Liz Hetherington

An Open Letter to the Secretary of State for Transport Reconsider the Hull Trains Sheffield Proposal Dear Secretary of State, Sheffield has once again been told to accept fewer trains, fewer seats and poorer connectivity to London. That makes it the right time to revisit a proposal that offered part of the solution. Hull Trains sought approval to introduce open-access services between Sheffield and London King’s Cross. The application was rejected on the grounds of network capacity and concerns over revenue abstraction from existing operators. Those were legitimate considerations. But they should not be the end of the conversation. If Sheffield’s existing London services are now under such strain that passengers face reduced frequencies and reduced capacity, then the case for additional competition and greater network resilience has become stronger, not weaker. Britain cannot claim to be serious about regional growth while expecting one of its largest cities to make do with less. We therefore ask the Department for Transport, Network Rail, the Office of Rail and Road and Great British Railways Transition Team to undertake a fresh review of the Hull Trains proposal against today’s operating conditions, infrastructure constraints and economic priorities. The review should answer three straightforward questions: Can the capacity issues identified previously now be mitigated? What investment would be required to accommodate an additional open-access service? What is the economic cost to Sheffield of not providing greater rail connectivity and competition? The objective should not simply be to protect the existing timetable. It should be to improve it. Sheffield is a city of more than half a million people, serving a wider city region of 1.4 million. It is home to world-leading manufacturers, two universities, a growing technology sector and internationally recognised research institutions. It deserves a railway that reflects its economic importance. Every discussion about growth eventually arrives at infrastructure. Rail is infrastructure. Capacity is infrastructure. Competition is infrastructure. If the answer remains “no”, let that decision be based on today’s evidence, not yesterday’s assumptions. Yours faithfully, David Richards MBE @Heidi_Labour @LordPeterHendy @olivercoppard @networkrail @TransportCttee @railandroad @hull_trains @railandroad @Hull_Trains @EastMidRailway