COMMENT
‘A virtuous circle with a vicious element’ – Rail 2020 report
Adam Hewitt reports on the Transport Select Committee’s wide-ranging inquiry into the shape of the rail network. could come in useful in the future.
T
he Transport Select Committee’s Rail 2020 report says the railway has been a
victim of its own success, with higher passenger numbers fuelling demand for more, better- quality rolling stock, better facilities and more reliable services, all of which result in more passenger demand. But this comes at a big financial cost.
The report, follow- ing on from the McNulty (pictured left) value for money study in 2011 and the Government’s Command Paper last year, looks at ef- ficiency, franchising and fares.
The McNulty challenge
It supports McNulty’s “general approach” with some caveats, but says that if the savings he tasks the industry with achieving do not materialise, then “the arguments for more far- reaching structural changes will be compelling”.
It makes the case for transparency in industry finances, saying: “Comparisons between routes and franchisees of how and where money is spent will help drive efficiency savings by shining a light on complacent management, waste and profiteering. Commercial confidentiality should not be used to block
interest in maintaining the industry’s current structure”, and urges the DfT and ORR to “keep a close eye” on its work.
The report engages with union concerns over staffing reductions, particularly on the passenger experience at stations, and safety.
It backs – or at least does not object to – alliances in principle, but says the ORR should ensure they do not jeopardise safety. Some witnesses raised concerns that such alliances will ‘cut corners’ to deliver profits, though this was rejected by Network Rail and operators.
Raising revenue
It calls for improved retail facilities for both stations and trains, and wants a new strategy from the RDG and Passenger Focus to deliver this. “This would be welcomed by passengers and could generate extra revenue to contribute to achievement of the McNulty targets,” it says.
But it is more cautious on selling off railway
land,
saying the demands of a growing railway mean some land that seems surplus
22 | rail technology magazine Feb/Mar 13
legitimate requirements for information given the amount of public money at stake.”
‘Keep an eye on the RDG’
The Rail 2020 report is notably cynical about the Rail Delivery Group, saying it is “dominated by firms whose principal interest is profit-maximisation and which have a vested
On franchising, the Rail 2020 report’s headline recommendation is for a new specialist agency or departmental body to let and manage franchises, rather than it be handled by the DfT directly.
It backs devolution – although another select committee, the Public Accounts Committee, has recently said the process is full of potential risks that need closer examination.
No ‘super-peak’
On fares, the committee is clear that pure demand management needs to be “ruled out” where it results simply in “even higher” peak- time fares: “Higher prices at peak times might make a difference to demand at the margin but would for the most part be a tax on commuters who have no effective choice over how or when they travel.”
ATOC chief executive Michael Roberts attacked the report’s conclusions on fares, saying: “We flatly reject the unfounded accusation that train companies are profiteering, an allegation which appears to be based on hearsay and flies in the face of the report’s own explicit statement that profits are ‘relatively small’.”
The report says smart ticketing benefits everyone and needs to be implemented faster, and calls on the RDG to lead on this work. It notes: “Steve Howes of ATOC conceded that implementation of smartcards had been slow but effectively blamed the Government for requiring the railway to use ITSO technology rather than the Oyster system.”
ITSO’s chief executive Lindsay Robertson
discusses the progress that is being made on page 30.
Louise Ellman MP, chair of the transport committee, had said: “There are good economic, social and environmental reasons for the Government to provide a £4bn subsidy to the railway, but to drive efficiency savings across the sector the Government and the regulator must shine a light on complacent management, waste and profiteering by ensuring greater transparency in the finances of the rail industry.”
opinion@railtechnologymagazine.com TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
© West Midlands Regional Observatory
© IOSH
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