Conclusions and recommendations
1. It
is only possible to take sensible decisions about the long term
future of rural lines if their true cost is known. That does not
mean nothing can be done now; we agree there is no need to have
precise allocations of cost or revenue before taking action to
reduce the subsidy per passenger on rural or community lines.
It does mean that radical decisions about the closure of particular
lines cannot be made without far more robust financial information.
Closing local railway lines will inconvenience the travelling
public, reduce patronage on mainlines, and increase pollution
as passengers turn to the car. It can only be justified if it
is clear that it will make significant savings. (Paragraph 14)
2. All local bus services
are subsidised, at a minimum, through the bus service operators
grant. It is absurd for the state to subsidise bus and rail services
to compete against each other. We consider that rural railways
in Britain will be unable to realise their full potential unless
local authorities ensure that bus services are integrated with
rail. This may entail an end to deregulation in rural areas. (Paragraph
32)
3. In rural areas,
particularly, the private car is the main competitor to bus and
rail services. The Office of Fair Trading should recognise this.
In the short term the extent to which through-ticketing and service
co-ordination are permitted should be made absolutely clear to
transport providers. Once this is done we believe that the Government
will need to examine the competition regime to ensure that it
works in the best interests of public transport users. (Paragraph
37)
4. There are clearly
significant barriers to increasing the use of rural railways.
Despite this, we were left in no doubt that rural communities
value their railway and feel frustrated that in many cases its
use is not maximised, either because of the poor service or lack
of integration with other transport modes. (Paragraph 38)
5. We support the
development of standards that are more appropriate for rural lines.
For example it is nonsense on a lightly used line where risk is
low for Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate or Network Rail to
insist, as has happened in the past, on the construction of a
costly footbridge, when there is in existence an accessible barrow
crossing. (Paragraph 45)
6. Infrastructure
costs will only be reduced if Network Rail is committed to finding
new ways of maintaining lightly used lines which have lower costs
and are more appropriate. This may include revision of Network
Rail's own standards. (Paragraph 46)
7. Community railways
are paying high costs to lease old trains. This alone is a serious
impediment to their development. Some innovative thinking about
the rolling stock market is urgently needed. In the longer term
the Department for Transport must start planning for new trains
for community railways, possibly building on light rail technology.
(Paragraph 51)
8. We support the
idea of track access charges by route: for rural lines this should
mean lower charges reflecting the actual use of these lines. We
are attracted by the idea of charges based on social and environmental
criteria and we recommend that the Office of Rail Regulation consider
this. (Paragraph 54)
9. Community Rail
Partnerships have the potential to increase the attractiveness
of both the Strategic Rail Authority's community rail lines and
other regional routes. They cannot be expected to save rural railways
without stable financial backing. Local authorities and train
operating companies both benefit from Community Rail Partnerships
and should provide stable funding. Such support should be eligible
for local transport plan funding for local authorities and could
be a franchise condition for train operating companies. (Paragraph
59)
10. Railways are good
for local communities. The government has produced a strategy
which relies heavily on the involvement of Community Rail Partnerships
but it cannot guarantee the continued funding of the Association
of Community Rail Partnerships beyond April 2005. While the rail
industry should provide some funding, the Association of Community
Rail Partnerships needs core funding from Government. It is absurd
that the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs appear unable to work together to ensure
this is provided. It is astounding that the Department for Transport
should subscribe to a strategy which relies heavily on community
rail partnerships, and yet be unable commit itself to funding
the Association of Community Rail Partnerships in the coming financial
year. (Paragraph 61)
11. We agree that
the relatively small rail passenger partnership grant was invaluable
for securing external match funding: if it cannot be restored,
a similar grant should be introduced, specifically aimed at improving
facilities at smaller stations or on lines with Community Rail
Partnerships. (Paragraph 64)
12. Community Rail
Partnerships can only market rural lines effectively if they have
a reasonable product. It is common sense that an attractive and
reliable timetable is critical for attracting passengers to rural
lines. If the passenger service requirement is a barrier to developing
such services on an individual line, it should be scrapped. Those
responsible for rural railways should aspire for a reliable hourly
service as a minimum. (Paragraph 70)
13. There may be a
catch 22 in the Strategic Rail Authority strategy. The franchise
support payments to train operating companies will only support
a certain level of service. If this service is not good enough
to use passenger growth will be impossible. Passenger revenue
cannot be increased without additional services; there is a danger
that additional services will not be provided without increased
revenue. (Paragraph 71)
14. We welcome the
decision of the Strategic Rail Authority to exclude from designation
as community rail lines some routes which English Welsh and Scottish
Railway had identified as having potential for freight use or
were important diversionary routes for freight. Where there is
the potential for rural lines to carry freight it is important
that the railway should be maintained accordingly. Community rail
standards should not be a barrier to the growth of freight (Paragraph
72)
15. The productive
use of station buildings is a benefit for the railway and the
community. It should be made much easier for local communities
to take over and renovate vacant station buildings. Funding will
be needed to assist with the regeneration of these buildings:
Network Rail should treat this with some urgency. (Paragraph 77)
16. We recommend that
the Department for Transport, Network Rail and Community Rail
Partnerships should work together to identify where enhancements
on rural lines would bring most benefit. They should then draw
up a prioritised list of infrastructure works for rural lines
which can be dealt with as funding becomes available. (Paragraph
80)
17. We welcome the
recognition of community rail lines in local transport plan guidance
but we are not sure how this will work when such lines cross local
authority boundaries. We recommend that there should be a formal
consultation procedure with Community Rail Partnerships when funds
are being sought for community rail schemes. (Paragraph 82)
| 
