What would Thomas the Tank Engine make of Labour’s railway fare cuts?

It seems like a win for passengers and the industry – but the reality isn’t that simple, says James Moore

Good news for Thomas? Labour has promised to slash train fares (PA)

These are happy days for Thomas the Tank Engine. Labour has promised to slash rail fares. It might be the biggest boost for the Island of Sodor’s cheerful engines since a TV executive thought there might be some legs in adapting the series of children’s books written by the Reverend Wilbert Awdry for the small screen.

Suddenly the railways, which have been a mess ever since a previous privatisation-obsessed Tory government turned the Fat Controller into a fat cat executive on a bonus package that doesn’t so much as mention passengers, are the belles of the political ball! How about a celebratory choo choo?

But is this a sensible policy? Oi, pipe down you at the back, complaining that it’s hardly even worth asking that question in a Britain where political debate has descended into the Great British Bulls*** Bake Off.

The prime directive of rail policy, inasmuch as successive governments have had one, has been to get the amount of money taxpayers put into the system via subsidies down.

When franchises are offered up for bidding, the lucky winners are usually those who promise to operate them on the lowest amount.

But billions of pounds are still spent on them and it’s money that benefits the better off the most. This was illustrated by a report, Taken for a Ride, put out by the Equality Trust a few years ago. It found, when it came to the rail system, that a household in the richest 10 per cent of Britain received over three and a half times as much subsidy as the poorest 10 per cent.

Why? Richer people obviously have the resources to travel further and more often. When it comes to the poor, rail fares are often out of reach. There’s a regional disparity too, with Wales and the northeast receiving far less than regions like London and the southeast.

The Trust’s chief executive Wanda Wyporska made the point that bus subsidies are much more evenly distributed, because people on lower incomes are much more likely to use this more affordable means of transport. But, of course, buses are less wont to make headlines.

Of course, if you lowered rail fares the subsidy might be distributed more fairly. But probably not to the extent that people concerned with making Britain a less unfair place (such as the trust) would like.

That said, there is another good reason for spending on bringing fares down. It might help to get people off the roads, which are clogged up and polluting, especially in our cities, and out of the skies. Thomas and his friends provide a much more environmentally friendly means of transport than the motor car or the aeroplane (OK, OK, let’s forget about the fact that Thomas is a steam engine).

Investing in all forms of public transport, buses, trams or trains, would yield an environmental pay-off. Viewed through that lens, Labour’s plans look better.

Those plans call for an across the board cut of 33 per cent in regulated fares, replacing the planned 2.7 per cent increase announced by train operators. Some would fall by an even greater amount. Unregulated fares would also have to be reduced to prevent passengers switching to regulated fares.

The Independent has calculated the fall in fare revenues from the promised cuts at around £4bn. But that assumes no extra passengers and it’s a basic rule of economics that if you cut prices you stimulate demand.

Extra passengers could help to offset the decline in revenues. But you’d also likely need extra services. After all, a lot of trains in the commuter belt already look like sardine cans and would almost certainly be against the law if they were carrying animals rather than humans.

You’d also need extra staff to provide them. That costs money and requires planning and forethought. Needless to say, British governments haven’t always proved themselves to be terribly good at that sort of thing.

Labour will probably still ultimately have to have to increase the subsidy and by a lot. But that’s fine when you consider subsidising rails is what most of Europe already does and benefits from cheap and reliable real transport as a result. But it leads to an all too familiar line of attack when Labour makes promises; some variant of Yes, but where’s the money coming from?

It’s not particularly fair because Labour is not the only party guilty of making uncosted promises. The Tories have, for example, promised to revive the NHS, put a prison up at every street corner, fund schools properly and introduce tax cuts for the rich while at the same time pursuing the most damaging economic policy a British political party has ever embarked upon. That would be the back door no-deal Brexit which is what we’ll get if they can’t sign off a trade deal with the EU quicker than Gordon the express engine running on speed. They don’t like to talk too much about that. When it’s brought up they just fib. Plus ca change and all that.

Even the charmingly innocent Thomas and his friends wouldn’t likely the fooled by Boris Johnson and his chums. But they’d probably be a mite sceptical about Labour’s rail plans too.

Hang on a minute, says Thomas, one way you could deal with the issue is by taxing motorists more, through higher vehicle excise duty and higher fuel duty (which has been frozen throughout the Tory years). It’s a fiscally sensible way to proceed, and an environmental winner under the principle that the polluter (so the motorist) pays.

He’s right about that. But the mere suggestion of taxing motorists more produces more howls and wails a fleet of engines that have gone without an oil change from the motoring lobby and the right-wing press.

So Labour’s not going to go there. Pssshhhttttt.