Railways under Theresa May administration

[LNW-GW Joint]

Chris Grayling is new Transport Secretary.
A sly smoothie in my view.

 

[backontrack]

Welp...

 

[Via Bank]

Chris Grayling has an appalling record from Justice.

Be afraid.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Easing up on "austerity" might mean less money for infrastructure.

I think the exact opposite.

Philip Hammond replaces George Osborne as Chancellor.
Was Transport Secretary when the current major projects were given the final go-ahead (Crossrail, GW/NW electrification), after being "paused".

A good omen

The proper scheme is North Downs Line electrification + Western Rail Access to Heathrow (WRATH).

+1 absolutely hope so

Very unlikely, given the focus Theresa has already placed on infrastructure, and the talk of infrastructure bonds.

The UK Government might want to cut back on infrastructure spending in future years, but they need to show the UK is open for business and still spending to improve productivity.

I'd say we really need to increase infrastructure spending right now, it's too low in comparison to other countries, as is R&D spending, thought the recent uplift in rail spending has earned the UK considerable positive attention globally.

Electrification is now taking a position within Network Rail spending that makes any cancellations virtually impossible for a number of reasons: it can increase capacity on lines, it allows more reliable trains, it allows lighter trains with lower track access costs, it reduces particulate emissions and it cuts transport carbon emissions.

I totally agree

I'd quite like to keep Patrick McLoughlin, thanks very much.

If not, could you find an MP with an engineering background please. Alec Shelbrooke has a BEng I believe, so he would be a nice alternative if so inclined.

Me too -sad it is not going to happen. :cry:

If anything I'd expect MORE infrastructure spending now. The problem on the railways, certainly in terms of electrification though, is the lack of engineering resources

I agree

 

[Johnuk123]

Grayling abstained on the HS2 bill, He's not a fan.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It's not just that one project though! There are numerous. Look at the London Bridge enhancements. As was put to me by someone who knows a lot about all that stuff, they are trying to put a gallon into a pint pot and expect it to work. He has one franchise that is in total meltdown and all he does is decide to move the goalposts a bit and then blame the rest on the unions. Made a complete horlicks of the GEML franchise. Electrification schemes 'paused' and then 'unpaused' after the political turmoil it caused. Very very glad he has gone.

I think it's very unfair to blame all of that on Patrick.

The union breaking is a mantra from upon high, I doubt McLoughlin was particularly keen to pursue the total destruction of the RMT and to wreck GTR. It needs sorted once and for all though, it's been ready to blow up for quite some time now.

London Bridge has been on the go since long before McLoughlin took over as SoS, indeed, much of what has happened is what he inherited, some from Greening and Hammond, but much from the never ending succession of Transport Secretaries we had from 2006 onwards under Labour.

It's doable too, but will need an obsessive attention to detail, which I think we're seeing on the project. The new rolling stock is certainly powerful enough to dispose of minor delays with no trouble, as just one example.

Franchising has been in turmoil since the WCML fiasco overseen by Greening and it has never worked well. Blame John Major.

Electrification being paused ultimately was helpful, but it would have been better to know a bit more to start with. The works were being stretched and things weren't going to happen. We're now all a lot more experienced when it comes to electrification and we can give much more accurate and realistic timescales.

There was far too much extrapolation and theoretical timings being used, some being based on additional time now workers can't go up wooden ladders trackside, others based on using cherry pickers rather than them walking along flat roofed carriages, but of course the changes were more complex and original estimates were worse than expected.

Electrification was, as you all know, also heavily screwed over by staff in the late BR, Railtrack and early Network Rail era being told there was no more electrification coming, so don't worry about taking basic precautions. That's not McLoughlin's fault either. John Major perhaps, but not Patrick's.

I'd reckon by 2020-2025 we'll be seeing McLoughlin's successes and failures, what we're looking at now is mainly Andrew Adonis and his immediate predecessors successes and failures.

 

[me123]

Grayling might not be a great secretary for transport as far as railways go, at least going on his voting record (pertinent issues for transport only have been highlighted below).

Generally voted against measures to prevent climate change
Generally voted for lower taxes on fuel for motor vehicles
Almost always voted for higher taxes on plane tickets
Consistently voted against slowing the rise in rail fares

Grayling was absent on many votes regarding HS2, although he did seem to support the policy when he was present. I can't find very much from him on this subject. He was also absent on both Crossrail votes.

Can't find very much from him regarding Heathrow expansion either.

So, as far as transport policy goes, it seems to be a bit of an enigma, with some trend towards supporting motorists and away from supporting public transport. Probably not a good sign from what little information we have.

I did, however, find this rather scathing article which may make some people worried (although I hasten to add that his performance may be different with a different brief).

Is Chris Grayling the most incompetent member of the government?

 

[Deepgreen]

Chris Grayling is new Transport Secretary.
A sly smoothie in my view.

His constituency (Epsom and Ewell) is firmly in Southern territory!

 

[WatcherZero]

Very pro Heathrow attacking his party for dithering on the decision.
So far as I can see hes an HS2 Nimby though a supporter of High Speed Rail in general (he was absent for the most critical vote but voted in favour on lesser votes).
Never left the home counties in career.
Has made some anti-immigration speeches.

Put in financial charges limiting peoples access to the courts which his successor had to overturn as well as many decisions where people pled guilty because they couldn't afford a trail.
Had a deal lined up to build jails and execution centres in Saudi Arabia.

Rebeled against all the smoking regulations, same sex marriage, equal rights for gay couples, fertility and abortion rights, any vote that increased MP Pay, never turned up or voted against support for benefits. Voted against lowering voting age, always voted in favour of trade union regulation, Seems to wobble on education, voted for £9000 tuition fees and against introduction of tuition fees.


Does seem to run with the theme of Theresa Mays cabinet of appointing incompetents and people who had to resign due to scandals to important frontline posts. Its like shes trying to fail.

Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary, A man whose insulted half the world, generally shallow and gets bored if he isn't in front of a camera.
Liam Fox Trade, A man who had to resign for taking cash to give friends access to privileged government information including trade deals.
Jeremy Hunt Health, A man universally reviled by healthcare professionals
Amber Rudd, a soft caring woman who like bright suits and only one year government experience as home secretary

And a host more whove previously resigned due to scandals.

 

[deltic]

It's not just that one project though! There are numerous. Look at the London Bridge enhancements. As was put to me by someone who knows a lot about all that stuff, they are trying to put a gallon into a pint pot and expect it to work. He has one franchise that is in total meltdown and all he does is decide to move the goalposts a bit and then blame the rest on the unions. Made a complete horlicks of the GEML franchise. Electrification schemes 'paused' and then 'unpaused' after the political turmoil it caused. Very very glad he has gone.

The feedback I got from the DfT civil servants was that he was highly regarded and they are disappointed he has gone. While ministers are responsible they obviously are not involved in the minutiae planning of projects like London Bridge and it is difficult to see any other outcome than the present position in relation to London Bridge or GEML if another Minister was in charge.

The cynical would say part of the Southern franchise situation has been deliberately engineered within DfT in line with Peter Wilkinson's comments - DfT being keen to win the DOO argument before SWT franchise is let so that to goes DOO - a management contract giving the ideal situation to fight the battle which a revenue risk operator would not take on. Again any other Tory Minister was likely to take the same position. Graying is even less likely to pull back from a "war" with the unions.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Grayling abstained on the HS2 bill, He's not a fan.

He supported the bill's third reading, and has been sent out to support the project in a couple of places. He's apparently into longer franchises and believed to be pro-HS2.

 

[Harbornite]

Very pro Heathrow attacking his party for dithering on the decision.
So far as I can see hes an HS2 Nimby though a supporter of High Speed Rail in general (he was absent for the most critical vote but voted in favour on lesser votes).
Never left the home counties in career.
Has made some anti-immigration speeches.

Rebeled against all the smoking regulations, same sex marriage, equal rights for gay couples, fertility and abortion rights, any vote that increased MP Pay, never turned up or voted against support for benefits. Voted against lowering voting age, always voted in favour of trade union regulation, Seems to wobble on education, voted for £9000 tuition fees and against introduction of tuition fees.

Not the best record, but most of that shouldn't have an effect on his abilities in his new role.

 

[MarkyT]

Oh god not Grayling, the incompetent nincompoop who seems to like the 'hard line' approach, but everything he does turns to dust. Perhaps She thinks he'll take on the rail unions over certain issues relating to doors that should not be mentioned in polite company. He'll probably mess that up and as a result the whole industry in the process. Maybe that's the plan.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He supported the bill's third reading, and has been sent out to support the project in a couple of places. He's apparently into longer franchises and believed to be pro-HS2.

A glimmer of hope perhaps then . . .

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Well all that which would have been EU funded can come out of the £350m that we will have sloshing around in the Treasury. Problem solved, Brexit is the ultimate panacea to all of our problems.

oh dear , it's amazing that people still BeLeave that criminal deception , there is no 350 million , there's perhaps 100 million at best but that doesn't take account of the loss of trading income and therefore tax+ duties.

 

[Domh245]

Would the Undersecretary for Rail (Claire Perry) be carried over under the new Secretary, or will she be replaced (and how much responsibility does she bear compared to the SoS)

 

[jon0844]

Rail is seen naturally as the be-all and end-all on this particular website, not surprisingly, but if the electorate were given a hypothetic opportunity to give a list of their ten top priorities, where do website members, hands on heart, really think where rail would be placed?

Oh God, don't ask the public anything EVER again.

His constituency (Epsom and Ewell) is firmly in Southern territory!

So he probably doesn't see many trains these days.

 

[WatcherZero]

Undersecretary's tend to do the nitty gritty work like regulation, paperwork, writing agreements, seeing to the day to day runnings while Secretarys make the big spending decisions and get all the PR.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

His constituency (Epsom and Ewell) is firmly in Southern territory!

Chris had the Shadow Transport brief in 2005-7, so won't be completely ignorant.

All the cabinet names I've heard so far are from metro-land.
Nobody from the north or regions, like Patrick McLoughlin.
Definitely a right-wing lot.
Chris Grayling has spend the last six months declaring black is white on Brexit, just waving away any hint of realism or complication.

We don't know where Claire Perry stands yet as Rail Minister.
While not a senior figure, I thought she was getting to grips with the rail brief.
The other transport ministers (Robert Goodwill, Andrew Jones) were hardly visible.

 

[snowball]

Chris Grayling has an appalling record from Justice.

Be afraid.

I'd say that while there he was the worst minister of anything in any government in recent decades.

 

[Alfie1014]

The feedback I got from the DfT civil servants was that he was highly regarded and they are disappointed he has gone. While ministers are responsible they obviously are not involved in the minutiae planning of projects like London Bridge and it is difficult to see any other outcome than the present position in relation to London Bridge or GEML if another Minister was in charge.

My impression was that he was well regarded by both the industry and his Department, not least to have stayed in post as SofS for the longest period in recent history is testament to this.

How Grayling performs time will tell, unfortunately for many politicians Transport is just seen a stepping stone to something more glamorous and that's why SofS's at times have seemed as frequent as the 521 Red Arrow bus that pass Great Minster House. He and his to be confirmed Ministers will have the 'fun' of getting to grips with their respective portfolios over the coming weekend, so I wouldn't hold my breath for announcements in a hurry, that said the Cabinet Office and No.10 may well have asked all Departments for some 'quick wins' to announce next week before the House rises on Friday, to reinforce the business as usual message.

As for the 'biggies', HS2 could be binned, deferred and reviewed to keep 'The Shires' happy, London Airport Capacity I would predict is kicked into the long grass possible until the Autumn statement, GTR termination is in the too difficult pile I would imagine, not least it would undermine franchising confidence, so I bet it will be put on the back burner during the summer recess with the hope that things are improving by September. East Anglia Franchise if not ready to roll pretty much straight away again I would imagine will be kicked into the long grass until September (when the House returns) or beyond. That said something needs to happen as the current franchise will need to be extended and I doubt that would be regarded as a 'quick win' by anyone not least the 'pro-leave' SofS, having to make one of his first announcements that a major policy area has had to be delayed due to Brexit. I'd put money on news on an extension slipping out during the recess, (possibly when the SofS and many of the political pundits are on holiday)!

 

[Mojo]

Chris Grayling was an excellent Shadow Transport Secretary and someone who really understood the brief back then, defending the railways against the attacks they suffered under the Labour Government. The days since 2010 must stand to be the best for the railways in modern history as far as national and local politics have stood, and I have no doubt things will improve even further under Grayling.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Chris Grayling was an excellent Shadow Transport Secretary and someone who really understood the brief back then, defending the railways against the attacks they suffered under the Labour Government. The days since 2010 must stand to be the best for the railways in modern history as far as national and local politics have stood, and I have no doubt things will improve even further under Grayling.

On balance I agree with this assessment though I will miss Patrick. INFRASTRUCTURE benefits us now and future generations and I honestly believe the rolling program of electrification will continue. It is just too important not to.

 

[philthetube]

I wouldn't expect Mrs May to hugely change the railways policy, at least not any time before 2020. There's a lot happening in British Politics as of late, and I expect the government's approach to the railways to be largely unchanged over the next few years.

In terms of the 2020 election... if somehow she manages to steer us through Brexit and come out the other side electable (in which case she could possibly become one of our greatest PMs, as much as it loathes me to say that), that's when I think any changes to the railways will materialise.

There are a lot of seats to be lost in GTR territory

 

[Iskra]

Are we expecting the Northern Powerhouse to be quietly abandoned now that the Conservatives don't need the support of the North and George Osbourne no longer has to keep his word?

 

[thenorthern]

I was thinking before Ms. May was elected leader ok appointed by default that Chris Grayling may become the Deputy Prime Minister/First Secretary of Sate. It could still happen though as John Prescott's first ministerial role when he was Deputy Prime Minister was Transport.

Very clever though at appointing Chris Grayling as Transport Secretary though as his constituency is not in the path of HS2.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are we expecting the Northern Powerhouse to be quietly abandoned now that the Conservatives don't need the support of the North and George Osbourne no longer has to keep his word?

One might ask such a question about all future projects in all the various ministries.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Are we expecting the Northern Powerhouse to be quietly abandoned now that the Conservatives don't need the support of the North and George Osbourne no longer has to keep his word?

Theresa May's one Nation Conservatism and building a future for the whole of Britain that benefits everyone means that the devolution part of the Northern Powerhouse will still probably go ahead in some form. As for the NPR/HS3 it is a good signal that Britain is open for bisuniess even though it won't be built for years.

 

[me123]

Are we expecting the Northern Powerhouse to be quietly abandoned now that the Conservatives don't need the support of the North and George Osbourne no longer has to keep his word?

I think we may see the Northern Powerhouse quietly abandoned (because, let's face it, it was just a George Osborne soundbite), but not the underlying policies.

 

[CdBrux]

Chris Grayling was an excellent Shadow Transport Secretary and someone who really understood the brief back then, defending the railways against the attacks they suffered under the Labour Government. The days since 2010 must stand to be the best for the railways in modern history as far as national and local politics have stood, and I have no doubt things will improve even further under Grayling.

I found the following speech made by Grayling in 2007. Much of it could still apply today, and what does not has more or less happened already.

Chris Grayling: A new approach to Britain's Railways
http://conservative-speeches.sayit.mysociety.org/speech/599877

"Over the next twenty-five years, Britain's transport infrastructure will face almost unprecedented pressures. The forecasts for growth in the number of cars, in particular, are far greater than we can possibly just provide for through building more roads.

That means we will need efficient, modern public transport to help meet the needs of future generations. Railways will be an essential part of that.

But rail also faces huge challenges if it is to play the role it should in future transport in this country.

The past ten years since privatisation have seen huge changes in the industry - and some real highs and lows. But to me the statistic that says more about today's railway than any other is that the network now carries more passengers each year than was the case before Beeching, and before the wholesale closures that cut the network in half. That is an astounding achievement, particularly given the fact that a decade ago people still talked about the railways as being in a long spiral of decline. It has been matched by a reversal of the long-standing decline in rail freight, which is also now growing rapidly.

But it also provides a very clear pointer to the challenges that the industry faces going forward.

It is hard to see how the current network can accommodate the projected growth in both freight and passenger numbers without serious measures being taken to ease constraints on capacity.

To be frank, the forecasts for the next few years do not paint an attractive picture for the travelling public.

According to the Rail Regulator, there will be no growth in the number of passenger train kilometres travelled on the network between now and 2014. To the layman, that means no more space for passengers on our trains than they have today.

But according to both Network Rail and the train operators, passenger growth during those years is likely to exceed 30%.

And the financial small print of the new franchise agreements make it quite obvious that unregulated fares at least are set to rise sharply in the next few years.

We saw the brutal reality of that a couple of weeks ago, when it emerged that the Government had done a secret deal with one of the big rail companies to push up fares and price passengers off busy London commuter trains to try and tackle the problem of overcrowding. And ironically this was on one of the routes where the Government's 10 Year Plan promised that the Thameslink 2000 project would be open by now, and would provide longer trains and more space for passengers. Just another example of a promise that has come to nothing.

You can all do the maths. All of this adds up to more and more passengers, on more and more overcrowded trains, and with constant upward pressure on fares to try to take the sting out of overcrowding.

And frankly, I don't think this is sustainable. If we are actually going to make sure that the passenger of the next decade isn't actually spending more and more on travelling in increasingly overcrowded trains, then things really do have to change. We can hardly expect the general well being of passengers to improve if they travel in conditions that are increasingly unpleasant. Nor can we get more freight off the roads if the rail network is under such pressures.

And you have to remember that this is all happening at a time when the amount of money the taxpayer spends on the railways is at its highest ever. Five years ago, the subsidy for the railways was a little over a billion pounds a year. This year it is more than five billion pounds.

But there is no sign that either the Government, or Network Rail - the two organisations that have the power to do something about the problem - are getting to grips with what needs to be done.

Earlier this month, Network Rail asked for seven billion pounds over five years of extra cash to pay for capacity improvements - on top of the huge extra amounts of money it is already getting from taxpayers to spend on our rail network.

In total, it wants nearly one and a half billion pounds a year more to run the railway than the independent rail regulator thinks it should need.

Now there are only two places that this money can come from.

Either the taxpayer has to fork out more and more money to support our railways.

Or alternatively, the travelling public have to pay more and more for their tickets.

Or both.

If we want people to leave their cars at home and use public transport, if we want to meet our environmental objectives, then this cannot be the right way forward.

And since the Government's flagship transport policy is to introduce a system of road pricing to encourage people to use their cars less at peak times, then it cannot be sensible to follow a path which will price them out of trains as well.

So something has to change - and it has to change soon.

I think there are two big barriers to the kind of change we need to see, though.

The first is that there is much too much political involvement in the running of the railways.

Douglas Alexander is inheriting a Department that has more operational involvement in our railways than ever the Government did when British Rail was around.

I think it makes no sense at all to have railway timetables written by Government officials.

I don't believe that Government should be responsible for procuring new trains.

I think it is madness that new franchise agreements are now so tightly specified that the train operating companies have lost the freedom to innovate.

Small wonder that there seems to be so little being done to address the problems that are building up.

It's time that politicians stopped trying to run our railways, and that we gave responsibility back to our transport professionals.

But we also think that an important part of the problem lies in the structure of the industry that exists today. We think, with hindsight, that the complete separation of track and train into separate businesses at the time of privatisation was not right for our railways.

We think that the separation has helped push up the cost of running the railways - and hence fares - and is now slowing decisions about capacity improvements. Too many people and organisations are now involved in getting things done - so nothing happens.

As a result, the industry lacks clarity about who is in charge and accountable for decisions. Indeed passengers complain that they are never sure who is actually responsible when something goes wrong. In my own constituency I have been struggling for weeks to establish whether it is South West Trains or Network Rail who is responsible for the regular and systematic cancellation of the last train from Waterloo to Epsom. Both have passed me back to the other, and for weeks neither was able to give me a proper, detailed and satisfactory reason.

A key consequence of this fragmentation of accountability and decision making is that projects which could make a difference - for example the re-development of stations like Reading to generate cash for improvements to passenger facilities and track around the station take far too long to become a reality. All too often, major projects are hampered by endless contractual discussions between different organisations. Even smaller changes, like amending a timetable, can take a year of negotiations.

The reality is that speed is of the essence if we are to avoid massive problems of overcrowding - and so the decision making process must be quicker and simpler.

The whole process by which Network Rail and the Train Operators organise access to the track for maintenance and renewal is enormously complex. They take huge amounts of management time, and cause some real financial distortions in the industry.

And there are some other indefensible structural issues. Take the case of our stations. The train operating companies are responsible for station maintenance and decoration up to a height of six foot six above the platforms. Above that, it is the responsibility of Network Rail. So if Network Rail replaces the roof, or even repaints it, it is the job of a totally separate company to finish the job down to platform level. Two different sets of workmen, two different costs - and in the case of one current industry anecdote, at Rugby Station, a little while back, a brand new metal roof placed onto ageing wooden supports because different people were responsible for different bits. No wonder costs are too high.

So we are launching a complete review of the operation of our railways, with a view to securing a much greater degree of integration between track and train. We are not expecting to recreate British Rail, but we do want to work with the industry to identify a better structure to ensure it can meet the challenges of the next decade.

There are several different ways in which this could be done - and we will take the time to find the best way forward. But we are certain that no change is not an option.

Over the next few months we will work with the industry to identify a fresh approach which we can put into effect when we are back in Government.

We know that we will receive a fair hearing for our work.

In 2004, when the Government carried out a review of the Rail Industry, the Association of Train Operating Companies called for a restoration of partial vertical integration of the industry.

In April, Moir Lockhead, chief executive of the train and bus operator First Group, said he would continue to push the Government to "put the railway back together again".

"We are very keen to press for vertical integration, not in the next 12 months but over the next five years. We think it would create another step change of improvement," he said.

Earlier this year an application from Merseytravel, the Passenger Transport Authority for Merseyside to integrate the operation of the Merseyrail Electrics train and track was turned down by Network Rail. Its Chief Executive Neil Scales had said he could have saved £30 million through the change.

Although we are open to different solutions, and will want to listen to views across the industry, there are a number of things we regard as givens when we carry out the review.

Our goal is not to reprivatise the network. Although there are a range of different options which would lead to the greater integration of track and train, we expect any new, integrated organisations to work under franchise or similar arrangements rather than actually own the network.

We do, though, want to see more scope for long term investment decisions, often impossible under today's short-term - normally 7 year - franchise arrangements.

The best example of where this has worked is on the Chiltern Line in Buckinghamshire. Chiltern is the only train operator to have a 20 year franchise. It has been amongst the most proactive in bringing in new private investment to upgrade its service - redoubling one stretch of track that was downgraded in the 1980s, and expanding Marylebone Station.

We need to look at how the lessons learned with Chiltern can be brought to the rest of the rail network. And we also need to make sure that innovative smaller operators do not lose out as a result of what we do.

Of paramount importance in the work we do will be ensuring that any new structure must protect the interests of freight users and encourage future growth in rail freight.

Getting freight off roads and onto rail and shipping will be an important goal of our policy development work, and we are adamant that any changes to the rail industry must reflect the needs of rail freight.

Finally, we want to see rail workers share in the future financial success of the railways, particularly to discourage future militancy and strike action.

We know how frustrating it can be to the travelling public to see regular threats of strike action used by unions as a negotiating tactic in their discussions with their employers. We regard the people who work on our railways as skilled professionals, responsible for the safety, operation, logistics and customer service of our network. We think they should share in its successes and have a real incentive to help improve the service it offers.

Our goal is straightforward.

We believe that getting transport right will be vital to the future of our economy - and that good public transport will play a vital role in helping us meet the environmental challenges we face.

We believe that the railways will play an important part in the future of our transport system.

But if they are to have a successful future, it simply isn't good enough for passengers to face the prospect of more and more overcrowding and higher and higher fares.

Instead, we need to see more investment in the projects that can ease overcrowding.

We need to get value for the money that we, as taxpayers, are spending on the railways.

We need to ensure that we attract long term investment into our railways.

We need to minimise political interference in the day to day workings of the railway, and to let our rail professionals get on with the job.

Our job, as politicians, should be to remove the barriers to short-term improvements, and then to help shape a much longer term strategy for the future of our railways.

And above all, we need a structure where it is quite clear who is in charge, who is accountable and where decisions on improvements can be taken quickly and easily.

If we carry on the way we are heading at present, our railways face a crisis of overcrowding.

If we get it right, they can make a real difference to all of our futures."

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I think we may see the Northern Powerhouse quietly abandoned (because, let's face it, it was just a George Osborne soundbite), but not the underlying policies.

The underlying policies are perfectly sound and in most cases, absolutely essential.

The core of Network Rail's CP5 has to be completed, we need the platform extensions, we need the double tracking, we need the life expired signalling replaced, we need electrification, we need the access for all program. There's nothing much in the CP5 settlement which can be thought of as a nice thing to have, everything is essential to deal with demand and cost.

There's very little in the published and forthcoming RUS work which are nice to haves either, they're all essential and it's just an argument now about which are more essential than others, which can wait one control period and which cannot.

What's more, in the last couple of years, franchises have returned record premiums to the DfT on the back of record numbers of passengers, it's now very firmly in the Government's interests to spend some money now and to try to reduce subsidies and increase premiums through further growth.