| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 May 2006 : Column 537WH—continued
There are some points that I would like to be taken into account when the considerations are under way. First, not so long ago, an additional platform was built on the west side of Stafford station so that Royal Mail trains could load and unload mail at its immediate west-side neighbour, a Royal Mail sorting office, for sorting and delivery. I thought that that was a good, sustainable, green development. It is still quite a model development, but the rail mail journeys have stopped
because of cost decisions taken by Royal Mail. I still have a fond desire for a resumption, one day, of rail mail at Stafford.
My second point about the development might conflict with my first. The land to the west of Stafford station is under serious consideration by landowners, developers and local councils for major redevelopment works in the not-too-distant future. It occurs to me that there might be opportunities for additional development involving railway land, and that that might be relevant to the funding and extent of the planned scheme. I would like Network Rail and other planners of the railway development to have regard to that.
Thirdly, I want to voice my support for the Institution of Civil Engineers and its campaign for a new, high-speed rail link from the north to the south of this country. I mention that point because it is likely that any route drawn on a map for such a high-speed link would probably include a line that passed through Stafford. Far from saying, “Draw the line somewhere else,” I would welcome such a development. If we are talking about works that will need to be done in the not-too-distant future at Stafford for one purpose, perhaps we should have a weather eye to a possible future additional purpose and ensure that the plans are drawn up in such a way as to accommodate any such future additional development, which I would welcome and support. Those are my points about Stafford station.
I move to a general issue that is mentioned only briefly in the report: freight rail. I am a strong supporter of moving as much of our freight as possible around the country by train. I have always been disappointed that we never developed a system in which whole lorries could drive on to trains, be moved 300 miles across the country and then complete their journeys at the other end. We do not have much piggyback facility of that sort in this country, and many of the bridges and tunnels on our railway network would not allow it. As far as possible, when we carry out new works, we should plan for extra freight capacity, whether that means more lines—the report discusses a possible new line between Leicester and Birmingham—or making more of the existing network capable of carrying high-gauge traffic. The report also mentions the Felixstowe to Nuneaton line in that respect.
I urge the people responsible for the west coast upgrade to continue to think of ways to support and promote freight on our railway system as part of a package. Important though we the passengers might think our journeys are, freight journeys are also important to the future environment of our country and the world as a whole. We should therefore be determined to try to improve things.
The report rightly has a section that looks to the future and talks about how, after having made a huge investment, the wonderful improvement to the network will be sustained. That is a good section, and I hope that we will be able to hold future railways Ministers to account in delivering on it. My experience of using the railway system today is much better in terms of reliability, speed and comfort than it was in 1997. Much of that is thanks to the Pendolino stock of trains on the London to Stafford line, but of course, we now
also have the Voyagers from Virgin and the new electric trains used by Central Trains between Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.
If there is one fault that I find in today’s system—this was again the subject of a report last week—it is the pricing of rail travel. There is a confusing array of prices, and staff sometimes appear to be unwilling to share with customers the price options for journeys. Those in the business community, with whom I often rub shoulders on a Monday morning when travelling to London on my very satisfactory Pendolino train, are a captive audience for paying high prices for their tickets. The current situation rather crowds out many people’s ability to use trains as much as they would like.
On the whole, however, my message to the writers of this report, and to the people who are delivering the work about which the report tells us, is, “You are doing a good job; keep up the good work.”
2.59 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West) (Lab): I start by endorsing the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made about the enormous improvements on the west coast main line, particularly his point that all of this work should have been done about 20 years ago—certainly before privatisation. However, I am extremely pleased that it has now been done, and that it has been done by a Labour Government.
I congratulate the Minister and all his predecessors on bringing the project to such a satisfactory point—not a conclusion, because the project is ongoing—at which real improvements have been delivered in a cost-effective way. I hope to console him for the absence of crowds of Back Benchers wanting to harass him during the debate by saying that he should take it as a sign of success. I feel confident in saying that had the debate been held at almost any time during the preceding 15 years, regardless of the party of the Minister who would have been speaking, the room would have been crowded with Back Benchers who would not have been wanting to say complimentary things about the west coast main line. They would have been falling over themselves to explain its deficiencies and their constituents’ need for progress to be made. It has now been made and the Minister should take the lack of speakers as a sign of his success. In that sense, I look forward to a debate that nobody attends because everything is so hunky dory that people cannot be bothered to turn up and say so.
The Minister can be reassured that, given the Government’s successful response to my past harassment of them—that is an accurate way of describing it—I do not intend to repeat in mind-numbing detail all the reasons why Milton Keynes is so extremely important. I have clearly convinced him of the fact. I simply say that for my constituency, the issues have always been twofold.
First, we have wanted to ensure that we have good, reliable and fast inter-city services, because Milton Keynes is an extremely dynamic local and business community. The chamber of commerce in Milton Keynes has, rightly, always insisted that we need a good inter-city service and good inter-city links both north
and south throughout the day, including at peak hours, to ensure that our businesses can get the business visitors that they require at all times of the day from both north and south. In that respect, I am extremely pleased that the progress report details improvements in peak time services as well as those during the rest of the day, including services from the north to Milton Keynes in the morning and in the opposite direction in the evening.
As well as business visitors, a significant and growing number of people work in Milton Keynes but live elsewhere, although a larger number live in Milton Keynes and commute to London and, of course, an even larger number both live and work in Milton Keynes. It is therefore important to us that the focus is not only on commuter services between Milton Keynes and London, but on commuter services to Milton Keynes from both London and from the north. The expansion of capacity mentioned in the progress report and the new timetables that are planned meet that need.
I pay tribute to the Milton Keynes chamber of commerce, which has been extremely constructive in working with me and the Government on the improvements to the service to Milton Keynes that we need to meet business needs. I also give credit to the Milton Keynes and Bletchley rail users group, which has effectively co-ordinated the views and needs of rail commuters and fed them into the debate on improvements to the west coast main line in Milton Keynes.
The improvements set out in the progress report are extremely welcome, particularly the planned extra platform for Milton Keynes Central station. That will greatly increase track capacity and enable the new timetable from 2008 to incorporate an increased number of trains at peak commuting times. It will also provide, through the turn-back facility, the ability for trains to turn round at Milton Keynes, which will increase the ability to fit in at peak times train services between Milton Keynes and London. That will be of enormous advantage to my constituents.
The extra capacity is particularly required because Milton Keynes is a growth area and we expect its population to have grown by 80 per cent. by 2030. I am hoping that most of those new people will live and work in Milton Keynes, but clearly a proportion of them will commute to London, so one can expect the number of commuters to increase, although perhaps not by as much as 80 per cent. The increased capacity is therefore extremely important.
I am also pleased that mention is made of the improvements in journey time and comfort that are being made to the Silverlink County rail services, which carry the bulk of commuters in the new Desiro rolling stock, which is far more comfortable than the older rolling stock that it replaced. The comfort level is important to regular commuters, who—however fast the journey is—spend a considerable proportion of their lives on trains. They appreciate the improved quality of the trains, not to mention the air conditioning, which is particularly important in the summer. The improved track reliability is also immensely important to everyone on both the Virgin and the Silverlink County services, in that the trains run on time and arrive as expected.
An issue raised in the west coast main line progress report relates to Milton Keynes Central station. It is an excellent station on the whole, but it has one defect: it does not have proper passenger lifts. Its lifts are essentially goods lifts and they have extremely heavy doors that are difficult for passengers to use, especially elderly passengers, who are exactly the people who are most likely to want to use the lifts. I hope that the passenger lifts are upgraded so that they are more suitable for the 21st century and the many more people who will wish to use the station.
The second issue involves both Bletchley station and Milton Keynes Central station. There is a welcome mention in the progress report of the fact that the planned improvements will not only be of benefit to the west coast main line, but be significant to the sought-after reopening of the Oxford to Bletchley rail link with the Aylesbury to Bletchley spur. At both Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central, the works have been carried out so that they will facilitate the future reopening of the east-west rail link and enable the east-west service to go up to Milton Keynes Central from Bletchley. That would enormously increase potential usage and hugely strengthen the business case for the reopening of the railway link. I am pleased that the Government have taken note of that.
However, I ask that in the remodelling of Bletchley station, which is also important for the regeneration of Bletchley, and the construction of the new high-level platform, enormous care is taken to ensure that the remodelling is passenger friendly. It should take particular account of the need to make the transfer of passengers from the east-west line—the Bedford to Bletchley line—to the west coast main line as easy as possible to encourage passengers to use it. It should also take account of some of the concerns that are being raised by the rail users group about whether the placing of that high-level platform is quite as convenient as it might otherwise have been for pedestrians, and in particular for disabled customers. Will the Minister keep a watching brief on those planned works and ensure that they are as friendly as possible to rail users?
I thank the Minister for listening so carefully to all the representations that I have made in the past and for delivering so effectively for the people of Milton Keynes. I also thank all those people in the various parts of the rail industry who have participated in those discussions and contributed to the scheme that will now be advanced. It will enormously improve life for my constituents.
3.10 pm
Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): It is a pleasure totake part in this debate under your chairmanship,Lady Winterton.
Like others in the Chamber, I welcome the publication this week of the progress report on the west coast main line. Typically, the Minister understated some of the past problems and the progress that we have made since the publication of the west coast main line strategy in 2003. I am a former member of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and
now a regular user of the service between Manchester and Euston. During the 12 months that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have seen a vast improvement in the quality and reliability of the service, so much so that it is easy to forget how poor it was prior to modernisation.
During the 1990s, I visited Kenya and travelled on the line from Nairobi to Mombasa. I told friends that the rolling stock on that line was newer than the rolling stock on the west coast main line at that time. Sadly for Kenya, that would not be true now. That is an example of the fact that one must continue to upgrade and improve not only the rolling stock, but the condition of the line. The modernisation of the west coast main line has been a long-held wish. The Minister referred to the upgrade in the 1960s and 1970s, which did not deal with many of the structural problems on the line that would have allowed the sort of speeds that people wanted.
When preparing for this debate I read a Westminster Hall debate of 23 October 2002 before the strategy that we are discussing was agreed. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, the Chamber then was full of Members wanting to talk about the problems being experienced by their constituents. The debate was initiated by my former colleague, Patsy Calton, who said:
“Where is the industry going? Where is the strategy to produce the railway industry that the north-west, the industry, the public and business want? Do the Government have a plan? Will they act to reduce the uncertainty crippling business? The north-west needs the upgrade, as do the midlands, Cumbria and Scotland, for local, national and, ultimately, international traffic. The country needs to hear from the Minister that the Government have at last got a grip on this out-of-control project.”—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 23 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 97WH.]
She accurately underlined the problems at the time—for example, the cost overruns—and the fact that it looked as though we would never have the railway that the west coast main line deserved.
Savings were made by reducing the speed on the track from the 140 mph originally planned to 125 mph. At Stockport station, the signal box, instead of being replaced with modern electronic signals, was refurbished by Chinese engineers because no one in Britain could master the mechanical devices. Despite all that, this week, improvements to the service have been announced. Birmingham will have two to three trains an hour with a journey time of one hour23 minutes instead of one hour 43 minutes, and Manchester will have a train every 20 minutes and a service that peaks at less than two hours. Those are remarkable achievements and, as a regular user, I understand why those services are popular. The Minister rightly said that the train is now beating the aeroplane in terms of passenger usage from Manchester to London. During the past 12 months, reliability and frequency on that line have improved considerably.
I am pleased that we have made good progress, and done so within the original cost estimate. In the past, we have criticised the Government for cost overruns, but I pay tribute to them for keeping the west coast main line project on budget and on time. That is a tribute to all who work in the rail industry.
I want to raise a couple of issues with the Minister about how we can further improve the service. The hon.
Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) mentioned Birmingham New Street station, where there are capacity issues. Plans are being drawn up to deal with that problem, but it is important to have some news soon about what will happen, not necessarily in respect of the long-distance fast trains, but to ensure that there is continued growth of commuter trains feeding into the fast trains. The same applies at Manchester Piccadilly station. As I have said, we need to know when platforms 12 and 13 will be upgraded because they are limiting capacity to improve services into and out of Manchester Piccadilly.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned fares, which spoil the progress that has been made. It is now more expensive to travel first class from Manchester to London by rail than by air. As the Transport Committee said last week, the pricing system is complex and unintelligible to even the most intelligent person. It needs simplifying and sorting out.
On future issues, the hon. Gentlemen mentioned the bottleneck at Stafford, to which the report refers. That is a complex problem. The Trent Valley line has been sorted out and I understand that, given the original milestones and deadlines, everything cannot be done at once. However, I hope that by the time of the next debate that issue will have been resolved. It is important for people in Stafford and for regular rail users to develop the network line.
On freight, the report does not contain a resolution that achieves the original plans, which referred to 60 to 70 per cent. more freight on the line. The report refers to some of the fast mail services, but we have not been told how those will be provided. If we are to be green and environmentally friendly, it is important not only that we have more passengers, but that more freight is moved around by rail.
There are future issues. I hope that a plan will be introduced so that renewals of the line are built into the system and are not neglected, as happened in the past, and that speeds increase from the current maximum of 125 mph. I hope that we can have a proper dialogue on the development of the high-speed line between London and Scotland. The Northwest Development Agency rightly said that the west coast main line is the economic lifeline of the north-west. The next phase should be a high-speed line between London, the north-west and Scotland, which will be a further motor to the economic progress that we are seeing in the north-west and beyond.
I thank the Minister for initiating this positive debate. At last, we are seeing some of the long-sought-after benefits that we were promised back in 2003.
3.19 pm
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Lady Winterton. I do not intend to delay Members for long, but there are a few issues I wish to raise with the Minister, and I have a couple of introductory points.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |