The future of Scotland’s railways
ANDREW MOURANT analyses recommendations made by the Rail Delivery Group on the future of Scotland’s rail network, and asks whether the ambitious vision is actually achievable
What does the world make of Scotland’s long-term plans for the rail network? Do they show enough ambition? Do they make sense? There’s plenty to chew over - whether it’s the progress of electrification, reversing the decline in freight traffic, or survival of fragile routes such as the Far North Line.
Since Holyrood published its infrastructure strategy, the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) and pressure group Transform Scotland (TS) have been poring over the details. TS’s take… could do better! And even though RDG is the voice of the establishment (train operators, freight companies and Network Rail), it still has some stern messages.
They do things differently in Scotland. Network Rail and franchise holder ScotRail have worked together as the ScotRail Alliance since 2015. A single management team oversees day-to-day services, while integrated teams run operations, performance, station maintenance and improvement projects.
Yet that arrangement hasn’t answered all Scotland’s problems. Under the current agreement, ScotRail is expected to achieve 90% customer satisfaction from 2019 onwards. It managed this in 2015 but has since slipped below target, not least because of multiple shortcomings on the Borders line operation.
Network Rail has already owned up to some of its failures. “It cannot hide behind its monopoly status; it must demonstrate that it spends every penny as if it were its own,” says RDG, adding that “too much of NR’s culture has deep roots in past practices”.
Critics of transport policy in Scotland say it favours road over rail. Transform Scotland is among them, and is calling for a study of all former rail routes to establish whether these could be reused by passenger or freight. Until that’s done, they should all be protected, it says. Moreover, a table of all population centres not currently served by rail should be compiled, and a survey carried out to identify opportunities for freight.
“It shouldn’t be left to local campaigners to lobby for new rail services or routes,” says TS. “Social benefits should form a key part of
the business case for new links.” Some campaign groups, including RailQwest, feel that government body Transport Scotland is actively hostile to key projects.
For example, RailQwest points to inertia over Crossrail - upgrading and electrifying 1.8 miles of inner-city line in Glasgow that would effectively unite the network and avoid the need for north/south travellers (and vice versa) to change trains either at Glasgow Central or Queen Street.
Many think there’s a strong business case, yet the Scottish Government seems set against it. Transport Scotland stands accused by RailQwest of conducting a “vicious scorched-earth policy” by “demanding that local authorities remove all aspirational reference to new/reopened lines and stations from their local development plans if these can’t be planned and fully funded within a five-year timescale.’
RailQwest adds: “Scotland has squandered opportunities for future railway expansion. Short-term planning has allowed intrusive land-use development which has frustrated the creation of new/reopened lines and stations on grounds of technical accessibility and /or prohibitive cost.”
RDG’s tone is more restrained, but that’s not to say it doesn’t think more should be done. It suggests NR should use private capital to improve the railways, not just public money. That means finding ways “to reward investors” and attract funding from parties such as property developers that benefit from better transport links. In fact, third party contributions have supported proposed new stations at Robroyston (northeast Glasgow) and Kintore (on the Aberdeen-Inverness line).
Transform Scotland says creating new stations or reopening old ones shouldn’t be resisted purely on the grounds of insufficient line capacity or longer journey times. New infrastructure may be required in the form of loops or stopping patterns changed, it suggests.
Is money being well-spent? Not always, according to Transform Scotland, which reckons that a “risk-averse” approach and a sometimes slavish attachment to European standards is driving up costs. Installing 40 security cameras at Stow station on the Borders Railway was a “gold-plated” improvement. In other words, money wasted - and not a good thing with RDG warning that future investment funds from the Scottish Government could decline.
“The industry will need to identify and co-ordinate funding streams - though funders may have competing objectives,” it says. “It’s important the industry is free to exploit commercial opportunities that can help growth.”
While RDG believes ‘ring-fenced’ funding has helped to improve the network since 2009, Transform Scotland thinks this can also lead to “unsuitable schemes… simply because the money is available”.
For instance, it argues that rather than build lifts and a footbridge outside the main station area at Perth, it would have made more sense to improve the existing infrastructure. Ring-fencing might work better if confined to network improvements or specific schemes - but not for cost overruns on existing projects.
TS also takes a dim view of how City Deals have been set up - “without a strategic approach to planning rail enhancements. Given these depend on public funds, they should be a further source of funding for rail,” it says.
Scotland’s services have critics on all sides, but passengers will soon see signs of things getting better. There will be new and faster trains on cross-border passenger services. And from June 2018 a revised timetable will provide 200 more daily services - notably, passengers in and round Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee and Perth can look forward to betterconnected trains, and more of them.
The Scottish Government is investing £475 million in ScotRail’s rolling stock. Existing trains will be refurbished and two new fleets introduced - Class 385 electric multiple units (EMUs) and High Speed Trains (HSTs). The oldest vehicles (Class 314) will be withdrawn.
On long-distance services, all cross-border operators are expected to bring in new trains from 2018-24. Options also exist to procure more Class 385 EMUs and to convert some of the 2+4 HST sets to 2+ 5 formation by 2024, if needed.
Even so, a Scotland Market study forecasts that by 2024 demand will outstrip seating capacity on parts of the network, although RDG says channelling demand onto off-peak services might be enough to hold back on some infrastructure spending. Reviewing the balance between seating and standing could be explored.
Transform Scotland thinks that four- and
five-car trains on inter-city routes will soon prove inadequate, and that train lengthening will be required. Where existing platforms are too short, selective door opening should be considered as an alternative, it suggests.
However, ScotRail’s ability to lengthen trains is often hampered by the lack of capacity at terminating stations. Moreover, turnaround times are getting tighter. Extra peak services mean operators run up more expense such as staff costs - and this tends to outweigh the additional revenues generated, says RDG.
TS reckons there’s scope to cut costs by reducing the number of fixed-formation trains at certain times. For example, on the AirdrieBathgate route between Helensburgh and Edinburgh, six-car trains run all day long despite being needed only on specific sections and at peak hours.
Performance on the busiest lines remains hamstrung by the physical infrastructure, and TS says it’s not hard to see why: “We estimate that around 44% of inter-city routes in Scotland are still single-track. Capacity increases can be achieved ( by double-tracking) on the network with minimal extra land take. Dualling of roads takes much more land.”
TS says that single-tracking, rather than hold-ups caused by more passengers getting on and off, is at the heart of the problem. It believes that most people aren’t too bothered about a few minutes delay, whereas cancellations and skip-stopping (“where frustrated passengers see their train pass through but not stopping”) represent a far bigger bugbear. TS is calling for “change in existing stopping patterns so that large communities could be better served”.
One long-term pressure facing the network is from extreme weather. By 2019, Network Rail’s Scottish assets will include around 5,000 bridges and tunnels, 358 stations and 4,500 miles of track. A plan will be needed if performance targets are to be met, says RDG.
That includes drainage schemes to reduce the impact of flooding - dealing with earthworks susceptible to heavy rainfall. Technology can help, such as fibre optic rock fall detection and slope stability monitoring, and already, a lot of vegetation has been cleared. But all this must come out of a finite budget.
As for safety, level crossings still offer “the biggest catastrophic risk on the railway in Scotland… closure is the best form of control”, according to RDG. It wants assured funding for this over the next 15 years (journeys would become speedier as a result). For its part, Transform Scotland is calling for closures to be funded from the roads budget.
Pressure groups across Scotland have long been uneasy about the future for rural services. With many routes single-track, minor incidents can quickly escalate… as travellers on the Borders line know only too well!
While RDG says it will carry on working with the Scottish Government to try to improve things, Transform Scotland thinks the policy balance is all wrong, especially in the North.
“Faster rail journeys between cities aren’t being given priority whilst capital expenditure is focused on roads - £ 6 billion on dualling the A9 and A96 without any clear commitment for the railway,” it says.
“A corridor study should be carried out before any further work is undertaken. There’s a huge imbalance in expenditure planned on the A9 and A96 roads compared with the parallel Highland Main Line and Aberdeen to Inverness railways. Progress on these upgrades has virtually stalled.”
As for the Far North Line stretching up to Thurso, providing a reliable timetable, better performance and infrastructure for passenger and freight is of prime importance, says RDG. This route provides “lifeline” services to the local communities. Work is under way to identify opportunities for growing passenger and freight services.
All in all, Transform Scotland says the rail industry needs to act smart, however tight the purse strings. It considers Edinburgh Gateway station, the interchange hub that opened in December 2016, as “an excellent example of integration between train and tram”, one also combined with joint ticketing.
“The railway should be incentivised to deliver what passengers actually value,” RDG concludes. Now that, in its low-key way, reads like a revolutionary concept.