THE past month saw some memorable developments for Britain’s growing rail industry. Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly declared she had been turned on to the idea of a rolling programme of electrification. Network Rail announced it had launched a ‘New Lines Programme’ to determine what to do when route capacity runs out, and to see if a high-speed line (or lines) would give best value for money in providing extra tracks.
And in England’s second city, Birmingham City Council disclosed that a high-speed line would bring huge economic benefits – and forecast half of all road journeys between London and the West Midlands would switch to rail.
But June was also memorable for Ruth Kelly’s Rail Minister dismissing the case for high-speed rail. In a letter leaked to The Times, Tom Harris said: “The argument that high-speed rail travel is a ‘green option’ does not necessarily stand up to close inspection”.
And chairman of the Office of Rail Regulation, Chris Bolt, declared the rail industry needed to develop a new long-term vision and long-term plans – just after his organisation had called for savings of £3 billion from Network Rail’s proposed investment programme for the next five years.
Network Rail warned that the ORR’s ‘determination’ – cutting the income NR will need to £26.5 billion – will put at risk much-needed improvements for rail users.
NR’s chief executive Iain Coucher said: “Demand for more and better rail services continues to grow.” He added: “On the face of it, the proposed funding settlement is insufficient.”
No wonder, perhaps, that Network Rail was soon making much of its ‘New Lines Programme’, set up to examine what to do when the rail network runs out of capacity.
Depending on which forecast you choose, this could be in 2025 or as early as 2015. But it could be even sooner if fuel prices stay high, or go higher still.
On the other hand, if the current economic gloom leads to a recession, the whole financial structure of rail passenger businesses is likely to collapse because so many of the franchises have been let on the assumption of continuing economic growth.
Despite such uncertainties, it seems to me significant that during the past year, since the Government published its Railway White Paper, the industry has managed to work together to make the case for electrification and also to begin making the case for a North-South high-speed line.
The industry remains fragmented as a result of the structure introduced after 1993 by the Conservatives, and largely retained since 1997 by Labour. So I can’t help feeling that the outgoing chairman of the Office of Rail Regulation is ill-advised to criticise the industry for lack of vision and long-term plans.
Surely, ORR has some contribution to make to forward planning and strategy (since we no longer have a Strategic Rail Authority). Or does it merely exist now to endorse government (i.e. Treasury) policy?
Five years ago, Rail Regulator Tom Winsor shocked the Government by determining Network Rail should have more money than the Treasury thought necessary.
The Government responded (Alistair Darling, now Chancellor, was then Transport Secretary) with legislation that swept away the Strategic Rail Authority and abolished Mr Winsor’s role, creating instead the Office of Rail Regulation.
This move seems to have worked – for the Government, anyway – as ORR’s current plan is a reduction in Network Rail spending.
But given the present structure for the industry, which is controlled directly from the Department for Transport (but whose policy is determined by the Treasury), only the
Government can provide the long-term vision and long-term plans Chris Bolt calls for.
Last year we got the Railway White Paper, which appeared to dismiss electrification and high-speed lines even though it claimed to look up to 30 years ahead. The industry reacted against this and has already got electrification onto Ruth Kelly’s agenda.
Now, through the Railway Forum, the industry is making the case for a new high-speed line from London to the North. But Tom Harris, the Rail Minister, appears to dismiss the case – although, at a Railway Forum conference, speaker after speaker poured cold water on his claims.
Clearly, if more and more people can be tempted out of their cars onto trains, and trains can be operated with high load factors, carbon emissions per passenger/mile or seat/mile will be reduced and the carbon which would have been emitted by road journeys will also be saved.
The newest high-speed trains are 25 per cent more energy efficient than Eurostars, and each could carry up to 900 people in double-deck configuration (only possible on new lines) and is equal to almost three of today’s Pendolinos.
These, and many more arguments in favour of high-speed rail, appear to have been overlooked by the rail minister (and presumably by the DfT).
Professor Roderick Smith, of Imperial College, speaking at the Railway Forum conference, pointed out that the cost of high-speed rail was small in the context of overall government spending.
A new high-speed line all the way from London to Scotland would cost less than half the money committed to saving Northern Rock, he said, and was equal to the cost of running the NHS for just three months.
The case for developing our rail system is strong, and we should all support it.