Introduction – the case for change

It is a privilege to be here to deliver the 2019 George Bradshaw address to such a distinguished audience – and to be given the opportunity to offer some preliminary thoughts on the Rail Review .

First of all, it has been particularly pleasing to see the level of interest in the review. I gather that the demand for tickets for this evening has been such that not everyone has been able to get a seat. In my last job I would have seen that as a yield management opportunity but I now see it as an overcrowding problem. But more of that later.

I have been treated with every kind consideration since I started with only the very rare exception. Early on I was quizzed by one individual who asked: “what can someone from the airlines do for the rail industry”. Perhaps it was a rhetorical question. It could have been worse – given my background he might have asked more pertinently what can an accountant could do for the rail industry? – so I’ll take what I can get.

Well 5 months into the review I have learned that if the airline industry is like a game of chess, then today’s complexity in the UK rail industry is more like a Rubik’s Cube and (by the way) only 5.8% of the world’s population can solve a Rubik’s Cube.

So why, you might ask, would anyone want to take on the job of sorting out the seemingly entrenched problems of this, the most complex of industries. Problems that have endured despite many separate rail reviews in recent years.

The answer, I believe, is in a shared belief that we are at a crucial juncture where public trust crosses the industry’s ability to deal with change. I believe that for the railway to be successful it needs to put passengers at its heart. And in summary that is what I am going to talk to this evening.

But first one opening comment. Whilst there have been multiple reviews over the last decade this is the first full-blown rail review to be supported by government for some considerable time – with a very clear commitment from the Transport Secretary and from the Bernadette Kelly and the whole of the department’s executive to encourage myself, the expert panel and my team to bring in root and branch change. That is the context on which we are working.

The case for change has been building

The case for that change has of course been building.

It is far too simplistic (I believe) to say that this is driven purely out of recent events – franchise difficulties, the timetable fiasco, recent studies into passenger trust or the tail off in passenger growth. They clearly don’t help the industry’s case but there are also longer-term catalysts for the review.

On any measure there is a huge amount of determination within the industry to respond directly to these events – and actions are already in hand in many cases.

The industry is not blind to the issues it faces yet has found it hard to address them. Customer satisfaction is declining and there is widespread lack of public trust. According to Which’s latest consumer insight tracker, only car dealers are more distrusted by consumers than train travel.

This is not new. Speakers who have addressed this audience over the years have called it out.

As far back as the very first George Bradshaw address in 2011 Rick Haythornwaite spoke about the gap that existed between what the industry thought it was delivering and what the public thought of what was being offered. And last year Sir Peter Hendy spoke about the need for public confidence in the railway.

This has for too long been a recurring theme and we have reached the point at which some uncomfortable truths need not only to be acknowledged but acted upon… that while the industry has achieved enormous success over the past decades:

• doubling passenger numbers
• running more trains than at any time in the railway’s history
• whilst delivering improvements in safety
• and seeing more money spent than ever on improving the railways

That despite these successes we cannot ignore some harsh realities: that poor performance, fare hikes, disruptive industrial action and the failures to deliver key infrastructure on time or to budget have contributed to a few dismal years for the railway.

Whenever things went wrong in my previous job the press office would trot out how many billions we were spending on new aircraft or kit such as de-icing equipment – but try saying that was good news to the person stuck on the runway in a snow storm it pretty quickly would wear thin. It is a similar case here. When things go wrong I see protestations that the industry is spending billions on improving the railway – against what customers are experiencing daily it risks becoming another hollow statistic.

And that’s a shame, because, unlike some competitor countries, we are spending on the railway, in offering new services, purchasing new rolling stock, and renewing and enhancing the network. The May timetable change, for instance, was designed to offer thousands of new services, hundreds of new trains, and much improved critical infrastructure – but as a system we were unable to deliver on this investment. And the customer suffered.

It is a hard truth that – despite everything that is being done and all the money that is being spent over time – the rail industry has lost sight of its customers – passengers and freight – and therefore lost public trust.

Passenger focus

I can’t emphasis the point on passengers enough. The railway is not run for engineers, or shareholders, workers or politicians. It is run for passengers.

During this initial period of engagement, the Review team has been told by passengers how the journey experience often baffles and sometimes alienates. To replay some of what we have heard.

What passengers want is a reliable service that gets them where they are going when it says it will. They want to be treated as part of the railway, like customers. Communications are often poor, especially when things go wrong – and we should expect better from operating companies and Network Rail here. In the last few years, performance for many has gone backwards, when it should have gone forwards. Fares and ticketing are confusing. Most people want the basics sorted out.

As part of this, we need to do more on making it easier for customers to access the compensation they are entitled to and improving accessibility for all users, including disabled people. I’ve asked the ORR to advise me on what more could be done by rail operators to improve this, and whether more regulatory powers are required to ensure it happens. They will report back within the timescale of the Review recommending action to help transform compensation and accessibility across the network.

Now, of course there’s a huge amount of work going on within the industry to respond to these complaints.

For example, the Rail Delivery Group, our hosts this evening, published proposals on simplifying fares structures just last week.

The department is consulting on an extension to Pay As You Go.

There are improvements coming from the Glaister review into timetabling and I’ve been impressed with the customer focus that Andrew Haines is seeking at Network Rail having completed his 100 day plan.

More of this is needed and the industry needs to fundamentally realign itself to its customers – passengers and freight. Passengers must be at the heart of the future of the railways or they will turn away.

I know that none of this will sound new to many of you but it is important to have a common understanding of the start point if we are to have a successful rail review. If we can agree that there are symptoms which have led to the lack of public trust – then so too we can acknowledge that some medicine needs to be applied to bring the industry back to health.

Tackling the fundamental causes

My team and I have been listening for 5 months now – what have we learned?

We have seen enormous passion and engagement and had the benefit of great wisdom and knowledge.

But nothing has convinced me yet that today we have either a common vision or the capability across the industry to make the railway truly customer centric.

I can see that worthy efforts to improve things for customers are all too often frustrated not because of lack of will but because no single organisation owns the problem, or is sufficiently incentivised to take responsibility to drive through change.

I can see that there are many barriers which prevent the industry from improving and modernising its services for customers:

• fragmentation and short-termism
• lack of accountability, flexibility and joined-up thinking
• conflicting interests within the structure of the railway

And the need for leadership throughout the system – where everyone knows their responsibilities and is held to task on performance.

The success of the Review

I’ve listened to customers and the industry across the country, from Wales and the north of England to Scotland, London and other English regions. I have learned a considerable amount and it is time for us to give you some indication as to what we believe is at the heart of the review.

I see our role not just to tackle those recent problems that passengers have experienced but also to tackle the more fundamental underlying causes of those problems… the barriers that we have identified must be addressed if the railway is to meet the needs of both today’s and tomorrow’s customer.

It is no longer helpful or relevant to see the industry purely in terms of ownership, being state run or privatised.

Rather, my role is to realign the different parts of this fragmented industry so they face the same way with shared incentives, with risks (and rewards) sitting in the right places. Always with a singular focus on the customer.

Key priorities – commercial model

If that is what the review is seeking to achieve, today is a first opportunity to give you some of our thoughts on priorities: Looking firstly at the commercial models.

Many of you have told me that the current rail model is no longer fit for purpose and that (while justifiably proud of what has been achieved) the industry no longer possesses the same ability or incentive to innovate at the pace at which customers expect – that what worked 20 or 25 years ago no longer works today and will not work in the future. That’s a huge concern in a fast changing world.

I have heard a great deal about the franchising model which has been one of the innovations of the railway since the nineteen nineties – driving growth in passengers and benefits to services. But with this growth the needs of passengers have changed, whilst many of the basic elements of our rail system serving those needs has not kept pace. Too often the current system incentivises short term behaviours and inhibits reform.

We are now in a different phase. Passenger growth can no longer be taken for granted and there is less certainty about how the economy is going to fare in the future.

There has been less ability to deliver on innovation. The reputational risk for franchises has increased whilst at the same time returns are less than expected in some areas.

These are hardly the conditions we need to develop a modern rail industry to attract future investment.

Put bluntly franchising cannot continue in the way it is today. It is no longer delivering clear benefits for either taxpayers or farepayers.

The review will continue to examine what the best commercial model or models for the future might be.

Key priorities – affordability

We will also face into the longer term issue of affordability. Passengers are no longer willing to pay more when their perception of service is getting worse.

Today we are publishing the first in a series of papers which provide factual summaries of a number of key issues in the rail industry. This paper focuses on the role of the railway in Great Britain and on its costs and benefits.

The paper highlights many of the benefits which rail travel brings – how it handles large volumes of commuter traffic, the role it plays in leisure, the benefits to business and the growth in freight. It also looks at such things as its environmental credentials.

It also highlights the vast amounts of money that government has put into rail – reflecting the importance of rail to our country and the need for investment to maintain and enhance our railways. This investment was around half of taxpayer’s annual public spending on transport in the UK last year.

Given this I am clear that my findings will need to ensure that Britain’s railways are financially sustainable for both taxpayers and users.

Key priorities – structure

And finally a lot is said about the rail industry structure. I have left this to last because my own starting point in the review has always been to look at what rail should do and the structure should follow.

But what is true is that system – from Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the ORR, to train operating companies and their workforce – does not have the structure and clarity of accountability it needs to properly deliver.

That’s reflected in Andrew Haines’s conclusion that there’s need for “radical change” at Network Rail…

To boost performance. To bring track and train closer together. And increase devolution, with more localised management.

It’s difficult to argue against these objectives. Most within the industry agree with them and they seem to be pointed in the right direction for both customer and taxpayer.

But the question is how to achieve these objectives across a sector with very diverse needs?

There is a general frustration within the industry that rules and regulations are holding back innovation and problem solving.

And there is frustration on the public side that they have to specify more and more to get the best taxpayer outcomes.

These are all issues which the review is examining in the context of an industry that’s no longer where it was twenty five years ago.

We need to recognise that there is unlikely to be a ‘one size fits all’ solution which will work for every part of the country and all types of passenger.

That’s why we will continue to consider all potential answers.

From new models of franchising to greater public control of contracts.

To much more localised decision-making and integrated concessions, where those operating trains and managing infrastructure work together in genuine partnership, acting like a single business absolutely focused on customers.

We will follow the evidence, and suggest the most practical measures to fix the system. But whatever we suggest needs to be taken in the context of creating clear accountabilities.

All of this needs to start happening quickly, for the sake of customers.   ## Maintaining the essentials

But I’m clear that my challenge is doing that without losing the many positives of the Great British railways, what I call the essentials!

Safety and environment – the UK’s safety culture and record is second to none. It’s almost taken for granted by passengers and that’s a fantastic credit to everyone in the industry. I’m also determined to ensure that the rail network continues to make a major contribution to a cleaner UK transport sector.

Freight – which makes a vital contribution to the UK economy not only by moving goods and materials, but also taking vast numbers of vehicles of the road network. The RDG estimates that rail freight secured over £1.7 billion of benefits for the country in 2016. If the future strategy for the railway doesn’t work for rail freight, it’s not the right strategy. Any future model must sustain opportunities for our important freight industry.

Workforce – what a dedicated and hardworking group of employees this industry has. It’s a great benefit for the railways. I will be looking at how we can improve employee engagement in the Review, to get the best from these vital people at the heart of the system.

But that will mean tackling some challenges, too. A modern industry needs a modern workforce, one that reflects the society it serves.

I have been impressed by the recognition of the challenges which the industry faces in this respect- concerns about skill and about diversity – but we need more accurate information on these issues and we need a means of making things happen to build the workforce of the future.

I am sure the DfT will want to quickly look at this and I have asked my team to assist. I also ask everyone here, from unions to operators, to help us.

So to conclude – the Review’s task – indeed all our tasks is to prepare the railway to adapt to a fast changing world. Now it’s up to us to respond.

Over the coming months we will continue our extensive engagement with the railway industry, with passengers, and with business. This will be followed by other evidence papers and a further call for evidence next month.

I don’t pretend the journey to become a customer focused railway is going to be easy and it will mean accepting trade-offs. Between capacity and reliability, for example; between more services and resilience; between cost and quality. Or simply accepting that not everything can be done at once.

And it will take time to implement, balancing local input and requirements, against those of maintaining a national network.

We must resist the urge to promise all things to all people or to let ideology get in the way of practical, intelligent, creative solutions.

I’ve been very impressed by the commitment and ambition of many who have contributed to the Review. There’s real hunger for change within the industry as well as outside. We will continue listening to what you have to say and learning from your insight and experience.

Then in the autumn we will bring everything together and alongside government, recommend change through a White Paper. It will be the culmination of the biggest review of the railway for generations…

I mentioned at the beginning that solving today’s problems in rail is a bit like being presented with a Rubik’s Cube – if you go onto the web you fill find numerous algorithms by which one can solve a Rubik’s Cube in 6 or 7 simple steps. I am encouraged by everything I have seen and everyone I have spoken to – from the department, all of your industries here today and the trade unions – that we will jointly devise these algorithms for the railway.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you Mr President. First, let me thank Reena Ghelani for her briefing and also pay tribute through you to all the UN staff doing such important humanitarian work in Syria.

Mr President, Ms Ghelani today has reminded us that the humanitarian situation in Syria remains grave. We can not afford to lose sight of the 12 million people suffering daily. Eighty percent of Syrians live below the poverty line and one third of the population does not have reliable access to affordable food. This Council must therefore step up its efforts to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those who need it throughout Syria. And also we must do much more to support UN-led efforts to end this conflict through a political process.

Mr President, I agree with all the remarks made today by Belgium on behalf of the three humanitarian co-penholders but I wanted to highlight three points: the situation in Rukban, the situation in regime-held areas and Idlib.

First, on Rukban: the UK welcomes the news that an urgently needed humanitarian convoy finally reached Rukban on 6 February delivering assistance to thousands of people in desperate need. This situation of over 41,000 people sheltering in Rukban remains a serious concern. We must not see the same repeated delays before the next convoy, which the UN has now requested. The UN-conducted intentions survey in Rukban shows that the majority of residents wish to leave the camp but it also highlights their fears and concerns about doing so. Many are worried about their safety and security if they choose to return to their homes. Lack of civil documentation and concerns about access to their property were also reported. These concerns need to be addressed before people move.

The UN is therefore right, as are our humanitarian penholders, to call for certain conditions to be in place beforehand and any return or relocation must be safe, voluntary and dignified. Any effort to assist in the relocation of the population of Rukban must be in line with international protection standards. UN humanitarian staff should be granted access to the population before, during and after any movement. Children, women, the elderly and persons with disabilities must be afforded special protection during all phases of relocation. Screening procedures must be conducted in accordance with international law.

Mr President, turning to my second point about the situation in regime-held areas. The UK remains deeply concerned at conditions in former opposition held areas that the regime now controls. The Russian ambassador spoke of steps by the regime to welcome back refugees to areas under regime control. But Mr President, you don’t welcome back refugees by arbitrarily detaining them in conditions in which torture is systematic and rife. You do not welcome back refugees by forcing them to join the army and to fight in a conflict which they have fled. And you don’t welcome back refugees by threatening to seize their properties under Law Number 10.

Mr President, all of these reasons were cited by Syrians themselves, under the UN’s recent survey, as reasons for why they are not returning to regime-held areas. This is clearly not an environment for safe, dignified and voluntary refugee return. And it clearly falls short of this Council’s call in Resolution 2254 for the establishment of inclusive and non-sectarian governance in Syria. Three quarters of those communities that came under regime control in 2018 are considered hard to reach areas for aid.

Let us be clear: they are only hard to reach because the regime chooses not to allow necessary aid to reach those that need it. We therefore join our French colleagues in calling on the regime to allow unfettered humanitarian access to all of those people in areas which it controls.

Third, Mr President, on the situation in Idlib, we remain deeply concerned for the 3 million people in northwest Syria – over 2 million of whom are entirely reliant on cross-border aid. And we should remember when we talk about the threat from terrorism in Idlib that there remain more babies than terrorists in Idlib. Fifty per cent of the population have been displaced from their homes, sometimes multiple times, stretching scarce resources beyond their limits and putting further strain on host communities. We’ve heard today from Ms Ghelani that military escalation in Idlib Province would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. We therefore call on all parties, but in particular the regime and Russia, to respect the ceasefire and facilitate humanitarian access to Idlib.

Mr President, finally I would like to echo the points made by my South African colleague, humanitarian co-penholders and almost all other speakers today about how we will only tackle this humanitarian crisis in Syria in the long term through a political solution in accordance with Resolution 2254. This means in practice: a political transition. It means the establishment of a credible, inclusive, non-sectarian governance, which we know is so sorely absent in Syria today. And as my Belgian and Polish colleagues have emphasized, it also means accountability for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that have been carried out by this conflict – in particular by the regime and by Daesh.

Thank you Mr. President.

Four British Royal Navy veterans were awarded France’s highest honour today for their service in helping to liberate France almost 75 years ago.

The French government awarded medals to Denis Haley, Charles Kavanagh, Patrick Reardon and John Nicholls, who all took part in the allied Normandy Landings, as a way of honouring them for risking their lives to secure France’s liberation in the Second World War.

Since June 2014, more than six thousand medals have been awarded by the French government.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said:

Today is a reminder of why this June we must show our special generation, that we will never forget the debt we owe for the peace and freedom we now enjoy. I would like to thank the French Embassy for their efforts in honouring these men for helping to liberate Europe 75 years ago.

HMS Belfast is a perfect setting and I would like to commend IWM for an ambitious programme of events across their UK sites that offers people the chance to experience the extraordinary story of D-Day at their doorstep.

Denis Haley, 92, served as a signalman aboard HMS Southward Ho towing parts of the mulberry harbour from Portsmouth to Arromanches. He said:

A lot of the things that occurred at that time are lost to people’s memories now especially the relationship between members of a ship’s company – you become more than mates, you share things. It was my whole life for nearly 4 years. It’s a very, very, very special day today. I’m absolutely overwhelmed.

Patrick Reardon, 93, volunteered for D-Day aboard HMS Sheffield, landing on Omaha Beach on D-Day.

John Nicholls, 93, served on HMS Argonaut, firing on German gun batteries on Normandy and driving landing craft to deliver supplies from ship to shore.

Charles Kavanagh, 92, helped to land tanks on Sword beach on D-Day and then supplies for the American Army on Omaha beach.

One hundred days to D-Day 75

With one hundred days to go until D-Day 75 commemorations in the UK and France, the event offered the chance for the veterans who took part in the Normandy landings in 1944 to share their stories and experiences.

The medal presentation took place on board the historic landmark HMS Belfast in its Ward Room with the medals presented by French Ambassador Jean-Pierre Jouyet with Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson in attendance.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson toured the vessel alongside the French Ambassador to hear how the Imperial War Museum will retell the magnificent land, air and sea story through its Second World War collection and its three historic sites: HMS Belfast, IWM Duxford and the Churchill War Rooms.

Deputy Minister, CEO MHA, Chief Director, Ambassador (s), all protocols observed – I’m delighted to be here today at the launch the WHO Quality Rights Initiative. The roll out of the Initiative represents a new era for Mental Health in Ghana and the UK is proud to be a sponsor and partner of putting quality of care and human rights at the heart of Ghana’s approach to mental health.

I’d like to start by congratulating people with mental health conditions and their representative groups here today that have been leading this change for many years. People with mental health conditions must be at front and centre of planning services, holding decision-makers to account and challenging stigma and discrimination. The phrase that best encapsulates this is “nothing about, us without us”.

The past year has been monumental for mental health globally – with the launch of new evidence in the Lancet Commission, and commitments from the UN Secretary General and business leaders at the World Economic Forum. The Global Ministerial Mental Health Summit hosted by the UK and attended by Ghana’s Deputy Minister of Health, the Honourable Tina Mensah, challenged us to radically rethink mental health – to look after our mental health as we would our physical health.

The message was loud and clear. There can be no health without mental health. Mental health is a fundamental part of being human. Everyone will experience mental distress at some point in their life. Globally, mental health conditions are one of the leading causes of disability and ill health. Experiences of being separated from communities or hidden away, entrenched discrimination, negative attitudes and discrimination – in some cases being abused – remain all too common the world over.

For years, global mental health has remained in the shadows and is one of the most neglected issues of our time. But this is starting to change. And I am heartened to see so many champions in this room leading a wave of change here in Ghana.

DFID has been a proud supporter of mental health in Ghana for more than ten years. We have worked in partnership with the Mental Health Authority, Ghana Health Services, CHAG and Basic Needs – to date, investing £10 million of UK aid to support mental health services across Ghana. Over this time, we have seen considerable change.

• There is now nationwide coverage of Mental Health services. All districts in Ghana now provide mental health services through GHS or CHAG facilities compared to 32 districts just six years ago.

• We’ve seen a rapid increase in a dedicated, skilled workforce – more than 5,000 health workers have been trained including district physicians, medical assistants and community health service providers .

• And perhaps most importantly, we have supported community groups, leaders and traditional healers to turn the tide against discrimination of people with mental health conditions. This has included supporting 500 self-help groups, reaching an estimated 10,000 people, to increase their access to social support and livelihoods.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

The partnership between the UK and Ghana is strong, and now maturing to support Ghana move beyond aid. His Excellency the President’s vision for a self-reliant Ghana is truly inspiring and is applauded by the UK and all development partners. But “Ghana Beyond Aid” must leave no one behind. It has to be about the poorest and most marginalized Ghanaians. And that means every Ghanaian affected by mental health condition. A country can only reach its full potential if all its citizens can.

So we call on the government to go further still to champion mental health. With the imminent launch of the Mental Health policy, now is the time for implementation. I want to highlight three priorities:

• First and foremost, securing sustainable funding for and addressing the shortages of psychotropic drugs.

• Secondly, scaling up quality mental health services at the community level, equitably across the country including in regions currently disserved.

• Thirdly, more needs to be done to overturn stigma and discrimination and support the full, active inclusion of people with mental health conditions.

If these three priorities are implemented together, with their focus on prevention and community care, it will ultimately save Ghana money and support its move beyond aid.

I’d like to end by congratulating WHO, Mental Health Authority and civil society partners here today on this important launch of Quality Rights. This will help Ghana to transform mental health, to promote care and support that is good quality, meets people’s needs and respects their dignity and rights. I look forward to a continuing partnership.

Keith Williams, independent chair of the first ‘root and branch’ Rail Review to be supported by government, will today (26 February 2019) announce that the rail franchising system cannot continue in the way it is now.

In the George Bradshaw Address, Keith Williams is expected to say:

I have heard a great deal about the franchising model….driving growth in passengers and benefits to services. But with this growth the needs of passengers have changed whilst many of the basic elements of our rail system have not kept pace.

Put bluntly, franchising cannot continue the way it is today. It is no longer delivering clear benefits for either taxpayers and farepayers.

I believe that for the railway to be successful it needs to put passengers at its heart.

We need to recognise that there is unlikely to be a ‘one size fits all’ solution which will work for every part of the country and all types of passenger.

The former British Airways chief executive and deputy chairman of John Lewis Partnership, will set out that the reason he took on the review was because he had a clear commitment from the government to deliver change:

This is the first full-blown rail review to be supported by government for some considerable time – with a very clear commitment from the Transport Secretary and from Bernadette Kelly, and the whole of the department’s executive.

I see our role not just to tackle those recent problems that passengers have experienced but also to tackle the more fundamental underlying causes of those problems.

In his address, he will also say that the rail industry is adapting to a fast-changing world but unable to respond to consumer demand:

We are spending on the railway, in offering new services, purchasing new rolling stock, and renewing and enhancing the network. The May timetable change, for instance, was designed to offer thousands of new services, hundreds of new trains, and much improved critical infrastructure – but as a system we were unable to deliver on this investment. And the customer suffered.

Williams will summarise the progress made on the Rail Review as well as the next steps. He will say:

There’s real hunger for change within the industry as well as outside. We will continue listening to what you have to say and learning from your insight and experience.

We need to do more on making it easier for customers to access the compensation they are entitled to and improving accessibility for all users, including disabled people.

I’ve asked the ORR to advise me on what more could be done by rail operators to improve this, and whether more regulatory powers are required to ensure it happens. They will report back within the timescale of the review recommending action to help transform compensation and accessibility across the network.

In the autumn we will bring everything together and alongside government, recommend change through a white paper. It will be the culmination of the biggest and widest review of the railway for generations.

• the Rail Review was established to recommend the most appropriate organisational and commercial frameworks to support the delivery of the government’s vision for the railway
• former British Airways chief executive Keith Williams leads the major review of the rail industry, supported by an expert challenge panel
• the government will publish a white paper on the review’s recommendations, with the implementation of reforms planned to start from 2020
• the annual Bradshaw Address is named in honour of George Bradshaw (1800 to 1853), who developed the Bradshaw’s Guide to the railways
• the review’s first evidence paper, The role of the railway in Great Britain, will be published at 7pm today (26 February 2019)