Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
DR PAUL
SALVESON, MRS
SHEILA DEE,
MR JONATHAN
DENBY, MR
SCOTT HANDLEY
AND MS
RUTH ANNISON
3 NOVEMBER 2004
Q160 Ian Lucas: I do not know if you
were here for the evidence from our Swedish witness earlier but
he had clearly developed more stops and stations and I was wondering
if that was something that you regard as feasible, Mr Denby or
Mrs Dee? It seems to me that there appears to be a demand for
that in particular stations, and Rossett is one that is mentioned
regularly on the Chester-Shrewsbury line, but it always seems
to be an extremely difficult thing to achieve whereas the Swedish
gentleman seemed to be able to achieve that quite easily.
Mrs Dee: I think what has happened
in the past is we have always gone on historic knowledge of where
stations were and it is those communities that expect the stations
to be reopened. On the Chester-Shrewsbury line the centres of
population have changed and there is significant growth in other
areas due to business parks and commuter traffic. I am talking
about the business park at Chester. We do have to analyse yet
again where for an efficient use the stop should be put. The production
of the SRA paper on new station proposals will help us go through
the criteria to see whether any of those areas actually do reach
that criteria.
Q161 Ian Lucas: Are you opening any new
stations, Mr Denby?
Mr Denby: We have found on our
routes, on the lines that we are operating, the legacy of Beeching
was that most of the stations were all still there. What we have
been doing over the last seven years is creating a more customer
friendly passenger service. We have been getting rid of gaps in
the service that were a disincentive to people to travel. We have
made it into an hourly service throughout the day and we have
worked with other parties to fund late evening trains so when
people said they would not use the trains because it left them
stranded we have worked with other parties jointly to make a more
cohesive service across the day. With the feedback that we get
through the partnerships we can pick up where there might be a
true demand for an additional stop. In the past there was a skip
stop pattern of service where some stations only had a service,
say, every two or three hours whereas for most of the day people
are not that time sensitive coming in from Cromer or Sheringham
and an extra two minutes will not make a difference as to whether
they use the train from Sheringham to Norwich or not, so you can
put in those extra stops and get the extra traffic. I would emphasise
to the Committee that one of the big things in terms of making
a difference is getting a service frequency and a service pattern
that is attractive to the local market and there is no doubt in
my mind that has been one of the critical factors in attracting
more people, that it is convenient and frequent enough and they
can rely on it.
Q162 Ian Lucas: How would you go about
obtaining new rolling stock? Is that feasible?
Mr Denby: I would say that new
rolling stock is a challenge. You have to have the business case
for doing it and that is always tough to achieve. There is new
build rolling stock and there is additional rolling stock. Additional
rolling stock is slightly easier because what you can go for is
rolling stock that has already been built and, therefore, is less
costly. Again, what you have got to look at is what the business
case for the whole region is for putting those services in. In
most cases these services as a straight commercial venture would
not make money but we all know they have a much greater value
to the region that they serve. Certainly we were able to introduce
some service improvements through the Rail Passenger Partnership
scheme, including the Norwich-Cambridge service, and the SRA,
to their credit, underwrote the fact that we argued, with the
support from local councils, that to get people off the A11, the
comparative road between Norwich and Cambridge, you would have
to bring in new high quality rolling stock and, indeed, the SRA
supported that and that has been a huge success. Having surveyed
passengers, 44% suggested that they would otherwise have stayed
in their cars. If you have got that kind of support from third
party funding you can bring in new build otherwise you need to
work with local authorities or Regional Development Agencies to
put in additional services where they see them as the greatest
priority and work with them on that basis.
Q163 Clive Efford: Just following on
from that, you own your own rolling stock, do you, you do not
lease it?
Mr Denby: We lease all our rolling
stock. The vast majority of train operators' rolling stock is
leased through the three main leasing companies.
Q164 Clive Efford: If you were looking
to expand and put in extra rolling stock, you would be entering
into a new leasing arrangement, would you?
Mr Denby: Yes.
Q165 Clive Efford: The issue is about
capacity, is it, and about attracting new customers to be able
to cover the cost of leasing the extra rolling stock?
Mr Denby: Yes. We are getting
to a point now where over the first few years since privatisation
much of the extra rolling stock that has been brought on to the
network has been used to create new services to accommodate growth,
more people travelling on the network. Up until the last couple
of years there was no cascade of rolling stock becoming spare.
We have now reached that point and that means that the rolling
stock leasing companies have rolling stock that is more available
at a very competitive price to use for putting in customer services.
Q166 Chairman: You are not talking about
all old rolling stock. You heard what our Swedish witness said,
that they had found a new way of getting new rolling stock with
different engines. Have you contemplated anything like that?
Mr Denby: I think most train operators
would be very open-minded to looking at what rolling stock is
available. Up until now it has tended to be that the most obvious
option has been to use existing rolling stock redeployed but we
would always be happy to look at other operations and other opportunities.
Q167 Clive Efford: I just want to be
clear about this. For want of a better word, they are hand-me-downs,
things that have been taken off of the mainline system and they
are at a sort of price that is affordable by rural railways. That
is the sort of market that rural train services are in for rolling
stock, is it? They rely heavily on renewal.
Mr Denby: Yes. You said "hand-me-downs",
but it does not necessarily mean that they have to be dilapidated,
they are in very good condition, but—
Q168 Clive Efford: I appreciate that.
Mr Denby: For cost-effective operation
it tends to be that it makes more sense most of the time to have
that. If the market changes and there becomes available either
nationally or internationally other rolling stock that fulfils
all the safety and operating criteria but is at the same price
as second hand rolling stock, if you like, then we have got no
problem about using that.
Q169 Clive Efford: Does anybody else
have anything to add to what your colleague has said?
Dr Salveson: We launched a report
very recently, and I will leave a copy for the Committee, about
looking at options for rolling stock on rural lines. Certainly
one option is to refurbish existing trains but there was a strong
feeling coming out of the report that the classic rural train,
the Pacer unit, which is in regular operation in the North of
England, the Bristol area and elsewhere, sooner or later will
need replacing. There are a lot of these trains still running
around, so there is a need for a strategic look at a replacement
programme for these very basic trains. As I say, some train operators
have refurbished them and there is several years' life in them,
but the period of time for research and development of a new train
for the rural routes could be five to 10 years, so we do need
to start planning seriously now. We know that the SRA have already
done some research on this, applying some of the principles of
light rail technology to a rural type train, such as in operation
in parts of Germany, for instance. But something that is acceptable
in the UK environment is really urgently needed now.
Chairman: You talked about Germany and
we are going to come on to talk about Germany.
Q170 Clive Efford: Since you mentioned
Germany, you said that local rail services in Germany are providing
a better service but for a similar level of subsidy as we have
in the UK. Do you have any statistics on that?
Dr Salveson: It is very, very
difficult to come up with precise figures. It was a suspicion
rather than a definite fact. We are trying to get more detailed
figures. We have got evidence on specific schemes where new services
are delivered far more cheaply in Germany, for instance reopening
a line in North Rhine-Westphalia which was financed largely by
the region. It was round about the order of £1 million per
mile, whereas if we compare that with the cost of reopening a
railway in the UK it would be considerably greater. Also, the
cost of building new stations was coming out at round about a
quarter of a million pounds for a two platform station; the cost in
the UK, once everything is taken into consideration, including
the wider legal costs associated with it, would be a bit more
like two million. There is a lot that could be learned there because
the quality and the standard of these new facilities in Germany
are every bit as good, if not better, as we get here but they
are delivered far more cheaply, so we need to find out why that
is.
Q171 Clive Efford: Who underwrote the
costs of those?
Dr Salveson: Generally, in Germany
and increasingly in other European countries it is the regional
government, the Lander in Germany, who take the lead.
They are the franchising authorities for local rail services which
are delivered either by DB or by an increasing number of smaller
operators in some cases or even firms like Arriva and Connex,
for example.
Q172 Clive Efford: They are not PPPs
or PFIs?
Dr Salveson: No. Generally the
track is still owned by DB Netz, the infrastructure company, similar
to the Swedish situation with Banverket and Network Rail here.
It is the actual train service operation which is put out to tender.
Q173 Clive Efford: The evidence that
you have seen suggests that they get better value for money?
Dr Salveson: Yes.
Q174 Clive Efford: Can I ask generally,
in the services that you provide, can you put your finger on any
statistics that show a modal shift, that you have been successful
in getting people out of cars and on to your services?
Mr Denby: The one that we have
substantiated is the Norwich-Cambridge route where the research
we did of passengers on the route a year after it had been introduced
suggested that 44% would otherwise have stayed in their cars and
not used the train. That is the best evidence we have for putting
on additional services. There was a cross-country service to the
north-west via Peterborough but there was not a direct service
between Norwich and Cambridge so when we put that in with the
support of a rail partnership and a grant from the Strategic Rail
Authority we then measured how it did and it has been very successful
in terms of growth. It must be 30% ahead of expectation. It has
been well run, it has been successful and well promoted. In the
survey we did on why people used it, 44% suggested they would
have gone in the car.
Q175 Clive Efford: Any other examples
from the other rail services?
Mr Handley: I think most of the
traffic that we have generated to date has been new traffic, where
people have been taking an opportunity to go for a day out without
using the car for all of their journey, although they probably
still use it for part of their journey.
Q176 Clive Efford: Could you give us
some more detail on how you form part of a wider transport strategy
in the regions in which you operate? For instance, is there a
target by the local region that you want to reduce car use by
and improve use in public transport?
Mr Denby: We work very closely
with East of England Development Agency, which is our relevant
RDA. Most of our work in the past has been with the local authorities
in terms of trying to generate specific targets of passenger numbers,
increases. The Regional Development Agencies are now becoming
much more focused on transport targets, so that relationship is
becoming much closer. I think one of the things that is worth
emphasising is the level of contact between local authorities
and train operators across the region over the years has varied
hugely, and still does. What is worth recommending is having close
interaction between train operators and local authorities for
co-ordination is very important. In the past whereas local authorities
have been very, very successful and proactive about how they improve
their road network so that whenever a funding window opens there
is a scheme to go in, in the past the railway has not been as
good at working with local authorities so that when a funding
window has opened for the railway, whatever it may be, from government,
from Europe, from the region or wherever, there has been a scheme
waiting to go and it has missed the boat. That is where some of
the successes of the Community Rail Partnerships have been, that
they have been working together and moving things forward. I will
just emphasise that the Strategic Rail Authority's document was
very sensible in having a mix of solutions because different rural
routes have different characteristics, there is not a one-size-fits-all.
There may be some rural routes, like Scott's for example, which
work very well in a very close focused way, that are independent
and work on their own and are most cost-effective doing that but,
equally, some of our local routes that are integrated into the
rest of the franchise would be more expensive if we tried to run
them separately. I would emphasise that it is horses for courses.
Q177 Chairman: Can I ask you two things
finally. Do you think that ACoRP and the Community Rail Partnerships
in general are going to have their budgets cut?
Dr Salveson: I think it is far
more complex than that. ACoRP is a national federation and most
of our funding at the moment comes from the SRA and the Countryside
Agency, both of which are being abolished. So we are very anxious
that the Department for Transport or other government agencies,
like Defra, are able to carry on that support. Without that a
lot of the new Community Rail Partnerships that we have been able
to assist will not happen. It is very clear in the White Paper
on rail that the Government wants to see more Community Rail Partnerships,
in which case there needs to be the resource there to enable them
to come into being. On individual Community Rail Partnerships,
the picture is far more fluid. Generally in the past Community
Rail Partnerships have had a fairly hand-to-mouth existence with
a bit of money here and there, some coming in from the local authorities,
some from the train operators, and sometimes external charitable
foundations. One of the most successful Community Rail Partnerships
on the Penistone line between Huddersfield and Sheffield runs
out of money at the end of January 2005, so we are working very
hard to try to find a solution to their funding problems. That
is not untypical. We have lost only two[1]
Community Rail Partnerships so far from the lack of funding and
they were both, very, very successful. The problem with a lot
of Government funding is that it is two or three year funding.
It supports projects which are new and innovative. So you can
be as successful as you like but they will not continue the funding.
There needs to be a commitment long-term that rewards success.
I would argue for probably a tripartite split between the train
operator, the local authorities and possibly other local sources,
CRPs generating their own income from doing various things, delivering
services, as some are increasingly doing, but at the end of the
day if the local authorities and the train operator are not interested
in supporting a Community Rail Partnership it would be very, very
difficult to keep it going.
Q178 Chairman: Has there been a significant
loss from the Rail Passenger Partnership grant?
Dr Salveson: Yes. If you do not
mind, I will bring in Mrs Dee in a moment. The RPP scheme was
extremely useful for Community Rail Partnerships because the way
they work is that then try and add value to funds which are there
in the railway industry. The RPP was administered by the SRA on
behalf of the Government, the Department for Transport, but Community
Rail Partnerships were able to bring in a lot of external money
to back up the money from RPP. For instance, Ludlow Station, which
I think you may have gone passed on your visit, was a very successful
RPP scheme where Shropshire County Council and other local bodies
complemented the money that came from RPP. It was a great loss
and we have been encouraging the Government in our response to
the Rail Review to bring back some sort of scheme that can replace
RPP, call it what you like, there is no reason why it should not
be an integrated scheme applied to rail and bus. Quite a few RPP
schemes have a strong interchange element to them. Sheila?
Mrs Dee: I am sure you will know
it very well. At Gobowen Station, which was just voted best small
station of the year 2005, all those facilities there were supplied
through an RPP grant, a quarter of a million pounds but only £50,000
from the RPP Scheme. It enabled there to be a 100 space car park,
full CCTV, cycle, bus and taxi interchange and the passenger numbers
rose almost immediately. It is one of the best stations we have
got on the line. Actually, it is classed as unstaffed. It just
goes to show how much we can do with small pots of money. A lot
of schemes were put on hold that had already been built up with
external funding secured which stopped immediately when RPP funding
stopped. It was a lifeline to a lot of rail partnerships and to
local authorities who could then justify their spend very easily.
Q179 Chairman: How do you think CRPs
ought to be funded in the long-term?
Dr Salveson: As I said previously,
we do think it is essential that there is a strong buy-in by the
train operator because Community Rail Partnerships deliver benefits
for communities but they also deliver more passengers so that
means the train operator is benefiting. On one of Jonathan's lines,
the Bittern Line, the increase has been 162% on the latest figures
over seven years. One, and previously Anglia Railways, is a very
generous contributor to the Community Rail Partnerships. There
is a benefit to the train operator and we would like to see that
expressed in terms of some financial support to a Community Rail
Partnership. For a local authority, a CRP brings benefits in terms
of better services and facilities for the residents of an area
and encourages visitors to come in by train. Again, there is a
real economic, social and environmental benefit to local authorities
so it is reasonable for local authorities and that could be county
councils or district councils to contribute. We would not like
a CRP to be dependent on any one particular source. I think their
great strength is that they are a genuine partnership, they are
not seen as the poodle of a train operator or as an extension
of a local authority, although very often the officer, like Mrs
Dee, is part of a local authority team. But they are genuinely
seen as part of the community. When Sheila goes out on the line
she knows all the staff and all the regular passengers and that
really adds something to the attractiveness of a line and gets
more people using it.
Chairman: On that encouraging note, apart
from recommending Mrs Dee to take charge of the diplomatic service
of the United Kingdom, I think we can say thank you very much
to all of you and we look forward to having the chance to ride
on all of these different lines, but not at the moment. Thank
you very much indeed.
1 Note by witness: Esk Valley and Lincolnshire. Esk
Valley was reformed as Esk Valley Railway Development Co. Back
| 
