RAILWAYS (NOTTINGHAM- RUGBY LINE) (Hansard, 14 February 1969)

§ Mr. Tony Gardner (Rushcliffe)

After our long discourse on democracy in Scotland and Wales I am sorry to have to return to the more mundane affairs of England and to detain my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary here a little longer on a Friday afternoon, but I am grateful for the opportunity of raising in the House the decision by the Minister of Transport to close what remains of the Great Central Railway between Nottingham, Arkwright Street, and Rugby Central. This is probably the last chapter in a very long and a very sad story. I appreciate that what has led to this final decision is not within the responsibilities of my hon. Friend or, indeed, the present Government, for this has a very long history indeed.

Some local people think it has its roots in the old rivalry between the Midland Railway and the old Great Central, and because of some of the things which have happened over the last 20 years I am convinced that there is something in that argument. But, be that as it may, the Great Central Railway, in its heyday, provided a first-class service to us in the East Midlands. There was a good route between London, Nottingham, Sheffield, and Manchester. There were communications to the east at Nottingham (Victoria). There was a 1833 very valuable route much used by holidaymakers from York, Sheffield and Nottingham to the South and South-West. It served the growing towns and villages around the cities of Nottingham and Leicester.

Over the years British Railways first of all emasculated the line by topping and tailing it and then by gradually reducing the services, and they have now, apparently, secured a decision from my right hon. Friend to close it altogether. Although there was a reprieve a little while ago after an inquiry it was quite obvious to most of us who live in the locality that this was really nearly the end of the story.

Of course, I could not possibly challenge the figures of passenger usage which were brought before the Transport Users Consultative Committee when the matter was first raised by British Railways. Nor could I challenge the figures which British Railways has, no doubt, presented to my right hon. Friend, and which have led him to take this present decision. However, I still believe that this is one of the local tragedies which might not have happened and need not have happened.

The East Midlands is one of the most rapidly growing areas in the country. This is recorded very firmly in the Report of the East Midlands Planning Council. I believe that if British Railways really had sought the potential extra business which the growing population might have brought, the line might have been viable today. There could have been a direct link with the main line at Rugby (Midland). That was not beyond all possibility. There could have been a link with the other main line in Nottingham. Many years ago some of us were urging that British Railways should introduce fast diesel rail cars, and they were introduced eventually, but by then passenger usage had declined and it was very difficult to attract people back to the line. It might have been possible, had that been done, as many people urged, to have provided for the very many commuters, students, workers, shoppers, people seeking entertainment or going to places of worship from the villages around into the big cities of Leicester and Nottingham.

The opposite occurred. The services deteriorated just as the population was 1834 growing most rapidly and left people in the area with no alternative but to use the already overcrowded roads. Of course, the worst hardship will be to people in the villages on the line between Leicester and Rugby Central. My own constituency is an example of the way things have developed. East Leake and Ruddington were two of the areas chosen as nodal parishes of population growth to take the growing population, spreading out from the City of Nottingham. Health centres, shops and so on were planned, and the population grew apace, but, as the population was growing, first Ruddington station was closed and now the station in my own village of East Leake is due to close.

At the time these decisions were being taken new housing estates were going up. Railway stations in the past were often quite a distance from villages and town centres, but, because of the demand for new housing land, the town centres have moved, and more and more new housing development surrounds the old and still existing railway stations. But the decision was taken, and the people of Ruddington in particular, now swelled to thousands, struggle to get across the three bridges over the river Trent into Nottingham every morning and back again in the evening.

The services that remained after the old Great Central line was emasculated were hardly ever advertised. So little were they advertised that the Great Central Association had to publish its own timetables and issue them to would-be passengers. Recently I approached British Railways management to secure better publicity, and one of the strange ironies in this situation is that only a few weeks before the Minister announced his decision British Railways was distributing leaflets around the villages advertising the services.

I accept that railway closures have to come and that some railway lines ought perhaps never to have been constructed, but I hope that my hon. Friend will also accept that we must come to terms with the growing commuter problem. The railway line never had a chance since British Railways was determined almost from the day of nationalisation to secure its closure, and I ask my hon. Friend even at this late hour to advise his right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter. If 1835 he cannot do this, I should like to raise three specific issues.

The Minister in his letter of 23rd January, 1969, to the British Railways Board says this: And while he accepts that travellers between East Leake and Nottingham will have alternatives by bus taking longer than the existing train journey, which may be affected by traffic delays at the approaches to Nottingham, he is satisfied that road works already in hand will lead to improvements. I do not know what these road works are. There has been a great deal of local controversy, and a deputation from the City of Nottingham recently went to the Ministry to demand the building of a new bridge across the River Trent. If this is the nature of the road works to which he refers in his letter, I ask him, whatever may happen in the future, not to close the line until the extra bridge is built and until the roads are capable of carrying the extra traffic. I also ask him to advise British Railways that the existing track should not be destroyed. With the growth of population, I and many other people living in the area are convinced that a much more radical solution to the transport problems of the area must be found before long.

Finally, will the Minister at long last accede to the request which I have made on a number of occasions in the House, and commission a proper passenger transport study in the East Midlands? The Minister has the power under the recent Transport Act to provide for a passenger transport authority which could reconsider and perhaps refurbish the existing road and rail services in the area.

The matters which I have raised are purely local ones, but they have national implications. If we go on relying on private road transport to carry people to and from work, entertainment and all their other affairs, in the big cities, the big cities will slowly grind to a halt. There is a great deal of evidence to show that road traffic increases in direct ratio to road construction. I believe that good, cheap railway services can still help, but only if they are tailored to fit the needs of the increasing population.

Despite the abuse heaped on the Transport Bill while it was proceeding through the House, it envisaged a great deal of new thinking about public transport. 1836 I hope that the Ministry will not allow this initiative to founder on the present financial difficulties of British Railways. Though, at present, too few people use the railways for local travel, it does not follow that many more cannot be persuaded to do so provided that services are tailored to their needs.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport Mr. Neil Carmichael)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) for raising this subject this afternoon. It gives me the opportunity to explain the Minister's decision to consent to the Railways Board's proposal to withdraw rail passenger services between Nottingham and Rugby. Several hon. Members made strong representations before the decision was taken, and I know that they are concerned about the effect of the decision on their constituents. My hon. Friend has been extremely vociferous in his claim for his constituents, and the fact that he has raised the matter on the Adjournment is a further indication that he is continuing his efforts. I need hardly say that all aspects of the proposal, social, economic and industrial, received the most careful consideration before the final decision was taken.

This line from Nottingham to Rugby is the last remaining section of the old and historic Great Central main line. As such, it has a special place in the feelings of those who are keenly interested in railway history. But decisions on closures cases cannot be taken on the basis of nostalgic memories. We must look at present and probable future needs and decide whether retention of an un-remunerative service would really represent value for money.

The great rail network established in Britain for the most part in the 19th century was built in days before buses and cars were available as means of mass transport. The Government have made it clear that they believe that a substantial railway system will be needed for some time to come. This has been the basis of the plan for a stabilised network and of the scheme for the payment of grants for the retention of certain unremunerative, but socially necessary, services. But, as we all know, the numbers travelling by rail have declined 1837 greatly in recent years and the vast majority of people now travel by road. Moreover, the old rail network was built by competing private companies with the result that services between adjacent towns were often duplicated on separate routes. Such is the case between Leicester and Nottingham, which are connected by both the former Great Central and Midland lines. The decline in usage of the former Great Central line and the availability of alternative services were among the considerations which led the then Minister and the Chairman of the Railways Board to decide not to include the Nottingham-Rugby line among those scheduled for development for passenger services when the Network Map was published in March, 1967.

The general pattern of travel over this line is within the two sections Nottingham-Leicester and Leicester-Rugby, although there is also a fairly small amount of travel between these sections of the line. I do not think it can be seriously disputed that the number of people using this service is small. It is also worth bearing in mind that Rugby has a good rail service to Birmingham.

For travel between Nottingham, Loughborough and Leicester, the service on the Midland line provides an excellent alternative, and I think that this is generally recognised. There is, however, a particular problem relating to East Leake which is only served by trains on the former Great Central line. The position of present railways users at East Leake was examined with special care. Most of these regular users—18 of them when the case was considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee—travel to and from Nottingham. The alternative bus journey will take longer than their present rail journey but bearing in mind the numbers involved and the potential savings, the Minister decided that the degree of inconvenience could not be regarded as unreasonable. It has, however, been argued that these bus journeys will be much extended because of traffic congestion on the southern outskirts of Nottingham. This contention was very carefully examined. It appears that this traffic congestion occurs during very limited peak periods in the morning and evening. Investigations have shown that some of the 1838 regular users of the rail service from East Leake travel before the traffic congestion has started while some others travel at times when this traffic congestion is not at its worst. As my hon. Friend knows, there are firm plans, which are being pressed forward vigorously, for road improvements to alleviate this traffic congestion. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me an opportunity later to get in touch with him about the specific point he raised on the road improvement.

As regards the Leicester-Rugby section, the situation is more difficult as there is no alternative rail service. Moreover, the existing alternative bus services between Rugby and Leicester take substantially longer than the rail service, because they take indirect routes so as to serve small and scattered communities. The Minister has therefore made his consent conditional on the provision of certain additional buses, which will take a more direct route so that the increase in journey time will be less than by the existing bus service. Furthermore, he has stipulated that these buses should serve Leicester, London Road, station, which is on the Midland line, so as to facilitate journeys beyond Leicester to Loughborough and Nottingham, thereby substantially reducing the time which would otherwise be necessary for the longer journeys by bus alone.

Particularly strong representations have been made that a rail passenger service of some sort, no matter how basic, should be retained between Rugby and Leicester. Two main arguments were used in support of this proposition. First, that it was wrong that two such substantial towns as Rugby and Leicester should not be connected by a rail service. Secondly, that there had recently been increased use of the service on this section of line.

It is relevant that Rugby and Leicester are only 20 miles apart by road, and it is very clear that the vast majority of the travel between them is by road. This is typical of what occurs generally throughout the more populated areas. We investigated very carefully, and very recently, the extent to which there has been any increased use of the rail service on this section. The Railways Board has supplied us with census figures for individual weeks in November, 1839 1967, and in April, August and October, 1968. The average number of journeys in each direction on this section on weekdays remains at only just over 100, although the Saturday figures are about 200. I do not think that, on serious reflection, hon. Members would regard my right hon. Friend as justified in retaining a costly rail service for such a small number of travellers at tax payers' expense. We all know that there are many people—often, I venture to say, amongst the most vociferous at protesting at closures—who feel that their community should have a rail passenger service, but never, or hardly ever, use it. If only more of these people would make good use of their rail services when they have them we should all benefit—not least from the improvement in the railways' finances.

This leads me on to the cost of retaining this rail service. As a result of closure, the estimated net annual financial improvement based on direct expenses, less expected loss of earnings and contributory revenue, will be of the order of£100,000 per year. In addition, there will be substantial capital savings on renewals in the next five years. On the other hand, if the Minister had refused to give his consent to closure, and if the present service were retained, the Railways Board would have needed to apply for grant aid at a rate of about£276,000 a year. These grant aid figures are, of course, calculated on the basis recommended by the Joint Steering Group in its report which was annexed to the White Paper on Railway Policy, Cmnd. 3439—that is, on the basis of the total long term cost of a continuing rail service including a due allocation of joint costs. Even a basic service between Leicester and Rugby would require grant aid of over£100,000 a year, since the maintenance costs for bridges and structures are particularly heavy on this section of line. This would mean an annual subsidy from public funds of about£1,000 to each of the present small number of users of this rail service.

Retention of unremunerative rail services is costing the taxpayer large sums of money at a time when there are many unsatisfied claims on the public purse. Although the Minister now has powers 1840 to grant-aid unremunerative passenger services if he considers that they should continue for social or economic reasons, the amount of public money available for this purpose cannot be regardad as limitless if other important, and equally worthy, social services are to receive their fair share of the money, which comes ultimately from the taxpayers' pockets. The Minister, therefore, has to decide whether the costs of retaining a service in terms of grant do or do not outweigh the social and economic benefits it will bring.

In all these circumstances, the Minister considered it right to give his consent to the withdrawal of this passenger service, subject to the provision of the additional bus services I have already referred to.

There remains the question of whether it would be appropriate to retain the formation—that is, the land and structures on which the track is laid—in case it should ever be necessary to reinstate a passenger service over the line. Whilst my right hon. Friend has no statutory powers in this connection, hon. Members will know that under present arrangements the Railways Board does not dispose of route formation without his prior agreement. In this case, I think it will be clear from the facts I have given that the Minister sees no long-term requirement for a rail passenger service over this line. Nor does he think that a modified service over any part of the line could be introduced at an acceptable cost. He therefore sees no reason why he should ask the Railways Board to retain this formation if only for the time being.

My right hon. Friend has also had in mind that an early breaching of the formation at a point north of Rugby would save about£100,000 on a bridge to carry the Midland Links motorway over the present railway line, and I need hardly point out that this is an important additional saving in terms of real resources. The Board has, therefore, been told that there is no objection to its disposing of the formation.