Memorandum by the Association of Community-Rail
Partnerships (ACoRP) (RR 13)
RURAL RAILWAYS AND RURAL COMMUNITIES: A VITAL
PARTNERSHIP
We are delighted that the Transport Committee
is addressing the issue of Rural Railways. We attach our response
below, divided into three parts:
1. An introduction to the work of ACoRP and
community-rail partnerships.
2. An outline of the social, economic and
environmental case for rural railways.
3. A summary of the issues which need to
be addressed.
PART 1: THE
COMMUNITY-RAIL
PARTNERSHIP MOVEMENT
The Association of Community-Rail Partnerships
— Founded in 1997—UK-wide network
of community-rail partnerships.
— Initially about 12 member organisations—now
over 40.
— Company limited by guarantee (not
for dividend).
Our core aims are:
— Integration of rural transport.
— Promotion of sustainable development
along rail corridors.
— Overcoming social exclusion in rural
areas.
We are funded by:
— Strategic Rail Authority.
. . . and a growing number of rail industry bodies
including:
— Arriva Trains (Wales, Northern).
— Laing Rail/Chiltern Railways.
— Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive.
We raise some of our income from conferences,
sale of publications, and sponsored research.
What ACoRP does:
— Disseminates examples of good practice
in rural rail development (Train Times magazine, Train
on Line electronic newsletter, conferences).
— Organises seminars, briefing sessions.
— Publishes information (eg sponsorship
of "Scenic Britain by Rail").
— Organises training events.
— Offers development support for new
partnerships.
— Influences policy/thinking on rural
rail development (Rail Review, SRA consultations, other Government
consultation eg Social Inclusion Unit).
— Influences national rural policy
agenda.
— Develops innovative approaches to
the operation and management of rural railways.
What are community-rail partnerships?
— A bridge between local communities
and the railway industry.
— Catalysts for sustainable development
along rail corridors in rural areas.
— A means of generating new business
for rail.
— A means of providing better transport
facilities for rural communities.
Who's involved?
— Other transport operators.
— Rural development agencies (Countryside
Agency, RDAs etc).
— Parish and town councils.
— Community groups, local businesses.
— Tourism agencies/providers.
— Other local stakeholders.
What do they do?
— Promotion and development of the
line.
— Publish newsletters, leaflets, posters.
— Station adoption/development schemes.
— Organise activities which promote
rail use (guided walks, special events, festivals).
— Develop bus-rail links.
— Link railway with local projects/initiatives.
— On-train events (Santa Specials,
Music Trains, Poetry Workshops).
— Involve and support local railway
staff.
What have they achieved?
— Sense of community pride in "your"
line or station.
— Increase in passenger numbers/revenue
(134% growth on Bittern Line in last six years).
— Improved services and facilities
at stations.
— Reduction in vandalism at stations
(community art projects, involving young people).
— New freight services (eg Highland
Line).
— Integrated transport links (bus,
park and ride, cycling and walking).
— Introduction of Local Residents'
Railcards—making local travel affordable.
— Improved access at stations for mobility-impaired
users.
ACoRP: recent initiatives:
— Responses to consultation on SRA
strategies; Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Study, Secretary of
State's Rail Review.
— Re-launched magazine—Train
Times.
— Annual study visit to European regional
networks.
— "Parish Platforms" (work
with parish and town councils on local rail issues).
— Gateway Stations Project (developments
at 12 market town stations—see below).
— Rail Safe Centre (rail safety awareness
for children—on our site at Huddersfield. Currently at development
stage).
— Station Design Group—encourages
good practice in smaller station design and operation, bringing
CRPs together with architects, planners and developers.
— Rolling Stock Group—focuses
on innovation in design and operation of trains for the rural/secondary
network, including light rail.
— Great Scenic Journeys by Train booklet.
— Involvement in SRA "community-rail
development strategy" consultation.
An outline of Community-rail partnerships
Community-rail partnerships (CRPs) have been
around for over 10 years now, and one of the first was the Devon
and Cornwall Rail Partnership based at the University of Plymouth.
The concept of CRPs is simple: a flexible and informal partnership
which brings railway companies, local authorities and the wider
community together to promote and develop the local rail service.
The results have been impressive: doubling of passenger use on
some rural lines; improved services; better integrated transport
links. Several of the Cornish branch lines now enjoy Sunday services
in Winter for the first time in decades, thanks to the work of
the partnership. Heart of Wessex Rail Partnership has initiated
a station refurbishment project at Bruton, and local publicity.
CRPs are not narrowly focussed on the railway
and most are involved in integrated transport projects. The Penistone
Line Partnership not only runs a community bus service linking
Holmfirth with the railway, it also manages a rural car club.
Other CRPs promote bus links to/from stations, particularly in
popular tourist areas like the Norfolk Broads and Peak Park. Encouraging
cycling and walking access to stations is another important area
of their work.
Many CRPs organise fun events—station
galas, live music on trains, and guided walks from stations. These
activities add up to a very positive image for the local railway,
with people seeing it as part of their community. This is reflected
by steadily increasing usage of the lines. Whilst growth on the
Bittern Line is exceptional, it is not unusual to see CRP rural
lines experiencing year on year growth of around 10-20%. Several
CRPs have helped make local rail travel cheaper by introduction
of Local Residents' Railcards, offering discounts of up to 50%.
This is of enormous benefit to low income families in rural areas.
Many CRPs have progressed small-scale schemes to improve access
to/from stations, pulling in external funding to install ramps
and in some cases lifts at stations.
Some of the most effective work of CRPs is in
publicity. The Devon and Cornwall rail Partnership, with Wessex
Trains, publishes a general brochure on the local rail network
of Devon and Cornwall as well as information sheets on individual
lines, each having their own branding (eg "Tarka Line"
for the Exter-Barnstaple route).
Some CRPs have publicity on particular themes,
eg the Penistone Line Partnership's "Rail Ale Trail"
published with Arriva Trains Northern, which shows a range of
pubs accessible from the line. ACoRP is sending a selection of
this literature to the Committee.
Several CRPs have interest in developing freight.
The Highland Rail Partnership worked with EWS and local businesses
to bring rail freight back to the Far North Line. CRPs in Wales
are actively involved in development plans for freight on a number
of routes including Conwy Valley.
Independent railways
ACoRP has several "independent" rail
operators in membership—Wensleydale Railway, Dartmoor Railway,
Swanage Railway, Weardale Railway, and Llangollen Railway. Some
are coming from a "heritage" perspective but want to
operate services for the local community. Others, like Wensleydale,
are new initiatives which aim to combine services for local people
and tourists. The Dartmoor Railway has freight use as well as
tourist services. Their experience is enormously useful for identifying
real costs (eg infrastructure, operating) and we would urge the
Committee to examine these railways in some detail.
The role of ACoRP
ACoRP provides information and support to its
member CRPs and also initiates new projects. We are currently
helping set up new community-rail partnerships in the North-East,
West Wales, Kent and East Anglia. We have a small grants fund
which we use to support local initiatives, eg community information,
improved access, cycling facilities and publicity.
A new ACoRP project is "Gateway Stations",
funded by the Countryside Agency and Rail Passengers Council.
It is linked to the Agency's Market Towns Initiative and focuses
on 12 market stations in England. Examples include Hexham, Crediton,
Craven Arms, Frodsham and Sheerness. The project aims to strengthen
links between the station and its town/village and wider hinterland
through better transport links (including walking and cycling
as well as bus and park and ride) and better station facilities.
The project has already led to improvements at several stations—signage,
information, and improved passenger facilities.
ACoRP works closely with its funders at the
SRA, Countryside Agency and the railway industry. As well as our
developmental role we have an important job in constantly putting
a positive case for rural rail to Government, the media and other
opinion formers.
We are championing the approach of local management
for rural railways which will bring the sort of targeted approach
which is vital for these lines to achieve their full potential.
External funding
A major strength of CRPs has been their ability
to attract external funding for small-scale projects. This has
included Countryside Agency funds, Regional Development Agency
grants and EU funds. However, the loss of the SRA's Rail Passenger
Partnership (RPP) scheme was a major setback for our work and
we would be very keen to see it restored in some form. We have
proposed to the Rail Review a "Local Integrated Transport
Challenge" fund to support small-scale schemes which encourage
transport integration—rail/bus/car/cycling/walking/ferries.
A record of achievement
Community-rail partnerships are an effective,
low-cost means of winning significant improvements. They can work
in a range of environments—rural, semi-rural and even urban.
They are not restricted to the proposed "community railway"
routes designated by the SRA and can be highly effective even
on main lines or on TENS routes which may have several rural stations
en route (eg Crewe-Shrewsbury, Norwich-Ely, etc).
. . . But an uncertain future
Community-rail partnerships, and ACoRP, need
long-term stability to survive. The run-down of The Countryside
Agency and uncertain future structure of the railway industry
could jeopardise their work. They need a combination of backing
from central Government, local authorities and the rail industry.
Members of ACoRP
Bittern Line Partnership (Norwich-Sheringham)
Bristol-Weymouth Rail Partnership
Cambrian Railways Partnership (Shrewsbury-Aberystwyth-Pwllheli)
Campaign for Borders Rail (Edinburgh-Carlisle)
Community Transport Association
Conwy Valley Rail Initiative (Llandudno-Blaenau
Ffestiniog)
Cotswold Line Promotion Group (Oxford-Hereford)
Dartmoor Railway (Crediton-Okehampton)
Derwent Valley Rural Transport Partnership (Derby-Matlock)
Devon and Cornwall Rail Partnership (all Devon/Cornwall
branches)
Durham Rail Partnership (Bishop Auckland-Darlington;
Durham Coast Line)
East Sussex Community-Rail Partnership (Uckfield-Oxted,
South Coast/Seaford, Ashford-Hastings)
Esk Valley Railway Development Co (Middlesbrough-Whitby)
Essex and South Suffolk Community-Rail Partnership
(Southminster, Harwich, Walton and Sudbury branches)
Friends of Blackrod Station
Friends of Handforth Station
Friends of Saunderton Station
Heart of Wales Line Forum (Shrewsbury-Swansea)
Heritage Railway Association
Highland Rail Partnership (all Highland lines)
Hope Valley Rail Partnership (Manchester-Sheffield
local services)
Leeds-Morecambe/Lancaster Railway Partnership
Llangollen Railway
Penistone Line Partnership (Huddersfield-Sheffield)
Purbeck Rail Partnership (Swanage Railway)
Ribble Valley Rail (Blackburn-Clitheroe)
Settle-Carlisle Railway Development Co.
Shakespeare Line Partnership (Birmingham-Stratford)
SwaleRail Partnership (Sittingbourne-Sheerness)
Sustrans
Shrewsbury—Chester Community-Rail Partnership
Weardale Railways Ltd (Bishop Auckland-Stanhope)
Wensleydale Railway Company
West of Lancashire Community Rail Partnership
(Preston-Ormskirk and Wigan -Southport)
Wherry Lines Community-Rail Partnership (Norwich-Lowestoft
and Great Yarmouth)
Wrexham-Bidston Rail Partnership (Borderlands
Line)
Yorkshire Coast Line Rail Partnership (Hull-Scarborough)
PART 2: THE
CASE FOR
RURAL RAIL:
THE ACORP
VIEW
Many rural lines closed in the 1950s as alternative
forms of transport became increasingly attractive options. Rail
was seen as slow, inflexible and unfashionable. A stream became
a flood in the mid-1960s, as the Beeching cuts took effect, following
publication of The Re-Shaping of British Railways, in 1963. The
programme began to dry up in the 1970s, with only a handful of
closures such as Swanage (1972), Alston (1976) and finally Clayton
West (1983). The attempts to close the Settle-Carlisle Line, in
the mid-1980s, failed.
Those which survived . . .
A small, but nonetheless important rural network
has survived, with many lines which were proposed for closure
by Beeching enjoying a new lease of life. The outer suburban routes
to places such as Ilkley and Skipton in Yorkshire, condemned by
Beeching, are electrified and running at near capacity. Lines
such as Braintree, which narrowly escaped closure, now form a
key part of the outer London network.
One line which isn't exactly a major commuter
route, but is not "remote" rural either, is the Penistone
Line, between Huddersfield and Sheffield. It survived numerous
closure attempts with vigorous campaigning by local councils and
individuals. The line is now performing better than it has ever
done, with more services and many more passengers using the line.
The rural network
But what about the more remote rural lines,
such as Esk Valley, meandering between Middlesbrough and Whitby,
the Devon and Cornwall branch lines, the Far North Line to Wick
and Thurso, or Heart of Wales, serving dozens of tiny communities
stretching between Swansea and Shrewsbury? They are typical of
lightly-used rural lines which are expensive to maintain and operate,
but carry few passengers compared with commuter and InterCity
lines. Users of these lines bear little resemblance to the image
of rail use being suggested by some commentators who would have
us believe that rail use is the preserve of "middle class,
middle-aged males". Yet many people use these rural lines
because they have simply no alternative—the car-less, socially
excluded inhabitants of small communities which may not have any
other public transport. In this sense, the service is similar
to that of a bus, providing fairly short journeys to the market
town. Statistically, they may seem almost irrelevant—but
they are a vital lifeline to the mum doing her weekly shopping,
the kids going to school, and the pensioner collecting her pension
and seeing her friends on market day.
The legacy of some of the Beeching closures
in rural areas has been decline, loss of business, and an outflow
of young people to the cities. Studies such as Mayer Hillman (The
Social Consequences of Rail Closures, 1980) and TR&IN ("What
Use Are Rural Railways?" 1998) suggest that when a line closes
only a minority of people transfer to bus: most either stop travelling
or buy a car. Is that really what we want in the 21st century?
Who uses rural railways?
Use of rural rail isn't confined to the socially
excluded. Several rural lines are used by people who have a car,
and choose not to use it. This is rail's potential strength—it
can be a mode of choice, not a last resort. It can even be a tourist
attraction in its own right, bringing people into rural areas
on such scenic routes as the Kyle Line, Settle-Carlisle, or Heart
of Wales. The user profile of a line like Esk Valley, or Heart
of Wales, fluctuates enormously over the year. They are very often
major carriers of schoolchildren during term-time, and become
important tourist routes in the summer. Most rural lines have
connections to the major cities with just one change, making them
potentially attractive to business users—if the connections
were any good at the junction! The role of rural lines in sustainable
tourism is often under-estimated—towns with serious traffic
problems such as Whitby, Barnstaple, Falmouth, St Ives, Oban,
Fort William, Inverness and many others benefit from substantial
numbers of tourists arriving by train.
Rural rail has the following advantages
— Social inclusion: it can—and
is—used by a mix of people, including people on low incomes,
business travellers, people with disabilities. Most trains and
stations on rural lines are accessible—those that aren't
could easily (in most cases) be made so. Many of our CRPs have
helped set up local residents' railcards which offer substantial
discounts for rail travel to local people.
— Sustainability: rail offers
a serious alternative to the car if quality is right. It can also
be used (eg Far North Line) to carry freight, reducing the number
of HGVs on rural roads. Several CRPs are actively involved in
freight development.
— Local economy: Rail brings people
into centres, encouraging use of market town shops, cafes, etc,
and thus contributing to the health and vitality of town and village
centres. Our Gateway Stations project is encouraging integrated
development at 12 market town stations.
— Integration: rail can be at
the heart of strategies for rural transport integration, with
stations acting as hubs for connecting bus and taxi services,
park and ride, and cycling. Stations can also develop as economic
and cultural hubs, with complimentary (and sustainable) development
around the station area. Existing examples include Gobowen, Whitby,
Clitheroe, Carnforth and Hexham.
Social inclusion
The arguments for rail as a tool of social inclusion
are complex but in fact quite strong. It is suggested that a higher
proportion of social class C2DE use buses, which is certainly
the case. The bus is not a "mode of choice", so it is
unremarkable that it is mainly used by lower income groups who
do not have the option of using a car. Whilst the usage of rail
measured in passenger miles is certainly greatest amongst social
classes ABC1, this masks the substantial number of journeys undertaken
by rail amongst C2DEs. Lower income groups tend to make shorter
journeys, eg for access to employment, shops, and visiting friends
and relatives. Rail is more "socially inclusive" than
the bus, insofar as it is used, on a journey basis, by a more
or less equal cross-section of social classes.
Currently, there is a lack of adequate research
on the social profile of rail users on a regional basis. However,
discussions with PTE offices in a number of areas suggest that
rail serves a reasonably balanced cross-section of society. A
West Yorkshire PTE officer commented that "the last 10 or
12 years has seen a big change, and rail is now recognised as
being a good form of transport right across the board. We have
a lot more young people using the train, and the railways are
seen as part of the fabric of West Yorkshire."
Role of railway re-openings
Rail re-openings have made a positive contribution
to social inclusion. The Robin Hood Line, from Worksop to Nottingham,
was financed by EC structural funds specifically as a means of
assisting regeneration and social inclusion in the former mining
areas of the East Midlands. It has proved highly successful, with
new stations serving villages which were previously very long
bus journeys into Nottingham: Shirebrook, Cresswell, and larger
settlements including Mansfield itself. Similarly, the re-routing
of some Leeds-Sheffield services into Castleford opened up extended
travel opportunities for a local community whose economic base
had been wiped out by pit closures.
The bus argument
Many critics of rail support have argued that
re-directing subsidy to bus services would give better value for
money. Certainly the direct costs of bus operation compare favourably
with rail (but so does cycling). However, can bus offer a quality
alternative to rail? When existing rail users were asked if they
would transfer to a bus if their train service did not exist,
the majority replied in the negative. The same goes for motorists:
it is considerably more difficult to persuade motorists to use
the bus rather than a train, or a tram. Some of this may well
be perceptual, but people's perceptions are their reality. Buses
are still seen as an inferior form of transport, a last resort,
rather than a mode of transport one would make a positive choice
to use.
There are other, perhaps more objective, reasons
for rail offering a better alternative to the bus for particular
journeys, and these relate to distance. For short distances of
between a mile and five miles, the bus can offer convenience and
flexibility, and cover a dense network. Along major corridors
it can provide an intensive service using good quality vehicles
with low step heights. However, for journeys beyond five miles
(a fairly arbitrary distance admittedly) the attractiveness begins
to wane. Even allowing for bus lanes and bus priority measures,
it is difficult for buses to avoid traffic congestion at some
point in the journey.
For short journeys (five miles or less) rail
can be more trouble than it's worth, unless you live very near
a station and have a high frequency service. For journeys over
five miles, rail becomes increasingly attractive for door-to-door
journeys which may involve a walk of up to 10 or 15 minutes to
the station (at both ends). The further the distance, the better
it becomes for rail. For journeys of 10 miles or more it becomes
attractive for motorists to drive to a station and catch the train—providing
the rail product is right: safe, well-lit car parks, regular and
reliable services, attractive fares and comfortable trains without
overcrowding. The same sort of distance, approximately 10 miles
and beyond, becomes attractive for rail-link bus services serving
reasonably-sized settlements within relatively short distances
of the railhead. Again, quality needs to be right: the bus should
connect comfortably with the train, and wait if the train is delayed
for a reasonable time. The bus should be good quality, easy access,
with strong "rail" branding. ACoRP is actively promoting
quality bus links and its forthcoming conference on "The
Integrated Branch Line" will highlight good practice and
have some demonstration vehicles on show.
The subsidy argument
It has been argued that a disproportionate level
of subsidy is going to "the middle classes" through
rail revenue support. Again, this does not stand up to examination.
As we have seen, many journeys amongst upper income groups are
over longer distances on the InterCity network. These services
are either unsubsidised, or have a reducing level of subsidy which
will gradually be eliminated. The lines which are subsidised are
precisely those which have a much more mixed social profile: the
inner-suburban routes, and rural services. The social profile
of each line is different, even within a particular conurbation.
The social profile of semi-rural routes such as the Penistone
Line is heavily skewed towards short commuting journeys, social
and shopping trips—the use of the service tends to be at
its peak on a Saturday, rather than during the weekday peak. The
lines to Ilkley and Harrogate on the other hand have a large outer-suburban
commuting traffic, often from high income groups.
Why subsidise rural railways?
Rail support achieves different objectives compared
with bus. It is less about serving people without cars, or otherwise
socially disadvantaged, but about firstly providing an alternative
to the car. "Close the rail service and all those middle
class commuters won't get into a politically-correct bus"
one manager told us. "Instead they'll drive, and the people
who will suffer most are those town and village dwellers whose
homes the cars roar past—or those in inner cities who find
themselves living in a permanent traffic jam".
Secondly, it is about helping disadvantaged
areas rather than individuals. Seaside resorts are a good example.
These are not subsidised for the users but rather for the resorts
themselves, ie to bring people in and get them to spend money
in Barmouth rather than Benidorm—the beneficiaries being
local shops, pubs, hotels, etc rather than passengers.
The same manager commented that "every
now and again some ivory tower economist comes up with this `equity'
argument, and every now and again HMG decides it shouldn't subsidise
commuter lines. Fares go up, services and investment go down,
and the end result is the mess we have at present. Given the lead
times, the appalling state of many services in the home counties
can be traced to the cutback of Network SouthEast's finances in
the late 1980s. The end result is not a profitable railway, but
ever bigger problems and ever more political outcry in the future."
The potential of rail in rural areas
However, rail can do a lot more. Britain's rural
railways have been run as an afterthought by both BR, and most
of today's train operators. Apart from the work of community-rail
partnerships (which involve TOCs on particular routes), precious
little promotion and development has taken place. Many rural lines
have timetables which are hopelessly unattractive, with three
or four-hour intervals between trains, dismal unstaffed stations,
and uncomfortable, cramped trains.
If we want to see the sort of contribution rural
rail can really make to local communities, we need to study the
experience of regionalisation in Germany, Sweden and The Netherlands.
It's clear that local management and operation of rural railways
has brought major dividends, through a virtuous spiral of investment,
more passengers, more services, and significant local economic
gains by increasing the employment base in rural areas. The local
train company often also runs the buses, encourages local tourism
initiatives and buys locally, thus supporting the wider business
community.
We suspect that the amount of subsidy going
into our rural network is probably not that much different, on
a mile-by-mile basis, from Germany—yet rural railways in
Germany are prospering, with new trains, new lines and increased
frequencies. We need to take a creative leap in our thinking about
rural railways here, applying the experience of regionalisation
and local management to British conditions. For the same amount
of subsidy we could, if that money was used sensibly and properly
targeted, get a better rural network which will have contributory
benefits to the rail network as a whole.
How to capture the potential
We suggest, as part of the SRA community-rail
strategy's pilot projects, establishment of local not-for-profit
"Railway Development Companies" involving the SRA, "parent"
TOC, Network Rail, local authorities and key stakeholders along
a particular line (such as already exists for the Esk Valley Railway
between Middlesbrough and Whitby). The RDCs could act as franchising
bodies for, initially, a small number of lines. Licensed "community-rail
operating companies" would be invited to bid for operating
vertically-integrated franchises along particular routes, against
clear criteria based on value for money, community and staff engagement,
and transport integration. As well as receiving funding via the
SRA, the RDCs could also pull in external funding (eg RDAs, EU)
for specific development projects. The "community-railway
operating company" would act as the contractor for the RDC,
ensuring the public interest is protected. To ensure real value
for money the proposed "Community-Rail" group standard
should allow simplified operating practices, such as exist in
continental Europe.
Our vision
Our vision of rural railways in 10 year time
would be of local "community-rail operating companies",
accountable to their staff and customers, providing employment
for around 50-60 people in smaller rural market towns. The companies
run trains but also connecting bus services, with through ticketing
to the rest of the national rail network. They operate train taxi
services and bike hire businesses from their stations. They work
energetically with local visitor attractions to encourage people
to visit the area—by train.
The community-railway company may operate as
a microfranchise, maintaining the track and stations. Each station
could be "adopted" either by a community group or a
local business (or a combination of both). Every station would
be well cared-for and have station shops or catering facilities
used by passengers, local people and tourists alike. The railway
would be seen as a vital part of the local economy not just for
the jobs it supports directly, but because of its local purchasing
policies.
The railway is not just providing passenger
services, but freight as well—taking goods to marshalling
points on the main line for onward consignment to the rest of
the country and Europe—and bringing goods in for local supermarkets
and manufacturers.
It isn't a dream—we can make it happen
with your support.
PART 3: THE
CHALLENGES AHEAD
FOR RURAL
RAIL
The review by the Transport Committee comes
at a very good time, with publication of the SRA consultation
paper on Community-Rail Development Strategy and the Secretary
of State's Rail Review.
We hope we have shown that there is much that
is positive happening on the rural rail network. However, there
are some big issues which must be addressed.
Local management
Rural railways can achieve much greater potential
by having a tier of local management which can respond to local
needs. The SRA is proposing a number of pilot schemes to test
out different approaches and we hope the Committee will lend their
support to these initiatives. We would strongly urge the Committee
to visit some of the rural lines in Germany and/or Sweden which
have been transformed by local management and regional support.
We would be happy to help facilitate this, as we have good contacts
with many regional operators.
The issue of costs
Railways are expensive to run: the financial
support going into rail must be based on getting good value for
money in terms of passenger benefit and wider social, economic
and environmental benefits. We believe that current operating
standards on some rural lines are inappropriate, loading unnecessary
costs onto rural lines. A review of railway group standards as
applied to low-speed and low frequency lines is essential, so
that the cost base of operating, and improving, rural lines can
be reduced. This issue is addressed by the SRA Community-Rail
Development Strategy and we strongly urge the Committee to support
a review of standards.
Generating revenue through partnerships
Community-Rail partnerships have proved themselves
as a highly effective means of creating goodwill and support for
rural lines, and this has been reflected in significant increases
in passenger use, as noted previously. Community-rail partnerships
make direct contribution to increasing the revenue earned by their
lines. However, the majority of community-rail partnerships have
a highly unstable financial base, with short-term funding and
inadequate staffing. We would welcome support from the Committee
for a secure, long-term funding arrangement for community-rail
partnerships involving train operators, Network Rail and local
authorities, with support from other local and regional stakeholders.
ACoRP: the need for a national focus and long-term
funding
ACoRP has played a central role in raising awareness
of the importance of rural railways and in providing support to
member CRPs. Its funding comes primarily from the Countryside
Agency and SRA. Both organisations are currently under scrutiny
and we are particularly concerned about the almost inevitable
loss of funding from the Countryside Agency in 2005-06. We would
welcome support from the Committee for this funding which will
be lost to made up by support from either Defra or DfT (or both)
based on agreed outputs.
We would like the Transport Committee to note:
— The importance of Britain's
rural railways in meeting the needs of many rural residents, and
in bringing visitors into environmentally sensitive rural areas.
— The positive work done by Britain's
community-rail partnerships in promoting use of the local and
rural network, and the great achievements they have made with
very few resources.
— The vital importance of integrated
transport in rural areas, with dedicated bus links to the rail
network.
— The role of ACoRP in bringing
these bodies together and putting a strong, well-argued case to
Government for the development of the rural network, based on
social, economic and environmental grounds.
— The achievements of rural railways
in other parts of Europe, particularly Germany and Sweden, where
local management within a supportive regional and national framework
has led to spectacular growth.
— The futility and irrelevance
of the closure argument: closing rural lines will save very little
and create enormous hardship. Most rail subsidy goes towards easing
road congestion in larger conurbations.
To go forward, we need:
— Clear support from Government
to maintain and develop the rural rail network as the core of
an integrated network.
— Re-instatement of "discretionary"
funding for small scale schemes (either RPP or "Local Integrated
Transport Challenge").
— A willingness to support innovation
in the operation and management of rural lines, based on local
management.
— Stability of funding for community-rail
partnerships and ACoRP.
April 2004
| 
