COMMENT
together with budget responsibility and ac- countability.”
We asked Inskip for his thoughts on Mc- Nulty’s analysis.
He said: “It’s for the industry to be effi- cient and make sure it delivers train ser- vices in an efficient way. I do understand that where you’ve got fragmentation, and incentives in the wrong place, then clearly that’s inefficient and leads to a higher cost base. But it’s not necessarily for PTEs to intervene to correct that, because that’s an industry structure problem. The industry itself has to get on and put it right.
“Our point is that where we are at the mo- ment is that we need a lot of investment in local rail services, but we’re not neces- sarily saying all of that should come at the expense of central government.
“But, for example, we may be able to con- vince our local populations that we could put an increase in fares in place, and use that increase in fares to deliver local im- provements in services.
“That’s a debate we could have locally, but what we’re seeing at the moment is that we seem to be having increases in local fares, but the investment that those rises unlocks seems to be spent in the South. Effectively, it just doesn’t feel as if that investment is going to the right place: in some parts of the country, people are going to have 3% fare increases plus RPI, but will be asking ‘where’s our rail improvement, we’re see- ing none of it?’
“Part of the excuse for that in central Gov- ernment terms is, well, that they’re giving out new rolling stock, new this, new that – but if you look in England’s northern cit- ies, you’ve got to ask, what improvement in rolling stock has Leeds got, or Manchester? Well, none at all, and that’s why it doesn’t feel right.”
Although all of the PTEs already have an extensive role in light rail and suburban services in their city-regions, it is Mer- seytravel that has perhaps the clearest record on delivering a good service, with Merseyrail vying with London Overground every month in the punctuality statistics for top spot (a battle which, as TfL chief operating officer for London Rail Howard Smith gleefully pointed out in our last is- sue, London Overground seems to be win- ning, although Merseyrail remains in sec- ond place). Both networks of course have the advantages of being self-contained, with no potential conflicts with other ser- vices, and of having their franchises award-
THE FUTURE’S LIGHT
ed by the local transport executive, rather than the national DfT.
Extending light rail services is a priority for most of the PTEs, with many seeing potential in converting lesser-used or abandoned heavy rail tracks for use on light rail networks – with Manchester Metrolink one of the prime examples.
Inskip said: “We’ve got a number of potentials for conversion across the PTEs. One of the things that happened in the past is that we’ve had these sorts of ideas, but the question back to us has always been: ‘Where are you going to get the money from?’ My answer to that now is that we have the money available through the heavy rail system where we want to make those conversions. If we can get re- sponsibility for the cash for those services, then we can actually make those conversions quite quickly.”
The Passenger Transport Executive Group has an indicative (not prescriptive) list of potential conver- sions and new tram train services the PTEs are con- sidering, or have considered recently. These are:
Centro • Wednesbury – Brierley Hill – Stourbridge • Walsall – Wolverhampton (replacing rail service withdrawn in 2008)
• Walsall – Wednesbury SYPTE
• Sheffield City Centre – Rotherham – Parkgate • Dearne Valley • Barnsley Road Corridor
Transport for Greater Manchester • Manchester – Didsbury – Hazel Grove • Manchester – Didsbury – Stockport
Merseytravel • Liverpool – John Lennon Airport (new tram route needed from Liverpool South Parkway)
• Edge Hill – Liverpool Waterfront (new tram route needed from Kings Dock)
Metro • Leeds – Leeds Bradford Airport (a ‘key priority’ for Metro)
• Leeds – Lower Aire Valley – Five Towns • Leeds Bradford International Airport – Guiseley (new alignment to serve the airport) • Bradford Forster Square – Guiseley • Five Towns – Wakefield
Nexus • None
For these reasons Merseyrail has long seemed a prime candidate for a full vertical integration experiment, where responsibil- ity for infrastructure and track operations and maintenance is taken away from Net- work Rail, and given to one organisation – usually the TOC, but potentially a PTE like Merseytravel. McNulty’s report made this recommendation specifically, and until June this year, Merseytravel was an enthu- siastic backer of the idea. But the author- ity has now decided to abandon its earlier support – because of union opposition at the precedent set for the eventual break-up and privatisation of Network Rail, many say.
Inskip said that the onus needs to be on Network Rail, telling us: “We want to get to the first baseline, which is that what we’d like to see is Network Rail delivering ef- ficiently. Sir Roy’s report points out areas where they can be more efficient in the de- livery of their infrastructure. What we’ve said is that, as PTEs, Merseytravel and TfL on LOROL, for example, are very good examples of taking over responsibility for rail services and are delivering much better and good value for money rail services.
“The rest of us, as PTEs in the West Mid- lands and elsewhere, are saying ‘we want that same deal here’. In the West Midlands, for example, because we’ve got a very busy railway with lots of inter-city and lots of cross-country services and so much freight, it probably doesn’t make sense for us here to have a vertically integrated railway.
“Vertical integration probably doesn’t ap- ply too much in the West Midlands, but nevertheless we want to make sure that Network Rail delivers what it’s got to de- liver in a very efficient way. All of the PTEs feel the same way; Mersey I know feel ex- actly the same way – that we need to get Network Rail to deliver very efficiently. That applies across the piece.
“There is a next stage that we can then start talking about. That’s about how closely we can have Network Rail and the PTEs oper- ating or working to- gether to deliver ser- vices and investment in a better way. That’s a debate that will fol- low, now that we’ve got the RDG.”
Geoff Inskip
FOR MORE INFORMATION Visit
www.pteg.net
rail technology magazine Aug/Sep 11 | 25
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