg. 24), then it will surely be a key source of capital for a network expansion project, given the party’s explicit commitment to rail expansion, as opposed to simply protecting the land for potential expansion as laid out in the Conservative manifesto. In the tight capital environment, we cannot expect lavish sums of money from central government for the reinstatement and growth of the network. The railway companies themselves, all of whom are (to my knowledge) profitable concerns, can surely afford to provide more capital towards rail expansion. Large businesses who can use the railways for freight surely can be encouraged to chip in as well. Between these sources, I am sure capital can be raised and secured for dramatic rail expansions, above and beyond what was suggested in the National Infrastructure Plan (pg. 29). 

There needs to be a new report, designed to reverse Beeching. A timetable needs to be laid out for re-laying the network - not simply adding more lines, but also redoubling track or even quadrupling it, strengthening bridges, lengthening platforms, adding stations, improving junctions, new signalling systems and all the other infrastructure we will need. It needs to come up with a firm plan for financing this effort, and a clear laying out of the massive economic and environmental benefits of expanding the role of rail in moving commuters, long-range passengers and freight across the country. The government needs to be clear that it wants Britain’s railways to become the envy of the world again - a system with rolling investment in stock, track and buildings; modern and efficient. We cannot hope for a perfect railway system, but expansion will bring in more passengers and better conditions for existing passengers. 

The government, in short, needs a single vision for the railways. The role of high speed rail in all this is important - the risk is that investment in High Speed 2 will crowd out investment in the rest of the network. Any counter-Beeching Report should try and balance the need for a modern High Speed rail system with the need to expand and improve the rest of the network. It will also need to demonstrate that this is not merely a case of central government trying to dictate a particular rail network - it must bring in both local authorities and private and voluntary sector actors. If we try and re-incorporate heritage railways for commuter reasons, tap the TOCs for capital or bring communities back onto the network, we must have a broad partnership that is driven, ultimately, by the desire of the individuals involved for a better network, rather than a Whitehall whim.

There is no reason why, ultimately, we cannot have a rail system that delivers better conditions for existing passengers and services for even more customers. This government has demonstrated a willingness to push the railway’s interests a little more effectively than previous administrations - I hope they build on this, and we can have a truly pro-rail government, which can deliver a bigger, better network for the future.