This column has argued for rail infrastructure responsibility and funding to be transferred to Welsh Government
From this week political parties begin in earnest their attempt to win your votes in the Senedd election in May. This column suggests that the three key rail transport policies in their manifestos should be:
- Integrated passenger transport as a keystone element delivering easy travel linked to wellbeing and environmental proposals;
Adequate funding for capital and revenue support requirements and inter-government relationships; and
Great British Railways and Wales (GBR).
The first enables a ‘hub and spoke’ network to provide increased geographical coverage and higher service frequency at lower fares with guaranteed interchange between train, bus, active travel and car (via park and ride) routes. This discussion in Wales can be traced to the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee Public Transport in Wales report (1985) to which this columnist was the adviser.
Over the subsequent forty years discussions between government ministers, officials, Transport for Wales (TfW), myself and others led to these policies taking hold in Cathays Park slowly at first but with increased vigour in more recent years. Despite this trend many rail transport plans have not been implemented because of insufficient funding from HM Treasury and Whitehall’s Department for Transport (DfT).
READ MORE: Why the Welsh Government is having to fund millions towards upgrading the non devolved Cardiff Train StationREAD MORE: Chair of Transport for Wales receives a CBE in New Year’s Honours List
The second transport policy issue for political party manifestos is to line up Wales’ funding formulae determining the block grant award with that in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Initially, Wales’ rail operations were split into four units, only one managed in Wales. Our domestic rail franchise results from a decision by the then UK rail minister Dr Kim Howells. Whitehall civil servants argued for no change. Dr Howells, whom I was pleased to advise, made the correct decision.
That there is no reason to suppose London civil servants have changed their view of Wales is shown, inter alia, by their insistence on retaining the Barnett formula based on population levels rather than need.
Wales’ one-year funding by HM Treasury made enhancement schemes such as Valley Lines electrification over seven years a high-risk rather than a normal governmental low-risk investment. Even then the scheme only received twelve per-cent rather than the total costs for similar railway developments in England.
There is no indication that Westminster will make other than a small contribution to the 2026/27 TfW rail services revenue support funding (£401m) from Welsh Government, required to achieve the train service quality standards to meet Welsh economy and travellers’ needs.
The UK Railways Bill provides new processes for joint working which suggest even more schemes in Wales will be defined as ‘England and Wales’ because Welsh Government will only ’be involved in the High-Level Output Statement discussions which is the five-year basis for rail network funding. Scotland will determine its own HLOS.
This column has argued for infrastructure responsibility and funding to be transferred to Welsh Government. HM Treasury has refused. The Welsh Government’s statements are not reassuring, seeming to reflect those of the UK Government and as this column has suggested (Wales in Motion April 2025), do not necessarily correspond to Welsh travellers’ needs.
Wales’ railway infrastructure funding will continue to be determined by the Secretary of State for Transport in Whitehall. This restricts Welsh Government railway decision-making to TfW train service operation. Consequently the GBR Cymru business unit proposed by our transport minister will attract no more funding than the present process unless the Whitehall – Cathays Park dialogue changes.
A road and rail integrated investment programme using the current economic appraisal process is required. Infrastructure self-insurance for the rail network, which Whitehall denies is possible, can be achieved through adding railways into the existing trunk-road insurance where the risks of major rebuilding costs are similar.
The evidence to date shows little concern for travellers in Wales from Conservative or Labour UK Government ministers. The Railways Bill is an indication of this with no additional powers for the Senedd, along with direct funding from London to avoid the devolution settlement and move decision making from Wales.
This means Wales’ political leadership style must change from the current under-assertive, passive relationship with Westminster described by Professor Richard Wyn Jones (Welsh Governance Centre) as ‘not kicking hard enough at the London fence’.
Whichever party(ies) wins the election has to challenge UK Government ministers and civil servants ensuring infrastructure responsibility is transferred together with HM Treasury compensatory funding for lack of investment over several decades and appropriate future funding under the Barnett or other formula.
If they do not, the irrationality of HS2 and the Oxford-Cambridge line being designated ‘England and Wales’ schemes will continue to the detriment of Wales’ railway services.
- Professor Stuart Cole CBE is Emeritus Professor of Transport (Economics and Policy), University of South Wales
