12th October 2026
The government wants to change how trains are bought, maintained and replaced. It could save money and bring cleaner trains, but will rural Scotland benefit as much as the big cities?
Britain's railway is facing a major investment challenge. Trains are expensive to buy, expensive to maintain and, in many cases, approaching the end of their working lives. At the same time, passengers want more reliable services, better accessibility and lower emissions.
The UK Government's new Great British Railways Rolling Stock and Infrastructure Strategy aims to tackle these problems by changing the way decisions are made. Rather than treating train purchases, railway infrastructure and maintenance as separate issues, it proposes planning them together.
That sounds sensible. But for Scotland, and particularly for places such as Caithness that depend on long-distance rural services, the important question is whether a more streamlined railway will also deliver a better railway for passengers outside the major cities.
Why does the government want to change things?
For many years, Britain's train operators have generally leased their trains from private rolling-stock companies rather than buying them outright. The arrangement has helped operators obtain trains without paying the full purchase price at the beginning, but it has also created a complicated system involving train owners, operators, maintenance companies and infrastructure managers.
The government says leasing and maintenance cost taxpayers and passengers more than £4 billion a year. It wants Great British Railways (GBR) to examine whether buying trains directly, leasing them or using alternative financing arrangements offers the best value over their working lives.
There is an important distinction here. The £4 billion figure is the cost of leasing and maintenance across the industry, not a sum that could automatically be saved by buying trains. Trains still have to be financed, maintained, repaired and eventually replaced. The real test will be whether the new arrangements reduce the total cost of providing a reliable service.
The strategy also aims to reduce the number of different train designs. More standardised fleets could make maintenance simpler, reduce the range of spare parts required and make it easier to plan repairs and replacements.
Planning the trains and the infrastructure together should also help prevent expensive mistakes. There is little point ordering a new fleet if the depots cannot maintain it, the track is unsuitable or the necessary electrification will not be ready.
Cleaner trains, but not every line can be electrified
Replacing older diesel trains is another important part of the challenge. Electrification can reduce emissions and improve performance, but installing overhead wires across the entire railway would require substantial investment.
Battery-powered trains offer another possibility. They can operate on electricity over suitable sections of track and recharge where the necessary facilities are available. Other routes may need different solutions, including trains that can operate using both electric and diesel power.
The right answer will depend on the route, the distances involved, passenger numbers and the cost of providing the necessary infrastructure.
The strategy also aims to improve accessibility, including making it easier for passengers to board trains without steps where the platforms and railway infrastructure allow. Better passenger information and digital connectivity are among the other improvements expected from new fleets.
These are worthwhile ambitions. However, a new train does not automatically mean a faster service, a more frequent timetable or a cheaper ticket. Those outcomes depend on investment and decisions beyond the train itself.
What does it mean for Scotland?
Scotland has its own railway responsibilities. The Scottish Government commissions ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper services and funds railway infrastructure in Scotland. The new GBR arrangements are intended to improve coordination across the railway, rather than simply remove all decision-making from Scottish ministers.
Scotland also has its own plans for replacing trains. Transport Scotland's Rail Recharged strategy recognises that a substantial part of the ScotRail fleet is approaching the end of its useful life. Its ambition is to move towards a zero-emission passenger fleet by 2045.
The two approaches could complement one another. Scotland could benefit from better coordinated procurement, shared expertise and a more predictable programme of train orders. If trains can be bought and maintained more efficiently, there may be more money available for other improvements.
A stronger, more predictable programme of orders could also support manufacturing, engineering and maintenance jobs in Britain. But the benefits to Scotland will depend on which contracts are awarded, where work is carried out and how much investment is directed towards Scottish routes.
There is a risk, too. Standardisation can reduce costs, but Scotland's railway is not uniform. A busy suburban service around Glasgow has different needs from an inter-city train to Aberdeen or a rural service in the Highlands. A national strategy must allow for those differences.
And what about the Far North Line?
For passengers travelling between Inverness, Wick and Thurso, the new strategy is relevant, but it does not promise a new fleet for the Far North Line.
That is an important distinction. The strategy provides a framework for future decisions. It does not commit the government to a particular delivery date for new trains in Caithness.
The Far North Line presents challenges that are quite different from those of an electrified commuter railway. It covers long distances through rural areas, serves communities with limited transport alternatives and operates with infrastructure that would require considerable investment to electrify.
Any decision about future trains needs to consider not only the purchase price but also maintenance facilities, reliability, journey times, fuel or electricity costs and the practicalities of keeping trains in service far from major depots.
Scotland's own fleet planning has considered options such as transferring suitable, younger diesel trains from elsewhere, using new diesel-electric or bi-mode trains where appropriate, and moving towards zero-emission technology as infrastructure develops.
For Caithness, a sensible transition may therefore look different from the one adopted on routes where overhead electrification is already available.
The danger would be if national efficiency became the overriding objective and the needs of less heavily used lines were treated as an afterthought. A common family of trains does not have to mean identical trains everywhere. The question is whether enough flexibility will remain to provide a suitable service on rural routes.
Better trains are not the same as a better railway
There is another point worth making. Passengers judge the railway by the service they receive, not by the way trains are financed.
A modern fleet is of limited benefit if services are cancelled, connections are missed or journey times remain inconvenient. For people in Caithness, the frequency and reliability of trains, the connection at Inverness and the ability to reach work, education and medical appointments are all important.
The same applies to fares. The strategy may create opportunities to reduce costs, but it does not promise lower ticket prices. Any savings will have to be demonstrated, and decisions will still be needed about how public money is spent.
The government should therefore be judged on what the strategy delivers, rather than simply on the number of trains ordered or the amount of money said to have been saved.
The real test will be what happens next
The Great British Railways strategy is an attempt to make railway investment more coherent. Buying trains, maintaining them and upgrading the infrastructure they use should be part of one long-term plan.
That could bring real benefits, including better value for money, cleaner trains and more efficient maintenance. But the results will depend on funding, procurement decisions and how the new arrangements work with Scotland's devolved responsibilities.
For Caithness, the key questions remain unanswered. When will suitable replacement trains be provided? Will services become more reliable? Will journey times improve? And will the needs of rural passengers carry sufficient weight when investment is allocated?
The strategy does not yet answer those questions.
The measure of success will not be whether Britain has a more efficient system for buying trains. It will be whether passengers in Wick and Thurso, as well as those in Glasgow and Edinburgh, notice a genuine improvement in the service they receive.
Sources and further reading
UK Government: Great British Railways Rolling Stock and Infrastructure Strategy
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rolling-stock-and-infrastructure-strategy
Transport Scotland: Rail Recharged – Scotland's Rail Rolling Stock Strategy
https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/rail-recharged-scotland-s-fleet-transition-strategy-delivering-a-modern-fleet-for-a-connected-scotland/