A railway fit for Britain's future
Railfuture responded to the Department for Transport (DfT) consultation on Great British Railways. We agree with most of the DfT proposals, but what is not covered in the consultation document is more interesting. It gives little visibility of how GBR will work in practice – for example, it is not clear how much control will be exercised by the DfT and how much independence professional railway managers will have.
The government should set both national and transport strategic quantified objectives for GBR. The DfT and GBR should then work together to agree how these national objectives, including supporting economic growth, facilitating housing targets, environmental sustainability and social inclusion, should be achieved. GBR should decide how to meet transport objectives including meeting a required subsidy level, achieving target modal shift for passengers and freight, and meeting a decarbonisation target.
As operators move into public ownership, there should be a shift from managing cost to managing margin, and a no-blame culture focused on improving reliability.
Part of our response is that the new passenger watchdog should have a representative of a national rail users group ie Railfuture on its Board.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander had confirmed that the industry-wide Rail Plan for Change will be published soon to paint a picture of rail as an enabler of economic growth. We will look at this for evidence of progress on our key campaigns below.
A better railway
Passenger numbers have almost recovered to pre-COVID levels (and exceeded on some routes) but revenue still lags due to lower levels of commuting. Rail must attract more passengers with an improved passenger experience through improved reliability, good connections, clean and comfortable trains, better wifi, welcoming stations and a secure environment with good customer service by well-motivated staff. This will increase revenue which will in turn enable improved service frequency and capacity to match demand.
Fares and ticketing
We continue to campaign for annual fare increases to be linked to the nationally-recognised Consumer Price Inflation Index (CPI), which the government uses for benefits, rather than the higher Retail Price Index (RPI).
While some people perceive fares to be expensive, the complexity of the ticketing system and the fear of buying the wrong ticket are a greater disincentive to travel by rail. An ticketing review is needed, which must be open to public scrutiny. Buying a ticket must be made easier, by making online and TVM sales processes more intuitive, formalising split tickets, delivering wider Pay As You Go coverage, removing operator-only fares and making restrictions consistent. However, this must not reduce flexibility or choice – for example people may be able to fix the outward journey time but not the return, long distance train services also carry short-distance passengers, not everyone has a credit card and a mobile phone, contactless payment is not currently fit for purpose (eg it does not receive the railcard discount), and some people with an impairment may need human interaction.
Modal shift
Many rail routes have under-utilised capacity for large parts of the day. Even with the current transition to electric vehicles, modal shift of both freight and passengers from road to rail would increase the rate of decarbonisation, reduce air particulate pollution and reduce road congestion, allowing road spending to be cut.
On all routes the proportion of people travelling by rail is less than by other modes. Analysis of mobile phone data has shown that rail use is greater where rail frequencies are higher and the rail journey time is less. Surprisingly, this is still true where the road cost is less, showing that rail travellers value convenience over cost – although road travellers may not.
The government has encountered political resistance to meeting fiscal targets by cutting £5Bn from the welfare budget. Alternatively, it could raise £2Bn by increasing fuel duty, restoring the temporary cut, which would generally hit the more affluent rather than the poorest. This would also shift the balance of cost between road and rail for many passenger journeys and freight movements, promoting modal shift, which in turn will reduce the subsidy to rail services.
A bigger railway
The Rail Minister Lord Hendy had indicated that the rail package put forward for the Treasury review of projects, published following the June 2025 Spending Review, is credible. The TransPennine Route Upgrade and East West Rail were protected in the Spending Review, new stations at Wellington, Cullompton and Haxby will proceed, new connectivity will be provided by the Midlands Rail Hub, and the Portishead line will be reopened to passengers. There is also substantial funding for light rail schemes. However, there is no mention of improvements at Ely and Haughley needed to increase freight traffic from Felixstowe. Although funding is tight, investment in new rail facilities and capacity is necessary to support government targets of economic growth and major house building. We campaign for new stations and track which will deliver this.
Electrification
Electrification can reduce costs and meet the government's zero carbon objectives. A rolling programme is necessary to maintain capability and skills and so deliver electrification cost-effectively. Financial constraints mean that new schemes must be small and delivered incrementally, focusing on discontinuous electrification to enable battery trains and infill electrification to enable electric haulage throughout for a greater proportion of freight routes.
Chris Page
July 2025
This review also appears in the latest issue of our magazine Railwatch. I hope you found it interesting. We are now offering 'paperless' membership of Railfuture, at £10 per year; members receive Railwatch four times a year, information about local Railfuture branch campaigns and invitations to events. For a deeper dive into the individual topics covered by this review, please explore this website.
Railfuture responded to the Department for Transport (DfT) consultation on Great British Railways. We agree with most of the DfT proposals, but what is not covered in the consultation document is more interesting. It gives little visibility of how GBR will work in practice – for example, it is not clear how much control will be exercised by the DfT and how much independence professional railway managers will have.
The government should set both national and transport strategic quantified objectives for GBR. The DfT and GBR should then work together to agree how these national objectives, including supporting economic growth, facilitating housing targets, environmental sustainability and social inclusion, should be achieved. GBR should decide how to meet transport objectives including meeting a required subsidy level, achieving target modal shift for passengers and freight, and meeting a decarbonisation target.
As operators move into public ownership, there should be a shift from managing cost to managing margin, and a no-blame culture focused on improving reliability.
Part of our response is that the new passenger watchdog should have a representative of a national rail users group ie Railfuture on its Board.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander had confirmed that the industry-wide Rail Plan for Change will be published soon to paint a picture of rail as an enabler of economic growth. We will look at this for evidence of progress on our key campaigns below.
A better railway
Passenger numbers have almost recovered to pre-COVID levels (and exceeded on some routes) but revenue still lags due to lower levels of commuting. Rail must attract more passengers with an improved passenger experience through improved reliability, good connections, clean and comfortable trains, better wifi, welcoming stations and a secure environment with good customer service by well-motivated staff. This will increase revenue which will in turn enable improved service frequency and capacity to match demand.
Fares and ticketing
We continue to campaign for annual fare increases to be linked to the nationally-recognised Consumer Price Inflation Index (CPI), which the government uses for benefits, rather than the higher Retail Price Index (RPI).
While some people perceive fares to be expensive, the complexity of the ticketing system and the fear of buying the wrong ticket are a greater disincentive to travel by rail. An ticketing review is needed, which must be open to public scrutiny. Buying a ticket must be made easier, by making online and TVM sales processes more intuitive, formalising split tickets, delivering wider Pay As You Go coverage, removing operator-only fares and making restrictions consistent. However, this must not reduce flexibility or choice – for example people may be able to fix the outward journey time but not the return, long distance train services also carry short-distance passengers, not everyone has a credit card and a mobile phone, contactless payment is not currently fit for purpose (eg it does not receive the railcard discount), and some people with an impairment may need human interaction.
Modal shift
Many rail routes have under-utilised capacity for large parts of the day. Even with the current transition to electric vehicles, modal shift of both freight and passengers from road to rail would increase the rate of decarbonisation, reduce air particulate pollution and reduce road congestion, allowing road spending to be cut.
On all routes the proportion of people travelling by rail is less than by other modes. Analysis of mobile phone data has shown that rail use is greater where rail frequencies are higher and the rail journey time is less. Surprisingly, this is still true where the road cost is less, showing that rail travellers value convenience over cost – although road travellers may not.
The government has encountered political resistance to meeting fiscal targets by cutting £5Bn from the welfare budget. Alternatively, it could raise £2Bn by increasing fuel duty, restoring the temporary cut, which would generally hit the more affluent rather than the poorest. This would also shift the balance of cost between road and rail for many passenger journeys and freight movements, promoting modal shift, which in turn will reduce the subsidy to rail services.
A bigger railway
The Rail Minister Lord Hendy had indicated that the rail package put forward for the Treasury review of projects, published following the June 2025 Spending Review, is credible. The TransPennine Route Upgrade and East West Rail were protected in the Spending Review, new stations at Wellington, Cullompton and Haxby will proceed, new connectivity will be provided by the Midlands Rail Hub, and the Portishead line will be reopened to passengers. There is also substantial funding for light rail schemes. However, there is no mention of improvements at Ely and Haughley needed to increase freight traffic from Felixstowe. Although funding is tight, investment in new rail facilities and capacity is necessary to support government targets of economic growth and major house building. We campaign for new stations and track which will deliver this.
Electrification
Electrification can reduce costs and meet the government's zero carbon objectives. A rolling programme is necessary to maintain capability and skills and so deliver electrification cost-effectively. Financial constraints mean that new schemes must be small and delivered incrementally, focusing on discontinuous electrification to enable battery trains and infill electrification to enable electric haulage throughout for a greater proportion of freight routes.
Chris Page
July 2025
This review also appears in the latest issue of our magazine Railwatch. I hope you found it interesting. We are now offering 'paperless' membership of Railfuture, at £10 per year; members receive Railwatch four times a year, information about local Railfuture branch campaigns and invitations to events. For a deeper dive into the individual topics covered by this review, please explore this website.