Dreams and schemes could result in real railway progress
CHRISTIAN WOLMAR is cheered by new strategies published by Transport for the North and Campaign for Better Transport, believing that they offer the prospects of rail development and even reopenings
ONE of the few (only?) good ideas from George Osborne when he was Chancellor was the concept of a Northern Powerhouse. Gone would be the inadequate connections between the various towns and cities of the North, and instead of the ghastly Pacer trains and snailpace services there would be HS3 - linking Leeds and Manchester, but also possibly Liverpool, Hull, Newcastle and any other place that seemed politically expedient.
This plan was first set out by Osborne in the summer of 2014 (those innocent times when there were still political debates that did not centre around Brexit). But it was not clear what was intended, and the plan was even criticised by the Institute of Economic Affairs, normally a key Osborne ally, as a “headline-grabbing vanity project designed to attract votes”.
Certainly, Osborne was vague, and the concept has had more incarnations than a Premiership team’s changes of kit. It now goes under the name of Northern Powerhouse Rail, having ditched Northern Hub, Great North Rail Project and Crossrail for the North. Even so, it was a cunning plan, with the added bonus of boosting his vote in his Cheshire constituency.
The current name is much more sensible, because in reality the idea was never for a new stretch of line across the North, but rather a series of rail improvements, some of which might have been on new track. Moreover, improving connections in the North is not about highlighting a specific point to point, such as Leeds-Manchester, but rather the need to create a network.
The politics around this is a minefield, and getting the various local authorities to work together makes herding cats seem simple - even though most are Labour-controlled. Brotherly love seems to get lost when one city is battling against another for funds.
Now, however, Transport for the North (TfN), which encompasses 20 local transport authorities as well as HS2 Ltd and central government, has published a Strategic Transport Plan. TfN is in the process of taking over Rail for the North, as it now has statutory status as a regional body. This is important, since it may mean that eventually money may follow, although at the moment the Plan is largely a wish list of schemes that may or may not see the light of day.
At the moment, however, the plan (which would cost £100 billion) has no way of being funded. Moreover, it is a classic among such documents, which want more of everything. So it assumes that HS2 will be built, and that all the current rail schemes will be waved through by government, while there are lots of references to ‘step change’ improvements.
However, because rail matters have now been subsumed into a transport organisation, there is actually a much greater emphasis on road than rail. No hard choices are made, and the improvements are all to be “sustainable”, but we are not told how.
While the idea of an integrated transport approach is desirable, the problem with such an approach is that it requires billions spending on every type of transport, when actually there is a limited pot available. Politicians do this all
the time - refusing to acknowledge the reality of their situation, especially in these days of continued austerity.
While more people use the roads than rail, that is (duh!) because rail services are poor in the regions. As I have often suggested, create a kind of modern Network SouthEast for the North, with trains linking all the main towns and cities at 80mph-100mph with reasonable fares, then watch the roads begin to empty.
I was therefore very impressed with the approach taken by another recent report, published by Campaign for Better Transport, entitled The Case for Expanding the Rail Network.
Unlike many such publications put out by rail enthusiasts, the analysis is clear and hardheaded. The report is full of clear examples of which lines to open, and a clear methodology has been set out regarding which are feasible and should be prioritised.
Moreover, the report suggests there are three phases, with the first one being possible to implement quite rapidly - it mainly consists of reopening recently closed lines or bringing back passengers to freight-only routes.
Overall, the report looks at 224 schemes, and suggests that 33 of these meet its criteria and would bring enormous local benefit. The cost of adding these 343 miles of new line, almost exactly split between freight-only routes and reopenings, would be around £5bn to £6bn. And 72 new stations would be added to the network.
The report’s authors accept that reopening lines takes far longer than it ought to do, despite the huge public and political support, because the process is laborious (and aptly named ‘GRIP’).
It should, therefore, be possible to get up a head of steam (sorry, lapse) to bring about a genuine programme of rail reopenings.
And this report could be the start. It sets out a clear methodology, it gives examples where reopenings have been successful (such as Borders Rail having double the expected number of passengers), and it recommends ways in which the aspirations within the industry can gain traction (sorry again) with the decision-makers.
This is not pie in the sky stuff, but a well thought-out and coherent strategy. The naysayers would suggest that it is a waste of money because there is a cost to the taxpayer, but (as the report points out) the societal benefits of bringing areas back onto the rail network are enormous. Let’s hope that this report can attract real political backing, as it would surely capture the public’s imagination.