HL Deb 22 March 1990 vol 517 cc401-2

Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are considering providing funds to enable British Rail to electrify the Midland main line between London and Sheffield.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, the Government would be ready to consider proposals from British Rail for further main line electrification where that would be commercially worth while. So far British Rail has not made any proposals to my right honourable friend for electrifying the Midland main line.

Lord Gainford

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Will Her Majesty's Government continue to press British Rail as regards this scheme for electrification of this important connection between London and the industrial area of Sheffield?

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, the problem is that the Midland main line has a higher proportion of curves, junctions and stations than other main lines. That means that the existing high speed trains cannot be used at their full speed on the line. Any major improvements in speed would require major works to the track and route as a whole, whatever the form of traction. Electrification would reduce journey times by only one or two minutes and not by 25 per cent. as has been claimed in some quarters.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, is not the case for electrification justified by the fact that British Rail in its corporate plan, which was published as recently as December last year, included the Midland main line along with the East and West coast main lines as definite routes to assist with the flow of trains from the Channel Tunnel to the North via the King's Cross low level international station? In the light of the inclusion of the Midland main line in the corporate plan, why is there no reference at all to the Midland main line in the report which followed the Section 40 consultations which set out the British Rail routes for international rail travellers to the North?

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I understand that the Midland main line was not included in the 1989 corporate plan. That plan reported on six electrification schemes, one of which was the East coast main line. The British Rail Board's Section 40 plan. International Rail Services for the United Kingdom, serves a different purpose. It only

mentions one of the electrification schemes mentioned in the 1989 corporate plan. However, the two publications are entirely consistent.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, would it not amount to a strange alteration in the relations with British Rail for the Government to press it to undertake expenditure which they themselves do not recommend?

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, that is absolutely correct. It is up to British Rail to put forward investment proposals within the parameters laid down by the Government.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, is it not the case that if this country is to derive the greatest benefit from the Channel Tunnel the infrastructure of the railways must be improved? As the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has suggested, would it not be wise for the Government to encourage British Rail to electrify this line in order to obtain the greatest possible benefit from the Channel Tunnel?

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I repeat that it is up to British Rail to put its proposals to the Government. As regards this line, excessive expenditure would be involved in taking up the track and relaying it in a straight line. The East coast main line runs in a straight line from London to Edinburgh. When I asked my adviser why the East coast line was straight while the Midland line was all curves, he informed me that the Romans had probably built the former line.

Back to