Investment, not ownership, is the issue for Britain’s railways - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
基建投资

Investment, not ownership, is the issue for Britain’s railways

Nationalising train operators is no guarantee of better performance

The new UK government’s plans to nationalise rail services are thundering down the parliamentary tracks faster than most trains on the country’s rickety rail network. They add up to a major reversal of one of the flagship Conservative privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s. The commitment of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour to “move fast and fix things” is commendable; fixing the railways is important not just for passengers but to boost economic growth. But in prioritising ownership it is focusing on the wrong issue.

A bill that received a lightning third reading on Tuesday will return franchised passenger rail services to public hands when existing contracts end or reach a breakpoint — which at least means this renationalisation has little upfront cost. The government says it will produce a more centralised network, under the “directing mind” of a still-to-be-created arms-length body, Great British Railways. It touts the potential to cut costs by removing duplicative bureaucracy, and to simplify the unpopular maze of ticketing.

The danger, though, is that as with British Rail in the 1970s, public ownership will mean poor management and cost control, and empower rail unions with which Labour has just expensively settled long-running pay disputes. Recent experience shows state control does not guarantee better service. Ask long-suffering passengers of Northern Rail, one of four previously franchised services already taken back by the state.

The flawed franchising system created distorted incentives; several large franchises failed after overpromising on revenues. But the Conservative government committed in 2021 to shift to passenger service contracts with private companies, which pay a fee for providing tightly specified services with penalties for failures to meet targets. This was a sensible concept that avoided full nationalisation. Several countries, including Germany and Sweden, use service contracts on some services. (In Japan’s famously reliable rail network, the private sector takes the lead on almost all routes, though with a very different structure to Britain’s.)

With about half of cancellations blamed on infrastructure owners, the biggest problem dogging Britain’s railways is not ownership of operators but constrained and crumbling capacity. This follows years of inconsistent and inadequate government-led investment in rail infrastructure, most of which was returned to public hands under Network Rail in 2002. Sustained higher investment in tracks is vital — but Labour, though it has promised a more detailed rail reform bill in due course, has so far said little on this subject.

The need is all the greater after then prime minister Rishi Sunak last year cancelled the remaining northern leg of HS2, the high-speed project from London originally to Manchester and Leeds. Though costs had ballooned, HS2 promised new capacity as much as speed. The government must urgently find other ways to ease congestion on the West Coast main line, where commuter and intercity services share tracks in places, and which is vital for the net zero priority of shifting freight from roads to rail. It should study a plan from city mayors and engineering firms for a cheaper, privately funded line along HS2’s axed Birmingham-Manchester route.

It would also be helpful for the government to clarify its view of Northern Powerhouse Rail, the proposed east-west line connecting northern English cities that is central to revitalising services. And it should draw up coherent plans for redirecting funds no longer being spent on HS2 to other projects.

In doing so, Labour should heed the advice of a policy review it commissioned, and seek private funding too. The report led by former Siemens UK boss Juergen Maier recommended new partnerships, akin to those often used in Europe and Asia, involving “blended finance” — with the private sector taking on delivery and recouping a return later. In revitalising rail, Britain’s new government would be wise to create room for more private sector investment and involvement, not less.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

对富人征税有什么问题?

围绕收入和消费设计的财政体系很难抓住财富,而且亿万富翁的流动性很高。

特朗普的关税对印度经济意味着什么?

印度纺织、珠宝等劳动密集型行业预计将遭受美国关税最严重的打击。

欧洲寻求利用乌克兰技术打造防俄“无人机墙”

布鲁塞尔鼓励各国政府动用欧盟资金,联合采购在乌克兰已被证明有效的无人机与反无人机系统。

瑞士央行:美国科技业中的“巨鲸”

保守的瑞士央行已成为全球最大的科技投资者之一,投资苹果、微软、亚马逊、英伟达和Meta超过420亿美元。

东京能否吸引金融人才来管理其数万亿美元资金?

东京正处在数十年来最接近全球金融枢纽的时刻,但成败取决于能否吸引人才。

韩国抵制美国要求敲定“日本式”贸易协议的压力

首尔不愿效仿东京,让特朗普决定其巨额资本应在美国投向何处。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×