Return to Archive -by date - by topic.
Network Rail admits that some of its routes are feeling ‘fragile'.
Back in August last year,Network Rail instituted a network change procedure to limit the access and restrict the speed of locomotive hauled trains on the Boston-Skegness line. It followed the imposition of a ban on locomotive haulage following track damage.
At the time, Network Rail said that, following some patch and mend, up to 20 locomotive hauled passenger services would be allowed in any one year - subject to a 35mile/h speed restriction. Central Trains, EWS and charter operator FM Rail put in formal rejections.
On April 21 this year, Diane Harryman, Network Rail's Network Change Coordinator, London North Eastern, wrote to the affected operators apologising for ‘delays to date'. She explained that the proposals for the route have ‘exposed some significant issues for Network Rail and the industry as a whole'.
According to Ms Harryman, determining the best ‘whole industry' solution is proving ‘less than straightforward' and taking longer than ‘anyone would wish for'. This is not surprising given the yawning cap between the mixed traffic capability which Network Rail was funded to provide on the regional routes like Boston-Skegness and the exclusively DMU standards to which they have been maintained – but not for modern lardbutt DMUs (see above).
In an attempt to persuade operators to withdraw their objections to the change, Network Rail is still trying to ‘clarify' how train operation over the route could affected by the change in capability, in particular, timetabling issues.
Network Rail's engineers have also been instructed to assess the ‘full range of options' for maintenance and renewal in an attempt to find an ‘interim position'. This work has yet to identify any ‘viable' alternative solutions to the reductions in line speed and capability proposed by the change.
In her letter, Ms Harryman said that Network Rail was preparing a position paper which would review all the options for the route, including the removal of speed restrictions for locomotive hauled stock. However, the company still believes that, compared with the current capability to handle only diesel multiple units at line speed, this option would cost ‘considerably in excess' of the income generated.
This misses the point, because Network Rail gets £2.5billion in grant funding for just such ‘unprofitable routes. But Network Rail still claims that the cost/revenue mismatch creates ‘real issues' in terms of balancing its general obligations for network stewardship' against specific obligations on the Boston-Skegness route.
Train operators argue that the 2003 Access Charge Review fully funded Network Rail to maintain the route to the existing specification. The current cost of restoring locomotive haulage is a function of Network Rail's historic maintenance underspend.
In the letter, Ms Harryman said that Network Rail would provide clarification of its position on the current Network change proposal ‘by the end of April'. This had yet to materialise by the middle of June.
There are several routes like Boston-Skegness which, nominally, should be maintained to higher standards than those required by current DMU traffic. Network Rail refers to them as ‘fragile routes' and appears to be uncertain what do about them.
On the one hand, the Harryman letter says that the company is convinced that the Network Change is the best solution for the Boston-Skegness. In the next paragraph it says that internal discussions could result in the Change proposals being withdrawn and a new one issued.
A new proposal would re-set the clock on the Network Change Process. Further delaying the reinstatement of locomotive haulage.
Meanwhile, when I questioned ORR Chief Executive Bill emery on this issue on 31 May he told me ‘there is some sympathy with the view that if they (Network Rail) have not maintained a route they will be required to put railways back to the state they should be in'. He added ‘we don't particularly put them back if they are not going to be used, but they should be put back expeditiously if they are going to be used'. Is Alistair Darling advising ORR on how to handle the media?
And finallySeveral readers wrote to correct last month's statement that ‘Prism went pear shaped'. They were happy with the price paid by National Express for their Prism shares. Any changes between writing and publication of the column will be reported in Informed Sources e-preview sent by e-mail on the Monday of the week of publication. You can register using a simple form on Alycidon Rail ( www.alycidon.com . I may even include the extra fuel consumption of a class 185 versus a class 158! |