This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.

Rail in the T

he transport authorities representing Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, York, Merseyside and Tyne and Wear are developing a joint long term rail strategy for the north of England.

Representatives from the region co-operated in their response to the Government’s consultation on rail decentralisation in respect of the Northern and TransPennine franchises

‘Nothing has changed’

Although franchising is on hold while the Government awaits and then considers the Brown review, Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg) support unit director Jonathan Bray told RTM that he had heard nothing to suggest the DfT was getting cold feet over devolution.

He said: “When we met the Secretary of State, he said nothing had changed in terms of the Government’s attitude to potential devolution. We understand that the Brown review will set the context for whatever happens on franchising in general, and devolution is part of that. We’re talking to Richard Brown and his team as well, and we’re still doing a lot of work on the technical and legal issues around devolution of the Northern and Transpennine routes as a combined franchise.”

Asked whether he saw the emergence of a combined franchise as inevitable, or still just one option being discussed, Bray said: “The Government is not committing itself at this stage: it still wants to get more from the north about what overall the north wants to do, which is fair enough.”

It is hoped the Long Term Rail Strategy document will help the Government make that decision.

In the DfT’s report into the responses received to the devolution consultation, published in November, it notes that across the country, “some respondents were concerned that any consortium would be likely to refl ect the views of the core members and that it is essential that consortium partners have proportionately equal weight in decision- making”.

18 | rail technology magazine Dec/Jan 13

The major transport authorities across the north of England are working on a new strategy document aimed at setting out the priorities for rail in the north over the next 20 years, up to Control Period 8. The document is being produced by transport consultancy Steer Davies Gleave, and Euan Mackay from the consultant team spoke to RTM about the need for the strategy and how it fi ts in with plans for rail devolution.

and a proposed merger of the two.

Although franchise re-letting, including franchise reform and devolution, is essentially on hold as the Government and the industry awaits the Brown Review commissioned in the wake of the West Coast Main Line franchising debacle, work is pressing on with the Rail in the North strategy document, which has a far wider scope.

It adds: “With regard to Rail in the North’s proposals, a number of neighbouring authorities, both to east and west, indicated they should have voting rights in any decision- making by the devolved body. There should be arrangements to safeguard the interests of communities neighbouring devolved areas, including those who might fi nd themselves located between devolved regional centres, at risk from an imbalance of service provision in either direction.”

It also includes detail on the West Midlands proposal, saying: “Centro proposes that it should commission and manage local rail services in the West Midlands. The routes covered would include all London Midland services within the Birmingham journey- to-work area including routes beyond the Centro boundary. Consequently, Centro will put in place governance arrangements that will refl ect the interests of not only the ITA (on behalf of the Metropolitan Authorities) but also those of neighbouring shire and unitary authorities. Responses indicate that Centro has the support of neighbouring shire and unitary authorities. The main issue is the separation of a West Midlands network based on the Birmingham journey-to-work area and the rest of the London Midland franchise, including the London–Northampton – Birmingham service, which performs a variety of roles including commuting into Birmingham.”

Rail minister Simon Burns said on November 27: “Ensuring decisions are taken by those best placed to make them – those who live and work in those areas – could make certain not only that services are planned to maximise value for money for taxpayers but that passengers get services they need and want.”

An output statement

Euan Mackay, consultant project manager at Steer Davies Gleave, has a key role in the production of the document, which should be delivered to the transport authorities in draft form in early 2013.

Speaking about the long-term nature of the strategy, he told RTM: “We’re really looking up until Control Period 8, so the mid-2030s.

“We feel that for the early part of this period, CP5, we have a pretty good understanding of what’s going to happen and we perhaps can’t do an awful lot to change that.

“But we have the potential to have a much greater infl uence looking beyond that, into CP6 and particularly in CP7 and CP8, when anything is possible. We’re then also getting into the time period when hopefully HS2 will be getting up towards the north. We’ll need to think about how we connect the city centres into the high-speed rail network.”

That shows the ambition and scope of the strategy document: it is not restricting itself to service patterns and rolling stock and the sorts of factors that would typically be considered in a franchise specifi cation, but to track and infrastructure issues, connectivity, capacity, freight and overall priorities.

Mackay said: “It’s important to stress that what this defi nitely isn’t, and won’t be, is just a long list of schemes or very detailed interventions.

“This is going to be an output statement: it’s to inform the industry, and Network Rail, what the north is looking for. Is it journey time reductions that are the key thing driving this, for example? Or electrifi cation? It’s similar, in a sense, to the work that was done originally for the Manchester Hub – now the Northern Hub – setting out what the outputs are, and the idea is for Network Rail and the DfT and the Treasury to try to respond to that.

“It becomes very interesting if the devolution proposition does go ahead, because the specifi ers would really be the PTEs and the governing authorities in the north, and Network Rail would need to respond to that rather than dealing with the DfT.

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