The government’s review of Network Rail offers a timely opportunity to set Britain’s railways on a different track says Arup director Alexander Jan.

It’s been a torrid time for Britain’s railways lately.  There have been strikes on the Tube and commuter railways, and Channel Tunnel trains have had to run the gauntlet of tyre-burning port workers in Calais and desperate migrants seeking to escape the Continent. 

"The intercity routes, should largely be cut loose from state control. The tracks and trains could be hived off under thirty or forty year concessions."

Closer to home, not a week seems to have gone by without a headline proclaiming another headache for Network Rail.  The Office of Rail and Road handed out a £2M penalty fare of its own last week.  This was tangled up with problems at London Bridge that have been singled out as the cause of a big chunk of the UK’s rail delays over the last year.

Sadly that was not the end of it.  Problems with electrification designed to ease the squeeze for Paddington and St Pancras-bound commuters and pave the way for new trains have hit the headlines.  Worse still for the government, the Chancellor’s favourite policy for a rebalanced economy – the Northern Powerhouse - was plunged into gloom.   The decision to “pause” upgrades to bring the north’s railway into the twenty-first century must have been particularly aggravating for local political leaders.

The railways seem to present a particularly difficult conundrum for governments of all political stripes.   Nationalisation didn’t really work.  British Rail was drip-fed money on a make do and mend basis.  Then came full scale privatisation which collapsed unceremoniously. Despite stable funding and independent regulation, the Network Rail model is now being challenged.

So what should happen next? Some parts of the system – such as the intercity routes, should largely be cut loose from state control. The tracks and trains could be hived off under thirty or forty year concessions.  That would allow for long term investment decisions to be made that would be to the benefit of passengers. 

Competition from road, air and some other rail providers would keep long distance operators on their toes. Light touch regulation could ensure proper access arrangements. 

"The government could provide the same railway funding at present but allow authorities to determine how it is spent.  They could then retain savings they make for reinvestment.  This approach would build on Treasury proposals for devolution of expenditure planned for Manchester – covering health and social welfare."

Scotland and Wales should be handed full responsibility for their parts of the rail network – as is largely already the case north of the border.  They are capable of running major public services and being held to account by their voters.

For London and other major city regions of England, the government should be equally ambitious.  A policy of supercharged rail devolution could see the Mayor of London along with leaders of the counties take responsibility for running trains and the infrastructure that serve their areas.

The government could provide the same railway funding at present but allow authorities to determine how it is spent.  They could then retain savings they make for reinvestment.  This approach would build on Treasury proposals for devolution of expenditure planned for Manchester – covering health and social welfare. It would lead to improved value for money and accountability. Improvements would be made more quickly and investment could be geared to support local growth, employment and competitiveness.

With more partnership working, TfL’s record of commuter rail success could be extended to a much larger geography.  Building on the London Infrastructure Plan, decisions on transport investment, planning, housing and growth could be taken in concert.  Add in fiscal devolution and local government would at last be properly incentivised to develop railway land for badly needed new homes and commercial space.  The same is true of Manchester, the West Midlands or the North-East.  

For Whitehall, such an approach would pay handsome dividends.  It would help the government to keep a lid on public expenditure.  Local government has an exemplary record at living within its means – and ironically delivering austerity effectively. 

Rail devolution would create an industry structure and range of incentives to drive efficiency and innovation leading to happier passengers (and voters).  Crucially it would stimulate councils to build more homes and support growth on railway land – for the long term good of their areas and the country. And it would finally lay to rest the decades’ old question of what the state should do with Britain’s railways.

Now that would be a railway worth waiting for.