West Coast Main Line

Connor Naismith Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

rose—

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

rose—

[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.

[Wendy Morton]

On nationalisation, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.