Paul Salveson raised the issue in one of his salvoes of the role of passenger transport authorities in the future of regional rail.
In essence the rumours that the owners of metro’s operating company, Deutsche Bahn, are keen on metro expansion reflect that debate.
Metro is one of the few vertically integrated rail operations in the UK. As a result it is capable of economies of scale and integratron that are denied to other rail franchises by the lunatic system imposed by the government in the 80s and 90s.
Expanding the range and scope of Metro would enable further gains to be made. Free from the interference of civil servants the franchise could invest in rolling stock and services that would focus on local needs, not the specifications of a rail network obsessed with inter city working and journey times to and from London. It is ridiculous that, once Metro refresh is complete, passengers on publicly subsidized rail in Tyne and Wear will have brand new trains, while local rail passengers in Northumberland will still be travelling on other franchise’s castoff from the 1980s.
It’s time to have that debate about what passenger transport planning should look like, and a genuine debate about what the rail network in Northumberland and County Durham could look like if there was one, integrated passenger transport authority across what the last government called the city region.
That doesn’t mean we need to have a debate about re-nationalization or any of the other shibboleths of left or right, just a genuine debate about subsidiarity and sustainability. Currently decisions about rail services in the regions are made too far away from the regions, and for reasons that have less to do with the needs of the regions than with attempts to reduce the risk of losses to the rolling stock companies and the big franchises.
That shouldn’t be a difficult debate to have. It could deliver savings and efficiencies for local government as well. Northumberland County Council can’t justify a transport policy officer who specializes in rail. Instead it forks out inordinate sums to consultants for reports that reflect the existing rail industry, not how it could be. It’s no surprise NCC has achieved nothing with regard to the AB&T, and looks as if it never will. Moving Durham and Northumberland into an enlarged Tyne & Wear PTA could benefit many more projects than just the AB&T.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
A place for NCC to start again
"One of the more helpful suggestions in the McNulty Report was to devolve responsibility for local and regional rail services to passenger transport executives (PTEs) and local authorities. Not an original idea by any means and the Department for Transport had already been thinking along those lines anyway, but good it was endorsed in an otherwise lacklustre report. The principle is fine and already works well on Merseyside, where the PTE is the franchising authority for the 25-year long Merseyrail franchise. Creating smaller franchise units could bring a stronger focus on the customer with scope to encourage bids from co-ops and mutual, maybe even with employee involvement. "
Read much more in Paul Salveson's latest salvo; http://www.paulsalveson.org.uk/2011/07/03/illustrated-weekly-salvo-no-7/
Read much more in Paul Salveson's latest salvo; http://www.paulsalveson.org.uk/2011/07/03/illustrated-weekly-salvo-no-7/
Monday, June 27, 2011
How green is Northumberland council?
Take a look at the recent announcements about Northumberland county council's capital spending plans. Central to them is th Morpeth northern Bypass. NCC proposes to spend £13million, with government stumping up £22M, to divert one car journey in five away from the centre of Morpeth.
You did read that right. Four car journeys in five that currently go through Morpeth will continue to do so after the bypass is built. So that's £35M to make traffic in Morpeth not much better. NCC aren't very liberal with their traffic data. You'll search in vain for evidence that anything will improve in Morpeth as a result of this road being built. Cynics suggest its main purpose is to make Pegswood and the north and west of Ashington attractive places for housebuilders - provide dof course that there's a demand for houses with an easy link road to Berwick and Alnwick.
So for double the cost of putting rail services abck ont he Ashington Blyth and Tyne line a section of greenfield land will be dug up and tarmacked over, in the hope that housebuilders will move in. Raise that point with the administration at County Hall and they'll smile and murmur about industrial development in Ashington if only road access was better. Drive up the Spine road from Blyth to Ashington and you'll see Ashington's Field of Dreams business park on your left hand side, conclusive proof that you can build it but they still won't come.
So to sum up, NCC plan to plough up green space all round Morpeth in the vain hope that it might improve the economy of Ashington, for twice the price of a rail service to Ashington which could be linked into the Metro system and provide integrated transport for all south east Northumberland. Given the support for the Green Party in Morpeth, and their preference for integrated transport over the private car, this could be a political own goal for the administration at County hall.
Incidentally, if the objective is to take traffic out of the centre of Morpeth, why not upgrade the A1 junction at Clifton so that southbound traffic can come off the A1 there and go to County Hall or Merley Gate without passing through Morpeth town centre? Is that too obvious?
You did read that right. Four car journeys in five that currently go through Morpeth will continue to do so after the bypass is built. So that's £35M to make traffic in Morpeth not much better. NCC aren't very liberal with their traffic data. You'll search in vain for evidence that anything will improve in Morpeth as a result of this road being built. Cynics suggest its main purpose is to make Pegswood and the north and west of Ashington attractive places for housebuilders - provide dof course that there's a demand for houses with an easy link road to Berwick and Alnwick.
So for double the cost of putting rail services abck ont he Ashington Blyth and Tyne line a section of greenfield land will be dug up and tarmacked over, in the hope that housebuilders will move in. Raise that point with the administration at County Hall and they'll smile and murmur about industrial development in Ashington if only road access was better. Drive up the Spine road from Blyth to Ashington and you'll see Ashington's Field of Dreams business park on your left hand side, conclusive proof that you can build it but they still won't come.
So to sum up, NCC plan to plough up green space all round Morpeth in the vain hope that it might improve the economy of Ashington, for twice the price of a rail service to Ashington which could be linked into the Metro system and provide integrated transport for all south east Northumberland. Given the support for the Green Party in Morpeth, and their preference for integrated transport over the private car, this could be a political own goal for the administration at County hall.
Incidentally, if the objective is to take traffic out of the centre of Morpeth, why not upgrade the A1 junction at Clifton so that southbound traffic can come off the A1 there and go to County Hall or Merley Gate without passing through Morpeth town centre? Is that too obvious?
Sunday, June 19, 2011
What Northumberland hoped for in 2003 (or why it's always only been one train an hour)
The Council has supported a strategy for some years to enhance the number of long-distance intercity trains calling at Morpeth and Alnmouth, thus widening the range of destinations available. It has also been a specific aspiration to improve travel opportunities between the east coast stations at Morpeth, Alnmouth and Berwick, which are currently not effectively linked to one another. This strategy has received endorsement in the A1 Multi-Modal Study completed on behalf of the Government Office for the North East. The Council is therefore presented with an opportunity through the Route Utilisation Strategy to argue the case again for additional stops at these stations by the long distance train operators.
7.3 If the provision of additional inter-city calls at Morpeth, Alnmouth, and additionally Cramlington, could be secured then there would be a reduced requirement for local trains on the route currently operated by Arriva Trains Northern. If sufficient intercity trains could be timetabled to provide an hourly service at these principal stations, the local train service might be reduced to just the one train in each peak period which also serves the intermediate village stations at Chathill, Acklington, Widdrington Station and Pegswood. This in turn could release capacity for ABT line trains between Benton Junction and Newcastle without expenditure on additional capacity or delay to the project.
7.4 To develop this strategy for the widest possible benefit of residents in the county and for the commercial benefit of the train operators would require the Council also to adopt complementary policies:
• to upgrade Cramlington station to Inter-city standard;
• to improve park and ride facilities at Alnmouth station (already in the LTP programme) and at Morpeth;
• to provide integrated bus links to Alnmouth station from Alnwick and the surrounding area.
7.5 In principle this strategy has already received support from the Government Office for the North-East and the Council has been encouraged to develop LTP bids for this strategy if the SRA adopts the train operating policy proposed in this report.
From a report published ion February 2003
7.3 If the provision of additional inter-city calls at Morpeth, Alnmouth, and additionally Cramlington, could be secured then there would be a reduced requirement for local trains on the route currently operated by Arriva Trains Northern. If sufficient intercity trains could be timetabled to provide an hourly service at these principal stations, the local train service might be reduced to just the one train in each peak period which also serves the intermediate village stations at Chathill, Acklington, Widdrington Station and Pegswood. This in turn could release capacity for ABT line trains between Benton Junction and Newcastle without expenditure on additional capacity or delay to the project.
7.4 To develop this strategy for the widest possible benefit of residents in the county and for the commercial benefit of the train operators would require the Council also to adopt complementary policies:
• to upgrade Cramlington station to Inter-city standard;
• to improve park and ride facilities at Alnmouth station (already in the LTP programme) and at Morpeth;
• to provide integrated bus links to Alnmouth station from Alnwick and the surrounding area.
7.5 In principle this strategy has already received support from the Government Office for the North-East and the Council has been encouraged to develop LTP bids for this strategy if the SRA adopts the train operating policy proposed in this report.
From a report published ion February 2003
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Business cases
There isn't much to say on business cases.
There never has been a successful business case for the AB&T.
Last time the govenment made a decision, it did so on the basis of costs that were artificially inflated and which included a massive sum for the Bates line, which has since been lifted.
We think there are three business cases that need to be assessed.
One is the SENRUG business case for small scale re-opening of the AB&T.
One is our case, for re-opening as part of the Metro network with high passenger volumes.
The third is the least likely case, of re-opening as an open access facility owned by a community partnership, acting as a route for alternative medium length journeys over theoretical routes that require significant engineering work - Ashington to Carlisle and Stranraer for instance, or Edinburgh to Blyth or Tynemouth.
There is a fourth case, - of a combined heritage and community railway - which also could be assessed.
If Northumberland County Council would allow an open debate, we think the Metro option would win out in terms of costs and benefits. Some people in thise debate don;t seem to want to engage with the option and examine them in public. The council could make this possible.
There never has been a successful business case for the AB&T.
Last time the govenment made a decision, it did so on the basis of costs that were artificially inflated and which included a massive sum for the Bates line, which has since been lifted.
We think there are three business cases that need to be assessed.
One is the SENRUG business case for small scale re-opening of the AB&T.
One is our case, for re-opening as part of the Metro network with high passenger volumes.
The third is the least likely case, of re-opening as an open access facility owned by a community partnership, acting as a route for alternative medium length journeys over theoretical routes that require significant engineering work - Ashington to Carlisle and Stranraer for instance, or Edinburgh to Blyth or Tynemouth.
There is a fourth case, - of a combined heritage and community railway - which also could be assessed.
If Northumberland County Council would allow an open debate, we think the Metro option would win out in terms of costs and benefits. Some people in thise debate don;t seem to want to engage with the option and examine them in public. The council could make this possible.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Train technology
Yes, I know, technology is not particularly interesting.
Neither are men who do the whole Jeremy Clarkson bit and get obsessed with it for its own sake.
To understand the options for the AB&T though a little bit of information about the technology options and the history of the technology will help.
The East Coast Mainline is electrified via overhead wires carrying 25kV AC.
The Metro system is electrified voa overhead wires carrying 1.5kV DC.
The AB&T is not electrified in any way.
All three networks have different signalling systems, but most Network rail trained drivers are competent to travel across the ECML and the AB&T.
If you ask some people they'll tell you these technological and systems differences are insuperable.
They're not.
The biggest obstacles to wider and more useful passenger services in the north east are political and historical, not technological.
Train companies in the UK have routinely run dual voltage trains. Here's one and here's another.
The Metro was electrified before the East Coast Main Line. The divestment of the Metro network by British Rail, as was, was a classically short sighted decision. So was the decision not to electrify the AB&T as a relief route for the ECML, and to lift some of the line at the south of the AB&T. None of those decisions were fatal to the return of passenger services to the BA&T though. It has always been possible to commission rolling stock that could link the Metro network to the ECML; the obstacle to, say, Durham to Tynemouth or Berwick to Newcastle Airport services is not technology.
How does that observation help people in Blyth or Seaton Valley? Simple. Other nations, and even other parts of the UK, are experimenting with dual power diesel electric rolling stock. It works quite simply. In addition to the electric power system on the train, a generator pack is fitted to provide electricity to the motors when overhead lines aren't available.
With rolling stock like that, suddenly the divide between British Rail and Metro is simply an artificial divide, a set of contracts and rules that can be changed if anyone wants to badly enough. The key to that is desire. not technology.
Neither are men who do the whole Jeremy Clarkson bit and get obsessed with it for its own sake.
To understand the options for the AB&T though a little bit of information about the technology options and the history of the technology will help.
The East Coast Mainline is electrified via overhead wires carrying 25kV AC.
The Metro system is electrified voa overhead wires carrying 1.5kV DC.
The AB&T is not electrified in any way.
All three networks have different signalling systems, but most Network rail trained drivers are competent to travel across the ECML and the AB&T.
If you ask some people they'll tell you these technological and systems differences are insuperable.
They're not.
The biggest obstacles to wider and more useful passenger services in the north east are political and historical, not technological.
Train companies in the UK have routinely run dual voltage trains. Here's one and here's another.
The Metro was electrified before the East Coast Main Line. The divestment of the Metro network by British Rail, as was, was a classically short sighted decision. So was the decision not to electrify the AB&T as a relief route for the ECML, and to lift some of the line at the south of the AB&T. None of those decisions were fatal to the return of passenger services to the BA&T though. It has always been possible to commission rolling stock that could link the Metro network to the ECML; the obstacle to, say, Durham to Tynemouth or Berwick to Newcastle Airport services is not technology.
How does that observation help people in Blyth or Seaton Valley? Simple. Other nations, and even other parts of the UK, are experimenting with dual power diesel electric rolling stock. It works quite simply. In addition to the electric power system on the train, a generator pack is fitted to provide electricity to the motors when overhead lines aren't available.
With rolling stock like that, suddenly the divide between British Rail and Metro is simply an artificial divide, a set of contracts and rules that can be changed if anyone wants to badly enough. The key to that is desire. not technology.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Ambition
Imagine you have a railway line.
It's an unused railway line, and you have a chance to run one train service per hour.
What sort of service would you run?
Would you run a restricted service to the nearest major city, using old, end of life train stock, charging higher fares than competitor buses? Is that going to result in a successful business case?
Or would you look to produce a business case for a better service?
If you want to out-compete local buses you need to offer integrated ticketing and comparable connectivity, with none of the hassles caused by congested roads.
If you want to offer a service distinct to local buses you have to connect places they can't connect.
So do you run your one train an hour from Ashington to Newcastle, and go head to head with the buses, or do you run it from Ashington to Hexham , or Carlisle, or Durham?
As campaigners we decided that the key selling points for any rail service from Blyth and the Saton valley would major on integrated ticketing, connectivity and convenience. That means linking up with Metro. What we can't understand is why SENRUG would settle for a rickety, low capacity service to Newcastle only, requiring passengers to either work within walking distance of Central Station or Manors, or to buy two tickets, or to change trains. That's a serious lack of ambition.
It's an unused railway line, and you have a chance to run one train service per hour.
What sort of service would you run?
Would you run a restricted service to the nearest major city, using old, end of life train stock, charging higher fares than competitor buses? Is that going to result in a successful business case?
Or would you look to produce a business case for a better service?
If you want to out-compete local buses you need to offer integrated ticketing and comparable connectivity, with none of the hassles caused by congested roads.
If you want to offer a service distinct to local buses you have to connect places they can't connect.
So do you run your one train an hour from Ashington to Newcastle, and go head to head with the buses, or do you run it from Ashington to Hexham , or Carlisle, or Durham?
As campaigners we decided that the key selling points for any rail service from Blyth and the Saton valley would major on integrated ticketing, connectivity and convenience. That means linking up with Metro. What we can't understand is why SENRUG would settle for a rickety, low capacity service to Newcastle only, requiring passengers to either work within walking distance of Central Station or Manors, or to buy two tickets, or to change trains. That's a serious lack of ambition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)