Derek Kotz in the Morning Star, analyses the long-awaited report on the future of our railways and identifies fragmentation as the problem.

If ever there was a case of right diagnosis, wrong treatment, the McNulty report on the railways is it.
The knighted former head of the Civil Aviation Authority was never going to recommend renationalisation, but his report is breathtaking in the way that it scapegoats the workforce while simply ignoring the blindingly obvious evidence that privatisation is the problem.
Essentially it recommends that rail workers and passengers be made to pay for the failure of privatisation.
If the government implements the report in full, the rail network will be set back for decades and industrial relations will become a battleground on every front.
Shrugging aside the billions that have been removed from the industry by the privateer train operators and train-leasing companies, McNulty recommends instead a massive cull of railway staff and a war on pay and conditions.
And despite recognising the damage done by the fragmentation imposed when the Tories privatised British Rail in the mid-1990s, there will be a sharp increase in safety risks as the network becomes even more disparate, with a significant shift of power towards the privatised train operators.
The railways are already a cash cow milked of public money by businesses interested only in guaranteed, risk-free profits - and who walk away without a second glance when the cream starts turning sour.
The changes McNulty recommends would increase the private-sector drain on a shrinking network and, with the government determined to lower subsidy, would leave passengers and staff to pick up the bill - and the taxpayer still underwriting the risk.
McNulty says that Britain's railways are 30 per cent less efficient than publicly owned comparators elsewhere in Europe, but he proposes to close the gap by breaking up Network Rail, giving longer franchises, attacking staff conditions and paving the way for an attack on regional railways.
More than a third of the total savings would come from staff, with further cuts in maintenance, driver-only operation becoming the norm, a cull of station staff and the scrapping of regulations that protect ticket offices.
Research by Passenger Focus and others shows that passengers want to see more staff on stations and trains - not fewer. Ghost stations and trains will become yet another disincentive to travel, particularly at night and particularly for for the vulnerable.
The report says that NR should become no more than a holding company with route-level concessions operated by franchises or other organisations, and that there should be early pilots for joint ventures and concessions of rail infrastructure.
And it lines up an attack on regional railways, which McNulty pointedly notes are around six times more expensive to run per mile than long-distance and commuter franchises.
But the report has simply not considered the benefits of reintegrating the railways under public ownership and it ignores the billions drained from the industry in profits and the evidence that railways in Europe are cheaper precisely because they remain - for the moment at least - in public ownership, without the millstone of dividend-hungry shareholders, and are less fragmented.
His inexplicable plan to shatter track and signalling infrastructure will create not just one but a series of mini-Railtracks, raising the chilling spectre of further Hatfields and Potters Bars while reversing the reintegration of maintenance in the not-for-profit Network Rail.
Allowing a failed franchising system to get its hands on the tracks, as the government is gagging to do, will mean even more dangerous fragmentation and the sweating of assets at the expense of safety and service - a bigger dose of the same poison.
Despite recognising that British commuters already face the highest fares in Europe, McNulty also recommends the levelling up of fares for off-peak travel, saying that "the market" could bear higher charges.
McNulty wants an end to the cap on fare increases and, when rail fares have already increased in real terms by 15 per cent over the last decade while air fares have fallen by 34 per cent and motor travel costs by 8 per cent, it is a move that will force people back into cars and aeroplanes.
The government, of course, lapped it up in the manner of a dog returning to its own vomit, bearing in mind that it was the last Tory government that created the nightmare of a fragmented and privatised railway in the first place.
Welcoming the report, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond betrayed his attitude to the railways when he said that "the taxpayer will not be prepared to just continually increase the level of subsidy that they give to the relatively small number of people who ever use trains" - and that those who did could afford to pay more.
It is as if the economic and environmental need for a growing railway network and to get people out of cars and aeroplanes and onto more environmentally friendly modes of transport has not even occurred to him.
Hammond even talked brazenly about the massive increase in subsidy to the railways since the mid-1990s, conveniently forgetting to mention that the massive increase in railway costs followed privatisation - there is a strong correlation between the subsidy going in and the private profit coming out.
Bringing infrastructure and operations back into one publicly accountable organisation would end the expensive nightmare of two-dozen separate passenger and freight operators vying with each other and Network Rail for track access, and the legal money-go-round of claim and counter-claim when things go wrong.
McNulty is not a recipe for a modern, democratic, high capacity and environmentally friendly rail system, but a declaration of war against the railways and an asset-strippers' charter perhaps even more profound than Beeching's, half a century ago.
With it, the government has thrown down the gauntlet, as it has across the whole labour movement and with every other public service.
There can only be one response and that is to mobilise the biggest, broadest possible movement that makes reality the labour movement slogan that an attack on any of us is an attack on us all.