We welcome
indications from Network Rail, the Government and the industry
that it will be considered a high priority after 2014.
Electrification
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]
| Electrification
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.
MAINTAINING INVESTMENT IN THE "CLASSIC"
NETWORK
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.
THE ROUTES FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL
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:
- new lines to connect communities
with poor access to the railway network;
- the Strategic Freight Network proposals; and
- schemes to integrate rail with other modes of
transport.
We cover each of these schemes in turn below.
"CONNECTING COMMUNITIES"
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.
STRATEGIC FREIGHT NETWORK
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.
INTEGRATION OF RAIL WITH OTHER TRANSPORT
MODES
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,
www.gmita.gov.uk 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
