« Friday, 7th July - Melksham | Main | Pivotal decison - to grow or to strangle? »
July 11, 2006
Rail future - the First Alternative
These are growth times for the First Group, with their clever strategy of bidding everyone else off court for rail franchises. They read into government policy a requirement for a big financial return from rail, and that's what they're providing. They read that there's no need to continue to provide more than a token service to towns such as Newquay, Barnstaple, Looe, Ivybridge, Melksham, Saltash, Severn Beach. They read that there's no need to provide reasonable cost travel, so they've withdrawn tickets such as the SuperSaver with replacements all being more restrictive and/or more expensive. So the norm for the future is the 50p - per - mile service between main centres, and a network that in a few years time will simply end at those centres.
Derek Twigg, the Minister with Rail Responsibility, answered a quesion from his opposition opposite number Chris Grayling telling him that "All premium payments received from rail franchises are appropriated in aid by the Department and the funds are made available for spending on transport."
In other words, Mr Twigg, the money that you're collecting from the First group bids will be subsidising other programs such as roads and buses ... there's just been 42 Million pounds awarded to the Bristol Showcase bus scheme and - guess what - First stand to benefit as the operator of most of those routes. They're getting their money back by playing the game the way the Department for Transport wish is to be played.
This has implications beyond just the Great Western area. The South West trains franchise is coming up soon, and it's rumoured that First will put in another massive bid and win it. I don't know how good the rumours are, but a leopard doesn't change its spots, so that would be a logical step for them. And that other leopard - the DfT - won't change its spots either, so chances are that First will get it.
How long, then, trains to Lymington, already running with the last two slam-door trains because the electrics on the line can't take current units? Does Alton really need a train service? Wouldn't it be logical to transfer diesel operations to the Great Western operation? What about a host of stations along the coast - wouldn't a simple Southampton - Bournemouth - Poole - Dorchester - Weymouth service be all that's needed, with customers from Brockenhurst, from Wareham, from Moreton being encouraged to "railhead".
Far fetched? Maybe. But consider this ... the population of Brockenhurst is around 6,000. Of Wareham, around 8,000. Of Melksham, currently under threat of loosing most of its trains, around 24,000. Of Alton, 16,500.
And also consider ... the tender specification for the Great Western was for 7 to 10 years of operation, but already this summer, First are surveying usage of trains on the "Cornish Branch Lines" at least. It looks rather as if the inclusion of a service in a 7 to 10 year franchise won't preclude the culling of services during that time. After all, I rather suspect that the new general railway legislation that makes rail closure easier is being put onto the statute book for use, and not just as a paper exercise.
Will Melksham still have trains in 2008?
Will Cornwall be just the Penzance line by 2013?
Will Brunel's Saltash bridge still carry passengers in 2018?
Will the seawall at Dawlish simply fall into the sea in 2023, and trains be cut back to Exeter or Bristol?
Will the old GWR line from London to Bristol, run as a heritage railway, be all that is left by 2028?
And will that too be closed by 2033 under a weight of tax and regulation?
Posted by gje at July 11, 2006 05:41 AM
Comments
Graham,
I fear your analysis is only too accurate; that the government's attitude to rail is "the smaller the system the better". Tony Blair's body language suggests he dislikes rail almost as much as Maggie Thatcher did, and Gordon (dirty) Brown has let it be leaked that roads are better value for money. I think all was going well until the Hatfield crash revealed that railways were a lot more expensive to maintain than anyone had faced up to. But since this is the most devious and manipulative government I can remember, rather than announce a change in transport policy the new direction has been pursued in an underhand fashion, and just as your piece suggests.
The Ten Year Regional Fund Allocations for transport include nothing for heavy rail. Not surprising, since the Regional Assemblies are not allowed to bid for rail projects! I suspect the government regard railways as fit for intercity travel and heavy urban commuting but that other public transport journeys should be made by bus. Nobody will use the bus replacements? Never mind, slap down some more nice, cheap tarmac, and then some more when that fills up. First the government has to be made to admit what it's real transport policies are, and then they must be challanged. And the public have to be asked what sort of environment they want to live in and what they are prepared to pay for.
I see the Westbury bypass has just received funding. In with the road and out with the rail.
Posted by: Chris Bastian at July 12, 2006 01:14 PM