Tom Richmond: Could our cities supply a return ticket to the great days of British railways?

In short, these are the two questions at the core of revelations that the Government may give regions – Yorkshire included – a greater say in the running of the railways.

Given how successive governments, and the coalition is no exception, have repeatedly placed London’s transport needs before those of the English provinces, the answer to both points should be in the affirmative.

And this is reflected by the unprecedented talks taking place between Leeds and Manchester City Councils to see if they can take control of the pivotal trans-Pennine line which has the potential, once electrified under the Government’s infrastructure plan, to be a major driver of economic growth across the North.

Like him or not, following the Liberal Democrats’ soul-searching over Britain’s future relationship with Europe, Nick Clegg certainly thinks that this is the way forward – and his instincts are sound on this issue.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Sheffield Hallam MP used a keynote speech in Yorkshire last week to vow to take on the “baronial vested interests” of Whitehall to enable control over spending, transport and job creation to return to Britain’s great cities. The benefits could be immense, given the chronic levels of overcrowding on key commuter routes – and how passengers are paying more to invariably stand on trains that struggle to meet punctuality and reliability benchmarks.

Taking control of both the trans-Pennine and Northern rail networks would enable participating local authorities to borrow against projected future earnings, thereby enabling to them to invest in new rolling stock, electrification of lines and other key infrastructure. However people would require reassurances that heavy borrowing would not saddle tomorrow’s taxpayers with insurmountable debts.

Furthermore, the Government’s desire to introduce longer franchises for operators would enable the councils to ensure firms commit to long-term programmes of investment in trains and carriages. Negotiating the next contracts would also mean local transport bosses also have a far greater say in the setting of performance targets, with stiff penalties for poorly-performing firms.

So far, so good – especially given how the Department for Transport, under successive Ministers, has proved totally complacent and spineless on issues arising out of poor performance.

However there Mr Clegg needs to recognise, and address, three key issues before the coalition proceeds along this track.

First, there is the all-important issue of finance. Councils will have to bid to Whitehall for powers to run train services (or apprenticeship hubs, for example).

However it is unclear how much transport funding will be available – and how this will be distributed.

The suspicion will remain that this is yet another ruse to ensure London continues to receive three times as much funding as Yorkshire – and that Ministers will point to this ‘devolution’ policy in the future and blame local authorities, rather than their own policy shortcomings, if long-awaited improvements are not delivered.

As such, you have to remember that politicians are still the supreme masters of buck-passing. It is this question of finance that brings about the second consideration – what should be the role of local authorities, and will they ever have sufficient financial resources to take over the railways?

Take Leeds where the city council announced a further 600 job losses last week. Most would say its primary function is to run the schools, provide care for the elderly, empty the bins, repair pot holes, grit the roads and so forth. Yet, in many regards, it is already offering a below-average service in these key indicators of competence and efficiency – and that matters are unlikely to improve as the Government keeps possible council tax increases in check for the foreseeable future.

Given this, should such local authorities have enhanced transport powers when they’re struggling to fulfil their existing obligations to taxpayers?

And, thirdly, there is the nagging issue of deep-seated inter-city rivalries (as opposed to inter-city trains). It makes eminent sense for the trans-Pennine service to become one element of a wider franchise that encompasses the local services currently run by Northern Rail – there has been too little co-ordination on the railways in these parts.

However councils along the trans-Pennine route, which runs from Liverpool across the Pennines, to Leeds and then on to places like Hull, York, Scarborough, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle might have competing priorities.

Inevitably, they will want investment speed up in their area. As such, can the leaders of Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle Councils genuinely work in tandem? And where does Sheffield fit in, given that its services impinge upon both Yorkshire and the East Midlands? And the fledgling Local Enterprise Partnerships that have a transport remit? I’ll only believe the promised co-operation when it happens.

Yet, having been left at the mercy of late-running trains, both locally and on the East Coast Main Line, on too many occasions for my liking, Mr Clegg does, to his credit, offer a plausible vision.

That said, a 21st century railway network still requires adequate investment, a commitment on Network Rail to tackle the infrastructure frailties which still limit the number of peak-time services that can be run when passenger demand is at its greatest – and clarity on how locally-led services can compliment inter-city routes running along the spine of the country.

When these points are reconciled, it may – just – be the time to herald the arrival of a new railway age.