Network Rail Control Period 6 FoFNL Policy Document

A policy document setting out FoFNL's aspirations for Network Rail to include in its plans for work to be carried out in CP6.

We make three Recommendations:

1. A detailed study, with input from relevant bodies, should be carried out by Network Rail on each of the six routes unlikely to be electrified of the ideal timetable, and then (and only then) a study of what doubling, and associated signalling, would be needed to deliver it.
2. Immediately the rolling stock details ("tourist train" and others which may also be announced) are known a long-term cascading plan should be drawn up. It is understood that the Department for Transport is set against such thinking in England - all the more reason why Transport Scotland and the new franchisee should show DfT the way.
3. FoFNL will produce a separate paper outlining its views of the infrastructure enhancements needed on the FNL and Kyle Lines as an input to the process described in Recommendation 1. It is expected that this will follow within 2 months of the franchise announcement.

Friends of the Far North Line is a Rail User Group representing the interests of passengers and freight users of the Far North Line from Inverness to Thurso and Wick.

Network Rail (NR) will begin a fresh Route Study (RS) for Scotland shortly after the announcement of the new daytime franchise, expected to be "in the autumn". This paper suggests what it ought to incorporate. It is clear from the experience of how projects are taken forward (or not) that anything absent from NR's RS will not happen. Thus getting projects into the RS, at least as far as being mentioned, is vital. We regard ourselves as a serious contributor to this process and our Recommendations are based on a thoughtful insight and analysis of the present position on the Scottish railway. We return to Iain Coucher's words, taken from his speech over 6 years ago, since when journey times on the FNL have not reduced.

FoFNL will confine its thoughts to matters affecting rural railways in Scotland, and services connecting them to centres of population. It leaves the inter-city railway to others to comment upon.

Transport Scotland (TS) has a public policy commitment to financing the electrification of 100 single-track kilometres (stk) a year once the Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvements Programme (EGIP) is complete, probably by 2019. We expect the routes to be included in this rolling programme to be (in no particular order) Dunblane to Inverness; Perth to Dundee; Edinburgh to Aberdeen; the Fife Circle; the old GSWR route to Carlisle. For operational reasons we expect Aberdeen to Inverness to be electrified also, although we acknowledge that a business case may be hard to make on its own. Our reasoning is that the extended figure-of-eight of the main cities would then be on a single electrified system. We also expect minor electrification infills within the Greater Glasgow area.

If our analysis is correct the only Scottish routes still powered by diesel after about 2030 will be:

• Inverness to Thurso (for Scrabster and Orkney) and Wick (for Gills Bay and Orkney)
• Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh (for Skye, Harris and North Uist via Uig)
• Glasgow to Fort William and Mallaig (for Skye, Small Isles, Knoydart and South Uist)
• Crianlarich to Oban (for Mull, Colonsay, Coll, Tiree, South Uist and Barra)
• Glasgow to Stranraer (for Cairnryan, Larne and Belfast)
• Newcraighall to Tweedbank

The last of these will serve a large hinterland with no other access to rail services. Four of the other five all serve important towns which serve as ferry terminals for lifeline island services; the fifth (Stranraer) serves - or could serve - a ferry link to a major city.

We welcome the TS electrification policy, and expect it to start post-EGIP around the start of CP6 and to be concluded early in CP8 at the latest. We accept that diesel-powered trains will serve the six routes above at least until around 2030 and probably well beyond.

Thus it is right to give serious thought now to how services on these lines should be improved in the medium term - ie. in CP6. Improvements should be considered both to infrastructure and to Train Operating Company (TOC) matters - rolling stock and timetables. However it is impossible to separate timetable matters from infrastructure enhancements. There is a hidden danger in asking the question "what does NR need to do to make the current timetable better?". That would tend to cement the current timetable in place for ever: what needs to be asked is the question "what enhancements does NR need to make, perhaps over several years, to deliver the ideal timetable?".

We don't have all the answers, but we can shed some light on how a practical answer may be approached by considering outcomes, and noting existing things which seem to prevent these from happening.

What passengers want most from a rail service is reliability at reasonable cost. Cost is politically-influenced and is outwith the scope of this paper. Passengers wish to board a train when it is advertised and get off when they expect to, either because they have reached their destination or because they have onward travel arrangements. Delivering this reliability is particularly difficult on a single-line railway - there is no need to provide evidence as it is clear that a train which misses its path early in the day can cause disruption, often of increasing severity, throughout the day. The cost to the TOC of compensation, and - worse because it is invisible - to the delayed passengers (because consequential loss is not recoverable) is very large, and in some cases will undoubtedly lead to considerable distress. Preventing such knock-on delays lies at the root of the necessary enhancements.

It is impractical to seek to have the entire length of the six routes doubled, even where the solum still permits this. What is needed is a detailed study on each route of the ideal timetable, and then (and only then) a study of what doubling, and associated signalling, would be needed to deliver it. (FoFNL believes it can suggest the answers on the Far North Line, but we are not experts, and may well overlook important engineering factors: hence the need for this work to be carried out by NR. We are aware that such studies have been carried out in the past - most importantly the Room for Growth study by Scott Wilson of 24 March 2006, now on the TS website; these should be used as a foundation for more thorough work now.) Once this is done and rough costs known it will be possible for funders and passenger groups to argue their case to Government. Very large sums are being committed in Central Scotland to rail enhancements (and vastly larger sums south of the Border); rural and island communities have been left behind in many cases. Caledonian MacBrayne has acquired new vessels, but once the vessel has docked the on-land public transport connection is, in some cases, much as it was 30 years ago - except that it is often much slower, and more expensive.

We acknowledge that more trains run on the six routes than was the case 30 - or even 10 - years ago, but the journeys themselves are less comfortable. We do not expect to see a return to locomotive haulage of Mark 3 stock but nor do we expect to see the present ex-BR Class 15X units in service up to 2030 and beyond unless considerable internal and engineering improvements are carried out. EGIP will release a large fleet of Class 170 units and a sensible refurbishment of these for use on scenic rural routes may be possible. (The new franchise requires the provision of a "tourist train" for some - but curiously not all - of the six routes. It is hoped that details of what this means, and how it will be provided, will accompany the new franchise announcement.) TS in collaboration with Highland Rail Partnership carried out an excellent refurbishment of the Inverness Class 158 fleet some years ago, with input specifically aimed at better provision for tourists, as well as for local long-distance passengers. This model should be adopted for the six routes in the new franchise.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. A detailed study, with input from relevant bodies, should be carried out by Network Rail on each of the six routes of the ideal timetable, and then (and only then) a study of what doubling, and associated signalling, would be needed to deliver it.
2. Immediately the rolling stock details ("tourist train" and others which may also be announced) are known a long-term cascading plan should be drawn up. It is understood that the Department for Transport is set against such thinking in England - all the more reason why Transport Scotland and the new franchisee should show DfT the way.
3. FoFNL will produce a separate paper outlining its views of the infrastructure enhancements needed on the FNL and Kyle Lines as an input to the process described in Recommendation 1. It is expected that this will follow within 2 months of the franchise announcement.