|
Memorandum submitted by
Summary
· The · As a result rail journey times from Nottingham to other parts of · In line with the Eddington report's recognition of the importance of agglomeration to regional economies, having the worst rail connectivity to elsewhere is a serious constraint on our economy · This disadvantage is most seriously manifested in:-
1. Poor connections to a) Midland Ø The MML has, for decades, received less investment than the other Inter-City routes; Ø Average speeds on the MML are lower than on other Inter-City routes; Ø Even so, patronage has been rising faster on the MML than on other Inter-City routes; Ø This shows there is a huge need for investment to speed up MML services, and also that such investment would be extremely well used; Ø Despite this it is
planned that the MML will get just 4% of the investment that has been allocated
to Ø Network Rail has developed an extremely cost-effective scheme to cut journey times but there is only a very small sum allocated to deliver it, the output has recently been reduced by the rail Regulator (ORR), and the pattern of station stops will need adjusting to take proper advantage of it. Ø What is needed:- - Recognition of what excellent value for money of the MML scheme, - Delivery of the original output, as set out in ORR's Periodic Review, - A modest amount of additional funding, in particular to do works near Market Harborough, and - A commitment by DfT that when the franchise is relet in 2014 it will require journey time of 90 minutes from Nottingham, and related journey time reductions from Leicester, Derby and other stations, The Select Committee's support for this would be extremely helpful.
2. Poor connections to other regions
· Nottingham has worse inter-regional rail connections than comparable
cities elsewhere, with very slow train services to · Very significant journey time reductions could be achieved with relatively modest investment · Network Rail is currently assessing what works would be needed, · Bringing speeds up to the level that is normal in other regions would make the services significantly cheaper to operate and far more attractive to use
1. Poor connections to
a)
Midland
1.1 The M1 -
1.2 It is
therefore inexplicable that the parallel railway, the Midland Main Line (MML), which
has been persistently starved of investment, is the perpetual poor relation of
1.3 The MML
has historically had far less investment than any other Ø The West Coast Main Line (WCML) was electrified over 40 years ago, and the East Coast Main Line (ECML) was electrified 20 years ago. The MML was not. Ø 125mph 'High Speed Trains' (HST) were introduced on the Great Western
Main Line (GWML) in the 1976, and on the ECML shortly thereafter. Simultaneously,
both routes had their track upgraded to permit 125mph running. The MML was the
last route to receive HSTs, and even then none of its track was upgraded for
125mph. So, for the last 27 years, every MML train has had to run at below its
top speed for every inch of every journey. There is no other
1.4 The result is that average speeds to London on the MML are markedly lower than on other Inter-City route, and East Midlands' cities have disadvantageous journey times to London e.g. Doncaster is 30 miles north of Nottingham, but its journey time to London is 15 minutes less, whilst some trains to York, which is 50 miles north of Nottingham, have the same journey time from London.
Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes.
1.5 The underinvestment continued over the last ten years. Whereas other routes had massive expenditure on their infrastructure, the MML was limited to having some additional trains (as did the GWML, WCML and ECML) and some investment in stations (although less than other Inter-City routes)[1]. The new MML trains - although there were only 23 of them - helped MML patronage grow very strongly.
1.6 The recent
East Midlands Route Utilisation Strategy reports that between 1996/7 and
2007/08 long-distance MML patronage to 1.7 Since
1997, of the 4 inter-City routes to
1.8 The fact that patronage on the MML grows faster than other Inter-City London routes, even when the MML received proportionately far less investment and has the lowest speeds, indicates the huge potential for growth were the route to receive a normal level of investment and have comparable speeds.
1.9 In July 2007, DfT published a White Paper 'Delivering a Sustainable Railway, that formed the High Level Output Statement (HLOS) which is the formal definition of what the Government requires the railway industry to deliver. DfT's HLOS 'Specimen Capacity Options' specified 4 requirements for "Long distance (InterCity) services", one of which was "Midland Main Line - Reduced journey times of between 7
and 8 minutes on the Midland Main Line for all services operating between
1.10 Following the HLOS, on 31st October 2008 the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) published its final determination for the periodic review of Network Rail's outputs and funding for control period 4, i.e. 2009/10 - 2013/14, including enhancement schemes and expenditure. This confirmed the outputs required for the Midland Main Line scheme, and under a heading Enhancements in England & Wales required to give full effect to the HLOS" listed 4 "schemes which provide journey time improvements", including "St Pancras to Sheffield line speed improvements: a package of track, signalling and junction remodelling to reduce journey times by around 10 minutes"[5]
1.11 In 2000, Railtrack had priced the work needed to cut ten minutes off MML journey times as £100m. This equates to £129m at 2009 prices. In 2008 Network Rail priced the work @ £85million. This 34% reduction reflects Network Rail's reduction of unit costs.
1.12 Through a process which is not clear to regional stakeholders, this estimated £85m cost was subsequently reduced, including by ORR, which finally approved it at £69.4million, including contingencies.
1.13 Although the ORR Periodic Review makes some other general comments
about efficiencies in enhancement schemes, and does consider in depth the
specific costs of many other issues, there is nothing in it to indicate that
the specific costs of the MML linespeed scheme have been assessed. It is
therefore not possible to tell from the Periodic Review exactly why the ORR
regards £69.4 as being sufficient for a scheme to reduce journey times on the
MML by around ten minutes. In addition there will be investment of £11million
on a separate scheme at
1.14 So, Ø despite the minimal investment so far, Ø despite having the disadvantage of being so much slower than the other routes, Ø and despite having such a good record of patronage growth, future plans again show the MML as receiving far, far less investment than other Inter-City routes over the coming five year period[6].
Planned
total investment in Inter-City to
1.15 Indeed, the £69million allocated for the linespeed scheme for the entire MML is 25% less than the £90million scheme that is now starting just to upgrade the car parks at WCML stations! 1.16 The parallel M1 is having over £1500million spent on upgrading it, also between London- Sheffield i.e. more than 20 times the money allocated to the MML upgrade. 1.17 As far as the regional partners are aware, there has never been a case of an Inter-City route having a ten minute reduction in journey time for as little as £69million, nor even for anywhere near as small a sum. The 1960s WCML electrification, the 1970s GWML 125mph scheme, the 1980s electrification of the ECML, and the more recent WCML upgrade all cost far, far more than £69m for every ten minutes saved. Given the historic disadvantage of the MML, it is not clear why anyone would think the MML only deserves this belated reduction in journey times (albeit less than other lines) if it can be done for miraculously low levels of expenditure.
1.18 On 3rd September 2009, ORR wrote to Network Rail
formally setting out its view of the 'CP4 Enhancements Delivery Plan' for
putting into effect requirements of the Periodic Review. This changes the
output required from the MML linespeed scheme to "This project will improve the
capability of the infrastructure to enable a minimum eight minute improvement
in journey times for services between
1.19 It seems that this reduction in the required output (i.e. the
lesser journey time saving) is because the funding provided is insufficient to
deliver the ten minutes journey time saving set out in the periodic review. In
particular it appears insufficient to do anything more than minor works at
Market Harborough, and nothing between
1.20 The likely effect of the revised time savings set out by ORR will be to still leave the MML as the Inter-city route with the slowest speeds[7] This is without taking into account the plans to
significantly speed up the GWML by electrification, or
1.21 For the reasons set out in the Eddington report, the entire East
Midlands economy, and the economy of South Yorkshire, need the agglomeration
benefits that would result from reduced rail journey times to
1.22 Regional stakeholders are in close contact with Network Rail to establish the most cost-effective way that can be done, but it is almost certain to require some more money than the £69.4m currently allocated. It is not yet clear where this might come from, but it is encouraging to note that, under Lord Adonis' guidance, a first tranche of additional funding has been made immediately available to a £32m scheme to install extra track between Swindon and Kemble that will be used by 36 trains per day. Funding for that scheme was specifically turned down by ORR's periodic review as not being required by the Government's HLOS, but in a DfT press release of 3rd April Lord Adonis was able to announce that "Doubling 12 miles of the single track between Swindon and Gloucester is an excellent project which has the potential to make a real difference to people travelling through the South Cotswolds on this line", and "My Department will now work with the South West Regional Assembly and Welsh Assembly Government to explore other funding opportunities for the full scheme". If the South Cotswolds line justifies funding over and above the periodic review, then how much more does the MML with 5 times as many trains and around ten times as many passengers.
1.23 Regional stakeholders would welcome the East Midlands Regional Select committee's support for a similar declaration from DfT that it will now work with the Regional Assembly to explore other funding opportunities for the full MML scheme, in particular the extra funding to enable the journey time saving opportunity at Market Harborough and some other locations to be realised in full.
1.24 Even if a modest extra amount is needed, that would still represent exceptionally good value for money when compared to the costs of any equivalent rail or road scheme.
Electrification
1.25 Network Rail recently established that the two routes with the best
business case for electrification are the MML and the GWML. "In the case of the
MML, the value for money is technically infinite given that it involves a net
cost saving.........largely in the cost of train operation[8]",
that more than pays for the upfront investment cost. In the case of the GWML
the business case has a range of values, being strong for
1.26 In July, DfT announced approval for a programme of electrification,
encompassing the GWML, including the section from
1.27 It is a source of great frustration to regional stakeholders that, even when the MML has the best business case for investment in some element of its railways, it still continues the historic pattern of other lines being prioritised for investment.
1.28 As well as its own merits, the linespeed scheme described earlier should be completed before electrification, so as to maximise the benefits of electrification. One way of funding those elements of the linespeed scheme at Market Harborough and elsewhere that are currently unfunded would be as part of an electrification scheme.
High Speed Line
1.29 Similarly, unless the region is to miss out yet again, a High speed
line along the M1 corridor is needed, to serve Nottingham, as well as Sheffield,
Leeds and 2. Poor connections to other regions
2.1 Greater Nottingham is the largest conurbations in the
2.2 All
3 of
2.3 Very significant journey time reductions could be achievable with relatively modest investment. Network Rail is currently assessing what could be done, and at what cost. Until the detailed work has been completed precise costs cannot be known, but it is expected that the appropriate measures will have a good business case.
2.4 It is worth noting that, as well as making the service much more
attractive, such investment would produce a permanent reduction on operating
costs of at least £ 1/2 million per annum. This comes about because if services
are faster, each train can make a round trip in less time, which means that
fewer trains (and drivers and conductors) are required to operate any given
level of service. Trains are hired from the rolling stock companies, and the
lease for a 2-coach train costs £1/4 million per annum, with the crewing costs
being at least another £ 1/4 million. Thus speeding up a service sufficiently to
operate it with one less 2-coach train set would save at least £1/2million per
annum. The achievable time savings that would bring the 3-Cities'
inter-regional services up to the normal average speeds of other inter-regional
services would enable each of them to be operated with one less 2-coach train
set, and would thus save over £ 1/2 million per annum on each route. The
principle of this point is explicitly recognised by Network Rail in the
2.5 Every
5 years the government specifies the outputs that it requires from the rail
industry in a 'High Level Output Statement' (HLOS). Connections between the
biggest cities in each region have a substantial effect on the national
economy. Recognition of this was the reason that the last HLOS specified "fast
services between
2.6 It
is crucial to the our economy that there is an equivalent recognition in the
next HLOS of the importance of the equivalent services from Nottingham to
Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, as the HLOS will inform which schemes have
priority from whatever funding is allocated for 2014-2019. The Council would
urge the Select committee to support the
28 September 2009 [1] Detail given in supporting annex A, which gives full data and sources [2] Detail given in supporting annex B, which gives full data and sources [3] Detail given in supporting annex A, which gives full data and sources [4] High Level Output Specification - Specimen Capacity Options, section 2 (page 2) DfT, July 2007
[5] ORR Periodic Review Determination of Network Rail's outputs and funding for 2009-2014, October 2008, para 9.105. [6] Detail given in supporting annex A, which gives full data and sources [6] High Level Output Specification - Specimen Capacity Options, section 2 (page 2) DfT, July 2007
[7] See Annex C, which gives full data and sources [8] Network Rail Network
[9] Network Rail Network [10] Delivering A Sustainable Railway, DfT, July 2007, para 6.22, page 65 |