TRANSPORT COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS OF 15TH OCTOBER
COMMENT by Transport Watch UK

Dr Tim Leunig (FOR 24). We applaud Dr Leunig for pointing out, in his opening paragraph, that the arguments for subsidising railways are specious, that rail is energy intensive and that the ordinary rules of a market economy should determine the size of the rail network.

We are astonished to find our calculations to do with energy consumption echoed so precisely, namely that the train is no more energy efficient than an average car containing two people and very much less efficient than the express coach (Compare Dr Leunig's paras, 3- 6 with the Transport Watch Memorandum para 16).

In para 19 Dr Leunig says rail subsidies should be phased out. We agree entirely. However, we disagree with the notion that some rail services would be found profitable. Whatever the case, if the abandoned routes were converted to motor roads, replacement express coach services would soon demonstrate that they could carry out the rail function at one quarter the cost of the train.

Dr Leunig suggests some services might be profitable during the peak alone - leaving the railway right of way deserted off peak. We comment, that would lead to a right of way 9 to 10 metres wide carrying perhaps 4 trains inbound in the morning and 4 outbound in the afternoon. In contrast, if the tracks were removed and replaced with asphalt then that right of way may carry at least 10,000 vehicles per day - many of them lorries transferring from unsuitable country roads and city streets.

We regret that, despite Dr Leunig's otherwise excellent analysis, he does not appear to be aware that the express coach has 4 times the capacity of the train to move people and at one quarter the cost. (See any motorway or the approaches to the New York Bus terminal).

Professor Stephen Glaister (FOR 51). Professor Glaister points out in his opening paragraphs that Railway finances are so obscure that even the experts are confused. We applaud the Professor's desire for greater transparency. However, what is clear from the SRA's 2003 Annual Report is that the trading income was £1.146 bn. That can be compared with operating expenditure of £3.012 bn and the industry's desire to spend up to £120 billion over 10 years (see below ***). Hence it is transparently obvious that any person who believes rail can be profitable must live in a land of fairy tales.

Professor Glaister cites a tabulation in the SRA annual report which provides an average subsidy per passenger-km of 3.3 pence. The Professor then asks "Is it sensible to accept the values in the table at face value?"

We answer, clearly no. For example, if the actual subsidy amounts to as little as £100 billion over 10 years and if, over that period, they achieve an average of 50 bn passenger-km per year (25% above today's level) then the subsidy per passenger-km will be 20 pence - nearly 7 times higher than pretended by the SRA. If that is halved, to take account of freight, we are still 3.5 times above the reported subsidy - a discrepancy in line with most estimates made by railway people.

Professor Glaister canvasses for more rigour in the analyses underpinning decisions to "invest" in rail. We regret that the Professor does not acknowledge that there is a rubber tyred alternative to the steel tyred option waiting in the wings to rescue us from what we here describe as this railway madness. After all it has been long established that the alternative to rail is the express coach - four times less costly than the train while offering 3-4 times the capacity.

*** The SRA's £120 bn wish list consists of:

1. The Channel Tunnel High Speed link £5.2 billion (committed)
2. 10 yr. modernisation programme ranging up to: £73 billion
3. East Coast High Speed line: £36 bn over 40 years giving: £9 bn over 10 years
4. Cross rail linking Paddington with Liverpool Street in principle part of the National Rail Network but possibly shared by the "Underground" £10-15 billion.
5. Operating subsidy, which has a long term average of about

£1.7 billion per year adding: £17 billion over 10 years
Providing a 10 year total of £116-120 billion)

Professor Newberry (FOR 78) points out that the 10-year plan projected £50 bn for rail, more than 3 times that for strategic roads: a distribution that is wildly disproportionate and in favour of rail compared with the use made of the two systems. The Professor goes on to say:

Para 2, "Railway passenger transport is uncompetitive with road except in dense urban areas". We comment - remember the express coach has 3-4 times the capacity of the steel tyred option and at one quarter the cost, given the right of way - go see any motorway.

Para 3, "Longer trains are the only solution to increasing capacity". We comment as above and add - go see the approach to the New York Bus terminal where 30,000 per hour are carried in one bus lane, not yet full, in 700 45-seat coaches.

Para 4, "The Health and Safety Executive has as its apparent ultimate objective the elimination of all risk". This, the Professor points out, "is clearly insane.........." We agree wholeheartedly.

Para 5, "It is a hard political question to ask whether safety standards for rail should be better aligned to those for road". We comment - it is not hard at all. Instead it is plainly stupid to have significantly different standards for the two systems.

Para 5 again, "The estimated cost of avoiding a fatality by installing the Train Protection system is around £10 million". We comment, that is broadly consistent with our calculations which show that the £3.6 bn said to be required to stop the SPAD (Signal Passed at Danger) along with the associated annual maintenance and running costs is likely to be over 40 times the value of life and limb saved - a clearly insane investment decision.

Paras 7 to 13, broadly canvas for social cost benefit analysis. We comment - if there is an option 4 times less costly than rail offering 3-4 times the capacity using 20-30% less energy and cutting casualty costs by a factor of 2, given the right of way, is there any need for "social cost benefit analysis" dealing with rail alone? Of course we do have such an option - it is the well known rubber tyred coach and lorry operating on uncongested motor roads previously occupied by railway lines.

Para 15. "The excessive subsidies to rail and under-investment in roads results from a failure to apply systematic cost-benefit analysis to public expenditure". We disagree. Instead we point to our comment immediate above and say that it is clear that the rail industry (and the nation) is in denial of the facts. That is because the railway lobby has constructed a fairy story about the railways which has no basis - misleading successive governments on a massive scale for decades.

Professor Mark Casson (Reading University) (FOR 54). The Professor stays on track - talking about rail almost exclusively - as though the rights of way, all 10,000 miles of them, typically 9 to 10 metres wide, have no other use but as a railway.

We note, ironically it was Professor Hall, also of Reading, who, together with Edward Smith, showed in their report, Better use of Rail Ways, produced in response to a government contract, that converting railways to motor roads may provide first year rates of return ranging up to 500% (one scheme had an infinite rate of return because the cost of the scrap and surplus land exceeded the cost of conversion).

At the bottom of the first page of the Professor's memorandum we read "Rail is also competitive in conveying bulk on a train-load basis: moving coal from port to power station is a classic example". We comment, perhaps the Professor has forgotten the miners' strike when coal to power stations transferred from rail to lorry only to find haulage then cost 25% less than previously.

The Professor continues "North American experience shows that railways are also well-adapted to conveying containers over distances exceeding 300 miles (equivalent to about 150 miles in the UK where motorway congestion is more severe) The key factor is a constant flow of high volume traffic for which speed is a significant factor."

We comment, the Professor has omitted to say that American freight trains are up to 2 miles long and the line haul up to 2,000 miles long. There, local distribution, which means up to 500 miles, is typically by lorry. In contrast a UK freight train averages some 25 wagons (equivalent to 30 lorries) and the line haul averages just 125 miles. Meanwhile, for freight, speed is seldom of the essence.

The Professor refers to the Beeching cuts when 9,000 miles of right of way were lost to the nation. We regard that as a tragedy. It was caused by the determination of British Railways to sell the rights of way off piecemeal, sabotaging their potential as roads feeding the remaining railheads. It is as though the railway lobby is so passionate about rail that it is unable to comprehend any other use for rail's rights of way than either rail or a rest-in-peace slid into oblivion.

FOR 54 (Presumed by Jonathan Tyler). This memorandum opens with the paragraph "Given the pace of external change it is unlikely that simply perpetuating the historic functions of a railway is an appropriate strategy, and undeniable that the railway cannot be protected, uniquely among the country's institutions, from a fundamental reappraisal".

We comment, unfortunately the railways have been uniquely protected these last 50 years. That is why we now have a kind of modernised transport museum carrying people and freight at four times the cost of the rubber tyred option, using 3 to 4 times the land, more fuel and imposing a casualty cost on its passengers which is double that suffered by people using the express coach.

At 1.6.1 we read "Latterly, however, media interest has grown and every ridiculing mention reinforces in the public mind the idea that the railway is both outdated and incapable of modernising itself". We comment, how right the media are. The para continues "Most of these services are redundant and would probably best be closed". We add, let us hope that the rights of way are not lost to the nation but are converted to motor roads ready to serve us again.

At 2.1 we read words to the effect that railway is capable of moving very large numbers of people with less land and energy than any other mode of transport.

We comment, that is pure nonsense. As long ago as 1970 Donald A Morin, Chief of Public Transport in the US Department of Transport, pointed out that 50,000 people can be moved in buses in one lane of a motor road. That flow is at least 4 times the flow per track achieved in the peak hour by the main-line tracks serving central London rail terminals. Why do those concerned with rail deny that? It is as though all of them have gone blind in the face of the facts preferring fairy stories with no basis - a tragedy which has misled successive governments on a massive scale for decades, bringing economic waste to perhaps hundreds of thousands of working lives and leaving swathes of derelict railway land gracing the hearts of our towns and cities.
………………….
There were also submissions by Rail Interchange Investment Group, English, Welsh and Scottish Railway, Freightliner Group, GB Railfreight, Direct Rail Services, Freight on Rail, ASLEF, ASDA and Royal Mail. However Transport Watch does not have the memoranda submitted to hand so can make no comment.
.......................................................

Paul F Withrington Director Transport Watch

Transport Watch is an independent association not connected with any business or political party initially funded by a private trust and dedicated to making the best use of land already committed to transport in the interest of the community as a whole.

Copied to:
The Treasury,
All members of the Transport Committee,
Selected Transport Correspondents.
The SRA and The Regulator

Show All Articles for: Transport Committee