Christian Wolmar is right to raise serious concerns over the possibility of major cuts to the rail network (UK railways are heading into a perfect storm. Now is the time to nationalise them, 10 January). But I’m not convinced that his solution of nationalisation is the answer. He says that there’s an opportunity for “a publicly owned, integrated railway, run independently of state interference”. I’d say that was a contradiction in terms, and a return to a centralised British Rail would be subject to the whims of the Treasury, as it is now.
That doesn’t mean we should stick with the unsatisfactory hybrid of a privately delivered, publicly specified railway. We need to learn from other European railways, where publicly accountable regional transport authorities run efficient rail networks, sometimes directly owned by the local state.
The Merseyrail network, specified by a locally accountable public body but privately delivered, works. Could Liverpool’s combined authority go a step further and own and operate the regional network, or set up an arms-length co-operative to do the job? I’m sure it could, and that could apply to many other regional networks across the country. Inter-city operations are different, and the example of “open access” operators such as Grand Central and the recently introduced Lumo suggests that there is a commercial as well as environmental case for good-quality long-distance services that are not subject to micromanagement by civil servants in London.
Prof Paul Salveson
Visiting professor, universities of Huddersfield and Bolton
• Christian Wolmar is right to say that the Covid-induced crisis hitting our railways needs to be addressed by nationalisation. As well as being more efficient, we calculate that it would save the industry at least £600m a year simply through preventing cash leaking into private profit. That includes the rolling stock companies who own our trains and have engaged in shameful pandemic profiteering to the tune of £1bn last year – all ultimately paid for by the taxpayer, while passenger fares rise.
But instead of taking on vested interests, the government has decided to take on rail staff who have been key workers during the pandemic. The cuts agenda includes closing all ticket offices and slashing thousands of safety-critical track worker jobs. We are now heading towards a national dispute on our railways to defend rail jobs and services. If we are to protect our climate and economy, we need to protect our railways and rail workers.
Michael Lynch
General secretary, RMT
• I was surprised that Christian Wolmar made no mention of the climate impact of a declining railway system. Rail is the most economical of all the major transport modes in terms of damaging carbon emissions. The government should be encouraging a “modal shift” to rail from car and air travel. Instead, there is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it policy that people don’t need to change their personal transport.
The two most significant moves would be making rail travel much cheaper, and improving convenience and the integration of rail with other transport. This, along with a major government-backed publicity effort – many people haven’t used rail for years – could have a huge impact on lowering our transport sector’s carbon footprint. Upping the pace of rail electrification would be another huge positive, from which passengers, freight and the climate could gain.
Tim Dumper
Exmouth, Devon
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
