This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
NEWS


Thousands want Wrexham & Shropshire train service reinstated


Thousands of distraught passen- gers have signed a petition calling for the reinstatement of Wrexham & Shropshire train services, which ceased suddenly in January when the company’s owners pulled the plug.


It was decided the open-access train firm had “no prospect of prof- itability”. Passengers in Shropshire and West Midlands towns like Walsall valued the direct trains to London Marylebone offered by Wrexham and Shropshire.


The company was not allowed to run services via major hubs like Birmingham New Street be- cause of moderation of competi-


tion clauses. Virgin is reported to now be considering direct links between Shropshire and London itself.


Passenger Focus called the serv- ice a “passenger favourite”, hav- ing once managed to hit 99% customer satisfaction, still topping the list at 96% as it was given the axe.


Chairman of Wrexham & Shropshire owner Chiltern Railways, Adrian Shooter, said the company “over- estimated the size of the market”. In a statement to customers, Wrexham & Shropshire said: “We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your loyal and


continued support. Without your assistance, our award winning service would not have been pos- sible. We are very sorry that we have not been able to sustain it.”


Campaigner Alex Matthews has written to the Transport Rail Group, the Express and Star newspaper reported. He told the newspaper: “How can it be that a railway line with such an amazing service in all departments – punctuality, qual- ity, customer service, price – is al- lowed to go by the wayside?


“Something must be done to save this standard-setting railway line. If no private ownership option is available then it should be brought


ATOC calls for break-up of Network Rail


Train operators have called for more vertical integration in the rail network and the break-up of Network Rail into independent in- frastructure companies.


But freight groups have criticised train operators’ eagerness to take up more infrastructure work.


ATOC’s new policy document, ‘A new structure for success on Britain’s railways’, welcomes the devolution of Network Rail into regional business units, but chief executive Michael Roberts said: “Network Rail must go further if we are to generate significant sav- ings whilst continuing to improve services for passengers.


“The next stage should involve creating fully independent infra- structure businesses, working more closely with train companies through stronger shared commer- cial interests, and supported by a lean central body which draws on the best people from across the industry, including Network Rail, to carry out important network- wide functions.


“This approach would lead to better and quicker decisions on projects which matter most to passengers, greater accountabil- ity to regional funders and stake- holders, and a stronger drive to improve cost-efficiency through


genuine contestability between regional infrastructure companies (infracos) in providing infrastruc- ture.”


Rail Freight Group chairman Lord Berkeley said that under EU law, Article 13 of Directive 2001/14, “allocation of capacity must be done by a body independent of any train operator in a fair and non-discriminatory way”.


He added: “ATOC offers no cost savings itself, only ‘efficiencies’ through its members having a commercial arrangement with the infracos which would re- place Network Rail. Interestingly,


4 | rail technology magazine Feb/Mar 11


the TOCs offer no evidence that they would be particularly good at managing or maintaining infra- structure.”


He praised Network Rail’s deliv- ery of the Southampton – West Midlands gauge enhancement, done on time and £10m under budget, and contrasted it with Chiltern Railways’ problems on the Evergreen 3 project.


Lord Berkeley said: “Any cosy joint venture between a TOC and an infraco involving any of these activities which ATOC members clearly want to get their hands on, would see the UK Government in


the European Court of Justice.


“Perhaps the complexity and woolly thinking of this document demonstrates the different opin- ions of ATOC members. Some may want vertical integration on their own patch, whilst others shy away from the problems facing operators such as Cross-Country, open access and freight operators who would have to have separate track access agreements with several different infracos.


“Timetabling would be a nightmare and with different charges and revenues going to different opera- tors in different regions, it is hard to understand how ATOC can say its members would perform these functions impartially and how this would increase efficiencies, align incentives and therefore reduce costs. Just the opposite!”


A Network Rail spokesperson said in response to ATOC: “Network Rail has been playing a vital role in the Government’s McNulty review into value for money for the rail- way and is committed to change. By better aligning risk and reward with passenger, freight and open access operators and by improv- ing transparency across the whole industry, we can all help each oth- er succeed and deliver not only a bigger and better railway, but a better value railway too.”


under public ownership immedi- ately and used as the standard bearer for rail services.”


In the last issue of RTM, Wrexham & Shropshire managing direc- tor Andy Hamilton gave readers an insight into the history of the company and the outstanding customer service that won it many plaudits.


Although he admitted then that the company was struggling finan- cially, there was no sign then of the imminent collapse to come.


FOR MORE INFORMATION The interview is at www.railtechnologymagazine.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112