UK Railways, -those German trains , political nonsenses and the need for bold transport policies.

Much steam and smoke has been generated from the UK's Labour Party camp following the award of the contract for the rather late running Thameslink 2000 project.

The terms and conditions attatched to the bidding process by the former government headed by one Gordon Brown, late of these columns, whose two closest henchmen were Eds Miliband and Balls did not create a level playingfield for British companies. Indeed they favoured other non UK EU bidders. It was no surprise therefore when Germany's Siemens, already a supplier of high quality trains to the UK defeated Canada's Bombardier (European HQ:Berlin) who happen to have an assembly plant at Derby. They won fair and square. Indeed some factors were not taken into account but that was down to Labour's own legal stipulations. Once the bidding parameters and conditions were issued to all parties and they had responded there was no way they could be ammended without risking enormous damages being awarded to whoever produced the best deal under them. Labour know that full well although they seem to be telling the public that it's not true.

The next big contract pending is for Crossrail trains to operate on the route being created between Shenfield in Essex and Maidenhead in Berkshire. It was due to open for bidding on much the same terms in December this year. The government has now announced a delay to the process to enable the conditions to be rewritten so as to give companies with building facilities in the UK an equal chance, but no guarantee, of winning thanks to a broader range of considerations.

One would have thought that would have brought widespread acclaimation from the Opposition. How naive can we get? Not so. Anna Eagle the opposition spokesperson shreiks : " If ministers are now saying it's possible to review the Crossrail contract how do they explain why they have cost British jobs by refusing to do the same for the new Thameslink trains as Labour has repeatedly demanded?"

How does one explain to Ms Eagle and colleagues that it was her party who made it unlikely that Bombardier could win the Thameslink contract and it is the wicked Tories (primarily, though the Lib Dems might be in there somewhere) who are now enabling them to bid for the next big one on equal terms?

The whole question of Britain's future transport infrastructure deserves a much higher quality,-and objectivity and veracity,-of debate than it is currently getting. Labour when in power, with Lord Adonis as Minster of Transport,were doing very well at least for rail and aviation. Heathrow's third runway and its rail link to the southern network were both confirmed and would have happened if they had won the may 2010 election. On the railways the country's south-north high speed rail project HS2 was solid and would have been pushed through regardless of screams of pain from the well heeled and well connected London orientated Chiterns "Over our dead bodies" lobby. The lesser but still significant northern triangle electrification project around Liverpool-Manchester-Preston- Blackpool was confirmed .Only the road network needed more thought and investment.

Right now Labour seem to have abandoned the quiet sensible Adonis era in transport and have decided just to pitch in with "yah, boo" politics whenever they see an opportunity. The Tories have been disastrous on aviation by throwing away the Heathrow runway and its southern rail link and promising increases in taxes on air travel planned for next year. So far though they have been much better on the railways, pushing ahead with HS 2 despite noisy and unpleasant hostility from its Chilterns and Oxfordshire local parties (ironically using government money to oppose the government). The moment of courage and truth will come in December when the decision on HS2 is announced. That apart, they are set to produce a paper on other transport plans, including resumed road and motorway building, this autumn. They need to hold their nerve and tough out opposition from within their own ranks and from those out there who see it as green or environmentally desirable that Britain winds down rather than increases its transport capacity. The supporters of that approach would be happy to see the country quite quickly strangle itself in increasingly inadequate and antiquated networks. The visionary Victorians did well in overcoming or bypassing the obstruction to railways and roads put in their way by powerful landowners.

Needed right now are new infrastructure visionaries and high level, well informed debate followed by action (that's called building) rather than more studies, enquiries and the like so beloved of British beaurocrats,naysayers and indecisive politicians. Layers of obstacles across the tracks, roadways and runways have to be challenged and reminded of what the country would have looked like (very poor for those who didn't get it) if the Victorian planners had been less persistant.