NZPA: June 30 2008

Haggling over the details of the government buyback of Toll Holdings' rail business in New Zealand will go right to the wire today.

The deadline is midnight today and late yesterday agreement on all aspects of the deal had not been reached.

Plans are in place for a big revelation of the new look of the business at Wellington's railway station on Tuesday.

In May the Government and Toll announced a heads of agreement for the government to buy Toll's rail and ferry assets for $665m. There are another $25m of associated costs.

The heads of agreement, which had to be announced because Toll is a listed company, sets out principles but there was still a lot of negotiating to do on the detail.

NZPA understands that negotiaters were working hard in the offices of lawn firm Russell McVeagh at the weekend and that the talks are set to go on right up to the deadline.

It was minutes before midnight when a government official finally handed over a small coin when the track was repurchased for $1 after a tense negotiation.

There will be no announcements from the Government until the negotiations are concluded.

The Government has not confirmed speculation that former National Party prime minister Jim Bolger will be chairman of the new rail operator.

Rail Corp is understood to be the working name of the business in documents but not its final name. A new paint job on locomotives is believed to drop the green and gold Australian look and include black but not on the front and back for rail safety reasons.

The road transport industry is concerned that Toll's ongoing trucking business Toll Tranzlink will enjoy cheap rents on leased rail land and cheap rail charges going forward.

The refinancing of the rail company's debt will also be an issue as the company benefitted from the parent Toll's credit rating. Debt will be assumed in the transaction as is normal in a takeover.

Railfreight is most likely to have a future on long haul routes and when successfully connecting to ports. Passenger services in cities and tourist routes are also seen as core areas.

"Rail has been a commercial failure," a report on the port sector by Rockport Corporate Finance Ltd said this month.

The report said that long suffering tax payers may be surprised at the scale of a subsidy needed from government.

The buyback of the rail business by the Crown comes at a time Australian state of Tasmania struggles to retain a viable rail business.

Issues affecting rail in New Zealand going forward include:

* the cost of fixing up the track and buying new locomotives and rolling stock to increase efficiency;

* how the company will be affected by a proposed law allowing heavier trucks and a revival in coastal shipping.

A history of rail deals:

1990 - Government transfers all of its rail and inter-island ferry operations into New Zealand Rail Ltd but retains ownership of the land under the track and at depots. NZRL had a 40 year lease with a 40 year right of renewal. It has exclusive use of the rail lines and has to fund all maintenance.

1993 - NZRL is sold to Tranz Rail Holdings Ltd, a consortium comprising Wisconsin Central Transportation Corp, Berkshire Partners LLC and Fay Richwhite and Co, for $328.3 million. The company has about $300m of debt and $105m of equity.

1995 - Tranz Rail makes a $100m return of capital to the founding shareholders, almost equal to the initial equity they have in the company.

1996 - New shares in Tranz Rail are sold to the public and are listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange and NASDAQ. The sale raises $175m, virtually all of which is used to repay debt.

2003 - Toll Holdings launches a takeover for the company at a time when the Crown has negotiated a heads of agreement giving it a 35 percent stake. A court case reveals Tranz Rail is near financial collapse. Toll signs a separate heads of agreement with the government that leads to the sale of the track and sets up a track access regime that is never adhered to.

2007 - Toll Holdings moves to 100 percent ownership of Toll NZ.

May 2008 - Heads of agreement is signed between the Government and Toll to sell the rail business back to the Crown, leaving Toll with a trucking, warehousing and freight forwarding business.

See also:

Rail rolls into government ownership

NZPA: July 1 2008

In fairytales midnight is when carriages become pumpkins but for New Zealand's railways it marked the changeover from public to private ownership.

Haggling over the details of the government buyback of Toll Holdings' rail business went right to the wire last night before a function this morning to reveal the new look business at Wellington's railway station.

In May the Government and Toll announced a heads of agreement for the Government to buy Toll's rail and ferry assets for $665m. There are another $25m of associated costs.

The Dominion Post reported today the new rail and ferry services were to be rebranded KiwiRail and the new livery would include a rust colour as well as safety yellow at the front and back.

It has been rumoured former prime minister Jim Bolger would chair the new crown company which would have a separate board from OnTrack.

However, the newspaper said it understood the two entities would be brought under one holding company within a few months.

Branding of the Interislander ferries, and TranzScenic and TranzMetro train services would not be changed.

NZPA reported yesterday the sticking point before the deal could go through related to road transport industry concerns that Toll's ongoing trucking business Toll Tranzlink would enjoy cheap rents on leased rail land and cheap rail charges.

See also:

Bolger to head Govt's 'KiwiRail' service

New Zealand Herald: July 01, 2008

The renationalised rail system is to be called KiwiRail and will be run by an establishment board under former prime minister Jim Bolger.

The Government took ownership of the rail and ferry assets at midnight.

In May, the Government and Toll announced a heads of agreement for the Government to buy Toll's rail and ferry assets for $665m. There were another $25m of associated costs.

The KiwiRail establishment board will manage the service until decisions about how it would be run are made. The Government already has a separate state owned enterprise, OnTrack, to look after the tracks.

Finance Minister Michael Cullen said a Rail Development Group would report to him and State Owned Enterprises Minister Trevor Mallard in early August with recommendations for the structure and management of the rail business. Cabinet would then make decisions.

Dr Cullen said options ranged from a single SOE including OnTrack and KiwiRail as separate divisions to a separate crown entity and SOE.

"New Zealand's rail network is now back in New Zealand's hands," Dr Cullen said.

"We will now be able to make the investments necessary to develop a world-class 21st century rail system for New Zealanders."

He said potential reconfigurations in Auckland and Wellington would see changes to maintenance and storage to cope with more stock for metro areas.

Also on the board with Mr Bolger, who chairs Kiwibank and New Zealand Post, were Brian Corban, Mark Franklin, Ross Wilson, Brian Jackson, Linda Constable and Ross Martin.

Prime Minister Helen Clark said government ownership would allow it to make strategic decisions and investments to help rail make New Zealand more sustainable.

In addition to Jim Bolger, the other members of the KiwiRail board are:

* Brian Corban,
* Mark Franklin,
* Ross Wilson,
* Brian Jackson,
* Linda Constable,
* Ross Martin

- NZPA

Posted on 12:21 AM | Permalink

Early Day Motion 1723: 09.06.2008

David Drew, Labour MP for Stroud put down an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons earlier this month calling on First Great Western to retain and improve buffet car services. To date 35 MPs have signed the EDM - a kind of Parliamentary petition. You can read it below. Why not contact your MP to ask them to sign EDM 1723? You can contact your MP by clicking here.

Say No to FGW's pork pies!

Withdrawal of First Great Western Buffet Car Services

"That this House is deeply concerned at reports that First Great Western plan to remove buffet car services; notes that the withdrawal of the buffet car will initially be on routes between London, Oxford, Cheltenham, Bristol and Exeter and that this in turn will impact on the provision of buffet car availability on all services throughout the West of England and South Wales; believes that the buffet car is an essential service for both business and leisure travellers and refutes First Great Western's attempt to play off catering provision against reliability and performance by claiming that removal of buffet cars will improve timings of their high speed train services; further notes that there is no obligation in its franchise agreement for FirstGroup to remove buffet cars and is therefore concerned that this is a cost-cutting measure, which will cause even more discomfort for passengers and is appalled that First Great Western passengers have to endure this latest attack when First Great Western's rail division has announced profits of £120 million on the back of fare increases and significant Government subsidy; and calls on First Great Western to immediately assure passengers that it will retain and improve all its buffet car services."

Signatures( 35)

David Drew, (Labour Party) Stroud
John McDonnell, (Labour Party) Hayes and Harlington
Roger Berry, (Labour Party) Kingswood
Martin Caton, (Labour Party) Gower
Doug Naysmith, (Labour Party) Bristol North West
Andrew George, (Liberal Democrats) St Ives
Adrian Sanders, (Liberal Democrats) Torbay
Kelvin Hopkins, (Labour Party) Luton North
Albert Owen, (Labour Party) Ynys Môn
Colin Breed, (Liberal Democrats) South East Cornwall
Jeremy Browne, (Liberal Democrats) Taunton
John Leech, (Liberal Democrats) Manchester Withington
Stephen Williams, (Liberal Democrats) Bristol West
Dai Davies, (INDEPENDENT) Blaenau Gwent
Clare Short, (INDEPENDENT LABOUR) Birmingham Ladywood
Alan Simpson, (Labour Party) Nottingham South
Elfyn Llwyd, (Plaid Cymru) Meirionnydd Nant Conwy
Peter Luff, (Conservative Party) Mid Worcestershire
Chris McCafferty, (Labour Party) Calder Valley
Jeremy Corbyn, (Labour Party) Islington North
Janet Dean, (Labour Party) Burton
James Gray, (Conservative Party) North Wiltshire
Graham Stringer, (Labour Party) Manchester Blackley
Robert N Wareing, (Labour Party) Liverpool West Derby
Brian Jenkins, (Labour Party) Tamworth
Mark Williams, (Liberal Democrats) Ceredigion
Betty Williams, (Labour Party) Conwy
Katy Clark, (Labour Party) North Ayrshire and Arran
Sian C James, (Labour Party) Swansea East
Dennis Skinner, (Labour Party) Bolsover
Daniel Rogerson, (Liberal Democrats) North Cornwall
Nick Harvey, (Liberal Democrats) North Devon
Alasdair McDonnell, (Social Democratic and Labour Party) Belfast South
Ann Cryer, (Labour Party) Keighley
Linda Riordan, (Labour Party) Halifax

Posted on 9:28 AM | Permalink

Reuters: Jun 27, 2008

BERLIN -- Germany's finance minister and Deutsche Bahn are locked in a dispute over financing the upkeep of the rail operator's track network after its planned partial privatisation in November, a newspaper has reported.

Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck wants to cut the amount of money the government plans to make available for the upkeep of Bahn's rail network after the sell-off, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported.

A Finance Ministry spokesman declined to comment on the report, as did a spokesman for Deutsche Bahn.

Steinbrueck wanted to make 2 billion euros ($3.15 billion) of state funds available annually over a 10-year period for investment in the rail network instead of 2.5 billion originally envisaged, the FAZ reported.

Of the 2 billion euros from the government, 500 million would be in the form of interest-free loans, which Bahn would then have to raise, the FAZ added, citing no source.

Under the planned partial privatisation, the government will sell just under a quarter of the company's transport, logistics and services business to private investors. Its rail tracks, stations and energy supply unit will remain in state hands.

The government expects the sale to raise between 5 and 8 billion euros.

Steinbrueck wanted to limit state spending on the rail system to be able to achieve a balanced budget in 2011, the FAZ reported.

Posted on 8:44 AM | Permalink

BBC News: 26 June 2008

About 700 cleaners who work on the Tube have walked out in the first of a series of strikes to demand higher pay and better working conditions.

The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union members want a London "living wage" of £7.20 an hour instead of the current £5.50.

They began the 24-hour strike at 1850 BST on Thursday and plan to walk out again for 48 hours on 1 July.

Transport for London (TfL) said the strikes were "completely unnecessary".

A TfL spokesman said: "Following the transfer of Metronet to Transport for London, we will be working with Metronet and its sub-contractors to ensure that they pay their employees who work on the Tube the London living wage.

"We have already reassured all interested parties, notably the trade unions, that we are taking this commitment forward.''

But RMT leader Bob Crow described the current pay and conditions as "outrageous" and said cleaners were not entitled to receive sick pay, travel facilities or a decent pension.

"Our members have been subjected to massive intimidation but tonight they will make history by striking for the first time ever for the living wage their fat cat employers have so far denied them," he said.

The RMT also called for an end to the practice of cleaners being fired from their jobs without a disciplinary hearing or right to appeal against the decision.

An early day motion supporting the cleaners was tabled by Hayes and Harlington MP John McDonnell and backed by 24 other London MPs.

See also:

Poverty wages indefensible says RMT as Tube cleaners prepare to strike tonight

RMT: June 26 2008

THE POVERTY wages paid to London Underground cleaners are indefensible, their union says today as 700 RMT members working for four cleaning subcontractors prepare to begin their first-ever strike at 18:50 tonight.

Attempts to kick-start talks at Acas last night came to nothing as the employers made no effort to negotiate.

The number of MPs signing a Commons motion supporting the cleaners, condemning the employers and urging the mayor to ensure that contract cleaners are paid the London living wage had risen to 24 this morning (text and list below).

After voting to strike by a landslide 125-one margin, RMT cleaners working for ISS, ITS, ICS and GBM will not book on for shifts that commence during the 24 hours between 18:50 tomorrow (June 26) and 18:49 on Friday June 27.

"Our members have been subjected to massive intimidation but tonight they will make history by striking for the first time ever for the living wage their fatcat employers have so far denied them," RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

"These bosses are making millions on the backs of workers who are paid at rates it is simply impossible to live on, and that is indefensible.

"Our AGM in Nottingham has pledged complete support for the Tube cleaners' campaign for a living wage, and the employers should now get around the table with us to negotiate a living wage," Bob Crow said.

ends

Notes to editors: A second, 48-hour, strike is also scheduled for all shifts commencing between 18:50 on Tuesday July 1 and 18:49 on Thursday July 3.

The cleaners' demands also include 28 days' holiday, sick pay, decent pensions and travel facilities, and an end to the barbaric practice of 'third-party sackings' in which cleaners can be dismissed, with no disciplinary hearing or right of appeal, at the behest parties other than the employer - a device used to get rid of union activists.

Early Day Motion 1872

CONDITIONS FOR CLEANERS EMPLOYED ON LONDON UNDERGROUND

Tabled by John McDonnell and signed by June 26 by Harry Cohen, Andrew Dismore, Neil Gerrard, Diane Abbot, Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Durkan, Andrew George, Linda Riordan, Lindsay Hoyle, Lynne Jones, Chris McCafferty, Alasdair McDonnell, Gregory Campbell, Ronnie Campbell, Ann Cryer, Janet Dean, Ian Gibson, John Battle, Peter Bottomley, Robert Wareing and Phil Willis

"That this House fully supports the 700 cleaners on London Underground who are members of the RMT union, who have voted by a margin of 125-to-one to take strike action for the London living wage and improved working conditions, including decent sick pay, pensions, holiday entitlement and travel facilities; notes that the action also seeks to end the disgraceful practice of third-party sackings in which cleaners can be dismissed, with no disciplinary hearing or right of appeal, at the behest of parties other than the employer; is appalled that these vulnerable workers who do such an essential job for London must get by on rates of pay of little more than £5.50 an hour; believes that such exploitation brings shame on London as it prepares for the 2012 Olympics; further notes that the cleaners are employed by contractors ISS, ITS, ICS and GBM who are subcontracted to Metronet and Tube Lines to undertake cleaning for London Underground; therefore believes that Transport for London (TfL) has a clear responsibility to assist in resolving this dispute; calls on the Mayor of London to honour the pledge of the previous Mayor that cleaners on Metronet contracts would receive the London living wage as soon as they passed under TfL control, and to bring pressure on Tube Lines also to pay the living wage; condemns the intimidation of cleaners by employers in this dispute; and urges cleaning bosses instead to direct their energies to reaching a just, negotiated statement."

Posted on 4:07 AM | Permalink

AFX UK: 2008-06-27 07:48

FRANKFURT -- The European Commission has criticised in a formal letter to the German government the new company structure of rail operator Deutsche Bahn AG. that is slated for privatisation later this year, Financial Times Deutschland reported.

The report cited Commission sources.

The German government has decided to sell a 24.9 percent stake in Deutsche Bahn's DB Mobility Logistics unit in an initial public offering (IPO) expected for November, while its rail network and station assets will remain state-owned.

The EU Commission has doubts the new structure ensures the independence of new rail network operator DB Netz from Deutsche Bahn, needed to ensure fair access to the network by competitors.

The Commission fears Deutsche Bahn board members could influence decisions on the allocation of rail tracks to competitors, according to the report.

It said the Commission is calling for a ban on moves of executives between DB Mobility Logistics and DB Netz for a certain period.

frederik.richter@thomsonreuters.com fr1/ms1

Posted on 2:24 AM | Permalink

Financial Times: June 26 2008 03:00
By Robert Wright

When Alstom Transport unveiled its new high-speed train, the AGV, in February, there were telling signs of how much the supplier's markets have changed.

The representatives of SNCF, the French state train operator, which once accounted for nearly all the trainmaker's orders, were only observers at the ceremony. Attention focused instead on executives from NTV, an Italian private start-up company that will be the train's first operator.

The scene underlined how important export orders have become to trainmakers, which were once mainly suppliers to their countries' state rail monopolies. It also illustrated how liberalisation is making private operators increasingly important to companies such as Alstom, the world's number two trainmaker.

The two trends are among the most important influencing Philippe Mellier, chief executive, as he tries to drive up the profitability of the division, which made earnings before interest and taxes of €293m ($456m) on €5.29bn sales for the year to March 31.

Besides his eye-catching initiative to develop a freight version of his flagship high-speed trains, Mr Mellier is also taking more prosaic steps. He is ensuring the company competes only for business that is guaranteed to bring a good return, trying to compete better in the freight locomotive market.

He rails against non-European companies he believes have unfair advantages over Alstom, operating from protected home markets but seeking to export to the lucrative European market.

"We don't have fair access to a number of markets," he says.

Alstom, Bombardier Transportation - the world's number one trainmaker - and Siemens, the number three, all have standard products that they seek to sell to buyers worldwide. They need significant orders from several customers to cover the development costs.

However, Alstom's large order book of about €18bn allows it to be disciplined about which tenders it chases, Mr Mellier says.

"We try to concentrate on tenders we believe we can win because we have the right product or it's a repeat order," he says. "There's no point in rushing for a project and not having all the right tools and the right re-sources."

Alstom recently lost an order for freight diesel locomotives from SNCF. It also pulled out of Britain's controversial InterCity Express programme for new high-speed trains.

"We thought it would be extremely difficult to answer the customers' requirement looking at the products we had," Mr Mellier says. "So we thought we would pass this time."

In China, Alstom is exporting only relatively old high-speed train designs because it fears letting local manufacturers know how newer trains are made, as Chinese contracts would require. Other manufacturers - including Germany's Siemens and Japan's Kawasaki Heavy Industries - have been less cautious.

"I'm not so sure we want to export our latest technology," Mr Mellier says.

In Europe, private companies are growing important not only in the passenger sector represented by NTV, but especially in freight.

Private operators focus far more on meeting the needs of their passengers and freight users, according to Mr Mellier. Unlike state-owned operators, they leave train design and, often, maintenance wholly to trainmakers.

"The traditional model of the state-owned operator doing everything will disappear," he says.

Alstom has largely missed out on a market created by liberalisation - for locomotives able to use more than one country's electrification and signalling systems. State train operators' locomotives traditionally operated only in their home country.

However, Alstom's Prima III locomotive is designed to take it into that market.

"Maybe we were late - yes, I agree with that," Mr Mellier says. "But we will have the latest technology, fully interoperable."

Yet Mr Mellier remains frustrated by the competition he faces in Europe. While Alstom is in effect barred from Japan and South Korea, Japan's Hi-tachi has won a big UK order and South Korea's Rotem has sold metro cars in Germany and Greece. Meanwhile, EMD of the US supplies freight locomotives in Europe.

"We are for competition and we like competition," Mr Mellier says. "But it has to be open and it has to be done in a transparent way, so we get reciprocity bet-ween our markets."

Posted on 9:14 AM | Permalink

Sofia Echo: 26 Jun 2008
Spasena Baramova

The European Commission (EC) sent letters to 24 European Union member states, among them Bulgaria, urging them to start implementing properly the legislation of the first railway package, the press service of the EC said in a statement on June 26 2008.

Save for Bulgaria, the Commission came across failure or improper implementation of the legislation in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia and the United Kingdom.

The creation of an integrated railway market will be a key factor in boosting its efficiency and competitiveness, as well as a further step in ensuring sustainable mobility in Europe, the statement said, quoting EC vice-president in charge of transport Antonio Tajani as saying: “Proper transposition of the first railway package is essential for creating competition in the European railway markets and increasing the competitiveness of railways in relation to other modes of transport.”

In May 2006, the EC ascertained that, although Member States had introduced the necessary legislation, some countries needed to take further measures to ensure an effective regulatory framework as well as satisfactory functioning of railway markets. The deadline for implementation of the first package was March 2003, the EC statement reminded.

Posted on 4:15 AM | Permalink

RMT: June 25 2008

THE COST-CUTTING removal of staff from railway stations by profit-hungry privateers is undermining safety for passengers and rail workers and must be reversed, the industry’s biggest union says today.

Launching its Safer Journey campaign at its annual general meeting in Nottingham, RMT points out that just 10p in every £1 from the £300 million made each year by private train operators would fund the return of 1,000 staff to Britain’s unstaffed or understaffed stations.

The union is calling for a ban on any further de-staffing while a comprehensive review of station staffing levels is undertaken, with a view to ensuring that every station is staffed by at least two people throughout traffic hours.

Delegates in Nottingham also demanded that transport employers take seriously their duty of care towards staff – including ending lone working, ensuring that station staff are directly employed and properly trained and offering proper support to those who are assaulted at work rather than treating them as part of the problem.

“It is astonishing, but the ministers responsible for setting rail franchises and handing over £2 billion in subsidy have no idea how many stations have been left unstaffed or understaffed since the industry was privatised,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today (see notes).

“What we do know is that safety fears are one of the key factors putting people off using trains, particularly women traveling alone at night, and that far too many of our members are assaulted when they are left to work alone.

“We also know that just ten per cent of the £300 million of taxpayers’ and fare-payers’ money that the operators leech from the industry in profits would pay the wages of 1,000 extra station staff.

“As things stand the government is handing over public money to private franchisees and telling them that it is OK to put their profits before our members’ and the public’s safety.

“The people who work and travel on the railways want to see more staff on stations, not fewer, and a ban on any further de-staffing is now urgent as a first step towards ensuring that all stations are adequately staffed," Bob Crow said

ends

Notes to editors: In 2007, on the back of £2 billion in government subsidy, the combined profits of the train operating companies were approximately £300 million (taken from the annual reports and accounts of the six biggest operators of rail passengers services: Arriva; First Group; Go-Ahead; National Express; Stagecoach, and Virgin)

The overall cost of employing a full time station staff employee is £31,111, inclusive of employer costs (The former Strategic Rail Authority’s document “Railways for All – March 2005 (2) calculated that it would cost £1.4m to provide five staff per station over a period of nine years (2006/07 to 2014/15). £1.4m divided by nine = £155,555. Then divide £155,555 by 5 = £31,111 each.)

Operating passenger services on a not-for-profit basis would allow substantial revenue to be re-invested in improving the railway. Just ten per cent of the train operating companies’ annual profits could pay for an extra 1,000 to be put on stations.

* As illustrated by the questions below the government does not know how many stations are unstaffed in the evening or outside morning and evening peak periods or at the weekend. Neither does it hold information on how many stations are staffed from the beginning to the end of traffic.

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many stations on the national rail network are unstaffed (a) after 18.00 hours, (b) at the weekend and (c) outside morning and evening peak periods. (208282)
Tom Harris: The Department does not hold this information. Staffing levels at railway stations is a matter either for Network Rail at its managed stations or for the relevant train operating company at the franchised stations.
June 6, 2008

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many stations there are on the national rail network; how many stations on the national rail network are wholly unstaffed; and how many stations on the national rail network are staffed from the beginning to the end of traffic.
Tom Harris: There are currently 2,515 stations owned by Network Rail, on the national rail network. Information about staffing levels at these stations is a matter either for Network Rail at its managed stations or for the relevant train operating company at the franchised stations.
June 9, 2008

* The 2005 National Audit Office Report Maintaining and improving Britain’s railway stations that showed only between 38% and 62%, depending on the size of the station, of passengers are satisfied with personal security whilst using train stations. The report further explains that the 2004 National Passenger Survey found that half of the 17% of passengers who had cause to worry about their personal safety on the railway cited a lack of station staff as a reason for their concern. The NAO report also pointed out that research conducted for the Department for Transport in 1996 and 2002 “suggests that improving personal safety would result in 15% more journeys by train (and Underground) much of it outside peak hours.

Posted on 11:04 AM | Permalink

BBC News: 24 June 2008

Ministers are being urged to switch planned investment at Heathrow Airport to new high speed rail lines.

The report says more than a third of flights from Heathrow are short-haul

The government is planning a third runway at the west London airport.

But a study for the Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union said thousands of jobs would be created and pollution would fall if rail was prioritised.

The Department of Transport said the success of Heathrow as an international hub is fundamental to the success of the UK economy.

The report for the RMT says over a third of flights from Heathrow are short-haul, more than 20 per cent go to destinations already served by a viable rail alternative, and one in five more are to places where rail is a potential alternative.

"Unilateral action to constrain growth at Heathrow means passengers simply choose another airport for their onward flight" - Spokeswoman, Department of Transport

It also claims where high-speed rail links have been opened there has been a significant switch from air to rail, and warns the UK is in danger of being left behind as countries like Spain benefit from rail investment.

The RMT leader Bob Crow said: "This report shows that high-speed rail can provide a win-win solution for the economy and the environment."

But the Department for Transport said "some people will need to fly because they are using Heathrow as a connection to another country".

She added: "Unilateral action to constrain growth at Heathrow means passengers simply choose another airport for their onward flight. This doesn't save carbon, it just costs jobs."

The government was investing heavily in the rail network, with £10bn earmarked over the next five years, she said.

See also:

BAR bites back at RMT

Travel Mole: 25 June, 2008

Airline representative group BAR has hit back at rail union RMT’s report that more rail services should replace short haul flights from Heathrow.

The RMT said more high-speed rail links should be invested in rather than another runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow, claiming 20% of flight journeys out of the London hub could be done by rail.

This, says the union, would benefit the economy, create jobs and cut pollution.

But BAR says the report is flawed because it is London-focussed and ignores the fact that many of the passengers taking short-haul flights do not start their journey in the capital and connect from the regions.

It adds that 80% of journeys cannot be done by rail and the airport is “full to bursting”, adding that even though plans to expand the airport are in their early stages, they are still way ahead of any plans for high speed rail links.

BAR UK’s chief executive Mike Carrivick said: “The debate should not be about planes or trains. It is not one or the other. Instead it should be about how soon rail links to Heathrow can be improved. It is vital that public transport access to Heathrow, and the other major UK airports, is improved.

“Airlines would welcome the addition of new rail links to Heathrow, and we look forward to working with rail stakeholders to achieve those aims.”

He added: “BAR UK played a significant role in saving the Gatwick Express service because of its belief in the vital role rail services play in airport surface access. We would welcome the opportunity to play our part in supporting enhanced rail services to Heathrow.’’

See also:

Economy 'needs trains not planes'

BBC News: 24 June 2008

High-speed rail services could reduce the number of flights from Heathrow

High-speed rail links would benefit the environment and the economy more than plans to expand Heathrow airport, says a survey by the UK's rail union.

The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union said switching investment from airports to tracks would create jobs and cut pollution.

The RMT's report said that if high-speed rail links were introduced, Heathrow would not need a third runway.

It warns the UK may be left behind as European rivals boost rail investment.

Rail revival

The RMT's report found that more than a third of all flights from Heathrow were short-haul and more than 20% of those went to places that could be reached by rail.

"If we provide a viable, fast and sustainable alternative to short-haul flights, the case for Heathrow expansion would evaporate" - Bob Crow, RMT union

It also found that commuters were willing to switch from air to rail where high-speed links existed.

The UK was also in danger of falling behind European countries such as Spain, where the government had announced a significant rail investment, the report said.

RMT general secretary Bob Crow said: "Paris remains Heathrow's top destination and there are as many flights leaving for Edinburgh as for New York.

"If we provide a viable, fast and sustainable alternative to short-haul flights, the case for Heathrow expansion would evaporate."

Heathrow row

Last November, the government set out proposals for a third runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow by 2020, raising concerns about safety and pollution.

Environmental pressure groups have argued that building better rail services would persuade travellers to abandon cars and planes.

The case for modernising UK rail services was highlighted over the weekend by a review from the organisation that controls Britain's mainline railways.

Network Rail said it would look at the prospect of building five new high-speed lines crossing the length and breadth of the UK to cope with increasing passenger demand.

The review would also assess the need for high-speed trains, similar to the French TGV, to cope with the rising number of rail users.

In the past decade, passenger numbers have risen by about 40%.

But the UK has fallen behind its Continental rivals. In France, Germany and Spain, 300km/h train services are common.

See also:

Case for high speed rail grows

Daily Telegraph: 24/06/2008
By David Millward, Transport Editor

Passengers' hopes of seeing high speed rail in Britain have received a further boost with a minister saying there is "a growing momentum" behind the project.

There's growing support for the principle of building high speed lines in Britain from business and unions alike

Tom Harris, the rail minister, said that his personal belief was that there will be new lines capable of being used by trains traveling at 186 mph.

Network Rail, the company responsible for maintaining and building the country's track, has commissioned a study into the viability of up to six high speed lines.

The two likeliest candidates would run from London to Glasgow and the other along the east coast to Edinburgh.

Further lines could also be built from London to South Wales, London to Cornwall, London Marylebone to Birmingham through the Cotswolds and from the capital to Sheffield.

Mr Harris's remarks reflected the growing all-party backing for the idea of high speed rail, with both the Tories and Liberal Democrats backing the idea.

"I think there is the potential for a real shift in how people travel," Mr Harris said.

"Do I think there will be high speed travel in the long term? The answer is yes."

The decision on whether to press ahead with building high speed rail lines is more likely to be taken after the election.

Stephen Hammond, the Tories' rail spokesman, said his party believed that investment would have to be made in extra capacity.

"I think there is growing recognition that we need to consider what infrastructure we will need in the 21st century."

Theresa Villiers, the Tory transport spokesman added: "As some of the worst overcrowded lines run at over 150 per cent capacity, high speed rail could provide part of the solution to Britain's transport problems.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman, accused the Government of cutting back on railway investment while insisting his party was alone in backing high speed rail.

"The rail network is in desperate need of expansion if we don't want to force frustrated passengers back into their cars and on to aeroplanes."

There has also been growing support for the principle of building high speed lines in Britain from business and unions alike.

A study from the RMT transport union said that this could provide a viable alternative to short haul rail travel, with a fifth of destinations served by Heathrow reachable by train.

"This report shows that high-speed rail can provide a win-win solution for the economy and the environment," said Bob Crow, the uion's general secretary.

"Paris remains Heathrow's top destination and there are as many flights leaving for Edinburgh as for New York, and if we provide a viable, fast and sustainable alternative to short-haul flights the case for Heathrow expansion would evaporate."

It was also welcomed by David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce.

"Network Rail's announcement is a bold vision and excellent news for the business community. Unlike the Government, which has refused to openly consider the need for new high speed lines, Network Rail is taking an approach that will offer businesses some light at the end of the tunnel having faced constant delays, overcrowding and a declining quality of service over the last decade."

"There have been a number of other proposals put forward in recent years but nothing has come of them. We now need to ensure that there is a real commitment to add new capacity to the network."

Posted on 10:20 AM | Permalink

Thomson Financial: 06.25.08

FRANKFURT -- Deutsche Bahn AG.'s chief executive Hartmut Mehdorn said he does not oppose a foreign railway operator such as Russia's RZD or France's SNCF taking a stake in the company, which is slated for privatisation later this year.

Mehdorn said an investor would not have any influence over the company's operational strategy.

The German government has decided to privatise a 24.9 percent stake in Deutsche Bahn's passenger handling, rail cargo and logistics operations in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) that is expected for November. Its rail network and property assets will remain state-owned.

The German rail operator and logistics company is eyeing expansion into Eastern Europe, as it is particularly keen on entering inter-continental container handling between China and Eastern Europe.

Deutsche Bahn and its French peer SNCF jointly run train connections between Paris and several German cities, but are considered competitors in the rail cargo and logistics segments.

See also:

Deutsche Bahn CEO says not against Russian stake

Reuters: Jun 25, 2008

BERLIN -- Deutsche Bahn would not be opposed to its Russian counterpart taking a stake in it when the company is partially privatised later this year, the German rail operator's Chief Executive Hartmut Mehdorn said.

Russian state railway OAO RZhD said last month it planned to buy into Deutsche Bahn when at its initial public offering (IPO), scheduled for November.

"I wouldn't mind if the Russian railway took a stake," Mehdorn told reporters in Berlin on Monday. His remarks were embargoed for publication on Wednesday.

Mehdorn said the two railways were working closely together to build a rail link to China and highlighted the growth potential of eastern markets.

"If they came in it would not scare us," he said.

The sale of a 24.9 percent government stake in Deutsche Bahn, a transport and logistics giant with revenues of 31 billion euros, will be the highlight of the German IPO calendar.

Expected to bring in around 6 billion euros, it would be the country's biggest listing since the government raised 5.8 billion euros with the sale of Deutsche Post (DPWGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) shares in November 2000.

Deutsche Bahn finance chief Diethelm Sack said the company was determined to pull of the sale this autumn but acknowledged that market turbulence could affect those plans.

"If the situation is not conducive, we would have to think about a date next year," he said in the briefing. "At the moment, however, we don't think this will be necessary."

Under the terms of the sale, 24.9 percent of Bahn's passenger transport, logistics and services businesses will be sold to investors. The rail tracks, stations and energy supply unit will remain the property of the state.

In selling the company to investors, Sack said Bahn would stress its environment-friendly credentials at a time of rising energy prices and its attractions as a "globalisation" play that is poised to profit from an opening of borders.

Mehdorn said the company would target mainly institutional investors, with a focus on Europe and Asia, although retail investors and Deutsche Bahn employees would also get a piece of the sale.

Posted on 4:20 AM | Permalink

RMT: June 24 2008

INVESTMENT IN high-speed rail would make a controversial third runway at Heathrow unnecessary and provide an environmentally friendlier alternative to tens of thousands of short-haul flights, says a report published today by specialist transport union RMT.

High-speed rail would create tens of thousands of jobs - including at Heathrow - would provide a cleaner option than airport expansion and would bring a bigger financial return, says the report, compiled for RMT by the Campaign for Better Transport.

'Who says there is no alternative?' points out that well over a third of flights from Heathrow are short-haul, that more than 20 per cent serve destinations already served by a viable rail alternative, and that 20 per cent more are to places where rail is the potential alternative.

It also shows that where high-speed rail links have been opened there has been a significant switch from air to rail, and that the UK is in danger of being left behind as countries like Spain reap the benefits of massive rail investment.

"This report shows that high-speed rail can provide a win-win solution for the economy and the environment," RMT general secretary Bob Crow said at the union's annual conference in Nottingham today.

"Paris remains Heathrow's top destination and there are as many flights leaving for Edinburgh as for New York, and if we provide a viable, fast and sustainable alternative to short-haul flights the case for Heathrow expansion would evaporate.

"Our report underlines the urgency of the review announced by Network Rail and for the government to ensure that it acts swiftly to reap the clear environmental and economic benefits that high-speed rail can bring," Bob Crow said.

"This report proves conclusively that there is a rail alternative to Heathrow expansion and undermines totally the argument for a new runway and sixth terminal," said MP John McDonnell, chair of RMT's parliamentary group.

"It should provide the basis upon which the government thinks again," added John McDonnell, whose Hayes and Harlington constituency includes Heathrow.

ends

Notes to editors: the report 'Who says there is no alternative ?' has been compiled for RMT by John Stewart, chair of the Campaign for Better Transport. To read the report click on the pdf link below.

See also:

WHO SAYS THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE?

An assessment of the potential of rail to cut air travel

(with particular reference to Heathrow)

Summary

This short report has assessed the evidence from earlier studies that investment in rail could provide a viable alternative to expansion at Heathrow.

It has found that:
• Well over a third of all flights using Heathrow are short-haul

• 100,000 flights at Heathrow out of a total of 473,000 (in 2006) serve destinations where there is already a viable rail alternative

• Another 100,000 are to places where rail could offer a potential alternative

• The UK is being left behind as much of the rest of Europe invests in fast rail services

• Where high-speed rail lines have been opened, there has been a significant switch from air to rail

• Rail has significant environmental advantages over air

• Investment in rail would create jobs in the rail and related industries and significantly boost employment in the manufacturing, construction and engineering sector

• Investment in a fast rail network would bring a greater economic return than the current plans to expand Heathrow.

It has concluded:
There is the potential for a significant number of air trips from Heathrow to switch to rail. But that would require:

1. Government commitment to a long-term, strategic approach, backed up by significant funding.

2. A clear recognition of the social, environmental and economic benefits that investment in rail can bring.

3. The willingness to provide initial subsidy to keep fares low so that the trains attract sufficient passengers, including those transferring from the airlines.

4. A system which recognizes there is a place for centrally-driven, long-term government planning; which acknowledges that this cannot be left to the vagaries of the market.

5. Trade unions have to be centrally involved in a nationally planned and integrated transport strategy to ensure a Just Transition to more environmentally sustainable forms of transport.

Replacing Short-Haul Flights at Heathrow

Well over a third of all flights using Heathrow are short-haul. A study carried out by the campaign group HACAN (1) showed that of a total of 473,000 flights which used the airport in 2006, 100,000 served 12 destinations where there was already a viable rail alternative and a further 100,000 flights went to places where an improved rail service could provide an alternative. If a lot of these flights were replaced by rail, that would free up the space at Heathrow to bring in more long-distance flights without any need to expand the airport.

The figures in the HACAN report make for startling reading

Paris 50/60 flights a day to and from Heathrow

Amsterdam** 50

Edinburgh 40

Manchester 36

Brussels 30

Glasgow 28

Newcastle 12

Leeds/Bradford 10

Rotterdam** 6

Durham/Tees Valley 6

* the figures are those of a fairly typical day but will vary throughout the year
** Amsterdam and Rotterdam have been included because the high-speed line from Brussels to Amsterdam is imminent


• This makes Paris Heathrow’s top destination

• Amsterdam is in joint second place with Dublin

• And in fourth place is New York with 42 flights, just ahead of Edinburgh


Another 100,000 or so flights a year serve the following destinations. Many of them could be ‘reachable’ by improved rail services.

The main ones are:

Frankfurt 40 flights per day

Milan 32

Munich 28

Aberdeen 28

Copenhagen 26

Rome 24

Stockholm 24

Zurich 24

Madrid 22

Belfast 20

Contrary to what is often believed, a sizeable number of the destinations served by Heathrow are within Europe. Apart from New York, the most popular destinations are all European.

There are:

• 28 flights to Chicago - the same as Aberdeen!

• 26 flights to Hong Kong - less than half the number to Paris

• 24 flights to Los Angeles - less than Glasgow

And note: there are a total of 54,000 flights a year serving Heathrow’s ‘competitor’ airports – Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt.

The Heathrow Expansion Proposals

In late 2007/early 2008 the Department for Transport consulted on its proposals for Heathrow expansion. It proposes:

An end to runway alternation. This is the practice where planes landing over West London switch runways at 3pm in order to give residents in the boroughs closest to the airport a half day’s break from the noise. Flight numbers would increase from 475,000 to at least 540,000 a year.

A 3rd runway and 6th terminal. This would require the demolition of at least 700 homes, including the entire community of Sipson, and would result in over 700,000 flights a year using the airport.

The Potential of Rail

The Demand for Rail

City Centre – City Centre Journey Actual Times

Rail: Glasgow – London 4hr 30min - 5hr 20min

Air: Glasgow – London (via Heathrow) 3hr 42min
(assumed average waits for connecting buses and trains and typical check-in times)

Rail: Edinburgh - London 4hr 20min – 4hr 30min

Air: Edinburgh – London (via Heathrow) 3hr 42min

Productive Working Time

Air: 1hr. Time lost 2hr 30min

Train: 4-5 hrs (depending on length of journey). Time lost: negligible

Reliability
Rail services are consistently more punctual than air.

• Between London and Scotland rail services are 21-22% more punctual than the plane;

• 91.5% of Eurostar trains between London and Paris/Brussels were on time compared with 68.8% of planes.

Cost
The cost of rail travel is often cited as a problem. And fares, especially in the UK, can be very high indeed. But the picture is complex (6). The fares quoted below should be seen as indicative.


London – Edinburgh Return Fares

Booked 24hrs in advance:

British Airways £200
Rail £90
easyJet £90

Booked 2 months in advance

British Airways £70
easyJet £55
Rail £25

Rome –Milan Return Fares

Booked 1 day in advance

Ryanair 275 euros
Alitalia (plane) 220 euros
Trenitalia (train) 50 euros

Booked 2 months in advance

Alitalia 220 euros
Ryanair 40 euros
Trenaitalia 20 euros



Paris – Marseille Return Fares

Day Return or booked 24hrs in advance:

Air France 390 euros
SNCF (Rail) 120 euros

Weekend Return or booked 2 months in advance

SNCF 120 euros
Air France 110 euro

The Benefits of Investing in Rail

Employment
Investment in high-speed rail would be expected to create tens of thousands of jobs across the country, including new jobs at Heathrow. Jobs would be created in three areas. There would be the rail jobs in operating the new services. There would be the construction jobs in building new rail lines and also the prospect of reviving UK train manufacturing. And there would be the jobs that resulted from the stimulus that the rail investment would bring to the wider economy. It is essential that steps to reduce carbon emissions from the transport sector are part of a nationally planned and integrated strategy that involves all stakeholders. In this respect a Just Transition from sectors with high carbon emissions to more environmentally sustainable forms of transport such as rail must fully involve the trade unions in specifying and delivering the integrated transport plan.

Environmental
A fast rail service which substituted for further expansion at Heathrow would result in significant environmental benefits. For residents under the flight paths, it would mean that already unbearable noise levels would not become even worse. Air pollution levels around the airport, already amongst the highest in the UK, would probably fall. And climate change emissions would not rise so fast. High-speed rail emits between 8 and 11 times less CO2 than air travel.

Integration
A high-speed rail network has most to offer as part of an integrated transport system, not replacing local and regional rail services, but linked to them. Integration offers the prospect of both train stations and airports becoming coordinated transport hubs. But integration will remain an unattainable goal under the UK current transport set-up: uncoordinated; deregulated; privatised. Government, in conjunction with local and regional authorities, needs to set out a long-term transport strategy, framed by what it wants transport to achieve for the country’s citizens, its environment and its economy. Within such a framework, there would be no need to expand Heathrow, given rail’s environmental advantages over air, and the potential of a sensibly-priced high-speed rail network to persuade enough people to switch from short-haul flights.

Investment in fast rail links would bring higher economic benefits than expansion at Heathrow: net
benefits of £30bn compared with £5bn at Heathrow. It would also create many more jobs.

The Spanish Experience

The latest country to invest in high-speed rail is Spain.

A new high-speed train between Madrid and Barcelona carves its way through the Spanish countryside at speeds of nearly 220mph. The Ave S103 is the kind of train that British commuters can only dream of, and forms the centrepiece of plans to make Spain a model for the rest of Europe, and the world leader in high-speed trains by 2010. The director general of the state rail operator Renfe's high-speed service, Aberlado Carrillo, said: “These trains are the future of travel in Spain and show that the train is anything but obsolete. Trains will again be the dominant mode of transport in this country." Spain’s aim is to have 10,000km (6,200 miles) of high-speed track in Spain by 2020, meaning that 90% of the population will be no more than 30 miles from a station through which the train passes. The Barcelona line is to be extended to Perpignan in France, making the Catalan capital just four-and-a-half hours from Paris. Work to join Madrid and Lisbon is under way.

Christian Wolmar, the author of a history of Britain’s railways, says that the difference between Spanish and British models on investment comes from conflicting philosophies of rail’s worth.

He says: “We ignore the social values of trains. Just as we don’t expect motorways to pay their own way, we shouldn't expect trains to. "All the recent legislation in the UK, with privatisation, franchising and the complex structures of investment, has meant that it is impossible to have a rational transport policy to maximise the use of trains for environmental and omic reasons (7)."

In its first term in office, the socialist government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has spent €21bn (£15.7bn) as part of a 15-year €108bn project to transform the rail network.

So can High-Speed Rail be an Alternative to Heathrow Expansion?

The experience from Europe suggests that it can. Anywhere between a fifth and more than a third of all flights using Heathrow could be replaced by a fast, affordable, reliable rail service. It requires a change of mind-set to make it happen. Particularly on the part of government. Other governments across Europe have recognised the potential of investing in high-speed rail. The UK Government could learn much from what is happening there. The Spanish experience is particularly instructive. Spain is a larger, less densely-populated country than the UK, but there are clear lessons that could be learnt in developing a high-speed rail network.

1. Government commitment to a long-term, strategic approach, backed up by significant funding.

2. A clear recognition of the social, environmental and economic benefits that investment in rail can bring.

3. A willingness to provide initial subsidy to keep fares low so that the trains attract sufficient passengers, including those transferring from the airlines.

4. A system which recognizes there is a place for centrally-driven, long-term government planning; which acknowledges that this cannot be left to the vagaries of the market.

5. Trade unions have to be centrally involved in a nationally planned and integrated transport strategy to ensure a Just Transition to more environmentally sustainable forms of transport.

Conclusion

RMT believes in a balanced transport policy with a role for all transport modes. The current proposals to expand Heathrow, however, would be unnecessary if there was serious investment in rail as part of a coordinated, integrated transport system. The experience of Europe is that this will not happen if the Government sits on the sidelines and leaves transport to market forces. It will require government to get centrally involved in developing a sustainable approach to transport. If it did so, the evidence suggests that there would be significant benefits to the wider economy, to workers in industry, to the environment and to residents under flight paths and around airports. It would be a win-win solution: an environmentally friendlier solution which at the same time boosted the economy and protected and created jobs.


References:

(1). Short-Haul Flights: Clogging up Heathrow’s Runways, published by HACAN, (2006)
(2). Map from Daily Mail, (3/7/2007)
(3). High Speed Rail Report, WS Atkins (2008)
(4). Milan Janic in Towards Sustainable Aviation, published by Earthscan (2003)
(5). The Railways Mean Business, TRANSform Scotland, (2007)
(6). The Impact of High Speed Rail on Heathrow Airport, Greengauge, (2006)
(7). Quote appeared in the Guardian (2/2/2008)

A Win-Win Solution

Posted on 11:58 PM | Permalink

RMT: June 24 2008

Campaign to be launched with public meeting in Newcastle on July 17

THE TYNE and Wear Metro is a public-sector success story and should be kept that way, delegates at the annual conference of Britain's biggest rail union insisted today.

As RMT's AGM called on the government to implement Labour policy on public ownership, RMT general secretary Bob Crow and Northern TUC secretary Kevin Rowan issued a joint plea for an end to the threat to fragment and privatise the northeast's Metro network.

Letters sent today to Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (Nexus) director-general Bernard Garner point out that the Metro is already achieving record levels of punctuality and ridership.

The letters express the concern that funding for a welcome upgrade of the network has been made conditional on splitting up and privatising the Metro's operations and infrastructure.

Nexus bulletins indicate that the government has insisted on the break-up, overruling the PTE's preferred option of maintaining Metro as a 'vertically integrated' railway.

"The model now being proposed for the Metro is in danger of repeating the mistakes of railway privatisation," Bob Crow and Kevin Rowan say.

"Safety will be threatened as the Metro will be fragmented into different sectors, meaning less effective control and private companies cutting corners to save money.

"Fragmentation will lead to a less efficient, more expensive railway which is why Nexus were originally opposed to the break up of the Metro and why we remain opposed to it.

"Large amounts of fare revenue and public subsidy will be used to pay dividends to shareholders instead of being used to improve the Metro for the benefit of passengers and the wider community in the North East.

"And of course Metro workers' pensions, jobs and conditions will be under threat as the private sector tries to maximise profits at the expense of Metro workers," the letters say.

ends

Note to editors: Northern TUCsecretary Kevin Rowan and RMT general secretary Bob Crow will be among the speakers at a public meeting at 7pm on July 17 at the Royal Station Hotel, Neville Street, Newcastle

See also:

Union warns against Metro privatisation

Northumberland Gazette: 25th June 2008

The RMT has stepped up its campaign to keep Tyne and Wear Metro under public sector control, warning that safety will be threatened if it is privatised.

The rail workers' union said the North East's Metro system was a public sector success story, and its ownership should not be changed.

At its annual conference in Nottingham, the union agreed to hold a public meeting next month and issued a plea for an end to the threat to fragment and privatise the North East's Metro network.

The union has written to Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (Nexus) director-general Bernard Garner pointing out that the Metro is achieving record levels of punctuality and ridership.

RMT general secretary Bob Crow said: "The model being proposed for the Metro is in danger of repeating the mistakes of railway privatisation.

"Safety will be threatened as the Metro will be fragmented into different sectors, meaning less effective control and private companies cutting corners to save money.

"Fragmentation will lead to a less efficient, more expensive railway which is why Nexus were originally opposed to the break-up of the Metro and why we remain opposed to it.

"Large amounts of fare revenue and public subsidy will be used to pay dividends to shareholders instead of being used to improve the Metro for the benefit of passengers and the wider community in the North East.

"Metro workers' pensions, jobs and conditions will be under threat as the private sector tries to maximise profits at the expense of Metro workers."

Posted on 10:59 PM | Permalink

Railway Gazette International: 24 Jun 2008
Aad Veenman, Chairman of the Community of European Railways & Infrastructure Companies

Despite growing concerns about climate change and energy efficiency, imbalances in the pricing of different transport modes continue to distort the market across Europe.

It is 20 years since the Community of European Railways was formed to represent our sector in discussions with the European institutions - the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. We see our role as complementing the decision-making process, and I was delighted that the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, was able to join our recent anniversary celebrations in Brussels.

If we look back over the past 20 years, we can see how far the European railway industry has come since 1988. CER started with 14 members and now has more than 70, including almost all countries in central and eastern Europe and several new entrants to the rail market. On the political side, the Comission's White Paper on Transport Policy spawned the three Railway Packages, the Trans-European Networks strategy, and Directives on interoperability and safety. But perhaps most importantly, freight and passenger traffic volumes have started to grow again after years of decline.

Of course, looking at the past must not obscure the need to focus on the future. CER is working with the European institutions to put in place a framework that encourages the provision of rail services which are attractive to customers and environmentally-sustainable. There are three main areas for debate: the structure of the railways; infrastructure; and the search for a level playing field.

We have made clear progress with reform, despite the attitude taken by most railways 20 years ago. We now have full liberalisation of the freight market and incentives to develop the passenger sector. But we must find the right balance between market incentives and the public interest. As I argued in a recent CER discussion paper, a properly-functioning market with the right incentives is preferable to heavy regulation.

Major investment in infrastructure is needed, both for modernisation and to provide the capacity for growth, but I believe the challenge of financing has been significantly underestimated. And new tools are needed to drive sustainable transport policy. The 'level playing field' debate is often seen as affecting the balance between different modes, but it also applies to relationships within the rail sector - in areas such as infrastructure charges, state aid, competition and social policy. But in broader terms, it is important to reflect the fact that rail is the most environmentally-friendly mode of transport.

Sustainability is the big challenge
Environmental sustainability is the area where the lack of a level playing field is most obvious. The basic idea is very simple. Users must take account of all relevant costs if they are to make the right decisions. If you cause a high environmental impact, that should be reflected in what you have to pay.

Today, transport has the fastest-growing level of CO2 emissions, and it is mainly due to our sector that western society is not on course to achieve its targets for emissions reduction. Technical solutions have not reduced total emissions, so we need to consider demand management and environmentally-friendly alternatives.

'The issue is not new. We have been discussing it since the early days of the Rolling Stones'
The issue is not new. We have been discussing it since the early days of the Rolling Stones, and we still 'can't get no satisfaction'. Internalisation of external costs has been a debate for economists since the 1960s. CER issued its first report on the externalities of transport in 1991, and in 1999 a high-level working group concluded that internalisation of external costs was both desirable and achievable.

Fast forward to 2008 and European legislation still prohibits the inclusion of external costs when setting charges for road traffic! But at long last there are moves to deal with some environmental aspects, although wider social costs are not even on the agenda. Worse still, most of the consequences are generally perceived as threats, and the benefits for the environment, the economy or for quality of life are ignored. Nevertheless, I believe that there are good reasons to be hopeful.

Look at the waste sector. About 40 years ago society simply dumped everything. Now consumers are ready to pay to deal with waste in a sustainable way, and we have a modern industry that is making money. Why should it be so difficult to accept the 'polluter pays' principle for transport?

Of course, transport affects everybody. It is directly related to economic and land use planning, and existing flows are influenced by the cost structure. There is a perception is that mobility is some kind of 'public good', which comes for free or at a very low price. But as a society we really cannot afford to think like this any more.

Recent research in the Netherlands found that about 50% of transport users do think about the environment when choosing their mode of transport. There is growing public awareness about climate change, increasing congestion and the effects of emissions on health.

The negative impact of higher charges needs to be softened by providing sustainable alternatives, and of course I'm thinking about rail. Yes, we will need investment to improve capacity and quality, but surely this is worthwhile. It's all about delivering sustainability with three Ps: people, planet and a profit for everybody.

Dr Aad Veenman has been President of Netherlands Railways since 2002 and was elected Chairman of the Community of European Railways & Infrastructure Companies in 2005. With a degree in mechanical engineering from Delft Technical University, he has had a long career in Dutch industry, working for Esmil International and becoming President & CEO of Stork NV in 1998.

Posted on 12:54 PM | Permalink

RMT: June 23 2008

Company putting profits before service and safety, says RMT

STATIONS EARMARKED by South West Trains for ticket-office closures have seen an increase in passengers going through their doors of nearly 27 per cent in the last year, Britain's biggest rail union reveals today.

Analysis by RMT of official figures shows that 114 SWT stations threatened with cuts and closures have between them had more than 18 million more 'entries and exits' by passengers in the last year - up from just over 68 million to well over 86 million.

Details of the proposed cuts, which RMT has pledged to resist, also reveal that there will be a dramatic increase in stations that will lose their ticket offices entirely during weekends -while SWT's parent group, Stagecoach, is anticipating a huge jump in profits.

"The dramatic increase in passengers suggests that SWT should be increasing the number of staff on stations, not cutting them," RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today at the union's annual conference in Nottingham.

"The city is expecting the Stagecoach group to register another substantial increase in profits and it is quite clear that the group is putting its profit before the people it is supposed to serve.

"SWT's planned cuts would leave stations unstaffed, particularly at weekends, but also at night and that will only make railway stations and the passengers who use them less secure.

"CCTV has its uses, but it is no substitute for the presence of trained uniformed staff.

"For our members this is an attack on up to 140 jobs, and for SWT's passengers it is an attack on their service and safety, and it is in all our interests to tell the company that these cuts are unacceptable," Bob Crow said

ends

For further information please contact Derek Kotz on 07939 595 092

Notes to editors:

Profit before People - South West Trains Ticket Office Closures

* Table 1 below shows that South West Trains is closing or cutting ticket office hours at stations which in the last year have seen an increase of almost 27 percent in 'passenger entries and exits'.
* In the last year station passenger 'entries and exits' at the affected stations have risen from 68,013,374to 86,282,884, an increase of 18,269510.
* Details of the worst-affected stations and the days and times the closures will bite are attached. The result will be a massive expansion of stations that will close completely on Saturday and Sunday and earlier week day closing.
* The closures will leave stations unstaffed, heightening passenger security concerns particularly where there are evening closures.
* Regular customers and commuters who purchase their tickets for the following week at the weekend will suddenly find that their ticket office is no longer open, causing not only inconvenience but also longer queues during peak time.
* Weekend closures will disproportionately hit those who use trains for leisure and visits to friends and family
* The replacement of staff with machines will increase instances of passengers travelling without tickets either because they could not use the machines, or the machines were faulty.
* It is not clear where the proposed automatic ticket machines will be able to offer the full range of tickets currently provided by staffed ticket offices such as group-save tickets or add-ons to existing tickets or refunds for tickets not used on the day due to rail disruptions or cancelled trains.
* Stagecoach, which owns South West Trains, is expected a substantial increase in profits later this week.

Table 1 (pdf file)
Download file

Table 2 - Stations most hit by SWT's proposed ticket-office cuts

Of the 114 stations listed for cuts and closures (out of a total of 145) those below are the worst affected. Only six of these have no change to their weekday open/closing times and only three no change to Saturday open/closing times, and none have no changes to Sunday times.

ADDLESTONE Currently open sat. closed sun. proposed: closed both days. Mon-Fri. currently open 06.30-13.25 proposed: closes at 10.00

ALTON Currently open Mon-Fri. 06.30 - 20.30 Sat.06.40 -20.15 Sun 07.00 - 18.00. Proposed: Mon- Fri.06.30 -19.00 Sat 08.00-17.30 Sun 08.30 - 16.00.

ANDOVER Sun. Currently open 08.10 - 20.45 Proposed: close 4hrs earlier.

ASH Proposed: closed on sat as well as sun.

ASH VALE Proposed closed on sun.

ASHFORD (SURREY) Proposed closed on sun. and the mon.-fri. service close at 13.25 instead of 20.05

AXMINSTER Proposed closed on a sun. and the mon-fri. service to end 13.05 instead of 20.30 and sat. service to end at 13.05 instead of 20.20

BAGSHOT Proposed to close close sat. as well as sunday

BARNES Proposed to close close on sun.

BEDHAMPTON Proposed to close close on sat. and sun. the weekday service to end at 09.45 as opposed to 13.55

BERRYLANDS Proposed to close close on sat. as well as sun.

BOOKHAM Propose close sat. as well as sun. week day service to end at 10.00 instead of 13.30

BRANKSOME Proposed to close closed sat. and sun. weekday service to end at 10.00 instead of 13.20

BROOKWOOD Proposed to close close sun. weekday service to end at 13.00 instead of 20.15

BYFLEET & NEW HAW Proposed to close close on sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 10.30 instead of 13.00

CAMBERLEY Proposed to close close on sun. weekday service to end at 13.25 instead of 19.50 and sat. to close at 13.00 instead of 19.05

CHANDLERS FORD Proposed to close close on sun.

CHESSINGTON SOUTH Proposed to close close on sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 10.00 instead of 14.18

CLANDON Proposed to close on sat. as well as sun.

CREWKERNE Proposed to be closed on sat. and sun. weekday service to end at 13.05 instead of 18.00

DATCHET Proposed to close on sat. as well as sun.

EARLEY Proposed to close on sun. weekday service to end at 13.25 instead of 21.00

EFFINGHAM JUNCTION Proposed to close on sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 10.10 instead of 13.25

ESHER Proposed to close on sun. weekday service to end at 18.00 instead of 21.00

EWELL WEST Proposed to be closed on sun.

FARNCOMBE Proposed to be closed on sun. weekend service to close at 13.00 instead of 19.55. sat. service to end at 13.00 instead of 19.55.

FENITON Proposed to be closed on sat. and sun. weekday service to end at 11.30 instead of 22.00

FRIMLEY Proposed to be close on sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 10.30 instead of 13.05

FULWELL Proposed to be closed on sat. as well as sunday weekday service to end at 10.00 instead of 14.00

GILLINGHAM (DORSET) Proposed to be closed on sun. weekday service to end at 17.30 instead of 20.45 sat. service to end at 12.45 instead of 21.50

HAMPTON Proposed to be closed on sun. weekend service to end at 11.00 instead of 20.30 sat. service to end at 13.30 instead of 21.00

HAMPTON COURT Proposed to close on a sun.

HAMWORTHY Proposed to close on a sat. as well as sun.

HEDGE END Proposed to close on sun.

HERSHAM Proposed to close on sat. and sun. weekday service to end at 10.30 instead of 13.40

HINCHLEY WOOD Proposed to close on a sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 10.10 instead of 13.25

HONITON Proposed to close on sun. weekday service to end at 15.15 instead of 19.45 and sat. service to end at 13.15 instead of 20.00

HOOK Proposed to close on a sun.

LIPHOOK Proposed to close on a sun. weekend service to end at 17.35 instead of 20.00 and sat. service to end at 13.00 instead of 20.00

LISS Proposed to close on sat. and sun. weekday service to end at 11.10 instead of 19.55

LONDON ROAD (GUILDFORD) Proposed to close on sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 10.00 instead of 13.35

MALDEN MANOR Proposed to close on a sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 10.20 instead of 13.50

MARTINS HERON Proposed to close on a sun. weekday service to end at 13.25 instead of 20.20

MILFORD Proposed to be closed on a sat. as well as sun.

MOTSPUR PARK Proposed to be closed on sat. and sun.

NETLEY Proposed to be closed on sat. and sun.

POKESDOWN Proposed to be closed on sat. and sun. weekday service to end at 11.30 instead of 20.15

PORCHESTER Proposed to be closed on sat. and sun.

SHEPPERTON Proposed to be closed on sun. weekday service to end at 12.00 instead of 17.30 and sat.

SHERBOURNE Proposed to close on sun. sat. service to end at 13.30 instead of 21.00

ST DENYS Proposed to close on sat. and sun. weekday service to end at 10.45 instead of 13.30

STONELEIGH Proposed to close on sun.

STRAWBERRY HILL Proposed to close on sun.

SUNNINGDALE Proposed to close on sun. sat. service to end at 13.30 instead of 20.15

SWANWICK Proposed to close on sun. sat. service to end at 14.00 instead of 18.55

SWAYTHLING Proposed to close on sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 11.00 instead of 13.45

TEMPLECOMBE Proposed to be closed on sun. weekday service to end at 18.30 instead of 22.00 sat service end at 12.35 instead of 21.30

THAMES DITTON Proposed to close on sat. as well as sun.

TISBURY Proposed to close on sat. and sun. weekday service to end at 12.05 instead of 17.25

UPPER HALLIFORD Proposed to close on sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 10.00 instead of 13.30

VIRGINIA WATER Proposed to close on sun. weekday service to end at 17.45 instead of 20.00 sat. service to end at 13.30 instead of 20.50

WANDSWORTH TOWN Proposed to be closed on sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 10.30 instead of 13.55

WAREHAM Proposed to be closed on sun.

WEST BYFLEET weekday service to end at 13.00 instead of 20.00, sat. service to end at 13.00 instead of 20.00, sun. service to end at 13.00 instead of 16.40

WHITCHURCH (HAMPSHIRE) Proposed to be closed on sat. as well as sun.

WINCHFIELD Proposed to be closed on sun.

WINNERSH Proposed to be closed on sat. and sun.

WINNERSH TRIANGLE Proposed to be closed on sat. as well as sun. weekday service to end at 10.00 instead of 13.20

WITLEY Proposed to be closed on sat. as well as sun.

WOOLSTON Proposed to be closed on sat. and sun.

See also:

NUMBERS USING STATION GO UP

Exeter Express & Echo: 24 June 2008

Plans to cut staffing hours at Honiton railway station's ticket office have been drawn up despite a rise in passenger numbers, it has been revealed.

The number of passengers entering and leaving the station on the Exeter-London Waterloo line rose by 11,499 to 263,627 between 2005-06 and 2006-07, according to figures taken from the Office of Rail Regulation and published by rail union the RMT.As the Echo has previously reported, South West Trains is planning to reduce opening hours at the ticket office, leaving passengers to use machines instead.

Honiton Chamber of Commerce has criticised the move which involves the ticket office being closed all day on Sunday and at 3.15pm instead of 7.45pm on weekdays and at 1.15pm instead of 8pm on Saturdays.

The RMT said its analysis of official figures showed 114 SWT stations threatened with cuts and closures have between them had more than 18 million more entries and exits by passengers in the last year.

RMT general secretary Bob Crow said: "The dramatic increase in passengers suggests that SWT should be increasing the number of staff on stations, not cutting them.

"SWT's planned cuts will only make railway stations and the passengers who use them less secure. CCTV has its uses, but it is no substitute for the presence of trained uniformed staff.

"For our members this is an attack on up to 140 jobs, and for SWT's passengers it is an attack on their service and safety."

See also:

Cuts to SWT ticket office opening hours proposed

Richmond & Twickenham Times: 24th June 2008
By Chris Wickham

A train operator is refusing to confirm that three major borough stations will have fewer staff if proposals to reduce the opening hours of ticket offices are given the go ahead.

South West Trains (SWT) confirmed this week it had begun a consultation with unions and passenger groups into a reduction of opening hours at some "lesser used booking offices" which could see 118 positions lost.

But it would not comment on a suggestion from Twickenham MP Vincent Cable that staff numbers at Twickenham, Richmond and Teddington stations were set to drop.

Dr Cable called for SWT management to explain what the cuts would mean but a company spokeswoman said definitive announcements would not be made as locations for ticket office changes were not yet known.

Dr Cable said: "There is already a great deal of frustration with defective ticket machines and with passengers unable to obtain tickets before they travel.

"More generally, passengers are already anxious about security on stations, especially at night, and only two weeks ago Teddington - which now loses staff - was given a Safe Station award.

“I suspect that local rail users will not understand why there are cuts in services when rail fares are rising faster than inflation.” - Twickenham MP Vincent Cable

"I suspect that local rail users will not understand why there are cuts in services when rail fares are rising faster than inflation."

An SWT spokeswoman said the way train tickets were bought had changed dramatically and a review of ticket office sales led to proposals to reduce the opening hours of ticket offices at 114 stations.

"We have not reviewed opening hours for more than 10 years," she said. "Around 40 per cent are now bought from Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs), double what it was two years ago.

"We are not proposing to close any ticket offices completely, just to adjust the hours of those where it is not commercially viable to keep them open during quiet periods.

"We are not planning any compulsory redundancies and plan to achieve the reduction through natural wastage."

# What do you think of plans to reduce ticket office opening hours? Have your day using the comment box below.

Comments

Bruinhilda, Valhalla on 9:27pm Tue 24 Jun 08

As usual there will be general moans - but in the end, all the travellers will pay up. Imagine the public going on strike against the train operators!!!

andy, twickenham on 12:04pm Wed 25 Jun 08

Bruinhilda - some passengers did on 1st Great Western to rebel on overcrowding for months. They refused to pay their fares for a few days. FGW sorted out the problem pretty quick!!

Brunhilda, Valhalla on 6:28pm Wed 25 Jun 08

Sorry, Andy, I stand corrected.

See also:

Rail union bosses accuse Stagecoach of putting profits before safety

Daily Mirror: 26/06/2008

Rail union bosses yesterday accused transport giant Stagecoach of putting fat profits before the safety of its passengers.

Stagecoach yesterday revealed a 7.6 per cent rise in profits to £174.4million for the year to the end of April.

But the group is also slashing costs by cutting ticket office hours at South West Trains stations.

The RMT's leader Bob Crow said: "That puts up to 140 jobs at threat, undermines safety and service and is unacceptable. People want to see more staff on stations, not fewer.

"It's time ministers stopped rail privateers' fat profits at the expense of passengers and employees."

Stagecoach chief Brian Souter said fuel costs, increased road congestion and environment concerns drove the big increase in bus and train passengers.

Posted on 7:52 AM | Permalink

ČTK: 24 June 2008

Prague -- Czech and Slovak Transport Ministers Ales Rebicek and Lubomir Vazny agreed at a meeting Monday that both countries' railway freight transport companies will merge, ministry spokesman Karel Hanzelka told CTK.

CD Cargo and Zeleznicna spolocnost Cargo Slovakia will form one of the biggest freight transporters in Europe.

"In the first stage, we will analyse the project and specify the individual steps, define the merger's all aspects and draw up details of the joint project's further development," Rebicek said.

Rebicek announced the plan to merge both companies at the end of October 2007. He said the new company would be more competitive on the liberalised European market and its price in potential privatisation will be raised as well.

Czechs have mostly welcomed the merger, while Slovak politicians have a more cautious approach.

Czech transport experts mostly agree with the merger. Petr Moos of the transport faculty of the Czech Technical University, for example, sees taking control of freight transport between the east and west of Europe as the main benefit.

CD Cargo is the fifth largest railway freight transporter in the EU. It transported over 90 million tonnes of goods last year.

Cargo Slovakia transports some 50 million tonnes of goods annually, which ranks it somewhere around the tenth place in Europe.

After the merger, the new company would be roughly on the level of Polish railway company PKP which ranks second in the EU. Germany's Deutsche Bahn with 313 million tonnes of goods transported annually is number one.

CD Cargo was established in December 2007 when it separated from parent national railway operator Ceske drahy.

See also:

Czech trains to stop during Tuesday's strike

ČTK: 24.06.2008

Prague -- The engine-drivers will discontinue the operation of the Czech Railways (CD) trains from 13:00 to 14:15 today (Tuesday) to join the trade unions' strike, Libor Polacek, spokesman for the Engine drivers' Federation, said after a meeting of its leadership.

The unions say the reforms launched by the centre-right cabinet of Mirek Topolanek (Civic Democrats, ODS) have resulted in growing inflation that has decreased real pay in education, health care and the public sector. They also criticise the planned pension system reform that is to gradually increase the retirement age to 65.

Most other trade unions will go on a one-hour token strike between 13:00 and 14:00, but the engine-drivers' strike will be 15 minutes longer, Polacek said.

The engine-drivers will thereby protest against the authorities' investigation into a recent tragic accident in east Bohemia in which one of their colleagues died.

Though members of the Railway Workers' Trade Union (OSZ) decided not to actively participate in the strike after their talks with Labour and Social Affairs Minister Petr Necas, Transport Minister Ales Rebicek (both ODS) and the CD's management today, the engine-drivers alone are able to paralyse the Czech railway operation.

Moreover, other CD employees may join some 6000 members of the Engine-drivers' Association, Polacek added.

Posted on 7:45 AM | Permalink

RMT: June 22 2008

Environmental pressure makes decision ‘a matter of urgency’

NETWORK RAIL'S expected announcement of a feasibility study into five possible high-speed rail lines has been warmly welcomed by Britain's biggest rail union, whose annual conference opens in Nottingham this afternoon.

RMT warns that environmental pressures dictate that the go-ahead must be given 'sooner rather than later' on high-speed rail - as well as electrification of existing lines - and that ministers should step back from a 'premature' decision on expansion of Heathrow.

"This is a welcome announcement and comes not a moment too soon," RMT general secretary Bob Crow said in Nottingham today.

"The future lies in high-speed rail and electrification of the existing network, because the environment and the economy are crying out for a decisive shift away from never-ending expansion of road and air travel, and because the oil crisis is not going to go away.

"There is ample evidence to show that high-speed rail is the viable alternative that can accommodate the growing transport demand and help in the battle to reduce carbon emissions, and RMT will shortly publish a report that makes that case in relation to Heathrow," Bob Crow said.

See also:

Network Rail forecasts overcrowded trains, longer journeys and no new lines

The Times: June 24, 2008
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

Passengers face acute overcrowding on key railway routes because capacity will be exhausted many years before any new lines could be built, according to Network Rail.

The infrastructure company is to commission a study into the costs and benefits of new lines on five inter-city routes. But it admitted that a high-speed network was unlikely to be built soon because of funding constraints and environmental concerns.

The company is expected to focus on a few short stretches of track operating at conventional speed to relieve the worst pinch points on long-distance routes, including London to Peterborough, Rugby and Swindon.

Iain Coucher, the chief executive of Network Rail, said that the Government’s plan for expanding rail capacity by 22.5 per cent by 2014 would be inadequate on some routes, which are growing by 10 per cent a year.

He said: “Clearly some routes will grow more than that and there may be a problem. The most congested parts of the network are about 80 miles out of London. People used to be prepared to travel for 45 minutes and now it’s an hour and a quarter.”

The high cost of housing in London and fuel prices were two of the factors contributing to the continuing strong growth in demand for rail travel. In the past decade passenger numbers have grown by 45 per cent and the amount of freight carried by trains has grown by 60 per cent. But constraints on the capacity of the network have meant that the number of trains has risen by only about 20 per cent.

The Government is planning to reduce public funding of the railways by £1.5 billion a year and has said that passengers will have to pay three quarters of the cost of the network by 2014. The cost is currently split evenly between the farepayer and the taxpayer.

Mr Coucher said that existing government measures to meet demand, such as altering fares to encourage people to travel off-peak, would be inadequate in the longer term.

The study will consider new lines to relieve pressure on the East Coast, West Coast, Midlands and Great Western main lines and the Chiltern route between London and Birmingham. It is not due to consider any routes south of the Thames. Mr Coucher admitted that this could be an oversight and that they might have to be brought into the scope of the study. He added that Network Rail “was not wedded to high speed”. Tom Harris, the Rail Minister, played down the prospect of 220mph trains recently, saying that they would consume almost double the energy of 125mph trains, the current top speed of domestic services.

The study, which is due to be published in July next year, will not consider specific routes and is unlikely to set a clear timetable for expansion. It will set out whether there is a business case for new lines and which routes would deliver the greatest benefits. Asked when construction could start, Mr Coucher said: “I have no idea.”

It will be the third publicly funded study into the feasibility of high-speed lines in a decade. Neither of the previous studies resulted in a government commitment to fund a line. The Strategic Rail Authority produced a £33 billion plan for a London to Scotland high-speed line in 2004 and the Eddington Transport Study, which was published in 2006, found that high-speed rail would attract many of the eight million passengers a year who fly between London and Scotland and would reduce carbon emissions by up to 330,000 tonnes a year.

This month the Rail Regulator, who was under pressure from the Government to reduce spending, ordered Network Rail to abandon 20 schemes to ease overcrowding, which would have cost £365 million.

David Frost, the director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: “We now need to ensure that there is a real commitment to add new capacity to the network.”

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman, said: “The rail network is in desperate need of expansion if we don’t want to force frustrated passengers back into their cars and on to aeroplanes. Instead, the Government has proposed cutting back public funding for the railways, condemning travellers to delay and overcrowding.”

See also:

High-speed rails

Financial Times: June 24 2008

For the first time in more than a century, the UK is considering building a new mainline railway. The public body responsible for railway infrastructure, Network Rail, has announced it is commissioning a review into the future of its five main rail lines. This opens up the possibility of supplementing the network with high-speed rail links like the French TGV trains or the Japanese Shinkansen network.

Great Britain, however, is not France or Japan. It is a small island dominated by a small number of cities that are relatively close together. Even without high-speed links, the government's 2006 review of transport found that British cities have relatively good intercity links compared with their rivals. The study made clear that Britain does not need bullet trains.

Problems are mounting because of severe overcrowding on lines around London, Birmingham and Leeds. Rather than considering sweeping new lines, these congested pinch-points must be the first target for any new investment in intercity routes.

The other target for investment is the commuter train system, and it should be the priority for fresh funding. London has seen a 32 per cent increase in commuter numbers in the past decade, and there have been even larger increases in demand for commuter trains in Leeds, Bristol, Manchester and Birmingham. An obsessive focus on intercity travel will distract from the vital priority of ensuring that these cities continue to lead the econ-omic renaissance of Britain's regions. The TGV in France is a technological triumph, but the price of building the super-fast train was that France was left with a wretched commuter network. Britain cannot afford a similar mistake.

The debate on the train network illustrates broader problems with public infrastructure in the UK. Public capital spending is kept in check by a fiscal rule that takes no account of whether assets are being bought. The effectiveness and the lifespan of the investment are given no weight. The only thing that matters for meeting the rule is headline cost.

Since there is no serious culture of cost/benefit analysis in the Treasury, the result is that useful, dull projects are doomed to lose out to less worthy, but more exciting prestige projects.

It is good news that Network Rail is commissioning a serious review, but it must make decisions based on the needs of both intercity travellers and commuters, and executives must ignore political pressure to provide excitement. No one wants a high-speed white elephant.

Posted on 1:26 PM | Permalink

The Times: June 20, 2008
Martin Samuel

The hugely complicated train system would not cope - nor be able to offer a free service for fans, as required

The train left Geneva at 00.51am on the dot, as stated, and arrived in Zurich two hours and 54 minutes later, which was the deal. The ticket collector made his way down the carriage, genially ignoring the blurred lines between first and second-class travellers, as this was an Extrazug, laid on with the purpose of getting football supporters home. He was not going to argue if some had treated themselves to a complimentary upgrade. They were well behaved anyway, the Turkish lads. They don't drink, either, and the frequent trolley remained heavy with beer.

Last night I broke the 3,000km barrier on train lines across Austria and Switzerland. Cost: nothing. Part of the deal when hosting a tournament is that media receive free first-class rail travel. Supporters get a bargain, too. The inspector wasn't checking for rail tickets but match tickets; possession entitles the holder to go free on all public transport until noon the day after the game.

The last train to Zurich, under normal circumstances, leaves at 9.45pm, but on match nights there have been additional departures in the small hours, meaning lucrative freight commitments take second place and extra staff or overtime is negotiated to compensate for keeping the equivalent of several large armies on the move, fed and watered. In Vienna, the U-bahn network - their equivalent of the London Underground - works on the honour system anyway. There are meant to be checks, but I haven't witnessed one.

"The clue to why the infrastructure of this tournament works is in the name of the transport companies driving it: Schweizerische Bundesbahnen (SBB) and Österreichische Bundesbahnen (ÖBB). Owned by the nation, managed for the nation, the nation takes precedence."

And it couldn't happen here in England. We will host the Olympics - and we appear prepared to supplicate ourselves before some of the most powerful figures in football until we are given the World Cup in 2018 - but, if that award is made, what follows will be a national embarrassment. The clue to why the infrastructure of this tournament works is in the name of the transport companies driving it: Schweizerische Bundesbahnen (SBB) and Österreichische Bundesbahnen (ÖBB). Owned by the nation, managed for the nation, the nation takes precedence. If late trains are running from Geneva to the rest of Switzerland, then late trains are running from Lancy-Pont-Rouge to Genève Cornavin, too, because that is the shuttle route to the stadium. For us, it is different. Just synchronising Wembley trains alone would require the co-operation of three rail networks: Chiltern Railways, who service Wembley Stadium station, London Overground, who run trains into Wembley Central, and London Underground, who supply Wembley Park. In total there are more than 20 rail networks in England alone that would need to be squared off if there was to be a complementary and complimentary public transport service during a home World Cup.

"British railways work most of the time, but they are not ours to control. The system is now run by men in boardrooms, with shareholders to placate and targets to meet, who are not going to look too kindly upon a chap from the Government blithely announcing that overnight freight services are to be disrupted for a month by extra passenger trains except - get this - we're letting everybody on for nothing."

This is not another whine about the inferiority of modern Britain. The train into Innsbruck on Wednesday was late, the one back to Zurich yesterday was delayed and oversubscribed. British railways work most of the time, but they are not ours to control. The system is now run by men in boardrooms, with shareholders to placate and targets to meet, who are not going to look too kindly upon a chap from the Government blithely announcing that overnight freight services are to be disrupted for a month by extra passenger trains except - get this - we're letting everybody on for nothing. SBB stations may appear confusing from the outside, because the German name also takes in a French alternative, CFF, and an Italian, FFS, but SBB-CFF-FFS is all one company, unlike the tower of Babel that is England's rail network.

It is not enough to bring a few big cities and the odd main line into the programme, either. Fans do not always stay in the places where the matches are played; and team training camps, for instance, which are a massive attraction, are often in the middle of nowhere. At Euro 2008, Germany are staying in southern Switzerland and the nearest venue is 386 kilometres away in Geneva. At an English World Cup, Brazil could easily set up camp at a complex near the Welsh border and bring the world's media plus a thousand fans each day hurtling down the Wrexham and Shropshire line.

Using the current framework, to introduce a coherent timetable during a World Cup would require the co-operation of c2c, Chiltern Railways, Cross Country, East Midlands Trains, First Capital Connect, First Great Western, Gatwick Express, London Midland, London Overground, Merseyrail, National Express East Coast, Northern Rail, South West Trains, Southeastern, Southern, Virgin West Coast, Grand Central, Heathrow Connect, Heathrow Express, Hull Trains and Wrexham and Shropshire. Not to mention various tram lines, bus lines and metro systems.

A spokesman for the Association of Train Operating Companies is already doing the numbers in anticipation of a lavish compensation package. “It can't come cheap,” he said. “That is assuming the freight customers agree; you can assume there would be some argy-bargy.” Or some Argies that would be better off on a barge, rather than hanging around for a non-existent night train from Portsmouth. Even if one is laid on, it's hard to imagine it will come free, because the Treasury would then need to commit public money to reimbursing the privatised rail network for subsidising tourists.

Yet a World Cup cannot be delivered without that promise, so what does this mean? A financial escalation comparable to the Olympic delivery, for a start. Just as nobody factored in the real cost of compensating businesses displaced by the construction of the Olympic park, so compensation claims from the rail networks would be in the realm of thinking up numbers, then doubling them. Switzerland and Austria can control budgets because the funds are being moved from one government pot to the next. It is not the same here. England's bid will be derailed by the wrong kind of dough.

See also:

Railway changes orange strip to avoid Dutch mix-up

Reuters: Jun 20, 2008
By Mark Ledsom

BASEL - Switzerland's national railway has told its workers to stop using their normal orange reflective vests after confused Dutch soccer fans started following them on to the tracks.

Dutch fans celebrate their team's victory over Romania after the Euro 2008 match in Bern, June 17, 2008.

A railway spokesman said the changed strip had been prompted by an incident in the Swiss capital Berne when a group of Netherlands supporters followed a worker on to the lines after mistaking his uniform for their traditional orange dress.

"We have now given out yellow vests to all our staff who have to work on or cross the tracks in Basel, where the Dutch fans are now based," Oliver Tamas said on Friday.

"It has raised a few eyebrows but we think it's a necessary measure to ensure the safety of our guests."

Tamas said that 1,500 railway staff involved in fan coordination work had already been given yellow vests to help them stand out from the Dutch supporters.

Police in Berne also ditched their orange vests after Netherlands were drawn to play all three of their group stage matches in the city.

A Basel police spokesman said on Friday that the yellow vests used by Berne police had now been sent to Basel in time for Saturday's quarter-final between Netherlands and Russia.

Posted on 12:49 PM | Permalink

Financial Times: June 21 2008
By Robert Wright and Jim Pickard

Britain is set next week to take a significant step towards its biggest railway-building project for more than a century, when Network Rail will announce it is launching a strategic review to look at the possibility of building five new main lines.

The company, which owns and operates Britain's main line railways, is expected to say that the lines will be needed by 2025, when existing routes north and west of London will be full to capacity.

Most routes are likely to be high-speed passenger lines, modelled on France's TGV network, which would free up space on existing lines for local passenger and freight trains.

The routes to be examined are likely to follow roughly a series of existing routes from London: the West Coast Line to Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow, Great Western line to Bristol, East Coast line to Edinburgh, Midland line to Sheffield and Chiltern route to Birmingham.

Only one new main line rail route has been built in the UK in the past century - High Speed One from London St Pancras to the Channel Tunnel, whose last section opened in November.

Before that, the last new main line to be constructed was the extension of the Great Central Railway from Nottinghamshire to London, Marylebone, opened in 1899.

Network Rail is unlikely to specify which new lines should be high-speed because speed will be one of the issues examined in the review, for which the company is seeking a consultant. While high-speed trains generally emit less carbon dioxide per passenger for a journey than aircraft, faster trains emit CO 2 far more than conventional-speed trains.

The Department for Transport faced criticism last summer when its rail White Paper contained no concrete plans either to electrify much of the rail system or to plan for future high-speed lines.

Network Rail is thought to be launching the review under its obligation to plan for the railways' long-term future.

The busiest rail lines are growing increasingly crowded after passenger traffic grew 67 per cent between 1994 and last year. Freight traffic is up about 50 per cent since the mid-1990s.

See also:

High speed trains planned in UK railway blueprint

Daily Telegraph: 21/06/2008
By David Millward, Transport Editor

Rail passengers could see journey times across Britain slashed under proposals to build a series of high-speed tracks similar to Japan's Shinkansen "bullet trains" or the French TGV.

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that executives at Network Rail are to draw up a blueprint to criss-cross the country with hundreds of miles of new track in the biggest railway building programme since the industry's Victorian heyday.

This could see six inter-city lines being built, of which several would be dedicated to trains capable of travelling at 186 miles per hour.

Network Rail chiefs say the case for expanding the railways has been bolstered by the need to cut dependency on oil and environmental demands to reduce domestic air travel.
Article continues
advertisement

Iain Coucher, Network Rail's chief executive, will announce a study next week on the shape of the industry beyond 2014. The results will be presented to ministers next summer.

If his plans are accepted, construction on the lines could begin towards the end of the next decade.

The likeliest candidates for high-speed track are two lines running through the spine of the country, one from London to Glasgow and the other along the east coast to Edinburgh.

Four others are also under consideration: from London to south Wales; London to Cornwall; London to Birmingham through the Cotswolds and from the capital to Sheffield.

The London to Sheffield line could connect to the high-speed Channel Tunnel line and then on to the European network.

Other lines, such as Reading to Oxford, could also be upgraded.

Mr Coucher said the need is partly because existing infrastructure is incapable of handling rising demand.

"Trains are becoming fuller," he said. "We have been able to put more on the network, going up from 17,000 to 22,000 a day.

"Then trains could be lengthened from eight to 10 to 12 carriages. But after that you reach the point where other steps are needed."

The greatest pressure is expected to be on the lines linking London to "dormitory towns".

It has left Network Rail trying to work out how it can cope with a surge in the number of passengers coming into London from stations such as Milton Keynes, Rugby and Peterborough.

This, Mr Coucher believes, will mean building lines dedicated solely to high-speed trains running between Britain's major cities.

Taking inter-city trains off existing tracks would enable Network Rail to double the number of services between commuter hubs.

These trains would run at speeds of 100mph.

"Instead of one train an hour with 1,000 seats I could put on two," Mr Coucher told The Daily Telegraph.

There would also be more capacity for freight trains, allowing goods to be transferred from road to rail – in turn easing pressure on the country's motorway network.

"With the popularity of rail growing, we have to start planning for the medium and long-term future today," Mr Coucher said.

"We have a thriving railway today and that must continue and grow to meet the economic and environmental needs of tomorrow's Great Britain.

"The price will be very large, but the benefit this will bring to Britain in terms of the economy and environment will be huge."

See also:

Network Rail to consider five new high-speed lines

Times Online: June 21, 2008
By Simon Alford

Five new main railway lines could be built across Britain to tackle growing passenger numbers on the train network.

Plans for Britain's biggest railway building work for more than 100 years could see high-speed lines, similar to the link between London St Pancras to the Channel Tunnel, being used nationwide for domestic services for the first time.

It is hoped the new lines would-free up space on existing services and help cope with a projected 30 per cent rise in passenger numbers over the next decade. There has already been a 40 per cent increase in people using the rail network in the last 10 years.

The lines would run alongside the existing rail network, in a similar way to the French TGV network.

The suggestions are among those being considered in a strategic review by Network Rail, which owns and operates the rail network.

The study, which will be announced on Monday, will look at whether high-speed lines are a feasible alternative to the current operating system and will generally examine ways to improve services over the next 20 years.

It will target the country's five busiest lines in and out of London, estimated to be at full capacity by 2025, which are the West Coast line to Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow; the East Coast line to Edinburgh; the Great Western to Bristol; the Midland main line to Sheffield; and the Chiltern route to Birmingham.

Any proposals considered in the review would not come into effect until after 2014. A Network Rail spokesman said: “We are looking at these five strategic routes. We are possibly looking at new lines. There is a huge case to be made for an expansion of the rail network. All options are on the table looking at how we address capacity issues.”

Richard Dyer, transport campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said a modernised rail system was long overdue and could mean fewer cars, lorries and internal flights.

He labelled the proposals for new high-speed lines as "very exciting", but said the effect on the countryside must be taken in to account.

“Expanding Britain’s railways by building new high speed lines is potentially very exciting - and could play an important role in weaning Britain off fossil fuels and developing a low carbon economy," Mr Dyer said of the Network Rail study

“But the overall impact that this would have on local people and the environment must be carefully considered. The UK needs a modern, comprehensive and affordable rail network to provide a real alternative to cars, lorries and short haul flights, and help cut Britain’s contribution to global climate change.

“Our creaking railway system desperately requires huge investment to bring it into the 21st century.”

The review was also welcomed by rail users watchdog Passenger Focus. Director Ashwin Kumar said: "It is extremely important the rail industry anticipates future growth."

The country's first high-speed link opened in 2003 between London Waterloo and the Channel Tunnel, and was completed last year when services began operating out of London St Pancras in November.

The line has cut journey times from the capital to Paris by 40 minutes, and domestic high-speed services from Ashford and Ebbsfleet in Kent are expected to begin in 2010.

Britain's last main railway line to be built before this was the Great Central Main Line which linked Sheffield with Marylebone station, which opened in 1899.

Posted on 12:38 PM | Permalink

RMT: June 20 2008

SPECIALIST TRANSPORT union RMT has today condemned a European Court of Justice ruling that Luxembourg must remove labour laws that ensure equal treatment for national and foreign workers.

“This is another EU attack on trade union rights and national democracy,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

“This latest ECJ ruling shows that the Posting of Workers Directive was not introduced to protect foreign workers working abroad but to remove obstacles to bosses exploiting workers across the EU.

“This unaccountable and undemocratic EU court is being used to undermine collective bargaining rights and introduce social dumping in the name of the ‘free movement’.

“The time has come for labour movements across Europe to stand up and demand respect for national labour laws and the repeal of these vindictive and anti-working class ECJ judgments,” Bob Crow said.

See also:

EU attacks workers’ rights – again

Morning Star: 20 June 2008
Brian Denny"

Alarm bells should be ringing in trade union buildings across the European Union following another ruling by the European Court of Justice which found once again that the rights of business to do want it likes when it likes overrides trade union rights.

Unfortunately, while the threat to trade union rights is very real, the sense of danger and concern this should provoke among workers organisations is missing.

This is due to the secretive nature of EU institutions and a lack of understanding of the immense power they have given themselves over the years.

In the latest case the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has, ironically, found against its host country in its judgment in a case brought by the European Commission. The ECJ upheld the Commission’s complaint that the way in which Luxembourg has implemented the Posting of Workers Directive as an obstacle to the free provision of cross border services.

In other words, Luxembourg’s national labour laws protecting foreign workers are hampering the rights of firms to extract profits and should be done away with.

The seriousness of this ruling was underlined by very frank comments from arch-Europhile John Monks, general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC).

When establishment figures like Mr Monks say that the Luxembourg judgment is “another hugely problematic judgement by the ECJ, asserting the primacy of the economic freedoms over fundamental rights and respect for national labour law and collective agreements” we should be worried.

He goes on to admit that the Posting of Workers Directive is being used as an instrument not to protect workers and labour markets against unfair competition on wages and working conditions but as an “aggressive internal market tool”.

Yet the Posting of Workers Directive was designed to remove obstacles to the freedom of firms to operate and not to protect vulnerable foreign workers as Europhiles have claimed in the past.

In the ECJ Vaxholm case in Sweden, Latvian building company Laval justified using low paid Latvian workers by quoting the Posting of Workers Directive (Article 3.1.C). According to Laval, this implied that member states shall ensure a minimum rate of pay is laid down in national legislation or in a generally applicable collective agreement.

The company invoked Articles 12 (prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of nationality) and 49 (which stipulates that restrictions on freedom to provide services shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of member states who are established in a state of the Community other than that of the recipient of services) of the EU Treaty.

Cases such as Vaxholm imply that countries with well-functioning collective bargaining arrangements could be forced to change these to meet the requirements of EU legislation.

As Sweden had not introduced a statutory minimum wage, the company claimed there was no obligation for an employer to pay the minimum wage collectively bargained for in the building sector.

In the latest Luxembourg case, the EU court has agreed with the European Commission that the country’s labour laws obstruct the free provision of services.

In this case, the ECJ does not recognize the autonomous right of Luxembourg to define national public policy provisions to counter unfair competition on wages and working conditions of workers by cross border service providers.

This latest ECJ judgment is likely have an enormous impact, far beyond the Luxembourg borders, and increases the spectre of social dumping for all workers.

It effectively challenges the scope for member states to secure decent wages for all workers on its territory, demand respect for collective agreements and devise effective mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of the workers’ rights.

The court is effectively saying that any national laws that block ‘free movement’ within the EU must be struck down since they conflict with EU rules on the free movement of goods and services.

The court is in effect slowly imposing, through case law, the hated ‘country of origin’ principle, supposedly dumped from the services directive in 2005.

An unelected EU commission is now actively acting against the interest of workers and the sovereignty of member states. The Irish people’s stance to defend democracy and workers rights recently by voting "No" to the Lisbon treaty has been proven again to have been the correct decision.

Workers and their organisations across Europe need to act now as the implications of allowing EU institutions to ride roughshod over democracy and workers’ rights are very grave indeed.

A good starting point would be to heed RMT general sectary Bob Crow’s call for labour movements across Europe to stand up and demand respect for national labour laws and the repeal of these vindictive and anti-working class ECJ judgments.

See also:

ECJ further limits scope for Member States to demand respect for national labour law and industrial relations by foreign service providers

ETUC: 19/06/08

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg today issued its judgement in a case brought to the Court by the European Commission. The ECJ upheld the Commission’s complaint on all points, considering that the way in which Luxembourg has implemented the Posting Directive is an obstacle to the free provision of cross border services. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) considers that this is another hugely problematic judgement.

This judgement is another one in the series Laval and Rüffert, showing that the ECJ and the European Commission are on a consistent track to narrow down the scope for Member States and social partners to ensure a proper functioning of their labour markets when it comes to foreign service providers posting workers to their territory. It confirms the ECJ’s narrow interpretation of the Posting Directive in the previous cases, allowing only for a limited number of host country rules to apply. In this case, the ECJ does not recognize the autonomous right of Luxembourg to define which national public policy provisions are so important, that they should apply to national and foreign service providers on an equal footing, to counter unfair competition on wages and working conditions of workers by cross border service providers.

The ECJ judgement may have an enormous impact, far beyond the Luxembourg borders, as it challenges the scope for Member States - acting in the general interest - to secure decent wages for all workers on its territory, demand respect for collective agreements and devise effective mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of the workers’ rights provided for in the Posting Directive.

John Monks, General Secretary of the ETUC said:

“This is another hugely problematic judgement by the ECJ, asserting the primacy of the economic freedoms over fundamental rights and respect for national labour law and collective agreements. It turns the Posting Directive from an instrument that was intended to protect workers, companies and labour markets against unfair competition on wages and working conditions into an aggressive internal market tool. This is unacceptable and must be repaired as soon as possible by the European legislators, notably by a revision of the Posting Directive to clarify and safeguard its original meaning. In addition, the ETUC urges the European institiutions to adopt a Social Progress protocol at the next Treaty revision, confirming the primary goal of the EU as being the improvement of living and working conditions of its workers and citizens, and not a race to the bottom. After the Irish ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty this is more crucial than ever ”.

Posted on 11:51 AM | Permalink

RMT: June 20 2008

AROUND 700 RMT Tube cleaners working for four private contractors are to stage a series of strikes after voting by a landslide 125-to-one margin for action to win the London living wage and decent working conditions.

Cleaners working for ISS, ITS, ICS and GBM will not book on for shifts that commence during the 24 hours between 18:50 next Thursday, June 26 and 18:49 on Friday June 27. A second, 48-hour, strike is also scheduled for all shifts commencing between 18:50 on Tuesday July 1 and Thursday July 3.

The union is also demanding 28 days’ holiday, sick pay, decent pensions and travel facilities, and an end to the barbaric practice of ‘third-party sackings’ in which cleaners can be dismissed, with no disciplinary hearing or right of appeal, at the behest parties other than the employer – a device used to get rid of union activists.

“This was a massive vote for action by a group of workers who are among the most exploited and abused in London, and their anger is clear for all to see,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

“Their bosses are making huge profits at our members’ expense and wouldn’t bat an eyelid at spending more on a single meal than many of our members earn in a week.

“A London living wage is reckoned to be at least £7.20 an hour, yet there are Tube cleaners who are paid at rock-bottom minimum-wage rates little more than £5.50 an hour.

“Sick pay, adequate holidays and a decent pension scheme are not optional luxuries, they are basic decent employment standards, and it is outrageous that the people who keep one of the world’s most prestigious metro systems clean do not already get them.

“The previous mayor promised that cleaners on Metronet contracts would receive the London living wage as soon as they passed into TfL control, and if Boris Johnson wants to be seen as a mayor for all Londoners he will honour that pledge.

“Tubelines bosses know that paying cleaners the London living wage would barely dent their £1 million-a-week profits, and it is time they stopped hiding behind their contractors and lived up to their professed aim of ‘treating others as we would like to be treated,” Bob Crow said.

Posted on 10:57 AM | Permalink

London, 17 June, 2008

We congratulate participants attending this conference and contributing to this vital discussion. We welcome the support this initiative has received from the European Transport Workers Federation.

We send solidarity to all trade unionists fighting privatisation and liberalisation.

We hope that all participants at today’s conference and those who could not attend will continue this dialogue and cooperation in appropriate forums in the near future so that we maximise the exchange of information and coordinate our future activities.

We believe the consequences of rail privatisation, liberalisation and fragmentation are:

· Attacks on rail safety, pay, conditions, pensions, trade union organisation and collective bargaining

· A more expensive, less efficient railway, where profit comes before the needs of the community.

We therefore condemn:

· Those EU directives, including the various railway packages which are increasingly leading to the privatisation of Europe’s railways and a so-called liberalisation process that is leading to less democratic accountability and the growth of private rail monopolies.

· Those Governments, EU Institutions, the World Bank and other financial institutions which are increasingly making privatisation, liberalisation and fragmentation of the railways a condition of funding.

We believe that, unless effectively challenged, the employers’ attacks on workers through liberalisation and privatisation will be assisted by the recent Viking, Laval and Ruffert judgments in the European Court of Justice which represent a fundamental attack on collective bargaining and the right to strike.

We therefore support and urge the ETF to call a European wide demonstration by trade unions representing rail workers before the end of 2008 and during the French Presidency of the European Union. The purpose of the demonstration will be to:

· Protest against the privatisation and liberalisation of our railways

· Protest against social dumping and call for the defence of trade union rights and national collective bargaining.

To achieve this end we agree to:

· Coordinate our activities and work together to maximise participation by rail workers' trade unions in an ongoing discussion about the effects of EU rail liberalisation policies.

· Work with other progressive organisations and social movements that share our aims.

See also German language version:

RMT-Erklärung an die Europäische Konferenz der Eisenbahngewerkschafter

London, 17. Juni 2008

Wir beglückwünschen die Anwesenden zur ihrer Teilnahme an dieser Konferenz und zu ihrem Beitrag zu dieser wichtigen Diskussion. Und wir begrüßen die Unterstützung, die diese Initiative von der Europäischen Transportarbeiter-Föderation (ETF) erhalten hat.

Wir hoffen, dass nicht nur sämtliche Teilnehmer dieser Konferenz, sondern auch diejenigen, die heute nicht teilnehmen können, diesen Dialog und diese Zusammenarbeit sehr bald in entsprechenden Foren fortsetzen werden, damit wir den Informationsaustausch maximieren und zukünftige Aktionen koordinieren können.

Wir glauben, dass die Privatisierung, Liberalisierung und Fragmentierung der Bahn folgende Konsequenzen haben wird:

· Die Beeinträchtigung der Bahnsicherheit, der Löhne, der Arbeitsbedingungen, der Renten, der gewerkschaftlichen Organisation und der Tarifverhandlungen

· Eine kostspielige, weniger effiziente Bahn, die den Profit über die Bedürfnisse der Gemeinschaft stellt

Deshalb verurteilen wir:

· die EU-Richtlinien, einschließlich der verschiedenen Bahnpakete, die in zunehmendem Maße zur Privatisierung der europäischen Eisenbahndienste führen, sowie einen so genannten Liberalisierungsprozess, der zu einer weniger demokratischen Rechenschaftspflicht und zum Wachstum privater Bahnmonopole führt

· alle Regierungen, EU-Institutionen, die Weltbank und andere Finanzinstitutionen, die eine Privatisierung, Liberalisierung und Fragmentierung der Bahn zur Vorbedingung der Finanzierung machen

Wir sind der Meinung, dass die kürzlich gefällten Viking-, Laval- und Rüffert-Urteile des Europäischen Gerichtshofs die im Rahmen von Liberalisierung und Privatisierung erfolgenden Übergriffe der Arbeitgeber auf die Rechte der Arbeitnehmer noch unterstützen, da diese Urteile einen fundamentalen Übergriff auf die Tarifverhandlungen und das Streikrecht bedeuten und daher einer Kampfansage bedürfen

Daher unterstützen wir die ETF und fordern sie dazu auf, noch vor Ende 2008 und während der französischen Präsidentschaft der Europäischen Union eine europaweite Demonstration der Eisenbahnergewerkschaften zu organisieren. Der Zweck dieser Demonstration wird sein:

· Protest gegen die Privatisierung und Liberalisierung unserer Eisenbahnen

· Protest gegen Sozialdumping sowie Aufruf zur Verteidigung der Gewerkschaftsrechte und der nationalen Tarifverhandlungen

Um diese Ziele zu erreichen, werden wir

· unsere Aktivitäten koordinieren und gemeinsam daran arbeiten, eine größtmögliche Teilnahme der Eisenbahnergewerkschaften an einer kontinuierlichen Diskussion über die Folgen der Bahnliberalisierungspolitik der EU zu erzielen und

· mit anderen progressiven Organisationen und sozialen Bewegungen, die unsere Ziele teilen, zusammenarbeiten.

See also French language version:

Déclaration du RMT à la Conférence européenne des syndicalistes des chemins de fer

Nous remercions tous les participants d’assister à cette conférence et de contribuer à ce débat essentiel. Nous savons gré à la Fédération européenne des travailleurs des transports du soutien qu’elle a apporté à cette initiative.

Nous espérons que tous les participants à la conférence d’aujourd’hui et tous ceux qui n’ont pas pu y assister poursuivront prochainement ce dialogue et cette coopération dans le cadre de forums appropriés, de manière à maximiser les échanges d’informations et à coordonner nos activités futures.

Nous pensons que les conséquences de la privatisation, de la libéralisation et de la fragmentation du rail sont les suivantes :

* Atteintes à la sécurité du rail, aux salaires, aux conditions de travail, aux retraites, à l’organisation syndicale et aux négociations collectives dans le secteur ferroviaire
* Abandon de la notion de service public dans les chemins de fer en faveur d’un réseau ferroviaire exploité dans le seul but de permettre à de grandes entreprises de gagner beaucoup d’argent et où le profit devient le seul critère entrant en ligne de compte pour la prestation de services ferroviaires
* Chemins de fer plus coûteux, moins efficaces, où le profit passe avant les besoins de la collectivité.

Aussi, nous condamnons :

* Les directives européennes, y compris les différents paquets ferroviaires, qui conduisent de manière croissante à la privatisation des chemins de fer européens et à un processus dit de libéralisation entraînant l’affaiblissement de la responsabilité démocratique et le développement des monopoles ferroviaires privés.
* Les gouvernements, les institutions européennes, la Banque mondiale et d’autres institutions financières qui font de plus en plus de la privatisation, de la libéralisation et de la fragmentation des chemins de fer des conditions du financement accordé.

Nous pensons qu’à moins qu’elles ne soient contestées de façon efficace, les atteintes portées aux travailleurs par les employeurs par le biais de la libéralisation et de la privatisation seront encouragées par les récents arrêts Viking, Laval et Rüffert rendus par la Cour de justice européenne, arrêts qui constituent une atteinte fondamentale à la négociation collective et au droit de grève.

Nous invitons donc instamment l’ETF à appeler les syndicats représentant les cheminots à participer à une manifestation européenne avant la fin 2008 et durant la présidence française de l’Union européenne, et soutiendrons l’ETF dans cette démarche. Cette manifestation aura pour but de :

* Protester contre la privatisation et la libéralisation de nos chemins de fer
* Militer en faveur de chemins de fer publics faisant passer l’intérêt de la collectivité avant le profit
* Protester contre le dumping social et réclamer la défense des droits syndicaux et des négociations collectives nationales.

À cette fin, nous nous engageons à :

* Coordonner nos activités et à travailler ensemble afin de maximiser la participation des syndicats de cheminots à un débat permanent sur les effets de la politique de libéralisation des chemins de fer de l’UE.
* Travailler avec d’autres organisations et mouvements sociaux progressistes qui partagent nos objectifs.

Londres, le 17 juin 2008

See also Spanish language version:

Declaración del RMT a la Conferencia Europea de Sindicalistas Ferroviarios

Confiamos en que todos cuantos participan en esta conferencia y aquellos compañeros y compañeras que no han podido asistir a la misma continuarán este diálogo y cooperación en las plataformas apropiadas en un próximo futuro, de forma que nos sea posible aprovechar al máximo el intercambio de información y coordinar nuestras futuras actividades.

Creemos firmemente que las consecuencias de la privatización, liberalización y fragmentación de los ferrocarriles son:

* Ataques a la seguridad ferroviaria y los salarios, condiciones de trabajo, pensiones, organización sindical y negociaciones colectivas
* El abandono de los ferrocarriles sociales, a favor de ferrocarriles explotados únicamente en interés de las grandes compañías y en los que los beneficios son el único criterio para la provisión de servicios.
* Ferrocarriles más caros y menos eficientes, en los que los beneficios se anteponen a las necesidades de la comunidad.

Por consiguiente:

* Condenamos aquellas directivas de la UE, con inclusión de los diversos paquetes ferroviarios, que están llevando cada vez más a la privatización de los ferrocarriles de Europa y a un proceso de ‘liberalización’ que está resultando en una reducción en la responsabilidad democrática y en la aparición de monopolios ferroviarios privados.
* Condenamos a aquellos gobiernos, instituciones de la UE, Banco Mundial y demás instituciones financieras que están imponiendo cada vez más la privatización, liberalización y fragmentación de los ferrocarriles como condición para la financiación de proyectos.

Creemos que, de no encontrar una oposición eficaz, los ataques de los empleadores contra los trabajadores, mediante la liberalización y la privatización, se verán asistidos por las recientes decisiones del Tribunal de Justicia Europeo en los casos Viking, Laval y Ruffert, que representan un ataque fundamental contra las negociaciones colectivas y contra el derecho a la huelga.

En consecuencia, prestamos nuestro apoyo y apremiamos a la ETF para que, antes de finales del año en curso y durante la Presidencia de Francia de la Unión Europea, organice una manifestación paneuropea de sindicatos que representan a ferroviarios. El objetivo de esta manifestación será:

* Protestar contra la privatización y liberalización de nuestros ferrocarriles
* Abogar a favor de ferrocarriles de propiedad pública, que pongan a la población por delante de los beneficios
* Protestar contra el ‘dumping’ social y en defensa de los derechos sindicales y de las negociaciones colectivas nacionales.

A este fin, acordamos:

* Coordinar nuestras actividades y esfuerzos para conseguir la máxima participación posible de los sindicatos de trabajadores en el continuado debate sobre las consecuencias de la política de liberalización ferroviaria en la UE.
* Colaborar con otras organizaciones y movimientos sociales progresivos, que comparten nuestros objetivos.

Londres, 17 de junio, 2008

Posted on 1:06 PM | Permalink

RMT: June 19 2008

MORE THAN 230 RMT members working at 19 major rail stations (list below) managed by Network Rail are to strike for 24 hours from noon next Thursday, June 26, in a dispute over harmonisation of pay and conditions arising from a reorganisation.

RMT members voted for strike action by a five-to-one margin after Network Rail failed to guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies or to commit to harmonisation of terms and conditions for all NR station staff, and breached bargaining procedures.

Station staff will not book on for shifts that begin between midday on June 26 and 11:59 on June 27. From 01:00 on June 26 RMT members will also refuse to train, supervise or familiarise non-station staff to station roles

The industrial action is being co-ordinated with sister union TSSA.

“The company is still seeking to impose rather than negotiate and our members have demonstrated quite clearly that they are not prepared to see their bargaining procedures by-passed under the threat of redundancy,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

“There remains no reason why Network Rail cannot give the simple guarantee that there will be no compulsory job losses as a result of this exercise.

“We are happy to sit down with them and conclude national consultations, but the company has breached bargaining procedures by trying to impose reclassification at local level,” Bob Crow said.

ends

Note to editors: The stations involved in the dispute are: Birmingham New Street, Canon Street, Charing Cross, Ebbsfleet, Edinburgh Waverley, Euston, Fenchurch Street, Gatwick, Glasgow Central, Kings Cross, Leeds, Liverpool Lime Street, Liverpool Street, London Bridge, Manchester Piccadilly, Paddington, St Pancras, Stratford International, Victoria and Waterloo.

Posted on 1:02 PM | Permalink

RMT: June 17 2008

THOUSANDS OF Tube workers who were mistakenly denied the opportunity to join the Transport for London pension fund are to have their missing periods of service recognised under a deal negotiated by the network’s biggest union.

Around 8,700 staff will now have their scheme membership backdated to their first day of employment, with missing employers’ contributions paid up in full, and missing employee contributions, averaging £90, deducted over the appropriate number of pay periods.

The deal comes some two years after an RMT rep noticed that many trainees, probationers and workers initially employed on fixed contracts but subsequently taken on permanently had not been offered their right to be in the pension scheme from their first day of employment.

In detailed discussions with TfL and LUL it emerged that nearly 5,700 former trainees and probationers had been kept out of the fund for up to 147 days, while some 3,000 erstwhile fixed-term workers had lost between 150 and 1,000 days of fund membership.

“This is excellent news which will mean bigger pension entitlements for thousands of Tube workers,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

“This was a simple blunder, but had it not been for the sharp eyes of RMT reps it might have gone unnoticed and deprived many families of their full pension entitlements.

“It has taken us a long time to get there, but TfL and LUL have shown good faith in negotiating this settlement, and no-one should now lose out.

“Former Metronet workers who were forced into inferior pension arrangements thanks to privatisation are now also to be given their right to join the final-salary scheme that all Tube workers should be in,” Bob Crow said.

Posted on 12:59 PM | Permalink

Jamaica-Gleaner: June 18, 2008

The Editor, Sir:
I was pleased to read in an earlier edition of The Gleaner that the minister of transport and works, Mike Henry met with the Chinese officials in a further attempt to resuscitate and revitalise the railway.

I for one am very elated and optimistic about this latest attempt. Although in its present state the railway needs massive input to bring it up to date, the good news is most of its rolling stock is still intact, cheap, convenient, clean

I believe the railway should be an integral part of any country's transportation network system or infrastructure - because it is perhaps the cheapest, convenient and probably the cleanest way to travel in the world. The building of Highway 2000 shouldn't compromise the revitalisation of the railway, it should complement it - by taking a lot of pressure off the roadway, especially in transportation of heavy loads.

Properly run and managed, the railway could encourage people to use mass transit and could be a sightseeing asset for tourism as well as the locals, also for concerts and sporting events.

One of the improvements I would like to see happen is for a line to be run from the wharf to Kingston yard just like a line used to run from Kingston yard into the rear of the Coronation Market. This would be convenient to transport cars and probably containers in a very economical way. In the time of the railway, in addition to transporting bauxite, it efficiently transported the bulk of the country's agricultural products. And because of its various departments, employed hundreds of people throughout the country. Bringing back the railway won't be exactly cheap, but with energy prices escalating with no end in sight and the global warning from auto emissions - it could be a blessing.

I am, etc.,

NOEL MITCHELL
Nlmworld@yahoo.com

Westchester, New York

Posted on 12:40 AM | Permalink

RMT: June 15 2008

A MAJOR conference of European railway trade unionists aimed at developing strategies to resist and reverse the tide of EU-driven rail privatisation and 'liberalisation' is to be hosted in London on Tuesday by Britain's biggest rail union.

RMT general secretary Bob Crow, European Transport Workers' Federation general secretary Eduardo Chagas, Kelvin Hopkins MP and John Hendy QC will be among the keynote speakers at the event, which will be attended by trade unionists from 15 European countries.

Frank Keoghan from the People's Movement, which campaigned for a No vote in last wek's Irish referendum, will also now address the conference on the campaign's historic victory and the threat posed by the EU Constitution to workers' rights.

The conference will analyse the origins of rail liberalisation and privatisation, including EU directives, the various EU rail 'packages' and policies implemented by national states, will look at their impact on the industry and its workforce and will explore how European rail unions can work together to reverse them.

It will also look at the serious implications for workers' rights posed by the recent Viking and Laval rulings by the European Court of Justice.

"The timing of this conference couldn't be better, coming in the wake of the stunning defeat by the Irish people of attempts to impose an undemocratic Constitution that would have accelerated privatisation throughout the EU," Bob Crow said today.

"The defeat of that Constitution should be welcomed by railway workers already living with the consequences of privatisation and fragmentation, and by all those living under its long shadow.

"The Irish referendum result will give fresh heart and impetus to our campaign, because the Irish people have shown that the agenda of those who would turn Europe's railways into a herd of cash cows can be defeated.

"It is deeply disturbing that the British government, which in opposition pledged to reverse the privatisation and resulting fragmentation of Britain's railways, is now acting as a missionary for it among other EU countries," Bob Crow said.

ends

For further information and for media credentials to attend the conference (space limited), please contact Derek Kotz on 020 7529 8803 or 07939 595 092

Notes to editors: The conference for European rail trade unionists on campaigning against rail privatisation and liberalisation in Europe will be held from 10:00 to 17:00 on Tuesday June 17, at the London headquarters of the International Transport Workers' Federation, 49-60 Borough Road, London, SE1 1DR

View Larger Map

The event will be attended by railway trade unionists from Spain, Turkey, France, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Norway, Hungary, Romania, Austria, Latvia, Bulgaria and Britain.

Translation for the conference will be in English, French, German and Spanish.

Agenda

Conference for European Rail Trade Unionists:

Campaigning against rail privatisation and liberalisation in Europe

10.00 - 1700, Tuesday June 17, 2008, ITF Headquarters,

10.00 -1015: Registration

10.15: Opening of conference and introduction: John Leach, RMT President

10.30: Overview: Bob Crow, RMT General Secretary

10.45 - 12.00: Analysis of the origins of rail liberalisation and privatisation

Chair: Steve McGiffen, Editor Spectrezine (Journal of the EU-critical left in Europe)

Speaker: Rene Roovers, Trade Union Liaison officer for GUE/NGL group of left MEPs

Contributions and discussion from participating trade unions

12.00 - 1.30: The impact of liberalisation and privatisation on rail workers and society

Chair: John Leach, RMT President

Speakers: Kelvin Hopkins, UK Member of Parliament and member of the European Scrutiny Committee;

Frank Keoghan, People's Movement (Timing subject to change according to travel schedule)

Contributions and discussion from participating trade unions

1.30 - 2.30 Lunch (A buffet lunch will be provided)

2.30 - 4.30 Strategies for defeating liberalisation and privatisation

Chair: Alex Gordon, RMT Council of Executives

Speakers: Eduardo Chagas, ETF General Secretary; John Hendy QC

Contributions and discussion from participating trade unions

4.30 - 17.00 Summing up and closing of conference and issuing of statement endorsed by RMT Council of Executives.

Posted on 11:14 AM | Permalink

BBC News: 14 June 2008

Up to 12,000 Network Rail maintenance staff have gone on strike in a row over jobs and conditions.

Network Rail said unions had asked for "massive" pay increases

The Rail Maritime and Transport union said its members walked out for 30 hours from 1200 BST "after months of fruitless talks".

General secretary Bob Crow said the action would have a "cumulative" effect on the rail system.

But Network Rail insisted there would be no impact on services. It said the union had made "ridiculous" demands.

Mr Crow said he expected the strike to receive "rock solid" support from the RMT's members.

Harmonisation row

Four years ago, Network Rail took maintenance work back in-house from seven private companies.

It inherited more than 50 different sets of terms and conditions and has recently been holding talks with unions to try to harmonise them.

But Mr Crow said the rail company had "turned a dispute about harmonisation into an attack on jobs and conditions".

It is on the back of our members' hard work that the top bosses have awarded themselves huge bonuses
Bob Crow, RMT union

"The weekend's strike will be a demonstration by our members that they expect talks about harmonisation to produce proposals about harmonisation, not ever-longer lists of the conditions the company wants to destroy," he said.

"After months of fruitless talks, the company has finally let the cat out the bag and is talking about a reduction in numbers of people employed, and our members have made it clear that they will resist that attack.

"It is on the back of our members' hard work that the top bosses have awarded themselves huge bonuses, yet they are telling us they can't afford real harmonisation."

Network Rail said the union had made unreasonable demands, such as a 34-hour working week for all maintenance staff and "massive" pay increases.

These would add more than £100m to the maintenance wage bill, the company said.

A spokesman added: "We have enough fully qualified and competent people to carry out the time-sensitive, day-to-day maintenance work over the weekend.

"Non-time-sensitive work will be rescheduled."

Posted on 4:02 PM | Permalink

RMT: June 13 2008

THE HISTORIC Irish popular vote against the renamed European Union Constitution represents a massive victory for democracy, specialist transport union RMT said today, renewing its call for a referendum in Britain.

“The EU Constitution, whatever it may now be called, is an anti-democratic privatisers’ charter and would have undermined the right of working people to defend their jobs,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

“The Irish referendum result is a massive victory for democracy and the Constitution is now dead in the water, despite our own government’s attempt to railroad it through without the referendum the British people were promised.”

See also:

Irish voters sign death warrant for EU's Lisbon treaty

The Times: June 14, 2008
David Sharrock and David Charter

Members of the ’no’ campaign celebrate the result, which wrecks Brussels’ plans to streamline power and reduce the influence of small countries

Irish voters tore up the European Union’s blueprint for the future yesterday in a dramatic and decisive rejection of the Lisbon treaty.

Results in full:

The result leaves Brussels’ plans to streamline EU power – creating a president and foreign minister and reducing the influence for smaller countries such as Ireland – in tatters.

The 53.4 per cent “no” vote should in theory sign the death warrant of the treaty, which has been eight years in the making, since it requires ratification by all 27 members. Gordon Brown faced immediate calls to scrap British ratification.

But some European leaders appeared determined to ignore the result. Suspicions grew of a Franco-German plot to forge ahead and leave Ireland behind after Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French Europe Minister, said: “The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found.”

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, and President Sarkozy of France – seen as the architects of the treaty – issued a joint plea for the remaining eight countries to complete ratification.

Mr Brown called both to say that Britain would comply, but there were dissenting voices elsewhere. Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President, declared: “The Lisbon treaty project ended today with the decision of the Irish voters and its ratification cannot be continued.”

Declan Ganley, the multi-millionaire founder of Libertas, a group that campaigned for a “no” verdict, told The Times that the result showed that a chasm had opened up between Europe’s political elite and its people. “Are we sending them back to the drawing board? Categorically yes,” he said.

The Irish Government and main opposition parties, which had campaigned for a “yes” vote, suffered a resounding defeat. More than half the Irish electorate – 53.13 per cent – turned out to vote, a significant improvement on past referendums.

Posted on 11:44 PM | Permalink

RMT: June 13 2008

COMMENTING ON the news that train-leasing company Angel Trains is to be bought from the Royal Bank of Scotland by Babcock and Brown in a £3.6 billion deal, RMT general secretary Bob Crow today said:

“Angel Trains has made nearly half a billion in pre-tax profits over the last five years alone, and now it is cashing in the business for another obscene sum

“The very idea of a train-leasing market is absurd, and has been used as yet another way of transferring huge sums of taxpayers’ and fare-payers’ money out of the industry into private shareholders’ pockets.

“These companies make profits at a rate that would make the Cosa Nostra blush, and it’s not before time that the train-leasing companies have been referred to the competition commission for investigation.

“Every penny going into rolling stock procurement should be spent on beating overcrowding and increasing capacity, but privatisation has turned rolling stock into yet another cash cow.

“This is yet another argument for the renationalisation of the entire industry.”

See also:

Angel Trains' owners may pay price for costly leases

The Times: June 14, 2008
Angela Jameson, Industrial Correspondent and Paul Larter

Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) completed the first piece of its cash-raising programme yesterday by selling Angel Trains, the train leasing business, to Babcock & Brown European Infrastructure Fund for £3.6 billion.

The deal is a key component of RBS’s dash to raise further capital after completing its £12 billion rights issue this week. However the new owners could be forced to sell parts of the Angel business within months if the Competition Commission decides that prices for leasing trains are too high.

The Commission ruled last December that there was evidence that prices in the rolling stock leasing market were too high and singled out Angel Trains, the biggest operator, which has about 40 per cent of the market.

Speaking on behalf of a consortium of investors, Simon Gray, head of European Infrastructure M&A at Babcock & Brown, said: “We have made very conservative assumptions for this business and planned for all the outcomes. We don’t think that Angel has been making excessive profits and it may well be shown that they have provided good value for money.”

Babcock & Brown had to enlist 17 banks to raise the £2.8 billion debt it needed to buy Angel. RBS, which is exiting the industry after 11 years, is one of the banks providing long-term debt. Mr Gray said: “We are seeing a reluctance by banks to put up their balance sheet to underwrite deals. Instead of going to one or two banks, who would syndicate the debt to others, we had to go to a much larger group.”

He added that it was not surprising to see RBS continuing as a lender to the new owners: “There would have been concern if they hadn’t been.”

The sale of Angel Trains has been a critical part of RBS’s plan to shore up its finances and focus on its main banking business. It is also understood to be selling its insurance businesses – Direct Line and Churchill – for about £7 billion.

Analysts believe the bank will make a profit of £250 million to £300 million on the sale of Angel Trains after the consortium, which includes Deutsche Bank, Access Capital Advisers, and AMP, the Australian specialist investor, secured the deal for less than the expected £4 billion. RBS bought Angel Trains in 1997 for £408 million.

One of three national “roscos” [rolling stock leasing companies], it provides 4,100 passenger train vehicles and 280 freight locomotives to passenger and freight operators in the UK and Europe. Its customers include 18 of the UK’s 20 train operating companies and it has fleets with South West Trains and Virgin West Coast. It also has a significant order book to build passenger trains, locomotives and wagons, including new Pendolino carriages for routes from London to Glasgow through Manchester.

Angel was created in 1994 in advance of the privatisation of the UK’s rail network and is the biggest of the UK’s three train leasing companies. Its rivals are HSBC Trains and Porterbrook which are owned by high street banks HSBC and Abbey respectively.

Angel’s buyers hope to capitalise on a growing rail market that has seen passenger numbers rise by 50 per cent and freight traffic up 60 per cent in the past decade, as well as benefit from new European rules on open access.

Rob Gregor, the head of European infrastructure at AMP Capital, said: “We believe that the liberalisation of the European market and government investment in the UK mean that this is an exciting time to be investing in the UK and European rail sectors.” Despite the impact of the credit crunch, a spokesman for Babcock & Brown said that it secured debt for the deal on “competitive” terms. Infrastructure assets are seen as a safer bet by investors in the current turmoil.

The Babcock & Brown European Infrastructure Fund owns 22.2 per cent of Forth Ports and a stake in Brisa, a Portuguese toll road company. The fund, which closed in November last year, raised €2.2 billion (£1.7 billion), which it will gear up to take long-term stakes in European infrastructure assets.

The fund is ring-fenced from its parent company, which is listed in Australia. The parent company saw its shares fall again yesterday, compounding heavy losses earlier in the week.

The decline in Babcock’s share price has taken its market value below a level set by its lenders that would trigger a review of its debt agreements. Babcock has said that reaching the review limit does not mean it would have to repay or speed up repayment of its A$2.8 billion (£1.35 billion) in debt, due by 2011.

The sale of Angel completes a busy week for RBS, whose £12 billion rights issue was backed by more than 95 per cent of its shareholders on Monday.

Posted on 11:29 AM | Permalink

Times Online: June 13, 2008
Angela Jameson and Paul Larter, Brisbane

Babcock & Brown European Infrastructure Fund, which today acquired Angel Trains for £3.6 billion, has pledged it will not be caught out by a forthcoming ruling from the Competition Commission on the future of the train leasing industry.

Speaking as the fund sealed the deal to buy Angel Trains from RBS, a spokesman said: "We have made very conservative assumptions for this business and planned for all the outcomes."

The Competition Commission ruled last December there was some evidence that prices in the rolling stock leasing market, in which Angel is the biggest player, were higher than they should be.

Its final findings are expected later this year and it could force train leasing companies to sell parts of their businesses.

RBS is exiting the train leasing business after 11 years. Analysts believe the UK bank will make a profit of between £250 million and £300 million on the sale, after Babcock & Brown secured the deal for slightly less than original expectations of £4 billion.

The sale of Angel Trains forms part of RBS’s plans to shore up its finances and focus on its main banking business.

Angel - which was bought by RBS in 1997 for £408 million - provides around 4,800 locomotives and coaches to passenger and freight operators in the UK and Europe.

Its customers include 18 of the UK’s 20 train operating companies and it has major fleets with South West Trains and Virgin West Coast.

It also has a significant order book to build passenger trains, locomotives and wagons, including new Pendolino carriages for routes from London to Glasgow through Manchester.

Angel was created in 1994 following the privatisation of the UK’s rail network and is the biggest of the UK’s three train leasing companies. Along with rivals HSBC Trains and Porterbrook, it is currently under investigation by competition authorities.

Angel’s buyers are hoping to capitalise on a growing rail market which has seen passenger numbers rise by 50 per cent and freight traffic up 60 per cent in the past decade, as well as benefiting from new European rules on open access.

Rob Gregor, head of European infrastructure at consortium member AMP Capital, said: “We believe that the liberalisation of the European market and Government investment in the UK mean that this is an exciting time to be investing in the UK and European rail sectors.”

Despite the impact of the credit crunch, a spokesman for Babcock & Brown said that it secured debt for the deal on “competitive” terms. Infrastructure assets are seen as a safer bet by investors in the current turmoil.

The sale of Angel completes a busy week for RBS, whose £12 billion rights issue was backed by more than 95 per cent of its shareholders on Monday.

Sir Fred Goodwin, chief executive of the bank, is also looking for a buyer for RBS’s insurance businesses, which include Direct Line and Churchill, although he said on Wednesday that he would not be rushed into a sale.

The bank has been forced to writedown billions of pounds after it was exposed to sub-prime losses and its balance sheet was also weakened by the acquisition of ABN Amro, the Dutch bank, last year.

The Babcock & Brown European Infrastructure Fund owns 22.2 per cent of Forth Ports and a stake in Brisa, a listed toll leasing company in Portugal. The fund, which closed in November last year, raised €2.2 billion (£1.7 billion), which it will gear up to take long-term stakes in European infrastructure assets.

The fund is ring-fenced from its parent company, which is listed in Australia, and has seen its shares fall by a quarter today, compounding heavy losses earlier in the week.

The decline followed a 28 per cent fall yesterday, possibly aggravated by short sellers, that took Babcock’s market capitalisation below a level set by its lenders that would trigger a review of its debt agreements.

Babcock has said that reaching the review limit does not mean that it would have to repay or speed up repayment of its A$2.8 billion (£1.35 billion) in debt, due by 2011.

But UBS said in a report that a break-up or a management buyout could not be ruled out. Other analysts said that Babcock could accelerate its sales of wind power farms in Europe or other such assets to repay debt.

See also:

RBS sells off rail stock business

BBC News: 13 June 2008

Angel Trains is the largest of three UK rolling stock firms

Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has agreed a £3.6bn deal to sell the UK's biggest train leasing firm.

The sale of Angel Trains to a group led by infrastructure giant Babcock Brown comes as RBS looks to bolster its capital base.

Angel was formed by the UK government in 1994 as part of the privatisation of British Rail. RBS bought it in 1997.

The largest of the UK's three rolling stock leasing companies, it is involved in passenger and freight train markets.

The deal is financed by Babcock with a £2.8bn loan.

'Strains'

RBS is looking to shore up its finances to cover losses during the credit crunch and focus on its finance business capital base

This week it announced a strong take-up for its £12bn rights issue, with shareholders agreeing to buy more than 95% of the new shares offered.

And it has also said that its results for the first six months of the year should be "satisfactory".

In a trading update, the bank revealed no further credit crunch write-downs to the £5.9bn it announced in April.

But it said the global economic outlook was "placing strains on a number of business sectors".

Posted on 11:25 AM | Permalink

Railway Gazette International: 13 Jun 2008

Freightliner Group announced on June 13 that it had been bought for an undisclosed sum by Arcapita, a Bahrain-based investment bank specialising in corporate, real estate and asset-based investments and venture capital.

Freightliner EMD Class 66 locomotive

Subject to clearance from the European Commission, Arcapita will acquire Freightliner from 3i and Electra Private Equity, who invested in the former British Rail company when it was privatised in 1996, and from the Group's management and staff.

Freightliner Group is the parent company of Freightliner Ltd, the former BR container business, as well as post-privatisation companies created to grow the business. Freightliner Heavy Haul handles bulk freight, Freightliner Maintenance undertakes traction and rolling stock works, and Freightliner PL hauls freight in Poland and Germany.

Freightliner said in its statement that the change of ownership will ensure the company 'can continue to invest in and develop its intermodal and heavy haul businesses, and enhance its international activities.' There will be 'little change' to management and staff.

Posted on 9:21 AM | Permalink

The Guardian: June 14 2008
Ian Jack

The benefits of electric trains are clear-cut but ministers have been reluctant to commit.

When he was shadow chancellor and I was editing a Sunday newspaper, Gordon Brown came to our office to have lunch one day. The usual rules applied: nobody would take notes, nothing of the conversation would be quoted in the paper. All went well enough until the pudding, when the environment correspondent asked him about road pricing. What did he think of the idea as a way to cut car use and fund public transport?

"Oh," the shadow chancellor said, as though he stood teetering on the edge of an elephant trap, "you surely don't expect me to answer a question like that, do you?" Most politicians would have replied with a few bromides - tricky business, imperfect technology, more research needed - but Brown closed the subject by refusing to talk about it. John Major was prime minister and John Smith led the opposition; a general election was years away: and in any case, ours was a paper with Labour sympathies - we weren't going to stick in any knives. Suddenly we realised how cautious Brown was, how keen never to alienate "the British motorist", how limited his interest in public transport or environmental damage. Clearly, the last two weren't Brown themes.

In government it has been much the same. Around the time of our lunch, the Tory party was getting ready to privatise the railways. Labour committed itself to dismantling the privatisation and restoring a "publicly owned, publicly accountable railway". In 1995, Blair said privatisation was "absurd ... a hotchpotch of private companies linked together by a gigantic bureaucratic paperchase of contracts ... as the public learn more about the chaos and cost, their anger at this folly will grow". But by the time the election came around, no plan to renationalise was included in the manifesto. Brown reckoned it would cost too much. In any case, as he told a colleague, privatisation had twin benefits. It would "make the Tories unpopular and [a smile here] save us the trouble of having to do it". In power, Blair told an early cabinet meeting that railways were "not a priority".

They became one after a series of crashes, most notably Hatfield, and the collapse of Railtrack. Later, motorway congestion and the superficial greening of politics made them attractive as a future the government could more willingly embrace. Despite high fares and a confusing fare structure, passenger traffic continued to grow; last year more people travelled on British trains than at any time since demobilisation specials ran in 1946.

And yet when it comes to railway development, the government remains extraordinarily timid, almost abashed by the railways' success. There is no grand plan. The Department of Transport believes in business models and small, slow piecemeal improvements - a new junction here, platforms lengthened there. Outside London's Crossrail, no new stretch of railway is planned for England (the story is different in Scotland and Wales). Railways will "cater for" the changing patterns of travel; it won't attempt to create them.

The most striking example of government timidity is electrification. In the league table of European railways, Britain sits between Macedonia and the Czech Republic in the proportion of route miles it has electrified. At the end of 2005, it was 32.9%. Switzerland's proportion is 100%, France's 50.4. In other words, no other major European country believes, as Britain seemed to, that diesel locomotion is the way forward.

In terms of carbon emissions the benefits are clear-cut, no matter how the electricity is generated: London to Edinburgh by electric train has a carbon performance of around 45 grams of CO2 per passenger km compared with around 60 grams by diesel train or 210 grams by plane. In terms of efficiency, acceleration, maintenance and cleanliness, electric trains also win. The trouble is that the infrastructure of wires and posts is expensive to build: £400,000 for every km of single track, according to recent estimates in Modern Railways.

Cost and short-termism explain a lot of Britain's recent antipathy to electric railways, but the problem has deeper foundations. It could even be a paradigm of Britain's industrial and political history. The world's first electric locomotive, powered by zinc-acid batteries, was demonstrated on the Edinburgh & Glasgow Railway as early as 1842, but it was the German Werner von Siemens who made electric locomotion a practical possibility in the 1870s. Britain built a few novelty lines (one still survives, by Magnus Volk in Brighton) in the next decade. Private railway companies began to take electric traction seriously in the next century, with experimental schemes that used different forms of transmission, leaving a confusing legacy that still exists in the form of third rails (south of the Thames and on Merseyside) and overhead wires (everywhere else). Elsewhere in Europe, countries nationalised their railways - Italy in 1905, Germany in the 1920s, France in 1938 - and devised national strategies. In Britain, rivalrous private companies grew weaker. Only in the middle era of public ownership did Britain begin to electrify its main lines on any serious scale. And then in the 1990s the model of the free market returned, sweetened with heavy public subsidy but unfettered by strategic demands.

Eventually, in July last year, the government published its white paper, Delivering a Sustainable Railway. Electrification? "It would not be prudent to commit now to 'all-or-nothing' projects, such as network-wide electrification or a high-speed line, for which the longer-term benefits are currently uncertain and which do not reflect today's priorities". The transport secretary Ruth Kelly, gave evidence to the Commons' transport committee in January this year. Electrification? "It may well be the case that in the next few years I come back before this committee and say, 'I think electrification is the way to go'. I could not say that with confidence today ... I would not be able to make the value-for-money case."

The U-turn came last Friday. Kelly had noticed the price of oil. The events of recent weeks, she said, had "really brought home to me" how important it was "to complete the UK's transition to a low-carbon economy". Electrification? Yes indeed, it was time to phase out diesel engines.

The case for railway electrification has been argued over the past 10 years by many people inside the industry and out. Very few British politicians would get high marks for a similar foresight, particularly those in government.

I like to imagine a post-diluvian conference of historians high on a hill, portioning out the blame for sea-level rise and the turbulent weather. They have a long measuring stick. Ordinary, worldwide material ambition and human confusion take up several metres of its length, but here and there is a centimetre devoted to a particularly individual folly. George Bush has one of those. Much, much smaller, maybe only a millimetre but still just visible, is the Labour government's transport policy, 1997-2008 (or whenever).

Posted on 7:47 AM | Permalink

Bloomberg: June 9, 2008
By Rudy Ruitenberg and Sandrine Rastello

French railway workers and other public service employees will go on strike tomorrow to protest government plans to cut jobs in the education, transport and other sectors.

Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais, France's state-owned railway operator, said a strike by its workers will disrupt suburban and national high-speed train services.

To reduce the budget deficit, and faced with pressure from the European Union to cap government spending, President Nicolas Sarkozy has unveiled plans to shrink France's public sector. The French president, elected a year ago, has been criticized by the EU for abandoning his predecessor's pledge to balance the budget by 2010, pushing it back to 2012.

"To justify its reforms, the government continues to blacken the education system, camouflaging the debate with social considerations, while worsening inequalities,'' the Federation Syndicale Unitaire union said on its Web site, calling for "massive participation'' in the strike.

The protests follow another on May 18 by teachers and parents' associations against the plan to cut more than 11,000 jobs in the education system this year. Rail workers also led a nationwide strike on May 22 against a government plan to toughen pension rules.

Three railway unions have called for a 24-hour strike starting 8 p.m. tonight, SNCF said in an e-mailed statement yesterday.

Railway Disruption

"The SNCF recommends everyone who is able to do so to limit their movement,'' the statement said. "Train traffic will be disrupted.''

Trains on the RER B suburban line connecting Charles de Gaulle airport and Paris will be limited to one every 15 minutes, SNCF said.

On the high-speed links TGV Atlantique, which connects Paris and Bordeaux in southwest France, and the TGV Sud Est, connecting Grenoble in the southeast, about three in every four trains will run, the railway operator said.

About one in two high-speed trains will run on the TGV Province, which links Marseille on the Mediterranean and Lille in the north.

The Eurostar service between Paris and London and the Thalys services to Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany won't be affected, according to SNCF. The Alleo and Lyrea services to Germany and Switzerland, respectively, will also run as normal, the operator said.

Workers at SNCF want to protest the company's planned shakeup of its freight operations, Le Parisien said last month.

SNCF Freight

SNCF announced plans last year to bring together freight activities in a stand-alone division with its own drivers and personnel by the end of this year. This may lead to 6,000 job cuts by 2010, unions say.

Separately, fishermen and truckers have organized protests around the country over the last few weeks against the rising costs of fuel. Today, truckers slowing traffic near the southwestern city of Bordeaux to protest high fuel prices blocked an oil depot partly owned by Total SA.

The truckers' actions came as blockades by French fishermen of Mediterranean ports were lifted. The fishermen, also protesting higher fuel prices, ended their three-week strike today, Agence France-Presse reported.

Posted on 7:18 AM | Permalink

RMT: June 6 2008

MORE THAN 12,000 RMT maintenance workers at Network Rail are to stage a two-day strike from mid-day on June 14 in a dispute over harmonisation of terms and conditions that has become a major threat to jobs and working conditions.

After voting by a margin of nearly three to one for action, RMT member will not book on for shifts that commence between midday on Saturday June 14 and 17:59 on Sunday June 15. Members will also not undertake any overtime or ‘on-call’ work between 06:00 on Saturday June 14 and 06:00 on Monday June 16.

The dispute follows months of fruitless talks aimed at achieving a single set of terms and conditions for maintenance staff, many of whom transferred into Network Rail from the private sector. Company proposals had already been rejected by a 100-to-one margin.

“The company has been using the talks to try to drive down our members’ conditions, but our reps were shocked when the true extent of the company’s agenda was revealed to them last week,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

“We already knew that the company’s idea of harmonisation was a wholesale attack on conditions, but on top of total flexibility, multi-skilling, dangerous cuts in team sizes and an end to any idea of work-life balance, they are now talking about a jobs cull as well.

“Our members’ hard work and the £400 million in efficiencies they have already made have allowed NR to report pre-tax profits of more than £3 billion over the last two years.

“And it is on the back of our members’ hard work that the top bosses can expect bonuses worth between 50 per cent and 100 per cent of their salaries, yet they are telling us they can't afford real harmonisation.

“Instead we’re being told that the 21 per cent in new savings they have been told to make must paid for by our members with their conditions and even their jobs, and that is unacceptable.

“Network Rail should be ashamed that it tried to head off a strike vote by conning our members that they could stay as they were when the company never had the slightest intention of allowing that to happen.

“We are seeking nothing new out of the harmonisation process, only that people doing the same job get the same pay, terms and conditions,” Bob Crow said.

See also:

June 7, 2008

RMT Circular No: IR/154/08

Dear colleague

HARMONISATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE TERMS & CONDITIONS - NETWORK RAIL

Further to previous correspondence on the above matter in which I advised you of the ballot of our members, our negotiating team met with Network Rail management in order to seek substantial improvements to their previous proposals on harmonisation.

Far from improvements being made, Network Rail made a number of very worrying statements which I believe would have represented a serious attack on our members' current terms and conditions. These include plans to reduce the size of maintenance teams, redeployment, multi-skilling, job cuts and rostering "flexibility".

This all raised questions as to the company's previously stated position of no imposition of new terms and conditions or changes to the current T&Cs of our members. What in fact the company's new position is would represent a direct attack on our members. The company's stated aims can be found on the attached copy of a letter I received from Network Rail Human Resources Director Peter Bennett (Appendix I, below). You can also find my response to this letter attached (Appendix II, below).

Just at a time when we needed a sense of compromise from management and a determination to resolve this dispute, I can only describe their more recent attitude as belligerent and hardline.

This situation was therefore put back in front of the General Grades Committee, which took the following decision:

"That having viewed the latest correspondence on file from the company and noting the views of our infrastructure grades members, we instruct our affected members to take industrial action and not to book on for any shifts which commence between 12.00 hours on Saturday 14th June and 17.59 hours on Sunday 15th June. Members also instructed not to work any overtime between 06.00 hours on Saturday 14th June and 06.00 hours on Monday 16th June. Finally, no 'on-call' to be worked from 06.00 hours on Saturday 14th June and 06.00 hours on Monday 16th June."

This decision was not taken lightly but we cannot simply stand by and allow Network Rail to carry out its plans or sit back and let this situation continue. I am convinced that by our members sticking together this will force management back round the table to have meaningful discussions that can achieve a harmonisation package which is acceptable to the members concerned.

There will be regular updates and messages regarding this dispute on your union's website. Requests for picket line armbands and posters should be made to head office or your regional office.

I would be grateful if you could distribute the contents of this circular to your members.

Yours sincerely

Bob Crow
General Secretary

--

Appendix I

To: Mr R Crow
General Secretary
RMT
39 Chalton Street
London NW1 1JD

2nd June 2008

Dear Mr Crow,

I am writing to confirm the key points of our discussions held with your representatives on Thursday 29th May 2008.

At the start of the meeting I proposed that we should extend the deadline by which your union is required to take strike action, or action short of a strike. I now propose that the deadline be extended for a further 28 days from 19th June until 17th July 2008. We are at a delicate stage in our negotiations and I suspect we will both need this additional time in order to agree a way forward. We are as anxious as you to avoid any industrial action.

I am pleased that both parties reaffirmed that the common goal was to establish a standard set of terms and conditions for employees within the Maintenance function. The issue then for both of us is how we attain this goal and against a timetable acceptable to both parties. Of course, the primary stumbling block as we both know, is how we go about doing this and where the money comes from to afford it.

To do this we need a different approach to that which has been pursued to date. To help understand what's affordable we have agreed to take you through our costing model which predicts the costs of different proposals. We have arranged for you to go through this detail today, Monday 2 June, and tomorrow.

At the meeting we outlined a number of different approaches to moving forward. This is not an exhaustive list and we are very open to received alterative ideas from your union:

The 'big-bang' approach whereby we restructure everyone at the same time. This is the option we have been working on to date and, based on our experience so far, has proved to be cost prohibitive.
A 'national framework' approach where countrywide terms and conditions are established but we continue to have local rates of pay. This would take into account the geographic variances in our current rates of pay. However it would be a step towards having a single national rate but more easily achieved in the short term.
A 'Delivery Unit' approach where terms and conditions are harmonised at the new Delivery Units created under the new Phase 2a reorganisation. This approach would be based on the predominant set of current terms and conditions within each Delivery Unit.
In addition to the above, we could progress harmonisation on a national basis for those groups where it can be achieved more easily i.e. Supervisors, Technical Staff and Administrative Staff.
In order that there is absolute clarity about the position we need to reach, the company needs to make huge strides in productivity improvement in order to fund higher pay costs. In particular we seek:

* Team size determined by task
* Flexibility around the rostering arrangements. It is acknowledged that existing agreements already provide for considerable flexibility, but this is inconsistent throughout the country.
* Flexibility in the skills making up the teams.
* Ways to deal with the redeployment, and up-skilling of employees to create the efficient and highly competent maintenance workforce of the future. Over time there may be a reduction in the overall number of people employed on maintenance activities, however, our intent is to avoid the need for redundancies through excellent forward planning.
* Standard Job Descriptions, taking into account training, competence and up-skilling issues, and to do so in a pay structure which is underpinned by jointly managed job evaluation processes.
* The last point to emphasis is that the more savings we can generate through efficiency improvement, the faster we can fund the harmonisation process.

To allay fears about our intent, I must restate that we will not impose new conditions on employees. All employees will remain on their existing term and conditions. Industrial action will not serve to accelerate the harmonisation process. It will only slow it down and detract from the good work that has already been done by the JWP.

There is an opportunity here to forge a ground breaking agreement that we transform the Maintenance function in to a highly skilled, flexible and better paid organisation. Without doubt this is a difficult issue, however, we genuinely hope that over the coming weeks we can work out a way forward that satisfies everyone's needs.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Bennett
Director, Human Resources

--

Appendix II

To: Peter Bennett
Director, Human Resources
Network Rail
40 Melton Street
London NW1 2EE

Our Ref: BR4/0254

5 June 2008

Dear Mr Bennett

HARMONISATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE TERMS & CONDITIONS - NETWORK RAIL

I am writing in response to your letter dated 2nd June 2008.

I note your offer of extending the deadline by which action has to be taken following the close of the ballot of my members. My union would be happy to agree to this should it lead to a final push and if negotiations on signing off a harmonisation package were at a delicate stage. But, at the meeting held between our organisations on May 28th, no proposals of substance which could justify such an extension were made by your company and no fresh or improved proposals on terms and conditions were made.

With regards to what you term the "big bang" approach to harmonisation, my union does not agree that this approach is "cost prohibitive" even following the session my representatives had earlier this week in which they went over the financial models and predictions.

Additionally, my union does not believe that the "national framework" would resolve the problem as national conditions with local rates of pay is not harmonisation. Such an approach may work in other industries where one negotiating body is involved to represent a number of different employers, but it doesn't work in this case, where we have a number of different rates of pay for one group of workers at one employer.

On the "Delivery Unit" approach, this would simply raise as many problems as the "big bang" approach. We have a national problem which should be resolved with a national agreement and system and not a myriad of local harmonisation agreements.

You state that harmonisation could be achieved "more easily" for certain groups such as supervisors, technical staff and administrative staff. My union cannot understand such an approach as it divides the workforce by creating separate discussions. We have been dealing with all groups together for two years no and, in any case, it is not an issue for my union alone as it would involve other unions.

At the meeting held on the 28th May 2008, your representatives made a number of proposals which surprised my union, to say the least, considering this was the first time such proposals have been aired since negotiations began on harmonisation two years ago. These proposals, which are repeated in your letter of 2nd July 2008, are on team sizes, rostering flexibility, redeployment, multi-skilling and a reduction in the number of people being employed. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't expect such a list of proposals to be utterly unacceptable to my members. Not only that, but you must have realised that making such proposals at this stage would only enflame an already volatile situation. In the current circumstances, I must question the motive for your company making such proposals.

My union remains committed to negotiating one set of terms and conditions for each group in the Maintenance section of your company and to reach an agreement that sees a highly skilled and well paid workforce deliver a world class service. Your company's proposals fall well short of this.

It is the responsibility of Network Rail to avoid industrial action from taking place. However, your proposals do far from this but, rather, have made the matters worse.

My union remains available for discussions to resolve this dispute.

Yours sincerely

Bob Crow
General Secretary

Posted on 7:42 PM | Permalink

BBC News: 7 June 2008

Unions and MPs from all parties have questioned Network Rail's decision to pay £55m in bonuses.

Network Rail, Chief executive Iain Coucher will get a total of £510,581,

Chief executive Iain Coucher will get a total of £510,581, despite presiding over engineering delays that stranded thousands of passengers over New Year.

Cabinet minister John Denham said the decision "raised an issue" over performance-related bonuses.

Network Rail said the bonuses were justified because more trains were on time, and delays were decreasing.

Incentive plan

In addition to his £500,000 annual salary Mr Councher is to receive £305,581 as his annual performance-related bonus, along with an additional £205,000 under a separate three-year long-term incentive plan.

"This is money that will have been taken from the Network Rail investment pot, and should instead be invested in the railways" - Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat transport spokesman

Two other directors of Network Rail will each receive total bonus packages of more than £350,000 each.

All other staff will get an annual bonus of at least £871, with £55m being paid out in total - about twice the amount awarded last year.

On Friday, Mr Denham, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, said that there was "no point" in having performance-related bonuses if they failed to take into account that only half the job had been done properly.

He said: "Whether people should get performance bonuses of that scale when there have clearly been very significant problems I think raises an issue that comes up too often with performance bonuses."

Louise Ellman, the Labour chairman of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee, described the bonuses as "outrageous and showing contempt for the public".

She added: "The travelling public will feel outraged, as I do, that they are awarding themselves these bonuses."

The Conservative transport spokeswoman Theresa Villiers said she was "astounded" at the size of the bonuses.

'Fiasco'

She added: "Although there is some good news in the report of the company's activities this year, the engineering over-runs at the New Year were a fiasco for thousands of passengers."

Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker said: "This is money that will have been taken from the Network Rail investment pot, and should instead be invested in the railways."

Bob Crow, leader of the RMT transport union, said: "Once again we have Network Rail management showing that there's one rule for those in the big house and another for everyone else."

Network Rail's remuneration committee chairman Jim Cornell decided to back the bonuses, despite a formal letter last month from the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) which pointed out his firm's performance deficiencies.

In February the ORR fined Network Rail a record £14m after engineering work on the West Coast Main Line over-ran during the Christmas and New Year period.

At the time, ORR chief Chris Bolt said that, while he was powerless to reduce the size of the bonuses paid to Network Rail bosses, he might press for a tightening up of the procedures by which bonuses were awarded.

See also:

Network Rail bosses are shoo-in for 'brass neck award'

Telegraph: 07/06/2008
By Damian Reece

I'm not known for my sympathy with the unions but Gerry Doherty, general secretary of the TSSA, the rail union, got it right yesterday. I'm going to endorse his nomination of the Network Rail bosses, notably chief executive Ian Coucher, for the "brass neck award" for their outstanding arrogance in the field of bonus payments.

Coucher and his colleagues argue that, on the whole, Network Rail and the railway in general "had a good year". This is true when it comes to ticking certain boxes used in the mechanical measurement of a bonus scheme.

Many serious faults can be hidden by papering over the fundamental problems with averages and fractions. But the New Year fiasco revealed something about Network Rail far more serious than concerns over such things as punctuality.

Large and crucial parts of the rail network were brought to a complete standstill at one of the most predictably busy times of the year thanks to an utterly botched series of repair programmes. Network Rail can boast about a safer railway.

But if it's not operating at the most important time of year when people are relying on it more than ever, then the fact that they run no risk of injury from trains that aren't running is hardly reassuring.

The engineering over-runs at the turn of the year revealed deep flaws in the competence of Coucher and his team. These include an inability to forward plan properly, failure to understand the resources required to fulfil key works, failure to implement contingency plans and poor communications.

All these failings management were guilty of and remain guilty of. The team responsible for this fiasco are still in place, still running the rail network and with all their faults intact. Network Rail's remuneration committee are also guilty of failing to take into account the damage to the business's reputation the New Year failures caused - although as part of the public sector this probably comes with a shrug of the shoulders.

The company may have met "the majority of its targets" but the failures when they came were so great, so worrying and so damaging that the executives should have been advised to waive their bonus payments.

Hiding them in a sea of statistics over the course of a year is no excuse. Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways, set a welcome precedent by handing back his full £700,000 bonus because of the T5 fiasco, regardless of the fact that the year in question had otherwise been a record-breaking one, including an operating profit of £875m.

Network Rail instead decided that reducing Britain to the status of Banana Republic and allowing the rail system to be crippled during the New Year rush should simply contribute to a 14pc reduction in bonuses.

The failings were total so the reduction in bonuses should have been total.

See also:

Network Rail to revamp its controversial management bonus scheme

The Sunday Times: June 8, 2008
Dominic O’Connell

NETWORK RAIL is to revamp its controversial management bonus scheme to take account of a shake-up in its financial structure next year.

The rail group, which owns and operates nearly all of the UK’s network and large stations, is to cut its financial ties to the state next April.

It will borrow without the back-up of a government guarantee for the first time since it was set up six years ago.

Iain Coucher, Network Rail’s chief executive, said the group was likely to borrow about £10 billion on its own account over the next five years.

The switch will be used to shake up corporate governance at the group, which came under renewed attack last week after it paid record annual bonuses to executives, despite the Christmas and New Year debacle that saw thousands of passengers inconvenienced by engineering work overruns. Coucher, for instance, received £508,000 in bonuses on top of a salary of £585,000.

Directors will have to make public a revised incentive plan that will tie bonuses to the company’s financial health and the railway's performance.

The move to financial independence will be a significant milestone for Network Rail, set up in 2002 as a not-for-profit successor to Railtrack.

To raise money, the group has to date used a special guarantee granted by the Department for Transport which has allowed Network Rail to borrow £20 billion at cheap rates. From April it will go it alone, and seek its own corporate credit rating.

The switch has been agreed after discussions between ministers, Network Rail directors and the Office of the Rail Regulator.

“We have said to Network Rail that we expect there to be a direct link between the new financial framework and the management incentive plan,” the regulator said.

Posted on 6:51 PM | Permalink

RMT Circular No: IR153/08: June 6, 2008

Dear Colleague

RATES OF PAY & CONDITIONS OF SERVICE 2008 - NETWORK RAIL (OPERATIONS & CUSTOMER SERVICES, PROJECT & ENGINEERING SUPPORT STAFF)

Further to my previous circular IR144/08 dated 28 May 2008, the company has confirmed that the first year of the offer stands at RPI plus 0.6%, i.e. 4.9% in total.

In addition, for signallers in receipt of the Mentor Signaller Allowance, Network Rail will pay an amount equivalent to an additional one year's payment. This is on the basis that this is a full and final settlement of the allowance and no further allowances will be paid.

Following a meeting with our Area Council representatives, the position has been considered by the General Grades Committee and they have taken the following decision:

"That having met our Area representatives and noting their unanimous views, we instruct the General Secretary to inform the company that we are no longer in dispute and of our formal acceptance of the two year offer.

Members to be advised in a personal letter. Branches and Regional Councils to be also advised."

Yours sincerely

Bob Crow
General Secretary

Posted on 11:28 PM | Permalink

The Times: June 6, 2008
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

Britain is to be left out of Europe’s high-speed rail revolution because the Government has decided that 200mph trains are bad for the environment.

Despite repeated promises to consider the benefits of a dedicated new line capable of carrying passengers from London to Scotland in less than three hours, ministers are thinking again.

In a letter obtained by The Times, Tom Harris, the Rail Minister, said: “The argument that high-speed rail travel is a ‘green option’ does not necessarily stand up to close inspection. Increasing the maximum speed of a train from 200kph [125mph – the current maximum speed of domestic trains] to 350kph leads to a 90 per cent increase in energy consumption.”

Mr Harris was responding to an appeal by Chris Davies, the Liberal Democrat MEP for the North West of England, asking the Government to make its position clear. Mr Davies pointed out that France had already built 1,000 miles of 190mph line, was planning another 500 miles and was considering raising the top speed of trains to 225mph.

Mr Harris claims that Britain has less need for high-speed rail than other European countries. He said: “The economic geography of the UK is very different from other countries with high-speed lines. The main challenge for the UK’s transport network is congestion and reliability, not journey times and connectivity.”

Mr Harris’s comments contrast sharply with Labour’s 2005 election manifesto, which pledged to “look at the feasibility and affordability of a new North-South high-speed link”.

In March, Atkins, an engineering consultancy, published a study of the costs and benefits of two high-speed lines between London and Scotland along the East and West coasts. It found that the lines would cost £31 billion, but provide £63 billion in economic benefits, including helping the regeneration of northern cities.

Next week, Greengauge 21, a rail industry lobby group, will publish a report showing that businesses in the West Midlands alone would benefit by £2.2 billion from a high-speed line to London.

Mr Davies said that Mr Harris had failed to acknowledge the environmental benefits of persuading domestic air passengers to transfer to high-speed rail. He added: “It is very disappointing to see the minister scrabbling around for excuses for the Government’s inaction on high-speed rail, especially when those excuses are so weak.”

A high-speed train produces about 90 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger-kilometre, compared with just over 50g/km for a conventional electric train. But a domestic flight produces 225g/km.

Inter-city lines are severely overcrowded and there is strong evidence that future demand has been underestimated. The total distance travelled by train is growing by about 10 per cent a year, but over the next five years the Government is planning to increase capacity by only 22.5 per cent.

In January Iain Coucher, the chief executive of Network Rail, told The Times that by 2020 Britain needed at least three domestic high-speed lines to add to the 68-mile link between London and the Channel Tunnel.

Comments:

High speed rail is five times more fuel efficient than short haul air travel. It frees up capacity on classic railways for freight. That in turn is five times more fuel efficient than road haulage. Reducing road congestion improves fuel economy.

Very green if you look at the whole picture.

David Ede, Edinburgh, Scotland

If Labour do not have a vision for HSR the 21st Century, perhaps another party will step in ?
The present Snailrail / Crossrail project for London should be abandoned and replaced with the extension of High Speed 1 to Reading & Watford Junction.
Oh Lord, I had a dream !

Peter Hooper, Windsor, UK

I'm still waiting for Eurostar to operate north of London, as we were promised way back in 1994.

Paul, Coventry,

Just more steps in the road to us becoming a third world nation.

Paul Downes, Milton Keynes, Bucks

As pointed out in the article, those excuses are WEAK. HSR is very green even when going 190-225mph when compared to airline and passenger cars. Seriously, people should do their research before spouting off such ludicrous claims........

Ven, Columbus, USA

Another Government smoke & mirrors act to mask their lack of a national strategic planning. An integrated transport strategy has been desperately needed since Dr Beeching decimated our rail network. But God forbid that any alternative be offered that erodes the Treasury cash cow of private transport.

Alastair, Rye, UK

Posted on 10:32 AM | Permalink

The Independent: 6 June 2008
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

Passenger groups have warned that Britain's rail watchdog is trying to get "a railway on the cheap" as it announced budget cuts of £3.3bn which could put planned improvements "at risk".

The rail regulator, Chris Bolt, has ordered Network Rail, the rail infrastructure company, to slash its budget from £31.1bn to £27.8bn by 2014 and make efficiency savings of 21 per cent. But a spokesman for the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) dismissed fears of cuts in much-needed improvements to the capacity of the railways as "nonsense" and insisted that Network Rail could still afford to go ahead with major schemes.

The ORR admitted, however, that the draft budget, to be confirmed in October, could mean that passengers will have endure weekend engineering work on the railways for years to come.

The regulators said engineering work would be "much less disruptive" by 2014 but added there would be still "some way to go" after that before a seven-day railway would be operational.

Network Rail's chief executive, Iain Coucher, said: "I am extremely concerned that the funding settlement outlined today will put our plans to meet rising demand at risk."

Anthony Smith, chief executive of the customer watchdog Passenger Focus, said the ORR had to be "realistic and not force Network Rail to deliver a railway on the cheap. Forcing them to scrimp and cut corners will mean a poorer service for passengers."

Bill Emery, chief executive of the ORR,said: "This is a good package for passengers, for freight customers and for taxpayers."

See also:

Off the rails

The Independent: 6 June 2008
Leading article:

Yet again, Gordon Brown finds himself public enemy No 1 in the eyes of the motoring lobby. The recent demonstration in the capital by hauliers was followed by a rally of bikers in Manchester yesterday.

And in the Commons this week, the Prime Minister was put on the political rack over his planned reforms to vehicle excise duty and the scheduled 2p increase in fuel tax. One might imagine that, at a time when he is being hammered for penalising road users, Mr Brown would want to be able to point to extensive public investment in other forms of transport.

Would the Prime Minister not want to show that, although he is fining the drivers of heavily-polluting vehicles, he is also making life easier for those who make more environment-friendly transport choices? So it is rather disconcerting to read the latest report from the Office of Rail Regulation, which says that train passengers face disruption from weekend engineering work for years to come. The forecast comes as Network Rail is complaining that its latest budget settlement is insufficient.

It is normal for public bodies to complain of underfunding. But in the case of the railways, the complaints are entirely justified. The Government has taken the farcical decision to steadily decrease the public subsidy to the railway, just as demand for rail travel is rising and its status as the most environmentally-friendly form of transportation is increasingly plain.

This is one "long-term decision" that Mr Brown needs to reverse quickly if he is to have any chance of justifying his claims to have a truly "green" transport policy.

See also:

Network Rail cash cut will keep lines crowded

The Times: June 6, 2008
Ben Webster

The Rail Regulator ordered Network Rail yesterday to abandon 20 schemes to ease some of the most overcrowded lines, after a government decision to reduce funding for the railways by about £1.5 billion a year.

The Office of Rail Regulation announced that Network Rail would receive £26.5 billion between 2009 and 2014, £2.7 billion less than the infrastructure company had requested. It refused to fund schemes to increase capacity in West Croydon, from Didcot to Oxford, from Swindon to Kemble, and Crewe, Redhill, Birmingham, Liverpool, Buxton, Bolton and Hertford.

It also delayed the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line between Stafford and Colwich.

See also:

Major rail projects at risk over £3bn budget cut

Times Online: June 5, 2008
Angela Jameson

Much needed improvements to the rail network, including schemes to reduce overcrowding on trains, have been thrown into doubt today by a £3 billion shortfall in the funding proposed for Network Rail.

The Office of Rail Regulation wants to trim Network Rail’s budget for the five years from 2009 to 2014 to £26.5 billion, almost £3 billion less than the rail infrastructure group has asked for.

As part of its proposed funding deal it is demanding that Network Rail cut operating, maintenance and renewals costs by a fifth, at the same time as making significant improvements in train punctuality.

The budget for capital investment in the rail network has been cut from Network Rail’s hoped-for £9 billion to £7.5 billion.

The capital investment programme was to go towards a major programme of network improvements including the long-delayed £5.5 billion north-south, cross-London Thameslink scheme, a £425 million rebuilding of Reading station in Berkshire and the remodelling of Birmingham New Street station.

Iain Coucher, chief executive of Network Rail, said: “On the face of it, the proposed funding settlement is insufficient. I am extremely concerned that the funding settlement outlined today will put our plans to meet rising demand at risk.”

The railway is seeing the highest level of passengers since 1947 but the aging infrastructure is creaking at the seams and overcrowding has become a problem on many commuter routes into and out of major cities and the capital.

Mr Coucher said that while demand for more and better rail services continued to grow, it was vitally important for Network Rail to receive the right level of funding so that it can deliver the railway that the country needs in the next decade.

Anthony Smith, chief executive of customer watchdog Passenger Focus, said: “It is right that pressure is put on NR to deliver the railway at the most cost-effective price. However, the ORR must be realistic and not force NR to deliver a railway on the cheap. Forcing them to scrimp and cut corners will mean a poorer service for passengers.“

Network Rail has been under particular scrutiny this year because it has struggled to complete high-profile engineering projects on time. At New Year hundreds of thousands of passengers were forced on to buses when the West Coast Main Line between London and the Midlands failed to reopen after engineering works that were scheduled to take place over the holiday.

There were further problems on the same line over the Easter holiday and the early May bank holiday, all due to major engineering projects at Rugby and Milton Keynes.

Train operators like Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains are deeply sceptical that the rail infrastructure group can deliver improvements to the West Coast Main Line in time for a new timetable in December.

The ORR has fined Network Rail twice in the past year for overrunning engineering works.

Network Rail has made steady progress in reducing costs, but it has failed to meet its own targets for cutting delays and still consumes three times as much subsidy as British Rail did.

According to ORR data, it is also less efficient than several publicly owned networks on the Continent. The ORR has fined Network Rail twice in the past year for overrunning engineering works that have affected hundreds of thousands of passengers.

See also:

Passengers to suffer as rail bosses told to cut spending

Daily Telegraph: 05/06/2008
By David Millward, Transport Editor

Passengers could lose out on improvements to services after Network Rail was told by the rail regulator to cut spending.

The Office of Rail Regulation has demanded the company, which maintains, operates and renews the country's railways, reduce spending by 21 per cent.

But its demand triggered fears from the rail consumer watchdog, Passenger Focus, that some of the improvements promised to passengers to ease overcrowding and delays will not be delivered.

"However, the ORR must be realistic and not force NR to deliver a railway on the cheap,' said Anthony Smith, Passenger Focus's chief executive.

'Forcing them to scrimp and cut corners will mean a poorer service for passengers.'

Demand for rail is now running at its highest level since just after the war and passenger numbers are expected to increase by 30 per cent over the next decade.

Network Rail's plans include building longer platforms to accommodate the 1,300 extra carriages promised by the Government and a number of track improvements to ease bottlenecks on the system

However, the company, which has offered efficiency savings of 13 per cent, fears that some projects on its wishlist for 2009-14 would have to be dropped if it is forced to make the cuts demanded by the regulator.

But this was disputed by Bill Emery, the ORR's chief executive. 'We have carefully reviewed Network Rail's plans, and produced determinations that are challenging and achievable.

'We have carried out detailed studies that have produced strong evidence to show that the company can make significantly greater efficiency improvements than it has assumed in its plan.'

Network Rail told to make 21 per cent cut by regulator

But Iain Coucher, Network Rail's chief executive, warned that the plans would jeopardize its blueprint for the industry.

'On the face of it, the proposed funding settlement is insufficient,' he said.

'I am extremely concerned that the funding settlement outlined today will put our plans to meet rising demand at risk.

"In the coming months, Network Rail will use everything in its power to secure the funding necessary to build a bigger and better railway. Passengers and freight users would expect nothing less.'

This morning's announcement by the ORR was the latest stage in prolonged negotiations between the regulator and Network Rail over how much cash will be made available for the improvements promised between 2009-14.

If both sides fail to reach agreement by October, Network Rail will be able to take its case to the Competition Commission.

Posted on 9:52 AM | Permalink

Times Online: June 6, 2008
Angela Jameson

Network Rail's profits have jumped by a fifth in a year when the rail infrastructure company has caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of travellers with several engineering project overruns.

But the rail infrastructure group claims it has made a breakthrough on punctuality, with more than 90 per cent of trains arriving on time in the month of April, for the first time since records began. In the year to March 31, 89.9 per cent of trains arrived on time.

Delays directly attributable to Network Rail, rather than a train operator, have reduced by one million minutes over the last year or 10 per cent. This is the lowest level of delays caused by infrastructure for a decade.

The rail company, which is a not-for-profit company which reinvests in the railway, said that post-tax profits rose to £1.2 billion in the year to the end of March, up from £1 billion the previous year.

At the same time, the net debt of the rail company has jumped by 7 per cent from £18.4 billion in 2005/06 to £19.7 billion in 2007/08.

Today’s figures come at a time when Network Rail is under pressure from the Government, rail regulators and the travelling public to cut down on weekend engineering work and to improve its overall performance.

A series of engineering work overruns caused chaos for the travelling public at the new year. The worst of these was at Rugby in the West Midlands on the West Coast Main Line. Closures of parts of this line are taking place at most weekends this year as Network Rail stuggles to complete a major modernisation of the line by December.

The Office of Rail Regulation fined Network Rail a record £14 million for the new year overruns and has told the company it expects engineering work to have as little impact on passengers as possible.

Yesterday, the ORR set demanding new targets for the rail group to improve its punctuality and reduce its costs. However, at the same time, it proposed that the rail group's funding would be almost £3 billion less than the company had asked for.

Ian McAllister, chairman, said: "Train performance is at an all time high, a £4 billion investment programme has been delivered, delays caused by the infrastructure have been cut and costs have also been reduced."

"In additon, lessons have been learnt following the engineering overruns at New Year. Changes have been made to make the planning and execution of such big improvement schemes more robust," Mr McAllister said.

See also:

Network Rail post-tax profit up to 1.2 billlion sterling

Reuters: June 6 2008

LONDON -- British rail operator Network Rail made a profit after tax of 1.2 billion pounds ($2.3 billion) in the year to the end of March, up from 1 billion the previous year, the company said on Friday.

The state-backed company, which must reinvest all profits in the network or use them to reduce debt, added that train punctuality was at a record high with nearly 90 percent of services arriving on time.

"Overall, the last year has been a good one ... a 4 billion pound investment programme has been delivered, delays caused by the infrastructure have been cut and costs have also been reduced," Chairman Ian McAllister said in a statement.

He said lessons had been learnt following engineering overruns at New Year, which led to the company being hit with a 14 million pound fine due to resultant delays.

Network Rail took over the running of Britain's railways following the collapse of Railtrack Plc in 2002. It is part funded by government subsidies and has the amount of income it is allowed to generate fixed by a regulator.

Regulator the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) on Wednesday said Network Rail needed 26.5 billion pounds to improve railway efficiency and overcrowding during the period 2009 to 2014 -- below what Network Rail had requested as well as the figure for the current five year period.

Network Rail said it would fight the decision, adding that in order to extend platforms to ease overcrowding it would need around 29 billion pounds. (Reporting by John Bowker; Editing by David Cowell and David Holmes)

See also:

Network Rail's profits jump to £1.6bn

Bloomberg: 06/06/2008

Network Rail has seen its profits rise to more than £1.5bn as the owner of the country's rail network cut costs.

Pre-tax profits climbed 8pc to more £1.59bn in the year to March 31, an increase of 8pc from a year earlier.

The company's revenues climbed to £5.9bn from £5.8bn. Network rail's chairman Ian McAllister said: 'A £4bn investment programme has been delivered, delays caused by the infrastructure have been cut and costs have also been reduced.'

Network Rail's main source of income remains £16.4bn of Government grants, with most of the rest coming from £6.2bn of track access charges paid by train operators.

Today's results come as tensions rise between Network Rail and its regulator have clashed over the funding required over the next five years to run and expand Britain's railways.

The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) said Network Rail should be allowed £26.5bn over the next control period from April 2009 to March 2014 - £2.6bn less than the company reckons it needs and a £1.6bn reduction on the current period.

Network Rail added today that it doubled investment in expanding the rail network to £1bn in the year, while overall investment climbed 19pc to £4bn.

Posted on 9:38 AM | Permalink

Business Daily NAIROBI: June 6, 2008
Written by James Makau

While the importance of Mombasa as East Africa’s main regional port is still not in doubt, the proposed railway line cutting across Sub-Saharan Africa will reduce the relevance of the port as well as its Durban counterpart.

Mombasa Container Port today

The port of Mombasa’s position on the East African seaboard as Africa’s gateway to Asia will be severely challenged in the next 10 years as the Chinese set out to complete an ambitious trans-continental railway project, experts say.

Plans are under way that will see the Chinese government construct a railway cutting across Sub-Saharan Africa from Angola in Africa’s western seaboard to Tanzania on the eastern coast of the continent.

Martyn Davies, an expert on China and Africa relations at Stellenbosch University, says that with the Chinese economy’s growth firmly hinged on Africa’s natural resources, the need to easily move commodities from the continent will spawn massive infrastructure initiatives by the Chinese.

Lost relevance

“The railway line which will run from Luanda to Dar-es-Salaam will reduce the relevance of Durban and Mombasa as key landing ports for traders from the east,” says Dr Davies, adding that China was already constructing

In 2001, China pledged in Dar-es- Salaam to finance the development of the 1,860 kilometre-long Tanzania-Zambia Railway (TZR) built by the Chinese government in an aid grant in 1970s.

The railway links the Indian Ocean port city of Dar-es-Salaam and its terminal of Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia, which will then be extended, passing through the southern part of DR Congo and ending up in Angola.

But with China’s increasing interests in oil and precious minerals in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia, the construction of this railway line is meant to ease the extraction and transportation to China.

“Africa is the guarantor of China’s growth and this means that its commodity supply chains have to be secured,” says Dr. Davies.

From Zambia, the main export product is copper, which is being transported from the copper belt to Dar-es Salaam and Durban in South Africa. Oil and other precious minerals extracted from Angola and DRC form the key interests for the Chinese

With plans under way to rehabilitate the port of Dar-es- Salaam, the railway will soon place the Tanzanian port city as the main hub on the East African seaboard.

While the importance of Mombasa as East Africa’s main regional port is still not in doubt— 15 million tonnes of cargo was moved last year signifying a 22 per cent increase from 2006— the rise of Dar-es-Salaam could slice a significant chunk off Mombasa’s share.

The railway line is expected to reduce cargo transportation time from Angola and the Great Lakes region to the Far East. Currently, cargo from the country has to round the southern cape of Africa before heading out to China.

In 2002, Angola’s post-war reconstruction received a boost with a $3 billion oil-backed credit line from China to rebuild the war-torn country’s shattered infrastructure.

In addition, the China International Fund Ltd based in Hong Kong is undertaking a $300 million rehabilitation of the Benguela railway line, which was destroyed during the civil war.

When restored, the railway line will link Benguela to Luau on the border with DRC and to Lobito, south of the capital, making possible a future extension to Zambia via Lumumbashi and direct transport from the Zambian copper mines to Angolan or Dar-es- Salaam ports.

For a continent with poor infrastructure and limited intra-regional trade, such investments constitute a significant development and have the potential to boost trade among African countries.

Posted on 8:06 AM | Permalink

South Wales Echo: Jun 4 2008
by Wendy Horton,

PASSENGER rail services should return along the Taff-Bargoed line, says local Labour AM Jeff Cuthbert.

The Cwm Bargoed railway line closed in 1964 but has re-opened for freight services to and from the Ffos Y Fran site. This has prompted calls by Mr Cuthbert and neighbouring AM Huw Lewis for services between Bedlinog and Ystrad Mynach to resume. Welsh Transport Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones has indicated there are no current plans.

See also:

The Taff Bargoed Joint Railway was built by the Rhymney and Great Western Railways primarily to serve the ironworks at Dowlais near Merthyr Tydfil. It began at a junction with the Pontypool Road-Neath line at Nelson and Llancaiach. It climbed steeply up the valley of the River Bargoed Taff to a windswept summit at Cwmbargoed, then descended into Dowlais. On the approach to Dowlais, the line divided at Zigzag Lines Junction; the right-hand line ran to the passenger terminus at Cae Harris and the left-hand line reached a location called Furnace Tops, which served the ironworks.

The main Dowlais works closed in 1930, but one part of the complex, known as the Ivor Works, remained open. It was part of the Guest, Keen & Nettlefold group, but was latterly taken over by British Steel. Passenger trains on the branch were withdrawn in 1964, but the line remained busy with opencast coal from Cwmbargoed and traffic for the Ivor Works, which manufactured ingot moulds for use in other steel plants. The right-hand branch at Zigzag lines Junction was removed, leaving only the line to Furnace Tops, but the lines at Cae Harris station remained accessible via Furnace Tops.

The Ivor Works finally closed in 1987, rendered redundant by advances in iron industry technology. I have seen a closure date of 1984 for the Cwmbargoed-Dowlais railway, but I'm not sure if this is accurate. The line as far as Cwmbargoed has seen periods of disuse but is still in place and may see a further lease of life thanks to renewed opencast workings.

I have not revisited the Cae Harris since 1974 but an inspection of aerial photographs on Google http://maps.google.co.uk/ seems to show that most of the evidence of the steelworks has been obliterated, the tips have been smoothed over, a dual carriageway passes through the site and Cae Harris station site is now occupied by houses.

Posted on 1:53 PM | Permalink

Bristol Evening Post: 04 June 2008

A thief who used a crane and five lorries to steal 171 tonnes of railway track from the side of the main line from Bristol Parkway to London could have caused a "serious rail crash", say police.

Anthony Porretta, 53, masterminded the theft of the 40ft lengths of steel track, worth £22,308, from Acton Turville, near Chipping Sodbury, during engineering works.

Porretta, of Newport, South Wales, pleaded guilty to a charge of theft at Bristol Crown Court yesterday after initially denying a count of conspiracy to steal.

His admission led to the acquittal of four co-defendants - Christopher Jones, 41, of Newport, Darryl Davies, 34, of Mountain Ash, Mid Glamorgan, Brian Webb, 40, of Newport and Geraint Evans, 42, of Swansea.

After the hearing Detective Sergeant John Rawson, of British Transport Police, said that unemployed Porretta's actions could have caused a "serious rail crash".

Judge David Ticehurst adjourned the case until the week beginning June 30 for a pre-sentence report.

Posted on 9:28 AM | Permalink

CNN Money: June 4, 2008
By Johan Anderberg, writer

Bombardier and others are racing to find ways to patch together Europe's disparate rail systems.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- It is an unusual sight to behold: Freight trains zipping through Europe, across country borders - and over myriad rail voltages and national train systems. The technology patching together these previously incompatible train lines: A new "one-size-fits-all" locomotive that is winning over freight operators across Europe.

The all-in-one train is the brainchild of engineers at Bombardier, the Canadian train and airplane maker. In 1997, customer Railion, a German transport company, said they wanted to buy 400 new trains. The catch? The engines had to traverse from the former East Europe to Germany and back.

Bombardier's team was stumped. Europe is a mishmash of disparate rail systems that predate the European Union, back when governments banked on the incongruity "to protect themselves from invading armies and competition from foreign industries," says Oliver Sellnick, director at the International Union of Railways in Paris. While the European Union has managed to unify most of the continent on everything from a common currency to farm policy, combining railroads hasn't been easy.

Traveling by train from one country to another has long required coordination with multiple national railways. Drivers and locomotives, for instance, are changed at the borders for technical and legal reasons. For travelers, the challenges haven't been as readily apparent as passenger trains have long been given top priority when crossing borders (and high-speed trains, like France's TGV and Spain's AVE, promise to eliminate the few hassles). But the logistics of transporting goods by rail has long been a nightmare.

"If one train was going from, say, Lyon to Warsaw, it could spend 24 or even 48 hours on the borders," says Timothy Jackson, international director of Angel Trains, a British company that leases trains to freight companies. To avoid the hassle, most freight operators use trucks instead.

But now the baby-steps of liberalization are coming to Europe's rails. So when a Swiss company followed Railion's lead in 1998 and asked for a locomotive that could run from Switzerland to Germany, Bombardier saw the future.

Engineers at Bombardier's facilities all over Europe set out to invent a new train that could traverse Europe's patchwork of voltage levels, signal systems and other local quirks - while keeping this feature-rich locomotive affordable.

Company engineers were inspired by Legos, the interlocking toy bricks, says Janis Vitins, a German-based director of product planning at Bombardier. They created a locomotive, called "Traxx," that uses interchangeable "bricks" - boxes that contain the power conversion units needed to run a train. The rail operators can configure their engines to operate in any country the train enters. One combination of bricks makes the locomotive fit for running from Holland to Italy; another makes it run from France to Germany - and so forth.

On top of this, Bombardier developed software that deciphers all the different commands to a common signal-system and serves easy-to-read instructions to a single screen in the cockpit. This way, drivers won't have to memorize more than 20 different stop-signals.

Today, approximately 700 Traxx engines are swooshing through Europe, with another 500 on order. Traxx engines cost more than standard locomotives, but Vitins says rail operators increasingly are willing to pay a premium to be able to cross borders quickly and efficiently. Even so, the company is standardizing its locomotives to keep costs down: starting last year, Bombardier's diesel and electric Traxx trains look similar.

Bombardier and its chief competitor Siemens (SI), the German engineering giant, see a huge opportunity. In the United States, half of all freight is shipped by rail. In Europe, only 10% is carted by train. Meanwhile, European highways are clogged, and truckers now pay fees to help offset pollution.

"This is a whole new market opening up," says Bombardier's Vitins, who is also eyeing potential markets in the former Soviet Union and in Asia, where railroads are almost as balkanized. On Wednesday, Bombardier reported a nearly threefold jump in profits on a 21% increase in revenues for the first quarter ended April 30.

For their part, freight operators welcome the sudden burst of innovation in a business that didn't see much change for a century or so. "If we want to stay competitive now, we need flexible locomotives," says Olle Wennerstein, a vice president of Swedish freight company Green Cargo and a new Bombardier customer.

Posted on 12:41 AM | Permalink

The Times: June 3, 2008
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

Network Rail faces losing its monopoly over Britain’s rail infrastructure if it fails to meet tough new targets to improve punctuality and reduce costs, according to the rail regulator.

Bill Emery, chief executive of the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), told The Times that at least one rival infrastructure company was needed to gauge Network Rail’s performance.

Network Rail was created by the Government in 2002 to replace Railtrack. It is technically a private company, but it has no shareholders and is dependent on public subsidy.

The ORR will announce on Thursday how much income Network Rail will receive between 2009 and 2014. It is expected to give Network Rail £1 billion a year less by 2014 than the company claims it needs, a 25 per cent cut in its running costs. The Government has set an industry target of 92.6 per cent of trains to run on time by 2014, up from 90 per cent at present.

Network Rail has made steady progress in reducing costs, but it has failed to meet its own targets for cutting delays and still consumes three times as much subsidy as British Rail did. It is also less efficient than several publicly owned networks on the Continent, according to ORR research. The ORR has fined Network Rail twice in the past year for overrunning engineering works that have affected hundreds of thousands of passengers.

Mr Emery said that Network Rail had one last chance to prove that the current industry structure could work. Referring to the punctuality and efficiency targets, he said: “If they don’t rise to these challenges, then there is a real, legitimate question as to whether the structure is right.”

He criticised Network Rail for jealously protecting its monopoly and refusing a proposal from Merseytravel, the public transport authority on Merseyside, to run its own tracks. Merseytravel wanted to combine track and train operations for the first time since privatisation. The change could have saved up to £30million a year and delivered better performance.

Mr Emery said: “It would have tested whether working closely together as a vertically integrated piece of railway would lead to a better performance and lower costs.”

He said that a better structure could be to reintegrate tracks and trains into “city regions”, giving local authorities greater powers to improve services. Mr Emery, the former chief engineer of Ofwat, the water regulator, added that the railways could learn from the water industry, which is split into regional monopolies. Ofwat measures the companies’ performances against each other when setting their targets. While the ORR does not have direct power to alter the structure of the industry, it can put financial pressure on Network Rail to reform itself.

Mr Emery said that the ORR could decide to reduce Network Rail’s income to the lower level that might be needed by more efficient regional track companies. The Conservatives are considering how the rail industry could be restructured and are looking closely at the idea of splitting up Network Rail into a number of regional integrated track and train companies.

The danger signals

May 2008 Thousands of travellers to London were delayed or forced to abandon their journey when signals near Milton Keynes failed a few days after May Bank Holiday improvement work. Many trains into London Euston were cancelled

March 2008 Commuters experienced long delays when engineering works scheduled for the Easter Bank Holiday overran in East Anglia. Many trains into London Liverpool Street, which had been closed over the holiday, were cancelled and more were delayed

February 2008 Network Rail apologised after thousands of football fans travelling to the FA Cup Final at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff missed the kick-off and then spent hours queueing for trains home after a fault with signals

December 2007 to January 2008 Network Rail was fined £14 million by the Rail Regulator after work on tracks near Rugby went on four days longer than planned, causing major disruption and bringing many services to a standstill

Sources: agencies; Times archive

Comments

British Rail was one of the few state owned companies that actually worked. Why then seek to compartmentalise the railways further? Do you remember Beecham? He cut costs very effectively, but was too short sighted to see the long term effects which were rather unfortunate.

gmac, Kassel, Germany

When comparing network rail to other state owned railway networks someone seems to forgotten that those other networks also receive the full income from fares with no stripping off of profits to private companies. Not exactly a fair comparison.

Jason Hurst, Dereham, UK

See also:

Bill Emery of ORR: A regulator who plays it safe

The Times: June 3, 2008
Ben Webster: transport correspondent

Even after three years as head of the Office of Rail Regulation, Bill Emery is still guarded when talking about rail infrastructure.

Bill Emery, chief executive of the Office of Rail Regulations.

Bill Emery's most significant act since becoming chief executive of the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) has been to extract £14 million from the rail industry's annual subsidy - via a fine imposed on Network Rail - and hand it back to the Treasury.

Contrast this with the decision in 2003 by Tom Winsor, the former rail regulator, to force the Government to invest an additional £1.5billion a year in the network.

Passenger Focus, the rail consumer watchdog, said that it was extremely disappointed by ORR's “posturing” over the fine, which it said would cost passengers £14 million in lost investment. But Emery says that he is content with ORR's decision to fine Network Rail for overrunning engineering works rather than compensate passengers with improvements to information systems.

The fine will go into the Treasury's consolidated funds, but Emery says that the humiliation of Network Rail will spur it to greater efficiency. “In theory a regulatory fine should have no impact on the passenger. In practice, all I can say is that we are setting fines at a level that sends Network Rail a very strong signal in reputational terms, but has no significant impact on its finances.”

Emery is clearly frustrated by his lack of powers to hold Network Rail, a Government-created monopoly with no shareholders, to account. He joined ORR in 2005 from Ofwat, the water regulator, where he was chief engineer.

Both industries face the challenge of maintaining ageing infrastructure, but the water industry is split into about 20 regional companies whose shareholders would feel the pain of any fines. “The water industry has the huge advantage for the regulator of having competitor companies of different sizes. That provides a very powerful way of comparing and contrasting one with another.”

He also speaks approvingly of the absence of complex contractual relationships in the water industry. By contrast, privatisation splintered British Rail into 100 separate companies, each with its own set of lawyers contesting its rights.

Emery, who is much more cautious about upsetting the Government than Winsor was, chooses his words carefully: “There are lots of people who say that the current structure is not optimal. I would probably take a raincheck on whether it's ideal.”

However, he says that he was somewhat disappointed that Network Rail rejected a proposal from Merseyrail that it should run its own tracks, saving an estimated £30 million by reintegrating the local network. “We can put some pressure on them, but at the end of the day these matters are for Network Rail. It [the Merseyrail proposal] would have raised big questions and thrown the challenge on to Network Rail.”

On Thursday ORR will announce its draft determination of how much money Network Rail should receive for the next five years. It is expected to give the company about £1 billion less than it claims to need to fulfil the Government's plan to expand capacity and improve punctuality.

Emery is clearly uncomfortable with Network Rail's monolithic structure and receives many complaints from train companies which say that it ignores their needs. But he appears willing to go along with the Government's decision to put structural reform of the railways in the “too difficult” box. Asked directly whether he believes Network Rail is too big and too distant from local decisions, he says: “Again, I will duck that.”

To be fair to him, these are primarily questions for political leaders. The trouble is, they are ducking them too.

Born: June 28, 1951, in Sheffield

Career: B Eng in structural engineering, PhD in public health engineering, University of Sheffield. Engineer at Yorkshire Water (1975-90); head of engineering intelligence, later director of cost and performance, as well as chief engineer, Ofwat 1990-2005; chief executive of ORR since 2005.

What he says: “If [Network Rail doesn't] rise to these challenges, then there is a legitimate question as to whether the structure is right.”

Little-known fact: He admits to sometimes jumping red lights when cycling to work from his flat in Islington, North London, to the ORR offices in Central London.

See also:

Network Rail could lose rail monopoly

Contract Journal: 03 Jun 2008
By Roxanne Millar

Network Rail could lose its monopoly over Britain’s rail infrastructure if it doesn’t meet new targets to improve punctuality and reduce costs.

Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) chief executive Bill Emery said at least one rival infrastructure company was needed to gauge the company’s performance.

He suggested a better structure could be to reintegrate tracks and trains into city regions that give local authorities powers to improve services.

His comments come two days before the ORR announced how much Network Rail is to receive between 2009 and 2014.

The Times reported the ORR is expected to give Network Rail £1bn a year less by 2014 than the company claims it needs.

Posted on 11:07 AM | Permalink

RMT: June 2 2008

MORE THAN 130 East Midlands Trains senior conductors are to strike on the first three Saturdays in June after talks at conciliation service Acas failed to resolve a breakdown in industrial relations with the company.

RMT EMT Connect senior conductors at Boston, Lincoln, Norwich and Nottingham will not book on for shifts that commence a minute after midnight on Saturday June 7, 14 and 21.

The dispute centres on the company's plan to use managers and other grades to guard trains on Sundays and to impose a new grade of senior conductor with inferior conditions, outside existing negotiated structures.

Strikes originally set for the first three Saturdays in May were suspended to allow the Acas talks to take place.

"We suspended action in good faith to attend talks at Acas, but the company appeared to be simply uninterested in finding a solution," RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

"This started as a simple dispute about Sunday working, but at every turn the company has escalated it and we now have a complete breakdown in industrial relations, and the company is even refusing to allow RMT reps to go about their day-to-day business.

"Using managers to cover guards' work amounts to an attack on their safety-critical role, and attempting to impose new conditions without negotiation has undermined our agreed negotiating machinery.

"Under the circumstances the RMT executive has agreed that there is no alternative but to set fresh strike dates.

"Of course we remain willing to talk, but the company must understand that it must engage in genuine negotiation and stop seeking to impose," Bob Crow said.

Posted on 10:43 AM | Permalink

Bloomberg: June 3, 2008
By Karin Matussek

Deutsche Bahn AG, the German state- controlled railroad, denied allegations it used a consulting firm linked to a spy scandal at Deutsche Telekom AG to perform illegal activities.

Deutsche Bahn employed Network Deutschland GmbH from 1997 through 2007 "exclusively'' to fight corruption and economic crimes, Wolfgang Schaupensteiner, the Berlin-based rail company's chief compliance officer, said in an e-mailed statement today.

Handelsblatt reported Deutsche Bahn used Network Deutschland to spy on employees and "people in the vicinity of the company.'' Deutsche Telekom managers are being investigated over claims they hired Network Deutschland to study phone records of journalists and supervisory board members to uncover news leaks.

"The suggestion made in today's Handelsblatt report that Deutsche Bahn is entangled in similar activities as Deutsche Telekom is utterly false,'' Schaupensteiner said.

During the 10 years Deutsche Bahn used Berlin-based Network Deutschland's services, it paid the company a total of 800,000 euros ($1.2 million) in 43 cases, Schaupensteiner said. The services included help in uncovering sham companies in antitrust cases and searches for the location of locomotives.

Deutsche Bahn never asked Network Deutschland to use data that wasn't publicly available and never asked to investigate journalists or board members, Schaupensteiner said.

News leaks at Deutsche Bahn were uncovered "exclusively'' by internal security and via legal investigations, he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Karin Matussek in Berlin at kmatussek@bloomberg.net

See also:

Deutsche Bahn hired phone snoopers-report

Reuters: Jun 3, 2008

BERLIN - German rail operator Deutsche Bahn employed a company to monitor data on employees' phone records, according to a newspaper report.

A spokesman for the company declined to comment, but said it had called a news conference on the subject for later on Tuesday.

Handelsblatt daily reported that Network Deutschland, the firm involved in a snooping scandal that has engulfed Europe's biggest telecoms company Deutsche Telekom (DTEGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), had also monitored data for Deutsche Bahn.

Deutsche Telekom has acknowledged that it illegally monitored phone call records in 2005, after a magazine said management spied on directors and journalists to find out who was leaking information to the press.

Citing a sub-contractor of Network, Handelsblatt said the work conducted for the two companies had been very similar.

"The work concerned investigating phone connections, bank details, and the complete x-raying of targeted people," Handelsblatt quoted the source as saying.

Deutsche Bahn staff and people close to the company had been targeted, it said.

Handelsblatt reported a spokesman for Deutsche Bahn had confirmed business links between Network and the rail operator but said Deutsche Bahn was not illegally monitoring staff or external people.

German prosecutors are investigating Deutsche Telekom over the snooping case and Germany's government spokesman has called the spying "unacceptable".

Snooping is a particularly sensitive subject in Germany, still haunted by memories of Hitler's Gestapo and communist East Germany's Stasi secret police.

The German government is due to sell 24.9 percent of the rail operator in November in what is set to be the country's biggest flotation since 2000.

(Reporting by Kerstin Gehmlich; Editing by Andrew Callus)

See also:

>h2>Railway Company Deutsche Bahn Accused of Spying

Deutsche Welle: 03.06.2008

Deutsche Bahn headquarters in Berlin: DB's the next German firm to get caught up in spying allegations

The snooping scandal that has rocked Deutsche Telekom threatens to engulf another German concern. Railway company Deutsche Bahn reportedly employed the same firm that spied on journalists and executives for Telekom.

A spokesman for Deutsche Bahn (DB) confirmed that the firm had used the services of security consultants Network Deutschland, business daily Handelsblatt reported.

The managing director of Network Deutschland, Ralph Kuehn, last week admitted analyzing illegally acquired telephone data on behalf of Deutsche Telekom. The telecommunications giant has conceded spying on communications between executives and journalists in 2005 and possibly in 2006. Company CEO Rene Obermann, who denies any knowledge of the activities, has called in prosecutors to investigate the case.

Despite acknowledging the engagement of Network Deutschland by Deutsche Bahn, the DB spokesman stressed that there had been "no illicit surveillance of staff or non-staff." He said that external experts had worked on individual cases as part of the company's strict anti-corruption program.

Details remain sketchy

DB says Network Deutschland's work was entirely legal

But the DB spokesman refused to say why the company had chosen the Berlin-based firm, nor did he give further information about the duration, scale or nature of the contract.

According to one of Kuehn's subcontractors, the work carried out for the telecommunications giant Telekom and the state-owned railroad company was almost identical. "It centered around tracking telephone data, bank data and the complete screening of the people in question," the computer expert told Handelsblatt. He said that personal tax returns had also been acquired. The targets were railway staff and people with links to the company, according to the source.

This is not the first time this year that company ethics have been called into question in Germany. Germans were shocked earlier this year when discount supermarket chain Lidl admitted that it had used surveillance cameras to monitor its staff -- even to the point of checking how often they went to the bathroom and whether workers had personal relationships.

Germany is particularly sensitive about such infringements on civil liberties due to its past.

See also:

GERMAN RAIL IMPLICATED - Telekom Spies Also Worked for Deutsche Bahn

Spiegel: 06/03/2008

German national railway Deutsche Bahn has been accused of spying on its employees. According to a business daily, the company hired the same detective agency Deutsche Telekom used to spy on journalists.

It looks like telecommunications giant Deutsche Telekom may not have been the only German mega-company to have hired an outside detective agency to spy on its employees. On Tuesday, the financial daily Handelsblatt quoted sources alleging that German national railway Deutsche Bahn conducted similar practices using the same company contracted by Telekom.

A spokesperson for Deutsche Bahn told the paper that the company had a business relationship with the detective agency Network Deutschland GmbH, one of the companies Telekom had hired to sort through telephone records looking for contacts between journalists and supervisory board members. The Bahn spokesperson, however, said that no illegal activity had taken place.

"As part of our fight against corruption, which we have been pursuing energetically for years, we have in some cases taken advantage of the services of external experts within the framework of the law," the spokesperson told Handelsblatt.

The company Network Deutschland was hired by Telekom for a year-long period from 2005 to 2006 in an effort to find out how information was leaking out of management circles into the press. Company head Ralph Kühn has admitted going through journalists' telephone data to find their sources.

A computer expert working for a Network Deutschland subcontractor told Handelsblatt that the work performed on behalf of Deutsche Bahn was similar. The telephone data of those targeted in the investigations was combed through to see who they may have had contact with. According to the paper, the spy work was not commissioned by the company's security division. Rather, the contract came from a department under the direct control of CEO Hartmut Mehdorn.

Even if the spying at Deutsche Bahn was legal, the allegations raise new questions about data protection at Deutsche Telekom, given that Kühn's company was able to obtain the telephone records of Deutsche Bahn for the purposes of the investigation. According to Handelsblatt sources identified only as "computer specialists," Kühn enjoyed easy access to telephone data.

Last week, the authorities launched an investigation into Deutsche Telekom, including former CEO Kai-Uwe Ricke and former supervisory board head Klaus Zumwinkel, after the company admitted to spying on employees and journalists following a SPIEGEL exposé that revealed the company's practices. Further allegations emerged last week that the company may have used hidden cameras to spy on journalists as far back as 2000 -- and that it may have hired a company founded by a former spy for the infamous East German intelligence agency Stasi.

Telekom CEO Rene Obermann has promised to assist German authorities as they investigate the company, though he himself may not emerge unsullied from the scandal. Reports indicate that one of the bills paid to a detective agency involved in the spying was approved shortly after Obermann took over control of the company in 2006.

Posted on 9:29 AM | Permalink

BBC News: 2 June 2008

At least 50 London Transport staff were assaulted by revellers who partied on trains to mark the ban on drinking alcohol on the Tube, a union has said.

Many trains were damaged and vandalised

The Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union said Saturday night's party was "far uglier" than anticipated.

Four tube drivers and two police officers were among those assaulted, and there were 17 arrests.

Transport for London (TfL) said it would look to prosecute anyone who assaulted staff members.

Six London Underground stations were closed and several trains were damaged and withdrawn from service following the party.

The RMT said police did not respond quickly and said Tube bosses "crossed their fingers and closed their eyes".

The union said at least 12 workers were assaulted at one station while others were spit upon and faced verbal assaults and threats.

TfL's spokesman said: "We will not tolerate any abuse of our staff, verbal, physical or otherwise... we will always look to prosecute and seek the strongest possible sentence."

Thousands of revellers partied with alcohol to mark the ban

One woman worker was hit by a bottle, a male staff member was punched in the face had beer poured over his head and a driver refused to move his train when a passenger climbed onto the roof.

The RMT also criticised the police response saying they were "too busy" to come to the aid of the woman who was hit with a bottle at a station.

Union General Secretary Bob Crow said: "The more reports we get from our reps the uglier the picture of Saturday's violence becomes, and the clearer it is that Tube bosses effectively simply crossed their fingers and closed their eyes.

"Local reps are telling us that the scenes were among the most chaotic they have ever seen, with none of the mitigation and crowd-control that would be in place on New Year's Eve.

Mr Crow also demanded an apology from Mayor Boris Johnson and criticised his absence from the city.

Posted on 5:03 PM | Permalink

RMT: June 2 2008

AT LEAST twelve members of Tube staff were assaulted at King’s Cross station alone during Saturday night’s alcohol-fuelled disturbances, according to reports coming in to the biggest London Underground union.

RMT has called for a personal apology from the mayor - who was conspicuous by his absence - to all staff members assaulted as the 'half-baked' alcohol ban came into force.

The disturbing picture coming from RMT reps includes reports that police were 'too busy' to come to the aid of a woman member of staff hit by a bottle thrown at High Street Kensington station, and arriving too late to quell disturbances at other stations.

"The more reports we get from our reps the uglier the picture of Saturday's violence becomes, and the clearer it is that Tube bosses effectively just crossed their fingers and closed their eyes," RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

"Local reps are telling us that the scenes were among the most chaotic they have ever seen, with none of the mitigation and crowd-control that would be in place on New Year's Eve - and the concentration of numbers at times was probably greater.

"LUL can't say it wasn't expecting a massive drunken crowd, and doing nothing amounts to a shameful dereliction of its duty of care towards staff and Tube passengers.

"And where was the mayor when our members were being assaulted thanks to his half-baked publicity stunt - was he still swanning around on a yacht in Turkey?

"TfL rubbished our warnings and said that our members would be able to call on the British Transport Police if there was trouble, but Saturday night proved that to be the nonsense it has always been.

"We have been saying for years that the BTP are already too under-resourced to respond to the calls they already get.

"We understand from driver reps that on the District and Circle lines there were no fewer than five Mayday calls at one point, with no hope of getting help to them.

"Cleaners, most of them on little more than the minimum wage, spent the early hours of Sunday clearing up a sea of vomit, urine, bottles, cans and other debris for no extra pay, and that too is a scandal," Bob Crow said

ends

Notes to editors: RMT estimates that the true number of assaults on staff, including spitting, threats and verbal assaults, was more than 50. At least twelve members of staff were assaulted at King's Cross alone.

BTP were reportedly 'too busy' to come to the aid of a woman member of staff pushed, pulled and hit by a bottle thrown at High Street Kensington

An RMT member was punched in the face and had beer poured over his head during the incident at Euston Square.

One of at least four drivers assaulted was knocked on the head by an assailant, and his glasses were broken.

Some drivers booked off on safety grounds when passengers became angry and there were no staff available to assist.

One driver refused to move his train when it came to his attention that there was a man on the roof.

At several locations passengers were seen on the tracks, endangering themselves and others.

At several locations objects were thrown onto the tracks.

Passengers were seen urinating on trains and onto tracks

Drivers also report doors being pushed off their runners and trains vandalised, some seriously.

At Liverpool Street station, one of six closed during the evening, police told supervisors that the station could reopen at 22:00 - but without police assistance. The station remained closed until start of traffic on Sunday.

At least six passenger emergency alarms (PEAs) were activated during the evening. Drivers responding to PEAs were finding it almost impossible to make their way through trains thanks to the sheer number of people and the amount of debris and discarded bottles and cans.

Cleaners working for contractors and paid substantially below the London living wage were expected to clean up the resulting foul mess without receiving any extra pay.

Station closures and the suspension of District and Circle Line services had a knock-on effect on the rest of the network, creating a greater workload and causing problems for staff at most locations.

Posted on 11:39 AM | Permalink

Sunday Times: June 1, 2008
Michael Woodhead, Frankfurt

Red faces as union leader turned executive is caught playing the slot machines as listing gets under way

ON a sunny afternoon it can be a lot of fun skiving off for a couple of hours to play the poker machines in a gaming arcade followed by a beer with your mate. Unless, that is, you are a board member of Germany’s national rail company planning to rationalise tens of thousands of jobs and you get caught.

The Deutsche Bahn rail network has undertaken a huge makeover to convince sceptical investors that it is not a bureaucratic jobs-for-the-boys leviathan made worse by political meddling. The Bahn, as it is known, is being re-cast and polished up ahead of a stock-market listing later this year. It is turning in an operating profit and expanding into a global logistics player. Then there are its shiny new futuristic trains in white and red — one whizzes between Stuttgart and Paris in three-and-a-half hours at more than 300km per hour.

A modern, high-tech conglomerate with a business culture to match — just what the banks, which are being paid in excess of €3 billion (£2.4 billion) to draw up the prospectus, ordered.

Then along comes Norbert Hansen, Deutsche Bahn’s new director of employment, with his €50,000 Audi Q7 4x4, seen playing the fruit machines in a Berlin gambling den while his fellow board members are hard at work on the stock-market float.

As a result the competence, let alone collective commitment, of the board has been called into question. Should the likes of Hansen be allowed to play with the train set if he’d rather be feeding a one-armed bandit? It’s a question his chairman Hartmut Mehdorn has avoided answering despite public pressure.

Admittedly Hansen is technically between jobs. He is a former railway-union boss tempted by Mehdorn to change sides and swap his union leader’s hat for a swivel-chair in an executive suite in Deutsche Bahn’s multi-storey headquarters and a salary package of €1.4m — 15 times what he was getting running the Transnet rail trade union. So the very least investors might have expected of Hansen at this critical time was full-blown commitment to the company — not embarrassing disclosures in the German media.

The stock-market offering of a 24.9% stake in Deutsche Bahn is both controversial and unpopular. A recent opinion poll showed that 70% of Germans oppose the privatisation, seeing market liberalisation as a threat to the German social-market system. There is also uncertainty about who would actually want a minority holding in the German railway system and fears among workers that big job cuts, up to 80,000, are in the pipeline in a drive for efficiencies and profits.

Hansen has been nicknamed Mehdorn’s “poodle” ever since as head of Transnet he had a “road to Damascus” moment a few years ago, dropping his stand against privatisation and converting to the cause of pan-European rail-transport liberalisation as decreed by the EU commission. He has supported Mehdorn to the hilt and, as a parting shot before leaving Transnet, was accused of undermining a train drivers’ pay strike.

Hansen stoked resentment further by letting slip in an interview with Germany’s biggest-selling newspaper, Bild Zeitung, that job changes were on the cards. He suggested this could mean train drivers swabbing out carriages at the end of a shift. The drivers’ union was outraged at the notion of members doubling up as Mrs Mopps. Mehdorn instantly denied such a multi-tasking job was being contemplated.

Hans-Gerd Ofinger, a Transnet official, said: “Hansen has misused our union as a springboard for his own career and with his proposal seriously damaged the trade-union movement. A seat on the board was Hansen’s motive for promoting the privatisation of the Bahn.”

After almost 15 years of wrangling, the German government has finally decided how it will present Deutsche Bahn to the market and has studiously avoided copying the British government’s privatisation of the track infrastructure.

“The British example was not the best to follow. In spirit possibly, but in practical terms, no. We are not going to divorce the network from the rest of the train operation,” said Bernd Weiler at Deutsche Bahn. “If the infrastructure doesn’t belong to you then you don’t mind if you run your trains too fast for the track or skimp on maintenance.”

Instead, Deutsche Bahn AG will remain state-owned, acting as a holding company with two divisions — one responsible for the infrastructure and the other named DB Mobility Logistics AG. The second will run passenger services, freight, catering, ticket sales and the Bahn’s British operation. And it is this new company that is being brought to the market.

“The federal government does not have the capital we need for strategic expansion. Germany is an export nation and if we don’t serve this market then someone else will take it from us. In today’s Europe you need to be of a critical size to do what it is you want,” said Weiler. “As the Americans say, we offer ‘one-stop shopping’ whether it is moving freight from door to door or offering passengers rental cars and bikes at mainline stations. We look after 7m customers a day, 5m of those are passengers. Cash flow is not our problem.”

Under Mehdorn, the Bahn started to turn in good profits three years ago. Last year it posted a record net profit of €1.7 billion on turnover of €313 billion. This has been achieved, however, at the price of upsetting the public, which grumbles about late-running trains and disappearing services.

In 1994, when Deutsche Bahn was created to absorb the old east German communist rail system, it had a workforce of 500,000. It now employs fewer than half that number. In addition, a quarter of the rail network has been closed, mostly in rural areas.

The result is that a once- chronic loss maker costing the taxpayer €10 billion a year is now a worldwide logistics company. Mehdorn has bought his way into eastern Europe, Britain and America. This year a direct cargo link with China will be established. He has achieved practically everything he set out to do a few years ago; and experts expect that the capital raised by the flotation will be used to spread the cargo-logistics net even wider.

The question is: how much is it worth? The entire rail system is valued by some experts at between €200 billion and €300 billion. The German transport ministry, though, has officially listed the Bahn’s valuation at €55.4 billion.

Critics say the government is vastly undervaluing a public asset to make the 24.9% on offer attractive and thereby a success. What is more, only a third of the capital raised will be used for investment. The rest ends up in the government’s coffers.

After all the political infighting over when and how to privatise Deutsche Bahn, some in Frankfurt banking circles predict the sell-off will again be put back because of the state of global markets. For while Germany may possess some of the fastest trains in Europe, it is lumbered with one of the most cumbersome political systems.

How long it will take the Germans to meet their original goal and privatise the other 25% is anyone’s guess.

See also:

German rail union in crisis

WSWS: 6 June 2008
By Sybille Fuchs

On May 30, the German parliament (Bundestag) voted in favour of the partial privatisation of the country’s railway system. According to the government plan, 24.9 percent of German Railways (Deutsche Bahn—DB), which until now was in government hands, will be floated on the stock market beginning November 5.

The first parts of DB to be privatised will be passenger and long-distance transport, regional and suburban rail (including bus lines and rapid-transit rail), and other rail services. All of these sections of the rail system have been amalgamated under the DB subsidiary, Mobility Logistics (DB-ML), which employs three quarters of all existing rail personnel.

The chairman of DB, Hartmut Mehdorn, welcomed the Bundestag decision and declared his confidence in the future of the enterprise, which he said he intends to turn into a global player.

Experts assume that the initial privatisation is just a first step. A draft agreement is currently circulating that allows DB-ML to release its own subsidiary companies for partial privatisation and sell off other services completely. The draft contains formulations that allow investors to purchase up to 49 percent of the subsidiaries responsible for long-distance, regional or city transport. In addition, the draft provides substantial leeway for the closure of non-profitable stretches of rail track.

In an interview with the Bild newspaper prior to the vote in the Bundestag, Mehdorn’s new labour director, Norbert Hansen, declared that he saw no problem with the privatisation of up to 49.9 percent of the railways. Until a few weeks ago, Hansen was chairman of the rail workers’ union Transnet, before switching over to the DB executive committee. In his interview with Bild, Hansen made unmistakably clear that his priorities rested 100 percent with the profit interests of his employers.

Hansen announced, “We will have to further rationalise the railways, and that will not be possible without reducing personnel in some sections.” He already has experience in overseeing job reductions as head of Transnet, and his aim is to ensure reductions without resorting to compulsory redundancies. First and foremost, rail employees must demonstrate more flexibility and efficiency in their jobs.

Hansen used the example of a private regional rail company to show how such flexibility was possible. In such companies (which all pay lower wages), drivers not only drive the trains; they “also occasionally help clean up the passenger cars or assist with baggage at small stations,” Hansen said.

Such pronouncements by Hansen were not only highly embarrassing for his successor as head of Transnet, Lothar Krauss, but also evidently went too far for DB boss Mehdorn. Krauss declared he was “hopping mad” over Hansen’s comments, while Mehdorn quickly assured the public that the company had no plans for reducing personnel. Rather, “in the course of the partial privatisation there would be no compulsory redundancies before 2023.” Spokesmen for the German government immediately confirmed Mehdorn’s comments.

It should be noted, however, that the railways management has shed tens of thousands of jobs since the rail reform of 1994. In preparation for its stock market privatisation, the workforce of DB was cut by half to its current level of 185,000. All of these job cuts were carried out in the closest collaboration with Transnet and the other rail unions, and without management resorting to compulsory redundancies. Natural attrition, retirement packages and occupational alternatives were sufficient to achieve the desired job cuts.

Prior to the official decision to privatise DB, management had already announced its intention to form 30 new subsidiaries with the declared aim of competing with rival private companies. Those employed in these subsidiaries are supposed to receive the same wages as those working for the mother company. However, they will be expected to work longer hours and will receive less vacation—in effect, a cut in wages. The major Deutsche Bahn holding company, DB Regio, defended the plans to create subsidiaries by declaring that labour costs are a crucial factor in ensuring competitiveness.

Panic in Transnet

Nearly a month after the switch by Hansen from Transnet into the executive committee of the partially privatised DB, an atmosphere of panic reigns inside the headquarters of the union. Ordinary members are outraged at the arrogant and provocative stance adopted by the union’s former chairman. Many have declared their intention of resigning from the union, though the bureaucracy refuses to give a concrete figure.

Hansen’s abrupt move has animated lower- and middle-ranking bureaucrats to attempt to restore the tarnished image of the trade union. The website of the union grouping “rank and file rail” is full of requests and resolutions from local groups and shop stewards calling for a special congress of the union to enforce the resignation of the entire executive committee and clarify the background to Hansen’s endorsement of the rail privatisation plans. They also demand his expulsion from the union.

Shop stewards from the northeast district are demanding a new start for the trade union, legitimised through a democratic process. “The policy of co-management has failed,” they declare in their letter. “The acting executive committee, which expressly approved the past course of action, must resign. The background to the switch made by Norbert Hansen (from union boss to DB labour director) must be completely cleared up.” Many other regional bodies of the union have made similar protests.

The Transnet executive has also been subjected to severe criticism for its role in the privatisation. The spokesman for “rank and file rail,” Hans Gerd Oefinger, who has opposed privatisation for the past eight years, declared: “The functionaries around Hansen prevented any open discussion about privatisation.” Hansen was able to hoodwink the Bundestag parties and pursue his own personal goals, he said.

However, it is the union officials who allowed themselves to be hoodwinked. Having worked closely with Hansen for many years, his switch over to management is a source of great embarrassment for the bureaucrats left behind. The new Transnet chairman Krauss quickly sought to strike a radical pose and declared his opposition to cheap wage labour on the railways. He also rejected the plans for the liberalisation of passenger transport put forward by DB Regio. Transnet executive member Karl-Heinz Carpenter also expressed his fears that the liberalisation plans envisaged by DB Regio would undermine the existing wage contract system that applies to all rail workers.

Krauss put forward the pathetic demand for an obligatory minimum wage for the industry of a sum “clearly in excess of 5.50 euros per hour.” He threatened to respond with strikes and protests if there is an attempt to break up the existing contract structure. In this respect he declared that he would seek to unite with other German trade unions—in particular, the public service trade union Verdi.

Transnet members should take a thoroughly critical attitude to Krauss’s proposals. The recent contracts agreed by Verdi—including that negotiated with the Berlin transport company (BVG) a few weeks ago—demonstrate that Verdi is as intent on policing contracts on behalf of the employers as Transnet itself. In this respect, the two unions have worked hand in hand for some time. Both Verdi and Transnet united to publicly condemn the 31 percent pay demand made by train drivers last year, and the minimum wage of 5.5 euros proposed by Krauss is indicative of the path chosen by the unions. The miserable sum is even less than the legal minimum wage of 7.50 euros demanded by the Federation of German Trade unions (DGB).

“Rank and file rail”

Under these conditions the trade union grouping “rank and file rail” plays the role of a left cover for the bureaucracy. The group calls for the cancellation of the privatisation plans and for the democratic control of the European transport system by transport employees and the population as a whole. But such aims cannot possibly be implemented without breaking with Transnet and its entire union perspective—a line of action that “rank and file rail” vehemently rejects.

The system of co-management—i.e., the close co-operation between trade unions and management—that has now culminated in Hansen’s move into the DB executive is not just an issue of the corrupt practices of individual trade union leaders. It is the direct result of the union’s perspective of reforming capitalism. Under conditions of the globalisation of production and a burgeoning international finance crisis, a trade union perspective, even in its most militant form, is utterly incapable of challenging the constantly growing pressure of the capitalist economy to maximise profits. Such a struggle requires the building of a political movement of the working class, which fights for a socialist alternative to the capitalist system.

Until recently, the trade unionists organised in the “rank and file rail” grouping had evidently set their sights on the Social Democratic Party for progressive change - even though this party has filled the post of Federal Transport Minister for the past ten years and has been the main driving force behind the privatisation of the railways.

Following a speech by SPD chairman Kurt Beck on April 19, in which he told SPD congress delegates that he ruled out any privatisation in excess of 24.9 percent and declared that denationalisation was not the solution to every problem, “rank and file rail” issued a sigh of relief. “Thank God there is an end to the superhype that everything in private hands is good and inexpensive,” it wrote. “We must once again talk reasonably over securing our existence.”

Ten days later, however, the SPD joined its partners in the grand coalition government to vote in favour of partial privatisation. Nevertheless, “rank and file rail” continued to maintain that pressure on the government could prevent privatisation. In its leaflet produced for May Day, the group declared, “No railway share has been sold up to now. We must increase the pressure on those governing, in order to ensure that they keep their fingers out of the capital privatisation of the railways.”

For disillusioned Transnet members, any switch to the rival union of train drivers—the GDL—also represents a dead end. When GDL raised its demand last year for a substantial pay rise and its own contract agreement, other rail workers saw the possibility of a mobilisation to reverse years of continual wage cutting and degradations in working conditions. However, after eight months, the GDL leadership pulled the plug on its labour disputes despite the militancy of its members who had won considerable popular support. The GDL leadership signed a contract involving a minimal wage increase, which fits in smoothly with the contract structure worked out by DB management with the other rail trade unions.

Posted on 10:22 PM | Permalink

RMT: June 1 2008

LONDON MAYOR Boris Johnson owes a personal apology to every one of the London Underground staff assaulted, abused and spat on during last night’s alcohol-fuelled violence, the network’s biggest union said today.

What started as tipsy flash-mob ended with arrests, assaults and widespread vomitting

At least six staff were physically assaulted and another 50 spat at or verbally abused during a 'booze party' on the Circle Line organised to mark the introduction of a 'half-baked' alcohol ban imposed without consultation with Tube staff, says RMT.

"Johnson should apologise personally to all those who were assaulted and abused last night thanks to a half-baked gimmick designed solely as a publicity stunt and without a moment's thought for the people told to implement it," RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

"We have made it clear that RMT will support any measure that reduces anti-social behaviour and makes our members' lives safer, but this ban was imposed in haste without consultation with Tube staff.

"We warned that it could put our members at greater risk of assault, but there is no comfort in being proved right when Tube workers have been injured and abused.

"It is no good Tube bosses repeating parrot-fashion that they would not expect staff to put themselves in danger when they have been put in danger by the Mayor's publicity stunt.

"RMT's advice to its members is quite clear: if they believe they are at serious risk they should exercise their right to refuse to work, to take trains out of service or close stations as appropriate, and their union will support them every inch of the way.

"Let us hope that the mayor will learn the lesson and start paying heed to the voices of those who actually go out there and try to operate a service," Bob Crow said.

See also:

Swansong to tube boozing ends in assaults and arrests

Guardian: June 1 2008
Matthew Weaver and agencies

Revellers drink on a Circle line tube train, before the ban on drinking alcohol came into force at midnight, June 1.

Revellers drink on a Circle line tube train, before the ban on drinking alcohol came into force at midnight, June 1. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

Police arrested 17 people and closed six London Underground stations after a party to mark the last day of legal drinking on the tube ended in chaotic scenes.

Four train drivers and three other London Underground staff were assaulted, one police vehicle was damaged and two officers assaulted and another injured.

Witnesses said the stench of alcohol on the network was overpowering and that people were "being sick all over the place". Drunken partygoers began fighting and vomiting as the midnight ban on drinking drew nearer.

A spokesman for British Transport police said people were arrested for offences such as assault, drunk and disorderly, assault on police, public order-related offences and drug offences.

He added: "This was an unfortunate end to what should have been a fun event."

Various parties were organised by groups on social networking sites, with titles including "One final tube booze party" and "Let's get hammered on the tube day".

The drinking sessions mainly took place on the orbital Circle line.

They began as light-hearted events ahead of an alcohol ban imposed by the new Conservative London mayor, Boris Johnson.

Photographer Desmond Fitzgerald, 48, from Croydon, said the noise at Gloucester Road station at 11pm yesterday was "like a rowdy football crowd".

He said: "When I got on the train it was worse than rush hour, and with every station it went through more and more heavily-drunk people seemed to be getting on.

"Then a fight broke out between about five people, but because we were so tightly packed in, it soon spread throughout the carriage and I had to struggle to escape to the next one.

"The atmosphere had really changed by this point. People were ripping off adverts and maps and being sick all over the place."

At the start of the evening, partygoers of all ages, many in fancy dress, drank and sang in a boisterous, but friendly atmosphere.

Frankie Abbott, 21, a student from east London, said: "It's going to get a bit messy. There are guys drinking from funnels already."

Superintendent Ellie Bird said: "We have seen numerous examples this evening of the negative impact of alcohol and antisocial behaviour. It is dangerous for those individuals and others.

The mayor said: "I'm determined to improve the safety and security of public transport in London and create a better environment for the millions of Londoners who rely on it. The ban has the full support of the Metropolitan police and British Transport police."

See also:

Drink ban party sparks arrests

Press Association: 1 June 2008

Police arrested 17 people and closed six London Underground stations following chaotic scenes after thousands spent the night partying to mark the last day of drinking on the Tube, British Transport Police has said.

From June 1 an alcohol ban came into effect on the Tube, London buses, Docklands Light Railway and tram services across the capital banning people drinking from - and carrying - open containers of alcohol. The measure was announced earlier this month by new London mayor Boris Johnson.

But a night that started in a celebratory mood soon turned sour as four train drivers and three other London Underground staff were assaulted, one police vehicle was damaged and two officers assaulted and another injured. A spokesman for British Transport Police said 17 people were arrested.

Posted on 11:18 AM | Permalink

The Scotsman: 01 June 2008
By Eddie Barnes, Political Editor

A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the UK and Scottish Governments.

Rail ministers from Edinburgh and London met last week for preliminary discussions on laying down the spine of Britain an entirely new line, which could cut journey times from north to south to just three hours. The talks have been kept private

in a bid to dampen public expectation, with ministers on both sides of the border balking at the vast cost of the scheme.

Consultants estimate that it could cost up to £30bn to build a line capable of handling the Eurostar trains, which could travel at speeds of up to 220mph. However, rail industry bosses and pressure groups are now increasing the pressure on ministers to act, claiming the economic and environmental benefits of the line would outweigh the initial costs.

The meeting last Wednesday between UK rail minister Tom Harris and SNP Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson marks the first time that the UK Government and the SNP administration have met to discuss the rail project. The meeting was called by SNP ministers, who want to maintain strong transport links with England. The new momentum behind the project follows the successful bedding in of the new high-speed Eurostar link between London and Paris and Brussels, which opened in November 2007.

Journey times between London and Paris have been cut to two hours and 15 minutes, half the time it takes to get from London to Glasgow. Engineers believe it would take a decade of planning and building before the trains could be used, by which time the current network is likely to be overwhelmed by demand.

Pressure groups say the high environmental cost of short-haul air travel, plus the need to link up Scotland and the north of England with the new London Eurostar service requires a "High Speed Two" link down the country.

A feasibility study into a new high-speed line by the consultants Atkins in March concluded that either a west coast or an east coast line – which would cost between £9bn and £12bn – would produce huge economic benefits to the country. A third option – building a £30bn network down both east and west Britain – would bring economic benefits of more than £60bn, it added. The report concluded: "High-speed operation is required to attract sufficient passengers to switch from road and air."

Only this, it added, would "make construction of a new line economically or financially viable".

Despite the anticipated boost to the economy of the line, both Holyrood and Westminster administrations are facing major financial problems.

There is also a potential problem in the discussions because

industry sources suggest Scottish ministers would not only have to pay for the line in Scotland, but would also have to meet a substantial part of the costs in the north of England, as there is little incentive for UK ministers to build a line north of the heavily populated Manchester-Leeds corridor.

On the positive side, Gordon Brown is under pressure from Labour MPs and MSPs who say that a north-south high-speed line could become a "grand project", demonstrating the Prime Minister's support of the Union.

Posted on 9:37 AM | Permalink