Rail Investment

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

I do not totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will explain why in a moment. My concern is that it now appears to be a deliberate Government policy to drive people off rail by increasing fares. Indeed, it seems rather perverse. It is true that Government policy is to increase fares by an average of RPI plus 3% . I must stress, though, that that is not an actual increase; it is an average. The reality could be a rise of RPI plus 8% for individual fares, which is a very great increase indeed. For example, the annual season ticket between Bournemouth and London would increase by £211 at RPI plus 3%, but by £645 if RPI plus 8% was applied, which is possible under the Government’s formula.

Current forecasts for the third quarter of 2011 are that RPI could be 3.9%, the base against which RPI for the following year is assessed. That means fares could rise by an average of 6.9% in 2012, with individual fares increasing by up to 11.9%. Those are significant increases and a matter of great concern. We all recognise that there are economic and financial problems, but it is disturbing to think that there could now be a national policy to price people off rail. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that concern.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. No one wants to see fares rising, but the economic reality is that if we are to continue investing in the railways, we must increase fares. Does the hon. Lady not think that if we are moving from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, fares should increase by CPI plus 3% rather than RPI plus 3%.?

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We must all recognise economic constraints, but we have to consider seriously the implications of any policy that might price people off rail.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. I recognise the Government policy context in which these decisions are taken.

Let me now draw attention to the issue of rolling stock. If people are going to be asked to pay more for their fares, it is reasonable to ask whether the rolling stock will be adequate to ensure that people have a reasonable journey. The more people pay, the more concerned they will be if the rolling stock is not adequate. The situation is extremely confusing. The announcements made by the Department for Transport on what rolling stock is to be provided, where and when have been unclear.

When our Committee issued its report last year, we expressed deep concern at the postponement in issuing the rolling stock plan for 1,300 new carriages that were expected by 2014, and at the uncertainty and confusion the delay was causing within the industry, but we recognised that the commitment to electrification legitimised the pause in assessing exactly what rolling stock was required and when. However, since then, little real progress has been made in delivering new carriages. Instead, we recently received another announcement by the Department that 2,100 new carriages would be delivered by 2019, 1,850 of which will be net additional vehicles. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) said, many of these are for the Crossrail and Thameslink projects, which will then lead to electric carriages on the network being cascaded to other parts of the country, including the north. If and when that happens, I hope that it will not be a matter of the north getting the cast-offs from the south. I expect the stock to be in good condition and well suited to meet the needs of the people in the north.

Given that the completion dates for both Crossrail and Thameslink have been delayed to 2018, will the Minister tell us when these much-needed carriages that the industry has been waiting for, will finally be delivered? How many of those carriages expected by 2014 will actually be delivered by that date?

[Mr Leech]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that the previous Government did not have a good record on delivering on promised rolling stock?

[Mrs Ellman]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman may recall that previous reports of the Transport Committee during the time of the previous Government were not slow to criticise the inadequacies of the Government where we felt it was appropriate to do so, and rolling stock was one of those areas. We also have the ongoing saga of the new generation of InterCity trains. In November, the Government announced that they had narrowed their options for the replacement of the old InterCity 125s down to two: a bid from Agility Trains for a mixture of electric and hybrid trains; and a proposal for a fleet of all-new electric trains that could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric power lines end. I know that many of my colleagues in Wales are anxious for that decision to be made because of the impact that it will have on the Great Western main line to Swansea. Again, the Government have not been very clear about what is happening regarding that line and I would be grateful for any clarification.

During the next control period, which is between 2014 and 2019, and beyond, it is extremely important that we have continuing and substantial investment in the rail network, improving it to accommodate passenger growth and to alleviate unacceptable overcrowding. One of the priorities for the next control period must be investment in the rail infrastructure in the north of England. Our Committee’s report shows very clearly how the south, particularly London, has benefited from rail investment. We support that investment, but we noted in the report that when we examined the amount of transport investment per head we found that there was three times as much in London and the south-east as in other regions of the country. We support investment in London and the south-east, but similar interest should be shown in the needs of the north.

The particular project that we recommended in our report was the northern hub. That bottleneck in the Manchester area critically affects the operation of both passenger and freight services right across the north of England, including in Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle. The Northern Way study concluded that addressing the northern hub could provide economic benefits worth up to £16 billion for the economy of the north.

Investing in the northern hub remains as important as ever. However, there is particular concern about that issue, because of what has happened to the organisations that brought the project together. The combined work of the three northern regional development agencies was very significant in developing the project, costing it and working out its implications and benefits. Sadly, the project for the northern hub—the Northern Way project—may no longer be supported because the RDAs are being disbanded. Indeed, it is very unclear what will happen to the organisation that has developed and costed that project in such great detail. I would be very pleased if the Minister could confirm that she will support that project as a top-priority project for the north in the period ahead.

The longer-term investment priority is the development of a high-speed network. Our Committee welcomed the previous Government’s change of policy when they decided to support high-speed rail. However, we emphasised that investment in high-speed rail should not detract from investment in the existing classic network. Moreover, if high-speed rail is important for the route from London to Birmingham—as the current Government have stated, and I agree with them—it is equally important that it extends to the north.

The case for high-speed rail has been put forward, based largely on the need for additional capacity for both passengers and freight. That argument is very important, but it is also very important that the economic impact of high-speed rail is recognised. Indeed, the Government have said as much many times. They have said that their support for high-speed rail is based on the need to reduce the disparities between north and south. That means that if high-speed rail goes ahead, as I hope it will, it must go beyond Birmingham to the north.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the conditions that many passengers are forced to face on our inter-city trains are analogous to those experienced by animals, even if their end destination is perhaps more pleasant.

[Mr Leech]

My hon. Friend has mentioned that he uses the west coast main line regularly, as do I. The trouble is that if the number of west coast main line trains from Manchester to London were increased from three to four an hour, it would have a detrimental impact on local services. That is why high-speed rail is so important in ensuring that we can maintain local and inter-regional services as well as the inter-city ones.

[Paul Maynard]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next point. I take entirely the point that the network of high-speed rail that has been mapped out links areas with a high concentration of service industries, which is key to saying that the predictions for demand are more robust than they were, for instance, in Spain, where Madrid and Seville were linked. Seville had a high level of heavy industry but no service industry, so no demand occurred.

I want to make a number of other points before concluding and allowing as many hon. Members as possible to participate in the debate. May I make a plea to the Minister on open-access rail? We have just seen the sad failure of the Wrexham and Shrewsbury service, which was a good example of open access, but it failed to make money. There are other examples around the country, such as Grand Central, which have shown that open access can work. I urge the Minister unambiguously to state her support for open access in the forthcoming White Paper, and indeed today, because many open access companies are uncertain about their future. In Blackpool, open access is perhaps our only chance of getting a link to London. I urge her, therefore, to make some positive noises on open access.

In conclusion, whenever we write reports, there is always the temptation to come up with a wish list, and I have fallen into the trap myself today by highlighting the northern hub. Wish lists are easy to make, but it is far harder to have a discussion and come to a view on how to prioritise policy making. How do we reconcile all the different competing local priorities that we each have in our constituencies with the apportioning of public money? That is not easy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed, and that is true not just of north-south routes, but other routes, too.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of ancient equipment on the railways. It was worthy in British Rail’s time, but we have moved on. One problem with privatisation is that companies have no great incentive to improve investment in such things when they are trying to run as profitably as possible with existing equipment. Some people, including Eddington, suggest that capacity on main lines could be doubled with modern signalling and more frequent running. We could have trains every 180 seconds on those routes if we get the modern signalling.

We have heard a lot about extra rolling stock. In the short term, there are more than 100 unused carriages in Ireland. They are essentially Mark IIIs, and they could be immediately imported, re-bogied and used on main lines in Britain. Actually, they are more modern than our Mark IIIs because they have automatic doors, rather than slam doors. They could be bought cheaply now and installed quickly on our routes. That is a short-term fix—obviously, we want more investment and more rolling stock to be built, particularly by Bombardier—but we can make such changes.

On the west coast main line, the maximum operating speed will be 130 mph because there are tighter curves than on the east coast main line. However, 130 mph operation with modern signalling and high-frequency trains would still be sufficient, particularly if we got freight off the lines. That brings me to my next proposal, which is to get freight off the lines. Those who know me well will know that I have been proposing for a long time that we have a dedicated freight route from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, which would link all of Britain’s main conurbations. Why do we need a dedicated freight line? When it comes to existing freight routes, passengers and freight do not mix. They have different operating speeds and so on. Time and again, when there is a bit of a problem with a passenger train, the freight trains will be parked on one side while the passengers are given priority—people get much more upset than freight when they are delayed. Of course, freight operators get upset, but they have to suffer. However, if we have a dedicated freight line with no passengers, we would overcome those problems.

[Mr Leech]

The hon. Gentleman has been a long-time supporter of a dedicated freight route, but is it not possible, with the onset of a High Speed 2 line, that the extra capacity on the existing network would be enough to provide extra routes for freight movement? I totally agree that we need to move more freight from road to rail, but with the onset of an additional, high-speed line there would surely be enough capacity on the existing mainline networks to provide the necessary service.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman raises the point that I want to address now. The problem with putting more freight on such routes is that it would be impossible to fund the provision of sufficient gauge. It would be prohibitively expensive to make all the tunnels, bridges, platforms and so on able to take freight. We must have trains these days that are capable of taking full-scale containers—that is W10—and I suggest a scheme that could take full-scale lorry trailers on trains. Hauliers would put their trailers on the trains and they would be taken straight through from Glasgow to Rome, or Rome to Glasgow. I have spoken to the logistics managers of big companies and asked whether they would like to bring their water, wine or whatever from Bordeaux, which is a favourite town of mine, to Birmingham. They say it would be wonderful—fabulous—to send it all the way on the train. What they do now is train it to the coast of the continent and then put it on lorries. That transit would become unnecessary. They could roll a trailer on in Rome or Bordeaux and roll it off in Birmingham or Glasgow.

The problem with trying to upgrade all the existing routes for freight is that there would have to be a through-operation for continental freight trains. They are larger gauge and cannot get through our platforms, because they are wider, or through our tunnels or under our bridges, because they are taller. Certainly we could never have lorry trailers or double stack containers, as we are suggesting. To get serious volumes of freight through, a dedicated freight route is needed, and that is what our scheme is about. As I have said, I have no pecuniary interest in it. I have been passionate about it ever since I heard about it some years ago, and I have spoken on many platforms. I took a team of people to see Geoff Hoon when he was Secretary of State for Transport; they included representatives of supermarkets, Eurotunnel, the rail constructors and AXA—the insurance giant that funds terminals. There were 15 of us. I think that we answered every question put to us adequately. We could not persuade the Secretary of State then, but I hope that the present Government may listen sympathetically, at least.

What I propose could be done very cheaply. We have a precise route, which would involve only 14 miles of new route, nine of which would be in tunnels. The route would, as I have mentioned, use the Woodhead tunnel. The rest would be on existing under-utilised routes and old track bed. Initially we put a cost of £4 billion on it. One of the rail constructors said it could do it for £3 billion. We are now being generous and suggesting £6 billion; but that is still one third of what we propose to spend on Crossrail—which I also support. Nevertheless, our whole scheme, with its 400-mile route, would cost a third of what we are to spend on Crossrail, and would be commercially viable, because of the amount of traffic on it.