APPENDIX 2

DEPARTMENT for TRANSPORT

INTERCITY WEST COAST FRANCHISE CONSULTATION

RESPONSE FROM CITY COUNCIL

MARCH 2011

Introduction

Glasgow City Council (GCC) welcomes this opportunity to comment on the proposed DfT specification for the new Intercity West Coast (ICWC) franchise, which is to commence in April 2012 and will replace the franchise currently operated by . It is noted that comments are specifically requested on aspects of the proposals noted in Section 7 of the Consultation Document. These are set out in the next section of this response with comments on other sections of the document following.

Comments on Section 7 – The proposed DfT specification

Train Service Requirements

As intimated at the Glasgow stakeholders’ briefing on this consultation, Glasgow City Council will supply details of the enhancements required during the 2014 Commonwealth Games as regards the capacity and frequency of train services on the (WCML) operated through this franchise. It is envisaged that these additional services will be presented to accredited bidders once selected, in a similar fashion to that adopted for the Olympic Games’ services.

Glasgow City Council’s responses to the questions listed as potential changes to train service requirements are as follows:

Should the Euston-Glasgow service be enhanced to hourly?

Emphatically yes, an hourly service should be provided throughout the day. Crowding on those services currently operating on a 2-hourly basis indicates that this modest increase in service provision is now essential.

What is the appropriate balance for London-Glasgow services between fast journey times with few intermediate stops and slower times with more stops?

In general, it is suggested that the stopping pattern on all Euston services should reflect the gradual reduction in the number of Long Distance High Speed (LDHS) services operating over the WCML with increasing distance from London by including intermediate station stops only on the northern sections of routes. For Glasgow this translates as Preston being the first northbound stop for all services. In order that all stations north of Preston benefit from direct London services at a reasonable frequency and, at the same time, fast journey times are available for those travelling between London and Glasgow, it is recommended that services are scheduled to stop only at Preston on a two-hourly basis, with trains in alternate hours stopping additionally at intermediate stations north of Preston.

L:\Cmtserv\Committees\Regeneration and the Economy PDC\Meetings\2011\0803\item 3 app 2.doc APPENDIX 2

If instead, the number of intermediate station stops were to be equalised across all services, most intermediate stations would still receive only a two-hourly service, while the end-to-end journey time for the route would be longer for all services than that achievable on the two-hourly basis with the recommended service pattern. Since the ‘equalised stop’ service would probably involve trains stopping at alternate stations in alternate hours, it is likely that it would be impossible to travel between certain intermediate stations on a single train. With the preferred arrangement of ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ services in alternate hours, the slow service would facilitate direct travel between any two stations on the route north of Preston.

Which intermediate stations should be served by Glasgow trains, and how frequently?

To strike a reasonable balance between a fast end-to-end journey time and connectivity to intermediate stations, GCC’s preferred service pattern would be: x one train per hour throughout the day in each direction between London and Glasgow stopping at Preston and ; x alternate London/Glasgow services (1 train per 2 hours) stopping additionally at Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster; x one train per two hours throughout the day in each direction between Glasgow and Birmingham stopping at, Lockerbie, Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan NW, Warrington BQ and Crewe;

Carlisle is included as an additional stop on the fast services to and from Glasgow for two reasons: x Line speeds in the area are currently restricted to 25 mph. Consequently, a stop here is expected to reduce end-to-end journey times to a lesser extent than would normally be the case for an additional intermediate stop. x Connectivity at Carlisle has been identified as an issue in ’s RUSs. Given the large number of interchange opportunities provided at Carlisle, it appears sensible to maximise calls there by WCML services.

A major advantage of this suggested service pattern is that long distance services between London and Glasgow are no longer attractive for use by London commuters, or indeed those commuting short distances into towns and cities along the route south of Preston. This should practically eliminate crowding on London/Glasgow services without the need for either longer or more frequent trains.

Should the spare off-peak path be used to provide an hourly service between Euston and Preston (or Lancaster or Blackpool) to serve intermediate stations, such as Warrington and Wigan, thus enabling these calls to be removed from the Glasgow trains, with consequent journey time reductions between London and Glasgow?

Yes, see above. It is suggested that the additional hourly service operates between London and Lancaster/Blackpool (alternate hours) stopping at Preston, Wigan NW, Warrington BQ, Milton Keynes and Rugby/Nuneaton (alternate hours).

However, GCC suggests that, rather than provide this additional service only during the off-peak period (utilising only the specified spare path), it should operate throughout the day by subsuming the paths used by the additional Glasgow services which leave Euston during the pm peak period. These services currently continue to Glasgow but would, in this scenario, terminate at Lancaster or Blackpool. The reasoning here is that, if station stops south of Preston are removed from the northbound pm peak hour services in the same way as is currently proposed during

L:\Cmtserv\Committees\Regeneration and the Economy PDC\Meetings\2011\0803\item 3 app 2.doc APPENDIX 2

the off-peak period, there will be sufficient capacity for passengers destined north of Preston on one train per hour. The operation of the additional service throughout the day will provide: x a direct service throughout the day between Euston and Blackpool; x potential to omit the Lancaster stop from the slower service to Glasgow thereby reducing the end-to-end journey time of this service; x a regular hourly service between London and Glasgow throughout the day and not just off-peak.

Is 3 trains per hour the appropriate level of service between London and each of Birmingham and Manchester, and for how many hours of the day should such a service level operate?

No comment

What is the appropriate frequency of service between Milton Keynes and north- west England?

An hourly service is considered appropriate as provided by the additional Blackpool/Lancaster service suggested above. This will facilitate interchange at Preston for passengers travelling between Glasgow and Milton Keynes. This additional connectivity would be welcomed by GCC. There may also be a requirement for services operating between Manchester/ and Milton Keynes but GCC comments here only on services with connection to Glasgow.

Does the West Coast InterCity operator have a role to play in the provision of commuter services between Milton Keynes and London, or would commuters overcrowd the InterCity services?

If Milton Keynes is to be included as a station stop on services to the North West, trains operating during the peak periods will inevitably be attractive to those commuting between London and Milton Keynes. Given that a significant number of those travelling between London and the North West in the peak periods will themselves be commuters, it does not appear unreasonable for WCML services travelling up to 200 miles from London to play a role in the provision of commuter services.

Should off-peak services be provided between London and each of Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield, or does the existing hourly service provided by London Midland cater adequately for these flows?

No comment

Is there a case for allocating Pendolinos to some of the Birmingham to Scotland services (to provide greater capacity) whilst allocating diesel-powered Voyagers to some Euston services so that direct trains can be operated to destinations, such as Blackpool North, that lie on non-electrified routes?

Yes. Wherever possible rolling stock should be powered from the overhead 25Kv system to improve the sustainability of rail travel as regards carbon emissions. It appears sensible to use diesel-powered Voyagers on lines not fitted with overhead line equipment and allocate Pendolinos to electrified lines, particularly where trains of their capacity are required. Until such time as the route between Scotland and Manchester is fully electrified, consideration could be given to redistributing some of

L:\Cmtserv\Committees\Regeneration and the Economy PDC\Meetings\2011\0803\item 3 app 2.doc APPENDIX 2

the Class 221 stock to Trans Pennine Express for use on its Manchester/Scotland service. Once this route and those to Blackpool and Liverpool are fully electrified, the will be a good case for redistributing the Class 221 stock to non-electrified routes elsewhere on the network or converting it to be powered from the overhead system.

What level of service should be provided at smaller stations on the network such as Motherwell, Lockerbie and Penrith?

Wherever possible an hourly service should be provided at all stations, even if this entails passengers from a small station travelling only one or two stops before changing trains. GCC would like to see the calling pattern of 2-hourly Euston services suggested above combined with the 2-hourly services between /Glasgow and Birmingham/Manchester to provide this hourly service at all stations.

What level of service should be provided between stations such as Oxenholme and Penrith?

As above, GCC considers that an hourly service should be provided between stations such as Oxenholme and Penrith. For these two stations in particular, GCC suggests that the 2-hourly slow service between Glasgow and Euston is combined with the 2-hourly service between Glasgow and Manchester to provide this hourly service.

Is there a case for more InterCity services to call at Watford Junction and/or Rugby?

GCC considers that there is a case for InterCity services running between, say, London and Preston to call at Rugby to provide connections from Glasgow, via Preston, to smaller stations in the Midlands area. However, in view of the proximity of Watford Junction to London, it is suggested that southbound services should stop to set down only, while northbound services would only pick up passengers. A reverse calling pattern would be appropriate at Motherwell, where travel between Motherwell and Glasgow is amply provided by local services.

Stakeholders are asked to suggest alternative suggestions that they believe will be affordable, value for money and provide a strong commercial or economic case.

1. As suggested above for the pattern of London/Glasgow services, consideration should be given to terminating the sub-hourly services, currently scheduled to leave Euston during the evening peak period, south of the Border. These services combine with the regular hourly services between London and Glasgow to provide additional capacity for commuters leaving London. The additional stops scheduled en route to Glasgow, for both these and the regular hourly services at this time of day, result in extended journey times to Glasgow and crowding on all services for a significant proportion of their journeys. Maintaining the proposed stopping pattern for the hourly services to Glasgow and operating this hourly service throughout the peak period would separate LDHS and commuter traffic providing shorter journey times to Glasgow and little, if any, crowding on these trains. Meantime, additional capacity would be available for commuters on the curtailed-length services (which could comprise 11-car trains), as passengers for stations north of Lancaster

L:\Cmtserv\Committees\Regeneration and the Economy PDC\Meetings\2011\0803\item 3 app 2.doc APPENDIX 2

could no longer use them for direct services.

2. The removal of some station stops (e.g. Warrington BQ and Wigan NW) from Euston/Glasgow services has been suggested as a means of reducing crowding on these services, while simultaneously reducing end- to-end journey times. This should also be considered for Birmingham/Scotland services as an alternative to train lengthening, where skipped stations can be adequately served by alternative services operating over shorter distances. For example, if there is additional demand for trips between Birmingham and Wolverhampton to that which can be met by the currently scheduled local services, it would surely be better to augment these services, possibly by train lengthening, rather than to accommodate these passengers as standees on LDHS services to and from Scotland. Scheduling these hourly LDHS services to call on a two hourly basis at alternate Cumbrian stations would further reduce journey times between Edinburgh/Glasgow and Birmingham, which are currently little short of those for services between Euston and Glasgow.

Managing Capacity

GCC’s answers to the questions posed under this head are as follows.

Should rolling stock be redistributed on to alternative services?

Yes, wherever possible rolling stock should be deployed to provide sufficient capacity to meet demand without the need for standing passengers on LDHS services, while simultaneously maximising load factors for its efficient use. The franchisee should be allowed flexibility to redistribute rolling stock to alternative services as required to meet changes in demand.

Can yield management techniques be used to smooth demand?

To some extent, yield management can smooth demand but not entirely. Where it is used, it is important to ensure that those who have paid a premium to travel during period of high demand receive the comfort and service for which they have paid.

Can changes to ticket time restrictions alter demand?

Here too, the answer is yes, to a limited extent. However, there will always be some passengers unable to vary their time of travel and other means will be necessary to meet excessive demand in these circumstances.

Will additional rolling stock be required? If so, when? And can it be sourced and funded?

Additional rolling stock will undoubtedly be required to extend London/Glasgow to an hourly frequency throughout the day and to provide an additional service between Euston and Lancaster/Blackpool, as suggested above. GCC has no knowledge as to whether these requirements can be fully met from the existing stock available to the operator and that scheduled to be delivered within the first few months of the franchise.

How quickly can the congestion be relieved?

L:\Cmtserv\Committees\Regeneration and the Economy PDC\Meetings\2011\0803\item 3 app 2.doc APPENDIX 2

Congestion on LHDS services could be relieved from day one of the new franchise by alterations to stopping patterns which remove short distance commuters from LDHS services. However, such a move would most likely shift the congestion to more local services. Ultimately, congestion will only be eliminated by the creation of more capacity, such as that currently proposed by HS2. In the interim, train lengthening and, where paths are available, more frequent services appear to be the main options.

Are there any other ways to relieve crowding?

As suggested above, removal of intermediate stops appears the most promising alternative means of reducing crowding on LDHS InterCity services. This has the additional benefit of simultaneously reducing journey times. The only other way would appear to be a move to pre-booking all seats on a train. However, this is also likely to shift the crowding on to other (non-booked) services rather than eliminate it all together. A compromise could be to reserve some coaches for pre-booked travel, while others were available for walk-on passengers. However, this could result in less efficient use of all available capacity than might otherwise be the case.

Fares, ticketing and revenue protection

Respondents are encouraged to consider how best to minimise revenue loss across the franchise and how fares on this franchise could be made easier to understand.

GCC suggests that, for LDHS services, on-train ticket inspection remains the best means of minimising revenue loss. Ultimately, advances in smartcard technology should deliver better revenue protection for individual franchise holders, with on-train inspectors able to scan tickets to record journeys as they are made and accurately claim fare revenue paid to central ticket agencies. Flexible payment regimes, with discounts for early booking, on-line booking and off-peak services are now commonplace throughout the travel industry but they do lead to confusion.

It is suggested the fare structure could be made easier to understand if there were a standard published fare for each service. This could be varied by a premium for certain peak journeys, or a reduction for certain lightly loaded journeys, in order to encourage load spreading. Cheaper fares may also be offered for ‘stand by’ passengers within one hour of travel where there is spare capacity.

Passenger Information

Respondents are encouraged to consider how best to communicate with passengers across the franchise.

The reason for use of the phrase ‘across the franchise’ is unclear. While an operator may well wish to make passengers aware of the services offered ‘across the franchise’, passengers themselves are likely to be more concerned to get accurate information about the service they are currently using and any connecting services or rail services in general ‘across the network’. It is suggested that operators address this issue from these perspectives.

Information should be provided at stations giving accurate, up-to-date, information on current services and any disruption to them. Where stations are not operated by the

L:\Cmtserv\Committees\Regeneration and the Economy PDC\Meetings\2011\0803\item 3 app 2.doc APPENDIX 2 franchisee, the Specification should set out clearly the information which the franchisee is to provide to the station operator and on what basis (e.g. how frequently). Most InterCity trains are now fitted with appropriate facilities to transmit real time information to passengers on board, in terms of both visual displays and intercom systems. The problem is one of ensuring that these systems convey accurate information and are used when required throughout the journey. The Specification should set out detailed requirements in these respects.

To ensure that agencies disseminating information as to the current availability and operation of rail services across the network have the necessary information available, the Specification should also set out clear requirements of the franchisee in this respect. While it should not be difficult for the franchisee to make available, well in advance, details of services which are intended to be operated, timeous notification of disruptions to services will be more problematic. It is suggested that the franchisee is asked to state precisely how much information will be made available when services are disrupted, how soon it will be made available and to whom.

Managing Disruption

Respondents are encouraged to consider how best to keep passengers informed during times of disruption.

Bidders should be requested to demonstrate that they have given specific consideration to managing the inevitable disruption to their services, which will result from the reconstruction of Euston station by HS2 during the period of this franchise. It is here that the HS2 proposals will have the greatest impact on this ICWC franchise, rather than in terms of abstraction of passengers on to HS2, which will only occur once the new high speed line is operational.

It is envisaged that it will be possible for passengers to be informed well in advance of changes to platform arrangements at Euston as the HS2 works progress, utilising all the usual media. The use of existing electronic display equipment and p.a. systems is suggested as the best means of conveying real-time service information to passengers.

Catering

Respondents are encouraged to consider what level of catering provision should be provided.

GCC suggests that a basic catering service (equivalent to that provided by a trolley service) is provided at all times on LDHS services and that hot food should be available on services with end-to-end journey times in excess of 3 hours. Catering at a level greater than this would be a matter for franchisees to offer as they see fit, as would the means of delivery (i.e. trolley service or shop/cafe/bar). Lack of on-board catering, while not necessarily an issue when services run as scheduled, almost always becomes one during periods of disruption, particularly if no drinks are available. It is considered that the routine provision of catering services could assist in reducing complaints and passenger frustration when services are disrupted.

Improving the environmental performance of the railway

L:\Cmtserv\Committees\Regeneration and the Economy PDC\Meetings\2011\0803\item 3 app 2.doc APPENDIX 2

Respondents are encouraged to consider what environmental key performance indicators (KPIs) should be set within the franchise specification.

The average quantity of CO2 emitted per passenger-mile throughout the franchise should feature in the assessment of bids from operators. To enable bids to be compared on an equitable basis, bidders should be required to specify details as to the CO2 emissions generated by each type of rolling stock and the passenger loadings envisaged on a route-mile basis for each service, throughout a typical week in a specific month of the year. Analysis of bids in this way should ensure that the 11-car Class 390 stock is allocated to the services where it will be most efficiently used and that movements of lightly loaded vehicles and ‘dead’ mileage are minimised. The analysis should also ensure that diesel-powered rolling stock is utilised, insofar as is practicable, only in the absence of overhead line equipment.

Comments on Section 4 – Objectives for the franchise

This section should make reference to the delivery of services during the 2014 Commonwealth Games in a similar manner to that adopted for the 2012 Olympics.

Comments on Section 5 – Franchise length

The reference here to bidders having difficulty in pricing within their proposals the abstractive effect of high speed services to Birmingham is confusing. The reason for tendering a 14 year franchise is clearly stated as being a consequence of HS2 becoming operational from 2026. The whole point here is surely that this franchise can be let without reference to the potential for abstraction from the existing ICWC franchise.

On the other hand, it is agreed that bidders will need to make allowance for the likely disruption to their services at Euston during its reconstruction to accommodate HS2.

Comments on other Section 6 – Schemes, Stakeholders and other initiatives

High Speed 2

Respondents are encouraged to consider issues arising from the planned development of HS2 - particularly in that the bidding community may find it difficult to price within their proposals the effects of either the introduction of a new service pattern or its abstractive effect at this stage.

As noted above for Section 5, there appears to be no need for bidders for this franchise to consider the abstractive effect of HS2, which will not commence operation during the lifetime of this franchise. It is suggested that the text on pages 37 – 39 is removed from the bid documentation, with reference under this head made only to the potential disruption arising from the proposed reconstruction of Euston station.

Other schemes

L:\Cmtserv\Committees\Regeneration and the Economy PDC\Meetings\2011\0803\item 3 app 2.doc APPENDIX 2

We would welcome comments on what the most important investment priorities should be for the franchise and respondents are asked to highlight any other schemes that are likely to be delivered during the life of the next franchise. We also welcome proposals for alternative approaches on these and other priorities to enable them to be achieved at a reduced cost.

Glasgow City Council considers the electrification of the route between Preston and Blackpool to be the most important investment priority for the franchise, as this will facilitate electric operation of the additional Euston/Lancaster/Blackpool service, thereby eliminating the need for stops south of Preston on Euston/Glasgow services.

GCC will be encouraging Network Rail and Transport Scotland to consider track realignment at Carstairs junction and the provision of a new dedicated route for LDHS services between Carstairs and Glasgow city centre to increase linespeed and reduce conflicts. It is considered that these improvements would result in small, but extremely significant, reductions in journey times and improvements in reliability for the ICWC franchised operator.

Franchise remapping

Stakeholders are asked to highlight any amendments to service providers that they would like to propose as part of a remapping exercise.

Contrary to what is stated on page 17 of the consultation document, the only significant competition with other TOCs on the northern section of the WCML is that with Trans Pennine Express between Glasgow and Preston. The competition previously provided by East Coast trains has largely evaporated due to the requirement to change at Edinburgh for most services. Similarly the routeing of Cross Country services via Edinburgh has significantly reduced their attractiveness for Glasgow passengers.

In these circumstances, consideration should perhaps be given to subsuming the Scotland/Manchester services within the ICWC franchise and also including a Scotland/Liverpool service. This could improve the integration of services operating over the WCML north of Preston to give passengers a seamless experience where a single journey involves the use of more than one service. Consideration could also be given to remapping the ICWC franchise to include an extension of the Scotland/Birmingham services to Bristol and Cardiff.

Alternatively, if it is considered that Glasgow passengers would benefit from more competition, Scotland/Birmingham services could be transferred into another franchise.

L:\Cmtserv\Committees\Regeneration and the Economy PDC\Meetings\2011\0803\item 3 app 2.doc