Accrington Railways - Robert Kenyon

i. BR no longer produces line-by-line deficits for local services in the shire counties, although they do have this information for monitoring purposes, which they are not prepared to divulge. LCC is therefore, unable to determine how cost effective any given service is or the extent of any deficit, or a proportionate reduction of any deficit that may result from an economy proposed by them. ii. It would appear that BR does not intend to introduce any additional or improved services unless, in its own opinion, the change would be self-financing or profitable. If, to BR this does not appear to be probable, a Local Authority, i.e. the Shire Council, would be expected to give financial support to meet the additional cost in order that there is no increase to the PSOG. iii. The County Council has in the past considered and rejected in principle, the contribution of Revenue Support to BR over and above that provided for in the PSOG. The net effect of these conditions has been a slow but perceptible reduction in local services, and a reluctance by both parties to embark on any new or improved levels of service and for the County Council to in effect ‘buy off’ any proposed reductions in services. ADJACENT METROPOLITAN COUNTIES, SECTION 20 AGREEMENTS 3·2·1 Several services in the southern area of Lancashire cross the boundary into adjacent metropolitan counties, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire. These Counties, as designated Passenger Transport Authorities under the Local Government Act 1972, have entered into Section 20 agreements with BR. This therefore, creates the anomaly that certain services traversing the West Lancashire District are sub-vented by three separate authorities, i.e. by Central Government via the PSOG for the parts within Lancashire and by each of the two PTAs in the Metropolitan Counties of Greater Manchester and Merseyside by Section 20 Agreements. 3·2·2. Since 1974 there have been cases where unilateral action by one Metropolitan County in announcing the withdrawal of Section 20 funding for its own section of route, has resulted in BR proposing economies which have had an effect on the area of the County in question. It is the view of LCC, that the service in the shire county should be maintained if necessary, by adjusting the level of the PSOG and that it is also unreasonable to expect a county to make good the loss of a Section 20 Agreement in another authority’s area of jurisdiction. THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES OF BRITISH RAILWAYS 3·3·1 Although the rail services in Lancashire fall within the jurisdiction of BR’s London Midland Region, the Divisional Structure does not coincide with the administrative boundaries of the County. As a result the rail services in West Lancs District lie in the area administered by the Liverpool Division of BR, whilst the line to Manchester comes under the control of both the Preston and Manchester Divisions. The County Council has since 1974, maintained a close and regular working relationship with the Preston Division’s Officers, their association with the Officers of the other two Divisions has been irregular and dictated by circumstances. 3·3·2 The relationship with these Divisions will change in the future, if the proposed transfer of administration from Preston to Manchester is allowed to take place. Whilst LCC accepts the need for the close involvement of BR and Manchester’s and Liverpool’s PTAs, they would wish to point out that the rail network in Lancashire is of equal importance to both those conurbations. It is hoped therefore, that this Strategy will lead to closer co-ordination and consultation between the County Council and their respective Divisions. That BR will confirm that the same well established relationship with BR in Preston will be maintained along with the Merseyside and Manchester Divisions. CAPITAL INVESTMENT 3·4·1 Since 1974 LCC has, within its Transport Policy & Programme (TPP) and more recently in its Public Transport Plan (PTP), supported BR’s pleas for greater capital investment in the North West. The priority attached to the programme of electrification of the local services, together with a refurbishment of local railway stations, will be dealt with separately. 3·4·2 One aspect above all others is considered to be the constraint on the short-term improvements to rail services and the condition of the Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs). The County is given to understand that BR has its own concerns about their condition, the problems of maintenance and the lack of availability of additional stock. Without reserves of the most basic units, it is obvious that BR has difficulties in keeping to the current levels of service, let alone making provision for an improvement in frequencies, levels of service and overloading. DMUs will be discussed again, but at the outset Local Authorities in Lancashire emphasise that investments should be made as a matter of urgency by BR in

369