Memorandum by I D King (RR 25)
RURAL RAILWAYS
1. INTRODUCTION
In response to your communication of the 26
March (16/2003-04); the purpose of this memorandum is to raise
certain points concerning the proposals being put forward by the
Strategic Rail Authority for community rail routes in respect
of their being managed and operated separately from the main network.
References are made in this memorandum to the
Transport Committee's report "The Future of the Railway"
(HC145-1) which will be referred to as the "Future Report".
Whilst such a proposal by the SRA will no doubt
be welcomed by many local interests, my background as a former
British Rail Area Manager responsible for such diverse Areas as
Leicester, Birmingham and Manchester and also as a former Divisional
Passenger Manager for the East Midlands leads me to have serious
concerns for a proposal which, if taken too far, would further
fragment the industry.
It is a fact that the SRA sees the solution
to many of the problems facing the industry in terms of top-down
reorganisation. This top-down rather than bottom-up approach may
well be due to the distance from the workface of the SRA. It may
also partly be due to the SRA being influenced by the increasing
input to transport matters by academic commentators who may not
fully appreciate how the railway works—a point borne out
by the comments by such academics in paragraph 134 of the Future
Report which are, quite frankly, completely wrong.
Before considering any changes to who runs a
particular part of the railway industry one should not lose sight
of an important fact put very succinctly in the Future Report—"The
travelling public do not care who runs railway services; their
concern, quite properly, is with efficiency and value for money".
2. PAST HISTORY
Whilst rural railways have been an integral
part of the national network this has not stopped initiatives
being taken to make them more suitable for the job they have to
do. Just a selection of examples are:
1. Reducing the track from double to single
line eg Chester-Wrexham.
2. "One train working" to obviate
signalling costs, eg Oxenholme-Windermere.
3. Radio signalling eg Mid Wales.
4. Pay-train working—most services.
5. Lightweight trains eg Class 142.
6. Special services for local events eg a
shuttle service for the Open Golf Championship at Royal Lytham
and St Annes.
3. FRAGMENTATION
The SRA's proposal involves 12.5% of the national
network and 17% of all stations. If one takes out London and the
South East from the total network the proportion under consideration
is, of course, even higher. This is not an insignificant part
of the network and any separation will lead to an even greater
fragmentation than exists now. Again to quote from the Future
Report—"The constant theme throughout our work was
the complaint that the current structure of the industry is too
fragmented to provide clear lines of responsibility and leadership
and a satisfactory basis for improved rail performance''. Some
of the difficulties caused if there were to be such a further
fragmentation will be covered in further paragraphs of this memorandum.
4. LOCAL COMMUNITIES
"Involving the local community more closely"
always sounds a fine idea but it begs the question as to what
the "local community" actually is and how it will become
involved. One obvious level of involvement for rural lines is
the Shire County but many lines cross County boundaries and this
has often caused difficulties with regard to local rail services
due to there not being a common approach. Local authorities will
obviously want to achieve the greatest benefit to their own communities
which may not benefit the majority of passengers on a particular
service.
An example of this some years ago was the difficulty
in getting any agreement between the various local authorities
on a strategy for the Lincoln to Crewe service.
Certain lines are actually more important for
passengers who do not live in the area in question. This applies
particularly to lines serving tourist destinations. Whilst the
answer may be to include tourist bodies such as hoteliers or bodies
such as the CPRE or the National Parks the danger will be of too
many local interests becoming involved and forming a miniature
Network Rail Members Group for each particular line.
5. STANDARDS
Any reduction in standards can obviously only
occur if it results in there being no detrimental effect of safety.
It can also store up trouble for the future. Again from the Future
Report—"We are concerned that the drive to reduce costs
appears in conflict with long term investment in the infrastructure."
Judging from the conclusions drawn in the Report it would seem
that much of the excess cost in the maintenance of rural railways
can be put down to Network Rail not managing their expenditure
properly in the same way as it can for the system in general.
In terms of stock and staffing many rural lines
share part of their route with other lines for example Matlock-Ambergate
Junction-Derby, and stock and staff would have to reach the same
standards as on all other lines where routes are common.
If it was considered that track maintenance
could be reduced if line speeds were lowered this would affect
the attractiveness of the service as outlines below.
6. ATTRACTIVENESS
The rural railway is in competition with the
car and in some cases the bus. It will only succeed if it is more
attractive that these alternatives. Speed is one aspect where
it can be the better mode and any reduction in this advantage
by reducing the level of track maintenance could well be counter
productive.
The same can apply on longer routes with station
re-openings which will, no doubt, be an aim by many local communities.
In certain cases this is obviously a good thing but many stations
that have re-opened have shown a disappointingly low level of
user and stop-start journeys can reduce the attractiveness of
the service for the majority of passengers. When the small intermediate
stations were closed on the Cambridge to Ipswich line the number
of passengers using the route increased by over 25% by the second
year.
Many passengers travelling on rural railways
are using them as part of a longer journey. Services have to connect,
have to have a common fare structure and information concerning
a service at one end of the country has to be available for a
potential passenger at the other. The situation has deteriorated
in all these aspects since the railways were privatised and there
is a great danger that further fragmentation would make it even
worse.
7. STOCK AND
STAFF
If local railways are to hire stock from the
leasing companies they will pay the alleged inflated prices mentioned
in paragraph 165 of the Future Report. If they are to own their
own stock it begs questions as to the standards of maintenance
that will apply and how the provision of spares to cover periods
of repair and peak demands will be organised. In terms of staff
the question arises as to their conditions. Will they be paid
less than on other parts of the system, will they be in the Railway
Pension scheme—and therefore will the local railway employer
contribute? How will sickness and leave be covered in an economic
way?
In addition to these types of questions there
will also be the matter of training and maintenance of safety
standards for personnel.
8. RECEIPTS
The financial viability of local services will
be highlighted if they are separated from the other operating
companies. However, the allocation of receipts will not necessarily
give a clear picture of the actual revenue. This is due to the
allocation from through bookings (which hopefully will remain)
and the percentage allocation from the point to point pooling
arrangement.
9. COSTS
Whilst the aim of the SRA is to reduce the costs
of rural railways there will be an increase in certain areas.
There will need to be a stricter regime of inspection which will
cost money. If the local authorities are to play an increased
role they will increase their staffing levels to deal with the
workload. There will be a more direct allocation of costs from
such bodies as the British Transport Police. There will also be
an increase in costs due to the loss of economies of scale and
of the ordering muscle of the larger train operating companies
such as Arriva or First Group.
There will also need to be insurance cover for
accidents or some reserve for paying compensation which in this
litigious age could amount to a considerable sum of money. Premiums
for individual concerns could be quite high particularly if standards
are lowered.
10. CONCLUSION
Whilst the SRA is right to look at the way rural
railways are operated and managed, further fragmentation of the
industry is probably not the way to go forward. This is not to
say there can not be innovative approaches to the way they are
funded and operated but this should be within the framework of
the national network.
I D King MBE
12 April 2004
| 
