TRANSPORT COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS OF 22nd OCTOBER
COMMENT by Transport Watch UK

Jarvis rail (FOR 110). The opening sentence says: "The UK rail industry is socially and economically vital as described in the SRA's recently published 'Case For Rail' ". We note, one reason for that, given in 'Everyone's Railway The Case for Rail', is "nearly half the population of Britain uses a train at least once a year" - perversely highlighting the trivial contribution that rail makes to most of our lives.
Balfour Beatty (FOR 111) and Bombardier (FOR 107). It would be naive to pretend that these people do not have a vested interest in the Rail industry. Nevertheless one would hope to find a reasonable presentation rather than massive misrepresentation. However, that is not the case in the Bombardier submission. E.g:
Under the heading Question 1: Is Rail an outmoded form of Transport? , at para 1.3 we find the startling inaccuracy which reads:
"to carry 50,000 people in one direction we need:
- a 175 m wide road width used by cars [when it should say 58.5 m]
- a 35 m wide road used by buses [when it should say 3.5 m (10 times less)]
- a 9 m wide track used for a metro or commuter railway [when it should say perhaps 18m]

In support of the contrary view we note that:
1. On the Chiswick flyover we have at least 2000 vehicles per hour per lane in the peak. If the occupancy averages 1.5 the flow is 3,000 people. The lane width may as well be 3.5 metres. Hence 50,000 people in cars would need 58.5 m (not 175m)
2. A dedicated lane on a motorway would easily carry 1,000 express coaches per hour, providing 50,000 seats. The approach to the New York Bus terminal illustrates the practicality of that (as if the vehicle flows occurring daily on our motorways are not proof enough).
3. 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, implying 5 tracks for 50,000 or a width of 17.5 m (not 9m). In any event, at Waterloo, the trains require 4 tracks for possibly 50,000 crushed morning peak hour passengers and at Victoria we have 4 tracks serving perhaps 30,000.

Next we find Bombardier comparing rail with the private car, a nearly pointless exercise since the alternative to rail is not the car but the express coach.
Later, at para 3.1 a. we read: "No other means of transport can deliver more than 50,000 passengers per hour in two directions within a 2 x 9 m wide corridor" - a statement which clearly has no basis in reality, ref. above.
We conclude that this submission should be ignored. It is wildly inaccurate and was probably produced with the sole purpose of increasing the chances of obtaining railway work. The presentation is typical of the rail lobby generally e.g. Sir Robert Horton in Railtrack's Annual report of 1998/9 claimed that rail is "approximately" 27 times as safe as road in terms of fatalities and serious injuries. However, the express coach imposes half the casualty cost on its passengers as is suffered by those within the envelope bounded by the ticket barriers on the railways - giving a new dimension to the meaning of the word "approximately" as used by Sir Robert - misleading the Government on a massive scale.

Nedrailways (FOR 91) The witnesses claimed that Nedrail makes a profit. In contrast, Table 2 of Professor Chris Nash's memorandum (FOR 23), shows that income for Nedrail covers a mere 35% of costs (compared with 57% in the UK). We conclude the "profit" in Nedland may arise because massive subsidy has been counted as income.
Within the Nedrail evidence we find they intend to spend 13-19 bn Euros (£9 bn -13 bn) by 2020 on "investment" (presumably additional to operating costs, maintenance and renewals). The network contains only 2,800 km of track compared with 32,000 in the UK. Hence if we spent the same per track-km the cost would be £100 bn - £150 bn, which is, oddly enough, broadly what the rail industry would like. (However a check needs to be made to find whether the Ned witnesses meant track-km or route-km).
The Rail Regulator (FOR 99). This memorandum contains the usual set of unsustainable or irrelevant assertions put about by the railway lobby e.g. at:
3(a) Safety, rail safer than car - we comment, although rail is safer than the private car, it is at least twice as dangerous as the express coach.
3(b) Emissions less than for cars - overlooking the fact that passenger rail uses nearly double the energy required by express coaches.
3(d) Local economies benefited - we comment, not as much as they would be if the substantially disused railway lines were converted to motor roads. That would lead to the development of many thousands of hectares of derelict railway land in the hearts of our towns and cities, invigorating the economy no end while reducing the nation's tax bill by £(billions).
3(e) Social exclusion - we comment, it is incredible that the railway lobby should package itself as a social service. After all, the recent RAC survey found that 50% of fares are from the households in the top 20% of income. Probably the poor seldom, if ever, use the railways. That is because the poor live, work and play locally. In any case, express coaches offer fares which are often a fraction of rail's.
Who first put about the views which the Regulator now repeats is lost in the mists of time. Nevertheless, what is clear is that the Regulator has not checked to find whether the railway myth has any basis. Sadly that myth turns out to be a fairy tale whose magic is so strong that it is beggaring the nation.
Professor Chris Nash: The Professor, in para 10, claims the social costs of road transport are high compared with rail. We submit, that is because lorries, cars and buses use the historic road network consisting mainly of a collection of access roads. Overlooked is that the entire rail function could be carried out by buses and lorries on the rights of way, currently substantially disused as railways, at one quarter the cost of the trains while offering 4 times the capacity, using 20-30% less fuel and cutting casualty costs by a factor of 2.
Separately from that we encourage the Committee to inspect the Professor's table 2, cited above. That shows rail revenues in Europe cover less than 40% of their costs. Possibly the costs exclude capital expenditure. If so the 40% will be a substantial overestimate.
Professor Roderick Smith (FOR 43). During his verbal presentation the Professor suggested passing regional railways to local authorities leaving the strategic links with the Government. We applaud that provided the authorities, upon finding rail too expensive, do not abandon the routes as happened under the Beeching cuts. Then 9,000 miles of high grade route were lost. Instead the routes should be converted to high grade motor roads serving as feeders to the rail heads.
In his conclusion the Professor suggests we should build a new high speed rail network integrated with the existing motorways, linked to airports and to improved and extended internal city networks. We comment, high speed is of value to very few rail journeys. After all 50% of (rail) journeys are less than 25 miles long and 90% are less than 80 miles long. As to integration, clearly that would be achieved at a stroke if the routes were paved.
Referring to connections to air ports, we quote anecdotal experience at Rome airport. There, before a futuristic rail link was built, there was a very frequent, inexpensive coach service to the centre of Rome. Afterwards the coaches were banned, the wait at the rail terminal seemed interminable and the fare was up by a factor of 10.
Professor Holliday (FOR 103). We note that the Professor was Chairman of the Eastern Region of the Board of British Rail from 1986 to 1990. Hence he is clearly identified as part of the railway lobby. So, it is not surprising to find that he tactfully quotes the Regulator's reference to the "Victorian Legacy" and that it is "inconceivable that the rail network should either be abandoned or converted to a road network", para 7. In the same para the Professor suggests the rail network should be reserved for passengers and in para 11 he says "Safety on and policing of roads do not compare favourably with railways".
We comment - where is the justification for the Professors view's, so easily overturned in a discussion devoted to finding the truth, ref. above.
English Nature (FOR 21) This organisation repeats the mantra that a key advantage of rail is that it requires less land than road transport, overlooking the fact that the express coach requires one quarter to one third the space of a rail system.

We comment, why is it these people do not bother to do the ordinary arithmetic, which gives the lie to the railway myth? Instead they rely on fairy tales, decades old, and embedded in the public's mind via nursery rhymes and by the soothing words of those with a vested interest in preserving the railways.
.....................
Paul F Withrington Director Transport Watch

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

Show All Articles for: Transport Committee