HL Deb 17 July 1969 vol 304 cc549-60

7.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how soon the electrification of the main line between Crewe and Glasgow will be completed, and whether they are aware of the damage that the delay is causing. The noble Earl said: My Lords, after listening to a fairly tense debate on the last Bill perhaps I could say that the boundaries over which this Unstarred Question roams have perhaps a less constitutional flavour but have an equal desire to see that the Government take the right action at the right time. My Question on the completion of the electrification of the main Northern line between Crewe and Glasgow falls into two parts. The first part is to ask how much longer the Government think they can afford to delay the decision to go ahead with the electrification of this line, and the second is, do they fully realise and appreciate the damaging consequences of their present indecision. The question revolves round what one may describe as the Railways Board's main artery of communication, the Great Northern (Euston to Glasgow) line, a line which I am sure is not unfamilar to the noble Lord who will be replying on behalf of the Government, a line which is certainly the busiest and perhaps the most vital of all the British Railway routes. It is, I am reliably informed as well, the heaviest traffic carrying line in the world.

The history of electrification, the House will recall, started back in the mid-1950s when the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, was Chairman of the British Railways. At that time a bold and what subsequently proved a wise decision was made to invest in electrification of half of this main line up to Crewe. It was without doubt the most difficult part and the most expensive part of the line to electrify. It passed through densely populated urban and industrial areas of London, the Midlands, Lancashire and Cheshire, and the fact that conversion took place without halting the use of this very congested line was no mean feat. The final cost, I understand, amounted to £160 million. It took ten years to complete and was finished by 1967.

The results of this electrification have been very encouraging. Up have gone the passenger and freight traffic, up has gone the appeal of the railways and for once the pendulum seems to be swinging slowly in their favour. Against that, until the second half of the line has also been electrified the Railways Board are faced with the continual headache of operating one main line with two different types of service: diesel traction doing the second half, Crewe to Glasgow, and the electric trains the first half from Euston to Crewe. The problems, the wastages, the inefficiencies which crop up due to this dual operation between diesel and electric, which mean in practice a change of engine at Crewe on every long-distance train service, both freight and passenger, are I think obvious, and possibly for that good reason alone the Railways Board included in their recommendations to the Minister for that part of the line last year one that the track and signalling should be improved and also should be electrified.

When the Railways Board's considerations and recommendations reached the Minister, one must assume that he had three choices to consider. In the first place, he could carry out the minimum improvements only—that is, to the track and signalling. I understand that this was really Hobson's choice, because they both required attention almost immediately. The cost of this, he was told at the time, would be £30 million. Secondly, he could carry out the minimum improvements plus installing a signalling system capable of taking electric trains as and when the line was electrified. The cost of this, I understand, would mean a further £4 million. Thirdly, he could decide to go the whole hog and arrange for the electrification on top of the improvements, and the total cost of this investment would, I understand, amount to approximately £55 million.

The Minister appears to have chosen the No. 1 choice, the Hobson's choice, for in his reply in another place on April 29 he said: I have given the Railways Board my formal approval to their proposal to re-signalise and rationalise this line at an estimated cost of some £30 million. No decision on the electrification has yet been taken."—[Official Report, Commons, 29/4/69; col. 217.]

By stating that the Government had authorised £30 million to be spent on this line one must assume that in fact the Railways Board have not been granted the sum required to provide the immunised signalling which in future could cater for either a diesel or an electric train service—in other words, choice 2. If this assumption is correct, it would seem that either electrification of this line is to be put off a long way ahead, or that the Minister, by stalling on his decision, may well cost the Railways Board a quite unnecessary capital sum in the future for modifying the new signalling system for electric services. The sum for this modification could, I am told, amount to between £10 and £12 million.

I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply has taken the point that I am making, and if I am right in my information perhaps he can state how the policy of delaying an announcement of electrification is consistent with the Government's other policy of encouraging both passenger and freight traffic on to the railways.

The confidence of the Railways Board in electrification and its future effect on railways was clearly expressed in their 1968 Annual Report. There is now, I think, clear evidence of the passenger appeal of electrification. On the London to Manchester line, for instance, an increase of 75 per cent., of passenger traffic has been achieved in the two years since electrification was introduced. As we know, passenger receipts for the year 1968 rose by £5 million. As to freight, we can also see the effect that electrification has had. Again, freight receipts have risen by some £12 million in 1968, and the Railways Board said in their Annual Report: A large contribution came from the London Midland inter-city electric services and the new Southern electric services on the Bournemouth line, proving the strong commercial appeal of electrification on suitable routes.

The speed of electrified services—the new inter-city trains—is again making the railway service generally strongly competitive particularly with the domestic air services; and I think B.E.A. would agree with this. A reduction in travel time from London to Birmingham from 2 hours 50 minutes to 1 hour 34 minutes must make rail travel virtually faster than air travel. It is estimated that with the electrification of the Crewe to Glasgow line the rail journey from London to Glasgow could be cut down to five hours, making it again very competitive.

Electrification of the railways is a subject which I am sure the Government have studied in some depth, and I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will be able to tell us a little of their studies. The advantages of electrification over diesel are, I believe, overwhelming, even, surprisingly, on the costings. I noticed the other day, for instance, that the Railways Board had assessed that the average cost per mile of an electric locomotive was a great deal lower than that of a diesel engine, the comparison being 3s.10d. a mile for the electric locomotive as against 5s. 3d. for the diesel. Again, one hears often the strategic argument that the more the railways go electric, the less reliant we are on imported oil. British Railways I believe, purchase something around £9 million worth of imported oil annually. On the social side, electricity, with its lack of fumes, its cleanliness and its increased speed, again holds a strong advantage over diesel.

The case for electrifying the line from Crewe to Glasgow has, I am sure, already been well made out by the Railways Board to the Minister. Other countries have seen the advantage of electrification, Japan's total rail system is 22 per cent. electric, Germany's is 25 per cent. and France's 22 per cent., whereas Britain's is only 13 per cent. It could be said that British Rail's future commercial success largely lies on an expansion of their electric lines. I should like to conclude by asking the noble Lord again one simple question: why have the Government taken over a year to consider the Railways Board's recommendations on the Crewe to Glasgow line, and still have not been able to make up their mind on electrification?

7.27 p.m.

Lord POPPLEWELL

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl on this Motion, which asks how soon the electrification of this line will take place. From the facts he has given—and they are pretty well established—in my opinion, it would be a commercial proposition, as has been proved by the electrification that has already taken place. We are aware that the capital cost is rather great, but at a time when the Railways Board are taking this new look, when they have had some financial reconstruction and their finances are in a rather better shape for them to make some step forward, I hope that they will do so.

Undoubtedly, the capital cost is there; but once that is overcome, as the noble Earl has rightly pointed out, the maintenance, running costs and everything else is far cheaper than it is for diesel. My opposition to diesels is probably well known in this House. The original plan of the Railways Board to have dieselisation instead of electrification was, I think a backward step. Now that it has been possible to assess the merits of the two schemes, I think there is only one answer.

I hope that my noble friend will press the Railways Board and the Minister to make a decision pretty quickly, and not to be unduly influenced with the railway development that is at present [...]aking place on the new gas-turbine engine, the mock-up, so to speak, which some of us were privileged to see in the Design Centre the other day. This is a revolutionary type of development. The oscillation that is allowed in the carriage itself is, I think, the most progressive thought that has been yet worked out, so far as railway traffic and travel is concerned, and is something of which British engineers may be proud. But I hope that the Minister, because of this new development that is in the offing, will not delay going ahead with the electrification of the line as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. There is plenty of scope in the rest of railway travel: there are the East coast route, and the routes down to the West and elsewhere, where these new, revolutionary types of gas turbine engines can be usefully used. In the meantime, the electrification of this route as far as Crewe is there, and it now wants its completion into the Scottish area.

I would end with a plea to my noble friend to make representations to his right honourable friend if he is not in a position to give us a complete answer to-day. I hope that he will make representations to the Ministry of Transport and to the Railways Board. There is great urgency, and the longer this is delayed the more expensive the project will ultimately be. We have seen how great the expense has become on previous electrification because of the delay that has occurred. The Railways Board are having this new look at things, and from all I can see or hear of their judgment, and their forecast for the future, it seems to me that they are taking a very progressive view indeed. I hope that that may include electrification of the line, as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

7.32 p.m.

The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lord Hughes)

My Lords, we are, I am sure, grateful to the noble Earl for raising this subject. We are all aware of his interest in transport matters, and his knowledge of them, and it has been invaluable to hear what he has had to say on this subject in which I, like him, have a special interest. It must be very gratifying to have the support of my noble friend Lord Popplewell, who is no less expert in these matters, although his experience may have been acquired in a rather different way.

The short answer to the first part of the Question the noble Lord has down on the Order paper is: some four or five years after the proposal is approved. But the noble Earl is aware, of course, as he has made clear, that a decision on this has yet to be taken by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and I hope this evening to be able to say something about the present position. As noble Lords will know, this scheme was conceived as an extension of the electrification of the line between Euston and the North West of England, which as the noble Earl said was completed in 1967. It has been in the minds of railwaymen for very many years and in May, 1968, the Chairman of the Board sought consent both to the electrification proposal, costing some £25 million and to a scheme for the necessary preliminary works involving the rationalisation and resignalling of the route, costing some £30 million. This latter project was approved in April this year. I will come back later on to the question of the immunisation or non-immunisation possibilities.

My right honourable friend recognises that electrification has great attractions. It could not be otherwise, in view of the success which is attached to the section already electrified and to which both noble Lords have drawn attention. On the other hand, I am sure the noble Earl will agree—although I am not so sure that my noble friend Lord Popple- well will—that diesels, too, are capable of providing very high standard railway services, and an "electrification at all costs" policy could not seriously be justified. Twenty-five million pounds is a lot of money, especially at a time when the general level of demand throughout the economy is high and the Government are anxious to reduce the pressures on limited resources.

I do not think that anybody can accuse the present Government of holding back the railways. A thorough review of railway policy was undertaken and is embodied in the Transport Act 1968. This has now presented the railways with a financial remit which is for the first time realistic. More than this though, noble Lords will be well aware of the great strides that have been made in recent years in the development of this country's railways generally. Of course, the Government do not claim that all this should be marked down to their credit; indeed I think anybody's first reaction would be that all this reflects very well on the people managing and operating the railways.

My arguments are, I think, supported by the developments in high-speed passenger train operation, to which my noble friend has referred and of which I have no doubt he and the noble Earl are aware, if for no other reason than thanks to the Observer's very interesting colour supplement, and the exhibition at the Design Centre down the road. Here we have a development in which there is no doubt that Britain leads the world, and one which promises tremendous possibilities, both for railway operation generally, and in export potential.

The figures which the noble Earl gave about the percentage of electrification in other countries may well be right—indeed, I have no doubt they are—but if this other development goes as well as it may do, these countries may have cause to regret it before the end of the day. It is certainly good to see that Britain is carrying on still the traditions of Stephenson and Brunei. And the Government have demonstrated, with hard cash, their support for the railways by undertaking to meet half the research and development costs of the advanced passenger train project.

The Government cannot, on the one hand, support this project in this way and, on the other, consent to the electrification of a major route, which might well be a suitable route for the advanced passenger train, without considering in some detail the relationship between the two projects. It is a matter of the degree to which it is right to invest in the technologies of the 'fifties when the technologies of the 'seventies is on our doorstep. It is also essential to re-examine with particular care all the traffic forecasts, as the justification for electrification depends on a heavy traffic flow.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, can the noble Lord advise us what the Government are investing in this new technology?

Lord HUGHES

My Lords, I am not aware what the total expenditure is. We are meeting half of the cost. Perhaps before I have reached the end of my speech in the usual magic way the figure will appear. We are doing it on a 50-50 basis, and in Government terms that is fairly reasonable.

Moreover, it is not just a question of whether it would be right to approve this scheme from the point of view of the railways. The Government have a wider responsibility than that. There is the question of the various other investments in this route—in, for example, road and air facilities. Naturally, I do not say that, because of the existence of other facilities, a decent rail link is unnecessary. In fact I take the other view altogether: that in most respects rail is complementary to, rather than competitive with, other forms of travelling. But this is a point which the Government must take into consideration. There are other factors too. The noble Earl has mentioned some of these. Regional effects, in so far as the scheme will link Scottish centres of industry better with Manchester, the Midlands, London and the Continent, are very important. So are the effects on the electrical manufacturing industry. These are all factors that I know my right honourable friend is considering before he comes to a decision.

The most important point for me to make, however, is that development of this route is not being neglected. I understand that the Railways Board are now looking into the possibility—this will be a source of grief to my noble friend, Lord Popplewell—of double heading diesels on certain trains offering; substantially improved timings in the near future. While these estimates of timings must obviously be to a certain extent not absolutely copper-bottomed, I think the noble Earl will be interested in the figures I have here. According to the Board's detailed submission to the Ministry on the rationalisation and electrification proposals, the present average trip time between Manchester and Glasgow is some 5 hours. This can be cut by rationalisation and improved diesel passenger services to 3 hours 20 minutes. The estimate of the time to which it could be cut by electrification is 3 hours, so there is only 20 minutes between these two choices.

The Board's provisional estimates of timing on other routes following the introduction of the advanced passenger train (and I am sorry I have no figures available for the West Coast main line), show a cut of approximately a third on present timings. I am not clear whether the present state of facilities on these routes corresponds more closely to the pre-rationalisation or post-rationalisation Weaver-Glasgow route. Perhaps something in the middle would give the most accurate estimate. On the basis, then, of an average Manchester-Glasgow trip time of something in the region of 4 hours, the advanced passenger train time could be expected to reduce the time to something near 2½ hours. So with the different methods—the existing 5 hours, improved diesel time, 3 hours 20 minutes; electrification, 3 hours; and A.P.T. 2½ hours—obviously, when sums of this kind are under consideration, the Minister must have a pretty clear indication that he is backing the project which is going to be a success in the future instead of backing the one which has been a success in the past.

I mentioned the approval of the preliminary work to which the noble Earl referred, at a cost of some £30 million. When this project is completed—and that will be in some four years' time—the whole route will be equipped with modern colour light signalling; and following this more trains will be run and better timings achieved on this important trunk service.

May I say, on the question of whether or not there should be immunisation, that the Board and the Ministry are well aware of the problem here. The Board is proceeding with rationalisation by agreement with my right honourable friend, by calling in tenders both on the immunised and the non-immunised basis. By proceeding in this way we shall reduce to the very minimum any possible abortive expenditure. Further delay in the electrification decision, of course, increases the danger of abortive expenditure or, alternatively, of prejudicing the decision itself. But I must make it clear that my right honourable friend has this point very much in mind. And, as I have said already, £25 million is a great deal of money, and the most important thing of which my right honourable friend must be certain is that the decision he is making is the right one.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what estimates there are for the difference between the immunised and the non-immunised signalling system?

Lord HUGHES

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot, but we shall not have long to wait before we know what the actual figures are.

On the subject of figures, I referred to the 50 per cent. aid towards the research and development costs and the noble Earl asked how much that was in actual money. The total is £10 million, so it is £5 million from the railways and £5 million from the Government.

My Lords, I hope I have said enough to make it clear that the Government are not just holding this work up, either out of lethargy or because we are unwilling to make up our minds, or because we are just seeking to put obstacles in the way. It is not possible for me to make a promise about when a decision can be made. As my right honourable friend said in another place in April, there can be no question of electrification proceeding before the end of this year. The noble Earl has suggested that the delay is causing damage, and I cannot possibly say that he is entirely wrong in this matter; but what I must say is that in so far as it is doing so I am afraid it is part of the price that must be paid to avoid a serious error. We are satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that the consequences of making a wrong decision would be infinitely more costly to the country than any expenditure caused through this necessary delay. But I would emphasise that we are keeping very much in mind the fact that some damage will be done by this delay and it ought to be kept to a minimum.

I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that my right honourable friend is faced here with a decision that carries important implications beyond the immediate proposal. It is because the outcome of his deliberations is likely to be of significance for many years ahead, and may well make all the difference between the extent to which the railways become a completely viable commercial concern or, alternatively, slip back into the situation from which they have been rescued, that it is so important that my right honourable friend should make the right decision. If he makes the wrong decision it will not be the Minister of Transport who suffers at the end of the day; it will be the railways and the nation.