Rail Future
| Section | Closures |
railfuture northeast
Consultation on the implementation of the Railways Act 2005
provisions on closures and minor modifications
Response by Railfuture North East Branch
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An objective test of any closure proposal is valuable to the extent that it is supported by reliable
data, and that those consequences of service withdrawal and station closure that are not
quantifiable are explicitly spelled out.
Securing value for money for taxpayers is a laudable objective, but the financial aspects of
running a railway are not the whole story. The contribution that passenger rail services make to
accessibility and the environment is alluded to in the consultation draft, but is not given proper
weight.
The consultation draft fails completely to understand why many people choose to travel by train
even when they have a car available for the journey. Moreover, it gives no recognition to the
fact that many people in a household owning a car do not have access to that car for the
journey they wish to make, and may have no access to a car at all.
The consultation draft proposes a calculation in which the closure option is the comparator
against which other options, including maintenance of existing services, are assessed.
Logically, the status quo must be the comparator. This allows those consequences of closure
that are not financially quantifiable to be explicitly stated alongside the cost savings attributed to
each option.
Many of the parameters used in the calculation are estimates having considerable uncertainty in
their value even b efore they are extrapolated over the 60 year period of the process. Thus
many of the values used are at best educated guesses, and to pretend that the result of the
calculation has any quantifiable accuracy is totally misleading.
INTRODUCTION
The Prime Minister has stated recently (1) that “Climate change is probably the greatest long-
term challenge facing the human race. That is why I have made it a top priority for this
government, at home and internationally.” We would expect that the closure process proposed
in the consultation draft would reflect this commitment from the top.
It is very useful to have a series of objective tests by which closure proposals will be judged.
However, a properly objective test must be supported by reliable data. Where there are
uncertainties, these must be acknowledged honestly. Where the consequences of closure
cannot be quantified, they must nevertheless be spelled out explicitly. A narrow value for
money calculation cannot possibly embrace all of the factors involved. The consultation draft
lists many of these factors, and a credible closure proposal must examine all of them.
Overall, the consultation seeks to achieve value for money for the taxpayer, something with
which no sensible person would disagree. Nevertheless, there is much of the community rail
development strategy approach, that of reducing costs by specifying infrastructure appropriate
to the nature of the service and increasing patronage by promoting the services available, which
could improve value for money without the need for reductions in services.
railfuture, Campaigning by the Railway Development Society Ltd, a Company Limited by Guarantee.
Registered in England and Wales No 5011634. Registered Office: 18a Grantham Road, Bracebridge Heath, Lincoln, LN4 2LD
To continue reading
Request your trial