Freight Trains (Overnight Running) (PE1273)
Rail Noise and Vibration (Larbert) (PE1302)
Good afternoon and welcome to the second meeting in 2011 of the Public Petitions Committee. No apologies have been received. Please ensure that all mobile phones and electronic devices are switched off.
Good afternoon to all members of the panel.
It depends on the size of the train, but I think that the answer is no for the trains that are capable of running on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. The answer will be yes if much smaller sets are run, but significantly more such trains would have to be run to deliver the same tonnage that we expected to be able to deliver over the SAK line.
But the reality is that 15 sets were mentioned in the report, and it was never going to be possible to avoid night running or even to turn around the 15 sets in 24 hours, given that, if there is a two-hour turnaround time, the maximum would be 12 sets in 24 hours. Is that right?
If two hours is the optimum time to get trains in and back out into the system in a reliable and robust manner, the answer to the question is probably no.
So you were never able to guarantee that.
I do not think that we would have been able to guarantee it unless the trains were much smaller.
Yes, but in real life, the answer is no. That is handy to have on the record because the impact study that Clackmannanshire Council ordered was based on the assumption that there would be 30 paths—that is, 15 train sets would arrive at Scottish Power at Longannet in 16 hours, from 07:00 to 23:00. Scottish Power has now confirmed that that frequency of traffic could never have been handled. That is a bit disturbing.
We were unaware of the limitation that the promoter had put in the bill. The stated assumption in the bill was 5 million tonnes, but we always knew that 5 million tonnes could not be run within the 16-hour window. We were supportive of the SAK development—
If you knew that, why did you not tell the committee?
I am not aware that we did or did not tell the committee.
Nobody told the committee. Was it an oversight?
DB Schenker was not aware that the constraint was going to be placed within the bill. I am still not aware that that constraint was actually in the bill.
If only we had heard that seven and a half years ago. Mr O’Neill, do you want to have a shot at responding to that question? It seems straightforward enough to me.
I can only echo what Mr McDonald has said. Our expectation was that, when the SAK line was put in place, there would be no constraints on the use of that line. We expected the increased capacity to be available on a 24-hour basis.
At what point after 2003 did you realise that the number of freight trains would need to increase and that the time between 11.00 pm and 7.00 am was not realistic? Were you always aware of that?
It is a moving picture with these things.
Yes, it is moving.
Since 2003, the network has got busier. By the time things were put in place, the timetabling of the trains that would give us 5 million tonne capability through the system was such that we ended up with the two-hour terminal time at Longannet to enable us to plan regular, reliable and robust programmes that would deliver the tonnage that we required at Longannet.
Let us move on, convener.
Robin Harper has a question. Is it on that point?
Yes, it is. There seems to be a bottleneck in terms of the turnaround time for the trains, which you said is two hours—is that correct?
The terminal time is two hours. That is the time from the train arriving at the power station to its departure from the power station.
Would it be possible to decrease that turnaround time? Do other power stations have faster turnaround times for trains of a similar size? If so, have you worked out how much that would cost? Has decreasing the turnaround time been considered?
We have looked at that. To take a step back, when we had the old HAA wagons coming over the Forth rail bridge, they had a capacity of about 1,000 tonnes a train. The hopper into which the coal is discharged is a 2,500 tonne hopper. The trains have bottom discharge wagons so, when they arrive, they open up and discharge the coal through grids into the hopper. From the hopper, the coal is conveyed either out into stock or to the units. We have to keep a certain amount in the bunker at any point in time—around 500 tonnes—because there are paddle feeders at the bottom that feed the coal on to the conveying systems. So, there is a working capacity for coal of about 2,000 tonnes. In the past, that meant that we could accommodate two trains’ worth of coal in the hopper as storage at any point in time. With the larger train sizes that we are now operating—at 1,600 tonnes—we cannot take the equivalent of two trains. That puts some delay in the system, as a certain amount of time is required to get the bunker clear before we can bring in the next train.
I want to pursue that, as you have not answered the question whether it is possible to improve the system. Is a different system available or is it possible to improve the system? Would you be able to find money to invest in an improved system?
We have looked at that and what I have got back from our people is that, to improve the rate at which we can discharge coal and move it through the system, we would have to get back to where we were before, which was a hopper that could take the equivalent of two trains of coal. That would mean uprating the belts and the rate at which we can physically take coal away. We are talking about tens of millions of pounds of investment to do that—it is a large undertaking. The hopper sits underground. We would either have to build a completely new hopper, which would mean diverting rail lines and building new conveying systems, or take out the existing hopper and replace it. That would potentially mean taking out the ability to feed the station for periods of time, which would have a significant impact on the revenues to Scottish Power.
Can you confirm that there is nothing in principle to prevent Scottish Power from installing a parallel railway line with a parallel hopper and a parallel set of belts? I appreciate what those look like, as I have worked in industry. The issue is that it would involve a very large number in terms of money.
It is a huge number.
I understand that, but there is nothing physically to prevent you from doing that if you had the will.
We have had only an initial look to find out what it would cost. We have not done a detailed study. Work would still need to be done to find out exactly where we would put the hopper and how it would be done. We have done a desktop study to show what we would need to do. We would need a significant sum of money.
It is physically possible.
That would need to be subject to a detailed study on the availability of land near the existing hopper and other issues. A detailed study has not been done.
For the record, what was the number of freight journeys when the railway became operational and what is the number now, broken down by day and night time?
I do not have the information on what the number was when the railway first started. There was a period when Longannet was taking less coal through, when it was making significant investment in its plant. The number varies through the years. Just now there are something like 36 trains per week going through that we operate and a further 12 that are operated by another freight operating company.
What action did DB Schenker take at the time that it obtained permission under the track access agreement for the night running of freight trains? When was that agreed and for how many trains was it agreed? Who did you consult locally, such as residents?
We worked with Network Rail as part of our timetabling arrangements, which are annual arrangements. We sought to agree pathings through what is probably the second largest train operation outside London. Trying to path trains through from Ayrshire to Longannet is fairly significant. All the way through 2007 there were some delays to that because there were key issues around additional levies being put on the route, which at that point DB Schenker, or the English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd as was, was unable to commit to going on the SAK line and was remaining within the Forth bridge. Those were resolved in late 2007 and early 2008. In February 2008 we applied for the paths for 24/7 working. In July 2008 we agreed those paths for commencement of operation in December 2008.
That is interesting, but one thing seems to be missing. What specific discussions took place and how did they take place—if they took place—with local residents along the railway route when overnight running of trains was introduced? Perhaps Mr McDonald and Mr O’Neill could both have a shy at that.
It is our obligation to work with Network Rail. It is not our obligation to consult along the lines of routes with all local residents.
Did you consult any local residents?
No, that is not our role.
Thank you. That is clear. Mr O’Neill?
No. I am not aware that we consulted residents either. As I said before, when the SAK line came in the full expectation was that it would be in 24-hour operation.
You are saying that that was your organisation’s expectation, but it was not the bill committee’s expectation at all, because we were never told that. When the question was put, we were told that there would not be night running. Mr McAulay, what about you? Has Network Rail had any discussions with the residents who are affected by overnight running?
Not about the proposals for overnight running.
So, the organisations that you represent have never talked to local residents about overnight running.
Let me be clear. When timetable changes are made every year, going out and consulting all the line-side neighbours is not part of the normal process. I understand the special circumstances around this particular railway, but it would not be normal policy to consult.
Did you?
No. I am not claiming that we did.
That is very clear and very disappointing.
I am not familiar with the exact process when an operator applies for such a permission. What is the process? Who are you answerable to? Who makes the final decision on the application?
The process is very much one of the train operating companies bidding for train paths in the timetabling process. They make an application or a bid for train paths. We consider that in light of all the other demands on the railway from other train operating companies. If those paths can be accommodated, we are obliged to allow those trains to run.
So you would not consult the local community or a local authority.
The train timetable changes on a fairly major basis once a year, but there is also a second date when it changes, in May. I can understand the particular circumstances around the section of railway that is being highlighted, but the train timetable changes right across Great Britain, and we have about 5 million neighbours. The task of consulting those 5 million neighbours about every change that was made to the timetable would be impractical, I think.
Perhaps I will return to the matter later.
I wish to develop the issues around the contract and the procedures for coal deliveries. My colleagues have already discussed how the coal gets delivered and how it is dealt with once it gets to Longannet.
We have a contract that requires delivery of up to 5 million tonnes a year. When it comes to working out what we want delivered, we give Clydeport an indicative view regarding our requirements, based on the forecast running pattern for the year, and that gets shared with DB Schenker.
There is a contract to shift 5 million tonnes of coal a year from Clydeport, but am I correct in my understanding of your answer that you can operate a week ahead? Can you say that you need a certain tonnage shifted the following week, compared with what was required the previous week?
Under the contract with Clydeport, imported coal is brought into the port of Hunterston in large vessels. Our aim is always to have a stock of coal at Hunterston, so that we can run a pattern of trains. If there is a problem with the shipping schedule at some point and we think that there might be an issue of running out of coal at Hunterston before the next vessel arrives, we might trim back the programme. If we run a slightly reduced programme, that avoids running hard but then stopping suddenly for a week or two weeks. The aim is to smooth it out.
Convener, I should have said at the outset of my questions that I am a resident in the area, not of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, but of the line that runs through Coatbridge. I live within about 100yd of the railway line and I see the freight trains that service Longannet going through. I just want to get that on the record so that people are aware of it. I know the problems that exist not just on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, but all along the line from Hunterston to Longannet.
The answer is that it would be difficult to timetable the trains. I am thinking of the route that those trains take. They go along what is referred to as the Paisley corridor, which is one of the busiest sections of railway in Scotland. It is a heavily loaded railway already, and finding paths through it during the day would be difficult. Given that it is difficult to accommodate the train paths that we already have, I think that it would be extremely difficult to find additional ones.
I concur with Ron McAulay. In the mid-2000s, we looked at whether it was even feasible to model different timetables through the Paisley corridor, and we were never able to find a timetable model that allowed us to get through that corridor, where there are only two paths an hour, through Glasgow, up to the Edinburgh to Glasgow line, and then on to the Stirling to Kincardine route. A significant recast of the passenger network in Scotland would be needed, and that made it extremely difficult to deliver what was proposed.
Perhaps the witnesses could further clarify the position. My understanding is that the coal freight trains run on six days of the week. Is that true?
Yes.
As I understand it, the day when they do not run is Sunday. One of the issues you have identified with the pathing is the Paisley corridor, where there is competition with other trains, which I assume are passenger trains, during the week. Given that there are fewer passenger trains on a Sunday, why can DB Schenker and Scottish Power not work with Network Rail and ask for some of the freight to be transported on a Sunday rather than during the night?
As with any strategic transport network, we have to allow some time to get in to maintain and renew the railway. To be frank, if there are six 24-hour operations going on every week, we need to retain sufficient time in the timetable to allow our teams to get in not only on the section from Stirling through to Kincardine but on the whole route, from Hunterston all the way through to Longannet.
DB Schenker is extremely supportive of a seven-day railway. We have worked with Network Rail over the past number of years to deliver a seven-day railway. In fact, the SAK line was a good example of moving towards that capability. It was one of the first routes on which Network Rail moved to its standardised one-week-in-six maintenance programme.
The original Scott Wilson impact study said that there would be 30 paths—that is, 15 trains—in the 16-hour period. My colleague Mr Butler has established that that was never practical or possible. However, we now have 48 trains in six days, which is eight trains a day, and a two-hour turnaround at Scottish Power. Therefore, if the paths were available, it would be possible to accommodate the trains in the timetable that was originally proposed to the bill committee. I understand that there may be a problem with the paths that may be extremely difficult but, technically, from Scottish Power’s end, there is no problem with the delivery of eight trains a day in a 16-hour period because that provides for the two-hour turnaround. Is that correct?
At a simplistic level, that is true, but the key point about the available number of paths is the amount of train traffic that we are running at the moment, given what we have at Hunterston and what we are moving for various reasons. When we get to the peak winter period, we cannot physically deliver between road and rail the amount of coal that we consume at peak demand. In our peak demand periods, even if they fell outwith the winter, we would require all the capacity to be available because the station would have a demand for that amount of coal.
I understand. So it is eight trains on average, but it may not be eight every week. Am I correct in saying that there was an extended period when there were no deliveries? At one point last year, DB Schenker did not operate trains for a number of weeks. That must have meant that your stocks were oversupplied but, instead of abandoning night-train running—which is offensive to my constituents and disturbs them—over a much more extended period, you stopped all trains, day and night.
The only period that I can remember when we had no traffic was during our usual annual shutdown period—a two-week period during which we programme in maintenance work, such as any work that is required on the track at Longannet; maintenance of the rail hopper, which we cannot get to if it is being used on a daily basis; and realigning of hoppers, which takes a long time. We tie in that shutdown with a shutdown of the berth at Hunterston, because, similarly—
I understand the need for a two-week period for maintenance. I have obviously been misled, because I understood that there was a longer period.
I am not aware of any period beyond the one that I mentioned.
The petitioners have informed me that there was a longer period during which trains were not run. They said that it was much longer than two weeks. I accept the need for a two-week maintenance period, but there was another period during which trains were not run for a considerable length to time.
Can you clarify when that was?
The petitioners might be able to do so.
It was a period of three weeks, as far as I know.
Do you have dates?
I do not sit up in my bed every night and look at the clock.
Questions and responses should come through the convener. I ask Anne Massie to clarify her understanding.
He does not believe me when I say that the trains stopped running for three weeks, but I cannot prove that I am right, because I do not sit up at night and count the trains as they go through. If I did that, I would get no sleep whatsoever.
Thank you.
On the running times that Richard Simpson raised, was there any curtailment of the number of freight journeys that were made during the severe weather that we had in December? I am aware that a number of level crossing barriers were frozen open or closed.
In December, as we are all aware, we had some of the worst weather that the UK network has faced for many years. In the north and north-east of England in early December, severe snow storms blocked points into power stations. That lasted for three or four days as the power stations were dug out. Every rail freight yard in the north and north-east of England suffered that same set of circumstances. In the third week, it happened in Scotland to the same level—it may even have been worse, because temperatures in Scotland at that time fell as low as -14°C or -15°C.
Can I—
Very briefly; I am conscious of time marching on.
I am conscious of time, too, but I have a question for Scottish Power. Was there any operational loss to Longannet during the period in which freight trains did not run or their operation was curtailed?
We had difficulties in feeding coal to the station due to the factors that Neil McDonald has just pointed out. We had a long spell during which we could not physically get any coal into the station. However, we always build stock as we move into the winter period, precisely to cover such situations. In most winters, we have periods when we have frozen loads and lost deliveries, although they are not always as long as this year’s period was. Naturally, therefore, our stock comes down as we move out of winter.
We have heard that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to stop overnight trains running. Is that a correct assessment, or can we take a glimmer of hope from the suggestion that you could go back and look at the whole system—the paths, as you call them?
I will try to explain. The rail network is a strategic transport network that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Within that timeframe, we have to undertake maintenance on it and we need to renew it every so often but, otherwise, it is there to be used. If people bid for train paths and to move commodities by rail, we welcome that. We cannot say, “No, you can’t run at that time,” if the train path can be accommodated.
Okay. Can you tell the committee what speed the trains run at in the area that we are speaking about, especially where the petitioners live? Who monitors that speed and whether it is being exceeded? Who has that responsibility and how regularly is that done?
The speed of the traffic from Hunterston right through to Longannet will vary considerably. There will be sections where the speed is up at about 60mph and there will be sections, especially towards the end, on some of the freight-only parts of the new line, where it will be down to about 30mph. On who monitors the speed, we have speed guns such as those that you see the police using on the road system. However, the speed is monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week—or whenever the train is running—through the black box that sits in the train itself. The black box records the speed at which the train is travelling, and the train operators monitor the black boxes regularly to ensure that their drivers are behaving.
Good afternoon, folks. One of the main issues to have come before the committee has been the aggravation of noise due to night running, which seems to be a genuine problem. In your opinion, is the current track design adequate and appropriate for the service that is being run over it? When does the mitigation of a noise barrier kick in? The petitioners have stated that they are of the opinion that the noise level has reached something like 80 dB, which is quite high. When did you last measure the daytime and night-time noise levels? Are you willing to carry out any further survey as required by the petitioners? It seems to be a big issue for them.
We have carried out surveys of noise and vibration along the length of the line. We also produced a model that extended 300m to either side of the line, which covered around 6,200 houses. The criterion that was used to assess whether mitigation was appropriate was whether a property suffered a noise level of more than 55 dB representing an increase greater than 5 dB on the noise level prior to the railway opening. Along the length of the SAK line, 44 properties qualified under that criterion.
At how many locations along the line are the day and night operations being monitored? Are the noise levels now higher than they were at the start of proceedings in 2003?
The railway only opened to traffic in 2008 and the noise measurements were carried out in 2009. Freight traffic started to run in December 2008 and we delayed the noise measurements until after that freight traffic was running so that we could catch the impact of all the traffic that was running on the line, including overnight traffic.
Thank you.
Do Mrs Massie and Mr Sloper think that the mitigation that has been described is sufficient.
A couple of gentlemen came to look at my property. At the moment, I have 40ft leylandii trees on either side of my property and they baffle the noise. There is a gap between one belt of trees, and another gap right where my bedroom window is. My bedroom is 7m from the track. That gap is where I hear most noise. I also hear it past my garage at the end of my garden because there are no trees there. I have a 1.8m fairly closely boarded fence in front of the trees, which also helps to baffle the noise.
Unfortunately, I do not live in Clackmannanshire so I do not recognise the statements. Falkirk Council has never measured the decibels where I live. No one has come to my door. Furthermore, I do not know what the legislation or guidance is regarding vibration.
I understand that Transport Scotland was going to carry out a survey and report on the noise and vibration levels along the track. Has that survey been undertaken? If so, when are we likely to see the results?
That is the work that Mac West was referring to. Transport Scotland is working closely with Clackmannanshire Council and providing it with support to take that forward. It is the council that is carrying out the survey.
So it is the council and not Transport Scotland.
We are not carrying the work out separately. We are supporting Clackmannanshire Council to do it locally.
What is Transport Scotland’s input? Does it concern you that a new transport link is causing such grief and disappointment to the people who live alongside the track?
We have been working closely with the council to provide it with support, including funding support, for the investigations and mitigation measures.
Has the survey work been completed?
Yes.
How does Clackmannanshire Council feel about being the promoter of the line, given the indications back in 2003 about the number of trains that could be expected and the predicted noise levels, and what is actually happening now?
We are disappointed that local residents are being disturbed. We are working with Transport Scotland to put in place mitigation measures where the criteria are being breached.
Mr Sloper, has the problem generally been in the night? I do not know which railway line you live close to.
Larbert. Trains going towards the power station are bad enough but the trains coming back are the 60mph ones. They are empty, and the vibrations are huge. I do not recognise what Transport Scotland is doing in relation to Clackmannanshire Council, unless someone can tell me that the council is undertaking a survey for all residents affected along the entire length of the line.
That is why I wanted clarification. Surely it is not all up to Clackmannanshire Council. How is Transport Scotland resourcing the other councils along the route? I represent Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, and people in my constituency have to put up with the night-time running of freight trains. Surely, as the strategic transport authority, Transport Scotland has a role to play here.
The work that we are helping Clackmannanshire Council with is to monitor noise from the introduction of the new railway, not noise in the railway network as a whole.
Does Transport Scotland have no remit for rail noise?
For rail noise as a whole?
Yes.
It does not. Noise from a railway’s general operations is covered more by environmental legislation. Mr McAulay will explain what happens on the existing railway.
I apologise that the explanation will start to become complicated, but I ask members to bear with me. Two railways are involved: one is the new railway that was built under the private act—the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Act 2004—and the other is the operational railway that has been there for about 150 years. The railway that has been in place for a long time is covered by all the existing railway legislation, which applies across Great Britain. How all that applies in Scotland is no different.
We are aware of that.
Thank you.
What legislation regulates noise and vibration? Is it UK or Scottish legislation? How is it enforced?
It is UK legislation.
Who enforces it?
I imagine that the UK Government enforces it.
I do not know whether anybody can throw light on that.
I understand that the Office of Rail Regulation determines that matter. However, a complication is that the 1996 noise regulations that have been referred to do not apply to Scotland, and no contemporaneous legislation was made for Scotland. That might have been an oversight, or perhaps it was assumed that the Scotland Act 1998—which was considered shortly afterwards—would deal with the matter. No noise regulations apply, but it is true to say that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line has followed the standards that would apply if such regulations were in place.
I apologise for correcting the minister, but the ORR does not deal with noise. The ORR is an economic and safety regulator, not an environmental regulator. Local councils’ environmental health departments probably apply the regulations.
Will Clackmannanshire Council clarify whether that is the council’s role?
I am not an environmental health officer, but I know that the council has considered the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Whether noise from a railway is classed as a statutory nuisance under that act is up for debate. There is no clear view on that.
We are going to the heart of the matter in national terms, to which the minister and Transport Scotland are important. As Mr McAulay said, we are working with others to develop the network in Scotland to benefit passengers, freight and the economy. However, nobody takes responsibility for protecting citizens. No one authority stands up to say, “If a new development takes place, we are here for the citizens.” I am concerned about that for the future, as well as for the cases that we are dealing with.
But you thought that you would just mention it.
Indeed. Clackmannanshire Council must have received instructions, presumably from the Labour Government at the time or Transport Scotland, that non-night running was to be part of the impact study. After all, we would not be sitting here now and the bill committee would not have debated the objections in the way that it did had the original impact study said, “There will be 24-hour running”, or, “There is likely to be 24-hour running”. The study and, indeed, the report specifically said that there would be no night running. No one stood up at that point and said, “Actually, Network Rail have to allow access”. That has been made clear repeatedly; indeed, there is no question about that. Notwithstanding noise and vibration—the issue is irrelevant anyway because we have no powers over any of this—if the operator applies for access, if Scottish Power want it and if it is safe, these trains will run. I have received no answer from Clackmannanshire Council or Transport Scotland about how we ended up in this mess in the first place and why no one ensured that the bill committee could have a real debate about the real potential for 24-hour running.
I will leave to one side the question of Clackmannanshire Council’s role in this, which I have discussed with Richard Simpson before. I have seen the Official Report of the bill committee’s deliberations, which shows that it was told of the likelihood of night-time running.
I have a couple of questions for the minister. First, is he able to reference for the record the exact part of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee’s deliberations in which we were told that there would be night running? I cannot recall it.
If I find the reference, I will be happy to give it to you, but it was in a question-and-answer session between Rob Gibson and Alex Deans, who said that, as has been mentioned before, the intended hours would be 6 am to 11 pm, although they could not rule out night-time running. I will pass that on to the committee.
It sounds like a throwaway line to me, but, having, like many, sat through countless hours of that committee’s deliberations, I would be really grateful for the reference.
No. What I—and I believe Mac West—said is that the council has the power to take action over noise abatement, although the legal outcome is uncertain.
But is the council responsible, through its environmental health or protection department, for trying to do its best for residents of Clackmannan in terms of noise mitigation? I direct my question to Mr West.
In a general sense, yes—that is correct. However, it is very unclear—opaque is the word that seems to be in vogue—whether noise from a railway constitutes a statutory nuisance.
Mr McAulay may be able to help us with that.
I do not claim to be a legal expert, so please take what I am saying as coming from a layman in that sense. Under the railway regulations, there is an immunity for railways from statutory nuisance, which means that we are exempt from that legislation. However, although the legislation has been there for many years, that has never been tested.
I think that Mrs Massie wants to respond, and Mr Sloper wants to say something about vibration. I am conscious of time, so we will have a final question to follow and then move on.
I will be very quick. I have stood in my garden and waited for a train to come by. I hear the train coming from beyond my garden, where there is a field with no barriers whatsoever. I do not hear it when it is coming through my garden past the burn until it gets to my bedroom window. I hear it there, and then I do not hear it until it passes my garage. I have a long garden—it is an acre—and I hear it down there. I do not care what science says—the trees baffle the noise.
Nobody has undertaken vibration studies on my property or any other in my street or, as far as I am aware, on my estate. I would welcome the opportunity for vibration studies to be undertaken at my property, and I am sure that some of my neighbours would welcome that on theirs. I would also welcome the opportunity to understand at what level vibration becomes a nuisance, because I am sure that waking up a one-year-old at 2 or 3 in the morning is not good. If it is found that the vibration level exceeds the legislative standard, if there is such a thing, what will be done? I want an undertaking that something will be done. I am not on the SAK line, but it is unacceptable that I have a one-year-old who cannot sleep at night, a wife who is stressed by the situation and a house that has cracks in a wall. If it falls down, which I seriously hope it does not, who is liable?
It falls to me to answer that question, but I do not think that there is an answer that you will find acceptable. The railway has been there for 150 years and the use of the railway is covered by the current legislation. I would hope that the vibration levels are not at any sort of level that would cause any damage to your property. Normally, the local council, which I assume in this case is Stirling Council or Falkirk Council, monitors vibration.
It is Falkirk Council.
All I can suggest is that Mr Sloper contacts the council and asks it to carry out monitoring. As to what happens with the results of that, I will not pretend that there is a magic wand to be waved that will address all this, because it is part of the existing operational railway.
Mr McAulay, you said that you were involved in the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill and that you talked about mitigation measures for some issues that arose in that regard. Mr Butler, were there similar discussions when you were convener of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee?
Yes. Perhaps this is more for the conclusion of the discussion but, with regard to what Mr McAulay said about dealing with the present situation, a short to medium-term action has to be taken. I am aware that Transport Scotland and Clackmannanshire Council are working together with residents on mitigation and that Network Rail has made an offer through Mr McAulay about access. However, I suggest that through you, convener, we try to ensure that, although it will not be a complete fix, short-term mitigation is undertaken.
I will address first the point that was discussed previously about on-the-record discussions and then come back to your second point. At the meeting of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee on 27 October 2003, Rob Gibson asked:
I do not think that we are in disagreement here. The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee looked at the issue of night-time running and paused for thought. It was told that it would happen on an exceptional basis. We were told 18 times in the impact report that there would not be the volume of night-time running that there obviously has been, so we are not contradicting each other, but what Mr Gibson was told—inadvertently, I am sure—did not give the whole picture, even if he was not misled. He was told that night-time running might happen in exceptional circumstances, but we have been told today that there was no guarantee that it would happen exceptionally. In fact, we have been told, frankly, that night-time running would be the way of it, despite what the bill committee was told 18 times in the impact report.
A number of the measures that you mentioned, such as those to do with the frequency of trains and the nature of the rolling stock and the sets that are used, have been looked at in depth. You have had answers from people who know far more about such matters than I do. Richard Simpson, I and others, along with some of the petitioners, have been looking into the issue for a number of years. I do not want to hold out any false hope, because that is the basis on which the trains are running. I repeat that the Scottish Government has no power to insist on any of the measures that you mentioned.
Following on from that, is the present Scottish Government—I know that you cannot bind a future Government, regardless of its political colour—willing to give an undertaking to work with Westminster colleagues in the present UK Administration on these matters? You made a fair point when you said that a collective response across the Governments in these isles is required. Would you agree to that?
Yes, there are specific areas on which we must work jointly. I mentioned that the noise regulations have not been brought in in Scotland. I have already asked officials to bring forward proposals so that we can consider how to address that anomaly.
I know that you cannot say yea or nay on the reserved/devolved issue and neither will I—I will not fall into that elephant trap—but is it fair to say that you are saying to the committee that the present Scottish Government is not averse to working in co-operation with the Westminster Government under the present settlement?
Those discussions will take place, regardless of what is reserved and what is devolved.
Thank you.
I have a short question for Mac West. Clackmannanshire Council is talking about mitigation measures being put in place along the line where problems have been identified. Who will pay for those measures? Will the local authority take on that onus, or can compensation be sought from Network Rail, say? As I understand it, the construction of the SAK line attracted major public subsidy. It would be interesting to find out who will pay for the mitigation measures that have been necessitated by the overnight running of freight trains along the line.
On the SAK line, the vast majority of the funding came from Transport Scotland. It has a budget set aside for those mitigation measures.
In effect, it is the Scottish Government, through Transport Scotland, that is funding the mitigation measures.
Yes.
My question is mainly for Neil McDonald of DB Schenker, but I would love to have the view of Ron McAulay of Network Rail on this, too. It came to our attention earlier in our investigation that the noise comes from old-fashioned bogies with old-fashioned braking systems and bogies that cause a lot of vibration. I presume that those bogies could be replaced fairly easily—you would only have to take the train into the depot, lift the wagon off the bogies, wheel the bogies away and wheel new bogies in underneath. It would not cost £100 million to do that to a train set. It has also been suggested that DB Schenker owns some train sets, which it is using elsewhere, that use more advanced technology. What is that technology? Are the bogies that you are using fitted with the most advanced braking systems? Are they designed to reduce vibration levels? Would you be able to find train sets to use up here that are appreciably quieter and cause less vibration? If not, why not?
I can answer that in a number of ways.
I ask you to answer it in a number of ways as briefly as possible, as we have gone over time.
Certainly. EWS—now DB Schenker—was formed in 1996 and has spent more than £800 million on renewing rolling stock that was bought from the Government in 1996 when it was almost 40 years old. Those were two-axled vehicles and we replaced them with the most efficient wagon in the marketplace at that time. For our first wagons, we invited over a company from America, Thrall, and it set up a plant in York. We had a contract with it to develop various types of wagon over a three-year period, and the later of those wagons were the heavy-hopper wagons that are associated with the coal movements. We have 1,140 of those.
Mr McDonald, I do not mean to be rude, but I am very conscious of the time. Could you supply Mr Harper with a written response to his question?
Yes. There is just one final point that I would like to make.
Very quickly, please. If you could submit written evidence bringing us up to date, that would be useful. I am conscious that the minister has to go to another committee and he is with us for consideration of the next petition.
Those wagons replaced wagons that were far noisier. There has always been noise in the rail network but, at that time, those wagons reduced the noise level. As technology has moved on, different types of bogies have been produced, but we have none of them in our coal fleet. We have them on other types of wagons but not in our coal fleet.
I have one tiny question. I asked the minister’s predecessor to look at whether the paths over the Forth bridge were still open and whether it would, therefore, be possible at some points during the week to use those paths for the smaller wagons in order to eliminate the overnight running. Is that a possible alternative? I do not know whether an answer has come back on that.
In addition, is there a possibility of some Sunday running? I recognise the limitations, but could a solution be found through a variety of different means?
The answer to the first question is no. Those paths on the Forth bridge are not available, as I understand it, although I stand to be corrected. I cannot answer your question on Sunday running.
It seems to me that it might give DB Schenker the 24/7 running that it wants, and Network Rail is saying that there could be some Sunday availability.
I could give you a hugely long answer if you really wanted it, but I know that you do not.
No. You could give us it in writing in that case.
The answer is that it would be extremely difficult to accommodate Sunday running. Trying to find train paths from Hunterston all the way through to Longannet in what is already a congested network where we need to get in to do maintenance work would be very difficult.
Thank you for your evidence. It is over to the committee now to decide what we do with the petition.
This has been a fairly detailed evidence session. I do not think that I am going overboard by saying that it has not been entirely satisfactory.
I am very conscious, and a little surprised, as others will have been, to discover that the Scottish Government really does not have many powers on these things at all. I wonder whether, apart from anything else, we might write to the Westminster Government to ask what it is proposing to do about it. If powers were simply not given as a mistake, presumably somebody somewhere needs to worry about that. I think that I heard the minister say that he simply did not have the powers and it was not obvious that anybody else had them either. We should ask Westminster whether it has considered that and whether it will consider it.
I do not know whether there is clarity at this stage about who should have done what and where it should have been done, but we certainly need to get to the bottom of that. It occurs to me that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill went through on the specific understanding that there would not be night running. It turns out that the reality has been very different and there do not appear to be any powers to deal with that. There is an issue for Parliament here in terms of its passing legislation without any powers to do anything about such things. I wonder whether it is worth writing to the Presiding Officer about that.
We could do that, but the private bill process has now changed utterly. I am not saying that a terrible beauty is born, but it is certainly a different process.
I agree that we should do that. However, before we do, can we write to ask the Scottish Government to share with us the contact that it has had with Westminster over the issue? It is the wrong way around for us to write to Westminster before we know what the Scottish Government has been doing.
Could we write to ask Scottish Power where it is with the renewal of the contract with the Clyde Port Authority for the supply of coal? Has Scottish Power looked at alternative routes for getting the coal into Longannet?
We will have to finish there. This has been a long session. I thank you all for attending and for your help at the committee today.
A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)
We need to carry on because we have a long agenda. PE1236, which is by Jill Campbell, is about the A90/A937 at Laurencekirk. I understand that the minister would like to make a short opening statement.
Thank you convener, and I thank the committee for inviting me to address PE1236. Although I am familiar with the A90 from being a frequent user of the road, I took the opportunity recently to visit all three of the junctions that are adjacent to Laurencekirk on the A90. At the same time, I met the petitioner, Jill Campbell, and I listened with interest to the issues that she raised. I am grateful to Ms Campbell for her participation and her on-going interest in road safety matters on the trunk road in the vicinity of Laurencekirk.
Thank you, and I welcome Mr Anderson and Mr Gillies to the committee.
Minister, what time of day did you visit the Laurencekirk site?
It was during the evening rush hour.
What time was that?
It was between half past 5 and 6 o’clock.
My understanding is that the visit did not completely cover the evening rush hour.
It was a quick visit. I am happy to concede that point.
Right.
Yes, they have, in the work that Transport Scotland has done hitherto. Coming from Montrose, we went across the carriageway at the junction that you mention, and we came back from that junction, because I understand that that is where traffic backs up, especially in the mornings. That has been taken into account. As I am sure you know, improvements have been carried out to help to address the situation, although they have not been finalised yet.
It has also been put to me that there is an issue not just for traffic turning on to the road but for traffic coming from the south, say from Brechin, and heading north. Drivers who do that journey say anecdotally that cars often pull out in front of them unexpectedly and they have to slow down. I think that that is due to driver frustration at the junction. As you know, that makes people feel strongly that the only really safe solution to the problem is a proper grade-separated junction.
I understand the strength of local feeling on the issue. I have discussed it with a number of members, including Nigel Don and Mike Rumbles. I refer back to the safety study that Transport Scotland did when the STPR was being put together. The matter was taken into account at that time, which is why improvements to two of the junctions have already happened. The improvement to the third one is still to happen, and I think that it will have an effect. However, I understand your point about the local concerns, which I heard when I met Jill Campbell.
I note that there have been various inputs since our previous discussion on the petition, but I refer in particular to a letter from Councillor David May, an old friend, who I see is in the room, who tells me that, if we go to the junction to sample what happens early in the morning, he will buy us breakfast. Well, he owes me breakfast already, because I have already been there.
I certainly understand that, because different partners are involved, such as developers, the council, Transport Scotland and others, it would be useful to have greater certainty about the final costs. I saw the Official Report of the committee’s previous meeting at which the petition was discussed, and a lot of the discussion was about the costs. I think that you noted the difference between a bottom figure of £4 million, which was heavily caveated, and a top figure of £20-plus million.
That is enormously welcome—it will be good just to get some clues as to what the number is really going to be, rather than dealing with the ridiculously wide range of figures that have been thrown at us. That will enable those of us who are concerned about the matter to continue to talk to people and to find a way of getting the money together. That is hugely welcome.
The local member brought to the committee’s attention the fact that the minister has agreed to build three grade-separated junctions between Perth and Stirling, albeit not personally—you are not doing it yourself. The petitioners and the member for the area are genuinely concerned that an error has been made in the decision-making process. It seems that, over the past 11 years, there have been no fatalities at the areas where those three grade-separated junctions are being built, whereas there have been four fatalities at the junction at Laurencekirk.
No, mistakes have not been made, and all cases were analysed.
That is absolutely right. As the minister mentioned in his opening remarks, the STPR started by considering the longer-distance commute and strategic linkages, which have already been discussed today. The STPR therefore considered both road and rail links.
Does that stand for the strategic transport projects review?
Yes.
When was that review undertaken?
It was undertaken over 2007-08 and was reported on to Parliament in December 2008.
Right. There have probably been a few strategic transport reviews, but I know that one started in 1997 that said what the major transport programmes would be for 10 or 15 years or whenever. Did work at Laurencekirk go up or down in the order of importance in the review that was completed in 2008?
The review was not carried out like that. It was not a case of having a list and working out the pecking order. The evidence from a 20-year period was looked at, and it was asked what Scotland needs to achieve the purpose of sustained economic growth and all the other things with which members are more familiar than I am. It was about asking what things we should consider doing over the piece and coming up with a number of ideas and options.
You will understand that I took great interest in previous strategic transport reviews—until I got what was necessary in my constituency, I suppose. From memory, Governments would put in programmes, and whether a particular project was to be done within a year, two years, five years or 10 years indicated the importance attached to it. Was that approach taken?
When we initially worked on the STPR, it was stated that it would follow the current programme, which contained a number of items and was published on Transport Scotland’s website. We certainly always looked beyond that. The STPR always looked to the medium, long and very long distance, and tried to get away from the idea of a pecking order and moving things up and down. Rather, it was about considering what we need as a country.
I welcome Mike Rumbles to the meeting. Nanette Milne wants to get in on that specific point, but do you want to get in on it, too?
Yes. I want to ask about Mr Anderson’s evidence. As the local constituency member, I am frustrated and quite angry at the evidence that he has given to the committee. I am very angry that he has said to the committee that the route in the corridor works very well in general. I know what he is trying to say—that the accident rates are okay on the A90 between Dundee and Aberdeen. He did not say that, but that is what he implied. I am very angry about that for my constituents in and around Laurencekirk because, from the very start of the process, the previous transport minister made it clear—he did so under questioning—that he put nothing into and took nothing out of the plan that Transport Scotland gave him. Therefore, the plan is Transport Scotland’s; it produced it. That is what the previous transport minister said in Parliament.
As I said earlier, and as I have expressed to Mike Rumbles and others in my discussions with them, my intention has been to try to move things forward as best I can and to try to eliminate some of the doubt about the cost of any solution, not least because other people would end up paying substantially for it. I have done that in good faith, which I had hoped would be welcomed by Mr Rumbles.
On Ms Craigie’s question, I was seeking to describe the process that was gone through in the STPR. Mr Rumbles is correct to paraphrase, and perhaps to put more eloquently than I did, the concept of the length of the road corridor. It is also worth recognising that the first recommendation in the STPR was to implement the road safety plan.
What criteria would need to be employed at the Laurencekirk junction to justify it being included in the next 10-year cycle of the STPR?
The obvious point to make is that the ability to work through the projects in the STPR will be driven by the money and resources that are available. The project is in the STPR, and we considered it previously on the ground of safety. What seems to be causing something of a bottleneck is the wide variety of cost estimates. In this situation—unlike in many other road projects—where a third party will be involved in paying for the work, trying to deal with that uncertainty is the right way to move forward. It is not possible to give a definite answer about how long that will take. I am concerned to work out how things can be moved forward in the meantime.
Can you give an undertaking to ensure that the junction, with all its complications and road safety issues, will be included in the next STPR round?
Unfortunately, I cannot give much of an assurance beyond the next short period. However, I would not be undertaking this work unless we were seriously thinking about what we can do in relation to this matter.
I accept that you are coming to this issue with a fresh approach and in good faith—that goes without saying.
Yes.
That is certainly an attempt at a fresh approach. Can you, without breaking confidences, say whether you mentioned that when you met Jill Campbell? If you did, what was her response? If you did not, what was her response to the general discussion?
I did not mention that to her. We had a discussion that included the potential for developments around the junctions, which was perhaps a trigger for considering the sort of exercise that you mention. The exercise might be useful in this case because the work involves other parties who will have to calculate the amount that they would have to invest in the work.
Mike Rumbles can speak for himself, but I believe that the paramount concern of everyone who is concerned about this matter—the petitioners, the constituency member and his constituents—is safety, and the improvement of the junction. To an extent, I am encouraged by the fact that you have at least asked Transport Scotland to consider issues around what was, in my old councillor days, described as improving the lux factor—in other words, the lighting in and around the area. That might or might not be advantageous, but I am grateful that that is being explored.
That is a good question, which my officials might be able to answer. It will be initiated soon.
I am afraid that we do not have a timescale for that. The minister asked us to carry out the work, and we are working through how long it might take. One issue is how much detail we go into. At present, as the minister suggested, we are not being asked to do a “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges” stage 2 exercise, which would be a considerably larger exercise.
But we are talking about months, rather than a year.
We have been asked to undertake a relatively short exercise.
You say “a relatively short exercise”—that is what I wanted to hear; I did not want a final date. I take it that when the exercise is completed, the Government—whichever Government—will return to the petitioner, the constituency member and all the interested parties to discuss the results.
The real purpose of doing that is to make some of the interested parties more aware of the information—or to give them better information—on which they can base decisions. We want to make that available to all interested parties, including the petitioner.
If the cost refinement exercise refined the cost in a way that was advantageous to what the petitioner desires—and what I guess most folk desire—would that help in moving Transport Scotland to say, at least, that a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk would be, to use a non-technical term, a goer?
To go back to my previous point, the vital funding decisions will be taken by people other than Transport Scotland, so it would depend on that.
Sure.
On a note of caution—because I do not want to give the impression that this is more than it might be—I should say that the report will be heavily caveated because of things such as ground conditions and some of the other imponderables, as I mentioned in response to Cathie Craigie’s example of Auchenkilns. It is worth bearing that in mind, but I am hopeful that the report will give better-quality information to those who are taking the decisions, which includes—although not exclusively—Transport Scotland.
I have a small point that relates to process under the STPR. How much consideration is given to the disruption and interruption in such a corridor each time there is a serious or fatal accident? The roads can be closed for many hours at a time.
That was of interest at the STPR level, which is very strategic, but it was related to the number of accidents. One of the other corridors that we looked at was the A82, which has very different challenges.
This discussion is interesting, but I am very disappointed. The minister said that there will be a cost refinement exercise for developers—that is what he started off saying; then he added that it would be for other interested parties. Transport Scotland has already stated in its own report, which is heavily caveated, that the cost of the junction will be £4.3 million. Is the minister aware of the cost for every death that we have had at the Laurencekirk junction? If we consider the cost of police, fire and rescue, ambulance services, road repairs and everything else, the total comes out at almost £1 million for each accident. That means that £4 million of taxpayers’ money has already been spent for the four deaths so far and there are many more accidents in and around Laurencekirk. The minister should put the emotional topic of deaths to one side—as difficult as that is—and consider the money side of the issue.
I apologise if I am wrong, but I am pretty certain that I never said that this was being done for developers. The Official Report will tell us whether that is true.
The figure of £4.3 million refers to a BEAR Scotland report that was published in October 2009, which was distributed among the committee. A refinement was added to that, which was provided to the committee, for clarification. BEAR Scotland clarified that the estimate of £4.3 million was misleading and that what was meant should have been better defined. A lot of potential additional costs were not added into that figure.
Can I respond to that, convener?
Very briefly.
The BEAR report that was produced for Transport Scotland was a standard report. Time and again when we address the issue, we look at the accident statistics, but there is no dispute about the accident statistics. I get irritated when I am told that the accident rate at the southern junction is slightly better. We must look at all three junctions together. The plan was to build a grade-separated junction at the southern exit and to close off the middle and northern sections so that people could not cross the dual carriageway. Laurencekirk must be looked at as a whole. Please do not mislead members of the committee by saying that the accident statistics have improved. The situation around the three junctions at Laurencekirk, since the short-term, temporary safety measures were put in in 2005, has got worse and it is only a matter of time before we have another death at that junction. That is what this is all about.
I understand what Mr Anderson is saying. I know where he is coming from and I do not want to attack him. However, it is not terribly interesting to people who live in Montrose, Marykirk or Laurencekirk, on the A937, which crosses the A90, to be told that the A90 is the priority. If you live on the A937, you have no alternative way of getting to other places. There are no options—that is your road. If the junction is dangerous, as it is—I invite anyone who does not believe that to try driving across it in rush hour—that is what you see. It does not matter how many thousands of other people go up and down the other road. That is of no interest to you if you want to cross it.
I agree entirely—transport is an entirely personal thing. People make choices about transport all the time based on their own interests. If they are on a particular road, that is the road in which they are interested.
I invite the committee to consider how it wishes to proceed with the petition.
I suggest to colleagues that we continue the petition, as there are many questions that must be answered or clarified. Like other members, I welcome the minister’s instruction to Transport Scotland to undertake a cost refinement exercise. That is not the be-all and end-all, because it is the result of the exercise that will be of interest to everyone concerned.
Does the committee agree to that approach?
We agree that the petition will be continued on that basis.
In his response to questions, the minister challenged the Government’s own statistics on how much it costs—the figure is almost £1 million per accident—to clear up after a fatal accident. Those statistics are not my statistics or the campaigners’ statistics—they are Government statistics. Will the minister be invited to write to you on the issue? I would like to see his reasoning for challenging the Government’s statistics.
I am sure that the committee would welcome some clarity on the issue.
I cannot respond to that, as I never challenged the stats that were mentioned. The Official Report of the meeting will show that.
To be fair, I do not think that it was a challenge. According to my recollection—I am sure that the Official Report will show this—the issue of the total cost of clearing up after a fatal accident was mentioned. Like other members of the committee, I am sure, I would like the Government to provide a response in purely informational terms. That would be satisfactory to all parties.
Absolutely.
All that I can say is that I have written to Mike Penning, the relevant minister at Westminster, to see whether he can take the matter forward. I was involved to some extent in a previous role, but the matter was taken forward by Stewart Stevenson. I have asked to have further discussions with Mike Penning on the issue. A joint letter about new regulations that are to be introduced has been agreed between the two of us.
Thank you very much for that helpful information and your attendance this afternoon—and I understand that you do not now have to attend your other committee meeting. I also thank Transport Scotland officials.
Previous
AttendanceNext
New Petitions