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?

Rail freight operators understand momentum better than most. A freight train isn’t something you swerve on a whim. It requires a path, a plan, and steady application of power to get thousands of tonnes rolling in the right direction. Once that momentum is built, you protect it; you don’t introduce friction for the sake of a quick political gain, and you certainly don’t weave from side to side to demonstrate control. Unfortunately, Westminster’s fiscal behaviour of late has felt a little too much like “fish-tailing” – sudden policy shifts, short-term tax tweaks, and an increasingly reactive approach to economic turbulence. It’s difficult to run a railway that way, and impossible to run a freight railway.

A Budget that lands on the logistics front line

For the logistics sector, this Budget is not an abstract Westminster ritual. It is a material concern, and in some cases an existential one. Logistics UK has already warned that any rise in the cost of doing business – whether through fuel duty, employer National Insurance Contributions or business rates – will ultimately land on the consumer. A tax on logistics, they say, is a tax on everyone. Rail freight operators would add that it is also a tax on decarbonisation, modal shift, and economic resilience.

But taking lorries off the roads is not about putting truckers on the dole. It is about reducing truck route miles. The sector already suffers from chronic driver shortages, and there are far more “last mile” and urban delivery jobs than there are drivers to fulfil them. A healthy rail freight sector works best alongside a healthy road haulage sector, with each doing what it does most efficiently. Strengthening rail does not weaken road; it allows road to focus on the work only road can do.

The Rail Freight Group has spent the past year reiterating what should by now be obvious to ministers: rail freight is a force multiplier. Every additional freight path supports jobs, cuts emissions, and bolsters supply-chain certainty. But none of that happens without long-term policy alignment – something the industry has been waiting for since rail reform was first announced.

A Budget that took freight seriously would commit to giving Great British Railways a statutory freight duty; it would embrace the principle of a long-term freight growth target; and it would provide the clarity investors need to commit capital to locomotives, terminals and digital infrastructure. The sector is not asking for handouts. It is asking for certainty.

What a freight-focused Budget would really look like

The Chancellor may well choose to focus on headline-grabbing reliefs and fiscal adjustments designed to stabilise a volatile macro-environment. There is political logic to that approach. But it risks missing some quiet wins for freight – measures that would cost far less than a tax giveaway yet deliver far more value in the long term.

For instance, resolving the long-running distortion between road and rail energy costs would immediately strengthen the business case for modal shift. Committing to targeted upgrades at pinch-points – the sort of incremental capacity enhancements that unlock whole freight corridors – would demonstrate a serious commitment to growth, even if the wider capital envelope stays tight. Providing stability around access charges, track access rights and future pathing would give operators and customers the confidence to plan beyond the next twelve months.

Business at large will view this Budget through the usual lens of taxation, productivity and investment. Rail freight views it through those lenses too, but with an added layer: the recognition that freight is a strategic system. You can’t grow rail freight in bursts. You can’t incentivise modal shift with temporary reliefs. And you can’t expect operators to modernise, decarbonise and expand when policy signals swing like a pendulum every fiscal cycle. Just as you can’t drive a freight train with sudden braking and steering inputs, you can’t run a national economy with abrupt, short-term interventions and expect long-term stability.

Hoping for stability in a stop-start economy

If there is a note of optimism to be found, it lies in the fact that freight policy has finally entered the public conversation. The sector’s leaders – from trade bodies to operators – are speaking with unusual clarity and unity about what is needed: consistency, predictability, and a strategic framework that recognises the economic value of rail freight. Their argument is not one of special pleading. It is one of national interest. A stable, well-supported freight sector underpins everything from supermarket shelves to steelworks, construction, energy security and exports.

So as the Chancellor prepares her red briefcase, the freight sector will brace itself for another set of short-term manoeuvres – while hoping, perhaps unrealistically, for something more statesmanlike. A Budget for freight would not need to be flashy. It would simply need to acknowledge that momentum matters, stability matters, and that you don’t run a railway – or an economy – by yanking the controls to prove you’re in charge. Rather unlike Rachel Reeves failed to achieve for passengers a year ago. Steady power, steady planning and steady policy: that’s how you keep a freight train on course. And that’s how you build an economy that can carry its load, mile after mile, without the constant risk of fishtailing into trouble.

Spare a thought for transport secretary Heidi Alexander. She was doing the media round this week. An endless shuttle from studio to studio, serving up the party line on the “Railways Bill”. This is the actual legislation that will create Great British Railways (GBR). That new publicly owned company will transform our railways into a world-leading network which will be the pride of Britain and the envy of the world. Except, she wasn’t, and it isn’t.

Bonfire of the Bill

The whole stage-managed show was derailed, almost before it got out of the sidings. No sooner had happy Heidi set herself up to sing the praises of the new Bill, when one of her ministerial colleagues passed a signal at danger. The consigned Heidi to the level of a complete distraction. For the record, the Deputy Prime Minister (David Lammy) found himself unable to answer questions in the House about prisoners released by mistake. Not a good look for anyone. More so for someone who is also the Secretary of State for Justice.

Lammy’s lament, of course, played out across all the front pages. Heidi’s launch of her Bill was consigned to the bonfires on Bonfire Night before lunchtime. Up like the rocket. Down like the stick. It’s a pity that (yet another) landmark political faux pas should overshadow a piece of landmark legislation – but, as one recently previous Prime Minister said, “them’s the breaks”. Heidi might be fuming at being mentioned in the same sentence as Boris, but them, indeed, are how the breaks shook down this week.

Something called “freight customers”

So, in case you missed it, there was a bit of legislation placed before the House of Commons this week. It’s called The Railways Bill. It will create Great British Railways (GBR), which will bring together the management of passenger services and rail infrastructure. According to the document, “GBR will be responsible for coordinating the whole network, from track and train, to cost and revenue – GBR will deliver lasting change. It will also be accountable to three stakeholders: taxpayers, passengers, and, apparently, something called “freight customers”.

Yes, Network “putting passengers first” Rail, will be replaced by Great British “taxpayers, passengers and freight” Railways. GBR, which will be headquartered in Derby, will create a simpler, more unified railway that delivers easier journeys and offers better value for money – it says here. This will include a new one-stop-shop app where passengers can check train times and book tickets.

As for freight, that’s not being brought under the control of the new nationalised body. We all know that already, but freight’s not overlooked. Far from it. There are a whole two passages in the Bill devoted to freight. Well, actually, two mentions of freight. Well, actually, just one, if you don’t count the title line of clause 17 of the Bill: “Rail Freight Target”. In the language with which the railway pioneers of 200 years ago would be comfortable, “the Secretary of State (that’s Heidi – at the moment) must set and publish a target to increase the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of goods.”

Insert squeal of brakes right here

Hold on. What happened to that defined target of increasing rail freight by 75% by 2050? Ah, well, that’s a target, isn’t it? It’s not actually legislation, laid down in a Bill before Parliament. It’s just “a target”, and hitting it is something else altogether. Don’t worry, though, the Bill has you covered. Right there, in clause 17 (page 9 of those 78 pages) you’ll find the caveat, “If the Secretary of State revises or replaces the target the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement target.” Well, that’s a relief. At least the Secretary will be compelled to let you know if she (or he) changes that target to, say: nothing.

For the sake of completeness, the rest of the Railways Bill’s devotion to freight runs to: “Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to the target set by the Secretary of State under this section, and any strategy or policy of the Scottish Ministers relating to the use of the railway network in Scotland for the carriage of goods.” If you do business in Wales, well, you’re speaking directly to Heidi or her successor. The devolved government in Cardiff doesn’t have responsibility for rail freight.

Those two mentions of rail freight hardly reflect the industry’s own ambitions for growth. Well, so as not to misrepresent the intentions of the legislation, passengers get two mentions as well – two hundred and thirty-nine mentions to be precise. All this assumes the Bill is actually passed, and David Lammy doesn’t get caught out by another absconded jailbird.