THE Government’s White Paper ‘Delivering a Sustainable Railway,’ published just before MPs broke up for their long summer recess, seemed to get a pretty negative reaction from many commentators.
I have to say that I am not among these moaners and I thought that, on the whole, the White Paper was fairly positive for an industry that has had little focus on its future for most of the past decade.
The ‘High Level Output Specification’ (HLOS) and the curiously-named SOFA (Statement of Funds Available) deal only with the period 2009-2014, while the White Paper itself looks further ahead. But it draws no conclusions, for who can tell what demand there will be for rail in, say, 2020 – especially if a future government is brave enough to introduce widespread road pricing?
Contrary to some comments, the White Paper does not rule out high-speed lines and makes clear there is a need to start planning ahead of the next HLOS in 2012 for the possibility that rail services demand will accelerate (as has happened in the past decade, despite fare increases).
The Government has concentrated on what can be done to increase network capacity with short-term measures such as additional rolling stock, longer platforms and easing congestion pinch-points.
So, Thameslink has finally got the go-ahead. To answer my own query last month, it will cost £3.55 billion. Then there will be £1 billion for rolling stock. But as the project is not due for conclusion until 2015, it was all finally priced at £5.5 billion to allow for inflation. (So now you can calculate what your pay or pension should be in 2015!)
In dealing with other major pinch-points, perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the Government’s announcements was the contrast between the investment approved at Reading – £425 million – and that at Birmingham New Street, where only £128 million of a £550 million project proposed by Birmingham City Council and Network Rail got the green light.
The Reading project, which includes five new platforms plus two flyovers over the west triangle, will provide “significant enhancements to network capacity” – about 40 per cent by my reckoning – which “will meet longer term passenger and freight movement requirements”. Note the use of the word ‘movement’.
By comparison, at Birmingham New Street – where there is no plan (or indeed space) to increase or lengthen tracks or platforms to accommodate many more train movements, the Government appears only to have accepted the need, mainly for safety reasons, “to contribute to improvements in passenger capacity and in-station environment”.
A new concourse with two ‘airport-style’ passenger lounges, separated by a public thoroughfare and 48 automatic ticket gates, is proposed by Network Rail – although many rail professionals have questioned whether passenger arrangements applied to airports can be used at rail stations where trains come and go every three or four minutes.
The Government has also questioned the value-for-money benefits of the Birmingham proposal, and why there seems to be relatively little support from private sector investors.
By comparison, the Reading project, which genuinely does unblock a
major bottleneck, is reported to have a 4:1 benefit-to-cost ratio.
It has been developed between Reading Borough Council and Network Rail to confer many benefits, both east-west and north-south, across the rail network. It also offers significant economic and social benefits to Reading and the surrounding area.
By comparison, the Birmingham ‘Gateway’ project has apparently been developed primarily as a property redevelopment scheme. It appears to be aimed at creating some regeneration to the area around New Street station, but without bringing any strategic benefits to the rail network as a whole, although Birmingham’s location is even more significant to operations than is Reading’s.
Following the Government’s announcements, two of the main organisations representing West Midlands’ businesses, Birmingham Forward and Birmingham Future, said: “We have serious concerns about the long-term capacity of the current and proposed Midland rail network to support the needs of the area”.
They called for land east of New Street and the Bullring shopping centre to be ‘protected’ for future station development. This is the area in which Arup, who designed the Channel Tunnel rail link, have proposed a new 17-platform ‘Grand Central’ station – integrated with the present Moor Street station on the Chiltern Line, city centre buses and the planned extension of the West Midlands Metro light rail system.
The concept would give Birmingham a major transport interchange equivalent to the Central station that opened in Berlin last year and is dubbed the ‘Palace of Glass’. But it has received little support in Birmingham so far.
The Government’s White Paper forecasts that up to 2013/14 – during which time the Reading scheme should be developed – there will be a 14.7 per cent increase in passengers on the Great Western main line.
In the West Midlands, the White Paper forecasts a 13.9 per cent increase – and 15.9 per cent on the West Coast main line – but the only plan at present is for a larger waiting area for passengers at Birmingham New Street and no increase in track capacity.
Maybe the go-ahead for the Reading scheme will lead to some new thinking in Birmingham, so that a new station with significant extra capacity, strategically important to the whole rail network, can be developed.
But there is little time left. A planning application has already been submitted to build 130,000 square metres of offices, retail shops, residential accommodation, a medical centre and car parks on the ‘Grand Central’ site.