Tuesday 26 October 2021


< back | business | images | knowledge | library | rail unveiled | home


::: RMT threatens national industrial action over service cuts

Railhub Archive
1999-06-16 SRA-001
Shadow Strategic Rail Authority


Planning criteria - a guide to the appraisal of support for passenger rail services

keywords: click to search


Phrases in [single square brackets] are hyperlinks in the original document

Phrases in [[double square brackets]] are editorial additions or corrections

Phrases in [[[triple square brackets]]] indicate embedded images or graphics in the original document. (These are not usually archived unless they contain significant additional information.)

Shadow Strategic Rail Authority

Planning criteria - a guide to the appraisal of support for passenger rail services

related documents

Full document (text file) (SSRA, 1999)


16 June 1999
source Shadow Strategic Rail Authority
type Guidance note

note (First section only. Full document available via links.)

1. Introduction
2. Scope and Purpose of the Guide
3. The Criteria
The Franchising Director's Objectives
Budget Constraints
The Decision Criteria
Relationship with other government policies
4. Ways OPRAF Can Support Investment
5. Developing a Business Case
State Objectives
Define Base Case
Develop Scheme Options
Screen Options to Manageable Number
Define Appraisal Period
Identify Costs and Benefits
Identify Incidence Groups
Quantify Costs and Benefits
Undertake Sensitivity and/or Risk Analysis
Calculate Net Present Values
Present the Business Case
Appraise the Business Case
Evaluate Project After Implementation
6. Costs and Benefits
Environmental Impacts
Appendix A - The Roles of Industry Parties
The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising
Franchise Operators
Rolling Stock Leasing Companies
Association of Train Operating Companies
Relationship with other transport support payments
The Rail Regulator

1.1 In November 1997, OPRAF published Interim Planning Criteria.(1)This report was a statement of the approach the Franchising Director would apply when prioritising proposals to change rail services, and provided advice to sponsors on how to prepare the relevant business case.

1.2 The approach was approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions as an interim methodology prior to publication of the Government's White Paper on integrated transport policy.(2) The approach would be reviewed to reflect the policy framework set out in the White Paper. This review is now complete and the revised approach is presented in this document.

1.3 A New Deal for Transport was published in July 1998. It announced a new approach to the appraisal of different solutions to transport problems. The new approach draws together a large amount of information collected as part of the appraisal process and assesses it against the following five criteria:

o Environment
o Safety
o Economy
o Accessibility
o Integration

1.4 The new approach to appraisal originated in the Roads Review,(3) and the desire to develop a clear and open framework for prioritising trunk road investment proposals. The new approach is expected to be of continuing value to those appraising road investment proposals, and a July 1998 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) publication (4) showed how it will be applied in that context. A New Deal for Transport announced that, once finalised, the new approach would cover scheme appraisal for other transport modes, permitting full multi-modal studies in specific corridors or areas. Work to adapt the framework for this purpose is under way. Although efforts have been made to ensure consistency, this work may have implications for the OPRAF Planning Criteria, and they may be further updated to reflect its conclusions.

1.5 The new approach echoes the views of respondents to the Franchising Director's 1996 consultation on Planning Criteria.(5) They were concerned that the criteria should take a broad view of the impact of changes in rail services on the environment and on other modes. They were also concerned that, as far as practicable, comparisons between proposals involving alternative modes of transport should be on a level playing field.

1.6 Comments or queries concerning this document should be addressed to:

Rebecca Davies
Golding's House
2 Hay's Lane
London SE1 2HB

1 Appraisal of Support for Passenger Rail Services. Planning Criteria: an interim guide, OPRAF, November 1997.

2 A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, July 1998.

3 A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, July 1998.

4 A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England: Guidance on the New Approach to Appraisal, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, July 1998.

5 Appraisal of Support for Passenger Rail Services - A Consultation Paper, OPRAF, November 1996.

2.1 This guide is for use by any party putting a proposal to the Franchising Director for changes to passenger rail services that he supports.

2.2 It provides guidance to sponsors on developing a business case in support of an application to the Franchising Director, and the procedures to be followed by a project sponsor.

2.3 Proposals for changes to passenger rail services will require approval from the Franchising Director where they involve changes to contractual commitments made to him. Such approval is likely to be required where proposals involve:

Changes to Passenger Service Requirements (PSRs). Examples include:
- Increases or reductions in service frequency.
- Changes to journey times.
- Changes to the times of first and last trains.
- Changes to stopping patterns at stations.
- Changes to crowding or rolling stock capacity standards.
Changes in franchise plan commitments beyond those in PSRs.
New schemes involving financial commitments from OPRAF. These may or may not require new investment, and may involve OPRAF entering into actual or contingent liabilities. Examples include:
- Commitments to provide additional financial support for new services which are not commercial.
- Commitments to procure the use of upgraded or new passenger railway facilities.
- Commitments not to designate new services as experimental.
2.4 Proposals may range from minor changes, with minimal financial and wider impacts, to large scale strategic changes. The level of detail required in appraisals will depend on the scale of the change and the significance of scheme impacts for the decision on whether to proceed. The project sponsor will need to make the final decision, in consultation with OPRAF and in the light of the characteristics of the particular proposal.

3.1 The Criteria have been approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. They reflect the policies announced in A New Deal for Transport, the Franchising Director's Objectives, Instructions and Guidance (OIG) from Ministers and the responses to OPRAF's 1996 consultation paper.

A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone

3.2 A New Deal for Transport sets out a new approach to the appraisal of different solutions to transport problems. This approach is designed to draw together a large amount of information, collected as part of the appraisal of a transport problem and alternative solutions. The information is set against the following criteria:

3.3 This new approach provides the framework for the revised Planning Criteria. The Franchising Director expects sponsors to place full weight on those aspects of an appraisal, such as environmental impacts, which are difficult to quantify but, nonetheless, are key to the new approach.

The Franchising Director's Objectives
3.4 The Franchising Director's OIG issued by the Government in November 1997 encompass improvements to services for passengers, the cost-effective use of taxpayers' money and facilitating the development of the railway. In addition, he is required to take account of other Government policies, including those described in A New Deal for Transport. These objectives may be revised from time to time.

Budget Constraints
3.5 The Franchising Director's budget is constrained like other departmental budgets. In addition, the Franchising Director has a statutory value for money duty. In setting priorities, the Franchising Director will therefore need to take account of the value for money offered by a proposal, long and short-term cash flow requirements and any associated contingent liabilities.

3.6 The Franchising Director will reflect contributions from other budget holders by taking account of their funding in determining priorities, providing the funds are additional to his own budget. This approach will be adopted for partnership funding, private sector contributions and other finance from other public sector bodies or the European Union.

The Decision Criteria
3.7 When taking decisions on which proposals to support, the Franchising Director will consider all evidence presented in the business case regarding performance against the five key criteria: Environment, Safety, Economy, Accessibility, and Integration.

3.8 On account of his statutory duty to secure value for money, the Franchising Director will be obliged to compare schemes using, where possible, an objective assessment of the benefits a scheme would deliver. In order to do so, he will rank schemes in terms of the net present value of benefits per of OPRAF support.

3.9 Where there are significant benefits, or disbenefits, which cannot be valued in monetary terms, the Franchising Director will weigh up their relative impact. The Franchising Director will consider the value that would need to be assigned to such impacts for the scheme to represent value for money. He will make judgements on a case by case basis as to whether this value is reasonable, taking into account the context of the proposed change and any supporting evidence, whether quantified or unquantified. He will take account of new measurement and valuation methodologies in this area as and when they emerge.

3.10 The Franchising Director will also take account of the allocation of risk, and the incentives on sponsors to deliver planned outputs.

3.11 In addition to value for money criteria, the Franchising Director will need to be satisfied that his intervention, by offering support or by other means, is necessary for a proposed change to occur.

Relationship with other Government policies
3.12 A key element of A New Deal for Transport concerned the integration of transport policy, both with other central government policies and with the local and regional planning framework. The Franchising Director will want to be satisfied that proposals for rail enhancements are consistent with Government policy in other areas such as health and education. The business case should identify these relationships where they are material. The new planning framework described in A New Deal for Transport will have a role in advising the Franchising Director where enhancements can best meet the needs of integrated land use and transport policies.

3.13 Departments and agencies tasked with achieving, for example, local or regional objectives can influence the Franchising Director's priorities by contributing funds to support enhancements to passenger rail services.

3.14 The support of passenger railways is a national programme. It is appropriate therefore for the Franchising Director to take a national view of costs and benefits. Changes in the distribution of costs or benefits between different groups or different locations may net to zero. However, other Government policies may have explicit regional or distributional objectives. It is therefore important to identify these effects, where possible, so they are taken into account.

4.1 Investment is important for the future of the rail network in Great Britain and for the improvement of services for passengers and freight customers. In a mature railway industry, significant renewal expenditure will be required to maintain the performance and capability of the existing network. However, over time, there will be opportunities for new investment to enhance the network and rail services.

4.2 The decision whether or not to invest in new infrastructure, services or rolling stock, will in most cases be taken by private sector rail service providers. It will be based on their assessment of the commercial return through access charges or, in the case of the rolling stock suppliers, through new leasing charges. Joint ventures with other private sector organisations, such as developers or rolling stock manufacturers and financiers, may help to spread the cost and revenue risks of major new investment and exploit the full potential for commercial gain. The Franchising Director influences these decisions by setting the outputs to be delivered from supported passenger rail services.

4.3 The Franchising Director has powers to encourage new investment to improve the quality and efficiency of passenger rail services. However, the Franchising Director will need to be satisfied that a proposal represents the best value for money option for securing an investment before giving any assurances or undertakings to support new investment.

4.4 For projects that are commercially viable there will be no case for additional financial support other than through the continuing franchise support payments made by the Franchising Director in respect of existing services. If an enhancement investment in infrastructure, services or rolling stock is not commercially viable, it may still be desirable to make the investment in a loss-making sector of the railway for social or economic reasons. The Franchising Director will expect proposals to reflect the combination of profitable and unprofitable elements before calculation of net support requirements.

4.5 Proposals for new investments will be examined on a case by case basis against the criteria set out in this document. Wherever feasible, the Franchising Director will normally expect the markets, both for the provision of new investment and its financing, to have been tested competitively.

4.6 The Franchising Director's powers to encourage new investments in the passenger rail industry are listed below:

(a) Additional funding. OPRAF will consider providing additional financial support for service enhancements which produce significant wider benefits for both integration and modal shift, but which could not be taken forward without public sector financial support. As announced in A New Deal for Transport, additional funds will be distributed through two new schemes, the Rail Passenger Partnership Scheme and the Infrastructure Investment Fund:

The Rail Passenger Partnership scheme is designed to encourage and support innovative proposals at the regional and local level that develop rail use and promote modal shift. Support will be targeted on proposals that offer the greatest opportunities for modal shift and integration with other modes, for example those that increase accessibility for disabled people or cyclists, and more generally improve the attractiveness of rail to both existing and potential new users. Support for these projects will help to increase further the quality of local and regional passenger rail services.
The Infrastructure Investment Fund will support strategic investment projects aimed at addressing capacity constraints at key infrastructure 'pinch points' on the existing rail network. These projects will supplement the commercial infrastructure investment undertaken by Railtrack and will help to ensure that sufficient capacity is available both for existing demand and for new demand arising from initiatives to encourage more passengers and freight onto the railway.
(b) Renegotiation of franchises. The Government has indicated that renegotiation will be considered where it secures passenger benefits and represents value for the taxpayer. Proposals for renegotiating franchise terms will be considered on a case by case basis. Options could involve a change in contractual outputs within the present franchise term, or awarding an extended franchise term in exchange for additional investment or other benefits.

(c) Section 54 of the Railways Act 1993. This involves offering commitments, beyond the end of first round franchise terms, to require future franchisees to continue paying for particular services. It is expected that such commitments will only be available for significant investments in new rail infrastructure that would not otherwise go ahead.

(d) Closure procedures. By not designating a new passenger service or facility as experimental, the Franchising Director can ensure that the full closure procedures of the Railways Act 1993 apply. The Franchising Director has a duty to secure the continued operation of the station or service in these circumstances.

(e) Exceptional fares increases. The Franchising Director may allow exceptional increases in regulated fares for franchise operators who invest to improve service quality. Although key commuter and leisure fares are regulated, train operators have flexibility to respond to market and service requirements in setting their fares where quality improvements provide customers with worthwhile benefits. The Franchising Director may allow exceptional fares increases where a major enhancement of passenger service is secured as a result of new investment. For operators subject to the OPRAF performance regime in the London area, the caps on the prices of regulated fares will generally be adjusted to reflect the quality of the franchise operator's performance. This reflects the Franchising Director's wish to ensure that passengers are both compensated for poor performance, and pay appropriately for improved performance through fares. Improvements in performance may lead to the cap being adjusted by up to two per cent per year. This potential for additional revenue may, in some cases, provide the required incentive for new investment to take place.

(f) Supporting the inclusion of a minor station or network change in Railtrack's asset base. Proposals for a minor station or network change may be initiated by Railtrack, a train operating company, local authority or private developer. They should seek to reach a commercial deal, assuming that any increase in access charges will be payable by successor franchisees over the useful life of the enhancement. This proposal should then be discussed with the Franchising Director and the Rail Regulator.
In determining whether to support such a proposal, the Franchising Director would expect, in most instances, to take the terms negotiated at arm's length between Railtrack and a franchisee as evidence of value for money, providing there were no special features of the agreement that would impact on future franchisees. The Franchising Director will also consider if the new investment provides value for money in the context of the long-term development of the passenger railway industry.
The Franchising Director may then confirm whether or not he is prepared to support the inclusion of the investment in Railtrack's asset base. Where confirmation is given, the Rail Regulator would be prepared, in appropriate circumstances, to give guidance that would reflect that agreement, in reaching his decisions on the total level of access charges for franchised passenger services at a future review.
It is expected that this option will provide adequate incentive to take an investment forward for the vast majority of new projects.

4.7 The Franchising Director would not normally expect to offer comfort or formal undertakings in support of commercial investment. Where investments are to achieve non-commercial objectives, the Franchising Director will seek to ensure that risk is borne by the appropriate party to the transaction.

5.1 Any proposal for change will need to be justified by a business case if it requires support from the Franchising Director. This section outlines the basic elements that OPRAF would expect to see included in a business case.(6) Sponsors of new rail schemes are encouraged to discuss their proposals informally with OPRAF and to seek its advice on the appropriate method of appraisal and level of detail required in the business case.

Figure 1: Principal Steps in an Appraisal

State Objectives
5.2 The objectives of any proposal must be stated and should relate to the Franchising Director's own objectives. One way of classifying objectives is in terms of ultimate, intermediate and immediate objectives. The ultimate objective should refer to the strategic or 'high-level' aims of a project, while the intermediate and immediate objectives should be progressively more specific and measurable, and to a greater extent within the control of those responsible for delivery. This is in order to provide criteria against which options should be judged and to establish after the event whether or to what extent the objectives have been met. They will normally be expressed in terms of the outputs of the proposals.

Example: A franchise operator has made a proposal to OPRAF to support the inclusion of a new through service in its PSR. The objectives of the proposal as they relate to the Franchising Director's objectives might be described as:

Ultimate: to secure a progressive improvement in the quality of railway passenger services.
Intermediate: to increase rail patronage.
Immediate: to reduce journey times by removing the need to change trains.
These outputs could be measured in terms of generated passenger miles, and valued in terms of incremental revenue.

Define Base Case
5.3 All appraisals require a comparator (base case) against which to consider scheme options. This should be defined as the 'do-nothing' or 'do-minimum' scenario. It should include:

Committed future plans
The achievement of required standards
Statutory requirements.
In particular, the achievement of required standards should include the level of investment required to maintain existing infrastructure capacity. Track access charges have been set by the Rail Regulator at a level sufficient to enable Railtrack to meet its obligations to maintain the network, regardless of the specific contractual commitments under access agreements.

Example: A proposal is being considered to change the PSR of a franchise operator running commuter services into London. The base case should be the existing timetable plus any committed future changes such as the Jubilee Line Extension.

Develop Scheme Options
5.4 A wide range of options for meeting the objectives should be subjected to a basic screening process, even though many may be rejected at an early stage. This will ensure that only the best are taken forward for a full appraisal. Options might include:

Postponement or bringing forward(7)
Changes in scale or scope
Changes in standards - enhancing or reducing specification.
Example: The appraisal of individual options within a programme may throw up problems of interdependence where, for instance, network effects are prevalent. It may be that the combined impact of options is greater than the sum of the individual impacts. In these instances, it will be necessary to appraise such options incrementally and consider optimal phasing.

Screen Options to Manageable Number
5.5 There can be no hard and fast rules for the degree of detailed appraisal required for screening options. This will depend on the scale of the project, its complexity, time constraints and a trade-off between the amount of available information and the cost of its acquisition. Nonetheless, it is important that the screening is based on criteria and methods consistent with the final appraisal. A screening exercise might attempt to identify progressively the key objectives that the scheme must satisfy, and discard options on this basis until the list has been reduced to a manageable number.

Define Appraisal Period
5.6 There is no standard recommended cut-off period for appraisals. The appraisal should cover the period over which any contractual liabilities (actual or contingent) fall on the Franchising Director's budget. All options should be appraised over the same period.

5.7 For infrastructure projects, the appraisal period will typically be determined by the economic or physical life of the main asset. It should also cover the construction phase, during which considerable disruption may occur. Some railway assets may continue to deliver significant benefits over an extended period, albeit with sizeable periodic maintenance costs. In these circumstances, a residual value should be estimated based on the remaining net benefits of the asset to the owner and any associated net benefits to the project. Where assets have a resale value, these should be valued at their market price at the end of the appraisal period.

Example: OPRAF is being asked to consider the case for providing a Section 54 undertaking to support an investment by Railtrack involving resignalling, remodelling the layout of various sections of track and upgrading station facilities. The project is expected to take five years to construct and the average asset life is estimated to be 30 years. The appraisal period might therefore cover 35 years, but the station and track access charges payable to Railtrack should also include any renewal and maintenance of assets within 35 years (eg signalling) and the residual value of any assets with materially longer lives (eg bridges).

5.8 For changes in service provision or quality standards, the appraisal should cover the period over which the change is implemented. This could vary, for example, from under five years for the introduction of an experimental service to the length of the franchise for a particular PSR change. In instances where the subsequent withdrawal of services would require closure procedures, the appraisal should not be confined to the franchise length, even if contractual commitments were only in place for that period.

Identify Costs and Benefits
5.9 All the consequences of an option should be identified so that the decision on choice of option can be made with an awareness of all potential consequences. Table 1 lists a range of possible impacts of a rail scheme, and the five criteria for the appraisal of transport schemes identified in A New Deal for Transport. The list is by no means exhaustive.

Table 1: Five criteria and checklist of impacts

Environment: Noise and vibration
Local air quality
Global atmospheric emissions
Land and water pollution
Safety: Accidents
Personal security
Economy: Journey times
Train frequency
Reliability and punctuality
Station facilities and rolling stock quality
Financial costs and revenue
Transitional costs of change
Ticketing and information facilities
Economic and regeneration impacts
Accessibility: Reduction of barriers
Disabled access
Pedestrian access
Access for cyclists
Interchange requirements
Option values

Integration: Policies and proposals concerning other modes
Wider Government policy
Land use policy and proposals

Identify Incidence Groups
5.10 It will be clear from Table 1 that potential impacts are not confined to rail users. This highlights the importance of considering all the parties affected by a particular proposal. The impact on all parties should be identified, even though in the final analysis many of the disaggregated costs and benefits are likely to offset each other. Potential incidence groups are set out in Table 2.

Table 2 : Checklist of Incidence Groups

Consumers Passengers - Business
- Commuters
- Leisure
Non-users - Travellers by other modes
- Non-travellers
Operators/Providers Railtrack
Train operating companies
Rolling stock suppliers - Leasing companies (ROSCOs)
- Manufacturers
Other public transport operators
Funding Agencies OPRAF
Other central government
Local government
Private Sector Partners

5.11 The Franchising Director will seek to ensure that any reductions in services are gradual. Service enhancements and reductions will be treated asymmetrically, such that any changes financed from within his existing budget do not impose unreasonable disbenefits on particular groups or individuals. However, his objective will remain to use the funds available to him where they can make the greatest contribution to achieving his objectives.

Quantify Costs and Benefits
5.12 The business case should seek to quantify in monetary terms as many of the costs and benefits of a proposal as possible. These should be estimated at a constant price base over the life of the project and then discounted to give present values in the base year. Potential sponsors should note the following:

(a) Price Base: All costs and benefits must be adjusted to a common price base (typically the year in which the appraisal is undertaken) and the price base year specified. Note that only the effect of general price inflation as measured by the GDP deflator should be removed from the calculations. The cost and benefit estimates will need to be adjusted over the appraisal period where prices are expected to move at a rate other than that of the general price level.

Example: 'It is projected that fuel prices will increase relative to the general price level by x per cent per annum over the appraisal period.'

(b) Forecasting Future Costs and Benefits: Most appraisals will require projections of costs and benefits to be made for future years. Project sponsors may wish to discuss assumptions with OPRAF. Assumptions used should be made explicit, and where they differ from OPRAF recommendations, their justification or source explained.

(c) Treatment of Taxes: For most purposes, prices inclusive of direct and indirect taxes should be used in an appraisal.

(d) Contractual Commitments: Appraisals will need to pay particular attention to contractual commitments in determining the size and timing of any costs and benefits to affected parties.

Undertake Sensitivity and/or Risk Analysis
5.13 Rail projects are inevitably subject to risks and uncertainties, such as those associated with inaccurate or biased forecasting, poor knowledge of costs or commercial changes in competition. An assessment of these, and the consequences for decision-making, will need to form an integral part of the business case. The choice of which inputs to vary will need to reflect the risk sharing inherent in contractual commitments. The Franchising Director will need to understand the consequences for his budget of any risks he is being asked to share. The level of detail required will depend on the scale of the proposal and the perceived degree of uncertainty. Two levels of detail are potentially appropriate:

Sensitivity testing
Scenario analysis.

Calculate Net Present Values
5.14 Costs and benefits will need to be discounted back to a net present value to bring all options to a common basis regardless of their timing. The base year for discounting purposes is typically taken as the first year in which cashflows are affected. The discount rate should be expressed in real terms to be applied to real costs and benefits, that is excluding general inflation.

5.15 For expenditure falling on its budget, OPRAF will adopt the real public sector discount rate, which is currently six per cent.(8)

5.16 Prices charged by service providers will reflect their own discount rates. As a first approximation, OPRAF would expect these to reflect their opportunity cost of capital and would therefore generally expect to take them as given for the purposes of measuring costs and benefits.

Present the Business Case
5.17 The precise contents of a business case presented to OPRAF will depend on the nature and scale of the proposal. Broadly speaking, the results of the sponsor's appraisal should be presented in a manner that most effectively describes the nature of the decision faced by OPRAF. In general, the results of an appraisal should summarise:

The objectives and how the proposal relates to the Government's objectives.
The options considered.
The costs and benefits of each short-listed option which can be expressed in money terms (as a net present value), to whom they are expected to accrue, and how they contribute to the criteria in a A New Deal for Transport. Gainers and losers should be identified where possible.
Other quantified effects, usually expressed as a comparison between options.
Other important effects not quantified in monetary terms or otherwise, including environmental impacts.
The effects of risk and uncertainty, normally expressed as a range of outcomes for the net present value of costs and benefits.
The preferred option based on the above.
How the project is to be funded.
The role expected of OPRAF.
The role expected of train operating companies and other parties, including whether their support has been obtained.
Any implications for existing contracts and/or draft proposals fornew contractual terms.
How the project is to be managed.
The business case will also need to record the price base, the base date for discounting and the discount rate.

5.18 A more detailed analysis that provides additional information on the steps in the appraisal, the underlying assumptions and calculations, and the annual cash flows, will need to be available for consultation.

Appraise the Business Case
5.19 Once a business case has been submitted, OPRAF will want to scrutinise the appraisal, and will wish to consider with project sponsors whether any further information or analysis is required.

Evaluate Project After Implementation
5.20 As an Accounting Officer, the Franchising Director is accountable to Parliament for his public expenditure decisions. Accordingly, OPRAF will establish systems to monitor the out-turn of projects it has supported. These will need to be agreed with project sponsors on a case by case basis.

6 This guidance is intended to reflect, and should be read in conjunction with Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government: Treasury Guidance, HM Treasury, HMSO 1997. However, it is also meant to reflect issues specific to the appraisal of passenger railways.

[[for full document click here]]

Railhub Archive ::: 1999-06-16 SRA-001


Not logged on

2 stories

1 document