 Less maintenance on rural lines could see services slowed |
Rail travellers who use regional routes and rural branch lines could face longer journeys and a reduced service under new proposals from the Strategic Rail Authority. The rail authority wants to concentrate on intercity and busy commuter routes and track renewal in other areas could be cut by up to 50%, the BBC has learned.
The authority says this would mean longer journeys on the secondary and rural routes because of extra speed restrictions.
But it should lead to big improvements on key high-speed routes, and commuter services into London.
The SRA has suggested the plans as part of a consultation document on ways of getting better value for money from government rail spending.
It said reducing the amount of track renewal and maintenance of structures such as bridges, tunnels and earthworks could save �600m a year. SRA chairman Richard Bowker said: "Let's target the places where investment gets us the best bang for the buck.
"This is not about cuts, this is about targeting money where it's best spent.
"We are not interested in any plan where there's a net deficit for the railways."
' Strategy in tatters
But shadow transport secretary Tim Collins said the government's rail strategy was now "lying in complete tatters".
"Passengers and taxpayers are being forced to hand over more and more cash for ever-worsening train services," he added.
"The cost of the railways has soared - but delays have doubled. Complaints from passengers are soaring.
"And what is Alistair Darling's response? To impose unfair fare hikes, to abandon his promises, and cut ever more services.
"That's not a fair deal for long-suffering passengers - it's a raw deal."
Concern
Pressure group Rail Future, which campaigns for better rail services across the UK, said that while it believed there was scope for cuts, it was concerned about the network's future.
Rail Future president Michael Caton told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I'm concerned that slowing schedules and reducing track maintenance will, in fact, lead to the run-down of these services."
However, Mr Bowker emphasised that the plan was a consultation document only and said: "This is no prelude to cuts.
"The word 'cut' does not appear in this document we have published today anywhere. The reason it does not appear is because it is not on the agenda for the purposes of this document."
He compared focussing on main routes to the roading situation where the M1 is resurfaced more frequently than an A or a B road.
'Timetables adapted'
Rail lines would be divided into two categories according to how heavily they are used, under the proposals.
Group One would cover intercity lines, London and south-east lines and "main secondary routes".
 Passengers on busy commuter routes could benefit from the changes |
Major secondary routes would include those that have a regular London service, those that link ports, cross-Pennine services and the principle Scottish Network. Group Two would include other secondary routes, rural lines and freight lines.
Broadly speaking maintenance would be cut by 50% on the Group Two lines.
This would lead, according to the consultation document, to "preventative maintenance only as part of major refurbishment of an asset".
'No closures'
It would also mean "substantially reduced track renewal", and "running times to be reviewed and timetables adapted to reflect extended journey times."
There would be more work on rural lines during the normal working week, rather than at weekends.
Mr Bowker stressed there would be no line closures.
The consultation document's results will be delivered to the rail regulator, Tom Winsor, who is in control of the future size and scope of track maintenance on the network.
His final decisions on this, and on the level of funding that the track operator Network Rail should receive, will be made at the end of the year.
'Sensible approach'
The proposals received a mixed reception from rail users.
Rail Passengers Council chairman Stewart Francis said people had to be realistic about spending on the network.
"To have a more intensive care regime on the main priorities of the network makes sense. It is likely to be more cost effective," he added.
However, Transport 2000 spokesman Steve Hounsham said: "It is not good news for people who are using the railways other than those on the fast intercity routes.
"There is this suspicion that the SRA thinks these other routes do not matter, but of course they do because people rely on them."
Read a selection of your comments below
The Rolls Royce and Mini Metro both need to be maintained to the same standard, to be road-worthy. If you need to slow down the Metro because it is unsafe or unfit to be driven at normal speeds, you are guilty of a crime. To suggest that poorly-maintained rural lines should run at slower speeds is suggesting that an increasing number of derailments is ok as long as the consequences of each derailment are less severe. Criminal!
Rob Whythe, Steyning (one of the Beeching cuts)
 |  It baffles me how the powers that be can define which commuters are more deserving of a safe journey than others  |
I was under the impression that the main priority of any rail organisation was safety. Poor track maintenance led to the Hatfield accident, and now proposals are being made to reduce maintenance on what is obviously already a poorly maintained network. It baffles me how the powers that be can define which commuters are more deserving of a safe journey than others. A train travelling at 50 or 60 MPH can still result in fatalities if it derails. I hope against hope that in five years time we won't be looking back at this decision with incredulity after a 'rural' Hatfield accident.
Andrew Stockley, UK Rural and secondary lines are often the only transport options for people. Given the massive congestion problems on the roads shouldn't the road building plans be cut and more money provided for the rail lines that offer sustainable transport.
Catherine McLaughlin, UK
The Forth Rail Bridge is a major example of trying to cut back maintenance on structures, thinking they can get away with it. The old 'finish painting and start again' was scrapped to save money some years ago. The structure (Grade A listed and a modern Wonder of the World) then started rusting and dropping large pieces of debris to the houses below. To get the bridge back to it's previous condition is costing at least �40M and we've already suffered the bridge being closed completely during all four weekends in July. I expect more closures to follow until it's finished. This will become more common if maintenance to 100 year old structures is reduced.
Peter Chalmers, Scotland
| The word "cut" may not appear in the document, but the end result could well be the same. |
I live in a rural area which only has a rail connection because it happens to be on a line between the county town and a busy rail junction. I seldom use the train, however, because there is rarely a train that goes where I want when I want. If it is going to take me longer to get to the places the trains DO go to, I shall think twice about getting out of my car, which is already so indispensable to travel in the countryside. If many people think as I do, the lack of revenue will inevitably force closures. The word "cut" may not appear in the document, but the end result could well be the same.
Andy Allen, UK 208 mph on CTRL yesterday - reduced maintenance on rural lines leading to speed restrictions today. What on earth is going on in this country regarding the railways and who in the Government / local Authorities is going to do something to sort out the mess. Do we hear about potholes getting bigger in minor roads so that the money can be diverted to motorways, or regional airports using older and less reliable planes? Of course not. But our trains will continue to rattle along with minimal investment because the present Government and most previous governments keep allowing it to happen.
Michael Hopps, UK
As a rail user and a rail enthusiast, I would like to congratulate Mr Bowker on such a sensible approach. There is no economic case for maintaining lightly used lines to the same standards as the mainlines and I'm sure the safety case will not be ignored - how can it, with the hawk-eyed press knocking the railways at every opportunity!
Gary Mattingley, UK
They say "better value for money". For whose money? Not mine, if I happen to live outside their preferred routes. Maintenance during the week and slower trains mean worse value for my money. In practice, if the trains are not reliable on a route then it will mean even fewer passengers using the train and more using cars, exactly what the government says it doesn't want. Oh, and more congestion in cities and towns as more cars go in there, more pollution, more wear on the roads, more accidents...
Chris C, England
The taxpayers who use the cross country services deserve an equal level of service, safety and reliability to those who use the intercity (aka to and from London) services. This sounds like another example of a London-centred view by those who make policies. Perhaps the SRA should be made aware of the old saying "A stitch in time saves nine. " They sound like they are putting the long term future of the cross country services in jeopardy for the benefit of short term savings.
Gary Mullins, Leicestershire Yet again, service cuts everywhere apart from the South East. Why does the South East need so much of the money? They are complaining about their 1950's trains, but we have to put up with 1980's tin cans.
T, UK
This is yet another example of the British public having to pay the price of privatisation, and the rest of us having to pay the price while the south east receives even more investment. A substantial number of people outside the London region rely completely on the rail service to get to work, thus contributing to the British economy, and by not using cars we're also doing our bit for the environment.
Lucy Mulvagh, UK
As a rail enthusiast and a supporter of railways in the UK, I find it hard to believe that after the events of the Hatfield disaster and other such incidents that SRA are considering reducing the level of maintenance on any line. Surely the secondary routes demand the same level of maintenance as the main routes in order to ensure passenger safety. It appears to me that the intention of this proposal is that SRA wish to force people to use their cars to get from local areas to the main routes.
Shaun Marriott, Cumbria
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
