Rail Investment

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and John Leech

Thursday 17th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed, and that is true not just of north-south routes, but other routes, too.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of ancient equipment on the railways. It was worthy in British Rail’s time, but we have moved on. One problem with privatisation is that companies have no great incentive to improve investment in such things when they are trying to run as profitably as possible with existing equipment. Some people, including Eddington, suggest that capacity on main lines could be doubled with modern signalling and more frequent running. We could have trains every 180 seconds on those routes if we get the modern signalling.

We have heard a lot about extra rolling stock. In the short term, there are more than 100 unused carriages in Ireland. They are essentially Mark IIIs, and they could be immediately imported, re-bogied and used on main lines in Britain. Actually, they are more modern than our Mark IIIs because they have automatic doors, rather than slam doors. They could be bought cheaply now and installed quickly on our routes. That is a short-term fix—obviously, we want more investment and more rolling stock to be built, particularly by Bombardier—but we can make such changes.

On the west coast main line, the maximum operating speed will be 130 mph because there are tighter curves than on the east coast main line. However, 130 mph operation with modern signalling and high-frequency trains would still be sufficient, particularly if we got freight off the lines. That brings me to my next proposal, which is to get freight off the lines. Those who know me well will know that I have been proposing for a long time that we have a dedicated freight route from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, which would link all of Britain’s main conurbations. Why do we need a dedicated freight line? When it comes to existing freight routes, passengers and freight do not mix. They have different operating speeds and so on. Time and again, when there is a bit of a problem with a passenger train, the freight trains will be parked on one side while the passengers are given priority—people get much more upset than freight when they are delayed. Of course, freight operators get upset, but they have to suffer. However, if we have a dedicated freight line with no passengers, we would overcome those problems.

[Mr Leech]

The hon. Gentleman has been a long-time supporter of a dedicated freight route, but is it not possible, with the onset of a High Speed 2 line, that the extra capacity on the existing network would be enough to provide extra routes for freight movement? I totally agree that we need to move more freight from road to rail, but with the onset of an additional, high-speed line there would surely be enough capacity on the existing mainline networks to provide the necessary service.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman raises the point that I want to address now. The problem with putting more freight on such routes is that it would be impossible to fund the provision of sufficient gauge. It would be prohibitively expensive to make all the tunnels, bridges, platforms and so on able to take freight. We must have trains these days that are capable of taking full-scale containers—that is W10—and I suggest a scheme that could take full-scale lorry trailers on trains. Hauliers would put their trailers on the trains and they would be taken straight through from Glasgow to Rome, or Rome to Glasgow. I have spoken to the logistics managers of big companies and asked whether they would like to bring their water, wine or whatever from Bordeaux, which is a favourite town of mine, to Birmingham. They say it would be wonderful—fabulous—to send it all the way on the train. What they do now is train it to the coast of the continent and then put it on lorries. That transit would become unnecessary. They could roll a trailer on in Rome or Bordeaux and roll it off in Birmingham or Glasgow.

The problem with trying to upgrade all the existing routes for freight is that there would have to be a through-operation for continental freight trains. They are larger gauge and cannot get through our platforms, because they are wider, or through our tunnels or under our bridges, because they are taller. Certainly we could never have lorry trailers or double stack containers, as we are suggesting. To get serious volumes of freight through, a dedicated freight route is needed, and that is what our scheme is about. As I have said, I have no pecuniary interest in it. I have been passionate about it ever since I heard about it some years ago, and I have spoken on many platforms. I took a team of people to see Geoff Hoon when he was Secretary of State for Transport; they included representatives of supermarkets, Eurotunnel, the rail constructors and AXA—the insurance giant that funds terminals. There were 15 of us. I think that we answered every question put to us adequately. We could not persuade the Secretary of State then, but I hope that the present Government may listen sympathetically, at least.

What I propose could be done very cheaply. We have a precise route, which would involve only 14 miles of new route, nine of which would be in tunnels. The route would, as I have mentioned, use the Woodhead tunnel. The rest would be on existing under-utilised routes and old track bed. Initially we put a cost of £4 billion on it. One of the rail constructors said it could do it for £3 billion. We are now being generous and suggesting £6 billion; but that is still one third of what we propose to spend on Crossrail—which I also support. Nevertheless, our whole scheme, with its 400-mile route, would cost a third of what we are to spend on Crossrail, and would be commercially viable, because of the amount of traffic on it.