Chris Grayling isn’t privatising the railways – but his weird partisanship will hurt them all the same

We couldn't bring ourselves to use a picture of Chris Grayling for the third day running. Image: Getty.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling this week announced that he was going to give UK rail infrastructure body Network Rail a whipping. Its Oxford-Cambridge East West Rail project will now be built by a separate organisation, and future rail franchises will be more “vertically integrated”, with “joined-up teams” running tracks and trains.

The news was reported as a return to private control of infrastructure, much to the Telegraph’s glee and the Guardian’s horror. But to understand what this means requires a quick recap on how the railways in Great Britain work.

I’ve written about this in these pages before, but here’s the quick version. Network Rail owns and runs the tracks. Grayling’s Department for Transport (DfT) is in charge of franchised train operating companies (TOCs), which compete by tendering – like an auction – for the obligation to run a level of service defined by the DfT on a set of routes defined by the DfT, in exchange for a monopoly of services on those routes. TOCs pay Network Rail to use its tracks. Some tracks are only used by one TOC; the busiest tracks are used by several TOCs at the same time.

Freight and open-access operating companies, which are all for-profit, just pay Network Rail directly to use its tracks. All freight and open access services run over track that’s also used by one or more TOCs. Network Rail is in charge of the links between the different companies involved: it manages the national timetable; it calculates who’s running trains where and how much they need to pay; and ,when things go wrong, how much it costs and whose fault it is.

Like Newton’s laws, this simplified model is wrong in various ways that don’t matter here. The only important one, which I’ll come back to, is that some TOCs are commissioned by the devolved governments, rather than the DfT.

This system, which has been going in its current form for about 15 years, has various advantages and disadvantages over the previous ways that railways in GB have been structured.

Its advantages over the immediately previous system with TOCs and privately-owned tracks are extremely clear. The infrastructure is no longer owned by property developers, but by a public sector body; Network Rail has tended to be safety- and performance-led rather than financial results-led; and it has rebuilt the nationwide operational expertise and leadership that was lost under Railtrack.

Its advantages over the system before that, where British Rail was a single national public sector operator, are harder to judge, thanks to the major changes in technology, costs, rider numbers and public expectations over the last 25 years. But we do know that it’s moving far more people, making them much less late, and killing or injuring them much less, than British Rail did, while also carrying more freight.

(As an aside, it’s also paying its staff much better than they were paid in the BR days. My personal view is that this is a positive: good pay is entirely fair enough for a highly skilled, safety-critical industry that requires deeply antisocial hours. It’s noticeable that very few of the people who claim otherwise tend to follow through and quit their 9-5s for railway jobs.)


The main problem is that the current setup is expensive. Net government subsidy paid – although it’s fallen a lot over the last few years – is still much higher than for British Rail. And although services run well, that isn’t much comfort for delayed commuters paying high fares (even though those fares are high mostly because the subsidy remains low compared to other countries).

So how will Grayling’s plans help? The short answer is they won’t do much at all. Aligning NR and TOC operating teams has been tried on South West Trains and in Scotland, with uninspiring results; and it’s unlikely the new initiative will be much different. Although old hands drone on about vertical integration, the track operator must be able to work with multiple train operators, and NR is set up to do this as efficiently as possible

Similarly, the East West Rail announcement is being spun as a change – but as a separate agency with some public and some private funding, it’s actually similar to most major new-build projects like HS1, Crossrail and HS2. It’s likely that, as with HS1, Network Rail will take over operations once the line is complete.

The most worrying part of Grayling’s speech was actually rather hidden: he has ruled out further devolution of franchise commissioning to local governments. This change has had a positive impact on services wherever it’s been carried out, most noticeably London and Scotland – so why would anyone oppose it?

The answer was revealed starkly in London’s Evening Standard in a leaked letter Grayling wrote to former London mayor Boris Johnson in 2013: because he doesn’t want Labour to get control of things, and most English cities are Labour-supporting, most of the time.

So the lack of reality behind Grayling’s latest Network Rail announcements is a relief. But his pettiness and spite is far more worrying for the long-term future of the industry.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

“Black cabs are not public transport”: on the most baffling press release we’ve seen in some time

An earlier black cab protest: this one was against congestion and pollution. I'm not making this up. Image: Getty.

You know, I sometimes think that trade unions get a raw deal in this country. Reports of industrial action almost always frame it as a matter of workers’ selfishness and public disruption, rather than one of defending vital labour rights; and when London’s tube grinds to a halt, few people will find out what the dispute is actually about before declaring that the drivers should all be replaced by robots at the earliest possible opportunity or, possibly, shot.

We should be a bit more sympathetic towards trade unions, is what I’m saying here: a bit more understanding about the role they played in improving working life for all of us, and the fact that defending their members’ interests is literally their job.

Anyway, all that said, the RMT seems to have gone completely fucking doolally.

TAXI UNION RMT says that the closure of the pivotal Bank Junction to all vehicles (other than buses and bicycles) exposes Transport for London’s (TfL) symptom-focused decision-making and unwillingness to tackle the cause of the problem.

So begins a press release the union put out on Thursday. It’s referring to a plan to place new restrictions on who can pass one of the City of London’s dirtiest and most dangerous junctions, by banning private vehicles from using it.

The junction in question: busy day. Image: Google.

If at first glance the RMT’s words seem reasonable enough, then consider two pieces of information not included in that paragraph:

1) It’s not a TfL scheme, but a City of London Corporation one (essentially, the local council); and

2) The reason for the press release is that, at 5pm on Thursday, hundreds of black cab drivers descended on Bank Junction to create gridlock, in their time-honoured way of whining about something. Blocking major roads for several hours at a time has always struck me as an odd way of trying to win friends and influence people, if I’m frank, but let’s get back to the press release, the next line of which drops a strong hint that something else is going on here:

TfL’s gutlessness in failing to stand-up to multi-national venture capital-backed raiders such as Uber, has left our streets flooded with minicabs.

That suggests that this is another barrage in the black cabs’ ongoing war against competition from Uber. This conflict is odd in its way – it’s not as if there weren’t minicabs offering a low cost alternative to the classic London taxi before Uber came along, but we’ve not had a lengthy PR war against, say, Gants Hill Cars – but it’s at least familiar territory, so it’d be easy, at this point, to assume we know where we are.

Except then it gets really weird.

With buses stuck in gridlock behind haphazardly driven Uber cars – and with the Tube dangerously overcrowded during peak hours – people are turning out of desperation to commuting by bicycle.

Despite its impracticality, there has been an explosion in the number of people commuting by bike. Astonishingly, 30% of road traffic traversing Bank Junction are now cyclists.

Soooo... the only reason anyone might want to cycle is because public transport is now bad because of Uber? Not because it’s fun or healthy or just nicer than being stuck in a metal box for 45 minutes – because of badly driven Ubers something something?

Other things the cabbies will blame Uber for in upcoming press releases: climate change, Brexit, the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war in July 1870, the fact they couldn’t get tickets for Hamilton.

It is time that TfL refused to licence Uber, which it acknowledges is unlawfully “plying for hire”.

Okay, maybe, we can talk about that.

It is time that black cabs were recognised and supported as a mode of public transport.

...what?

It is time that cuts to the Tube were reversed.

I mean, sure, we can talk about that too, but... can you go back to that last bit, please?

RMT General Secretary, Mick Cash, said:

“RMT agrees with proposals which improve public safety, but it is clear that the driving factor behind the decision is to improve bus journey times under a buckling road network.

“Black cabs are an integral part of the public transport system and as the data shows, one of the safest.”

This is all so very mixed up, it’s hard to know where to begin. Black cabs are not public transport – as lovely as they are, they’re simply too expensive. Even in New York City, where the cabs are much, much cheaper, it’d be silly to class them as public transport. In London, where they’re so over-priced they’re basically the preserve of the rich and those who’ve had enough to drink to mistakenly consider themselves such, it’s just nonsense.

Also – if this decision has been taken for the sake of improving bus journey times, then what’s wrong with that? I haven’t run the numbers, but I’d be amazed if that wasn’t a bigger gain to the city than “improving life for the people who take cabs”. Because – as I may have mentioned – black cabs are not public transport.


Anyway, to sum the RMT’s position up: we should invest in the tube but not the buses, expensive black cabs are public transport but cheaper Ubers are the work of the devil, and the only reason anyone would ever go by bike is because they’ve been left with no choice by all those people in the wrong sort of taxi screwing everything up. Oh, and causing gridlock at peak time is a good way to win friends.

Everyone got that straight?

None of this is to say Uber is perfect – there are many things about it that are terrible, including both the way people have mistaken it for a revolutionary new form of capitalism (as opposed to, say, a minicab firm with an app), and its attitude to workers (ironically, what they could really do with is a union). The way TfL is acting towards the firm is no doubt imperfect too.

But the RMT’s attitude in this press release is just baffling. Of course it has to defends its members interests – taxi drivers just as much as tube drivers. And of course it has to be seen to be doing so, so as to attract new members.

But should it really be trying to do both in the same press release? Because the result is a statement which demands TfL do more for cab drivers, slams it for doing anything for bus users, and casually insults anyone on two wheels in the process.

A union’s job is to look after its members. I’m not sure nonsense like this will achieve anything of the sort.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.