Why we deserve a better rail network

Two weeks ago our organisation was honoured by Britain's leading railway company when GNER named one of its White Rose Eurostar trains "Yorkshire Forward".

The award, which also heralded the launch of a £2 million tourism campaign, not only recognised our work in attracting business investment to the region, but also our constant effort in lobbying for transport improvements.

However, some would question whether much of that effort has been in vain, following the double blow that has recently hit this region's long-suffering rail commuters.

Firstly, take the case of much-criticised Arriva Trains Northern. When the railway company was quite rightly penalised to the sum of £2 million for failing to provide adequate driver numbers, we felt vindicated because, we reasoned, not only had it been punished financially, but also the money would go towards vital reinvestment in our local network.

Alas, this is not to be. We have now been told that the money will be absorbed into a "general fund" which in turn could be used to finance projects anywhere in the UK.

The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has responded by saying that it has not received any applications for project funding in the region, which met "value for money" criteria. Yet, there are plenty of rail improvements that could be undertaken in the region.

Both Yorkshire Forward and the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly have repeatedly pointed out how the service can be improved. Our trans-Pennine rail links and vital freight links to the ports around the Humber are among seven key areas listed in a "transport priorities" paper, focusing on regional campaigns.

To add insult to injury, we now learn that the proposed improvements to the East Coast Mainline (ECML) might not go ahead after all.

Yorkshire Forward appreciates the vital importance of the line to our region, and last year carried out a research study that shows how the ECML supports more than 11,000 jobs in Yorkshire and Humber, including 8,500 in tourism, generating £100 million a year for the regional economy.

It also showed that if the planned upgrade was to go ahead, an estimated 2,000 extra jobs would be created, 500 of them in this region.

Although the SRA has not as yet made a formal announcement, apparently many of the companies involved in the project are already scaling down their expectations in preparation for a much smaller plan.

There was always a threat that the ECML would suffer if the SRA found it could not afford its initial commitments, and now that threat is becoming a reality. Yorkshire Forward and our other partners are campaigning hard to get the SRA to see that not proceeding with the original plan will be a huge blow to our regional economy and to those of our colleagues in the Midlands and the North-East.

The fundamental problem is that the SRA's policy does not actually lend itself to necessarily putting money where the pain is, more a case of them wanting to achieve stringent targets and double passenger numbers across the UK. This means concentrating on the South-East, and that diverts vital funding away from the north of England.

In fact, when I met with Jim Steer, the SRA's head of strategy at the end of last year, he seemed to agree on many of these issues. Jim impressed me with his knowledge of rail issues in this region, and I do understand that the SRA has a huge task ahead, sorting out the muddle of numerous train operating companies and dealing with the enormous blow that Hatfield dealt to the railways' finance and credibility,

But the fact remains, our region's rail services do matter. Rail services are a vital part of this region's economic well-being, and one part of our strategy to keep the high quality of life that Yorkshire's environment can provide.

Unless the real value of rail can be recognised, it's difficult to see how we'll get the improvements to service that we deserve.

Updated: 09:55 Tuesday, January 28, 2003