Memorandum by Pre Metro Operations (LR
80)
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT: THE FUTURE OF LIGHT
RAIL AND MODERN TRAMS IN BRITAIN
BARRIERS TO
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF LIGHT
RAIL
This company is currently attempting to implement
a new light rail scheme utilising the PPM light Railcar technology
at Stourbridge, West Midlands. We are deeply enmeshed in the legal,
administrative and bureaucratic procedures linked to the process
and are therefore able to comment on the barriers to the efficient
and effective delivery of such schemes.
The Committee will have received a submission
on the other areas of the enquiry from my colleague, John Parry,
John Parry & Associates Limited explaining our philosophy
in respect Light Rail and Modern Trams in Britain. I concur with
those views. They are therefore not repeated here.
On a personal point, I have been actively involved
in the field of public passenger transport for some 32 years.
In a previous position as Director of Finance of Centro, I was
directly involved in the Midland Metro Light Rail scheme up to
the point that the contracts were signed. I therefore do have
wider LRT experience and this has influenced the points specifically
addressed in this submission. Please feel free to quote from this
submission as you see fit.
1. THE PROBLEM
AREAS
There are several over arching problems which,
in my recent, experience have prevented innovation and therefore
the development of properly integrated transport, namely:
(i). Risk aversion—The Transport sector
requires tried and tested technology. No one buys a new car before
having test driven it.
(ii). Finance—No one body provides
adequate development resources to fully trial and test innovative
vehicles and, more importantly, bring such products to market.
(iii). Bureaucracy: Schemes that break new
ground have to wait for the regulatory framework to catch up or,
worse, time is spent trying to fit the unorthodox into a framework
that is already approved.
(iv). Political Will: All imaginative schemes
or innovative proposals require a "Leader" or a "Local
Champion" to push for progress, particularly at a local level.
I currently see very few such people.
(v). Stable Policy Framework: Recent past
experience demonstrates that progress cannot be made within a
framework which is constantly in a state of flux.
2. THE BARRIERS
2.1 The following analysis outlines quite
pointedly how effort is required to progress the introduction
of modern technology. It relates to the introduction of a light
rail vehicle onto existing infrastructure, on a Sunday only [for
1 year], fully "Risk assessed" and totally segregated
from other Railway activity.
|
| Elapsed time since service concept discussed.
| 6 | ½ years
|
|
| Bodies Consulted. | 18
| |
| Bodies requiring legal agreements. | 8
| |
| Presentations given. | 38
| |
| Meetings held with the Public Sector and Railway Industry partners.
| 84 | |
| Letters sent. | 1,090
| |
| Letters received. | 850
| |
| Emails sent/received | 1,500
| + |
|
3. ACHIEVEMENTS
However, despite the above this company believes that the
innovative Stourbridge service will commence during 2005 since
we believe our Company Achievements are adequately summarised
below.
3.1 In 2003 the PPM vehicle and the operations by PMOL
were approved by HMRI. It is important to note this fact. All
safety issues had been addressed following a full "Risk Assessment"
and the service could have commenced. This scenario was based
upon tramway/light rail principles, as this had been the basis
of all discussions and considerations since the concept had first
been considered.
3.2 However, the infrastructure owner, Railtrack (now
Network Rail) had reservations due to the innovative nature of
the proposal and the difficulty of assimilating the PPM vehicle
and operation into their own procedures based upon Railway Group
Standards/Railway Safety Case Regulations and Vehicle Acceptance
processes. It then transpired, following legal advice, that NRIL
could not allow operations at Stourbridge as a tramway for one
day per week and as a railway for the other six.
3.3 It must be noted that the period since 2003 has involved
tailoring the PPM/PMOL aspirations to fit into the Railway procedures
and processes via a system of derogations, exemptions and temporary
provisions. The original service specification, operational processes
or safety requirements have not been changed.
3.4 The investment by this company and others in the
development of the Stourbridge service has been significant not
only in financial terms but also in terms of time spent in the
development and lobbying for an integrated "Community Rail"
and light rail strategy. However, a small company cannot raise
or commit such levels again until and unless the major players
in the industry continuing to assist. The expenditure and commitments
by PMOL to date totals approximately £175,000 with the company
now having accumulated losses of over £60,000. This is significant
for an SME and further assistance is being sought. The following
table provide details on the way expenditure to date has been
financed.
Table
TOTAL EXPENDITURE TO DATE HAS BEEN FINANCED AS FOLLOWS:
|
| Finance from: | Total
| |
| £'000
| % |
|
| Centro—WMPTE | 45.0
| 25.8 |
| SRA | 25.0
| 14.3 |
| DTI (Innovation "Smart" award) |
25.7 | 14.8
|
| PMOL Directors | 50.9
| 29.2 |
| Other private sector contributors | 27.7
| 15.9 |
| Total | 174.3
| 100.0 |
P R Evans
Director and Company Secretary
February 2005
| | |
|
| 
