Official Report 281KB pdf
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the second meeting of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee. Although the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill is the third private bill that the Scottish Parliament has considered, it is the first transport and works private bill, so today we are witnessing a little bit of history.
Mr Irving, you kindly provided a memorandum for the committee's perusal, but further questions arose from it. Our adviser advised us to ask you for a supplementary memorandum, which we received today. Will you talk us through that memorandum? The committee may have questions when you have done so.
The first question that Mr Trinick raised was which elements of the works we meant when we referred to permitted development right works. The answer is that they are the works at either end of the line that the bill will authorise—the works to upgrade the existing operational railway between Kincardine power station and Longannet power station and the improvements in the signalling system at Stirling station.
On that point, can you give the committee a timetable for confirming that the powers in the original act are sufficient to trigger class 29 rights? Would it be possible to give us such a timetable by the end of the week?
Yes, certainly. We will let the committee have a timetable for that by the end of the week.
The committee is grateful for the clarification on the section of the environmental statement that was incorrect in relation to class 34 rights. We accept that. Do you have anything else to add?
Mr Trinick raised a few more issues. He asked us to identify what development has been assessed in the environmental statement that the bill does not propose to authorise. We have listed those works and identified them as PDR works in the annotated table 2.1, which is appended to the memorandum.
Do you have a timetable for the delivery of that supplementary memorandum on the environmental statement?
We are looking at a date of 3 November.
Thank you.
I am sorry—I missed the point about the flood prevention works, which are not mentioned in Network Rail's submission. We do not believe that there is any disagreement on the issue, but Network Rail might be able to confirm that in due course. There has been considerable discussion with Network Rail and it was on that basis that we included in the bill the powers in relation to those works.
We hope that Network Rail will be able to throw light on that question when we hear its evidence. Have you anything to add on the supplementary memorandum that was supplied today?
No, I have not.
Other members have further questions.
As you will have seen from the questions that preceded the memorandum, we were slightly concerned about the proposed timetable, because it seemed to be very ambitious. The memorandum does not really tackle those concerns head on. We all appreciate that, ultimately, it is up to the Scottish Parliament to determine the time scale for the bill but, if we assume that all goes well—that the parliamentary procedures are completed by and royal assent is given in April 2004—I do not understand how you can say that work could commence in that month. Perhaps you could clarify how you think that events will unfold after the bill is passed.
I can answer that. As you are aware, Clackmannanshire Council published a prior information notice in April this year. A prior information notice is an advance warning notice that appears in the Official Journal of the European Union, alerting all the industry members that a project of in excess of €5 million, or approximately £3.5 million, is likely to happen sometime in that financial year. Last month, that was followed up by the publication of a contract notice, which called for expressions of interest from design-build contractors who might be interested in procuring the project with the promoter. The contract notice requested teams to come forward to undertake a two-phase design-build project.
Unless I am hearing you incorrectly, you are conceding that there must be a period of time immediately after the passing of the bill before works can commence.
Yes, that is correct. We do not expect the contractor to be out on site the next day. There will have to be a certain amount of advance planning. However, we hope that, once the bill reaches its final stages, such as the 28-day legal challenge period, we can use that time to start gearing up the contractor to get out on site.
Surely you will also require other approvals and it might not be appropriate to seek those until the bill has completed its parliamentary passage.
It is appropriate to start seeking some of those approvals at this stage. For example, HMRI and Network Rail have multistage approval processes. A lot of the initial approval of the detailed design is required before construction can commence. For example, part of the Network Rail process is for approval of the project design; we will need that approval before we can start construction.
What if, for any reason, there is a delay in the passing of the bill? Your estimates are based on traffic running on the line in early course. How does a delay fit into your commercial risk modelling and the general financing of the project?
The funding package is not 100 per cent in place. We have approval for 80 per cent of the funding, including significant support from the Scottish Executive, which will put the funding in place before the bill is passed. However, the funding is set up in such a way that we will not draw the money down until the work has started.
If the project is delayed for any reason, how would that affect the commercial risk modelling that was done when the project was being developed?
The bill is on the critical path of the project, so if there is a delay in the passage of the bill, that will cause a reciprocal delay in the programme. We can have a certain amount of overlap. There is a degree of float within the programme so that if the bill were delayed for a month or two, for example, we might be able to absorb that within the programme. If the bill were delayed for a significant length of time, that would start impacting on when the trains might run on the route.
Finally, can you give the latest date by which trains can run before there is a difficulty with your risk assessment and financial assessments?
No.
We can understand that the commercial approach to a project—even if that project is to be sanctioned by a private bill—involves taking certain action to secure early implementation. However, in this case, it seems a little presumptuous to publish contract notices before even the preliminary stage of the bill has been completed. Until Parliament considers our preliminary stage report, you will not know whether members are satisfied with the general principles of the bill and the adequacy of the information that has been provided to support those general principles.
At present, the award of contract for the first stage of the project is scheduled for some time in January 2004 or thereabouts. The promoter will have to take a decision, depending on how the bill is proceeding. If we do not have the preliminary stage report by then, the promoter may decide to hold back on awarding the contract until it has seen the report.
But have you received sufficient expressions of interest in response to the contract notice to support your confidence in the project?
We have. We have received a great number of expressions of interest in the project. The industry is very interested in it.
Mr Irving, I return to what I asked about your supplementary memorandum and class 29 permitted development rights. You said that you could give us a timetable and confirm powers. Could you give us not just the timetable but the answers that are required by Friday?
I certainly hope to do so by next Monday, but we will try to produce an answer by Friday, if that would be helpful.
That would be helpful. Thank you.
No thank you.
No.
Thank you for appearing before the committee and answering our questions.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Mr Mike Smith is the principal inspector of railways for Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. Good morning, Mr Smith. Welcome to this committee meeting.
Although your memorandum sets out the inspectorate's role, I think that it would be helpful if you could outline for the committee the authorities that are required to operate a railway line quite apart from those that are involved in the process of construction.
As far as the Health and Safety Executive and HMRI are concerned, the works would require approval under the Railways and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994. Basically, approval involves a number of stages, which I could perhaps explain in a little more detail than is contained in the memorandum.
If you would.
With any scheme, we usually start discussions with the promoter at a fairly early stage. During that first stage, the promoter or the railway authority discusses designs with us and gives us any outline plans and details, after which we would issue a letter of no objection to concept. That would enable the scheme to progress to the second level of design, which might involve, if you like, the submission of greater detail, such as calculations and signalling control details. After subjecting that detail to much greater screening or examination, we would issue a letter of no objection to proposal.
On the question of process, is it normal for the approvals that are outlined in paragraph 5 of your memorandum to be sought only after development consent is granted, in this case by the bill?
We have already had some detailed discussions with the promoter. Indeed, we often advocate the view that the earlier we begin discussions, the better. Although those discussions have not yet reached any formal stage, I should point out that it is not necessary for the bill to be passed before a letter of no objection to concept is sought. However, if the bill is not passed, that effort would be lost.
I want to get a handle on the time frame of your requirements in the whole project. You have given us an indication of the sort of time scales that we could be talking about for the subsequent approvals. Could you put a time frame on your requirements, please?
The operator or promoter can apply for no objection to concept at any time. Generally, we try to provide a response within six weeks to any application relating to concept. Design time would then pass, which can vary from project to project. Sometimes, we do not hear back for another 12 to 18 months. However, we may have interim meetings with the promoter if he has a problem or if there is an issue on which he seeks guidance.
You have not yet got to the first stage of providing no objection to concept. That stage has not been reached formally.
No, not formally.
But you have had quite long discussions.
We have had discussions and have received outline proposals relating to, for example, signalling systems on the proposed route. However, we have received no formal applications.
This is perhaps an unfair question for me to ask. Given the level of discussion that you have had already, do you foresee that the no objections to concept and proposal will be received within the lower end of the time frame that you are indicating?
That is certainly the case regarding the no objection to concept. We have seen outline works proposals and the majority appear to be fairly conventional. Nothing that we have seen is outside the standard parameters. I would expect formal applications to be made within the stated time scales.
That is helpful.
I am interested to know whether the approvals that are required after the bill is passed—you mention them in your submission—are invariably granted. Alternatively, after the promoter has gone through the process of the bill, the railway might not proceed because, for example, no safety case is acceptable to the HSE. Has that happened?
It has not happened that a project has not proceeded because something was not acceptable to the HSE. However, we often require modifications or revisions to a design that we consider does not meet the standards that we require. The issue may be something relatively simple—for example, a bridge parapet height or details of the signalling system being laid out differently from what was initially proposed. Often, it is a case of going back and negotiating changes with the promoter or developer, rather than saying that a project will not go ahead, full stop.
So you are talking about not major issues that would crop up in the wording of the bill, but matters relating to the day-to-day organisation of the scheme on the ground.
Yes. The issues relate to the technical detail and the scheme on the ground, rather than the bill.
Thank you. Would you like to make any brief closing remarks?
I do not think so. In paragraph 1 of our submission, we state that HMRI lodged an objection to the bill. We did that because the bill was published before we had had a chance to have a detailed look at the project. We had some concerns relating to level crossings, the provision of signage and the design of the crossings. However, we have met the promoter and resolved those issues.
I am grateful for that clarification. We knew that the objection had been withdrawn and so felt that it was unfair to ask a question about it.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The committee will now hear oral evidence from and on behalf of the bill's promoter, Clackmannanshire Council.
I will start the questions. In paragraphs 1 to 5 of your written evidence, there is an overview of the need case, which you go on to justify in more detail in later paragraphs. However, paragraph 3 contains a claim that the bill works
It is probably worth explaining how we would like to answer the questions. I have been nominated as the spokesperson for the group. David Connolly will have particular responsibility for addressing issues regarding the economic benefits, particularly in relation to freight movements. Aubrey Fawcett will answer questions on the wider social issues and the wider economic benefits for Clackmannanshire. I will try to put my various hats on and answer everything else.
Perhaps we can get a bit more specific. In paragraph 11, in the context of improving public transport access, you compare the percentage of people in Clackmannanshire who travel to work or study by car with the average for Scotland—the information was taken from a Clackmannanshire Council publication. You also record the key reasons for the higher level of commuting by car in the Clackmannanshire population. The first of those reasons is a
That is a valid point. As part of the development plan process, it is obvious that we have to accommodate the additional population levels that might be created if people were to come into the area.
If the proposal resulted in more people going to live in Clackmannanshire, would that be helpful to the aspirations of Clackmannanshire Council to attract inward investment and create employment opportunities?
Yes. In an ideal world, we would like people not only to live in Clackmannanshire but to work and play there.
In paragraph 12 of your submission, you explore the benefits of having a passenger service between Stirling and Alloa. However, paragraph 6 of Network Rail's memorandum says that the introduction of freight traffic on to the route will leave
The service has been designed to cope with 15 passenger paths a day—essentially, it will be an extension to Alloa of the existing Glasgow Queen Street to Stirling service. The system has also been designed to cope with key freight paths as well, so the capacity to deal with all the proposed movements will be present from the start of the process.
Is it true that freight movements often take place during the night rather than when passenger traffic is greatest?
That might well be the case. Our indication at the moment, however, is that most of the freight movement will take place during the day because the main freight operator, Scottish Power, will need to transport coal to Longannet power station during that facility's operational hours. However, I do not think that we can guarantee that there will never be any night-time operations.
In paragraph 15 of your submission, you discuss the proposed new high-quality station in Alloa. Who do you expect will own and operate that station?
That is a good question. There are two elements to the new station: the station infrastructure and platform; and the associated car park. At the moment, we intend to pass the station and the railway infrastructure to Network Rail and the train operating company—we do not want to maintain the platform and so on.
Would parking be on a paying basis?
We have not discussed that as yet, but I can assure you that the cost of parking would be considerably cheaper than it is in Stirling station, where it costs £3.50 a day.
Thanks for the advert, Mr Deans.
Much of the discussion about freight traffic on the railway, which is dealt with in paragraphs 18 to 35 of your submission, will be explored with other witnesses later on, but I would like to examine one or two issues at this point.
I will ask David Connolly to answer that question.
That period was recommended by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and is the standard lifetime assumed for a public transport scheme with regard to such assessments. The capital cost is spent upfront, with benefits over the life of the scheme. The assessment is designed to find a balance between the initial costs and the benefits over the life of the scheme.
We will come back to how that fits in with some of the other timings.
That is correct. The earlier part of the sentence refers to
So the impact comes from a formula. It is not the case that the Government would lose out directly because people are not on buses, as no money comes to the Government from bus travel.
That is correct. The abstraction from bus to rail has no direct impact on the Government. If people move from car to rail, that has an impact because those people do not buy petrol and therefore do not pay tax on it. There is no impact on Government revenue from a switch from bus to rail.
The 30-year exploration of benefits is elaborated on a little more in paragraph 24 and there is a reference to £35 million. Can you point us to the MVA information note at the back of the memorandum and indicate where we can find the cross-reference to the figure of £35 million?
In a word, no. The reference in footnote 9 to the MVA report is incorrect. The figure of £35 million is based on current assumptions rather than the assumptions that were in place in February 2002. The key difference in those assumptions is that since we produced our report in 2002 the Longannet deep mine has closed, so the assumption instantly changed from there being a low demand at Longannet to there being a high demand, because it was no longer possible to lift the coal out of the ground and burn it within Longannet. We have moved from the low demand that was the base assumption in the February 2002 report.
It would be appropriate for the figures that substantiate the figure of £35 million to be provided to the committee.
Absolutely. Can that be done?
Yes. There are two versions of the information. What each figure means can be explained in great detail or the information can be provided in a much simpler table in which the figures are broken down by the various benefits that are described. I can provide the information in whichever way is more useful to the committee.
Can we have it both ways, please?
Another point that I was going to raise is that the net present value is between £15 and £19 million, but again it is not clear where in the MVA report those figures can be substantiated. For example, table 3.3 explores net present value but does not have those figures in it.
Again, when the tables in the February 2002 report were produced the Longannet deep mine was still operational. The closest figure within the February 2002 report was the so-called high demand option, which had the best return. Since then there have been other changes in the assumptions, not least of which is the change to the standard Treasury discounting rate that is used. That has an impact on the benefit stream over the 30 years. The net present value will be covered in the same additional documentation; the figures do not appear directly in the old February 2002 report.
Perhaps that might also apply to the next issue that I want to raise—we shall see. You say that benefits from the use of freed-up rail paths across the Forth rail bridge will contribute £18 million of the 30-year benefits. That £18 million figure does not appear to be in the report. Can you explain from where it comes?
The £18 million figure does not appear in the report, but it was calculated using the same methodology that the report used. The only difference is in the assumed discount rate. The February 2002 report assumed a high discount figure of 6 per cent per annum, which means that future benefits are discounted back to present values and that distant benefits are not worth as much as closer benefits. However, the Treasury amended its advice and reduced the discount rate to a much lower one of 3.5 per cent per annum, which means that more of the distant benefits contribute to the overall economic case.
That issue will be covered in the additional information.
Yes. What I am proposing is an information note that will update the February 2002 report.
When can we expect that information?
Would the end of this week be sufficient?
That would be agreeable.
A key issue at this preliminary stage of the committee's consideration of the bill is the length of life of Longannet power station. I presume that you have seen Scottish Power's written evidence, from which issues arise that we will raise later with Scottish Power. Your written evidence quantifies the 30-year benefits of the scheme, but paragraph 28 of your submission allows for the early closure of Longannet power station in 2020. Again, with reference to the MVA report, can you explain from where the figures in paragraph 28 emerge?
My answer is the same as my previous answer. The numbers to which you refer are hot off the press in terms of the current set of assumptions. The February 2002 report carried out a test that included the assumption that Longannet would close early. However, that was done on the basis of the deep mine remaining open. Therefore, the sensitivity test in the February 2002 report was based on the assumption of the mine remaining open and the power station being shut. The easiest thing to do now is to assume that the sources of the numbers will be covered in the information note that will be produced this week. The same methodology was used to calculate the figures in paragraph 28 as was used in the 2002 report, but the main change between now and 2002 is the assumption about the deep mine.
Right. However, I suggest that, compared with your assumption of a 2020 closure date, Scottish Power's evidence is less optimistic about the future of Longannet. Have you made another calculation that is based on Scottish Power's assumed 2012 closure date for Longannet? What would be the effect on the assessment of the scheme's benefits if a 2012 closure date were assumed?
I was unaware of the assumption of a 2012 closure date. On Friday last, I became aware of a suggestion of a 2015 closure date and I tested the effect of that date. Therefore, I have model results for closure dates for Longannet power station of 2015 and 2020, and for a 30-year operation of Longannet. I do not have numbers at my fingertips for a 2012 closure date.
Can you provide those?
Sure. Again, I can give them verbally or they can be covered in the information note.
If the information is included in the note—which seems to be getting longer—that would be fine.
Let me first deal with the benefits of the scheme in purely economic terms—I will return to the environmental and development benefits, which are predominantly driven by the passenger service. Roughly speaking, the freight side accounts for half of the benefits of the scheme as a whole, but those benefits obviously get whittled back, in that for every year that there is no power station requiring coal, a year's worth of benefits is lost. However, those benefits are discounted because they are future benefits. To give a ballpark figure, it is estimated that the direct benefits of the scheme would be about 23 per cent down if the power station shuts in 2020 and 34 per cent down if it shuts in 2015. I apologise that I do not have a corresponding figure for 2012. Do you wish the note to provide a figure for 2012 rather than 2015?
Yes, please.
That raises another question. What is the extent of your discussions with Scottish Power? In its evidence, Scottish Power explicitly states 2012. I would have thought that that would have been discussed with you.
I personally have no direct contact with Scottish Power. The instructions to carry out tests and the assumptions that were made came via the Scottish Executive and the promoter. They are in more direct contact.
Discussions have taken place between the project team and Scottish Power over the development of the project. Obviously, early closure is a commercial issue for Scottish Power. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency will probably need to consider the appropriate environmental constraints.
That perhaps pre-empts my next point. If we had to go down the scenario of closure in 2012, the freight element of the benefits would subsist for only five or six years.
We accept that. Obviously, that would be an issue for the promoter and its funding partners to address, but I cannot reiterate enough that a raft of benefits are associated with the scheme, not least of which are the benefits to the Clackmannanshire economy that will come from public transport provision in Clackmannanshire. There will also be benefits to the wider central Scotland network because the scheme will remove road traffic and improve safety and the environment overall. The scheme will pick up a range of issues.
Are you saying that the scheme can be justified in terms of its potential for passenger traffic?
No, I am saying that the justification for the scheme is based on a range of issues, not just on the situation with Scottish Power. If Scottish Power closes the power station early, that will obviously be a problem for electricity generation in Scotland, but obvious benefits will come from implementing the scheme. Even if the power station closes early, the benefits to the Fife services and local services can be picked up.
But if the scheme does not benefit passenger traffic, whom does it benefit?
It benefits everybody. That is why we are promoting the scheme.
I am a little confused by that. Are you saying that just having the railway running, whether or not anybody uses it, is reason enough for opening it?
Absolutely not. There will be passenger benefits. We hope that Scottish Power will keep the power station open until 2030, but even if the power station closes slightly earlier, although there may be a slight loss in the economic benefit for the case, there will be significant wider overall benefits that will be picked up in other areas.
Finally, how does the potential early closure of Longannet in 2012 affect the commercial impact of the project?
Do you mean in terms of the commercial risk?
A commercial risk model for running the project has been worked out based on freight operating over a certain period.
That will obviously be in the information note that David Connolly will compile.
Thank you.
I want to go into some detail about traffic movements by road, and my questions will be based on the evidence that we have heard. Will traffic movements be affected by the closure of the deep mine? According to Scottish Power's memorandum, there appears to be a voluntary agreement to restrict to a maximum of 200 per day the number of coal trucks delivering to Longannet, compared with your figure of approximately 220 trucks. That is a slight discrepancy.
I would be grateful if you could point me to the paragraph in our memo regarding the number of tonnes. Is it paragraph 32?
I was hoping that you would not ask me that, as I am not quite sure. I beg your pardon; it is paragraph 31.
Perhaps I could come in on that point. The memo on need and the economic case made some assumptions with regard to the movement of coal into the power station. Movements vary throughout the year, but essentially there is a 3 million tonne capacity restriction on the Forth bridge, so that is the only amount of rail-borne coal that we can bring in. An approximation was given that it would be necessary to obtain 1 million tonnes by road-borne traffic, and that is where the number of lorry movements comes from.
So you just took the amount that needed to be delivered by road, divided it by the number of trips and extrapolated the approximate number of trucks from that.
Yes.
Our economic assessment is very conservative, because we did not assume any benefit from the diversion of coal from road to rail. That is an upside that is not included in our figures. In effect, we assumed that, either with or without Longannet deep mine, the current demand for road-borne coal will remain, but obviously there will be flexibility to move from road to rail, and Scottish Power has expressed a desire to push up from the current 3.2 million tonnes of rail-borne coal—the amount that we have assumed—to an upper ceiling of 5 million tonnes. There are therefore additional upside benefits that are not included in the MVA 2002 report or in the current economic figures, which assume that rail-borne coal will remain as it is at present and simply come by a different route.
That probably answers the question I was going to ask next, about the fact that you envisage the remaining coal movements taking place by road. You have said that you have not taken diversion from road to rail into account.
We decided that it was safer and more conservative not to make guesses on a commercial basis as to whether it was cheaper to import coal by road or by rail. That would be a matter for Scottish Power and the freight providers. We therefore made the conservative assumption that if 3.2 million tonnes per annum are currently coming in by rail, that would be the continuing demand after the scheme was opened and that road traffic would be unaffected. We acknowledge that there would almost certainly be an upside in environmental terms, and probably also in cost terms, but that is not quantified in our numbers.
So your whole economic case is based on freeing up the Forth rail commitment.
That is correct. In effect, the rail system would continue to take the existing quantity of rail-borne coal but would do so more efficiently.
Do you have any feeling as to whether Scottish Power will choose to operate on rail rather than on road? You have had no direct contact with Scottish Power, so perhaps that is not something that you have been able to ascertain.
It is not my place to answer that, as it is a commercial decision for Scottish Power, which would almost certainly want to keep the flexibility to use either road or rail, particularly to cope with seasonality effects. It might want to use the rail capacity and also have a steady road supply, but it is not my position to guess what Scottish Power plans to do.
We will be taking evidence from representatives of Scottish Power, so we can ask them the question directly.
Much of the heavy lorry movement is through Kincardine. There are issues with road traffic in Kincardine at the moment, irrespective of the heavy lorry movements. There is generally perceived to be a threat from having heavy coal lorries on the road network in an environment where cyclists and others are moving about. Obviously, if the coal can be shifted in a more environmentally friendly way, we would support that.
I have a couple of questions on freeing up paths on the rail network. We will return to that when we hear from the witnesses this afternoon, but I am interested to hear whether you can enlighten us. In paragraph 34, you refer to the operational flexibility of transporting coal round the coal network and you say that that would be increased with a wider rail network. Given that a principal objective of the bill is to free up paths across the Forth rail bridge and concentrate coal traffic within the proposed new network, will you explain what you meant by that?
One of the issues set out in detail in the MVA report of February 2002 is that of the different types of coal wagon that are used to transport coal, particularly from the west coast, to Longannet. Because of the weight restriction and length-of-train restriction, two different coal units are used. I am afraid that I am not enough of a freight expert to be able to use the correct terminology. However, in effect, the operation of coal movement from Mossend and Hunterston will be simplified and made more efficient, because the route will not require the less efficient shorter train to be used. Efficiency in freight movement will come predominantly from allowing a standard unit that can be used throughout the United Kingdom. Again, the question is probably more for the freight operators, but the issue was spelled out in the report of February 2002. The other benefit is that if freight is taken off the Forth rail bridge, paths are freed up that can be used for passenger services, so that overcrowding is relieved and a more frequent service provided.
I have another question on available paths. We might return to this this afternoon, but help from you would be appreciated. Presumably, a contractual relationship exists between Network Rail and the freight provider to allow the provider to deliver coal to Longannet across the Forth rail bridge. Presumably, the advantages of the new route in terms of freeing up paths over the rail bridge will be realised only if existing paths are surrendered. Is that the case and, if it is, what is the process for the surrender of the paths?
I am unable to answer the question on how and when the paths would be freed up. However, if the paths are retained and not used, we will not be able to run more passenger trains, but there will be effects on reliability, because there will be more slack in the system. The paths might not be used for passenger services or they might be retained, but I do not see why a freight operator would pay for paths and access to a significant part of the rail network without using the paths. My guess is that the paths would be freed up at the earliest opportunity, but I cannot describe the legal process or the time scale for that. There would be little commercial reason for the operators to maintain paths that, because they had a better alternative, they had no intention of using.
Is there inevitably a link between the creation of new paths for coal on the new line and the surrender of existing paths over the Forth rail bridge?
The extra path would be generated by removing the coal trains from the Forth rail bridge and sending them by the more efficient alternative route. That either creates an extra path that is not used for passenger services or a path that is used once an hour in each direction.
I move on to the issue of minimising land take and turn your attention to paragraph 67 of your evidence, where it is indicated that further justification for the land take can be found in two places. The specified parts of the environmental statement, including tables 2.2 and 2.3, set out a description of the land take, but there is no justification of the amount of land required.
Probably the most important point is that we have utilised the existing route as far as is practically possible. Currently, the majority of the land is owned by Network Rail anyway. In effect, we are promoting a single-track scheme with passing loops, as such a scheme could accommodate the predicted level of traffic using the line. Obviously, such a scheme will reduce the amount of land take that is required.
With the best will in the world, I say that chapter 3 of volume 2 of the environmental statement simply describes what the land take will be—it does not justify it. Will you say where the land take is justified in volume 2, or must we wait for such justification in the further note? A description of the land take is fine and factual, but we want justification for it.
We could supply a written note on that matter as soon as we can.
The committee would be grateful for that.
That question may take some time to answer. I could supply a written representation on that matter, too, which would allow me time to gather all the facts.
We will receive more than a note, but will have to be satisfied with what you propose at this stage.
The promoter's memorandum identifies three objectives for the scheme. I know that we have been concentrating on some of the number-crunching issues, but I point out that the promoter and I, as its representative, see the importance of the economic and social benefits accruing to the county as a result of the scheme being given consent to proceed.
The committee is grateful for that statement about Clackmannanshire's socioeconomic conditions.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to the second meeting of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee. The committee will now hear oral evidence from Mr David Littlejohn, who is the team leader of the development solutions team at Scottish Enterprise.
In paragraph 2.1 of your written evidence, Mr Littlejohn, you describe
The Forth valley is certainly different from other parts of the country. The mix of areas and economies that make up the Forth valley is unique. In that context, Clackmannanshire is different from many other parts of the country because of the way in which the local economy is underperforming. That is projected to continue over the next four or five years.
That is significant. Your written evidence highlights the national and local benefits that the proposed new railway might bring, but does it form an explicit part of the regional economic development strategy for the Forth valley? I appreciate that that might be made clear in the depths of some of the documents before us, but you will appreciate that the committee will need some help in locating references.
The economic strategy recognises that the strengths and weaknesses of the Forth valley lie in its connectivity. Stirling and Falkirk are very well connected in terms of both transport and digital connectivity. On the other hand, Clackmannanshire is one of the least connected parts of the Scottish Enterprise area, particularly given the fact that it is in the central belt. It has no motorway access, and it has only just had a main roadway upgraded. Its digital connections are pretty poor, although they are improving, and its general transport infrastructure is weak. Our feedback from potential inward investment companies is that that is a significant disadvantage in promoting the area for inward investment.
Paragraph 3.1 of your evidence refers, under the second bullet point, to
Scottish Enterprise generally supports the opening of the railway, for both national and local economic benefit. At a national level, we view the operation of the labour market in Edinburgh as increasingly inefficient. It is critical for Scotland's global competitiveness that Edinburgh's economy continues to thrive. That will require the ability to fill the current very large number of job vacancies in Edinburgh. That can be assisted by enhancing public transport into the city and making it easier for folks from roundabout the city to access jobs in it. That is one of the principal reasons for the comment that you highlighted. If the paths are made available—which we would strongly advocate—the railway will allow more passenger trains to run into Edinburgh. That direct access to Edinburgh will assist the current focus on Fife in particular.
It appears from the evidence as a whole—and particularly from paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3—that one of the advantages that is put forward for the railway is that commuting into Edinburgh and Glasgow will be made easier. However, your submission—and indeed the submission from the previous witnesses—suggests that you want to attract investment into the area. Which of those benefits is more likely to be accessible? Furthermore, what are the short and long-term views on the scenarios that I have outlined?
We have recognised for some time that the Clackmannanshire economy is restructuring. We heard earlier that there has been a 20 per cent reduction in the number of manufacturing jobs; indeed, the area continues to lose such jobs. Furthermore, at present, the area is not particularly attractive as far as service jobs are concerned. Over the past three years, Scottish Enterprise has invested about £4.5 million in Clackmannanshire to try to reposition the economy, and much of the funding has been spent on retraining folks and creating new business premises and space. Filling that space is a medium or longer-term strategy. We acknowledge that, in the short to medium term, it is just as important to help Clackmannanshire residents to access jobs elsewhere.
You mentioned unfilled vacancies in Stirling and unemployed people in Alloa. Can they not get the bus at the moment?
Yes, they can.
In that case, if they are not getting the bus to access those jobs, why would they get the train?
There will never be one transport solution to the problem. Indeed, all the figures suggest that a modal shift from the bus to the train might attract some individuals. Of course, that might not happen.
In paragraph 3.2, in particular, you record a number of potential local benefits and highlight the investment that has been made in regeneration initiatives. Do you have any indications of likely investment by companies in the Forth valley area if the rail link is built? I am thinking not so much of good intentions but of indications that companies might well invest in the area.
We are currently in discussions with two companies that are located in Clackmannanshire and potentially we will discuss the matter with a further three companies, one of which is pretty far advanced in a decision on whether to make a substantial investment in Clackmannanshire. Although those discussions are commercially confidential, I will be able to write separately to the committee with more information about that inward investment if it helps.
That would be very helpful.
As far as paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of your submission are concerned, what grant aid might be available to companies that want to invest by creating jobs in or transferring jobs to the Forth valley area?
The standard assistance for companies relocating into an area is regional selective assistance, which is available in Clackmannanshire on a case-by-case basis. All the support from Scottish Enterprise is based on market failure. There is a funding gap. If companies demonstrate that there is a need for the Scottish Enterprise network to provide financial assistance, we will do so within the state-aid ceiling. By and large, such funding is available for physical infrastructure work and site preparation. It is also available for training, retraining and upskilling. RSA would be the principal means of assisting inward investment by companies.
In paragraph 3.3, you say that the new railway could act as a catalyst for the regeneration of Alloa town centre. As with investment in general, is there to date any clear indication of companies that are likely to invest in the town centre if, and only if, the new railway comes?
The number of available sites in the town centre that are not already under discussion is limited. However, the prospect of a railway will attract a different type of end user for the buildings there. The major site, which was the Carlsberg-Tetley brewery in the town centre, is currently under discussion for a variety of business uses. We anticipate that the completion of a railway and associated park-and-ride facilities would make the marketing potential of that site much stronger.
Is that a general likelihood rather than anything specific?
It is a general likelihood at this stage because we are speaking hypothetically at present.
Mr Littlejohn, you kindly said that you would provide us on a confidential basis with commercially confidential information. When you provide that information, could you say in it to what extent the prospect of a new railway has been a factor in persuading companies to contemplate investment?
I can. In general terms, of the three current inward investment inquiries, two companies are considering Clackmannanshire principally because of the prospect at some stage in the future of a clustering of activity. One has made a decision already and enhanced its operation. I can provide that information.
Please go into a little more detail when you provide the information to the committee.
How would David Littlejohn answer the challenge that, if the railway were built, it would be a gain for commuters rather than for the economy of Clackmannanshire and the Forth valley, except in that it would underpin the future of a commuting population?
From a Scottish Enterprise perspective, making Clackmannanshire a more attractive place from which to commute is part of the economic process. The private sector housing market is underperforming in the area. If transport communications were increased, the location would become much more attractive for folks to live and invest as well as work in. The income and the spend of families that move into an area are important. Stirling has a highly pressured, highly expensive housing market. There is a need to encourage a wider commute into Stirling and beyond. There is an economic benefit from that.
I will go off script and ask whether you envisage any advantages for freight other than coal from the railway, if it is built.
Yes. All the opportunities that we are currently discussing are non-coal opportunities.
Thanks, Mr Littlejohn. Do you have any brief, closing remarks for the committee?
No, I think that everything has been covered.
I thank you very much for appearing before the committee and answering our questions. We will now suspend for one minute while we change witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The committee will now hear oral evidence from Mr Brian Ringer, freight operations manager for the Strategic Rail Authority.
Mr Ringer, your evidence has been extremely helpful in setting out the strategic theme for the intended rail investment. However, the committee is still a little unclear about the reasons for the SRA's support for the scheme, at least in respect of the balance between the potential advantages.
Overall, that is a reasonably fair and objective comment. However, there would also be significant advantages for passengers through providing Alloa with a passenger service.
I think that you are the right person to answer my next question, but you should tell me if you are not. There are around 50 objections to the bill. In your experience, is that a high, low or average number of objections to a railway scheme?
I must be perfectly honest with you. I have absolutely no experience in that respect, as railway reopenings are rare in this country—that is why we are so privileged to be here. I do not intend any pun, but there is no track record in that respect.
The pun might not have been intended, but it was well delivered. We will move swiftly on.
The committee will ask Scottish Power too about the matter with which I want to deal. It might be a matter of reading the evidence correctly. Paragraph 15 of your written submission describes the volume of coal that is burned at Longannet. You refer to 1 million tonnes of coal on average being delivered each year. Paragraph 5.3 of Mr Devlin's evidence mentions 2 million tonnes a year as a practical limit for transporting coal by road, using a utilisation factor of 80 per cent. Is there a real difference between you, or does the issue relate to terminology?
Mr Devlin will give evidence of his own. However, I think that he is saying that only 2 million tonnes of coal per annum can practically be transported by road and that if there was an attempt to go above that level, no more lorries would physically be able to go down the main routes, into the power station and along through the weighbridge to be discharged and then leave, even if the system worked 24 hours a day. The figure that you quoted from paragraph 15 of our submission reflects an average.
So two different issues are being discussed.
I have not seen Mr Devlin's evidence, but I think that he is referring to the maximum. We discussed what is probably the average.
Paragraph 16 of your submission states that a transfer of 1 million tonnes of coal from road to rail would make a significant contribution towards the target of 80 per cent freight growth between 2000 and 2010. In percentage terms, what would the contribution be? You might also want to deal with the question using Scottish Power's figure of 2 million tonnes of coal being transferred to rail.
I would have to get back to you with a calculation of the number of tonne-kilometres that such flows would represent. We will do the calculations and send the results to you as a further piece of written evidence. It would be difficult to do a mental calculation now.
Thank you. I look forward to receiving the results of the number crunching.
When will those results be available? When will you be able to do the calculations and get the results to us?
I will be in my office tomorrow, so I hope that you will have them well before the end of the week.
Marvellous.
Paragraph 20(c) deals with the Ayr-Paisley-Glasgow-Stirling line. Perhaps I am reading the paragraph the wrong way, but did you intend to refer to Stirling? At present, no coal trains run between Glasgow and Stirling; indeed, the purpose of the new railway is to enable them to do so. Is that an error?
You are correct: no coal trains go that way at present, although they use the route as far as Carmuirs, which is just south of Larbert. At present, 14 to 15 coal trains a day travel on the route from Ayrshire through Glasgow to Carmuirs, but they then have to go via the outskirts of Edinburgh and across the Forth bridge. We were trying to make the point that the same number of pathways on the route via Stirling would be able to cope with the volume of coal into Longannet. I am sorry if the paragraph was a little imprecise.
My next question also relates to paragraph 20(c) in the submission. One of the new railway's advantages, which has been canvassed about, is that passengers will be able to travel from Alloa to Glasgow via Stirling. However, I have not seen any information on the pathing capacity of the line for passenger trains. You say that there are to be 14 coal trains a day between the Ayrshire coast and Longannet, but paragraph 6 of Network Rail's submission sounds a cautionary note on additional capacity.
Network Rail has taken a cautious stance. We are talking with Network Rail about upgrading work that might be required in the Stirling area and further south to permit the pathing of those trains. Our point in paragraph 20(c) is that, given the improved operational characteristics of coal trains that use more modern rolling stock, they would be better able to run in conjunction with the passenger service on the Larbert to Stirling section of line than would present coal traffic, which is limited to 45mph when loaded and 60mph when empty. Modelling work has been done to determine whether capacity on the line is sufficient to allow coal trains to be run. That work has found broadly that the trains can be run, although some signalling work may be required to cope with that.
In his evidence, Mr Devlin of Scottish Power casts some doubt over the future viability of Longannet power station—no doubt we will go over that later in more detail. As we have heard from the promoter of the bill, projections are based on the assumption that Longannet will close in 2020, although the possibility of a closure in 2012 has been raised. If the life of Longannet is to be as short as that, would you still support the bill?
In terms of railway operational factors, we would still support the bill. Of course, it is for Scottish Power to say what the life of Longannet power station might be. We might have a view on that, but I am not in a position to gainsay the evidence of Scottish Power. I can say that, given that Longannet is the second largest coal-fired power station in the country, it makes considerable input to the national grid but, nonetheless, Mr Devlin's thoughts are the most relevant in relation to that matter. Similarly, I must defer to the promoter of the bill on the financial effect of the bill.
If there were no obvious case to be made in relation to the freight benefits of the bill, would the SRA still support the bill in order to create passenger links between the Forth valley and Glasgow?
If there were a financial case to be made for such a passenger service, we would support the bill. At the moment, however, the proposal involves freight and passenger services—both aspects are linked and have not been separated.
Would it be a strategic objective of the SRA and the Government to open a passenger line?
It is not a question of strategic importance, although such a line would certainly align with the SRA's strategic objectives. David Mundell is beginning to enter the financial debate about whether there would be payback such as would make investment in the line worth while.
In paragraph 23 of your submission, you say that ScotRail is currently procuring some additional rolling stock. That seems to be a little brave in advance of the bill's being agreed to. Is that a general procurement or a specific procurement for the proposed railway?
I work in the freight operations department, but I have received a short briefing from my colleagues in the passenger operations department. As I understand it, the rolling stock that Mr Baker mentions is part of a larger purchase of rolling stock. It therefore made operational and commercial sense to place one order for rolling stock as part of the general expansion of rolling stock for ScotRail services.
In paragraph 24 of your submission, you say:
Again, I say that my passenger operations department colleagues could explain that better. However, as I understand the situation, the service to Alloa would in effect be an extension to Alloa of the Glasgow to Stirling terminating service once the new line was opened. Rather than its being a completely new service from end to end, it is a marginal extension, which is why the costs are seen as being marginal.
In paragraph 25 of your submission you address the new station in Alloa. Network Rail or the promoter might be better placed to answer my question, but who do you think will operate the new station?
I agree that that is a question that would be better answered by the promoter of the bill. I do not know the answer to it.
That is an honest answer. Would you like to make some closing remarks?
The SRA freight directorate whole-heartedly supports the opening of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. We think that the scheme has the potential to deliver a greater reduction in heavy goods vehicle miles in the UK than any other scheme that we currently have under consideration. To move by rail 1 million tonnes of coal that are presently moved by road will bring about a large increase in environmental benefits through reduction of emissions, congestion, noise and accidents. The benefits will be spread throughout a wide area of Scotland from Ayrshire through the central belt to the Forth valley, so we commend the scheme heartily.
Thank you on behalf of the committee for appearing before us and answering our questions, where you were able. If you wish to return to the body of the hall, you are more than welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. There will now be a one-minute suspension while we change witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The committee will now take oral evidence from Mr Kevin Devlin, director of ScottishPower Energy Management Ltd, and Mr Ron Hunter, business services director of ScottishPower Generation Ltd.
I will kick off, if that is okay. Before we move on to the main issues, we note that Scottish Power in the form of Power Systems Ltd has objected to the bill. That seems to be a bit peculiar to us. Would you care to comment on that? How would you characterise Scottish Power's attitude to the bill?
In the first instance, Scottish Power is broadly supportive of the bill. We have been careful to point that out at the beginning of any objections that we have raised. Power Systems Ltd is our regulated wires business, which provides transmission and distribution network services throughout Scotland. In its capacity as a separate and regulated part of the business—compared to where I work—it has raised specific objections pertaining to wayleaves and the movement of transmission lines. I believe that its objections have been raised on grounds of safety and other factors to do with its interests. I would not say that that undermines Scottish Power's overall support for the bill.
I am grateful for that clarification.
The longevity of Longannet power station is one of the key issues in our consideration of the general principles of the bill. It is important that the committee is satisfied about the realistic lifespan of Longannet power station. Your evidence helps us, given that I think that it is an honest appreciation of the difficulties of the power station. As you will appreciate, the committee needs to be clear about the need for the development on the promoter's evidence and the benefits of taking Longannet coal away from existing rail links and from road on to the newer railway, which have been advanced as major advantages. Perhaps you could give us an overview of your appreciation, based on current and foreseeable circumstances, of the realistic lifespan of Longannet power station.
The factors that will determine the outlook for Longannet power station are mainly to do with emissions constraints and the concerns that exist about emissions of sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Coal-fired generating plant is deemed to be fairly polluting, so increasingly stringent controls are coming in through a number of legislative instruments, the large combustion plant directive being one of them.
Would it therefore be fair to say that there is zero prospect of the plant's going on beyond 2016?
That prospect is very limited. On current projections, we would have to invest several hundred million pounds to make Longannet compliant with the NOx legislation that will come in around 2016. By that time, Longannet will be 40 to 50 years old, and it does not look as if we could make the economic case for its continuing.
What are the prospects of its going on even until 2012?
Under the large combustion plant directive, Longannet could take an option to run for 20,000 hours from 2008 and then close. That would take us to about 2012, give or take a year, based on our current projections of load factor. That is, if you like, our base case. On balance, we think that Longannet should be around until at least 2011 or 2012 and perhaps on towards 2016. However, as I said, we do not yet know what the impact of the pollution prevention and control legislation will be and we are not quite sure what the value of carbon trading permits will do to coal-fired plant, so there must be some qualification around those statements.
In relation to the period from 2008, am I right in thinking that there would be a reduced operation compared to the current situation?
That will depend on when and how we take our option of the 20,000 hours. A period of 20,000 hours to closure would give Longannet a reasonable load factor that was not radically different from that which it currently enjoys. It would not make a radical difference to the operational performance of Longannet power station, but we could take our 20,000 hours in the early period after 2008 or we could bank hours for later. Matters will depend on which of those options we choose, but it would not make a huge difference to the operational situation at Longannet.
If you used the hours early, would that bring forward the possible closure date?
Yes. When we had used 20,000 hours, we would have to close. If the 20,000 hours are not used early, they can be stretched out until 2016. That is one of the options that are open to Scottish Power.
Do you understand my concern about the inherent contradiction between what you are saying and the 30-year projection that is used in some of the promoter's material?
I have discussed that back at base and with Kevin Devlin, and we are not aware that Scottish Power has ever taken the view that Longannet would exist beyond 2020. In our communications, we have certainly focused on 2020 as being a possible date, but the increasing impact of emissions legislation is likely to bring the date of the plant's closure forward.
To recap, rather than say that there are no circumstances in which the plant would go on for 30 years, would you say that you can envisage no circumstances in which it would go on beyond 2016?
That is unlikely, based on the information that we have. If the price that we get for our output improves significantly, we could begin to make an investment case for fitting abatement to Longannet power station to enable it to comply with emissions legislation. That can be done; there are technologies that would abate Longannet and make it compliant from 2016. However, based on our forecast of where the wholesale price of power is heading, we do not see that case washing its face in any middle scenario-type ground that we could see as reasonable.
So is the most realistic assessment 2012?
The most likely outcome for Longannet is 2012 to 2016.
Thank you.
You will appreciate that we are not experts on electricity generation and the electricity market, so I ask you to forgive a request for clarification.
That is correct.
Fine.
A lot of the matter revolves around the price of wholesale electricity and what would make it economic to invest in Longannet to prolong its active life—if we are not talking about dog food. If flue gas desulphurisation was an economic prospect, by how long would it extend the working life of Longannet? Would it extend its life indefinitely?
That would not extend the plant's life indefinitely because we would also need to invest in selective non-catalytic reduction technology to address the NOx emissions. Two acid rain gases are implicated in coal-fired generation—one is sulphur dioxide, which would be addressed by investment in flue gas desulphurisation, and the other is oxides of nitrogen, which would be addressed by investment in SNCR. If we fitted FGD it would solve half of our emission problems. We would still have the problem of 2016 and the impact of the NOx factors.
When does the sulphur thing kick in? You say that dealing with sulphur will take you to 2016. If you do not deal with that problem, when would you stop?
We could operate at increased load factor until 2016 if we fitted FGD, but we would then be bitten by the NOx legislation.
How much is the sulphur content of what is given off determined by the coal that is burned? If you were looking for low-sulphur coal, would that mean that you would not use Ayrshire-mined coal, but coal imported through Hunterston?
That is correct. We are becoming more and more burners of imported coal rather than indigenous coal. That is because, for a given sulphur cap, if we can source lower-sulphur coal we can run more frequently than previously.
In importing coal, would that necessarily be done through Hunterston or would other ports make more economic sense?
We signed a deal recently with Clydeport, which underpins Hunterston's being the cheapest import source for Longannet by a wide margin.
I do not know whether it is fair to ask this question, but can you give a ballpark figure for how much the wholesale price of electricity would have to go up to make the NOx process and desulphurisation economic? Would it have to go up by a huge amount or marginally?
It would have to increase quite significantly. As many people know, the price has been depressed in recent years, which has led to some companies getting into difficulty.
Forecasting the price of electricity has historically been very difficult.
That is a masterly understatement.
It has been very difficult indeed. You can postulate scenarios where you get into investment territory for those kinds of technologies. The market has crashed considerably since the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements. Our view, looking forward, is that the electricity market is getting tighter. There is less capacity around and we see the prospect of rising prices. The more difficult question to answer is how high they will go.
How high would prices need to go to extend the working life of Longannet? Would they need to increase by 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 20 per cent or is that like asking how long is a piece of string?
The price would have to increase significantly from current levels—perhaps by as much as 50 per cent, but that is very much an estimate.
In paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 of your submission you discuss the relationship with the local community and the benefit of taking coal traffic off the road for the quality of life of those who live in the vicinity of Longannet. You may have seen the objections from those who live in the Alloa area about the noise and disturbance that will be created through construction and operation of a new railway. Has Scottish Power investigated that issue in the context of its providing support for the scheme?
At the highest level, we think that the prospect of one coal train per hour is preferable to numerous lorries going down the road. That would appear to be more efficient use of logistical infrastructure and would involve less movement in a particular period of time. Road traffic is a difficult issue for the community in terms of noise, pollution, dust and general traffic access around, for example, Kincardine village.
Do you get complaints about that?
We have an active dialogue with the community about the level of road transport that goes into Longannet.
What is the community's feedback? Are there at least some people who say that they want the railway to go ahead because it will reduce the level of road transport? Does most of the feedback oppose the railway?
I believe that we have significant support from the Kincardine community for road traffic's being taken off the roads and rail traffic's being introduced.
But the whole area does not support the railway.
I cannot speak for everybody. Obviously, our focus is on the area around Longannet power station; that is where we spend most of our time in terms of community involvement.
In paragraph 5.2 of your submission you say that, because of the Forth rail bridge's limitations, each train currently has a capacity of 850 to 860 tonnes. However, paragraph 18 of the SRA's evidence states that the maximum payload per train is 960 tonnes. Can you clarify whether the difference in figures is a result of using different terminology?
I wonder whether the difference arises from the use of different locomotives. I can check that and get back to the committee.
When will you be able to do that?
Before the end of the week.
That is fine. Thank you.
Can I go back to your agreement with Clydeport? Clydeport has committed to delivering up to 5 million tonnes of coal a year to service Longannet. Do you have a minimum-take obligation under that agreement?
Yes. We have a minimum take for all seven years of the deal.
So there would be a reason for you to utilise the new railway line to its full extent, if and when it was delivered.
Absolutely. There is a strong economic imperative for us to use that particular deal. We revealed publicly in the press statements at the time of the agreement that there were significant savings for Scottish Power in the deal. It is very unlikely that we could find an economic alternative to the deal. The vessels that come into Hunterston are typically very large, being between 150,000 and 180,000 tonnes. No other port in Scotland is suited to that kind of large bulk carrier.
So Hunterston is going to be the place and the railway is the best way.
Yes.
I have a final question, which arises from evidence that we heard this morning. What formal or informal contact has there been between the bill's promoter and Scottish Power?
We had initial discussions more than a year ago with the SRA and the Scottish Executive regarding the railway line. We then engaged with Clydeport and other logistics providers to do the deal that we have just talked about. Since then, discussions have mainly been between Clydeport and the promoter.
So you have not really had any direct contact since then?
Not recently.
When was the last time, approximately?
We have occasional telephone conversations. We certainly had one about a month ago.
Have you communicated in any sustained fashion?
No.
Okay, I am grateful for your answers. Would you like to make any brief closing remarks to the committee?
No, thank you.
In that case, I thank you for appearing before the committee and for answering our questions. You are more than welcome to go back into the body of the hall and remain for the rest of the meeting.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The committee will now hear oral evidence from Mr Alan Macmillan and Mr Kevin McCallum, who are respectively commercial development manager and commercial schemes sponsor for Network Rail.
Your written evidence for the purposes of the preliminary stage helpfully describes the advantages of the scheme, but I have one or two questions. Paragraph 4 states:
First of all, there will be front-end performance benefits from moving the slow-moving freight traffic, which may run in front of the faster-moving passenger traffic. In theory, train paths will be freed up and made available, but it is up to the freight operating company that currently has those paths to comment on whether it will give them up.
Indeed, but I want to stick with my next point. We are dealing with a free market. Scottish Power could decide to hedge its bets and retain some or all of its Forth bridge paths as well as utilising the new railway and keeping open the option of taking coal by road. Is that a realistic possibility, or is there some mechanism to prevent that from occurring?
We could not comment on that, as we are not in the business of placing our customers in competition with each other.
Okay. That is an interesting point.
I seek clarification. Even if the rail freight operator does not give up its train paths over the Forth rail bridge, provided that slow trains are not being used will the scheme still give more reliability and a bit of headroom and capacity?
Most definitely, yes.
Paragraph 6 of Network Rail's written evidence notes that the diversion of Longannet coal traffic via Stirling could be accommodated without too much difficulty in the context of current passenger and freight timetables. However, you say that beyond that stage, there will be very few spare timetable paths for additional services on that section of the route. To the extent that you can make any calculation at this stage, can you say how many paths will be available?
I can answer that one. We have discussed that with the promoter. The promoter has undertaken timetable modelling, which we have seen part of, but another part has yet to be sent to us for us to assess. Until we have done that, it would be wrong of us to quote a number to you. Our timetable planners need to see the final results of those modelling studies.
But would we be right in suggesting that there appears to be little headroom to create new passenger services between Alloa and Glasgow via Stirling?
No, that is not what we are saying. Mr Ringer from the SRA has already explained this but, if I may recap, the vast majority of coal traffic to Longannet at the moment travels over what we call the Scottish central route, from either Mossend yard or Ayrshire via Coatbridge. It goes on the Scottish central to Carmuirs west junction, then it heads east through Falkirk on to the Edinburgh to Glasgow main line, and eventually ends up at the Forth bridge. We are saying that once we start running coal trains up beyond Carmuirs west towards Stirling, it will reduce the number of free paths that we have available to other operators—not just passenger operators but freight operators—on that portion of the Scottish central to Stirling. That is what we are saying in that paragraph.
Okay.
One of the witnesses referred to the building of a new high-quality station at Alloa. Will Network Rail operate that station?
Network Rail is not necessarily the operator in terms of the Railways Act 1993. We see ourselves becoming the owner of the asset. We see the operator being the train operating company, which would lease the station from us.
Okay.
It depends on the end design. If the end design is such that the works are contained within our existing land holding, I contend that it is permitted development. If the end design takes the works outwith our land holding, it falls outwith our powers.
So there is much to be said on both sides.
Yes.
Finally, has any concrete interest been shown in operating new passenger services across the Forth bridge or between Stirling and Glasgow, if the scheme proceeds?
As you may be aware, the Scottish Executive, wearing another hat, is furthering platform extensions. The new trains that were talked about earlier today are part of that package. If we could offer a large number of paths in the east of Scotland, there is no doubt that some of the passenger operators would wish to run additional trains. At the moment that is not possible, which is why the Executive is promoting platform extensions and longer trains in peak hours.
But there is potential.
Yes, there is potential, but other things would require to be done on the network.
Other parts of the jigsaw would have to fall into place.
Absolutely.
Do you wish to make any brief closing remarks?
No.
Thank you for appearing before the committee and for answering our questions. You may of course return to the body of the hall to listen to the rest of the proceedings.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The committee will now hear evidence from Mr Robert Samson and Mr James King, who are respectively secretary and deputy convener of the rail passengers committee Scotland.
Your evidence has cast helpful light on areas about which the committee needed further information. I have one or two little points to make that follow on from the evidence that Mr Macmillan and others gave.
At this stage, the key is to get the service up and running on the existing timetable path, using the planned layover on the Stirling to Glasgow service. We can then consider how the service might develop as signalling improvements are made and, perhaps, as faster trains come on stream. We have heard witnesses from Network Rail talk about potential signalling improvements, which might create more capacity. We have also heard about the new trains that will be brought in, which will operate at higher speeds and so might create more capacity.
So any developments will definitely have a knock-on effect on the improvement of the layout, in particular the northern half of the Glasgow to Stirling section of the railway.
Yes, there will be knock-on effects. Because of the growth in passenger traffic throughout the UK—a 38 per cent increase since 1995—there is pressure throughout the network. The situation is not unusual; the key is to have the capability to get the service up and running.
You have heard the evidence that witnesses from Scottish Power gave about the difficulty of predicting the length of life of Longannet. I appreciate that your remit is to consider passenger rather than freight services, but if you thought that Longannet was to close as early as—or even earlier than—2012, would you support the bill nonetheless, because of the benefits that the scheme offers in relation to future passenger services and the possibilities for new services?
Yes. The bill should still be supported, on the basis of the benefits that the scheme would bring for potential passengers. The knock-on effects of the scheme would benefit a wide range of passengers in Scotland, including those who use the existing network to travel from Fife to Edinburgh over the Forth rail bridge and passengers as far west as Ayrshire, whose services would improve as a result of the faster freight trains that would travel between Hunterston and Longannet.
Can you put the proposed line into the Scottish context or the UK context? If the line carried services for passengers only, how important would it be relative to the overall development of the network?
It would be important to the development of the network, not only because of the benefits for passengers but because it would go some way towards meeting the Scottish Executive's aspirations for public transport through a substantial increase in investment in the network during the next three years. Our position on potential passengers considers the consumer principles of passenger access to the network and choice. My fingers are crossed when I talk about comparisons between roads and the rail network, and safety concerns also have to be taken into account—whenever I mention that issue I feel that I could be tempting fate. More access and choice will be made available for both existing and potential passengers.
As there are no further questions, gentlemen, do you want to make a closing statement?
In the light of our earlier comments, we support whole-heartedly the transfer of ownership of the new station at Alloa to Network Rail and the operation of the station to the ScotRail franchise holder. That will ensure that customer care standards will be maintained at a high level—by customer care, I mean ticket sales, information provision and so on. Prestwick station is anomalous in Scotland because it is owned by the airport authority and considerable problems have accrued because it is not run by the ScotRail franchise holder or owned by Network Rail. We do not want that situation to be repeated at Alloa.
Thank you for taking part and answering our questions. I thank everyone for coming today. The third meeting of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee will take place here in Alloa a week today. The committee looks forward to returning to Alloa on that date.
Meeting closed at 14:57.