Priorities for investment in the railways - Transport Committee Contents

6 Priorities in the medium to long term

51.  Given the likely restrictions on public spending in the coming years, it is widely assumed that Network Rail's investment package for Control Period 5, from 2014 to 2019, will be less generous than the current settlement. Difficult decisions may therefore have to be taken about railway investment priorities post-2014. It will also be especially important to ensure that funding priorities are clear. We examined the schemes and network requirements that railway industry stakeholders believed should be prioritised in the medium and long-term.

52.  The industry has already begun planning for Control Period 5. In May 2009, the Association of Train Operating Companies, Network Rail and the Rail Freight Operators' Association jointly published a document, Planning Ahead: Control Period 5 and beyond. This is the first in a series of documents in which the industry sets out its vision for the railway of the future. The document did not examine specific projects but instead focussed on developing a long-term framework which the industry and its sponsors can use to plan ahead effectively. The industry said the following investment projects might need to be considered for the next control period:

  1. network enhancements to increase capacity on commuter routes into London and the Manchester Hub;
  2. high speed rail;
  3. further electrification of the network;
  4. additional rolling stock;
  5. addressing freight capacity and capability constraints;
  6. better access for towns that currently have no direct rail links;
  7. improving stations;
  8. operational strategy, such as new signalling technologies, and
  9. improving integration with other modes of transport.

We explore some of these schemes in turn below.

The Manchester Hub

53.  During the course of our inquiry, we heard a great deal of evidence about the balance of investment between London and other regions. Much of Network Rail's Control Period 4 investment will be made in London and the South East, including Thameslink, the lengthening of trains and platforms, the purchase of additional rolling stock and reconfiguration and refurbishment of existing stock. This is in addition to Government funding commitments to Crossrail.[91]

54.  Several organisations were critical of the emphasis on London in terms of rail investment. Pteg highlighted that the gap in public spending on transport between London and the regions had widened in recent years: over the past five years, transport spending in London had risen by 57% compared to 25% in the Midlands and the North. At present, London received £836 per head—more than three times the £269 per head for the North and West Midlands. Pteg argued the spending gap was becoming a "chasm" (see Figure 2 in the Appendix). There was now a "clear need to increase investment in the major city regions and reduce the overall imbalance with London".[92] Other witnesses made a similar point.[93] However, Transport for London took a very different perspective, pointing out that London is Europe's fastest growing city with the population expected to increase by one million inhabitants over the next 20 years.[94] The Minister also justified the large investment by saying 70% to 80% of all rail journeys started or finished in London.[95]

55.  Despite these differences of opinion, there was a wide consensus that addressing the capacity constraints at the Manchester Hub should be considered a top priority for Control Period 5. Although called the "Manchester" Hub, the bottleneck in the Manchester area critically affects the operation of both passenger and freight services across the whole of the North of England, including Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle. Both pteg and the Northern Way argued that this main rail bottleneck in the North should be the key investment priority for the medium term.[96] A Northern Way study had concluded that addressing the Manchester Hub could provide economic benefits of up to £16 billion for the North's economy.[97] Network Rail is currently undertaking the next phase of this study, and will report in February.[98]
The Manchester Hub

The Manchester Hub refers to the network of radial routes meeting in the centre of Manchester. It supports a multitude of transport links including Manchester International Airport, the Trans Pennine routes and bus services. Passenger journeys have increased by 20% in the North West between 1999 and 2005, and in the Yorkshire and Humber region by 60% in the nine years to 2007-08. 20% of commuter traffic into Manchester arrives by train and congestion is serious. Rail usage can run at 125% capacity at peak times of day. [99]

56.  It is widely assumed that the Government and Network Rail will include the Manchester Hub as a key priority for Control Period 5. Network Rail published a pamphlet in September 2009, A bright future for rail in the north, which set out the operator's vision for a "rail revolution" in the north over the next 20 years, including Manchester Hub improvements from 2014-2019.[100] Iain Coucher, Chief Executive of Network Rail, said the Manchester Hub was "hugely important". Indeed, "the next big thing for us is sorting out Manchester and Leeds and that has got to be the priority, and that is why we are both excited about it and want to get on and do it".[101] Lord Adonis told us he was "very hopeful" that, following Network Rail's report on the Manchester Hub, "we will be able to identify work that can be taken forward after 2014 there".[102] The Minister for National Networks also confirmed that the Manchester Hub was likely to be considered a priority in Control Period 5.[103]

57.  London has benefited greatly from the Control Period 4 package, and is likely to benefit further from projects such as Crossrail which has received the go-ahead in the last few years. London's rail network will continue to require investment in Control Period 5, especially to increase capacity on certain commuter routes. However, projects to enhance capacity elsewhere on the network, particularly in the North, are long overdue, and the balance between investment in the South East and elsewhere needs to be realigned.

58.  The problems of the Manchester Hub can not be ignored any longer. The current capacity constraints of the Hub are constraining rail growth across the whole of the North of England. The case for making the Manchester Hub the top priority capacity scheme for the next control period appears very persuasive. We welcome indications from Network Rail, the Government and the industry that it will be considered a high priority after 2014.


59.  Approximately 40% of the British rail network is currently electrified, servicing 60% of passengers.[104] We previously recommended further electrification of the network in our Report on the Government's 2007 White Paper, Delivering a sustainable railway.[105] The White Paper rejected the case for electrification but, since our Report, the Government has changed its position. In July 2009, the Government announced it was embarking on a major £1.1 billion programme to electrify the Great Western Main Line and the Manchester-Liverpool line.[106] In December 2009, the Government further announced electrification of three lines in the North West, between Huyton and Wigan, Manchester and Euxton Junction, and Blackpool North and Preston. These projects are estimated to cost an additional £200 million.[107]

Electrified trains can offer several benefits, such as faster journey times, more seats, greater reliability, improved air quality and lower carbon emissions, than their diesel equivalents. Electrification can help to lower the costs of operating the railway since electric trains are generally cheaper to run than diesels and inflict less wear on tracks.

60.  Many witnesses submitting evidence to our inquiry supported further electrification of the network for a variety of reasons. Network Rail—which published its own electrification strategy in October 2009—said the main business case for electrification was about "reducing costs", for example procurement costs for rolling stock and maintenance and running costs.[108] National Express said electrification should be progressed on environmental grounds "as it opens the opportunity to use any source of generating energy and best places us to be free from escalating fossil fuel costs/security of supplies".[109] Passenger Focus emphasised the additional space for passengers on electrified trains, because their engines take up less space than diesel engines.[110] The freight operator DB Schenker noted that small infill electrification schemes, linking existing electrified routes with heavy long-distance freight usage, could be particularly beneficial to the freight industry.[111] The industry's Planning Ahead document stated that the goal should be to focus on "electrifying wherever it is economically viable so that over time the benefits are felt by a significant majority—perhaps 80%—of customers".[112]

61.  The case for electrification of the Midland Main Line between London and Sheffield was said to be particularly strong. The Government has confirmed it is currently considering the case, and Network Rail's electrification strategy, published in October 2009, was supportive of electrification of the line. The study concluded that the value-for-money of electrification of the Midland Main Line was "technically infinite".[113] The benefit-to-cost ratio was equal to, or better than, that for electrification of the Great Western Main Line. In evidence to us, Network Rail noted that because the Midland Main Line was already partially electrified, the business case for completing it was particularly persuasive: "you get a relatively large number of train miles electrified for a relatively small number of track miles electrified".[114] The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) has publicly supported Network Rail's findings, and called for the Midland Main Line to be electrified "as soon as possible".[115] Other witnesses, including freight operators and Passenger Focus, also considered electrification of the Midland Main Line to be a priority in the medium-term.[116]

62.  The Secretary of State agreed that there was a "strong business case" for electrification of the Midland Main Line and the Department was "continuing to look" at this option. He pointed out, however, that Network Rail was already working on major electrification projects and it was necessary to find a "realistic pace" at which the operator could undertake another major electrification programme such as the Midland Main Line, even if the funding was available.[117]

63.  We have previously supported electrification of the network, and we welcome the Government's change of position on this matter. The electrification of the Great Western Main Line and four lines in the North West should be considered only important first steps in the electrification of the network. Funding for Control Period 5 is likely to be under pressure. However, further electrification of the network should be considered one of the top investment priorities for the period. We would support electrification of the Midland Main Line in particular as a major electrification project to be undertaken in Control Period 5.

64.  Prior to the 2009 change in policy, we had criticised the Government for not giving small-scale infill electrification projects the consideration they deserve. In the current financial climate, the attractiveness of such schemes is even greater as they are often relatively cheap and represent particularly good value-for-money. The Government should ensure that the next stage of its electrification strategy gives priority to a range of small-scale infill schemes over the short to medium term.

High speed rail

65.  Britain already has 68 miles of high speed line, High Speed One, linking Folkestone and the Channel Tunnel to London. This compares unfavourably with a number of other countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Spain, for example, has a 790 mile high speed rail network and Germany 802 miles. As with electrification, the Government has recently changed its position on high speed rail. The Government's 2007 Rail White Paper broadly accepted the conclusion of the Eddington Transport Study that high speed rail would represent poor for value for money in the UK because the distances between major conurbations in the UK were too short to justify the construction of high speed links.[118] At the time, we criticised the Government saying it was "deeply disappointing that the White Paper dodged the decision on high speed rail" due to the additional capacity it would bring and the limited additional cost in building high speed as opposed to conventional rail lines.[119]

66.  Over the past 18 months the Government's attitude to high speed rail has changed markedly. In January 2009 the Government set up High Speed Two Ltd to advise on the development of high speed rail services between London and Scotland. At the end of 2009, High Speed Two reported, in private, to the Government on a detailed route plan for the first stage of a north-south high speed line, from London to the West Midlands. The company also provided advice on options for extending high speed services, and high speed lines, to destinations further north, including the North West, the East Midlands, Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland. It also assessed the options for serving Heathrow Airport and for linking up High Speed One and High Speed Two. The Government will publish a White Paper setting out its response and plans by the end of March 2010.[120] This is expected to be accompanied by a draft National Policy Statement on National Networks, covering roads and railways. Rt Hon Lord Adonis told us in evidence that he found it "inconceivable that over the next generation Britain will not proceed with a north-south line".[121]

67.  In the 2009 Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor announced that one of the responsibilities of the new body, Infrastructure UK, will be to advise on a new high speed rail line in the UK, including sources of funding.[122] Estimated costs for the project vary, depending on the exact route, but studies have quoted £11 billion for a London-West Midlands line, £34 billion for a London-Scotland line and up to £69 billion for a full 1,500 mile network.[123]

68.  With High Speed Two Ltd undertaking its work during the course of our inquiry, and with limited information in the public domain, our evidence on potential new high speed rail developments was inevitably speculative. However, although the vast majority of organisations submitting evidence to our inquiry supported new high speed rail lines, we heard two common concerns about the proposals. The first concern was that the large amounts of funding required for new high speed rail lines may detract from much-needed investment on the existing, "classic", rail network. The second concern related to the competitive disadvantages potentially suffered by those areas not served by the initial stages of a new high speed line.


69.  Large infrastructure projects including wholly new rail lines require long lead times and it is estimated that a new north-south high speed line could become operational only in the early 2020s, or later.[124] Several witnesses—whilst supportive of new high speed rail lines—raised concerns that the "classic" network might suffer from a subsequent lack of investment. Virgin Group said that the country "could not afford an investment holiday" on "classic" lines while High Speed Two was being planned and built because the West Coast Main Line would reach full capacity by the end of the decade.[125] Similarly, the Northern Way said the existing north-south lines on the "classic" network would reach capacity before any new high speed lines are operational.[126] ASLEF said it was "essential" that works on the classic network were not missed due to large projects, such as high speed rail.[127] Other organisations, including Passenger Focus, made similar points.[128]

70.  Others, however, did not believe there would necessarily be a conflict between investment in high speed and "classic" rail. The Minister pointed out that much of the major expenditure on the high speed network would be "coming further down the [line …] towards the end of the next decade [2010s]". [129] This mirrored the view of Eurostar who told us the major spend for High Speed Two would probably occur in Control Period 6, not CP5.[130] Others such as Greengauge 21 and The Northern Way concurred.[131] Bob Linnard, the Department's Director of Rail Strategy, agreed that it did "not necessarily follow that a big project squeezes out others": he pointed out that the current HLOS had a very big programme of expenditure, including the purchase of rolling stock and station upgrades, whilst commitments to major new capital projects like Crossrail had been made independently of the HLOS. The Department, however, said it was not able to provide further details on how the balance might be achieved until High Speed Two Ltd had reported on possible costs and funding mechanisms of the project, and the Department had published its response.[132]

71.  We welcome the Government's change of policy on high speed rail. Nevertheless, new high speed lines will not be operational for a decade or more. It is essential that investment in a high speed rail network does not detract from necessary medium term investment on the "classic" network. Capacity constraints on the classic network look set to worsen in the next decade and we must continue to invest to address these problems. After all, the majority of passenger and freight rail journeys will continue to be made on the classic network. The bulk of funding needed for new high speed rail line is, in any case, unlikely to be invested before Control Period 6, or later.

72.  The Government cannot be expected, at this stage, to explain precisely how it would balance the funding between investment in high speed rail and the maintenance of existing investment levels on the classic rail network. In its response to the High Speed Two study, however, the Government must explain how this balance will be struck, the mechanisms by which a high speed line would be funded, and how investment on the classic network will be maintained at an appropriate level.


73.  Unsurprisingly, whilst High Speed Two Ltd has been undertaking its work, much debate has been taking place across the country—across local communities and within the media and Parliament—about the exact routes of a high speed rail network, the regions it should serve, and the order in which the lines should be constructed. Most commentators agree, however, that the Government was right to focus first on a possible high speed line connecting London to the West Midlands, due to the capacity constraints expected on the West Coast Main Line over the current decade.[133]

74.  Several witnesses were concerned that those cities not served in the initial stages of a new high speed line would be at a competitive disadvantage to those areas that were served. Specific concerns were raised about the potential economic disadvantage suffered in eastern England. The Northern Way said cities such as Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle would face "quite a big economic disadvantage" if there was a time-lag in serving them. It proposed that, to overcome this imbalance, two north-south high speed lines should be built between London and the North of England before continuing the line into Scotland.[134]

75.  The Government was initially criticised for defining the remit of High Speed Two Ltd too narrowly. Subsequently, Government ministers have emphasised that High Speed Two will provide options for extending high speed services, and high speed lines to a variety of destinations further north, "including the North West, the East Midlands, Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland".[135] Rt Hon Lord Adonis told us it was important for the Government to consider how a high speed network might develop beyond the initial stages of a north-south line. He was "very mindful" that high speed rail should serve the North East, for example. A "key requirement" imposed on High Speed Two was to ensure new high speed lines were "fully interoperable" with the existing network, which would allow a greater variety of destinations to be served by high speed services.[136] This is similar to the French TGV model, where the majority of the route mileage of TGVs is on the "classic" network, ensuring that most major French cities are served. On the other hand, this differs from the Japanese model, where the high-speed network is a self-contained operation separate from the classic rail network.

76.  It would not be right for us to comment on the specific routes of a possible high speed network nor to speculate on the order in which they should be constructed. High Speed Two Ltd has undertaken detailed work on these questions and we await the publication of its report, along with the Government's response, with great interest.

77.   We recognise concerns about the potential competitive disadvantage faced by regions not served by the initial high speed line. It is helpful, therefore, that High Speed Two Ltd will be proposing options to extend high speed services, and high speed lines, to a range of areas in the North East as well as the North West. It is very important that, from as early a stage as possible in the development of high-speed services, new high speed rail lines are interoperable with the existing network.

Smaller-scale schemes

78.  During our inquiry we were told about other railway schemes that could provide significant benefits to the economy and society but which required relatively modest investment. Eddington too stressed that smaller-scale transport interventions were often the most cost-effective solutions.[137] Witnesses emphasised three schemes in particular as possible priorities for Control Period 5:

  1. new lines to connect communities with poor access to the railway network;
  2. the Strategic Freight Network proposals; and
  3. schemes to integrate rail with other modes of transport.

We cover each of these schemes in turn below.


79.  In June 2009, the Association of Train Operating Companies published Connecting Communities: Expanding Access to the Rail Network. ATOC found that some communities that had grown significantly in the past 15 years still lacked adequate access to the railway network. ATOC identified 14 places in England, each with a population of 15,000 or more but not currently served by the railway, with a positive business case for a new rail line. It also identified seven communities where a good business case for the construction of a new station could be made.[138] Taken together, these schemes would provide direct and indirect rail access for around a million people. ATOC said further work was required but it was hopeful that these schemes would be integrated into Control Period 5.[139]

80.  Some witnesses emphasised the importance of these relatively smaller-scale enhancements.[140] The Campaign for Better Transport pointed out that, in the past, previous station and line re-openings had consistently seen greater than predicted usage,[141] and such schemes would encourage modal shift from road to rail. In their view, investment in these smaller new railway lines was "vital" because it provided people with a "real alternative to driving".[142] Railfuture North East branch said extending rail to excluded communities in the North East[143] had the potential to re-connect 100,000 people to the rail network, which would "boost the local economy and improve employment prospects for many". It pointed out that the infrastructure required to do this was already available and the re-opening schemes were therefore relatively cheap.[144]

81.  When questioned on this issue, the Minister said the Department generally supported the proposals but this was primarily a matter for local authorities to pursue through Regional Funding Allocations. If the Government were confident about passenger usage forecasts, however, it would consider requiring commitments to such schemes within franchise contracts.[145] Subsequently, in January 2010, the Government announced, as part of the extension to the Chiltern Railways' franchise, an agreement to construct a new railway line at Bicester (subject to planning consents) and an entirely new station at Water Eaton Parkway in North Oxford.[146] This is an example of the creativity we want to see more often to secure funding for the railway from non-Government sources.

82.  We were not satisfied by the Minister's response regarding the proposals to "connect communities". For relatively modest costs, these schemes to open new lines and stations, and re-open old lines, can be of great value to communities and passenger usage has often exceeded expectations. The Government should take a more positive and pro-active policy position to encourage local authorities to seriously consider these schemes and align them to regional economic and social objectives and strategies. The Government should fund schemes where it is confident about high passenger patronage directly through the national rail investment programme. Alternatively, where the opportunity exists, it should encourage private investment through the franchise system.


83.  Rail freight industry forecasts, endorsed by the Department for Transport and Network Rail, suggest a doubling of rail freight activity by 2030.[147] The Control Period 4 settlement included £200 million to begin the implementation of a Strategic Freight Network (SFN), less than 1% of the current investment programme.[148] Its purpose is to provide a network of trunk routes to accommodate future freight flows, particularly from the major sea container ports.[149] The first stage is to provide enhanced capacity between Ipswich and Peterborough and to create a large diversionary route between Southampton and Basingstoke. Freight representatives were strongly supportive of the SFN proposals. The Freight Transport Association said the SFN was "excellent" and functioning as an "effective mechanism to direct public spending on rail freight projects".[150] The Rail Freight Group said the current SFN investment programme was "hugely positive" and an "important step".[151]

84.  The Department for Transport has recently published its Strategic Freight Network Vision which sets out how the SFN should develop after 2014.[152] The approximate level of SFN funding for the post-2014 period, however, is not yet known. Freight representatives, and other witnesses, emphasised the importance of maintaining rail freight investment in Control Period 5 at least at the current level. The Freight Transport Association said that one of its main priorities was to "ensure the continuation of existing SFN funding" during CP5, with the £200 million to be "maintained or increased" in the next control period.[153] Network Rail told us that it would "make a case" for further Government funding for the SFN in the longer term.[154]

85.  The need to invest in UK rail freight is more clear and pressing than ever in the context of the UK's climate change targets. We would expect the funding committed to the Strategic Freight Network to be, at the very least, maintained by the Government in the next control period. The current proposals to develop the Strategic Freight Network after 2014 should be given a high priority and must be aligned with economic and environmental objectives.


86.  As part of our inquiry, we examined whether enough consideration was given to the integration of rail with other transport modes when rail investment decisions were made. Several witnesses believed this was an area which had been neglected.[155] The Northern Way, for example, criticised the inability to develop a transport smartcard, similar to Oyster, outside of London.[156] TravelWatch NorthWest described the provision of through-ticketing and marketing of multi-modal travel as a "patchwork" with "little attention" paid to sub-regions outside major cities, particularly rural areas.[157] The Office of Rail Regulation also said there was scope for improvement in this area.[158]

87.  Network Rail, ATOC and the Rail Freight Operators' Association's joint report, Planning Ahead, identified integration with other modes of transport as one of the industry's high-level priorities for CP5. Iain Coucher, Chief Executive of Network Rail, told us that integration had not been a key priority for Network Rail when it started five years ago but it was now considered a "no-brainer". He highlighted the need for car parking at stations as one area where investment was required, as did National Express and Passenger Focus.[159] Transport for London also wanted greater co-ordination and integration between transport modes to be a high investment priority for CP5.[160]

88.  The Minister defended the Government's record in encouraging integration between rail and other transport modes. He cited the January 2010 extension of Oyster onto National Rail services in London, additional car parking specifications in some franchises, and investment to improve cycle interchanges at railway stations, as examples of the Government's commitment in this area.[161] Since then, the Department has launched its Smart and Integrated Ticketing Strategy, which aims to increase the spread of smart and integrating ticketing throughout England. The strategy includes the provision of £20 million to be awarded to nine of the largest urban areas outside London to help deliver smart ticketing infrastructure.[162]

89.  It is unacceptable that investment in schemes and projects that integrate rail with other transport modes has not always matched the Government's rhetoric. The Government must ensure that investment in rail takes into account good integration with other modes of transport. The recent strategy to increase the use of smart and integrated ticketing outside London is a step in the right direction. The Government must, however, make faster progress in this area. This is the only way to achieve a genuinely convenient and accessible public transport system for passengers which presents a real alternative to the car.

91   Ev 186 [Transport for London] Back

92   Ev 170; Q 20 Back

93   For example, the Northern Way [Q 20]. Back

94   Ev 186 Back

95   Q 323 Back

96   Q 2 Back

97   The Northern Way, Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement, April 2009, p 63 Back

98   Ev 163 Back

99   Network Rail, North West Route Utilisation Strategy, May 2007, pp 28-29; Network Rail, A bright future for rail in the north, September 2009, p 2; Manchester Hub: Key facts, Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority website, January 2010, Back

100   Network Rail, A bright future for rail in the north, September 2009, p 1 Back

101   Q 251 Back

102   Transport Committee, Transport Questions with the Secretary of State, HC 1087, Q 37 Back

103   Qq 335-6 Back

104   The 40% figure is measured in track miles (Network Rail, Network RUS: Electrification, October 2009, p 3) and the 60% figure in passenger miles (Department for Transport, Britain's Transport Infrastructure: Rail Electrification, July 2009, p 6). Back

105   Transport Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2007-08, Delivering a sustainable railway: a 30-year strategy for the railways?, HC 219, para 33 Back

106   "Major £1.1 billion investment in electric rail boosts travel, the economy and the environment", Department for Transport press release, 23 July 2009 Back

107   HC Deb, 14 December 2009, cols 64-65WS Back

108   Q 244 Back

109   Ev 144 Back

110   Q 75 Back

111   Ev 82 Back

112   Network Rail, Association of Train Operating Companies, Rail Freight Operators' Association, Planning ahead: Control Period 5 and beyond, May 2009, p 11 Back

113   Because it produced a net cost saving rather than a cost over the 60-year appraisal period. Network Rail, Network RUS: Electrification, October 2009, p 81. Back

114   Q 245 Back

115   "Electrification proposals "good news" for passengers says ATOC", Association of Train Operating Companies press release, 28 October 2009 Back

116   Ev 82 [DB Schenker]; Q 75 [Passenger Focus] Back

117   Transport Committee, Transport Questions with the Secretary of State, HC 1087, Qq 37, 49 Back

118   Department for Transport, Delivering a Sustainable Railway, CM 7176, July 2007, p 62 Back

119   Transport Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2007-08, Delivering a sustainable railway: a 30-year strategy for the railways?, HC 219, para 28 Back

120   HC Deb, 14 December 2009, cols 213-214WS Back

121   Transport Committee, Transport Questions with the Secretary of State, HC 1087, Q 43 Back

122   HM Treasury, Pre-Budget Report, Cm 7747, December 2009, p 65 Back

123   Greengauge 21, High Speed Two: A Greengauge 21 Proposition, June 2007, p 23; Network Rail, The case for new lines: Synopsis, August 2009; Greengauge 21, Fast Forward: A High Speed Rail Strategy for Britain, September 2009, p 47 Back

124   Estimate given by Sir David Rowlands, Chairman, High Speed Two Ltd. Transport Committee, First Report of Session 2009-10, The future of aviation, HC 125-II, Q 478 Back

125   Ev 139 Back

126   Ev 163 Back

127   Ev 79 Back

128   Ev 186 Back

129   Q 362 Back

130   Q 132 Back

131   Q 132; Q 37. See also the Association of Train Operating Companies [Q 192]. Back

132   Qq 363, 365 Back

133   For example, Greengauge 21 [Q 126], The Northern Way [Q 8], Association of Train Operating Companies [Q 198]. Back

134   Q 8 Back

135   HC Deb, 14 December 2009, cols 63-64WS Back

136   Transport Committee, Transport Questions with the Secretary of State, HC 1087, Q 46 Back

137   Sir Rod Eddington, The Eddington Transport Study: The Case for Action, December 2006, p 121 Back

138   These are: Aldridge; Ashington and Blyth; Bordon; Brixham; Brownhills; Cranleigh; Fleetwood; Hythe; Leicester-Burton; Rawtensall; Ringwood; Skelmersdale; Washington (Leamside Line); and Wisbech. The stations are: Rushden; Peterlee; Kenilworth; Ilkeston; Clay Cross/N Wingfield; Ossett; Wantage/Grove. The report does not cover Scotland or Wales where strategies for new rail links have been developed by devolved government. Back

139   Q 196 Back

140   For example, Brian George [Ev 91]. Back

141   ATOC cited Stirling Alloway and the Ebbw Vale as example of re-openings where the demand forecast had been exceeded [Q 194]. Back

142   Ev 200 Back

143   Blyth, Ashington, Washington and Peterlee Back

144   Ev 71 Back

145   Q 414 Back

146   "Franchise extension kick starts faster, more frequent journeys between London and Midlands", Department for Transport press release, 15 January 2010 Back

147   Ev 82 [DB Schenker] Back

148   Ev 82 [DB Schenker]. The Freight Transport Association made a similar point [Ev 125]. Back

149   Announced by the Government in its 2007 Rail White Paper, the Strategic Freight Network is defined by the Department as a "core network of trunk freight routes capable of accommodating more and longer freight trains with a selective ability to handle wagons with higher axle loads and greater loading gauge, integrated with and complementing the UK's existing mixed traffic network". Back

150   Q 291; Ev 85 Back

151   Q 258 Back

152   Department for Transport, Strategic Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision, September 2009 Back

153   Ev 125 Back

154   Q 238 Back

155   See West Northamptonshire Development Corporation [Ev 142], National Express [Ev 144]; Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transportation [Ev 149]; Eurostar [Ev 184]; Campaign to Protect Rural England [Ev 213]. Back

156   Q 52 Back

157   Ev 111 Back

158   Ev 160 Back

159   Q 250; Ev 144 [National Express]; Ev 136 [Passenger Focus] Back

160   Ev 186 Back

161   Q 438 Back

162   HC Deb, 15 December 2009, col 122WS Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 15 February 2010