Reading this has been on my to-do list for a couple of weeks, given there is a non-zero chance this will happen. Will give some thoughts once I've actually read it. https://twitter.com/AndyMcDonaldMP/status/1245275261299494912

As a starting point: "..the de facto interpretation of the
railway’s purpose has drifted towards practices that serve the vested interest groups that the privatised railway comprises." - is complete nonsense.

First thoughts: there are an awful lot of opinions in this report stated as facts. For example: "[UK train] services have deteriorated", "an overall timetable vision is completely lacking" and my personal favourite..

"Trains that could easily be held to connect with slightly late services rarely wait because they are run by mutually hostile private train companies." < would love to hear of any example of this actually happening

..and the old favourite that the railway currently prioritises making profits over everything else gets trotted out all over the place. In 8 years working in the industry, I'm yet to see any evidence that this is true.

I like the three objectives for the "GB Rail" in the plan:
Rising patronage, rising investment and cost effectiveness - but the first two are already the case with the current setup and the third is always going to be subjective.

Most of the financials in the paper are from a report from Transport for Quality of Life, an organisation I hadn't heard of previously and are taken from a report commissioned by the rail unions in 2012. This makes me doubt the £0.7bn dividends figure that is quoted often.

Lots of interesting stuff about reducing car use, which is great - but when we get to this point, what will Labour do about car manufacturing jobs which it has also pledged to protect? Are these two objectives compatible?

The majority of this report is nonsense and looking for conspiracies that don't exist. A lot of the proposals are for stuff that already goes on and these plans are going to require lots more subsidy, which is not going to be funded by the "dividends" which largely don't exist.

The report doesn't approach the rolling stock issue, only stating that "a Labour government will introduce measures for regulatory action to curtail excessive ROSCO profits and
ensure that older rolling stock is provided more cheaply", which I'd like to see more detail of.

Harmonising rail workers Ts&Cs nationally gets a paragraph saying why it's a really good thing to do. Whilst it is a good idea in principle, I think the report severely underestimates how hard this will be. And also this approach leaves the network open to national rail strikes.

I shan't comment on the section entitled "Timetabling" as I'd probably end up with my account being suspended by Twitter.

Despite all this there are some good ideas:
* an integrated public transport network of trains, buses, trams, boats etc both for timetables and fares
* a rolling programme of rail electrification
* the railway being run by "professionals" not politicians

It does read like a report that has started with a conclusion and worked back to the question, but at least they've actually done something and presented their ideas. Admittedly they might be a bit mad in places..

I have no idea what HMG's policies are (ignoring current crises) beyond useless soundbites like "Get Brexit Done" and despite being a member of @LibDems I have no idea what Lib Dem transport policy is or even if it exists at all.

Labour may be solving a problem that doesn't really exist and might well create more problems than it solves, but at least they've done something.

This thread was a bit longer than I expected, sorry. (Ends)