May 2007 The Railway Engineers Forum The Railway Engineers Forum gave input to Sir Rod Eddington’s study into the future of transport in the UK. With the publication of his report in December 2006, there were many ‘instant’ reactions and comments. Much has happened in the intervening period and it is now time to give a more considered view of the proposals. The Railway Engineers Forum (REF) is a multi disciplinary liaison body comprising the rail interest groupings within the Professional Engineering Institutions. These are the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) Railway Division, the Institution of Engineering & Technology (IET), the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE), the Permanent Way Institution (PWI), the Railway Civil Engineers Association (RCEA) and the Institution of Railway Operators (IRO). The REF will provide informed engineering comment on railway issues both in response to government and transport industry proposals and to matters of more general concern.
The Eddington Findings and Recommendations in Summary The broad order conclusions of the report were:
- Transport is of great importance to the national economy
- The cost of transport congestion is significant
- The growing demand for transport will worsen congestion if not acted upon
- quickly by the improvement of existing networks
- Elimination of current pinch points is a good investment
- Environment problems through emissions are growing and future transport must take account of this
- Environmental pricing will become important
- Environment and social aspects of future transport policy must be taken into account but will worsen the financial return
- Domestic and international connections in the UK are good
- Heathrow will become more than just an air hub
- Planning mechanisms at both government and local level need streamlining to get things done
- Prioritisation should be given to (i) city and urban travel, (ii) inter city corridors, (iii) international gateways
- Devolved powers to the regions as happening in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will improve regional focus and buy in
The Future Transport Scene and Social Factors Eddington goes for a pragmatic rather than a revolutionary solution to provide for future transport needs. The REF is in broad agreement with this. In addition to the general conclusions above, more specific considerations look at likely transport trends for the future and whether anything can be done to positively steer things to a different outcome.
These are:
- Car ownership and journeys. The report concludes that the majority of passenger journeys are done by car. However most of these journeys – averaged at 77% - are less than 15km. Long distance journeys including commuting – greater than 30km – are only around 10%
- Freight by Road. Most HGV freight - 72% - have journeys greater than 100km. No figures are given for light goods and van movements but the local delivery networks are thought to be short distance.
- Air Transport. Whilst growth has been significant, carbon emissions from
- domestic air travel are only 1.2% of the national total. The dramatic fall in air fares prompted by the low cost airlines, will continue to fuel demand. The increasing carbon emissions, small in terms of national figures, is still reckoned to be significant and air travellers should be asked to pay the full cost of this. The pronouncement is not understood, as higher fares will not reduce carbon emissions unless they lead to a major reduction in air movements
- International Journeys. Good international access – from airports, ports and the Channel Tunnel – is vital to the UK economy. Whilst international gateways are good, surface access to the terminals is often poor and schemes to improve these will offer a good rate of return
- Congestion. This is the biggest problem for the UK. Elimination of congestion will do most to reduce carbon emissions, improve journey times and lower personal frustrations. Two main thrusts will achieve this:
- Elimination of road, rail and air pinch points. Many will be expensive to achieve and will have adverse local environmental impact making planning consent difficult. However these should be pursued with the necessary vigour.
- Introduction of differential pricing. Controversial as this is with the associated media paranoia, incentives for the public to travel at non peak times is a fundamental of Eddington’s thinking. Road pricing is also seen as necessary to reduce non essential road journeys
- Rail Network. Seen as improving in terms of service provision and performance. Route capacity in South East England is severely tested on some routes and there are other pinch points that need eliminating. Major investment in new routes is not seen as necessary or would give good value. Concentrating on upgrading existing routes is recommended. Obtaining greater capacity through new signalling, traffic management and train lengthening is a good investment
- Technology Advancement. The prediction that carbon emissions can be much reduced by the type and design of road vehicle engines is realistic. Already the trend is towards cars that can achieve 60-70 mpg. New forms of prime mover are predicted but look like taking a long time to reach fruition. Hybrid vehicles are not yet achieving the expected fuel savings. Hydrogen powered vehicles will not be a practical proposition for many years
In short, Eddington sees the key challenges as congestion elimination and carbon emission reduction. The report focuses on these two themes and the REF endorses this. A warning to be wary of transport ‘icons’ is made; having a bigger and grander scheme than projects in neighbouring countries can be an expensive luxury. However, the lack of opportunities for rail and the continued prominence of air travel may reflect on the author’s personal background and expertise.
The Future for Rail Transport Eddington does not major on rail transport, in fact it receives very little comment within the report. The REF believes this to be a missed opportunity. Whilst rail usage is currently enjoyed by only a minority of the country’s customer base, the opportunities for expansion are considerable. Acknowledgement is given to the improvement in train services of recent years but this has led to capacity problems. The report suggests that one remedy for this is pricing but the REF rejects this. The perception of over priced rail fares is already a major public criticism. To continue to increase prices to stem demand would be counterproductive and would put at risk REF Eddington response the current rise in patronage. Engineering solutions and initiatives should be at the forefront of rail expansion but it will always mean producing a robust business case.
- Rail Bottlenecks. Elimination of pinch points is recommended for rail as for other modes. This is recognised by the rail industry and much has already been done. Three categories exist – (i) replacing infrastructure where it was removed during the 1960/70s rationalisations, (ii) providing new infrastructure where capacity constraints are evident including terminal and station facilities, (iii) eliminating flat crossings with grade separated junctions.
The first category is relatively easy in engineering terms but is proving to be more expensive than it should be. The Chilterns route, St Austell – Probus, Filton Junction, Bristol Parkway platforms, the down platform at Swindon, are major schemes already achieved. Annan – Gretna is underway. Many more need to be planned: Swindon – Kemble, parts of the Cotswold line, Salisbury – Yeovil, Birmingham – Leamington, parts of the Midland Main Line around Leicester, and others. The plans need to also include replacing single lead junctions with layouts that enable parallel moves particularly where these lead into station throats.
The second category is both difficult to achieve and very expensive. Only the
West Coast 4 tracking in the Trent Valley is being undertaken. Many more
locations are long standing problems: Welwyn viaduct and tunnels, the Brighton Main Line south of Three Bridges, Coventry – Birmingham, Birmingham New Street capacity are four prime examples. In the freight sector, rail links to such as Felixstowe, Immingham and Southampton all suffer capacity or loading gauge constraints and thus limit rail usage. There needs to be a more determined effort to get these major constraint eliminations planned and designed.
The third category has achieved some recent successes, the Shortlands
underpass, the Allington curve and the Nuneaton flyover being three. The Hitchin and Stafford dive unders or flyovers have been on the horizon for many years and now seem to be actively planned. There will be many other locations where grade separation would aid capacity, performance and throughput.
The mixed traffic railway is often a constraint on capacity. Constructing a
timetable and route utilisation strategy to place similar categories of traffic onto specific lines will aid throughput. The opportunities are limited in the UK but examples of where this is practised already exist: heavy freight routed on the Carlisle – Kilmarnock and Settle – Carlisle routes keeps part of the West Coast route free for faster trains. The re-routing of container traffic from Felixstowe to the Midlands via Peterborough releases capacity in the London area. Such routes however may have heavy gradients that impose limits on trailing loads thus increasing traction operational costs.
Mention must also be made of the contribution that can be made to improving capacity by faster acceleration, improved line speeds, longer trains, better braking and reduced station dwell times. The advent of power doors and the limited number per coach side, has significantly increased the time to get passengers on and off a train. The capacity limitations at London Bridge are in part due to this. Quicker acceleration might mean having to upgrade power supplies and provide more powerful but better managed diesel engines. Adhesion control remains a problem and improving the technology to control slip slide management is important. Longer trains means longer platforms, the costs of which can be considerable.
- Urban Railways and New Routes. Increased capacity on urban railways is recommended. Again, this is already happening in some areas. The London Overground will be another major north - south Thames crossing, new commuter routes to Cardiff, new lines in Scotland have appeared or are well underway to assist commuting into Glasgow and Edinburgh. Aspirations for many others have existed for some time: Lewes – Uckfield, linking the Metropolitan Line into Watford Junction, the Blyth and Tyne, restoring a service to Ripon and Dunstable, are examples but all of these must stand up to financial scrutiny. New stations have come along regularly to meet the demands of new housing development and this looks set to continue.
- Light Rail and Metros. Only brief mention is made in the report on the
opportunities for light rail and trams. The systems in Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon, Nottingham, Sheffield, Tyne & Wear, and Docklands should not go unrecognised. Each has produced new traffic trends and some network enhancements are committed. However price escalation seems to be preventing other schemes from progressing: Bristol, Portsmouth, Leeds being examples. The price increase is due mainly to over complex contractual conditions and to protect against late delivery and onerous penalties. Only in Edinburgh is a new scheme underway and this is being achieved under devolution. The engineering community has a role to play to get implementation costs down, a more sensible contractual regime in place and the initiatives re-started.
London Underground is progressing its modernisation with a Public Private Partnership and this may be a formula that can be used elsewhere. However, managing the resulting interface can create the need for additional resources with a consequential unwanted on cost. - Regional Planning and Financing. The report hints at the destructive effect of muddled and over-consultative planning. Thameslink 2000 and London Crossrail are prime examples of protracted delay. This is both frustrating and demoralising for those engaged in the provision of new schemes. Engineers have a part to play in this as the engineering solution can have a significant effect on the environmental and intrusive impact of a scheme. It may be that increased decision making at a regional level will speed things up and it is notable that most recent successes have been in Scotland, Wales and the PTE areas. The client role does however need to be properly understood and a robust specification produced in advance.
- Electrification. Given the importance of carbon emission reduction in the report, it is surprising that no mention of rail electrification is made. Rail is currently unique amongst transport modes in that it can be powered from a variety of energy sources. Within mainland Europe, the dominant energy source for rail traction is electricity, which itself can be generated from coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. Some European railways are approaching 100% electrified (e.g. Switzerland) but the UK has lagged behind in getting its core network equipped for electric traction. Suburban routes around London and some other big cities have electrified routes with extensions into the regions. ATOC has pushed hard for future electrification and remains confident that strategic infill and suburban
add on schemes will feature in the next series of route enhancements.
Electrification is popular with the public for several reasons: it has an image of cleanliness, it does not pollute at the point of usage, it generates less noise, it is associated with speed and efficiency. Rail engineers need to improve the reliability of the overhead wires as the all too frequent service disruptions due to catenary problems are damaging to rail’s reputation. - High Speed Lines and Other New Build. The report dismisses the case for building new high speed lines. The basis for this is that the time advantages to be gained in serving the medium distance cities from London viz. Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, is only marginal and does not justify the investment required. The London Scotland routes would see significant time benefits but these are already so dominated by air that a significant enough shift in travel patterns would not be realised. Also the energy requirements for a train to run above 250mph are considerable and comparable with air travel. The REF, whilst recognising the technical arguments, believes the report to be short sighted and unimaginative on this issue. High Speed lines in other countries generate a new enthusiasm for rail travel and the Channel Tunnel link will do likewise. A new high speed north south link with linkages to the main population centres of Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, plus Glasgow and Edinburgh, would do much to make rail the norm for travelling to such locations. This in turn would obviate the need for some expensive upgrade works on existing lines and widening motorways on the same corridors.
New build does not always have to be associated with High Speed Lines. In Europe new lines are being constructed for freight (the Betuweroute in Holland being a prime example) and similar type investments may need to be considered in the UK where upgrading of existing lines is not possible or economic. A Capacity Enhancement Group is already established to examine where such routes might be needed. - International Gateways. The report concludes that access to many of these is poor but offers no suggestions for improving rail connections. Heathrow is cited as the principal UK hub but with major capacity and congestion problems. The opportunities for fast rail connections to the principal English and Welsh cities would offer acceptable onward journey times as well as releasing airport capacity. Other UK airports would benefit from better rail connections. Only Gatwick, Southampton, Stansted, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester are served by train services to a multiplicity of destinations, with the others either not having a rail service or with only a service to the local city. Schemes for rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports and the new East Midlands Parkway station look like being funded.
Serving ports by rail is patchy, with Immingham, Hull, Newport, Hunterston,
Southampton, Felixstowe and Tilbury being good for freight, but very limited
elsewhere. Even at rail served ports, transhipment costs can be a barrier to
competitiveness, where charges for loading a rail vehicle are higher than loading a lorry. The use of the Channel Tunnel for through freight has not matched expectations and the introduction of through passenger services beyond London might usefully be re-examined. The transport by rail of foot passengers direct to ferry terminals still occurs at many of the smaller ports but the once famous harbour stations at the busy cross channel ports have been lost despite the continuing sizeable market.
- The Relationship between Commercial and Engineering factors. The fares paid by customers for rail services will impact on the demand, which in turn will impact on capacity and congestion. Currently, demand is growing at an unprecedented rate, despite the perception of high fares and tariffs compared to elsewhere. This is unusual and could change if the national economy were to falter. Whilst commercial decisions can be made and implemented quickly, engineering work to support any major growth in traffic levels cannot, particularly where this involves additional capacity. A plea is made therefore that commercial decisions taken to boost rail usage are analysed and modelled for operating and engineering implications before being fully introduced. This would include decisions outside of the rail sector, e.g. road pricing and air taxes to combat pollution.
Conclusions The REF believes that Sir Rod Eddington fulfilled his remit with a realistic report. The challenge for engineers is to enable his proposals to be progressed at an affordable cost and in an acceptable timescale. The means of achieving this will need a separate debate but ways of doing projects – particularly rail projects – at a cheaper price have to be found. Rail, in line with road and air, must be able to offer a 7 day service and the REF will be assessing this challenge later in 2007. The sponsors of
the report have not yet declared as to how far they will adopt the recommendations. The REF advice is to take on board the broad order strategy but to give consideration to the additional points in this commentary, summarised in the following bullets:
Encouragement of rail usage for long distance travel and freight movement within the UK and to the near continent by continued investment in higher speed Inter City and freight services to link the main centres. Plan for extension of these services to serve the main UK airports as part of the encouragement of modal shift away from short haul internal air routes Electrification of all major and heavier trafficked trunk routes in conjunction with the development of ‘green’ electricity supplies and a price incentive to use electric traction whenever possible. Emphasise wherever possible the environmental benefits of rail over other transport systems Development of fuel cells and other alternatives to diesel traction for provincial and branch lines, in line with new developments for powering road vehicles Sensible and ‘value for money’ investment to increase capacity at pinch points, with selective reopening of lines to serve large new growth communities currently without a rail service using a simplified planning regime Further develop stations at city, town and urban sites to be transport hubs and centres for modal transfer Encourage the continued expansion of light rail and tram projects by a more realistic contractual structure and easier planning rules Support research and development into policies and technologies that reduce road congestion, whilst retaining the flexibility to address environmental societal issues. Clive Kessell
Chairman, Railway Engineers Forum
May 2007
Back to top
