Rail freight has never been shy of making its case. This week it arrived in Westminster, the seat of the British parliament, with something more substantial than a well-rehearsed argument. The Rail Freight Group’s latest report, Freight Forward, is both a celebration and a challenge. It is a reminder of what the sector already delivers, and what it could yet achieve with the right backing. RailFreight.com UK Editor Simon Walton took a three-line whip into the house.
There was cross-party warmth, plenty of nodding in agreement, and a familiar chorus about growth, resilience and decarbonisation. Yet beneath the polite applause lies a harder truth. The sector is still waiting for the UK government to match rhetoric with resolve. In fairness, it is not the only sector seeking some decisiveness. It iss becoming a bit of a political joke. However, if rail freight is to grow by 75% by 2050 – a target ministers are fond of quoting – then it is high time to get on the footplate and start driving. The time for incrementalism has surely passed.
A reception worth its salt – and its spend
Parliamentary receptions are not cheap. I speak from experience, having signed off such events in Edinburgh, and I suspect the catering bill here would have troubled the four-figure mark as well. So, if you are going to spend a wagonload of members’ money in Westminster, you had better make it count. The Rail Freight Group did just that, arriving not empty-handed but armed with Freight Forward – a report with both substance and intent.
They were right to do so. As the premier advocates for the sector, the Rail Freight Group has a duty to speak up, especially within earshot of the debating chamber. If not them, then who? The report makes a clear and compelling case for rail freight as an economic enabler, a decarbonisation tool, and a pillar of national resilience. Sure, they’re all the buzzwords, yes, but underpinned by real-world examples.
Those examples matter. Moving millions of tonnes of food to supermarket shelves, exporting cars to European markets, and transporting critical minerals. This is not abstract policy, but the daily business of keeping the UK functioning. Legal eagle Lydia Cullimore of Burges Salmon captured the mood well, describing the report as a “clear and compelling position paper” that highlights both current value and future opportunity. It is difficult to disagree. Case made. Well, not quite.
Growth, but on whose terms?
The report’s central thesis is straightforward. It proposes that rail freight can do more. It can help decarbonise logistics, strengthen domestic supply chains, and support emerging industries. Electrification, alternative traction, and technological innovation all feature prominently. In fact, rail in general and rail freight in particular, is an embodiment of future industrial function that everyone can see passing through every station, every day. The direction of travel is clear, even if the track ahead is less so. Ambition alone does not lay rail.
The sector’s growth hinges on capacity, access and policy certainty. These are three areas where government performance has been, at best, uneven. Rail advocate and friend of the sector, Rupert Brennan-Brown’s intervention at the reception struck a chord, particularly his emphasis on safeguarding access rights for freight operators. Without long-term certainty, private investment will always hesitate at the signal.
This is where the conversation inevitably turns to Great British Railways. That overarching body that will, eventually, rule the roost over the re-nationalised railways (freight operations excepted). However, those forthcoming reforms offer an opportunity to embed freight at the heart of the network, rather than treating it as an afterthought. Opportunity, though, is not necessarily the same as outcome. The risk remains that, in a system dominated by passenger priorities, freight will once again find itself squeezed into the margins. Time to make a song and dance in the House? Absolutely yes.
Fine words, familiar promises
To be fair, ministers are saying the right things. I’ve lost count of how many transport ministers have given me their personal reassurances for one project or another. This week, the flamboyant rail minister Lord Hendy reaffirmed his support for the sector and the growth target, while opposition voices have called for statutory protections to underpin investment. There is, as Lydia Cullimore noted, a reassuring degree of cross-party consensus.
Consensus without action is a well-worn Westminster tradition. The rail freight sector has heard these commitments before. Cue a procession of ministers (cross-bench) pulling off the right signals on capacity, on modal shift, on decarbonisation. Progress has been made, certainly, but rarely at the pace or scale required. The result is a lingering sense that rail freight is perpetually on the cusp of a breakthrough, yet never quite allowed to break through.
If Freight Forward does one thing well, it is to crystallise that frustration into a constructive agenda (perhaps that’s where I’ve been going wrong). It sets out not just what rail freight delivers, but what it needs. There should be investment in infrastructure, protection of access rights, and a regulatory framework that encourages growth rather than constrains it. None of this is revolutionary. All of it is necessary.
The real test lies ahead
Ultimately, the success of this report will not be measured by the quality of the reception or the warmth of the parliamentary applause. It will be judged by what happens next. Will the government translate endorsement into policy? Will Great British Railways be structured in a way that genuinely supports freight? Will the promised growth materialise, or remain an aspiration?
There are reasons for cautious optimism. The economic case is stronger than ever, the environmental imperative is undeniable, and the sector itself is more coordinated in its messaging. Freight Forward is, in many ways, a mature document – confident in its arguments and pragmatic in its recommendations.
But maturity on one side of the table must be matched on the other. If government is serious about growth, resilience and decarbonisation – and it insists that it is – then rail freight must move from the periphery to the mainstream of transport policy. Otherwise, we will be back in Westminster in a year or two, raising another glass, unveiling another report, and asking the same question. Minister, what, exactly, are we waiting for?