Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-262)
MR MICK
RIX, MR
BOB CROW
AND MR
RICHARD ROSSER
WEDNESDAY 19 JUNE 2002
260. Would you say that the condition of the
network in the North is better than that in the South?
(Mr Crow) There is less of it up there; that is the
problem. Seventy per cent of trains either start in London or
finish in London. I would not say that the conditions are any
worse on a personal basis. There might be some kind of academic
evidence on that. I would not say it is any worse in the North
than it is in the South.
(Mr Rix) I worked in that area for most of my railway
life and I can honestly say that the condition of the infrastructure
and the provision of infrastructure is far worse than it is in
the South. There are four major links across the trans-Pennine
corridor. One is between Leeds and Manchester over the west route,
which is generally termed as the Wessie route, which is the main
artery which can take traffic away from the M62. If you look at
the number of car and lorry journeys on that route over the M62,
then you will realise that it is on a par with the M25, yet for
the last 12 years there have been proposals from one source or
another and in fact even a plan put together to electrify that
route. This is one out of four trans-Pennine routes. All four
of them have Victorian signalling, Victorian type of track, short-welded
rather than long-welded, they all operate at low speeds and none
of them has any electrified railway route. If you look at the
railway map as it is today and you look at what was proposed by
the Serpell report, you will find that the vast majority of the
neglected areas of infrastructure in the UK were through the corridors
north of London, both on the East Coast and the West Coast and
the routes across. In the Serpell report which was produced by
the Government in the 1980s, it was not intended to keep those
corridors of communication open. I believe that the infrastructure
and maintenance regime and the funding of operations and train
services throughout the UK has really been operating to the Serpell
report. Apart from the South and the South East and some overhauls
on certain parts of the East Coast network and the West Coast
network, the vast majority of the railway network, especially
in the North and across the North, has suffered because of a lack
of investment. It is really a third-class system in the North,
and especially out in other parts of the regions, compared with
the South and the South-East.
261. Mr Rosser, at the beginning of the session
you made some opening comments and suggested that there was a
great concentration by the SRA on the South. Were you suggesting
the North gets a raw deal?
(Mr Rosser) I was not suggesting the North gets a
raw deal, because I have to be careful. If we were looking here
at investment in London and the South East, I am not sure that
I would be sitting here and saying that there was too much. The
SRA's argument is that 70 per cent of journeys are to or from
the South East. What the SRA will also say is that a lot of the
money which is going in as far as the North is concerned is in
subsidy because the former regional railway companies in the North
are the ones which do require quite a lot of subsidy rather than
investment. If you are asking whether we would wish to see more
money being made available for investment in the railway industry,
the answer is yes. I wonder whether I could comment on the question
you asked about vandalism and security of staff. There are things
which can be done such as modernising some of the stations and
making sure the lighting is adequate and more CCTV. It does not
necessarily stop somebody being thumped, but on the other hand
people might think twice about doing it if they think somebody
might be watching them and it is on record. Training for staff
in how to handle potential confrontation situations is also another
measure which can be taken. On the issue of vandalism which was
mentioned, I think that as an industry we need to start accepting
that much as it is needed over money being invested in train protection
systems, actually the number of lives being lost as a result of
vandalism, children getting access to the track, is also a significant
issue and not to underestimate the levels of investment which
will be needed to deal with that particular problem. One of them
is that access to the track is often too easy, fences are not
repaired, are not checked to see whether they are in an appropriate
condition. There are actions which can be taken there. Mr Donohoe
earlier asked why costs were higher under the contractor situation.
I would hope—and you may have done it when Railtrack were
in here—that Railtrack would be asked why it is better value
to use contractors, rather than for Railtrack to do its own maintenance
in-house.
Chairman
262. They have undertaken to give us an answer
on that.
(Mr Rosser) May I just quote something which was in
a railway journal some three years ago from a railway worker?
What it said on this issue was that every time you sub-contract
work there are mark-ups and overheads. This was in the context
of signalling companies. There are other costs which the private
signalling companies have to find which were previously lost in
the vertically integrated railway. It costs money to manage processes
such as possessions, to hire works trains and plant. A prudent
contractor adds in provisions against possession overruns and
vagueness in the specification. Bidding itself has become more
expensive, especially given Railtrack's tendency to ask whether
you have added in the phone number and please come up with a cheaper
offer. Even pre-qualification includes a mass of documentation
which all costs money to prepare. One of my signalling chums of
long experience reckons that a scheme like the recently completed
Woking one costs twice as much as it would have done in the 1960s
and takes twice as long. Everybody wants their cut. Every time
you use more sub-contractors they all want their five or ten per
cent plus and some of those sub-contractors are hiring staff through
recruitment agencies who are charging very high percentage commission.
Chairman: Gentlemen, you have made some very
interesting and important arguments. I am very grateful to you
all. Thank you very much. Order, order.
|
