I do not agree with much of what Simon Jenkins says on the plans for a part-nationalised, part-privatised rail network (There’s nothing ‘great’ about this new British Railways revamp, 20 May), but he is right that the model being proposed is wrong. There used to be a simple maxim that the reason for involving the private sector in public services was to transfer risk. Taking risks was something the private sector was supposed to be good at. It targets investments to make the service attractive. It then sells that service to maximise profits. Getting the decisions right is the difficult thing – that is the risk it takes. To do this, it needs to be allowed to make key decisions, such as how big the service is and how often it will run, to match how many it believes it can sell. The more it sells, the better the profits. Simple.
But the new Great British Railways model takes these risks away from the private sector. The “how big” and “how often” decisions will be taken by the government. The private companies will just get paid for running the trains. The only variable in the private sector’s control will be costs. The decision, therefore, will no longer be “how many do we sell?”, as that will be fixed by the government, but “how do we deliver this more cheaply?”. To maximise profits, the companies will have just one aim: to reduce costs. And we are to believe Grant Shapps when he says that this will result in a better service?
Shaun Soper
Midhurst, West Sussex
• The William-Shapps white paper (Great British Railways plan aims to simplify privatised system, 19 May) is an interesting insight into how the government perceives the rail industry and the franchise system. The latter was introduced to improve competition and efficiency by allowing outsiders to bid for government contracts, but this has been shown to be flawed. Among those flaws is the practice of overoptimistic bidding, where bids have the appearance of offering value for money and which can result in a poor-quality service.
So we should welcome the arrival of Great British Railways, as it will set most fares. The white paper says that the changes will improve efficiency. My research over the past few years has focused on the perception of efficiency, and I have interviewed train drivers, driver and customer managers, and directors. Initial findings reveal a more complex story than the narratives in the white paper. For example, the UK’s rail infrastructure will prove to be a challenge for decades, as many disruptions are unavoidable. All it takes is a leaf on a track, a passenger trespassing or a faulty piece of Victorian infrastructure for there to be a domino effect throughout the network. Maybe it’s time to stop fetishising efficiency in favour of a safer, more people-focused railway.
Daniel Fisher
PhD candidate, Bayes Business School (formerly Cass), London
• I can only welcome the decision to rebrand the rail industry as Great British Railways, and I am certain that this will lead to massive improvements. But an opportunity for an even better name has been missed. Is it too late to suggest World-Beating British Railways?
Andrew Spackman
Byfield, Northamptonshire
• Noting that the government’s parry to criticism of publicly run organisations is to add a superlative, could Great British Railways be joined by Terrific National Health Service and Absolutely Splendid BBC? Because they’re worth it.
Bill Bradbury
Bolton
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
