Memorandum by the RMT (RR 32)
RURAL RAILWAYS
INTRODUCTION
RMT welcome the opportunity to contribute to
the House of Commons Transport Committee inquiry into rural railways.
The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT)
is the largest rail union. Overall we represent 68,000 workers
from different transport industries, 40,000 of whom work in the
railway industry.
At the current time the railway is struggling
to cope with ever increasing demand. The Railway Forum has stated
that demand for rail is likely to be greater than Government estimates.
In 2003 more than one billion passenger journeys were made, the
highest number since 1961. The figure is growing by more than
3% a year, one of the fastest rates of increase in Europe.
This is most welcome as rail has many virtues,
including clear economic, safety, environmental and social benefits.
In this respect RMT welcome the recent publication of the Strategic
Rail Authority (SRA) document "Everyone's railway the wider
case for rail", September 2003. RMT believe that rural railways
have a vital role to play in the improvement and expansion of
the network.
The Union is disappointed that despite the record
levels of spending on the railway, service levels remain poor
and actual investment on enhancements on the domestic railway
is far less than it should be given current spending levels, even
allowing for a backlog of renewals. As we have previously advised
the Committee the industry needs to be simplified as fragmentation
continues to hinder progress and waste valuable resources. There
is unnecessary duplication between different industry bodies,
contractual wrangling between companies and money haemorrhaging
out of the industry through the underpinning of profits by Government.
We remain of the view that fragmentation should
be reduced, and we wholeheartedly support the recent Transport
Committee recommendation for the establishment of a single public
sector railway authority which is publicly owned and takes over
the current roles of the SRA and Network Rail. However, the single
biggest flaw of privatisation, the separation of track and passenger
operations, should also be reversed through the reintegration
of passenger services alongside the infrastructure under the overall
control and direction of the newly established public sector railway
authority.
THE IMPORTANCE
OF RURAL
RAILWAYS
Access to rail for rural communities has already
been severely curtailed. Many services were scrapped in the 1930s,
there were further closures in the 1950s and the Beeching Report
of 1963 culminated in the closure of many more rural services
and stations. Many of these closures were very unpopular and the
Government decided that the remaining rural services and the subsidies
required should be protected through specific subsidies in the
1968 Transport Act. These were consolidated by the 1974 Railway
Act as the Public Service Obligation Grant. Railway lines that
could not generate profits were classified as part of the social
railway.
The Committee has asked about the importance
of rural railways to the communities that they serve. Millions
of people live in rural communities and it has been estimated
that around two million people do so without ownership of a car,
with many more not having access to a car during the day. In future
years the age profile of the UK population will become older and
therefore increasing numbers of people will fall into this category.
Many people use the train to travel to business on rail, particularly
long distance trips. Railways are an essential part of rural life
and they will often require public subsidy.
The railways can transfer people quickly to
regional centres and towns for further education, health services,
leisure services and business. They provide a vital link to the
wider economy and undoubtedly increase access to employment for
rural communities often when opportunities locally have declined.
A permanent transport connection is of great value to sustaining
local businesses, many of which, but certainly not all, are based
on tourism.
It cannot be overstated how much value the railway
can bring to a rural community. Inevitably many of these services
will require subsidies, however, the monetary value of these is
small when compared to the intrinsic importance of rail services
to local communities. We should also note that other rural infrastructure
is effectively cross subsidised, for example postal services,
telephones and maintenance of rural roads. Likewise Government
funding for rail needs to continue to be recognised as part of
the social railway.
The SRA document correctly states that rural
railway stations can also provide important transport hubs. As
we will explain later bus services should not replace railways,
however rural villages and other areas not currently served by
the railway network should have bus services feeding into the
railway network. Where necessary stations should also provide
park and ride facilities.
The wider benefit of rail to the environment
should also not be overlooked. When increasing car use is threatening
to swamp our roads the railway also has a role to play in ensuring
that local rural communities do not become overwhelmed by traffic.
The RAC Foundation have estimated that latent demand for car use
will be 50% higher in 2031 and these traffic increases will also
effect rural areas. The increased use of rural railways is of
course fully in line with Government objectives to promote a shift
from road to public transport, and indeed to promote a cleaner
environment.
LOCAL INVOLVEMENT
IN THE
PROVISION OF
SERVICES
RMT will be compiling a full response to the
SRA consultation document, "Community Rail Development",
(February 2004). However, it is quite clear from a preliminary
examination of this document that the SRA strongly favour local
involvement in the funding and management of these services.
RMT welcomes more local input into services.
Indeed previous examples would indicate that facilitating local
control can be effective in boosting local services. In particular
RMT believe that Passenger Transport Executives have been a positive
force for greater democratic accountability in Britain's railways.
Certainly we believe that in future there is no reason why local
authorities cannot facilitate greater integration of transport
modes.
The Union has long argued that there is scope
for far greater integration between transport modes, and as stated
above bus services should act as feeder into local railways so
that passengers can comfortably transfer from one mode of transport
to the other. In addition passengers should be strongly encouraged
to use public transport through interchangeable tickets that can
be used on both modes, with discounts available that encourage
increased use of both rail and bus.
To achieve this RMT believe there will need
to be local authority control over bus services and also effective
regulation, which would need to be facilitated by Government legislation.
The Government have so far promoted only Quality Bus Contracts;
unfortunately in many rural areas the level of bus services is
dependent upon the whim of the operators. The success of increased
ridership in London should be noted. In the Capital the level
of services, the routes that are operated and the competition
between operators is regulated for the benefit of the community.
Whilst RMT see great potential in local authorities
coordinating greater transport integration, we remain concerned
over a number of elements within the SRA proposals. First of all
the railway must retain certain standardisation of operations
and equipment. At the current time professional standards are
applied across the network to ensure appropriate safety on the
national railway and we do not wish to see any reduction in these
standards.
RMT agree that such standards should allow for
variable application proportionate to the risks created by the
density and type of train operations. However any such variation
should also ensure continued compatibility in order to provide
for through running and the cascade of trains, equipment and materials
from the main line. In addition sufficient renewals, and investment
in new rolling stock, needs to take place so that services are
still reliable.
The principal concern for RMT is that the SRA
appear to be hinting that a failure to cut subsidies through local
involvement could endanger the future of certain rural lines.
This would place in jeopardy the whole concept of the social railway.
Certainly it would be foolish to presume that local authorities
will be able to produce additional money when funding is already
short for other services.
Bus Substitution
The union would like to see greater integration
of transport modes. As is acknowledged by the SRA too often the
railway is competing with bus services in rural areas. We agree
with the SRA that this is clearly not desirable. However, we are
concerned that the SRA may be proposing that buses replace rail
services when the Authority, or local community control, cannot
succeed in making these profitable.
The reality is that certain rural rail services
can only survive through cross subsidy. This does not have to
be excessive. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the British
Railways Board Provincial Services (February 1989) applauded the
fact that British Rail had reduced very significantly the financial
cost of Provincial Services to the taxpayer by the end of the
1980s. Provincial included not only rural services but also Express
(long distance) and urban services. The Committee is no doubt
aware that RMT believe that costs on the railway can be tackled
by ending the privatisation and fragmentation of the network.
Bus services cannot provide an adequate replacement
for rail. Even the most basic railway stations usually offer better
facilities than bus stops, especially in rural areas. Trains will
always be faster than buses due to the reserved track, and trains
have better provisions in respect of luggage and toilet facilities,
and also generally a higher level of comfort. Even where bus services
offer enhanced flexibility through visiting villages not accessible
by train, the diversions inevitably mean longer journey times.
Most importantly many train passengers will
not use bus services. Most of the rail closures in the 1950s and
1960s were followed by a replacement bus service. A study by the
Policy Studies Institute (The Social Effects of Rail Closures,
1980) found that no more than half of the former rail users used
replacement bus services, and this was when access to private
travel by car was far less common than today. Buses were seen
as slow, less comfortable and less convenient, and consequently
many of these services were also subsequently terminated. Too
many rural areas have consequently been left without any reliable
public transport and road traffic has greatly increased.
The loss of passengers who did not regard buses
as an adequate replacement for rail was also acknowledged in the
Monopolies and Mergers Report into Provincial Railways in 1989.
This report also stated that no significant cost savings could
be made through bus replacement services without the withdrawal
of all local rail services in the surrounding area.
CONCLUSION
The escalating cost resulting from the privatisation
and fragmentation of the railway needs to be tackled. The social
cost of maintaining rural railways cannot be sacrificed due to
unnecessary waste elsewhere.
The SRA document, "The Case for Rail"
identifies that the role played by the railway in our economy
will become of even greater significance as congestion on the
roads grows in the next few years. The Government forecasts that
congestion is set to worsen by 11% to 20% by 2010, even if the
Government's 10 year plan objectives are fully achieved. If they
are not then congestion will increase by between 27% to 32%. Replacing
rail with bus will cause yet more traffic with all the resulting
environmental consequences for rural areas.
RMT support greater local involvement and we
sincerely hope that greater local input can facilitate a rural
renaissance in rail. We certainly believe that local authorities,
if empowered by Government, have a crucial role to play in promoting
far greater integration between transport modes and its increased
use. However, the SRA will be unable to avoid the requirements
for subsidies on all rural railways and there still needs to be
a social railway.
Finally we would also remind the Committee that
whilst the application of safety standards can be proportionate
to the type of operations on a particular part of the network,
there still needs to be one undivided railway network if the benefits
of rail travel and necessary cost reductions are to be achieved.
Bob Crow
General Secretary
April 2004
| 
