The editorial on the Labour party’s proposals for our railway (25 April) and Tom Haines-Doran’s article on further measures (Starmer’s rail plans must only be the start. It’s full renationalisation that Britain needs, 26 April) need to address a central feature of the privatised and fragmented regime. In order to facilitate competition, an elaborate legal structure was established that is wholly inconsistent with efficient planning of capacity and timetables. One consequence has been the failure, after eight years’ work, to introduce a new timetable for the east coast main line because multiple parties are protecting rights granted irresponsibly by the Office of Rail and Road. And across the network it also results in extended journey times that must be discouraging travellers from choosing rail. If Great British Railways is to plan effectively, this process must be swept away and replaced by one that (in your editorial’s phrase) will “knit together different parts of the country [as] a source of pride”.
To add to Labour’s specification of a “reliable, affordable, efficient, quality, accessible, and safe” railway, I commend the Swiss system, with its emphasis on integration of all public transport into an impressive network. It is publicly owned and is designed by consensus. It attracts a significant share of travel and is visibly a natural part of communal life.
Jonathan Tyler
Passenger Transport Networks, York
At last we have a concrete commitment from Labour that voters can get behind. Many people have had to endure the chaos that has resulted from rail privatisation, and any light at the end of the tunnel will be welcome. I would recommend that Louise Haigh, the shadow secretary of state for transport, takes a close look at Finnish railways, which I can say after recent first-hand experience is as good as it gets. Renationalising water would be great, but I appreciate that it would be more complex and expensive.
David Felton
Crewe, Cheshire
