National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers (RMT)

Feminism and the Tube Cleaners strike

2008-07-05T10:54:02Z

New Statesman: 04 July 2008
Alex Iossifidis

So, why is the tube cleaner’s plight a feminist issue? Well, for a start most tube cleaners are women and Feminist Fightback feel that cleaning has been underpaid and devalued as a ‘women’s industry’, reports Alex Iossifidis

Cleaners and Feminist Fightback: Here one of the cleaner's rights activists is protest-cleaning the window of the TfL headquarters while below in the reflection through the glass commuters can be seen buzzing around the tube gates at St James Park. Taken on 28th June 2008 on the morning of the Tube cleaners' strike. The direct action asked TfL to "Clean up your act" and the protesters set to work cleaning the lobby while calling out the demands of the tube cleaners strike.

]]> Most readers inside London will have heard of the tube cleaners strike. Some will have been inconvenienced and annoyed. A few will have picked up the rubbish on order of the intercom. Others, however, will have actively littered in solidarity with the cleaners. These others count Feminist Fightback among their ranks; a diverse group of feminists dedicated to women’s liberation and a democratic, classless society. They are a fairly new group, with a founding conference in 2006, and are news to a feminist scene which has lacked presence in the workplace in recent years. A tube worker and group member explained that “lots of activism hasn’t really been concerned with working class women’s issues” but now Feminist Fightback are “filling the gap”.

So, why is the tube cleaners' plight a feminist issue? Well, for a start most tube cleaners are women and Feminist Fightback feel that cleaning has been “underpaid and devalued as a ‘women’s industry’”. At £5.50 an hour, tube cleaners are certainly underpaid and undervalued. The 700-800 RMT members have a list of demands that brings shame to Transport for London (TfL) and its cleaning sub-contractors. They want a living wage, sick pay, 28 days holiday, final salary pension, free travel and an end to third party sackings. As well as the expected level of unpleasantness involved in the work, tube cleaners claim to face grim conditions: on-the-spot sackings, having to clean faeces with their bare hands, using unsafe cleaning chemicals and cleaning eight stations at a time on their own. On top of this, many workers face intimidation over immigration status. Despite Transport for London’s insistence that the strike was “completely unnecessary” it is about much more than the simple pay dispute TfL claims to be fixing.

Feminist Fightback certainly see it that way. One tube worker in the group believes that this kind of industrial action “shows the way forward for other women”. Many women in underpaid “pink-collar” jobs are made to feel powerless by managers and given no practical help from mainstream feminist organisations. By organising in day-to-day struggles, in the workplace or community, women (and men for that matter) can make improvements and gain a sense of empowerment. This is a basic part of Feminist Fightback’s activities, that women’s liberation isn’t merely a statistic or piece of legislation, but an experience.

With solidarity from groups like Feminist Fightback, women battling poor pay and working conditions can get support where it has been denied by anti-union laws. To this end the group have been attending pickets and staging protests. On the first day of the strike a dozen members cleaned up the London underground offices whilst handing out leaflets to staff and the public. In the recent 48 hour strike, the group dumped rubbish outside the offices, chanting “Transport for London – clean up your act”. Clara Osagiede, RMT cleaner’s grade secretary, says the demos and picket support have been “very useful” and are much appreciated by the workers.

Although their activities are fairly small scale for the moment, these activists are optimistic, one member explaining that “this kind of action gives us a boost and a model to build on”. With the 80th anniversary of universal female suffrage this week, it seems an appropriate time for feminist groups and activists to be getting back to direct action.

NZ government reveals ‘Plan B’ on rail

2008-07-02T13:17:43Z

Scoop: 2 July 2008, 2:24 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government
Hon Dr Michael Cullen,
Minister of Finance

The Labour-led government has today revealed that its buyback of New Zealand’s rail system was influenced by plans to close regional rail services throughout the country, Finance Minister Michael Cullen said today.

]]> Dr Cullen has released a list of services that was the centrepiece of Toll’s ‘Plan B’ which hung over negotiations with the government over the subsidy for the Australian firm’s operation.

The Labour-led government bought back the rail operation and launched KiwiRail yesterday.

“A modern rail system is vital for New Zealand’s economic future,” Dr Cullen said. “With the rising cost of petrol and the threat of global climate change, New Zealanders know we have to use more efficient transport methods.

“This is especially true for regional economies. The communities who have already lost their rail services know the pain that closures can cause.

“John Key says we should have left Toll in charge and refused to pay for any infrastructure investment. I invite him to travel to the regions that could have had their services axed and to explain his stance.”

The services that could have been closed under ‘Plan B’ are:

• The Overlander passenger service
• The Central North Island section of the Main Trunk Line (Te Kuiti to Palmerston North)
• Northland Line
• Taranaki Line
• Hawke’s Bay Line
• Napier to Gisborne Line
• Wairarapa Line north of Masterton
• Picton to Christchurch (freight + passenger services)
• Greymouth to Hokitika Line
• Invercargill to Bluff Line
• Invercargill to Wairio Line

ENDS

See also:

Toll wanted to close regional rail says govt as mud flies

NZPA: July 2 2008

Toll threatened to close down much of New Zealand's regional rail service during its negotiations with the Government, Finance Minister Michael Cullen said today.

As details over the renationalisation of the rail service began to emerge, Prime Minister Helen Clark said under parliamentary privilege that National Leader John Key had personally profited during the rail network's chequered financial history.

The attack came as Finance Minister Michael Cullen defended the $690 million deal saying it was influenced by plans to close regional rail services throughout New Zealand.

These included the central North Island section of the main trunk line, the Picton to Christchurch line as well as lines in Northland, Taranaki, Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa and Invercargill.

Dr Cullen said the closure threat hung over negotiations with Toll concerning the subsidy for the Australian firm's operation.

In the end the Government decided it would be better to purchase the assets and make the investment themselves.

In Parliament, National MPs accused the Government of being "suckered" and Mr Key said ministers seemed to have little idea of how much investment was needed or what it was getting itself into.

Miss Clark attacked Mr Key saying during the original privatisation of New Zealand Rail he was a director of Bankers Trust, which had advised over the sale.

"That sale was worth $400 million to the New Zealand Government... in 1993," Miss Clark said.

"That same year, the Bankers Trust, of which Mr Key was director, pocketed $39 million in profit... who benefited from the sale? Mr Key and his friends."

Mr Key later said it was a fact that he was a director with the Bankers Trust, but was involved in a different division.

His performance bonuses were based on his division's work.

Miss Clark also accused Mr Key's family trust of holding $30,000 worth of share in TranzRail in 2002.

"As associate transport spokesman for the National Party in 2003, Mr Key commented on whether we should be buying back the (rail) track and we can find no record of Mr Key disclosing his financial interest."

Mr Key later said the trust had sold the shares before he made those comments and Miss Clark's spokesman said she accepted his word on that.

During heated debate, Labour MPs accused National of wanting to sell off KiwiRail.

Mr Key said Labour was using smear tactics because it was behind in the polls.

Rail services Toll threatened to close down according to the Government:

*The Overlander passenger service;

*The Central North Island section of the Main Trunk Line (Te Kuiti to Palmerston North);

*Northland Line;

*Taranaki Line;

*Hawke's Bay Line;

*Napier to Gisborne Line;

*Wairarapa Line north of Masterton;

*Picton to Christchurch (freight and passenger services);

*Greymouth to Hokitika Line;

*Invercargill to Bluff Line; and

*Invercargill to Wairio Line.

See also:

Prime Minister Helen Clark gave this speech at the launch of KiwiRail today

NZ Herald: July 01, 2008

Today, 1 July, is a proud day for the railway system in New Zealand.

Our country's rail and ferry services were today transferred into government ownership.

Shortly I will announce the name of the new rail company, and unveil its new logo and livery on the train beside us.

A century ago, on 7 August 1908, the first train left Wellington for Auckland via the main trunk line.

That line was built for strategic reasons, and it represented a great leap forward in passenger and freight transport.

A century later our government has bought back the rail business for strategic reasons.

In the 21st century, just as in 1908, our rail system needs major investment so that it can play a growing role in our transport system.

With growing worldwide awareness of climate change and the need for our country to be more sustainable, and with the price of a barrel of oil reaching an historic US$142, many nations are looking at rail as a central component of their economic infrastructure - and so must New Zealand.

A modern and well resourced rail system will lessen the carbon footprint of our transport network, and therefore of our whole economy.

The reasons are simple. Fuel efficiency for diesel-powered trains is four times better than using the road to carry the same load; and electric trains are ten times more fuel efficient.

One locomotive can pull the equivalent freight of 65 trucks.

The benefits of rail for moving passengers are equally compelling. A small move off road and onto rail reduces road congestion; allows business to move goods and services to the public more freely; reduces fuel consumption; and reduces the pressure to build more roads.

Our government has a vision for a transport system which is affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable.

We need all transport modes working together effectively and efficiently.

With our rail system back in public ownership we can make the strategic decisions and investments necessary for rail to play its full part in building a more sustainable New Zealand.

By 2040 total freight transport movements in this country are expected to more than double. We are looking to rail - and to coastal shipping which is also fuel efficient - to carry a lot of that extra load.

It should be acknowledged that Toll Holdings has made good progress in our rail system in recent years. But it also has become clear that our rail system cannot survive without substantial government subsidies into the future.

That, together with the need to develop a more sustainable and integrated transport system for our country, makes the case for public ownership compelling in the 21st century.

This is a strategic investment in New Zealand's future.

A new establishment board will manage the services, pending determination of the final shape of the relationship between the new entity and OnTrack - the SOE which runs the railtrack.

The establishment board will be chaired by Rt Hon Jim Bolger. He will work with a board of experienced directors.

It is now my pleasure to reveal the name and the logo and livery of Zealand's new rail company: KiwiRail!

See also:

Full text: Michael Cullen's speech 'NZ rail back in NZ hands'

NZ Herald: July 01, 2008

Dr Cullen gave this speech at the launch of KiwiRail today

Good morning. I am very pleased to be here at Wellington Station on the first day of operation for KiwiRail - an important day for our nation's economy.

15 years ago New Zealand became the first country in the world to fully privatise its rail operation as a single entity. Our great experiment of privatisation was carried out under two governments - one Labour and one National - and there is no point today in revisiting the political debates of those years.

I think it is fair to say, however, that the failure to develop a strong, efficient rail system is for many New Zealanders the enduring symbol of what went wrong with privatisation.

For a decade after its sale, there were stories of financial scandal, of asset-stripping, and of neglect. In recent years, Toll Holdings has worked hard to turn this around, but in the end all have acknowledged that it is not possible to run an effective rail network in New Zealand without significant financial support from the New Zealand taxpayer.

Confronted with the urgent need for major investments in rail infrastructure, the government had two fundamental questions to address.

First, is it in New Zealand's interests to have a strong rail system? For the Labour-led government, the answer is an unequivocal 'yes.'

As the Prime Minister has outlined, rail's ability to make our transport sector more sustainable and more efficient is huge. We also know how important rail is to regional economies. And we know that moving freight off road and onto rail and also coastal shipping will make our highways safer and cheaper to maintain.

The truth is that New Zealand must have a strong, thriving rail network if we are going to live up to our full economic and environmental potential.

And having answered that question, the government was forced to confront another. If the government is going to have to pay for the investments in rail that we must have, are we willing to do so in a way that essentially subsidises the profits of a private overseas firm? This is not a short-term question Toll had a monopoly right to the operation of the rail system through to 2070. It is a question whose answer would impact several generations of taxpayers.

And for the Labour-led government, the answer had to be 'no.' We refused to accept that New Zealand taxpayers should indefinitely subsidise a private, foreign operation and then not make sure that the investment would deliver social and economic returns for New Zealand.

We knew that with a rail system owned by all New Zealanders, we would finally be in a position to make sure that rail system worked in the interest of all New Zealanders.

The government has been heartened by the enthusiastic response the buy-back of the rail system has received. New Zealanders especially those in provincial New Zealand know that rail has a vital role to play in our future and know that public ownership is the right way to go.

Some of this enthusiasm has been criticised as nostalgic, linked to some belief in the glory days of rail. But to me, the only nostalgic view in this debate is the one that sees State Owed Enterprises as unable to be highly successful economic forces. The truth is that our SOEs are performing very well and I have every confidence that whatever the final structure of the new rail system it will be a huge success.

And I am very pleased that the man who has in recent years played a major role in the SOE success story, former Prime Minister Jim Bolger, has agreed to guide our integrated rail system as chairman. Jim, we are very lucky to have someone with your skills and your dedication to New Zealand on board with us.

Thank you.

See also:

KiwiRail launch marks end of 'failed' privatisation

Railway Gazette International: 02 Jul 2008

KiwiRail locomotive livery

NEW ZEALAND: Prime Minister Helen Clark unveiled KiwiRail as the name for the rail and ferry operations which were transferred from Toll New Zealand into government ownership on July 1.

Services will initially be unchanged, with KiwiRail controlled by an establishment board chaired by former Prime Minister Jim Bolger; the other members are Brian Corban, Mark Franklin, Ross Wilson, Brian Jackson, Linda Constable and Ross Martin.

A Rail Development Group is due to present the government with recommendations for the future structure of the rail businesses in early August. One option is the formation of a single organisational structure with two divisions, KiwiRail and infrastructure manager Ontrack, which took over the 4 000 km network when it was bought back by the government for a nominal NZ$1 in 2003. Another option under consideration is the creation of a state-owned enterprise which would function commercially, and a separate Crown Entity.

'With our rail system back in public ownership, we can make the strategic decisions and investments necessary for rail to play its full part in building a more sustainable New Zealand', said Clark during launch of KiwiRail at Wellington station. 'Over time, we will be able to move more and more freight off our roads and onto rail. Rail will also play a bigger role in public transport in our major centres.'

Finance Minister Michael Cullen said the privatisation of Tranz Rail in the 1990s had clearly not worked. 'From asset-stripping to trading scandals, New Zealand's experiment with rail privatisation failed to produce much-needed investments in this critical part of New Zealand's transport infrastructure. Toll Holdings had made good progress in recent years, but it has become clear to all that the rail network could not be run without substantial government subsidies into the future.'

The government paid NZ$655m to acquire assets with a book value of NZ$430m. Toll retains the Tranzlink rail and road forwarding business, warehousing and logistics operations, and having rent-free use of premises for six years. Cullen described the deal as 'a long-term investment in New Zealand's future.'

RMT Tube cleaners to take 48-hour strike action tonight to demand a living wage

2008-07-01T16:03:20Z

RMT: July 1, 2008

Cross-party support from MPs for Tube cleaners to be paid the London living wage

]]> Over 700 RMT members working for four cleaning subcontractors on London Underground will begin their second round of strike action at 18:50 tonight until 18.49 Thursday to demand the London living wage.

After voting to strike by a landslide 125-one margin, RMT cleaners working for ISS, ITS, ICS and GBM also took 24-hour action on June 26.

Over 30 Tory, Lib Dem and Labour MPs, including two former transport ministers Glenda Jackson and Karen Buck, have so far signed 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 (text and list below).

RMT general secretary Bob Crow said that all contracts held by the failed Metronet consortium have now passed to Transport for London and demanded that TfL act now to halt the scandalous practice of paying cleaners just £5.50 per hour.

“London mayor Boris Johnson has stated that all temporary and contracted GLA staff should be paid at least the living wage as the contracts come up for renewal (see below) and Tubelines has indicated that it would be willing to enter negotiations on the issue.

“However, three cleaning companies with contracts with Metronet are currently in talks with TfL right now and paying the London living wage isn’t even on the agenda.

“Despite massive intimidation of our members’, RMT 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

For further information contact Brian Denny on 020 7529 8824

Notes to editors: 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.

From last week's Mayor's Question Time: London Living Wage

Question No: 1205 / 2008

John Biggs: Will you retain the commission and will you support the living wage, including the annual, independent, assessment of its appropriate value? If so, will you ensure all GLA staff are covered by it and will you press for its wider adoption in London?

Mayor: Yes. I will shortly be announcing the 2008 living wage rate. All direct employees of the GLA Group are paid at least the living wage and as contracts are renewed I will seek to ensure that our temporary and contracted staff are as well. All employers in London should be encouraged to pay at least the Living Wage and I will be encouraging them to do so.

CONDITIONS FOR CLEANERS EMPLOYED ON LONDON UNDERGROUND

Early Day Motion 1872 Tabled by John McDonnell and signed by 31 MPs so far

"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."

See also:

Tube cleaners' strike under way

BBC News: 2 July 2008

Nine London MPs have backed the strike

A 48-hour strike is under way by cleaners on the London Underground in a row over pay and conditions.

More than 700 cleaners employed by four sub-contractors walked out at 1850 BST on Tuesday. The strike follows a 24-hour stoppage last week.

The members of the Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) Union want hourly rates to be raised from £5.50 to £7.20 plus improved holidays and pensions.

Transport for London (TfL) called the strike action "completely unnecessary".

The union wants the cleaners' pay to be set at £7.20 an hour, which is the London living wage.

This figure is recommended by the Greater London Authority, and is a minimum hourly rate for a full-time employee to cover the basic costs of living in London.

'Solidly supported'

A TfL spokesman said: "Following the transfer of Metro net to TfL, 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 said negotiations had hardly begun.

He said three cleaning companies with contracts with Metronet are currently in talks with TfL and "paying the London living wage isn't even on the agenda".

A RMT spokesman said: "We expect the strike to be solidly supported as the last one was."

Last month, 24 London MPs backed an early day motion tabled by Hayes and Harlington MP John McDonnell supporting the cleaners.

Portishead railway line back on track?

2008-07-01T09:19:24Z

Weston & Somerset Mercury: 29 June 2008

RAIL campaigners in Portishead believe there could be a light at the end of the tunnel after a study found a rail link to Bristol would be feasible.

]]> The study was carried out for North Somerset Council by infrastructure development experts Halcrow and shows the railway could be viable with no show stoppers.

Frustrated commuters who sit in traffic for hours at peak times every day are among those who have been campaigning to re-open the old railway line in an attempt to alleviate some of the congestion problems experienced in a town described by Woodspring MP Liam Fox as 'the biggest cul-de-sac in the country'.

The study looked at several different options based on one train per hour between Portishead and Bristol Temple Meads.

It also evaluated the cost of building the necessary infrastructure including a new station for Portishead, west of Quays Avenue, and re-laying track between the town centre and the existing Portbury Dock spur.

Detailed calculations show that building the infrastructure is likely to cost £7.5-£15 million, while annual operating costs would be £1.6-£2.4million.

Identifying the funding for the infrastructure and an operating subsidy is now being investigated.

Cllr Elfan Ap Rees, North Somerset Council's deputy leader with responsibility for transport, said: "Investigating a Portishead rail link was one of the priorities the new Conservative administration set itself when we took over last year and I am delighted that this report shows that the idea is not only feasible but would positively contribute to reducing road traffic on the A369 through to the M5 junction 19 and have economic benefits, too for the town.

"We hope now that the Government will support the plan and help us find the funding needed to bring this to fruition, either through the Transport Innovation Fund process or, if that should prove unworkable for some reason, through alternative transport bids."

If the railway does not re-open, it is believed Portishead will be the largest town in the country without a rail link when the current house building programme is complete.

Rail Fare Hike Imminent In U.K.

2008-07-01T01:21:21Z

AHN: June 30, 2008
Vittorio Hernandez

London, England - Barely six months after Britons were hit by a 15 percent rail fare increase at the start of the year, another round of train fare hike appears to be forthcoming.

]]> Economists forecast a five percent increase by the end of the year to recover soaring cost of oil and energy bills. Using a government RPI plus one formula, it would translate to a 6 percent upward adjustment in ticket prices or at least $200 (100 pound) more for season ticket holders.

Britons who travel via the Southeastern route or rail passengers who reach London from Kent and East Sussex would likely have to shell out a higher 8 percent increase in train fares to recover the improvement in rail service in the region, particularly with the roll out of the high speed Javelin service into St. Pancras by 2009.

When train fares went up by almost 15 percent in January, British rail travelers were outraged because it came at a time when the service was marked by long delays, overcrowding and generally poor service. At that time train travelers rated the country's rail service with very low satisfaction ratings.

New Zealand rail renationalisation deal settled

2008-06-30T00:21:34Z

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;

* the relationship between track owner Ontrack and the rail operator under government ownership;

* whether capital expenditure will include the building of a new line to Fonterra's Clandeboye plant in Temuka, a line to Northland Port or sidings at Wiri for Ports of Auckland;

* the company has to this year buy back 15 percent of its rolling stock previously sold and leased back by Tranz Rail.

* how the company satisfies major customers like Solid Energy and Fonterra.

* 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

MPs Protest FGW's Withdrawal of Buffet Car Services

2008-06-28T09:28:53Z

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

German govt rows with DeutscheBahn over rail maintenance

2008-06-28T08:44:45Z

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.

Tube cleaners strike in pay row - Nine London MPs back strike

2008-06-27T04:07:46Z

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.

"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

EU criticises new structure of rail operator Deutsche Bahn

2008-06-27T02:24:59Z

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

EC urges EU member states to implement rail package correctly

2008-06-26T04:15:34Z

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.

Put staff back on stations for a safer journey, says RMT

2008-06-25T11:04:38Z

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.

Union urges 'trains not planes'

2008-06-25T10:20:06Z

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."

Deutsche Bahn CEO open to other rail operators taking stake in company

2008-06-25T04:20:19Z

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.

High-speed rail ‘the viable alternative to Heathrow expansion’ says RMT

2008-06-24T23:58:13Z

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.

"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)

With this report RMT becomes the first union to look for an environmentally acceptable alternative to expansion at Heathrow. The report finds that a good rail service can provide a viable alternative that is not just more environmentally-friendly but also contributes much more to the UK economy and job creation.

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 growth of high-speed rail on the continent of Europe has been phenomenal. An extensive network continues to expand (2). It is the UK which has been left behind.

It is this extensive network that is providing a challenge to budget flights across Europe. There will soon be a high-speed rail network stretching across seven countries in Europe which will start competing with low-cost airlines as the most convenient way to travel. The intercity network will mean people will be able to travel by train from London to Frankfurt in just five hours for as little as £69. Passengers will also be able to travel between France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria using good rail services.

And beyond London
A study carried out by WS Atkins for the Strategic Rail Authority in 2001/03, updated this year (3), developed the idea of a high-speed rail to the north with two branches at the southern end: one directly to London; and one London via Heathrow. It gave journey times of:

• London - Birmingham 40min

• London -Manchester 1hr 25min

• London – Leeds 1hr 20min

• London - Edinburgh or Glasgow 2hr 45min

The Demand for Rail

There are a number of factors which influence the mode of travel a person
chooses to make the journey.

Distance

under 150km - car or traditional rail are the preferred modes;

150 - 400km - high speed rail wins out over air, but car still has around 70% of the
market;

400 - 1200km - there is competition between high speed rail and air, with the fiercest
competition at distances of between 400 and 800km;

over 1200km* - general preference for air (4).

Fact: 45% of air trips within Europe are 500kms or less in length.

People are switching:

• Eurostar is now capturing over 70% of the market between London and Paris; and over 60% between London and Brussels.

• The air service between Paris and Brussels has ceased since the train journey was reduced to about an hour.

• Rail held only 22% of the combined Paris-Marseille air-rail market before TGV Mediterranean went into service (2001), but in four years that market share rose to 65% and in 2006 it was 69% and EasyJet abandoned its Paris-Marseille flights.

• In the UK, since its improvement in the West Coat Mainline, rail has snatched 20% of passengers from the airlines, increasing its share of the market to 60%.

Time
Traditionally, the tipping point has been three hours, but this threshold has recently been increased to between four and four-and-a-half hours for business travel. The French railway, SNCF, has found that on journeys of less than four-and-a-half hours, where their trains compete with airlines, their share of the market is over 50%. This is backed up by other European rail companies, which are capturing more than 60% of the business market from airlines on four hour journeys.

Productive Time
But comparative figures about the time a journey takes only paint a partial picture. What is more important than the absolute journey time, particularly for business travellers, is how productively the time can be used. It is here that rail can have a big advantage. A first-rate report from TRANSform Scotland compared current air and rail services between London and Edinburgh and Glasgow (5).

What is more important than the absolute journey time is how productively the time can be used.

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

Economic
Investment in fast rail links would bring higher economic benefits than expansion at Heathrow. The WS Atkins 2006 report found that high-speed links from London, via Heathrow, to Birmingham and Leeds would cost £31bn but would bring benefits of £63bn over a 60 year period. These benefits would only accrue if the lines were city- centre to city-centre. According to the Department for Transport the current proposals to expand Heathrow would only generate economic benefits of £5bn spread over a 70 year period.

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

High-speed rail would create tens of thousands of jobs across the country, including new jobs at Heathrow. It would be a win-win solution: an environmentally friendlier option than airport expansion which at the same time boosted the economy, protected employment levels at Heathrow and created jobs across the country.

Who Says There is no Alternative? has been published by the RMT.
It was compiled by John Stewart, Chair of the Campaign for Better Transport, for the RMT. The RMT can be contacted at Unity House, 39 Chalton Street, London NW1 1JD. email: Info@rmt.org.uk
Photographs by Phil Weedon – philweedon@blueyonder.co.uk June 2008