Examination of Witnesses (Questions 58-89)
STEPHEN ABBOTT,
JIM BAMFORD,
SPENCER GIBBENS
AND DAVID
HORNE
17 DECEMBER 2009
Q56 Chairman: Welcome. I see
that the sun is shining on the righteous—are you all right
there? We can see you, because you are in the sunlight. It will
keep you nice and warm, and Bob will make you sweat when he starts
asking questions.
Welcome to Spencer Gibbens, the Route Enhancement
Manager for Network Rail; my old friend, Jim Bamford, from Nottinghamshire
County Council; Stephen Abbott from TravelWatch East Midlands;
and David Horne from East Midlands Trains. This is part of an
inquiry into funding for the East Midlands and whether it gets
its fair share of funding. We are especially keen to talk to you
about transport, particularly high-speed links and the electrification
of the Midland main line.
Let's start with you, Spencer. You say in your
evidence—let me put it bluntly, or crudely—that lots
of money has been spent in the area. Is that really right? It
is not the public's perception.
Spencer Gibbens: Yes. For me,
coming here today is a mixed bag, or a double-edged sword. On
the one hand, I want to say that, in reality, lots of money has
been spent on the railway here, but, on the other hand, we could
always spend more and we would always welcome more. It is mixed
for me in that respect.
To set the issue in context, one of the things
that we have to bear in mind is that Network Rail took over from
Railtrack, which was a bit of a mess—that is probably the
best way to describe it. The first years of Network Rail centred
on getting the basics right and trying to attack cost control
and train performance in particular. The way in which Network
Rail structured itself was very much about getting on top of train
performance by getting safety in the right place and getting to
what are the unprecedented levels of train performance that we
have at the moment.
It is only in the past two to three years that
we have turned to enhancement projects. In the background, there
has been a considerable amount of investment in basic things.
The region is dominated by our big re-signalling programme, which
is rolling on, but over the past few years, we have turned to
some significant investment, such as East Midlands Parkway, the
new station at Corby—that was a triumph of working together
and collaboration—and on minor bits of lines. Capacity and
performance schemes have taken place in the Kettering and Wellingborough
area. We are about to commission work to eliminate a bottleneck
between Derby and Nottingham, and to bring about line-speed improvements
to the Ivanhoe service.
We will get on to electrification, but we were
disappointed that it did not immediately come to the Midland main
line, because we think there is a good case for it. So it is a
mixed bag. We can always spend more, and we have significant projects
coming up in the next control period, such as the line-speed improvements
to London and considerable enhancements to Nottingham station.
Q57 Chairman: David, in your
evidence you also say that there is loads of money being spent
in the East Midlands. What are you particularly proud of?
David Horne: We believe that there
has been more investment going into the East Midlands rail network
in recent years than at any time since the war. Here in Derby
we are building the new £22 million depot properly to maintain
the Meridian trains, which form the core fleet for us between
the region and London. Last year and next year, there has been
the East Midlands Parkway station, Corby station, and the new
depot here, and the refurbishment of two of our fleets is under
way. The investment, when you add those up, is probably in the
region of £70 million, so the region is getting a significant
level of investment. The services in the region are improving
and that is reflected in our punctuality figures and in our passenger
numbers.
Passengers are responding to these improvements
and are travelling, but as Spencer said, there is more that can
be done. We are very keen to see the line speeds improve. I know
that is something we are going to talk about shortly. Of course,
we see other regions getting more investment and we are keen to
see similar investment on the Midland main line, whether it is
in further improvements to line speeds, electrification, or other
improvements. So, yes, a lot is being done. We need to celebrate
the fact that that is being done, because it has been hard fought
for, but further investment can be made.
Q58 Chairman: We are all going
to have to speak up a bit, because it is a nice room but it is
echoing a bit. So, if you could, shout at me—everybody else
does, so just join in. Jim and Stephen, you take a slightly different
view, don't you? Both Spencer and David have said that there is
a lot of investment coming in, but you would like to see more.
Jim Bamford: I would, but I do
not think that is a different view from that given by Spencer
and David. I would actually endorse every word both of them have
said. Spencer's point was quite a crucial one. The region has
been catching up and a lot of work has been done, both on the
infrastructure and the train operating company, to improve things.
I know there have been marked improvements in both respects recently,
but essentially our rail services started from so far behind that
I think there is quite a long way to catch up. In particular,
on the Midland main line, in terms of average speeds and journey
times to London, we are basically the poor relation of the inter-city
routes to and from London. That is not a criticism of the train
operating company at all; it is just a fact that the trains can
only go as fast as the track will allow them. That is a consequence
of how much is invested in them.
On Network Rail, I think in one sense Spencer
was a little modest about its achievements. Network Rail has come
up with what I think is an absolutely excellent scheme. I think
we described it as near-miraculous value for money in our submission,
and it is. Network Rail has been allocated £69 million to
reduce the journey time between Sheffield and London by eight
minutes. This bit of the East Midlands—Derby and Nottingham—would
get about six minutes, and Leicester would get about 4 minutes.
The precise times have not been finalised yet. That is for £69
million.
Now, I had a discussion with people from the
Highways Agency a couple of months ago about the widening of the
M1. As I understand it, they expect that will reduce the reliable
journey time from Sheffield to London by about 10 minutes. I asked
them what they would say if they had been given £69 million
to achieve that and they just laughed. In fact, they have £1.5
billion, which is £1,500 million. I think it is true to say
that, compared to any comparable road or rail scheme for that
sort of journey time improvement, this is an extraordinarily small
sum of money. I think that the question of how to deliver it is
giving Network Rail a real headache. It has come up with ways
of doing so, but it is a real difficult job.
We think that there are a couple of further
things that could be done for a modest additional sum of money,
perhaps £30 million or £40 million. We cannot be precise
about that at the moment, because Network Rail has had such a
big job working out how to deliver the eight minutes for £69
million. It is only starting to move on to look at the next bit—for
example, at provision for a couple of loops at Desborough, which
would allow it to get freight trains out the way and give passenger
trains a clearer run. Its broad estimate is that that could be
done for £10 million.
We suspect that there are a couple of other
things that, for another £20 million or so, would enable
the journey time benefits of electrification to be realised in
the short term. That would not give us the other benefits of electrification,
but we are not going to get that for quite a few years. We are
going to have to wait until the back end of the next decade. At
least that spending would allow us to have the journey time benefits
in the short term.
Q59 Chairman: We will focus
on some of those issues in a minute, but that is important stuff.
What I think you're saying—shout me down if I've got this
wrong—is that in the short term, with some fairly modest
investment, you can improve journey times, and that you ought
to do that now, before electrification. Ultimately there is a
discussion to be had about the high-speed link—that is further
into the future—but all those schemes are possibilities.
Stephen, what is the consumer's view? What is your bid, basically?
Stephen Abbott: Again, I would
like to echo what the other speakers have said. In terms of investment
in the infrastructure to enhance the Midland main line, there
has been nothing since the 1960s. The last investment in the late
'80s, which was the re-signalling through Leicester, was in many
ways a disinvestment, because to keep the scheme at a moderate
cost, a lot of facilities were eliminated—loops at Desborough,
one of the tracks through Leicester and so on—which we badly
need now. As Spencer said, the third track between Kettering and
Wellingborough has been put back at some expense, having been
wantonly thrown away in 1987. That is with hindsight, of course.
So I think there is some catching up to do. It is nice to see
money being spent. My concern, which I think reflects what Jim
said, is that the enhancement scheme on the Midland main line—the
line speed and so on—is cheese-pared to keep the cost in
bounds, rather than a full job being done. We would sooner see
the work phased and done properly than see them skimped.
For example, in Market Harborough, where I live,
there is a scheme to enhance the line speed. My understanding
is that at present the intention is to do what I call half a job—to
do some straightening of the curves, but not a complete job, which
would involve the demolition of a redundant bridge and so on and
so forth. At the moment, trains going north to south or south
to north through Market Harborough change direction five times
because of the nature of the reverse curves. If we could smooth
that out, you would get not only a line-speed benefit, but a maintenance
benefit. I know from my observation that the rails do not last.
Because they are on curves, they get side-cut. There is an ongoing
maintenance cost there, as well as a time penalty. But I echo
what Jim said: if we are going to have electrification, by all
means alter the track. Do what you have to do with the track first,
because once you've got those wires up, it is very difficult to
straighten curves and alter other infrastructure features.
Q60 Chairman: Stephen, what
about the view around the region that we are a poor relation compared
with the West Midlands? Have I made this up?
Stephen Abbott: No, I think we
are, in terms of the main line, when you look at the Midland main
line compared with the east coast main line and the west coast
main line. I think if you looked at those three routes in the
late '60s they were comparable. We each had a 100 mph line speed.
There were similar sorts of journey times for equivalent distances,
but the east coast main line has been modernised and electrified,
and the west coast main line has been modernised twice. The lesson
there is that it was skimped in the '60s. A lot of the money that
has been spent in the '90s and early 2000s on the west coast main
line has been spent putting right things that should have been
done 40 years earlier. I don't want to see the Midland main line
go down that route.
I think the East Midlands loses out in all sorts
of ways because of a sort of identity crisis. We get lumped with
the West Midlands. People say, "Oh, we spent some money in
the Midlands"—on Birmingham New Street or whatever—"so
off you go." One good feature now is that we have a train
company that you can identify with the region through its name.
That has been a very positive thing. The passengers have responded
to that.
Q61 Chairman: I get the impression
that the campaign for electrification of the Midland main line
is going forward. EMDA produced the Arup report fairly recently,
and some of you went to see Lord Adonis on Monday. What do you
make of the Arup report? It seems to suggest that for £69
million, we get a lot of benefit. Spencer, have you had a chance
to look at it?
Spencer Gibbens: I've had a look
at the brief details. Network Rail is on record as saying that
we want electrification to happen anyway. We completely agree
on the environmental benefits and so on. It is difficult to add
anything because we completely agree with it. We just want to
carry on rolling on, electrifying large parts of the network.
Q62 Chairman: Jim, you were
at the meeting?
Jim Bamford: Yes, I was. I understand
the Government's position. We have had two announcements now,
and I think there are four different stretches of line that are
being electrified. There is the Great Western route, which is
the largest scheme, and three medium-sized bits of line in Lancashire.
It is a little frustrating because the Network Rail electrification
route utilisation strategy that was published last year identified
the Midland main line as having the best business case for electrification.
When we did not get that, there was inevitably a bit of frustration.
We were thinking, "What have we got to do to get the investment?
Even when we have the best business case, it goes somewhere else."
I think we understand the reasons for that: it is to do with rolling
stock replacement.
We are extremely keen on electrification; it
produces a number of benefits. It makes the railway line cleaner
and quieter, with more pleasant trains for the public to use.
It is quicker, although not as much as people often imagine. There
is often an automatic assumption that electric trains are quicker.
They are to some extent—they will accelerate and brake a
bit faster than diesel trains—but it is nowhere near as
marked as people think. The stuff that was presented to Lord Adonis
on Tuesday evening said that it would give about four minutes
off the Sheffield-London time, about three minutes from Nottingham
and Derby, and two minutes from Leicester. It does give a big
CO2 saving and it makes the railway cheaper to operate. That is
one of the reasons it has such a strong business case: it makes
it easier to get modern trains and so on.
We understand the whole raft of reasons, but
the bottom line is that no passenger ever went to the ticket office
and said, "By the way, what fuel is the train going to use?"
The passengers don't care. All they care about is the fare and
what time the train will get to St. Pancras. That is why, at the
risk of repeating myself, we are so keen on the additional money
for the line speed scheme. We regret, though we understand, the
Government's position that we are not going to get electrification
in the short term. I hope I understood Lord Adonis correctly when
he said, essentially, "You are the next." When the funding
is available, the midland line should be next. We would want that
position stuck to. We would be extremely upset if that was not
the case. If we are not going to have electrification for 10 years
or so, could we at least have the equivalent journey-time benefit
in the short term?
Q63 Chairman: That's really
helpful, but just tell me this: people say to me that they are
going to spend more on enhancing car parks down the west coast
main line than the entire cost—the £69 million—on
the Midland main line. That sounds like a crazy policy to me.
Jim Bamford: That is the case.
What is wrong with that is not the investment in the west coast
car parks. The car parks on the west coast main line are getting
£90 million spent on them. They will generate far more than
that in additional revenue. They are the sort of thing that any
commercial enterprise will do. I do not criticise Network Rail
for doing that; it is an extremely sensible thing to do.
Q64 Chairman: You are all
being very nice to Network Rail.
Jim Bamford: All I am saying is
that it does put in sharp relief just how small an amount of money
Network Rail has been given to improve line speed along the whole
length of the Midland main line. The additional money that I am
suggesting we might need would more or less bring the whole of
the Midland main line scheme up to the same allocation of funds
as the west coast car parks have got, which does not seem an unreasonable
thing to ask for.
Q65 Sir Peter Soulsby: I guess
we will probably come back to electrification in a few minutes.
I wanted to divert for a moment to the regional funding advice
mechanism. In its evidence to us, TravelWatch stressed the value
of including rail schemes in the regional funding advice mechanism.
I wondered whether you would like to comment on the input into
that advice at the moment—insofar as it relates to rail—and
whether it is adequate and whether you think you have a part in
the process. Let's start with Network Rail.
Spencer Gibbens: I think the thing
with the regional process is that the switch—the change—to
include rail is fairly recent. I don't think any region is making
good progress on this and, really, thanks to Jim's personal effort,
the only one that the East Midlands has got in is improvements
between Nottingham and Lincoln, in terms of development.
I think the overall idea is a good one—trying
to match the control periods that Network Rail has and the five-year
planning for the regional funding allocation is in principle good,
because then there is a decision that Government can make as to
whether that is a local scheme that comes through the regional
allocation or a nationally important scheme that becomes part
of Network Rail's funding allocation
So, I think in principle the idea is a good
one. It has made some slow starts. We have already seen that the
emphasis is all about the A46 and so on—being the railway,
that is frustrating, but I guess that I would probably come to
the same conclusion if I saw all the facts and figures. So, a
good start, but work in progress needs to move ahead a bit quicker
as far as rail is concerned.
Jim Bamford: I would endorse that.
It was extremely welcome when the Government changed the advice
for the regional funding allocation—I think it was in July
of last year, 2008, that the advice was changed, to allow rail
schemes to be considered in the mix. There was no rail funding
that went in.
I commend the Government emphasis on the DaSTS—I
think that's the acronym for Delivering a Sustainable Transport
System—which is the framework that will guide the next set
of allocations in the regional funding allocation. In that framework
you do not start off with a solution—we want a road here
or a better train service there—then have a look at what
problem it addresses. You identify the problem first—for
example, you need the benefits to the East Midlands economy of
connecting the three cities to Manchester, Leeds, London, Birmingham
or wherever it might happen to be. So, you start off with the
problem and identify that, then look at how that can be most cost-effectively
met. That seems to me a laudable way of addressing things.
From that I am hopeful and fairly confident
that a number of rail schemes will feature quite highly, because
they are a quite cost-effective way of improving our connections
to precisely those places—other big parts of the British
economy, such as Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, London and so
on—as well some connections within the region, such as from
Nottingham up to Lincoln, from Leicester across to Birmingham,
or from Leicester eastwards to Peterborough and Cambridge. Those
can be done for relatively quite a lot less with rail schemes
than they could be with the equivalent road scheme.
To take the Nottingham-Lincoln corridor, the
A46 is costing £350 million; the allocation to do up the
broadly parallel railway line for 90 mph running is £50 million.
That is a lot, lot cheaper. Again, it comes back to what I said
earlier, and I am happy to continue to pay credit to Network Rail,
which is really getting a good grip on its costs. The costings
are coming down and down. Working closely with Network Rail helped
us to make that submission.
Yes, it is frustrating that there are not more
rail schemes in the second round of regional funding allocation,
but I think that is partly because there was a whole load of schemes
in there anyway and it is more difficult to dislodge established
stuff. But I trust, and am hopeful, that for the next round rail
schemes will feature quite highly. It seems to me very important
that they should do so.
Q66 Sir Peter Soulsby: Stephen,
TravelWatch particularly drew our attention to the importance
of this process. Can you comment on how well it is beginning to
work?
Stephen Abbott: Yes, I think the
signs are that it is starting to work and that it is a good move,
because regional transport really needs organising on a regional
basis—and funding, ideally, to some degree, in the regions,
perhaps something like the German and Swiss model. One of the
reasons that I say this is because over the past 30 years something
has developed that I call the third market for rail travel.
Most people acknowledge that rail is very good
for inter-city to London; it is good for taking people to work,
into major cities; but the thing that has developed, which has
been notable in the East Midlands over the past few decades, is
inter-urban and inter-regional travel—journeys of 20, 50
or 60 miles by people living in one city working in another, or
by those who travel from A to B for social reasons. These journeys
are best looked at from a regional perspective.
As I think we said in our evidence, over the
past 10 years, there has been a degree of disjointedness in some
of the connections between the major centres in the East Midlands
and from the East Midlands to the outside. There have been some
notable developments, one of which is the Nottingham to Leeds
train service, but other connections have been split. For example,
Lincoln, as well as being one of the largest places with no trains
to London, is probably the largest place in England with no trains
to Birmingham—you've got to change at Nottingham. I think
that a regional planning of rail transport, with the money to
back it, is a welcome thing.
Q67 Sir Peter Soulsby: It
could be argued, could it not, that focusing on these things on
a regional basis might actually be rather narrow, and that the
issues that you've talked about require inter-regional collaboration
and priority setting. Do you think that there is not a risk that
if that is left at a regional level, the focus is sometimes too
narrow?
Stephen Abbott: That is a risk,
and I think the inter-regional connections are particularly important
to the East Midlands, because we perceive that there is a pent-up
demand for better connectivity to major nodes, such as Birmingham,
Leeds and Manchester. If you can get to those three places easily,
you can get to a whole host of other places. Of course, we have
to remember that the East Midlands, apart from the Lincolnshire
coast, is landlocked—we're surrounded by five other English
regions, but the connections to them are not always that good.
Q68 Sir Peter Soulsby: Yes,
but I want to add, to what extent linking regions is a matter
of national priority setting rather than regional priority setting?
Jim Bamford: I think you're right.
At the very end of our evidence, where we talked about inter-regional
links, we said that we hoped that that issue would be picked up
in the next high level output statement, which is the statement
of what the Government wish the railway to deliver over the next
five-year period. I think it is both. Yes, you are right. Those
links, because they are cross-regional, matter to the national
economy, but they clearly matter to the regional economy as well,
so I would hope that that would be picked up at both levels.
Q69 Sir Peter Soulsby: Is
there not a real concern that rather than being both, it ends
up being neither?
Jim Bamford: Yes, there is a danger.
Q70 Mr. Laxton: Can I talk
about regional co-operation? David, you talked about the East
Midlands trains in the evidence that you have given, and you have
been very positive in saying that a whole load of regional stakeholders—local
authorities, county councils and a host of organisations—have
been crucial. But you go on to a more critical note when you talk
about what some of the other regional development agencies have
done around other regions compared with what has happened here.
Would all of you like to comment briefly about what level of co-operation
you have with other stakeholders in general around the region?
Spencer Gibbens: I think it is
something that we've worked hard to try to develop. Again, I think
it could be improved. It might sound like Jim and I spend most
of the time praising each other.
Mr. Laxton: It does a little, yes.
Spencer Gibbens: That is only
because of the relationship that we have tried to develop. There
are examples: Corby, which was about the region coming together,
and Derby, where I was thinking, "Well, that's actually important.
We'll support that." The fact that there is a bus between
East Midlands Parkway and the airport is again because the region
has come together. In terms of—I'll let David answer for
himself—dealing with Yorkshire Forward, it seems to be a
lot easier for the railway industry than it is in the East Midlands;
that certainly seems to be the fact.
Again, we've all got to want to work together
to make it happen. We certainly try to do our bit. There were
comments earlier about the national perspective and taking a focus
on the region. For our part, we have recognised that and have
created our own route now that is essentially the Sheffield to
London line. We have linked that with the high-speed line down
to the Channel Tunnel so, from an operational perspective, we
are looking at that from a point of view that suits this region.
Again, our stakeholder management mirrors that. Good work is in
progress, but it has to be a two-way activity.
Often I get lobbied and we can't always do the
stuff that we are lobbied for. We would rather work in partnership
and do things together. One thing that we have just got authorised
is £50 million-worth of redevelopment for Nottingham station.
Again, that is entirely partnership-based with Nottingham city
council and EMDA. We worked with EMDA on East Midlands Parkway
and Corby. Nottingham station is the paradox that Jim was describing
earlier; we can find £60 million to spend on a station but
only £69 million to spend on line speed, because the business
case is generated in a different way. I think that there is always
room for improvement, but our stakeholder relationships are very
good.
Q71 Mr. Laxton: In this locality,
I can speak with direct experience of partnership between local
partners and yourselves just over the way, and the work is going
on, which is very commendable. It has transformed Derby railway
station completely, and outwith of the station and the area, the
associated work will improve the entrances to the station.
Jim Bamford: The examples that
Spencer gave were good: Corby Station and East Midlands Parkway,
and the contribution that EMDA is making towards the Nottingham
station scheme. They are all very welcome, but I think that it
is fair to say that there is plenty of scope for EMDA to do more
and all of us would wish that it did so. There has been more money
going in from the regional agencies in other regions, and I think
that we would all welcome much more of that in the East Midlands.
Q72 Mr. Laxton: Steve, you
will have an overview as to how you think it works well or perhaps
less well in some parts of the region—inter-regional co-operation
and partnerships.
Stephen Abbott: I agree with what
Jim has said. I think that EMDA has done some good work, with
the parkway and so on, but hopefully it can be a little more proactive
in getting rail schemes off the ground. One comment that I would
make, which echoes something that I think Spencer hinted at, is
that, certainly from the grassroots level upwards, there is a
very good measure of consensus in the East Midlands as to what
the priorities are. I have been at meetings where it was agreed
that the top two priorities are Corby and a better train service
for Lincoln. That is from people who live 60 miles from Lincoln.
They saw in the regional list that those have to be the top two.
I think that this is a good attribute that we can build on for
the future—by and large, people in the region agree, even
though we are a multi-centred region.
Q73 Mr. Laxton: David, in
your evidence, you were slightly critical—perhaps a little
more than slightly—about EMDA. How would you like to see
it help more? Perhaps you could be specific.
David Horne: Let's first explain
the example where it has worked, which is where Yorkshire Forward
has funded some of the pump-priming costs of starting the second
train per hour between Sheffield and London, which we started
on Monday. Sheffield City region came to us and said that it would
like an improved frequency of train service between Sheffield
and London. We found a way of doing that with additional rolling
stock linked to the Corby opening, but we needed pump-priming
investment. Sheffield City region thought, "Well, why don't
we try Yorkshire Forward?" Through Yorkshire Forward, we
have secured the funding to start that service. There are other
aspirations within the East Midlands, particularly to do with
train capacity. If Yorkshire Forward were the RDA for the region,
we would probably be looking at additional rolling stock to secure
the capacity for those services, for example, between Nottingham
and Matlock, where we have overcrowding; between Derby and Crewe,
where we have overcrowding, because all trains are operated by
one-car trains; and between Nottingham and Lincoln.
When we talk to our stakeholder partners, however,
about whether we can put together a bid with EMDA for funding
for additional rolling stock, the view is, no, that is not what
EMDA does. When you look at the EMDA annual report for 2008-09
and see that, out of the £100 million regional expenditure,
only £400,000 is being spent on transport, you can sort of
understand that it is, at the moment, unrealistic to expect EMDA
to play the same role in the east midlands that Yorkshire Forward
has been playing in South Yorkshire. We think that there is an
opportunity for more to be done and very much recognise that EMDA
is contributing—and has contributed—to some schemes,
but if we compare this region with other regions, RDAs in those
areas seem to be doing more.
Q74 Chairman: Have there been
discussions with EMDA about that? Spencer and David, have you
talked to anyone about it?
David Horne: Indirectly, on behalf
of East Midlands Trains. As I said, with Sheffield City region,
it was the region that had the discussion with Yorkshire Forward.
So the way we've been doing it is to have discussions with the
local authorities in the East Midlands, because it needs to be
done in partnership. That seems to have been how it has been successful
in South Yorkshire.
Q75 Chairman: We have talked
a bit about the other regions—the North West and South Yorkshire—and
one of the things that strikes me is that they've got PTEs. There's
no PTE in the East Midlands, at all. I know, Jim, that you and
I have talked about this in the past. Do you think having a PTE
in the East Midlands would make a difference?
Jim Bamford: A PTE does bring
with it more resources and so on, as there are just more people
working on ground issues in the region. I can understand the reasons
why the East Midlands doesn't have one: it doesn't have the single
large conurbation with the same sort of pattern of rail services
that Leeds, Birmingham or Manchester has. Yes, if there were a
PTE, I'm sure it would give us more clout in some respects, but,
in all honesty, it's difficult to see that coming about because
of the different geographic circumstances of the region.
Q76 Chairman: Stephen, what's
your view on this?
Stephen Abbott: I think there
would be a benefit from a PTE-type structure for the East Midlands,
not least to get consistency in the provision and promotion of
the local rail and bus services—such things as a common
fare structure; this is something that we in the East Midlands
do not have. There is great disparity in the fares and the types
of ticket available for particular regional journeys. I am talking
here about the 20, 30, 40-mile journeys. That is due to history,
really, because we have come up through a variety of train companies
and their backgrounds.
One of the things that a PTE would do is get
the detail right. A simple matter like saying there should be
a sign outside a railway station saying that the bus to so-and-so
leaves from 100 yards away is very difficult to achieve in the
East Midlands, because there is great debate about whether it
is the train company's job or the local authority's job as the
transport body. Some of these things just fall by the wayside.
Something that has been touched on in various people's evidence
is that the bus-rail integration in the East Midlands is not that
good. A lot could be done without spending much money just to
get the information side right, so when you come out of a railway
station, you've got a clear indication of where and when buses
go to wherever. Some sort of co-ordinating body—call it
a PTE or what you like—for regional journeys would be beneficial.
Chairman: At the beginning of the session,
we talked quite a lot about Midland main line improvement and
electrification. Let's just focus on that for a bit because it
is a topical issue.
Q77 Sir Peter Soulsby: Yes.
You have reminded us that there is a very powerful business case
for electrification, and Jim in particular reminded us of what
it will and will not do. It is clearly not a panacea; on the other
hand, it is pretty important in terms of planning for the future
and, indeed, making the railway more environmentally friendly
and green. I just wonder whether there is a need for us to have
early certainty about when it is likely to happen. The Secretary
of State very helpfully—very encouragingly—said, "It
is not if; it is when," but of course that could be still
quite some time in the future. Taking it from Spencer's point
of view—Network Rail's work on improvement to the line—would
it be helpful to have an early commitment to enable you to plan?
Spencer Gibbens: I think that,
yes, that answers the question for us. The issue is making sure
that we can actually create a rolling programme and we can get
the most efficient resource, because that's what keeps the cost
down. The investment will go into factory trains, which are the
sort of vehicles that they use in Austria. The whole thing can
happen two or three kilometres at a time, when the line is closed
overnight, because one of the things that we are desperately trying
to do is have a railway that doesn't put people on to buses. Planning
for that certainty would allow us to develop smarter production
modes and roll them out.
Q78 Sir Peter Soulsby: I guess
it would make a difference to the way in which you look at the
costings of the Great Western, for example. It is part of a programme
that will continue beyond the electrification of that main line.
Spencer Gibbens: Yes, and the
investment for the Great Western will be on the basis of building
these factory trains. Again, if we could have two or three, because
there is a rolling programme, that makes the investment on all
the routes much more efficient.
Q79 Sir Peter Soulsby: What
about from a rolling stock point of view, David? Does it make
a difference to your planning?
David Horne: Potentially, it could.
The interesting opportunity that we have on East Midlands Trains
is that the Meridian trains we use for the majority of our services
to London could be converted to bi-mode operation—that's
to say, they could operate with electric traction where there
are electric wires and they could operate with diesel traction
where there are not. Bombardier is developing this as a concept.
It would involve building an additional carriage for each of the
trains, but that is a good thing because that would give us additional
capacity to cope with extra passenger numbers. As Spencer rolls
electrification north from Bedford, our trains could actually
operate with that electric traction to the extent that it is there.
That would deliver immediate CO2 savings, as well as the operating
cost savings that we'd have on the maintenance side. At the end
of the day, it's a lot cheaper to maintain a transformer on an
electric train than it is to maintain lots of diesel engines.
I don't think any of the London train operators actually got that
opportunity—it is something that is unique to our trains.
The work could be developed by Bombardier here in Derby, so we
could start to get the benefits of electrification almost immediately,
given that 50 miles of the route is already electrified. As with
many transport issues, planning is so important. To have the certainty
that electrification is going to happen and when it is going to
happen is obviously important.
Q80 Sir Peter Soulsby: Does
the planning for the replacement of the HSTs make any difference
to what you might want to replace them with—whether or not
the line is electrified?
David Horne: Yes, it does at industry
level, because at the moment our franchise expires in 2015. If
the high-speed trains are to continue for a long time after 2015,
we'll have to make a lot of investment in them to keep them going.
It would be helpful to know whether those trains are going to
be replaced in, for example, 2018, because we are going to have
electrification in 2018; or whether the high-speed trains need
to keep going for a lot longer because electrification is going
to be further away. That's why I say we need some certainty that
it is going to happen and when it is going to happen.
Q81 Sir Peter Soulsby: So,
in effect, continuing to refurbish them and to put new engines
in and whatever else you are doing could actually be abortive
if there were electrification, or at least you might programme
it rather differently?
David Horne: You might need to
do a second round of refurbishment and a second round of upgrade
works if you're not going to electrify. The investment that we
are making at the moment will take us through for the next five
or six years before electrification comes along, but in five years'
time, we are going to have to know whether we should invest more
in these trains, or not.
Sir Peter Soulsby: Wonderful as
they are, those iconic trains, even when refurbished, still show
their age, don't they?
David Horne: Yes.
Sir Peter Soulsby: Jim, I think you wanted
to comment as well.
Jim Bamford: With the electrification—to
come back to Spencer's point—Network Rail will know this
better than we do, but our understanding now from the set of Government
announcements that we have is that Network Rail will have to buy
two sets of kit: one that will work its way round the Great Western
lines to Bristol and Swansea and so on, and the other that will
do the lines in Lancashire. I haven't seen dates for that, but
on the face of it, you would expect the Lancashire lines to be
finished first, and I think that what we would want then is a
commitment that that kit will be transferred over immediately
it becomes available and starts working its way up the Midland
main line, precisely for the reasons that Spencer gave—because
that is the cost-effective way to do it.
You've got the kit there; the trouble is there
will be a cost saving in deferring that. It's not a cost-effective
cost saving but it is nonetheless a cost saving, and there will
be a danger that in 2016 or 2017, or whenever it is that they
finish doing the lines in Lancashire, that the Government—whichever
Government happens to be in at the time—will be looking
for savings and will say, "Oh, we can save a certain amount
by pushing that back five years or 10 years or whatever,"
even if that leaves very, very expensive sets of kit just sitting
around idle. That is our real fear, and anything that can be done
that gives a firm commitment that the Midland main line would
follow on immediately the equipment to do it becomes available
would be very welcome. But there is precisely that fear that,
even with that commitment, a subsequent Government could change
that and defer it at the time. That is why we are—I'm trying
to think of a better word than desperate—so anxious that
the modest sum of money is made available for us to at least get
the journey time improvements realised as jam today, because they
are a very cost-effective thing to do.
Q82 Sir Peter Soulsby: Something
that we haven't really mentioned yet is that very shortly, of
course, the report on HS2 will be landing on the Secretary of
State's desk. I just wondered whether you are able to comment
on what might be the best thing in it for the East Midlands, or
whether it's really something that is largely irrelevant in terms
of its benefits for us. Spencer first, perhaps.
Spencer Gibbens: Network Rail
published its own version of what it envisaged for high-speed
rail, calling them new lines as opposed to high-speed lines, to
try to broaden it out. A second report will be published at the
beginning of 2010. The first one looked at the west corridor up
to the north and west, and this second report will look at a corridor
to the north and east, which would pass through or close to the
East Midlands. Ultimately, it will be a matter for the Government
to decide whether they want to take a Network Rail proposal, a
HS2 proposal or one of the others that are out there in terms
of the way forward.
Even if one route gets constructed, which we
would all hope, and that did go towards the West Midlands and
the North West, the benefits to the East Midlands would be felt
through the fact of freeing up capacity on the classic routes
anyway. One of the reasons that Jim has been talking about freight
loops on the Midland main line is because we have to run a mixed-traffic
railway, with freight and passenger trains. If that mix of trains
can be spread out better across the west coast, the Midland main
line and the east coast main line, that is always going to have
a benefit because we can do more with the classic infrastructure.
Even if a high-speed route did not come in the direction of the
East Midlands, it would still give benefits.
Jim Bamford: I don't entirely
agree with that. I think that's partially true. I think that Spencer
is slightly overstating the potential benefits to the Midland
main line from a high-speed line that goes broadly up the west
coast route. Yes, it is right that there is some scope for freight
diversion, but it is not massive from the flows that currently
go on the Midland main line.
I think that a high-speed line needs to go directly
from A to B. A lot of groups have been working on this over the
past 12 to 18 months, and a lot of maps have been drawn and there
are a lot of possible scenarios. However, because people are so
keen to be on a high-speed network and realise the benefits of
that to their economies, which is the bottom line of why we want
it—we don't want trains for their own sake; certainly from
the local authority side, we want our economy to thrive—there
is a danger of them clutching at almost any sort of connection
to a high-speed network. The maps that I have seen that connect
Derby or Nottingham to London via Birmingham and Heathrow will
give a very small journey time benefit. There is an old joke:
what do you call a boomerang that won't come back? A stick. The
railway equivalent of that is: what do you call a high-speed line
that goes all over the place? A railway line. It may go fast,
but it won't give you a short journey time.
If Birmingham is going to get a journey time
to London of 46 minutes from a high-speed line, that is the equivalent
journey time that Derby and Nottingham need to be looking for.
Sticking to the Midland main line—I know it is outside our
region, but it is the same thing—if Manchester is going
to have a journey time to London of an hour and six minutes, Sheffield
needs an hour and six minutes, because it is a similar distance
from London. The map that I saw at Tuesday night's event in Parliament
showed a high-speed journey time from Sheffield to London of an
hour and 42 minutes, which is not a whole lot better than the
existing Midland main line. If you projected that on to Leeds,
it would actually be slower than going on the east coast main
line.
Broadly, it seems to me that the high-speed
network needs to follow the main spine of the British motorway
network. There is a reason why the M1 and M6 go where they are:
it is basic geography that picks up all the key core cities. A
high-speed network needs to do that. I think we all understand
that it can't all be built in one go, just like the motorway network
wasn't built in one go, but there was a plan from the start with
the motorway network that it would pick up all the key transport
corridors in Britain. It seems to us that a high-speed network
needs to do the same, even if we have to wait a while to get the
benefits of it.
Sir Peter Soulsby: That is a very
useful and timely reality check. Thank you.
Q83 Mr. Laxton: David, Peter
referred a moment ago to the InterCity replacement. It is probably
a gross understatement to say that I was somewhat critical of
the decision to award the contract to Agility Trains. This is
probably slightly off the subject of electrification, but with
the advent of electrification of the Midland main line and HS2
coming on, do you think it possible that the replacement for the
high-speed trains is almost overtaken in some respects?
David Horne: I think it is a big
danger when we talk about big projects, such as the high-speed
line and electrification, that some of the more modest projects
that we have referred to today get overtaken or even blighted
by the fact that a high-speed line is going to come along and
solve all the problems. When you look at the railway as it is
today, you will see that we have been putting a lot of investment
in to make it better. For relatively modest amounts of additional
investment, whether that is in additional line, speeds, improving
the stations or what we really need, which is additional trains
to cope with the capacity for commuting to the regional cities,
we can achieve a lot of the benefits, such as modal switch and
CO2 savings. There are plenty of opportunities and there is a
danger that the high-speed line will take the focus off them and
even take some of the funding away from them. As a region, we
have to be working up those schemes. We have to be working out
the benefits and we have to invest our time and money to secure
them.
Q84 Mr. Laxton: Finally on
this point, because Peter referred to the iconic HST 125, is there
the ability to keep those pieces of kit, although they are refurbished
and getting to the point where they could then be dropped out
of service with electrification, new trains and HS2 coming in?
David Horne: The industry is currently
looking at a way of extending the life of those trains into the
2020s, but they were built in the late 1970s so they are due for
replacement. Many of our passengers like the high-speed trains,
but many also like the new Meridian trains. At some stage, because
of the passenger growth that we envisage as an industry, the industry
is going to have to invest in additional vehicles. We need to
replace those trains; we need to come up with a plan to replace
those trains, as well as investing in additional capacity in the
regional services. We need to work out what we are doing in terms
electrification of the high-speed lines. I suspect that if the
high-speed line goes via the West Midlands, we are still going
to need to invest in capacity on the East Midlands route, because
that will remain the core route for people to get to London from
the region.
Q85 Mr. Laxton: I was going
to ask a question about the economic benefits of faster journey
times, but I think that has been more or less covered in a lot
of what you have said, Jim. Turning to another question, do you
think that the reductions in journey times really are significant
enough to justify the expenditure on the electrification of the
Midland main line on a cost-benefit analysis?
Jim Bamford: The business case
for electrification isn't built primarily on journey time benefits.
There is an element of that in there and that is costed and part
of the benefit, but the biggest chunk is the reduction in operating
costs of the railways as a whole. It is much cheaper to maintain
the trains in particular, and there are other benefits, such as
carbon reduction, and they are quieter, cleaner and so on. The
journey time benefits are in there, but they are only a small
element of it.
Spencer Gibbens: I would just
echo what Jim said there. The main driver is operating cost reduction,
because you have lighter, simpler trains. The trains are easier
to maintain, but also the track is easier to maintain as well.
There are environmental benefits, because hopefully we have a
more sustainable electricity system than we do fuel. It is really
around the operating costs.
We have looked at what the latest generation
of electric train would do to reduce the London-Sheffield journey
time, and it is only around 3 to 4 minutes, which comes from their
superior acceleration. One reason to choose the Meridian trains
is that they are very powerful and quick performing trains. Converting
that to electric actually just makes it all cheaper; it does not
make it faster.
Stephen Abbott: The cumulative
effect of nibbling away at the journey time, even though the reductions
in themselves are quite small, sways passengers, certainly in
their decision to use rail as compared with the car or other modes.
Even a small reduction in journey time is worth while to the passenger.
Perhaps to bring a little light relief to proceedings I would
not worry about new inter-city electric trains, because on past
experience we will get second-hand trains. The east coast main
line will get the new inter-city express electric train and we
will have the present electric trains that run on the east coast
main line—if the Midland main line is ever electrified.
Apart from the Meridian trains, since the 1930s the Midland main
line has had no new rolling stock whatsoever. It has all been
second-hand.
Spencer Gibbens: May I comment
on that? If that happens, we all need to fight against that because
they are slugs compared to the Meridian trains and the journey
times would be longer with cascaded east coast rolling stock.
Q86 Sir Peter Soulsby: Certainly,
David's point about the potential for taking those Meridian trains
and making them electric is well taken, because they are good
stock and the fact that there is the potential to do that is exciting.
Stephen Abbott: Just to comment
on that, it would help things when the trains inevitably have
to be diverted via Corby or Castle Donington, or wherever, for
engineering work, if the train can run on diesel power.
Mr. Laxton: Has a dual capacity.
Stephen Abbott: My one worry with
the dual-power approach is that you might reach a point where
someone says, "Oh well, you've electrified to Leicester.
It's not worth doing any more, because it can run on diesel to
Sheffield." I would not want that to happen. I think if the
Midland main line is electrified, you want to do the whole job.
Q87 Chairman: Nobody's mentioned
freight in the context of electrification. Presumably, Spencer,
a freight terminal in the East Midlands with a direct route down
the Midland main line and across the channel tunnel would have
some benefits, wouldn't it?
Spencer Gibbens: I think it would.
One of the things we've not brought out in the conversation about
the Midland main line is that journey times are a challenge because
of the way that it was originally constructed in the Victorian
times: it's twisty and steeply graded. If you compare that to
the east coast main line, which is pretty much flat and level,
that's why you get those superior journey times to York and Leeds.
Of course, on the west coast main line, the tilting trains have
been introduced, because that line has the gradients in the same
way as well. But if the west coast line was about putting tilting
trains to Birmingham, which is kind of the equivalent to us, again,
the business case wouldn't stack up.
What's that all got to do with freight? One
of the constraints we currently have with journey times is that
a 2,000 tonne freight train takes something like 25 minutes longer
to run between Leicester and Kettering than an equivalent passenger
train. Therefore the timetable is structured partly around that
and to flight passengers trains then to allow enough space to
get through.
If the lines were electrified, then more powerful
electric locos could be used that are compatible with taking freight
services on to the continent without changing locos, because as
soon as you do that that puts another cost in. I have to temper
that by saying that, if some of our freight colleagues were here
they would say they like diesel engines' added weight, which adds
traction, and unlike the passenger operators, which need lightweight
trains, they need heavy locomotives to haul the freight trains.
Nevertheless, for the same sort of weight, you could put almost
twice the power into an electric locomotive, which would mean
that that sort of differential between Kettering and Wellingborough
could be reduced.
There are lots of ideas for distribution terminals
in the East Midlands. Again, if one of those was to come off,
it would be ideally placed because of the way that both the road
and the rail networks are tied together.
Q88 Chairman: Just before
we finish, talk to me about this new concept—to me, anyhow—of
route utilisation strategies. What are they and what does it say
for our region?
Spencer Gibbens: Okay. The route
utilisation strategy is something that's required by the rail
regulator. It's a condition of Network Rail's licence conditions.
However, we lead it on behalf of the industry, so it's an industry
document, not a Network Rail document. There are one or two misnomers
about the route utilisation strategy. Its aim is to look at the
underlying position and plan for that. So one thing that we quite
often get criticised about—I think that's the right word—is
that there's a lot of housing growth planned in the East Midlands
and we can't take that into account in terms of that strategy.
So it looks at this underlying growth.
For the one that's out to consultation at the
moment, which will be published in the new year, none of the findings
are particularly surprising. It's saying that by 2018, trains
out of London will be intolerably overcrowded, as will certain
trains out of Nottingham and Leicester. It makes recommendations
principally on train lengthening. Because of the way the route
is engineered and the slower journey times, the way that the East
Midlands route has come together has kind of made up for that
in terms of frequency of service. Coming over here, I was reflecting
on where else in Europe there is a provincial city like Leicester
with four off-peak inter-city trains to its capital city. Certainly,
there's nowhere in Britain. I wondered whether Reading might fall
into that category, but Birmingham doesn't—it has only three.
We make up for it in other ways. While you are going five or 10
minutes quicker down the east coast main line, at Leicester you
have to wait only 10 minutes to take you down to London, so you
make up for it like that.
As for the route utilisation strategy, in the
main, we have talked about freight loops—that will come
out of that, because that is a key way of operating heavier freight
trains on the route and still allowing the mix of passengers.
The overcrowding will be coming out that. Of course, that overcrowding
will be worse if these housing developments materialise. Therefore,
we will have to find a way of addressing that later.
Q89 Chairman: When you're
going back to work or home—I guess, David, you will be walking—some
of you will be going on the train. What is the key point that
each of you would like to make? What is the headline issue that
you want to raise that you would like us to put in the report?
David, you start.
David Horne: The key medium-term
issue for the railways in this region is going to be capacity.
The Secretary of State is saying that electrification is going
to happen, so we need to find out when that is. Whether electrification
happens or not, we are going to see continued growth in the number
of passengers using the railways. We have seen that even in the
last year, when we have been in a recession. The prospects for
rail are good. We need to work as a region to come up with schemes
to grow further the rail market but, most particularly, we need
to work together—and by that I mean the region and the Department
in London—to identify solutions to the capacity issue. If
we are getting more passengers, we need more carriages to carry
them. There is a great opportunity if we do, because we will attract
even more.
Stephen Abbott: Yes, capacity
is key: we want more capacity. We also want improvement in services
where it can be justified. For example, there is demand for a
later train southwards from Leicester in the evenings to Kettering,
Wellingborough and so on, so people can go to the theatre. That
would be cheaper to provide if it was an electric train, because
you wouldn't need to get it back to Derby for fuel and maintenance,
you would just put it in a siding and lock it up.
The other issue, I think, that concerns passengers
is access to the railway—that is, the provision of car parks,
bus integration and so on—and also stations. Something we
haven't touched on is that on the Midland main line, some of the
stations, particularly at the medium-sized centres, are very poor.
I would cite Wellingborough, Market Harborough, Loughborough,
Long Eaton. On what other main line do you have platforms which
are too short for the inter-city service from London to stop at?
Where else do you find a station that has 750,000 passengers a
year, as Market Harborough does, without a single metre of platform
canopy? There is no shelter whatsoever, other than a small waiting
room. So you cannot go from the ticket hall to the train without
getting wet. What other main line in Britain has got that?
Chairman: That's a powerful point. Jim?
Jim Bamford: You asked us to single
out one issue. I could think of more, of course, but the one that
stands out is that we need a top-up for the superb value-for-money
line speed scheme that Network Rail is already working on. I would
think an additional sum of about £30 million, which we understand
is less than 10% of the cost of the electrification. If we are
not going to get the electrification, can we at least have the
journey-time benefits of that on top of the line speed scheme?
It would include the freight loops at Desborough that Spencer
described, so there would be a freight benefit from it as well.
If you could make a recommendation to that effect, that would
be really helpful.
Spencer Gibbens: I don't know,
after that. All of the above, I think. I echo David's comment
about rolling stock. For this region, we simply do not have enough
for what we want to do. Crewe and Matlock trains with single coaches
on it should have gone years ago.
Chairman: Thank you very much for coming.
Go on, Jim. You want the last word.
Jim Bamford: I just wanted to
ask this. Because we haven't been able to be specific about the
line speed stuff, would it help if we sent a further note to the
Committee? I realise that there will be a tight time scale for
that, and I just wondered if we could offer to joint note between
us. No doubt your staff will tell us what date you would need
that by.
Chairman: Yes—25 December. I need
to do something on that day. That really would be helpful. Spencer,
on another issue, we talked about freight a bit. If you could
let us have a note on that, that would be useful too. Thank you
all very much.
| 
