West Coast Main Line
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the West Coast Mainline.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate. As I look around the room, I see a large number of MPs from different parts of the country, reflecting the significance and length of this stretch of railway. However, it is clear that the line faces critical problems both now and in the future, as I hope to outline in the debate.
For me and, I imagine, many of the other MPs here, “critical problems” on the west coast main line are experienced by each of us, and indeed many of our constituents, every day. As fate would have it, in the very week when I have secured this debate, the west coast main line was affected by a day of disruption yesterday that impacted my journey to Westminster from Crewe, with issues between Stoke-on-Trent and Rugby affecting the line all day. Indeed, a meeting I was due to have earlier this afternoon was disrupted because the person I was due to meet could not get here on time.
In case Members were not already aware, the west coast main line is the beating heart of our national rail network. It runs 400 miles from Edinburgh and Glasgow, through Crewe and all the way to London Euston. It links the south-east to the north-west, Wales and Scotland. Not only does it serve more than 75 million passengers a year, but more than 40% of the UK’s rail freight moves along the route. That is nothing short of seismic—a point expanded on brilliantly in the Aslef trade union “Rail Freight Future” campaign, which I am proud to support. Outside of London, it is probably the UK’s most important rail line, and it is the busiest mixed-use railway in Europe, but unfortunately it has been left with no strategic vision or plan for future capacity shortages.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; we sometimes share journeys to and from Westminster. The whole point of High Speed 2 was to relieve capacity on the west coast main line from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, yet my constituents have suffered through years of endless delays and disruption because of HS2’s shocking mismanagement by successive Conservative Governments. Expanding villages in my constituency cannot be served by the line because of continual failure, and passengers are still stuck on overcrowded trains. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is simply not good enough and that the future of the west coast main line must ensure our constituents can travel without constant disruption and overcrowding?
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the primary purpose of HS2, on which I will expand later, was to deliver much-needed capacity on the line. Unfortunately, the Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government a worst-of-all-worlds situation in which we are not delivering on the capacity benefits that HS2 was due to provide while also leaving residents on safeguarded land with a lack of certainty and, in many respects, failing services. That is simply intolerable, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight it.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; I too travel on the west coast main line. Does he agree that there is a common public misconception that HS2 was just about faster train journeys to London, when in reality it was about capacity issues? Does he also agree that the project should have started in the north, where the need is the greatest, so scrapping phases 2a and 2b to Manchester has robbed our region of the chance to improve local services, to support freight and to deliver the levelling up we were promised?
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend is correct. It is fair to say that “High Capacity 2” would not have had the same ring to it as High Speed 2, which is potentially why we have ended up with the situation we are in, but she is absolutely right that capacity was the main benefit. The cancellation of the project north of Birmingham exacerbates the sense that we can deliver major infrastructure projects in London and the south-east, but it is always the north that loses out when it comes to decisions about cost savings.
Outside of London, the west coast main line is probably the most important rail line in the UK. Covid provided a brief respite for capacity challenges, but passenger numbers are already back at 98% of pre-covid levels and are growing at 13% annually.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate. Many people in Chester South and Eddisbury rely on the west coast main line, but unless they have a car it is a real challenge for them to reach a station easily and join the line, because there is a lack of public transport options. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need not only to promote the west coast main line and improve capacity, but to recognise that plenty needs to be done locally to support transport and connectivity within Cheshire, so that our constituents can benefit from the national links that the west coast main line offers?
Connor Naismith
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; it is an understated point, but connectivity is the lifeblood of our economy. If someone cannot get from A to B, they cannot access the opportunities on offer. As well as improving key arterial rail routes like the west coast main line, we need to see local services to smaller stations improve.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend will know, Stoke-on-Trent sits on a side branch of the west coast main line that feeds a conurbation of over 400,000 people, many of whom work in and travel regularly to Manchester, London or Birmingham. Does he agree that any future development of the line must not impact negatively on direct services from Stoke-on-Trent to London and from Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester, which previous plans for HS2 threatened?
Connor Naismith
I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be in the business of improving services for our constituents, so we must, wherever possible, ensure that we protect direct services in whatever plans we bring forward in the future.
The challenge is clear, because the west coast main line is statistically the least reliable railway in Britain, with fewer than 50% of the trains running on time—a situation that will only get worse.
Connor Naismith
I am spoilt for choice, but I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman first.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. On reliability, I understand that there are 2,639 railway stations in the United Kingdom. The fifth least reliable of them is Oxenholme and the third least reliable is Penrith. Obviously, they have one thing in common, apart from serving my constituency, which is that they are both north of Preston. The hon. Gentleman might know that Avanti has a habit whereby if there is anything wrong with the line north of Preston, everything stops at Preston, even if the issue is in Scotland. Does he agree that that is wrong? Does he also agree that although Avanti should rightly be held to account for making such decisions, it is not all Avanti’s fault, because it is often down to the fact that the rail track itself is not properly maintained and there has not been enough investment in it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that should also be a priority for the Government?
Connor Naismith
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I do not often have to travel north to his constituency on the railway, but I have heard from several colleagues about the particular issues on that part of the line. He is absolutely right that although we should hold the operators to account, Network Rail needs to address key infrastructure issues.
Wendy Morton
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman having allowed the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to intervene first, given that the latter is fortunate enough to have a train station on his patch!
You may wonder, Dr Murrison, why I am here for this debate when normally I am campaigning for Aldridge station, but connectivity is the point. We are talking about infrastructure and how we can make our railways much more reliable. We recently had the re-announcement of the funding for the midlands rail hub, which is welcome. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful now to fully understand the timeline for that, and whether the whole project will be fully funded? That will have a big impact on my constituency, as and when the Mayor allows us to have our train station in Aldridge—when he gives us the money—and we will see a much broader improvement in infrastructure, capacity and speed.
Connor Naismith
I am pleased to hear that we have cross-party support for the crucial improvements for the midlands rail hub that were announced at the spending review. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the detail that the right hon. Member asked for.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
First, the Minister of State in the House of Lords made it clear yesterday that since the cancellation of HS2, there is no plan for capacity. Does my hon. Friend agree that there must soon be a plan to increase capacity, preferably based on something like HS2?
Secondly, the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about trains being cancelled north of Preston is true, but although I am sure he did not mean to do so, he seemed to be letting Avanti off the hook. We should remember that not only is Avanti taking many millions of pounds out of the public purse, but it has been caught on tape laughing at the public purse and saying how easy it is to rip off the Exchequer. The sooner Avanti is taken out of the system, even before there are capacity increases, I am sure it will benefit all of us who travel on the route.
Connor Naismith
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s plan to bring our railway into public ownership, and hope to see the west coast main line brought into public ownership soon.
Connor Naismith
I am going to make some progress.
The recent report “Research on Long-Term Passenger Demand Growth”, commissioned by the Railway Industry Association, illustrates that rail passenger volumes could grow by between at least 37% and by up to 97% by 2050. Under any scenario, rail demand in the UK will grow beyond today’s network, but capacity is not merely a future issue; it sits in our in-tray as a problem that needs solving today. As recently as 3 July, the Office of Rail and Road rejected three open access applications for the west coast main line, citing concerns about capacity.
I think the issues are generally well understood, but perhaps the elephant in the room in terms of the capacity challenges on the west coast main line—it has been touched on already—is the 2023 decision to cancel HS2 phase 2. As has been said, the primary benefit of HS2, despite its unfortunate name, was never speed; it was always about relieving capacity on the west coast main line. That single decision by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), then Prime Minister, in a hotel room in Manchester, blew a hole in the UK’s approach to addressing future passenger demand on this key UK rail network artery. I urge the Government to make addressing that problem a priority.
The Government have been clear that they are reviewing options in this policy area. HS2 Ltd has a new chief executive, Mark Wild, who is charged with getting phase 1 of the project back on track. He is expected to report on those plans by the end of the year. If Mr Wild can demonstrate that he has addressed the company’s previous failings and that he has a credible plan to deliver phase 1 on time and on budget, the Government should reconsider extending the line north of Birmingham under that new leadership.
Alternatively, I again press the Government to look carefully at the proposals developed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham; the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker; and Arup and other stakeholders, namely the midlands-north west rail link. Their report estimates that the plan could deliver 85% of the benefits of HS2 phase 2 at approximately 60% to 75% of the cost, and that private finance could be leveraged to deliver the project. Crucially, the plan could save the taxpayer approximately £2 billion in costs from the HS2 phase 2 cancellation, through the reuse of much of the land, powers and design work that have already been secured through public investment.
A further option would be to look at remodelling existing stations and investing in infrastructure to relieve capacity problems. Crewe station, for example, causes one of the biggest bottlenecks on the west coast main line. It is recognised that the existing station infrastructure will not keep up with the forecast growth in passenger demand. Among its challenges is the fact that Crewe has a series of unevenly allocated platforms, many undersized for modern, 400-metre-long trains, because the station—which I remind colleagues is a key strategic hub on our rail network—has seen little investment since the 1980s. Yet plans for a new station were shelved with the loss of HS2 and the investment that was to come alongside it. They could be picked back up if the Government wished to do so. Indeed, Cheshire East council still owns the land that it purchased around the station to facilitate that development. A new station could also support wider employment, regeneration and housing needs. Overhauling Crewe station would provide more reliable services between the north-west and the south-west, while also providing more options into Wales.
It would be welcome if the Government committed to improving capacity on the west coast main line. The benefits of improving the route will be felt not only on our railways but on our motorways, in our carbon footprint and in our national growth. Something not always considered when talking about the need for better rail services is the knock-on for freight, car and air travel. Upgrading the main line would enable the Government to hit their target of 75% growth for rail freight. As a result of more freight on the main line, there will be less congestion on our motorways, making them greener and allowing for quicker journey times, while freeing up domestic air travel.
Failure to do anything is simply not an option, so I politely ask the Minister, what will the Government do to flesh out the options that they are considering? When will they produce a plan to tackle this problem? Something has to be done urgently. There is wide-ranging consensus, at least from the conversations that I have had with industry figures, rail operators, trade unions and experts, that doing nothing cannot be an option on the table. I urge the Minister once again to give the west coast main line the attention that it so clearly needs. Let us improve the main line, let us rebuild Crewe station, and let us show people across the north-west that this Government care about their future.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing this debate. Unfortunately, I think my contribution will add to the long list of grievances I have against Avanti, but of course the west coast main line is used by other operators as well. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—in particular, donations from trade unions to my constituency Labour party.
My hon. Friend made the point about the state of Crewe station. The state of Stockport station is not much better. For the last reporting period, 3.8 million entries and exits were made at Stockport station, which makes it a major category B station. The infrastructure at the station is simply not good enough. Often the lift is broken, so people who are disabled or have mobility issues or health conditions are not able to use the services. The main door, which is frequently broken, has been replaced, but the general state of the station is not good enough. I am grateful to the staff members who work there. The facilities they have for their rest breaks or when they change shifts are simply not good enough. With such a high volume of passengers at Stockport station, we need to do better. I urge Network Rail, which owns the station, and Avanti, which manages it, to do far better.
The point has already been made about the private aspect of Avanti. Profits made by Avanti West Coast are turned into dividends for its parent companies, and ultimately their shareholders. In the latest declared accounts for the year to March 2024, Avanti declared that it paid a dividend of £8.1 million to the parent company, FirstGroup, in 2024, and a dividend of £11 million in 2023. That means that a total of £19.1 million has been paid in shareholder dividends in just the last two years, so the point about value for money is quite serious.
I did a little bit of research before coming to this debate. It is just under two hours from Stockport station to Euston if the train runs on time—which is quite rare, to be fair. If travelling from Stockport to Euston during peak hours, an anytime return ticket would cost £386 for an adult, which is ridiculous. The off-peak return is slightly less at £113. The current minimum wage for someone who is 21 or over is £12.21 per hour; for 18 to 20-year-olds it is £10 an hour; and for 16 to 17-year-olds it is £7.55 an hour. Unless someone is a business traveller or has a generous expense account, I am not sure how many people can pay £386 for a standard class ticket for a peak return from Stockport to Euston.
Wendy Morton
Even if someone can afford those prices, current statistics show that in 2024 only 40.6% of Avanti trains were on time, yet under the current Government plans, Avanti will be one of the last to be nationalised. Does the hon. Member agree that somewhere along the line—forgive the pun—we have to see improvement in Avanti’s service, for all our constituents?
Navendu Mishra
The data I have says 41.6%—the right hon. Lady is depriving Avanti of a crucial 1%. The service is simply not good enough. A lot of us were told that privatisation would mean more competitive pricing for tickets and greater choice, but what choice do I have if I want to go on a fast train from Stockport to Euston? The only choice I have is Avanti. This is a good opportunity to welcome the plan for Great British Rail that was in the Labour party manifesto last year. But we need to make sure that we learn from the mistakes of privatisation and do not repeat the errors that were made.
Navendu Mishra
I will come back to the right hon. Lady in a minute. I will just make the point that reliability is far too poor. If we compare the annual performance for Avanti between April 2024 and March 2025, just 39.9% of Avanti trains were on time, which is a drop of 3.6% compared with the previous year. That is ridiculous. The more we look into the data for Avanti, the worse it gets.
We talk a lot about climate change and global warming. If we want people to use public transport, we need to make sure it is reliable and affordable, and that people can access facilities in cases of health or mobility issues. On the specific aspect of Stockport station, perhaps I should join my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich in his campaign to get his local station rebuilt. I would definitely want the Government to prioritise, with almost 4 million passengers, the Stockport station infrastructure.
I want to make a point about freight. Of course passenger services are important but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich pointed out, around 40% of all UK rail freight uses the west coast main line corridor. We need to think about freight services as well, because we need to take heavy goods lorries off our roads. We must ensure that the freight option is attractive and reliable.
The service known affectionately as the Thunderbird rescue service involves locomotives that sit at strategic locations on the west coast main line in case a train breaks down and they have to come out to shift it. On Friday, when we left the House of Commons after private Members’ Bills, I was on the train to Stockport while my colleague was on a different train to Cheshire that broke down because it overheated. That added two extra hours to her journey home. These are serious issues.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made the point that when it comes to maintenance and reliability, Network Rail has let us down. Of course, 14 years of austerity have had an impact on its budget, but there needs to be some accountability for Network Rail. We all want a big stick when it comes to Avanti, but Network Rail bears some responsibility as well.
I could say so much more, but I know that many colleagues want to speak, so I will limit my frustrations to what I have said. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing this important debate on a topic that very much affects my constituency.
My constituents in Warrington South are not asking for the moon. They are asking for trains that turn up on time, seats they can find, journeys that do not involve standing room only, and carriages with working air conditioning that does not buckle under the summer heat. Even the basics, like getting food or drink on a six-hour journey from London to Glasgow, are not guaranteed.
Warrington sits at the heart of the west coast main line, and we know the pressures on the network at first hand. The Office of Rail and Road has been crystal clear: the southern portion of the west coast main line has no room for new services. Virgin; Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway; and Lumo all had their applications rejected because performance on the line is already stretched to its limits. The Department for Transport estimates that the west coast main line will reach full capacity by the mid-2030s—just 10 years from now—and right now there is no plan.
Let us be honest: the current system is not built for the demand it is trying to serve, and without new, adequate infrastructure it will only get worse. HS2 was supposed to change things. It was meant to unlock capacity not just for shiny high-speed trains but for more local services, more freight and better reliability. Cancelling the northern stretch has not just cancelled a rail line; it has cancelled opportunity for towns like Warrington. It has pushed the bottleneck further north and left our communities behind once again. The Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, has called this out.
The DFT still does not have a credible plan to manage capacity on the line post HS2, there is no clear strategy for the land now left dormant, and there is no timeline for improving resilience. This is not what good infrastructure delivery looks like and it is not what northern towns were promised. If the Government are serious about bringing growth to all parts of the country, this is where it starts. It means investing in the west coast main line and our rail network, not just patching it up; giving northern communities more than warm words and waiting rooms; and treating places like Warrington, Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester as the backbone of the country’s economy.
If the west coast main line fails, the north falls further behind. That is not just bad transport policy but bad economic policy. At the start of this month, I asked the Chancellor what steps her Department was taking to improve the oversight and delivery of major infrastructure projects. The response noted reforms, the streamlining of approvals, the strengthening of assurance and publishing business cases, all of which are welcome. But let us be clear: better paperwork does not build railways. Communities like Warrington need not just more transparency, but more capacity, and we need delivery—
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady is helping me when it comes to making my arguments about Aldridge train station. On improving capacity, she mentioned some open access lines; does she share my disappointment about the open access bid for a direct route from Wales into Euston? That would have been a game changer for many communities, and also helped with the issue of capacity.
Sarah Hall
We should exploit any opportunities to improve access wherever possible.
As I was saying, communities like Warrington do not just need more transparency. We need more capacity and we need delivery that lives up to the promises we have been given.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing this debate—although I feel it is slowly turning into that famous Monty Python “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch, with all of us declaring our woes with the west coast main line.
My constituency was built by the railway. When trains first arrived in 1846, they transformed a small coastal community into a mecca of British tourism. By 1911, Blackpool Central station was the busiest in the world. By 1936, 650 trains a day moved in and out of our town. It was the golden age for Blackpool, and the golden age for rail travel.
Since then, our train services have drastically changed, but our need for connectivity has not. Whether for access to tourism, education or jobs, Blackpool relies on a railway system that works. Our town welcomes more than 21 million visitors every year, from families to conference delegates and people looking for fun and escapism, as they always have in Blackpool. These people should be able to get to Blackpool without relying on expensive parking or wondering whether their train will arrive on time—or whether it will turn up at all.
A reliable, affordable and frequent rail service would help us to cut emissions and grow the local economy, and it would give our visitors the experience they deserve. A reliable service is also essential for my constituents, especially Blackpool’s young people. Far too often, promising young talent is forced to move away just to access better work or education, in a significant brain drain that reinforces Blackpool’s many challenges.
A functioning west coast main line would make a daily commute to Manchester, Liverpool or Preston a real option for them, instead of a logistical gamble. It would mean that our talent could stay in Blackpool and still have the world at their fingertips. That is not the reality today. Delays, cancellations and overcrowded trains have become a headache we just cannot shift.
As someone who regularly travels to Parliament on trains from Blackpool, I am sadly all too familiar with the stresses of commuting from our town, which is literally and often figuratively at the end of the line. I hear from constituents every week who have been forced to accept and even expect delays, cancellations and overcrowding. They want action, and without delay.
In 2024, some of the operators serving the west coast main line were missing their timetable targets by more than 20%. That is not a bad day in the office; that is a broken system. Yet under the last Government, contracts were renewed and dividends were paid, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). Passengers were told to settle for less.
I am proud to say that this Labour Government are not willing to settle. Bringing our railways back into public ownership is a vital first step to fixing the mess—sending the clear message that this Government are on the side of passengers and staff, not private shareholders. Great British Railways will give us a single accountable body to run the system in the public interest—a railway run on a long-term plan, with fewer delays, better timetables and services that connect communities instead of cutting them off. That is what my constituents deserve and what this Government will deliver.
I also welcome the immediate steps to fix the system we have inherited: restoring performance, updating infrastructure and driving electrification. These are the foundations of a better system that Great British Rail can build up. I hope it will deliver the passing loop on our south line; I know previous MPs for Blackpool South have been calling for that for nearly 20 years.
Reform cannot be something that happens only in big cities or major commuter routes. As we upgrade transport in the north, we must ensure that towns such as Blackpool are not forgotten simply because they are at the end of the line. I ask the Minister to reassure my constituents that, while we work towards long-term rail reform, she will hold operators to account to ensure performance is improved in the short term. Will she ensure that Blackpool will not be left behind as decisions are made about infrastructure, investment and national strategy?
Blackpool is a town with rich history, but also a town that, with the right investment, has a promising future. We have strong ambition and huge potential. Let us build a transport system that matches the aspirations of the people it serves, and let us make sure Blackpool is no longer seen as just at the end of the line, but at the beginning of something better.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing this timely debate. I do not intend to speak for very long—although, unlike the west coast main line, we have plenty of capacity in this debate—because he has set the scene in detail and there is no need to relitigate it too much.
I want to make just two points. The first is about HS2. When it is eventually completed, we will have spent tens of billions of pounds only to achieve the trick of reducing capacity on the west coast main line—and we know why that is. It is because HS2 trains are shorter, but the pinch points, the bottlenecks around Stafford and Crewe stations, will still exist. We will have to have fewer Pendolinos on the line. They will be replaced by shorter HS2 trains with less capacity. It is a ridiculous situation that the Government have inherited, but the fact that HS2 has been mismanaged over many years does not change the reality of the infrastructure. Those pinch points are still preventable, so I hope that Ministers will bring forward proposals—realistic, deliverable solutions—for the capacity problems.
My second point is about Northern Powerhouse Rail—also known as the Liverpool-Manchester railway or HS3, depending on people’s pedigree on the issue—which I understand we will hear more about from the Minister or her colleagues in coming weeks. It is an important project that will deal with the serious capacity issues on the Castlefield corridor in Manchester and at Piccadilly, but it is likely to force more rail traffic on to the west coast main line through Mid Cheshire, particularly the heavily congested section between Winsford and Weaver Junction where the number of tracks goes down from four to two.
Had HS2 phase 2b gone ahead, it would have dealt with that. Now, I have no love for that ridiculous route: in a three-mile stretch, it goes over the top of the Winsford salt mine, a set of subsidence flashes from the 19th century, the underground gas storage plant at Stublach and 60 infrastructure crossing points where pipelines take key chemicals to Runcorn to secure the UK water supply. It is not a route that should ever have gone through sifting; it should never have been in the hybrid Bill. It is symptomatic of the way the project has been mismanaged that we are where we are. Indisputably, however, had it been possible to build it—who knows?—it would have provided the extra capacity to restore two trains per hour from Winsford to Liverpool Lime Street.
Whatever the solution, if NPR is to be delivered, we need to address the capacity issues on the west coast main line between Crewe and Warrington. I frankly do not envy the Minister, or the Minister for Rail in the other place, because they have been left with a complete mess by the previous Administration. I hope that the Minister will address Members’ points about a capacity plan and provide some certainty about the HS2 phase 2b hybrid Bill and whether the Government plan to bring it forward.
I hope that Members will be able work with the Minister on a solution that delivers the capacity we need and creates frequent, reliable services. That will get cars and lorries off the road and support jobs and prosperity in Mid Cheshire and beyond.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I commend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing the debate and for his wide-ranging introductory speech.
The hon. Member told us that 70 million passengers a year and 40% of freight use the west coast main line, highlighting its criticality to our railway and transport system. He also highlighted the critical role that HS2 was planned to play in relieving the west coast main line, and he was correct to point out that the main purpose of HS2 was—and to some extent, still is—to relieve pressure on the west coast main line to enable us to make better use of it for local, regional and freight traffic. I will come back to that shortly. He was also right to highlight the need for remodelling at Crewe, because having flat junctions to the north and south of the station is a major bottleneck on the west coast main line.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) used the debate, as many hon. Members have and as I will continue to do, as a cheaper alternative to therapy, having suffered at the hands of Avanti West Coast. He was right to highlight issues with Stockport station and with staff welfare. He was also correct to make the point that many of the challenges faced by Avanti in delivering a good service are not purely down to Avanti; it is a partnership with Network Rail. That is why the Government’s hopes and plans for bringing infrastructure and train operation closer together with Great British Railways are the right ones. When that eventually happens for inter-city operators, we hope it will lead to some improvement.
The hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) gave a very reasonable list of what she would like to see on her Avanti West Coast journeys: specifically, a seat, functioning air conditioning and catering on an inter-city train. She was right to highlight the need for reliability and capacity if we are to attract more people on to inter-city and other kinds of trains.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) was right to highlight Blackpool’s history as a railway centre. He probably knows far better than I do that what used to be the main line into Blackpool was converted into a high-capacity road route into the centre of town. That is perhaps a symbol of some of the choices we have made as a country over the last few decades to favour road over rail—choices that, I think it is fair to say, we sometimes find ourselves regretting.
The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) was quite right to highlight many issues with HS2, including the phase 2 route, and the criticality of that proposed route for enabling capacity improvements in the north-west. For those with an interest in the topic, the Transport Committee recently quizzed the new boss of HS2, Mark Wild, and the Rail Minister from the other place in great detail about the HS2 phase 2 route and some of the issues we have been exploring today. One critical point that the Rail Minister revealed at that session was that, when the previous Conservative Government decided to scrap HS2 phase 2 up to Manchester, leaders of the existing rail industry were informed only the previous day. They were not given any time to even come up with an outline of an alternative plan for how west coast main line capacity would be improved in the future, or how the west coast main line would be able to accommodate all the trains coming off near Stafford, rather than continuing on HS2. There is much to learn from that Select Committee session.
The west coast main line is a railway that is close to my heart. I worked in rail, in many different roles, before coming to this place. In fact, my first job working in Network Rail was putting in place the December 2008 timetable, which, following an expensive and disruptive upgrade programme, led to significant journey time improvements and more frequent trains. However, we learned from that process that upgrading an existing railway only gets us so many benefits; it is not too long before that that capacity gets absorbed. That is why, even after that £13 billion programme, the case for HS2 had to be made.
There is a long history of upgrades to the west coast main line. In recent times, it was electrified as far as Liverpool and Manchester in the 1960s and up to Glasgow in the 1970s and, more recently, tilting trains were introduced. We have seen progress, but we need a radical step change now. It is critical to many communities, as hon. Members have said. Because of inter-city traffic, so many commuter trains rely on it in the west midlands, the London and home counties area, and in the north-west, and it is critical for freight. A critical thing—including for some of my hon. Friends in this House—is the Caledonian Sleeper between London and Scotland, which is a popular and useful alternative to flying, and very time-efficient, as people can travel overnight on it.
I also worked on the west coast main line in other capacities, managing signal boxes between Crewe and Runcorn, many of which are now gone as part of modernisation. On far too many night shifts on call, I ended up at the Warrington signalling centre, dealing with one disaster or another, and I have managed train drivers on the west coast main line. That railway is close to my heart; we must respect the history of it and invest in it for the future.
Hon. Members have articulately explained the current challenges on the route in terms of performance, capacity—including limited capacity for freight growth—and poor journey times to non-London destinations. In terms of solutions, it is clear that a high-speed line is still needed in one form or another. HS2 in its current limited form just moves the problem to the north of Birmingham; it will worsen it along constrained sections near Stafford and north of Crewe—which are two-track sections—and exacerbate the existing key problem of the west coast main line, which is a combination of traffic running at speeds of 75 mph, 100 mph, 110 mph and 125 mph. Particularly on two-track sections, that is difficult to deal with.
The Government have reiterated their commitment to signalling upgrades and other forms of upgrades north of Crewe over the next 15 years. That is welcome, but those upgrades are needed based on today’s traffic, and will potentially be made worse because of the HS2 situation.
A real missed opportunity for increasing capacity on the west coast main line is the fact that few of our freight trains are hauled by electric locomotives. Data modelling of acceleration proves conclusively that electrically hauled freight trains accelerate far faster than diesel trains, and can be accommodated far more easily amidst faster inter-city traffic. I hope the Government will consider what can be done to encourage freight operators to use electric traction in the future.
As hon. Members have noted, open access applications have been rejected. The Government—certainly in their communications with the Office of Rail and Road—have been rather ambivalent and ambiguous about their views on open access, but the lack of it means that we urgently need a solution to Avanti’s high fares, even advance purchase ones. There is a lack of choice on key sections of the route. Certainly between London and Birmingham and even London and Liverpool, there is the option of using slower but much cheaper London Northwestern Railway or West Midlands Railway services, but between London and Manchester and London and Warrington, Wigan and Preston, there is no realistic alternative. As I know from friends in the north-west, that sometimes leads them to drive, even to and from London.
As I said, the west coast main line has been upgraded many times. Upgrading a heavily used railway has been likened to performing open-heart surgery on a patient without anaesthetic: it is always disruptive and expensive, and the benefits are not long-lasting. That was particularly the case during the 10-year west coast route modernisation between 1999 and 2008. Nobody said this during this debate, which is pleasing, but there are those who say we do not need high-speed rail because we can just upgrade our existing lines. Sadly, it is not as simple as that, because it is very difficult to upgrade those lines; it causes chaos and provides limited benefits.
More widely, Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should have convenient, affordable options to get around. A safe, reliable transport system is vital for our economic prosperity in all parts of the country. Improving transport is essential to combat climate change and air pollution, and to provide access for jobs. It is the critical cultural change we need in this country. Public transport is not a nuisance; it is a critical enabler of social inclusion and economic progress.
Some hon. Members highlighted the Conservatives’ poor record on public transport, which is true, but the UK’s attitude is a long-standing problem. High-speed rail got under way in France in the late 1970s, and in Germany in the late 1980s. Today even Morocco has more high-speed rail than the UK. Those are choices we have made; we have been making the wrong choices for a long time. Yes, we do need to sort out the mess of HS2 but it is still needed and we must get back to it.
More widely, we need to freeze rail fares and simplify ticketing to ensure that regular users are paying fair and affordable prices and to entice more people to rail. We have big hopes that Great British Railways will do that. We need more electrification and a public body that joins up the industry from track to train, putting regular passengers first and bringing in wholesale reform of a broken fare system. Doing all those things would provide the opportunity to increase the number of passenger journeys and bolster freight, so that our railways can play an even more critical role in delivering an effective economy and tackling climate change.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, for the first time. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing the debate. Hon. Members will know that I am not the usual face to respond to a debate that sits with the transport team, but colleagues are busy discussing sustainable aviation fuel this afternoon, so I stepped into the breach. It has been an informative debate and I highlight the contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth).
The line that we are debating passes through my constituency. Hatch End station, although not served by high-speed trains, provides an opportunity for my constituents to see them go past and wish that they had access. I am familiar with the line, having travelled on it a great deal in my working life before Parliament.
Hon. Members, sharing the pain that we have all experienced when stuck on a long-distance railway journey, set out a number of important and detailed points. I am sure that Ministers will consider those as they look for improvements while addressing the points made powerfully by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including how to ensure a high degree of integration between the line and the important population centres, economic development centres and other transport nodes that lie along the route.
If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) were here, I am sure he would highlight that the west coast main line is also an opportunity for those wishing to travel in the direction of Northern Ireland, and Strangford in particular, because of connections to lines across north Wales and over to Anglesey. Indeed, as an MP whose constituency not only includes that line but the HS2 line, I empathise with the points about why we did not start HS2 in the north and build it down in the direction of the south. That is a sentiment that my constituents would wholeheartedly agree with, because they are very much of the view that rail connectivity is about benefiting the whole country. Improving and investing in connectivity, including in the north and the midlands, is therefore vital, not only for improving standards of living and quality of life in those places but for taking some of the development pressure off London and the south.
I will address a couple of points that were highlighted. It is striking to me, as a spokesman for the Opposition, that there is a high degree of consensus about the issues that exist around the west coast main line and about their possible solutions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made specific references to stations in her constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury talked about her constituents’ need to access the west coast main line and all the routes it leads to via effective and affordable local public transport. Under the previous Government and now under the new Government, the concept of Great British Railways has been a key part of the strategy to begin to create a sense of coherence and integration and to make sure that the connectivity highlighted by a number of hon. Members is delivered in practice.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the growth in rail demand. We know that our country’s population is increasing. The levelling-up agenda started under the previous Government, but it has been committed to— perhaps more in spirit than in word—by the new Government. There is also demand for increased rail freight capacity, which has been spoken about in the context of the work being done on the west coast main line. Having travelled on the line just last week to go to the Local Government Association’s conference in Liverpool, I know that, in striking comparison with some other rail lines, it is very visible infrastructure and it makes a considerable contribution to removing freight traffic, in particular heavy lorries, from the already busy motorway network. As I say, there seems to be a high degree of consensus about the investment required for stations, the public benefits that would be delivered through that investment, and the role that such investment would play in the economic development and opportunities that people across and adjacent to the west coast main line route can expect to benefit from.
As an outer-London Member of Parliament, I am very conscious of how good-quality and reliable commuter routes are valued and the economic contribution they make, and therefore the extent to which the absence of such routes in parts of our suburbs acts as a drag on opportunity. That is not purely confined to the north of England or the midlands; it is an issue that affects all of us. We need to make sure that is properly considered as the Government look at the rail system and transport in the round.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members—particularly those who served as Transport Ministers in previous Governments—would want me to draw attention to the fact that the sense of priority around the railways is reflected in the numbers. For example, maintenance spending on our railway network has gone up on average 3% every year since 2010. Previous Governments—both the coalition Government and Conservative Governments —therefore recognised that rail maintenance was a high priority.
At the end of the last Labour Government, there was £7.4 billion of rail spending. In the last full year for which we have accounts, which was when the last Conservative Government left office, that figure had risen to £26.8 billion. Although there will always be some disagreement about whether the delivery was what it should have been, and about whether the optimal priorities were selected, there is no doubt that all political parties represented in this House have a strong sense that improving and upgrading our rail network is critical, alongside improvements to motorways and local transport, and that we need to see it being delivered.
I will close by making two final points. The first is the value of learning—a number of hon. Members referred to the importance of open access—from the improvements that have been delivered in recent years. Not everything has been a success. In particular, we know that the impact of people working from home during the covid years on our rail network, including on the revenue gained from ticket sales and ridership, was absolutely catastrophic. The consequences for the system that we had in place at the time were very significant and we know that the Government acted by nationalising some railway lines to ensure that the travelling public could access what they needed to access.
There have also been strengths, however, such as the model on the east coast with Grand Central, which is often referred to positively, including by colleagues who use it to come to Parliament. We need to make sure that we do not simply assume that everything was a disaster and that we recognise those real strengths—not just the priorities for investment, but the things that have improved the quality of the service and that we can learn from and apply in the new model of Great British Railways.
The second point is the need to enhance integration. It is clear that the UK is a very politically centralised country, so transport projects tend to be delivered and funded by central Government rather than in a decentralised manner. The devolution White Paper has landed with Parliament, so we will be considering the roles that the Government envisage within that for elected mayors and regional authorities in developing and improving the transport network, but it is striking how many hon. Members in this debate talked about the need for additional scope so that their constituents could benefit from the speed and capacity that exists on the west coast main line, or the need to invest in other forms of local transport, including affordable public transport, to make that process more straightforward.
Coming back to HS2, it is striking that a huge quantity of the available investment has been sunk into very large national projects that are slow in materialising their potential benefits and that are creating huge cost overruns. All of the evidence appears to suggest that it is investment in locally-led transport—in the systems that make it possible for those who need to access trunk routes such as the west coast main line to do so—that produce the biggest economic benefit. That is something that many hon. Members have articulated, and I hope the Government will consider that as they look at their overall strategy for the United Kingdom, so that everybody can benefit from the additional investment that has been spoken of today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dr Murrison, after seeing each other yesterday to talk about roads.
It is a pleasure to be in Westminster Hall today with so many hon. Members to speak about the future of the west coast main line—a route that has long served as the backbone of connectivity between London, the midlands, the north-west, north Wales and Scotland. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing the debate. He is a powerful advocate for his constituents and for our railways, which is fitting for someone who represents a constituency that has had a long and proud position at the heart of our rail network since 1837.
As my hon. Friend anticipated, we have heard from hon. Members up and down the west coast main line and beyond, calling at the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—slightly off the line, there—and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) and for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), and diverting via the constituency of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and perhaps not stopping at the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).
Rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich raised concerns about future capacity on the west coast main line. I should just say that it is also a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner); I know that he has lost his voice and so has not spoken, but that he will bring his great knowledge and expertise to bear on this subject on another occasion.
As so many in this House will know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, the west coast main line is one of the busiest mixed use railways in Europe. It provides vital inter-city connections between the country’s largest urban areas, which we have heard much about this afternoon. It delivers local services to our towns and cities. Very importantly, it enables the transport of goods that help to keep our economy running. While the covid pandemic demonstrated that demand modelling is a complex area, our current estimates indicate that the west coast main line may reach capacity from the mid-2030s.
Let me turn straight away to what this Government are doing to address the situation. I will start with HS2. As hon. Members will know, this Government inherited a difficult position on the programme. That is the line my civil servants have drafted. The truth is, the last Government could hardly have made a worse mess of this project if they had tried. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth described it as “shocking mismanagement” and frankly, she is not wrong.
A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to this House setting out the scale of the challenge and this Government’s determination to get the project back under control. We are clear that our priority is to deliver HS2 between London and the west midlands safely and at the lowest reasonable cost.
It is worth remembering the benefits that the new railway will eventually bring. HS2 will almost double long-distance rail capacity between London and the west midlands. It will significantly improve the southern section of the west coast main line, which, as we have heard repeatedly, is heavily congested. In turn, that could release capacity for local services. HS2 will deliver significant journey time savings too, not only from London to Birmingham, where travel times could be reduced to 49 minutes, but also to Manchester and Liverpool, where journeys could become 25 minutes faster.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and other hon. Friends have rightly noted, HS2 was always about capacity, and phase 1 will not improve capacity north of Birmingham. Addressing the problem of insufficient capacity on the west coast main line was, as many people have said, one of the key strategic aims of HS2. I am sure I have said in the House many times that it was misnamed—“HC2” could have tripped off the tongue quite easily.
Following the previous Government’s decision to cancel phase 2, we know that there are real and very understandable concerns about capacity between Birmingham and Manchester. I also understand the frustration—and, frankly, the anger—that this decision created for leaders and communities across the midlands and the north. We have heard that again today, and it is just as true for my own constituents in the east midlands as it is for those of so many colleagues.
Back in January, I set out to this House—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich—that we would not reverse the cancellation of HS2 phase 2. However, I also noted that we were, and are, continuing to review options for enhancing rail connectivity in the midlands and the north. That work continues and is now supported by the clarity that the spending review has provided. I do not like to disappoint my hon. Friend or other hon. Members, but I am not able to provide more detail at this stage. However, I can assure him and other hon. Members that the Government hope to say more in the coming months, including on the future of Northern Powerhouse Rail.
I very much agree that increasing rail capacity will allow for better services and enable more freight to travel by rail. That is desirable and can help us tackle multiple challenges not just on the rail network but on the road network, as well as issues around air quality and many other things. There is a great deal to play for.
In the meantime, Network Rail is undertaking a programme of renewals on the west coast main line between Crewe and the Scottish border to improve the performance and reliability of the railway. This section of the route was last upgraded in the 1970s and suffers from performance issues today. Renewing the railway also provides an opportunity to improve its capacity and capability in a more efficient and less disruptive manner.
The Department is working closely with Network Rail and the rail industry to consider various options, and decisions on those options will need to be taken in the context of the spending review outcomes. The settlement received by the Department shows the Government’s commitment to invest in rail and in schemes that support economic growth in every corner of the country. The settlement represents an increase in funding compared with what has been spent on rail enhancements in recent years. We are already investing to increase the capacity and capability of the power system at both ends of the west coast main line to improve performance on the route and enable the introduction of new electric services.
A number of Members took the opportunity to raise concerns about the performance of Avanti West Coast. It is obviously not acceptable that people are experiencing high levels of delays and cancellations, and we are tackling that issue. Avanti West Coast is beginning to see a steady and consistent improvement in performance on the network, but there is much more to do, with punctuality behind the industry average. Poor Network Rail infrastructure reliability continues to be the leading cause of passenger disruption.
While improvements to performance generally have been made, the Department for Transport will continue to hold Avanti West Coast to account to ensure that improvements are maintained in the future. Our officials regularly meet both Avanti West Coast and Network Rail as part of our relentless focus on improving rail performance, bringing together track and train, holding both sides accountable and getting them to work together. That is the great advantage of the integrated approach that has been mentioned in the debate. The Rail Minister met the Avanti West Coast managing director and the Network Rail west coast south route director in January and May to challenge poor performance and demand immediate action to deliver urgent improvements.
As many people have acknowledged, a new arm’s length body, Great British Railways, will deliver a unified system that focuses on reliable, affordable, high quality and efficient services, alongside ensuring safety and accessibility. Officials have been immediately convened to begin work on our plans to deliver Great British Railways and wider rail reforms, which I know will please hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Blackley and Middleton South and for Stockport. However, constituents should not have to wait until all those services come into public ownership to see improvements in their rail journeys, and we are absolutely determined that they will not have to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South set out her constituents’ very reasonable needs when it comes to travelling on the railway. The Government are determined to address those needs, and I assure her that we are serious about investing in our transport infrastructure to support economic growth across the country, including in Warrington. Indeed, last week we announced investment in 50 road and rail projects, but we are doing this in the context of the terrible legacy left to us by the previous Government. We are clearing up their mess and it will take time, but we will do it.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stockport and for Blackpool South spoke with passion on behalf of their constituents, both those who rely on the railway and those work on it. I assure them that we will be working to ensure that Avanti West Coast and Network Rail deliver the improvements that we all expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport will, I am sure, know that Transport for Greater Manchester and Stockport metropolitan borough council are working on business case development for a station refurbishment scheme. I assure my hon. Friend the member for Blackpool South that, as my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary told him at recent transport oral questions, the Rail Minister will be happy to meet with him to discuss the south Fylde line proposal.
I come to the need for interventions at Crewe station to address ageing assets. As I said, Crewe is at the heart of our rail network. It is a crucial transport hub providing 360° connectivity where four regional lines converge with the west coast main line. Network Rail has developed a £270 million programme of interventions to deliver essential renewals in the Crewe area over the next few years. The Department is supporting this programme, and is keen to work with local partners to consider any opportunities for investment over and beyond essential renewals.
Today’s discussion is an opportunity to reflect on the current challenges and advocate for the improvements to the west coast main line that the public rightly expects. It has provided much food for thought, and the Rail Minister will continue to work extremely hard to address all of the issues. Our Department is currently developing an integrated national transport strategy, which is coming down the track later this year. This is just part of the bigger picture of providing the transport infrastructure we need to support economic growth, housing development and the shift of freight from the roads on to our railways, and to ensure that every part of the country is able to thrive.
Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich for securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
Connor Naismith
I thank all Members who spoke in the debate. There are too many to mention individually, so I am grateful that the Minister did it for me. It is fair to say that we represent a wide variety of areas, but most particularly those areas suffering most acutely from the capacity issues that have been well outlined in today’s debate.
We heard about structural issues with stations and rail lines, such as those affecting Crewe station, and about the need to hold operators to account for delivering the better routes, fares and services that our constituents desperately want to see. I do not want to be over-prescriptive, but a number of hon. Members and I have suggested some solutions that I urge the Minister and the Rail Minister to factor into their thinking.
I thank the Minister for engaging constructively with the substance of the debate, and I look forward to seeing more detail of the Government’s plans to address the challenges facing this key route, which have been outlined today. I am sure that she heard loud and clear the case that has been made by several hon. Members, and I will continue to press the importance of this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the West Coast Mainline.