THE letter from Alan Hyde, of GNER, (February 9) contains few relevant facts.

Regarding additional services to Leeds, his claim that "a lot of public money has already been spent to create capacity to make this happen" is not true.

No investment has taken place on the East Coast Main Line (ECML) to increase capacity - that is the heart of the problem.

If Network Rail is allowed to carry out infrastructure improvements then the aspirations of both GNER to run a regular half-hourly service to Leeds, as well as Grand Central's to run a service from Bradford via Halifax and Pontefract, can be realised.

His claim that "sufficient track capacity exists between Doncaster and Leeds" is also not true. Network Rail makes it clear that there is little spare capacity left on the ECML - especially for trains that wish to travel at a specific time - as GNER's additions to Leeds do. Leeds-Doncaster is singled out as a particularly congested section of the route.

He refers to Grand Central as a "totally private operator", as if GNER is not! GNER is, of course, an American-owned operator.

His claim that the Office of Rail Regulation's Sunderland decision will result in "investment inertia" and the abandonment of the proposal to electrify east of Leeds to Hambleton is ridiculous. If adequate additional capacity cannot be provided between Leeds and Doncaster, then the Hambleton route appears as the only realistic alternative.

This electrification would be a Network Rail investment - not GNER's.

The provision for "open access" operators in the Railways Act 1993 was to stimulate competition and prevent complacency among incumbent franchise holders. North of Doncaster, GNER has no (railway) competition to London and it is fighting hard to keep it that way.

Roger Bastin,

Treasurer,

Transport 2000 (North Yorkshire),

Temple Lane, York.

Updated: 11:11 Wednesday, February 15, 2006