COMMENT
He explained that such an entity: • Would cover a network of local services and be charged with increasing ridership and revenue, reducing costs and developing the network; • Be devolved, but with DfT as a member and still holding the franchise pot etc. Responsible to a board comprising elected members, the LEPs etc; • Would be able to go much further than Community Rail in increasing revenue (as well as passenger numbers) and drilling down into all aspects of the costs; • If Network Rail would join in, this would offer much greater scope too; • The approach would be financially sustainable for rural shire counties, minimising the risk to council tax payers.
European perspectives
The conference also heard interesting lessons from other European countries: Ingemar Lundin, the former director of Jonkoping Transport Authority in Sweden, explained how his country has “led the way” on regional rail devolution, with the regions playing the biggest role in financing the railways, co-ordinating and integrating bus and train operations and fares, and funding rolling stock. But capacity, winter maintenance and contractual breakdown are all problems for the system, and highly-subsidised regional railways compete with commercial long-distance services.
Roger Cobbe, policy director of Arriva Trains – a subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn – explained the situation in Germany. Strong state-level government in Germany has meant the regions there have very strong powers over rail. The states (Länder) get direct transfers from the federal government, plus a share of national petrol tax revenue, which is indexed, ringfenced and predictable over five-year periods. While freight and long-distance services are purely commercial, regional railway services are procured by the Länder, which in turn often devolve the tendering to cities or council consortia. Contracts range from three to 21 years, but about eight years is the average.
The overall regionally-procured train market in
Germany totals about 643m train km, of which DB wins about 496m train km. The bidding process is “simple and cheap”, in contrast to the UK franchising model, and there are many small contracts of just 1m to 4m train km a year. Rolling stock tends to be specified in the contract and procured directly – as opposed to the leasing model – and there tends to be no transfer of people, trains or depots from one operator to another on initial tendering, making for very long mobilisation periods of up to three years. Innovation and new thinking is therefore common.
‘Local politicians aren’t daft’
Jonathan Bray, director at pteg, spoke firmly in favour of devolution, but was also among the most outspoken in demanding that it be implemented properly.
“If Her Majesty’s Treasury wants to fulfil its genetic urge to carry on where Beeching left off, then national government will have to do it TO us, with us fighting them all the way.”
As he put it: “Devolution is the right way to go, but the devil is in the detail: this cannot be devolution at any price. We need a fair deal on costs and risks.
“Our politicians are not daft: they are not going to take on additional responsibilities if the deal is predicated on inadequate funding, that will mean unpalatable decisions on service cuts and fares. If Her Majesty’s Treasury wants to fulfil its genetic urge to carry on where Beeching left off, then national government will have to do it TO us, with us fighting them all the way.”
But he said there was now “unstoppable momentum” in favour of devolution, noting the additional investment and service improvement in places like Scotland, Merseyside and London where more decisions are taken locally.
Rail minister Norman Baker MP addressing the conference
He said: “Transport investment tends to go up when powers are devolved. More reliable services, more satisfied passengers. Why does devolution work? It works because local politicians and decision-makers place more value on the role that transport plays in supporting the local economy in a sustainable way. Further devolution on our rail network could bring some big benefits.”
“If you look at Teesside or East Lancashire, these are major areas with big population centres and I would say the rail services – although they have been backed by the local transport authorities over the years – are not really commensurate with the needs of those areas, and not assisting as they might in the economic potential. Or look at Settle and Carlisle, a classic example: that’s been so important in tourism economy and providing a spine for the wider public transport network.”
All talk? Bray concluded: “One danger is
potentially getting the same powers we have now – because we have got powers of increment and decrement, and franchise co-signatory powers – and having those re-packaged and re- sold as devolution. I think we can do a lot better than that, but there’s a lot of hard work to do.”
Bray, whose background is in transport campaigning and who was adamantly opposed to rail privatisation, also made a wider attack on the current franchising system. He noted that many expensive aspects of the set-up seem “off-limits” for discussion when it comes to cost-cutting and efficiencies, notably the huge numbers of delay attribution officers, lawyers, job duplication and so on.
He said: “In my view, if we’re talking about efficiencies, these kind of things should not be off-limits.”
Frances Duffy, transport director at the Welsh Assembly Government, also spoke at the conference: see page 53 for a full report.
The ‘Devolving Rail’ event was organised by Landor LINKS Ltd and sponsored by Abellio and Serco.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
The DfT devolution consultation documents are at
www.dft.gov.uk/ consultations/dft-2012-10/
rail technology magazine Jun/Jul 12 | 17
He said such powers also have a big role in economic growth and regeneration: “Sometimes rail people and civil servants say Northern deserves to be bottom of the list for rail investment: ‘look at the level of subsidy’, ‘look at the patronage’, ‘look at the train loading figures’. But everyone agrees we need to address the north-south divide if we are to have a healthier national economy. That means our major urban areas need to perform: how can they do that without modern and efficient commuter rail networks? How can they do that without the connectivity to each other and beyond?
© Alvey & Towers
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