TRANSPORT COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS OF 29th OCTOBER
COMMENT by Transport Watch UK

The Association of Train Operating Companies (FOR 95): The first paragraph under the heading “Is the Regulator right……..” suggests that it is extraordinary that the portrayal of rail as “outmoded” could be debated with any seriousness.
We comment, the really extraordinary matter is that the rail industry has succeeded in portraying itself as efficient compared with the rubber tyred option when, for over 50 years, it has been apparent that the express coach (and lorry) offers 3-4 times the capacity of the train at one quarter the cost while using 20-25% less energy and imposing one half the casualty costs suffered by rail passengers.
On page 2 under the heading “friend of the environment” we read that a “two track railway can move 30,000 people in an hour in each direction”. In our view that is a fairy story. Perhaps such a flow is achieved in London’s underground but, as far as surface rail is concerned, we refer to our comment on the Committee meeting of 22nd. That provides: “In 2001, between 7 am and 10 am, 467,000 surface rail passengers entered London. There are 25 pairs of tracks. If 50% of the 467,000 occur in the peak hour then the flow per inbound track amounts to less than a pitiful 10,000…” Here we add, 10,000 people would require 200 50-seat coaches - enough to occupy one fifth of the capacity of one lane of a motor road. If these rights of way were paved, the spare capacity could be used by lorries and other city buses etc. to the relief of the surrounding road network. (Off-peak these potential dual carriageways are almost empty but London’s streets remain clogged with traffic).
Under “Getting Safer”. We read that a train is 7 times as safe as a car. The truth is that the KSI casualty cost suffered by rail passengers within the envelope bounded by the ticket barriers is 3.5 times less than suffered by people in cars (not 7 times less). If trespassers are included then the casualty cost per bn pass-km due to rail is double that suffered on motorways.
Later we read of the intention of the Government to provide £33 billion for rail under the 10-year plan. We note there was also the intention of levering in another £33 billion from the private sector – a task which could only succeed if there were government guarantees. Since the loans could never be repaid from income the bill to the taxpayer would amount £66 bn, not £33 bn. We then read that latest costs are around £8 bn per year, not the original £3 billion. Do these people not realise that the entire network could be paved as roads for as little as £12 billion – both quadrupling capacity and cutting cost by a factor of 4?
(Meanwhile rail maintenance has caused, and continues to cause, large scale disruption to passengers and freight alike, let alone the disruption caused by the trivial use made of the railway rights of way while they are preserved as railways – e.g. just imagine what would happen if they paved the M1, the M25 and the M6 with railway lines).
GNER (FOR 115) The GNER is proud of its performance and right to point out that “Thousands of railway people work tirelessly to operate, maintain and improve the railways…” However, we note that these people have been labouring under a disadvantage in that had the rubber tyred option been adopted costs would have been reduced by a factor of 4 and capacity would have been increased by the same factor. That would have improved productivity by a factor of 16. Sadly the workers have been given 19th Century tools.
At 1.9 we read that the Regional Development Agency “states that the net contribution of the East Coast Main Line is at least £100 million”. We point out, over the decade rail will extract at least £4,000 from every household in the land – an immense burden bearing in mind that the majority of those people seldom use a train. Hence we disbelieve the Region’s analysis – in any case, and as pointed out above many times, the railway function could be discharged by buses and lorries at one quarter the cost of the train, given the right of way.
Connex FOR 113 says “The commuter railway is a vital part of big cities like London”. We point out; it is not rail, per se, but mass transit which is vital. Sadly the best option by a factor of 16 is the express coach - see above.
We applaud Connex where, at the bottom of the first page, the organisation points out that coach travel is indeed less costly than the train and that under-used rail services should be replaced by coach services. We regret that Connex has not noticed that a single bus lane 3.2 metres wide serving the New York bus terminal carries 30,000 passengers per hour daily (all seated) in 700 45-seat coaches – at least 3 times more than is achieved on each rail track serving London, despite London rail commuters suffering crush conditions.
Laing Rail Ltd (FOR 29). In 1.2 Laing says “The railway performs a vital role in national wealth creation.” Why that should be believed is a mystery which needs explaining. After all, the expenditure on the Channel Tunnel and the associated links will be around £30 billion at today’s prices but the company (a) makes losses and (b) has a stock market valuation of less than £1.5 billion. The implication is that this Engineering marvel has drained the nation of nearly £30 billion – effectively wasting the product of 30,000 working men’s lives.
Similarly, with national rail which, before receivership was worth a mere £3 billion despite the clear intention of the Government to pour at least £60 billion into the system by way of direct subsidy and guarantees to private sector loans. Hence, in purely financial terms, spending £60 billion mending the railway may be likened to spending £2 million mending a house worth £100,000 only to find the selling price unchanged. The financial implication is that they may as well tip the £60 billion into the sea – equivalent to burning the residential accommodation for a city of 1.5 million people.
Meanwhile the SRA’s intention is to extract at least £100 billion from the exchequer over the decade (See our comment to the Committee papers of 15th October). When they have finished the system will still be worthless in the market place and would vanish overnight without continued massive subsidy.
Hence, far from rail performing “a vital role in national wealth creation” we say rail is beggaring the nation.
Why is it that the government is unable to act in the light of the costs let alone the other facts, e.g. that the rail function could be carried out 16 times more efficient by express coaches and lorries, given the rights of way, than by train…….?.
At 6.2.4. Laing parrots the view that rail is already “far safer than road transport”. We comment, these people have not done their sums. The reality is that the casualty cost per passenger mile suffered by rail passengers within the envelope bounded by the ticket barriers is at least double that suffered by people in express coaches (including an allowance for those injured shortly before boarding or after alighting). Additionally, the system-wide casualty cost attributable to rail, including trespassers, is double that suffered by people on motorways.
Merseyrail (FOR 114) we pass over without comment.
Passenger Transport Executive, (FOR 62). At para 5) we read that rail is an essential ingredient for a thriving regional economy. We disagree; rail drags a regional economy down due to the high costs, and low capacity. What is required is low-cost mass transit and that is not the train, see above.
At para 9) we read that rail requires 1/7th the power of road transport. However, Dr Leunig pointed out on 15th October that rail is energy-intensive compared with a motor coach and no more fuel-efficient than an average car containing two people. That is consistent with the memorandum submitted by Transport Watch.
TSSA (FOR 61) – we pass over without comment.
The Rail Regulator (FOR 99). Upon reading the Regulator’s memorandum we conclude that the he is in denial of the facts. We regret not having primed the Committee to ask the appropriate questions. E.g. Is the Regulator aware that:

1. A single bus lane 3.2 metres wide carries 700 buses in the peak hour on the approach to the New York Bus Terminal, providing seats for 30,000 passengers?
2. The average passenger flow in the peak hour on the tracks into central London is below 10,000?
3. The width occupied by each rail track is the same or wider than the New York bus lane?
4. 1,000 50-seat buses would be sufficient to carry the peak hour passenger flow at Waterloo – all seated, requiring one third to one quarter the width used by the trains?
5. Surface rail is (a) no more fuel efficient than a diesel powered car containing two people and (b) uses nearly double the energy required by express coaches?
6. The casualty cost imposed by rail on its passengers is at least double that suffered by people travelling in express coaches?
7. Track maintenance for rail is probably at least 10 times as expensive as would be required if the rail function were carried out by buses and lorries?
8. Passenger rail rolling stock is at least 3 times as expensive as equivalent rubber tyred stock?
9. When the industry has finished spending the £100 billion, the system will still be worth nothing in the market place and would vanish overnight without continued massive subsidy. That is to say, the £100 billion will, in purely financial terms, be entirely wasted, bringing to nothing the product of one hundred thousand working men’s lives; equivalent to burning the residential accommodation of a city of 2.5 million people?
10. The entire network could be paved for less than one fifth the cost of the rail modernisation programme so providing all London commuters with seats at a fraction the cost of the train?

Had such questions been asked with persistence we believe that the Regulator’s case would have been revealed as a sham, along with nearly all the other contributions to this inquiry.
.....................
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:
Transport Committee
Treasury
Selected transport correspondents
SRA
The Regulator

Show All Articles for: Transport Committee