Picture: All aboard the fun train uploaded by Paul Holloway on 13th February, 2006.

Some of you know that as a result of me commuting between Leeds and Reading by train regularly for several years, I further developed my interest in the railways and public transport.

Part of my interest in public transport as a whole stems from the fact that I really like to travel, and that I do it often, but trying to traverse this country can really suck.

I think that pubic transport should provide the best way to get around, be it short or long distance. At the outset let me make it clear that I'm not anti-car and that have one of my own - if I'm not travelling light, or if I'm going on a journey with a few different stops along the way, then my car is always going to be the best option. But if I'm travelling light and just want to get somewhere and then come back, I'd prefer to take public transport.

Travelling by public transport is much more environmentally friendly than going by car, not just in terms of emmisions but other factors too. It's safer. It's also more reliable and potentially a lot quicker, on longer distances, than travelling on the oft-congested motorways. It is, I reckon, the answer.

At least, it really really should be. We have this railway network that kind of works okay for the most part as it is at the moment, but is nowhere near as developed as it needs to be. It feels like it's about half a century behind our requirements today. I'm not talking about how comfy the seats are or having wireless internet access in my carriage, I'm talking about getting from place A to place B without the sort of cost and environmental impact that I associate with taking my car.

I am expecting to travel from Reading to Leeds today, returning tomorrow. I'm not taking anything with me, so I want to take the train.

I have to plan weeks ahead to get "cheap" tickets - "cheap" in terms of train travel, but in reality not much different to the cost of the petrol I'd use going by car. A car has lots of overheads that obviously adds to the basic petrol cost of the journey, but if I'm going to have a car anyway then I'm not going to factor those overheads in. I often don't plan ahead, so I have to buy a walk-up fare. Walk-up fares a lot more expensive than a "cheap" fare. The cheapest result walk-up fare between Reading and Leeds is £75.

I want to travel home on Sunday. Travelling across the country by train on a Sunday can be nightmare. Your journey will definitely take longer than it would during the rest of the week, and direct routes are often unavailable on Sundays because of all the engineering works that take place. Travelling between Leeds and Reading tomorrow, if I avoided London I would need to get three trains and a bus to get home. If I went via London, at greater expense, I'd have to take three trains or take two and be taken on a diversionary route. Either way, it's more hassle and a much longer journey. It depends on the weekend, but the situation this weekend is more the rule than the exception.

So, I'll drive in my car. And so will everyone else.

There's no quick fix, but radical measures are needed. Of course, these will never be taken. Just look at the reaction to the changes to car tax in the budget. When people cry foul when over paying a few more quid for having a car that pollutes more than others, you can see that there just isn't any scope for more radical change. So we'll all float on with what we already have. We'll make the best of a bad situation.

Or not.

With the Stategic Rail Authority killed off, the responsibility for our railways falls to the Department for Transport. To have one goverment department overseeing both road and rail seems, to me, a good idea. We also have the Office of Rail Regulation, who keep the infrastructure operator Network Rail honest. Train operators compete fiercely for franchises to run services on the railway network, paying expensive track fees to Network Rail to do so (a sort of car tax for rail) and usually giving the government a big slice of their income to be reinvested back into the network as well. In rare occasions, "open access" operators run services with the ORR's blessing where services would otherwise not operate (such as the London Paddington to Heathrow Airport Heathrow Express service, run by the BAA themselves). They have to pay track fees like everyone else, but crucially they don't have to give any revenue to the government.

I thought this operating model was alright until I learned that the ORR has allowed a new operator run some open access services between the North East and London. The major problem I have with this is that GNER, who have just been given a new franchise by the government, were competing for track space with the new operator so they could operate the extra services they promised the goverment they'd run.

GNER have to work their tits off to meet their franchise committments to the government and try and generate a profit. By giving track rights to this open access operator and allowing it to run services that stop at some of GNER stations, the ORR is letting the open access operator "steal" customers and revenue from GNER and is preventing GNER from meeting their franchise committments. The franchise committments are considerable, and furthermore they're contractual. They are the way we will get improvements to the railway network. Have a look at what GNER has to deliver [PDF] to get a better understanding of what's at stake here. The fact that GNER have to give revenue back to the government and the open access operator doesn't makes this situation even more unfair.

This is obviously a very broken operating model. What incentive do operators have for bidding on franchise if they will not be allowed to follow their committments through? Presumably GNER's revenue targets depend on being able to run more services, and if these targets aren't met then it follows that they might not be able to afford the other things they promised such as the improved stations and the faster and more reliable train services. The railway network in this country needs all the help it can get, and it certainly doesn't need an operating model that doesn't work.

If you're interested, have a read of GNER's response to the ORR decision which makes some very salient points.