Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 11th October 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Passenger services will suffer under cuts, claims Network Rail



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 June 2008
IMPROVEMENTS to Britain's rail network to cope with increasing passenger numbers are at risk because of planned budget cuts, Network Rail has warned.
Iain Coucher, the chief executive, said he was "extremely concerned" at proposals to reduce the firm's spending plans over the next five years.

One-fifth could be sliced off parts of the company's Scottish budget by its regulator at a time when p
assenger totals are at their highest peacetime levels.

However, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), which controls Network Rail's spending, said the savings could be achieved by greater efficiency, and there should be no impact on passengers.

It has ruled the firm can spend £2.5 billion to run tracks, signals and major stations, as well as lay some new lines planned for Scotland from 2009-14. This is nearly £300 million less than Network Rail had planned and involves a 21 per cent cut in operating costs, 8 per cent more than planned.

The money comes principally from the Scottish Government and train operators such as First ScotRail. Across Britain, the regulator has trimmed Network Rail's budget from £29.1 billion to £26.5 billion. The firm signalled it would lobby against these "draft determinations" before the ORR makes its final ruling in October.

Mr Coucher said: "Demand for more and better rail services continues to grow. It is vitally important that we get the right level of funding to meet passenger and freight user needs."

Anthony Smith, the chief executive of Passenger Focus, an official watchdog, said:

"Passengers must not be expected to cover the cost of poor or expensive working practices or project management. However, the ORR must be realistic and not force Network Rail to deliver a railway on the cheap."

Alex Johnstone, the Scottish Conservatives' transport spokesman, said: "As the cost of driving continues to rise, taking the train will be an increasingly attractive option and it is therefore essential that all partners, including Network Rail, have access to the resources they need to further develop the rail network."

National Express East Coast, which runs cross-Border trains on the east coast main line, welcomed the inclusion of £30 million to improve the maintenance of overhead power lines, which it said was one of the biggest causes of delays.

Paul McMahon, the ORR's deputy director for competition and regulatory economics, said Network Rail could make the savings with more-efficient working methods.

The ORR said it would allow Network Rail to spend £7.5 billion across Britain to enable more trains to run, such as re-opening the Airdrie-Bathgate line to create a new Edinburgh-Glasgow link. This is expected to take pressure off the main line via Falkirk, and work on electrifying that line, due by 2016, could also be accelerated.

• More than 200 extra car parking spaces are to be created at Musselburgh, Cupar and Stonehaven stations with £1.7 million of Transport Scotland funding.





The full article contains 498 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 June 2008 9:55 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The railways
 
1

truthsleuth,

06/06/2008 00:40:12
Onbe of the esiest ways to improve over all rail efficiency would be to get rid of ORR and also D(a)fT micromanagement of the network.
More of the rail budget could then be spent on real improvements for the passenger.

Replacement of rail privatisation facade as it now operates where even more of the rail budget is spent on wasteful franchise bids would be the next saving to be made.
Finally a return should be made to the B.R. system of rail operation removing the multiplicity of systems which in reality burden the network with more layers of management.
wE would have a network that would cost a fraction of the overheads now being born by the taxpayer/customer with costs directly attributable to the cost of running the system rather than all the moneygoround that exists today.
Had privatisation not occured and BR continued but funded at the lavels given to the private companies We would now have a Rail network running an electrified system (probably with High Speed lines) rather than lots of prettily painted trains nobody really understands.

This even allowing for inflation much greater tha has occured.
Let no one kid you the Private rail companies with the exception of Chiltern have spent hardly anything in adding to the Rail Assets but have reaped in £billions in profits and in buy outs.
2

Scoop in the City,

06/06/2008 07:56:55
#1 I remember the days of British Rail and as a regular users of today's railway, I have no desire to go back to those dark days of unheated carriages, stale pork pies, timetables designed for BR staff rather than passengers and all the other things that used to make Britain the laughing stock of the rail world. Has the current railway got it's faults? Sure - but no one in their right mind would want to go back to what we had before.
3

Alan B,

06/06/2008 09:43:46
#1 think u are looking through rose tinted specs if u think if british rail had continued we would have had a good rail system. It was a worse system then. Part of the problem when the tories privatised railtrack was to manage the decline. Things have changed and rail passenger numbers have increase alot since privatisation.

For scotland the real issue is to devolve track and regualation to the scottish parliament. How we manage rail in scotland and its structure should be controlled by the scottish parliament.

For track i would have that state owned, but use the private sector engineering companies to maintain track and signalling. ie the track company would facilitate the contracts for maintenance. If a company does not deliver u simply go else where.

As for train companies, i would like to see us atleast discussing the options. The whole structure to some extent was based on the uk as a whole rather than scotland, which has different needs etc.

There are issues with the current system where a franchise is coming to an end, why would they invest if they are not sure about the future.

Much of the problem really is the governments. I like the devolution of train schemes are rather than governments talking about general improvements they can actually discuss specific schemes borders rail, earl etc. For me that just demonstrated the complete wrong priorities of the government at the time.

The basics are just running trains on time, with enough capacity. Beyond that it is getting trains running abit faster. Wether it is the slow speeds of glas - ed trains or the huge amount of stops trains just are too slow.






4

Joe,

Livingston 06/06/2008 09:48:19
Rail services are being threatened by the stupid decisions on the Edinburgh Airport Rail link and the refusal to use Edinburgh Park for Edinburgh-Glasgow
trains.. Whose in charge..Network Rail the SNP or who?
5

Alan B,

06/06/2008 10:03:40
#Joe
"Whose in charge"

that is part of the problem the structure is a mess. Network rail are run effectively by westminster. The sp can fund track improvements but not control it structure. The regulation will be done by westminster. And train franchises are devolved.

U have to have clear lines of responsibility. For me that is devolve train, track and regualtions to the sp can then we can discuss the ways we want it run and the most appropriate schemes for investment.

I agree the EARL scheme as designed by labour and libs was a daft waste of money. I also think the borders scheme poor aswell.

Agree with u that it makes sense for glasgow trains to stop at edinburgh park.

The main things for me would be to speed up trains, and increase frequency of trains to sort out capacity problems. We should have fast trains between glas and edin. The new south service via livingstone that is due to come online is seemingly going to be pathetically slow.

I would have like to see a new south route service between the 2 cities taking no longer that 1/2. I would like 9 stops with each train stopping on a 3 of them. A 10 minute service would stop at each station every 1/2 hr. This would really give people options in where to live that allows them to travel to the main job centres within the cities.






6

Deekie fae Midstocket,

Aberdeen 06/06/2008 10:41:33
Ask yourself why, in one of the richest countries in the world , we have such a poor rail network. Where has all the money gone? How about to SE England?
7

thinking,

Scotland 06/06/2008 11:10:37
#6
What makes you think SE England gets all the money?
From what I have read and seen, most of the money has been thrown at Labour strongholds (including some in Scotland)to keep their voters sweet.
Many areas with Con or Lib voters are short changed.
8

Paddi,

06/06/2008 11:32:15
#6 try spending a week comuting from SE England into London every day, you's soon change your tune.
9

Alan B,

06/06/2008 12:11:47
#7

Can u justify that. For one thing scotland gets its money via barnett to the sp.

The highest public spending per head of any region is London.

#While i partially agree with u. London and surrounding areas does have the best the most extensive public transport systems in england. alot of money has gone to improve south east transport over the last decade. Look at the tube. For it critisms there is nothing else like it in the uk. Problems of the central line when i was there was due to the new investment and new trains. ie the new stuff was not reliable. The nothern line was also totally revamped.

Much money alos went to the tube extension. The whole dome stuff was about how u could justify pouring money into london when it was doing so much better that the rest of england.

Also add to that the public money for St Pancreas revamp and the new high speed connections for london to europe.

Scotland has been safeguarded from most of it becuase of barnett. Even if Barnett was a very poor deal for scotland.

#6 think most of the money has gone to things other than trains.
10

Alan B,

06/06/2008 12:12:36
sorry "#While i partially agree with" was addressed to #8
11

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 06/06/2008 12:21:19
Network Rail is improving, but its costs for new infrastructure are OTT, compared to other EU rail networks and the former BR. The ORR have simply tried to address this problem - once Network Rail can demonstrate it is spending the huge amount of money it is given efficiently, making the case for network enhancements (which the money they have wasted could have paid for, to some extent) will be so much easier.
12

Venachar,

06/06/2008 12:41:56
Cost of Crossrail for London conservative estimate is £10 billion.
St Pancras station upgrade £800 million! for a station FFS.
Makes the new crossing and trams seem insignificant.
13

Paddi,

06/06/2008 12:48:03
#10, just a thought, it might have something to do with the fact that there are 3m more people there than the whole of Scotland.
14

gotalottosay,

06/06/2008 12:53:32
"let the train take the strain" huh.. yeah right....
15

Annoyingboi,

Edinburgh 06/06/2008 13:37:59
Alan B is correct. A fast express service between Edinburgh and Glasgow should be made a priority whether that be on the Falkirk line, Airdrie/Bathgate line or through black Livi.

The EARL suggestion was and is a completely ridiculous suggestion and the SNP were absolutely correct to ditch it. Far too expensive and in a time when we should be scaling back on air travel! At least sense prevailed in this instance. Besides, with the rate of air fares going up as they are, I suspect a lot less people will be using the airport
16

Marga,

Fife 06/06/2008 15:47:54
OK, EARL was overkill. But does anyone know if there alternatives being planned for Fife travellers? Being trained past within a pea-shooter's distance of the end of the runway, or bussing across the river at the mercy of bridge opening/traffic accidents etc. is not acceptable.
17

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 06/06/2008 16:00:36
I just cannot help feeling the government people who make the deals and agree the prices for these infra structure projects are all on the take. The rest of Europe seem able to fund adequate rail tracks why can't we.

Why do we not ask the french. Who did your Railways? then give them a call.
18

Annoyingboi,

Edinburgh 06/06/2008 16:06:20
#16 There is a perfectly good bus service to the airport from Edinburgh so definitely no need for spending any more wasted money on train services there. Perhaps there is a call for a bus service from Fife?
19

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

06/06/2008 16:12:24
The French Railway system is . . . . . State Owned. At least they have more than 50% shares so to all intents and purposes it is! And they have invested large amounts of public funds in it.

Once overall control was in the hands of SNCF but now thanks to the EU SNCF run the stock but Track and Infrastructure are run by RFF (Réseau Ferré de France).
20

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

06/06/2008 16:29:22
The German Railway - Deutsche Bahn AG - is also State Owned although there are plans afoot to privatise at least some of it.

DBAG is an amalgamation of the Deutsche BundesBahn (West Germany) and Deutsche ReichsBahn (East Germany)with a net income of E1.35 Billion.
21

Why can't I use my usual name?,

Glasgow 06/06/2008 16:50:52
#16, #18, there is going to be a new station at Gogar on the Fife line, which will connect with the tram for the last hop to the airport.
22

truthsleuth,

06/06/2008 16:51:20
To those who suggest I was looking thru 'rose coloured spectacles'

Until BR was starved of funds but where they used those funds to bring services into the 20 century the services were far superior comparitively than the mess that we 'enjoy' today and cost half as much as we pay these days even allowing for inflation.
Ibn paricular Introduction of HST to the Western Region/Eastern Region/Cross country
The East Anglia service electrification. Shenfield St to Colchester WCML electrification even whilst it was being electrified.
Glasgow electrification schemes, Merseyside schemes.

No it is you who have a prejudicial view (perhaps with a political foundation)
The best performing services under privatisation have been Chiltern where the old BR laid the foundation. Even the Est Coast Electrification was completed under BR so where is the fantastic improvement from privatisation even the clean carriages pronmised have not really materialised despite the enormous costs and as for bus substitution when maintenance is carried out what a fiasco.
23

truthsleuth,

06/06/2008 16:57:34
18 Annoyingboi

The bus is a thing of the past except for uncongested low capacity second class services.
It is only cheaper than the train because it uses infrastructure provided by the political pressure of the motorist.
And those motorists are now paying for road space they are probited from using ie bus lanes.

Put your brain in gear before you put your pen to paper.
24

Annoyingboi,

Edinburgh 09/06/2008 14:13:29
We need to invest more in our buses in Edinburgh, they are our future

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.