Cross Country rail franchise

Consultation response from the Association of Community Rail Partnerships August 2018

About us

The Association of Community Rail Partnerships (ACoRP) is a national, not-for-profit umbrella organisation working across Britain to support, advocate and represent the community rail movement. The community rail movement is made up of hundreds of small community groups, such as station adoption groups, and larger and more formal community rail partnerships (CRPs) that work along whole or multiple lines, connecting communities with their railways.

Community rail partnerships and groups carry out a wide range of activities, including: • promoting understanding and use of the railways, such as communicating local developments or encouraging rail travel for leisure and tourism purposes; • helping communities support, feed into and influence their railway and station’s development so it better meets their needs, such as coordinating volunteer groups to maintain and enhance stations, or advising train operators on local needs and demand; • bringing disused station property back into community use, such as by achieving renovations, setting up community group spaces, or running social enterprises; • running a range of activities to bring people together and tackle social exclusion linked to the railways, such as local events, creative projects and educational programmes.

The value of such work was set out in a 2015 Transport Regeneration report on the value of community rail, commissioned by the Department for Transport-run National Community Rail Steering Group. This found that CRPs more than pay for themselves, contributing £3.4m per annum in volunteering hours alone, bringing social and economic value, and seeing passenger growth well above average1. A more recent 2017 report by ACoRP, What’s been achieved through community rail?, produced in consultation with the Department for Transport and its National Community Rail Steering Group, includes more qualitative analysis of the range of ways community rail has delivered positive outcomes for the railways and communities they serve.

ACoRP’s membership includes all 60 CRPs, and many more local groups. Our work includes providing a year-round programme of training opportunities and seminars, resources and materials, annual awards recognising and sharing good practice in community rail, and supporting members through ad hoc advice, planning support, facilitating networking and relationship development, and sharing ideas and experience.

We are funded by the Department for Transport (DfT) to support and enhance community rail in England, including through events and resources, advising on the community rail movement at

1 Transport Regeneration on behalf of the National Community Rail Steering Group, 2015, ‘The Value of Community Rail Partnerships and Community Rail Volunteering’ national and regional level, and providing direct support to CRPs and smaller groups. We also receive funding from a range of industry partners, Welsh Government, and some devolved authorities. ACoRP remains a relatively small organisation (with 14 team members), but has undergone significant expansion and reorganisation in the past two years. Therefore we have been significantly stepping up our work to support members and promote community rail, working collaboratively with the DfT to help the community rail movement realise its potential.

We are looking forward to the publication of the DfT’s new community rail strategy, which we will work with the DfT and our members to bring to life, helping community rail to further develop its impact on sustainable and healthy travel, access to opportunity, social inclusion, and economic and community development.

Summary of our response

It should be noted that alongside our response to this consultation, as the national umbrella body for community rail, several of our community rail partnership members have responded directly. We therefore encourage attention towards their responses for more detailed perspectives on how the franchise can be developed in relation to their organisations and localities. We have not duplicated their views in our response, instead aiming to give our broader view related to the franchise as a whole and drawing on our general experience supporting community rail. However, we have drawn on their perspectives and included examples where relevant.

To summarise our position, we believe that the new franchise should seek to nurture and enhance valuable community rail work being delivered across the Cross Country network. This is important in enabling community rail to deliver greater social and economic value to local communities and railways, and in achieving the objectives and overcoming challenges set out in the consultation. The unique position and contribution of community rail partnerships and smaller groups like station friends and social enterprises – rooted in and driven by their communities, but well connected, informed, and passionate about their railways – means they offer an important bridge between the rail industry and the communities it serves. Evidence on community rail’s capacity to deliver value to the railways, their passengers and local communities is set out in ACoRP’s reports, What’s been achieved through community rail?, Community Stations, and Community Rail and Social Inclusion, and in case studies compiled from our Community Rail Awards winners2. Explicit recognition of this role within the franchise is critical because the contribution that community rail makes is dependent on receiving appropriate funding and support, and on the train operator and other partners taking a collaborative approach. As much as possible, community rail work should be integrated with wider efforts to develop the franchise, given the way that community rail can help franchisees better understand and meet local needs.

The new franchise holder’s support should be delivered in a way that is respectful of community rail’s independence and unique position as a grassroots, community-driven movement, drawing on this position and community rail perspectives and understanding, rather than attempting to control its activities. In other words, it should be a partnership approach, founded on collaboration, communication and respect. However, it should also be provided in an intelligent way that is orientated around community rail organisations’ needs, integrated with wider work by ACoRP to support community rail, and aligned with wider franchise and government objectives. As the umbrella body for community rail partnerships and smaller groups, ACoRP would be pleased to work in partnership with the franchise holder to advise and assist their engagement and support of community rail, and we welcome ongoing dialogue with bidders on this. We suggest that this joined-up working with ACoRP might be especially valuable with a franchise like Cross Country where community rail stakeholders are dispersed across the country and operating in diverse contexts. We set out in detail under question 41 our role in working alongside the franchise holder to support community rail, and how this relates to franchise

2 Association of Community Rail Partnerships, 2017, ‘What’s been achieved in community rail?’, ‘Community Stations: innovative community uses for railway stations and land’, and ‘Community Rail Awards 2017 winners’. All reports and many more community rail case studies can be found at www.communityrail.org.uk. priorities. We also urge that bidders engage directly with our members to hear about their aims and aspirations, which ACoRP can facilitate if helpful.

We would additionally direct to our comprehensive response to the DfT’s national consultation on the Future of Community Rail earlier this year. This sets out our expert views on the spectrum of ways that community rail can benefit and add value to the railways, communities and society, through helping communities to have a voice in rail development, improving accessibility, mobility, sustainability and social inclusion, and ensuring that maximum social benefit is derived from our railways. It also provides a detailed view on how community rail can be supported and enhanced by government and industry to grow, develop and achieve greater impact. Our main recommendations for the DfT’s strategy that are of relevance to the Cross Country franchise are:

• A strong focus on sustainable, healthy, accessible end-to-end journeys for all – we recommend a clear focus specifically on achieving sustainable and healthy journeys that are accessible for all, including affordable journeys. • Support the development of community rail’s capacity, capabilities and independence – central to the strategy should be the DfT’s commitment to ongoing work with ACoRP to help community rail to achieve more, through greater, more diverse funding, and development of skills, confidence and capability. This should include ongoing development of rail industry support, and attention to how community rail’s independence and unique position as a grassroots movement is protected and enhanced. • Removal of bureaucratic and other barriers to community rail delivery – we recommend the DfT works with ACoRP and rail industry (through the National Community Rail Steering Group) to undertake an action plan to overcome practical and bureaucratic barriers to community rail delivery, such as related to accessibility and integrated transport, and ensure clear, efficient processes for community rail to engage with industry. • Championing and communicating community rail – including in official guidance and funding requirements, through industry events and training, aiding development of links with third sector (especially to support diverse engagement and social inclusion), local and devolved authorities and local enterprise partnerships (LEPs), and supporting community rail to communicate its own achievements and plans. • Use of refranchising to support community rail’s development – DfT can use rail franchising to further support community rail’s development, ensuring not only a sustainable funding base and greater capacity, but also protecting its independence, ensuring genuine collaboration and engagement, and engendering a positive environment for community rail to work with government and industry to develop the rail ‘brand’. In additional to recommendations on how the new Cross Country franchise should engage with and support community rail, we have also drawn on our wider understanding of the railways and how passengers and communities perceive and engage with it, and our experiences as a team using rail for work purposes, to provide suggestions to do with other aspects of the franchise’s development. This relates to addressing the challenges of overcrowding, which we support as a priority, but caution against solutions that create disadvantages and frustrations elsewhere. We also suggest how work to improve accessibility across the franchise, and the related issues of affordability and integrated mobility – and to improve perceptions of the franchise – could be delivered in close partnership with community rail to positive effect. Response

1. Are you responding: Y on behalf of an organisation? (Go to question 2)

as an individual? (Go to question 3)

2. Name of organisation Association of Community Rail Partnerships

Questions 3-7 appear to be aimed at individuals, so we have not responded to these.

8. How did you hear about this consultation?

Poster Internet Station e-board On train consultation Y Other: DfT communications

Passenger survey We have responded to questions 9-21 based on our team’s experience of regularly using Cross Country trains for work purposes (i.e. travel to community rail groups around the country), combined with our knowledge and experience within the community rail field.

9. What are the particular services, routes and times of day where you think crowding on Cross Country services needs to be addressed most urgently?

We are aware of the following particular needs, based on our team’s experiences using these services: - – at peak and shoulder times, i.e. 07:00–10:00 and 15:00–19:00; - The –Birmingham/ peak time trains, which are often only two or three coaches but pick up significant numbers of passengers commuting into Derby and Birmingham; - Services on the Leicester– and Ely–Cambridge sections of the route, which is only an hourly service but is often crowded with passengers travelling to Stansted Airport.

10. Rank the following in order of priority for improvement for your future Cross Country services. Rank 1 for most important to 6 for least important. more additional summer only services 6 later times of last trains 5 more frequent weekend services 2 earlier Sunday morning services 3 earlier times of first trains 4 more frequent weekday services 1

Which routes and stations and why? More frequent services through the core could also enable more destinations towards the end of routes to experience a better service, such as out to , north of and north of .

11. What changes would you like to see to the way Cross Country currently sells and provides tickets?

See response to question 37 below.

12. What changes would you like to see to the Advanced Purchase on the day (APOD) system?

We generally welcome innovations like this that aim to maximise use of our railways and provide a good deal for passengers. However, there are some notable issues with this scheme, as is acknowledged in the consultation. It can be frustrating and embarrassing for a long-distance passenger who has to move seats during a journey if their seat gets booked, and awkward for the passenger who has booked the seat. There may be no spare unreserved seats for that passenger to move to. If the scheme is to continue, improvements are needed to the information provided to passengers. The ‘Reservable en route’ message, which may not be entirely obvious, appears to cause confusion among some people, and, once seated, passengers cannot easily see if this message has changed and their seat has been booked. This often leads to awkward exchanges between passengers who have booked a seat last-minute, who find they have to ask someone who is settled to move (or stand), and who may not understand why. It would also be useful to have one unreserved coach per train set, and to advertise this on platforms for those boarding without seat reservations.

13. What additional information would be useful to you when planning your journeys or making connections onto other services?

Clearer connection times on the train would be helpful, including updates on whether your current train is running on time or not and which platform to head to if connections are tight. Some crew members are very good at this, while others don’t bother, or provide only partial information. This is important when trains are late as Cross Country has no staff on stations.

14. How would you like the information (in question above) communicated to you?

Clear, concise announcements should be made in good time, as well as information available from train crew if needed, and via mobile apps. While more of us are increasingly using apps for information to plan journeys and get updates en route, it should be remembered that this is dependent on having a good mobile signal or wifi access, which is not always available (or freely available) while using the rail network. Cross Country trains currently do not offer free wifi, which is unhelpful for those trying to access journey information on the move. More could also be made of coach-end displays, but they don’t always offer updated information at present.

15. How do you believe Cross Country staff could be more effective in providing service and assistance that passengers need on a modern railway network?

See our detailed response to question 38 below, on accessibility. Deploying platform staff from Cross Country at major interchange points – or otherwise ensuring comprehensive, inclusive and accessible information is readily available – would also no doubt be helpful.

16. What comment do you have on improving the overall passenger experience before, during and after the journey?

Aside from the suggestions made above, and the ideas explored in more detail below on ticket buying (question 37), accessibility (question 38), passenger ‘churn’ (question 39) and working with community rail to ensure community needs are at the forefront of changes (questions 40- 41), we suggest that the passenger experience would be notably improved through: - Improving information on Cross Country services at stations, especially major interchange points (see also comments under question 39 relating to this); - Offering free wifi, and improving its speed and reliability, helping passengers to make productive use of their time, and access information about their journey and destination as they travel. This seems particularly relevant for a franchise so well used for leisure/tourism purposes, and is also important for making rail travel more appealing for younger audiences especially, who put greater priority on being connected; - A more consistently-provided, better quality catering service (see also below).

17. How could the way in which Cross Country deals with your complaints and provides compensation to you be improved?

N/A

18. Rank your priorities for improvement to the carriage layout for long distance inter-city Cross Country trains? Rank 1 for most important to 7 for least important.

More seats 1

More table seats as opposed to ‘airline’ seats 6

More comfortable room for short distance standing 2

Cycle storage 4

Seats that align with windows 7

Greater leg-room 5

Extra room for luggage 3

Where and when do you think these facilities are most required? As acknowledged in the consultation, overcrowding is clearly the major issue on the core routes, hence we have ranked these priorities highest. However, we would stress the importance of addressing this through more and longer trains, rather than just squeezing in more seats.

Aside from this, we have ordered the above based on our own experiences and observations, and emphasise that we would support all of these measures as positive steps to improve the experience of using Cross Country trains. We also point out that, at present, some of the facilities listed above vary greatly, not only according to which train/route you are on, but where on the train you are, and hence this ranking exercise is not straight forward. For example, there may be greater luggage storage further along the train, but you may not be aware or able to access this. Consideration, therefore, needs to be given to providing such facilities in a way that enables passengers to take full advantage in practice, even on crowded trains.

19. Rank your priorities for improvement to the carriage layout for local trains on Cross Country? Rank 1 for most important to 7 for least important.

More seats 1

More table seats as opposed to ‘airline’ seats 6

More comfortable room for short distance standing 2

Cycle storage 4

Seats that align with windows 7

Greater leg-room 5

Extra room for luggage 3

20. What other comments or suggestions do you have about the on-board experience?

The catering offer ought to be improved and be served longer, including Sundays. Clearly, this is sometimes affected by overcrowding meaning the trolley cannot get through, however there is also inconsistency and a lack of advance information, meaning passengers are unlikely to feel confident whether there will be on-board catering or not. This is likely to affect revenue as well as passengers’ experience. Improvements should also include offering healthier options, and greater consideration to sustainability and reducing waste, especially single-use plastics. For example, at present, Cross Country’s on board catering staff refuse to make tea or coffee in a reusable cup on health and safety grounds, even though they have lids and are sturdier than paper cups. This conflicts with the values of anyone using the train for sustainability reasons, and undermines the important message that travelling by train is more environmentally-friendly.

21. Do you have any other views on how the future Cross Country franchise could be improved that have not been captured in the questions above?

We emphasise that efforts to improve the passenger experience and otherwise develop the franchise can be beneficially integrated with community rail activity, drawing on community rail perspectives on such changes, and working with community rail to communicate improvements. If community rail organisations are consulted, engaged and informed about forthcoming changes well in advance, they can not only act as a critical friend to the train operator, but also perform an important role in building awareness and positivity about them at a grassroots level – including, importantly, helping to convey how community voices were heard and that the train industry is listening to what people need and want from their rail services. See questions 40-44.

We have completed the remainder of the consultation (questions 23-44) based on our experience and knowledge of supporting community rail, and working with the rail industry to do so (including the current franchise holder), drawing on input from community rail partnerships on the Cross Country network.

Crowding issues and ideas to respond to

23. Which of the following potential measures do you think could overcome crowding caused by short distance commuters using long distance Cross Country trains, assuming that suitable alternative services are available?

Removing calls from towns closest the conurbation centre either completely or just at peak times.

Yes or No? N

Retaining calls at such stations but restricting them to pickup/set down only?

Yes or No? N

Removing the validity of multi-modal tickets on long distance trains?

Yes or No? N

Other:

Provide specific instances where these may be applicable. While we very much support efforts to reduce overcrowding, and think this is urgently needed on the Cross Country franchise, we suggest that generally these options are not an ideal way to do it, unless, in regards to the first two options, there is assurance that alternative services are available and passengers won’t suffer a drop in service provision. Otherwise, such steps are likely to produce problems and frustrations for some passengers, and will seem like a backwards step, especially if some stations are seeing fewer services as a result. It may also appear, to inconvenienced passengers, that their needs are being side-lined to favour other passengers elsewhere having more room, which is likely to be damaging in relation to perceptions of the rail network. There are also practical difficulties of implementing such changes, highlighted in the consultation document (p20).

We therefore suggest that, unless options for skip-stopping are identified that will offer capacity benefits and where there is alternative provision for passengers at those stations with equivalent regularity, the focus should be on improving capacity through the steps set out under (1) on p19 of the consultation, i.e. providing longer trains through cascading, leasing, and/or possibly redefining the network (see question 29 below).

See also our response to question 33, which sets out why we are opposed to reducing service frequency on some stations, and our response to question 37, which sets out our views on fares and ticketing, including multi-modal tickets.

24. If it were possible would you agree with transferring these local routes to the West Midlands franchise:

Yes No Birmingham to Nottingham Y

Birmingham to Leicester Y

Why? We suggest these routes may sit better with another operator, such as West Midlands or East Midlands, ensuring there is a commitment to serving the local stations along those lines with a better service with good connections at Derby, Birmingham and other major conurbations. This should aid greater focus within the Cross Country franchise on longer-distance travel, and a greater focus with these local routes on serving local communities effectively, and ensuring they get the most from their railways. It also seems to align well with work being taken to offer more integrated, community-orientated sustainable transport provision within the West Midlands and East Midlands. This may also provide opportunity for greater engagement of local communities in the development of these lines, and for community rail activity to be further nurtured. For example, some of these stations, such as Hinckley, are operated by East Midlands Trains even though none of their trains stop there. It would make sense from a community perspective to align the station operator with the franchise operator to improve the links and communications between them and the community.

It should be ensured that any transfer includes provision for effective communication and engagement with community rail groups (there are numerous active station adopters on these lines), and that the new arrangements include suitable support for both existing and emerging community rail activity. To improve the service pattern and network to offer journeys that better meet your needs Use the consultation annex to help inform your response.

25. Would you like to see any other routes or stations transferred to or from the Cross Country franchise? Yes No

Routes to transfer

26. Which routes and stations and why? We have not ticked yes or no to the above as we are not in a position to comment in detail on this question and therefore give a decisive response either way. It seems likely that there may be other routes or stations that might benefit from being transferred to or from the Cross Country franchise for similar reasons to those discussed above, so our recommendation is only that consideration is given to this, and detailed review undertaken of the relative merits and dis- benefits. This should include consideration of local views expressed through this consultation, and more detailed local review and input if changes are on the table.

Changes The East Coast service north of aspirations are listed in the consultation document.

27. If the network was unable to cope with all the service enhancement aspirations north of Northallerton on the East Coast mainline, would a: Yes No curtailment of one of the existing Cross Country services be acceptable (with the resources redeployed to enhance other existing or new routes)? diversion of one of the existing Cross Country services be acceptable (with the resources redeployed to enhance other existing or new routes)? Why / why not? ACoRP does not feel in a position to comment on these options at present as the full implications have not been mapped out. However, we would urge that relevant community rail partnerships are involved in a consultation on these options should such a change be needed, which ACoRP can assist with and feed into as needed. We would also emphasise that, as the consultation suggests, if changes are made it must be ensured that adequate capacity and interchange is available as an alternative.

28. Do you think the department's minimum specification should preserve exactly the existing pattern of services and station calls rather than offer an opportunity to change?

Yes No

Comments:

Extremities of the network changes

The extremities of the network information is listed in the consultation document.

29. Should bidders be given flexibility to make limited changes to the extremities to the network so that benefits such as reduced crowding in the centre of the network can be provided?

Yes Y Yes, but only if alternative services are provided by other operators No

Comments: While we enthusiastically support efforts to reduce overcrowding on the network as a franchise priority, caution is needed to ensure that we are not ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’. Although the extremities of the network may be less used, it is important to acknowledge the importance of such services to local communities, some in more remote locations with a reliance on rail connections for access to employment, education, leisure and business opportunities (including incoming custom from tourists). In this way, even if passenger numbers are lower, the railway may be bringing enhanced value to local people, commuters, families, businesses and economies. A Transport Select Committee inquiry3 highlighted: “Older people, younger people, unemployed people, people on low incomes and disabled people who live in isolated communities rely on passenger transport and are disproportionately affected by inadequate or reduced services. We conclude that policy makers must take the needs of all those vulnerable groups into account rather than making potentially damaging trade-offs between them.”

We therefore strongly urge that service provision should not be reduced, which would arguably go against the aspirations of the Government’s Vision for Rail. The Cross Country network should only be reduced if there are both clear justifications and alternative services available which mean that communities do not see a scaling back of their rail services.

We would also urge that community rail partnerships and groups are engaged and consulted on such changes, to draw on their local knowledge and understanding of rail travel (and ensuring that CRPs’ financial support from industry is not diminished in the process). Community rail can often offer invaluable insights on the local impact of such changes, and, crucially, the way local people may perceive them. This can aid effective local engagement and communications, and ensure that changes are not only known but understood, and the aims behind them appreciated. For example, our members East Lothian CRP tell us that replacing Cross Country services with TPE is likely to be regarded negatively by local people, even if the end results will be better. Working with this CRP and drawing on their understanding could aid any transition. However, the transition itself could also pose uncertainty for CRPs’ funding, which needs to be addressed.

30. Do you agree that the current level of Cross Country services to the following routes are the minimum that must be specified for:

Because this question is ambiguously designed (ticking yes could be interpreted that you think the minimum could be less or more than the current level), we have left it blank. Please see our responses to questions and below for some specific our views on whether services, routes or stations within this franchise might be adjusted. To sum up our views, we believe that overall levels of service should not be reduced at any station or line as a result of changes.

3 House of Commons Transport Committee, 2014, Passenger Transport in Isolated Communities Yes No West of Plymouth to Penzance? Exeter to Paignton? Newton Abbot to Paignton? North of Edinburgh to ? Southampton to Bournemouth? ? Bath? Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads?

31. Do you agree that the changes to the following routes would be acceptable if a similar or improved service was provided by another operator: Yes No West of Plymouth to Penzance? Exeter to Paignton? Newton Abbot to Paignton? North of Edinburgh to Aberdeen? Southampton to Bournemouth? Guildford? Bath? Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads?

Bidder station stop flexibility

32. Should bidders have some flexibility to make fewer calls at some stations, for example if that enabled them to accelerate services?

Yes Y No

33. On what routes could this be introduced? To explain our answer above, we generally urge great caution, and avoidance if possible, of skip-stopping. Generally, we strongly support moves to improve passenger experience and make rail a more attractive travel option, such as by improving capacity and comfort and reducing journey times, especially where research shows that these are particular challenges that need to be addressed. However, care needs to be taken to not compromise the needs of passengers or potential passengers elsewhere along a route, especially where they may have a greater reliance on rail due to relative isolation.

We know from our members that service frequency is of great concern and importance along their lines, and many of our members have worked hard alongside the industry to explore options for, and achieve increased, frequency. Transport Focus’s research related to this franchise shows that frequency is a top five priority (p17 of consultation). We anticipate, therefore, that any decreases in service frequency are likely to be of concern to communities and passengers. We therefore recommend that if reduced stops are being considered on the Cross Country franchise, then it should be ensured that regular, alternative services are offered by another operator.

If shaving a few minutes from journey times means providing some communities with fewer trains, then we would argue against. This is particularly the case with trains that are more comfortable and wifi-connected, enabling people to make the most of their journeys by working or relaxing. Providing reliable, regular and comfortable trains for communities large and small is, from our experience, of far greater importance than marginal improvements to journey times and can make an enormous difference to communities.

We also strongly urge that in any cases where significant changes are being considered to rail services, local communities, as well as existing passengers, should be consulted. This should involve community rail partnerships, station friends and any other local or affected community groups, who may also be able to assist with consultation, before decisions are made. If changes are decided, community rail groups should be kept informed and engaged in the communication and implementation process. We also recommend that in weighing up options, thorough consideration should be given to wider travel patterns and end-to-end journeys, not only ‘the passenger’ from the point they arrive at the station to the point they leave the railway. This should include looking at shifting travel habits, barriers to rail use, and scope to bring about modal shift towards sustainable, healthy travel, as well as the ways people currently travel to and from stations. It should also consider perceptions of such changes, and work with community rail to understand what people are saying and thinking, as well as to communicate changes effectively.

Minimum specification

34. Should the minimum specification have the number of trains from each station to Birmingham but give bidders the flexibility to decide where the trains go after Birmingham?

Yes No

35. Are there stations within the geography of the Cross Country network that should receive calls that they currently do not receive (include examples and supporting evidence)?

We are not able to provide comment on this level of detail, but direct to our members’ responses to the consultation, which may contain useful suggestions.

36. Are there stations beyond the geography of the Cross Country network that should receive calls that they currently do not receive (include examples and supporting evidence)?

We are not able to provide comment on this level of detail, but direct to our members’ responses to the consultation, which may contain useful suggestions. To improve and simplify fares and ticketing The current Cross Country fare structure is mentioned on page 26 and 27 of the consultation document.

37. What changes would you like to see to the current Cross Country current fares structure?

We agree with the objectives at the bottom of p26 in the consultation: people should be able to easily buy the best and cheapest ticket for them, in a way that suits them. However, we suggest going a step further than this: passengers should automatically get the lowest fare available, unless they deliberately opt for a more expensive option, such as a first class or flexible ticket. The difference between these options should be made completely clear at the point of purchase and on the ticket. If we don’t give automatic access to the cheapest ticket, this privileges those with knowledge of split-ticketing, which the consultation recognises is particularly common on Cross Country trains, sometimes offering huge savings. The methods for buying and using tickets used through the new franchise should make full use of modern technology, but also allow for (and not disadvantage) those who wish to use traditional methods to buy their ticket. All methods should be set up in a way that anyone can use, without prior knowledge.

As Transport Focus’s research shows, affordability is a key issue on this franchise, so passengers feeling confident that they have got the best value fare is important to their satisfaction, but many don’t feel that is the case at present. From our experience working with community rail groups – most of whom deliver communications, educational visits and other activities to develop confidence, skills and awareness in rail travel – the inter-related issues of ticket-buying, fares and affordability can act as a major prohibiting factor in enabling more people to access rail travel. Many people, especially those considering using rail for the first time, or for the first time independently or for a long time (such as young people, those with support needs, or those considering rail instead of driving – i.e. key audiences for rail to engage with) find our railways not only confusing, but also daunting, alienating and potentially humiliating. Given that buying a ticket is one of the first steps to rail travel, and the ease with which most other purchases are now made, this process needs to not only be simple, but intuitive, inclusive and ‘welcoming’ – it should be set up for anyone to use, without any prior knowledge, and should reassure the user that ‘rail travel is for you’ (i.e. not just other people). Creating this feeling is something that community rail partnerships and groups are working to do all the time, and is arguably a crucial (if hard-to-measure) factor in ensuring our railways are truly accessible and therefore delivering as much social value as possible.

Generally speaking, the ease with which people buy tickets and understand fares is especially critical because if you misunderstand or make a mistake, it can cost you dearly. If you make a mistake buying a ticket (for example, you buy a ticket for the wrong day, or do not understand the restrictions on a ticket), you can be penalised through a fine, or by having to purchase a ticket again. This is likely to be off-putting for someone on a lower income, or someone who feels humiliated by the experience. We therefore recommend that, especially while fares and ticketing remain complicated, a more understanding approach should be taken to ticket-checking and ‘revenue protection’ so that innocent mistakes are not so harshly penalised. This would be more in sync with the efforts of community rail at a grassroots level to improve confidence and positivity about rail travel.

We appreciate that these issues apply across the rail network (and that greater consistency would also be helpful), and we are responding to Rail Delivery Group’s current consultation on rail fares and ticketing. However, we suggest that this may be an especially important issue with this franchise, given the long distances, geographical spread, prevalence of leisure travel, and passenger views on value for money. Given the timing of this franchise, there may be a particular opportunity for the new franchisee to draw on input to the RDG consultation, and input from community rail and passenger research, to have a strong focus on offering better value for money generally, alongside initiatives to improve affordability for particular groups, such as job- seekers, young people and those with hidden disabilities. Again, ACoRP would be keen to work with the new franchise holder and our members to support and facilitate such work and ensure communities’ needs are at the forefront. By engaging community rail groups on this issue, the new franchise could take into account the needs and perspectives of potential future rail users, as well as those using the network at present.

To improve access, information and making connections

38. What more could be done to improve access and provide facilities for those with disabilities or additional needs?

We support the acknowledgement in the consultation document (p28) that accessibility does not only relate to stations, and therefore the new franchise holder can contribute much to accessibility, related to interchange (including inter-modal), passenger information, assistance and staffing. We strongly agree that improving accessibility should be an important focus for the new franchise holder, given the importance of this to ensuring that communities can get the most from their railways, and the impact that rail can have on social inclusion and community development. We know that this is an area of keen interest for our members, who work hard to aid accessibility to rail through wide-ranging initiatives delivered at grassroots level, and this work needs to continue to be supported by the rail industry. We therefore recommend that the new franchisee is required to work alongside community rail to maximise accessibility in the broadest sense, to help ensure that anyone can access rail travel.

We, and our members, strongly believe that rail should be a welcoming, supportive, inclusive and safe environment for all, and recommend that accessibility is seen in this way through this new franchise. We would emphasise that accessibility is not only about meeting the needs of people with disabilities, crucial though this is. It also depends on whether people are able to get to stations in the first place, whether people perceive that rail travel is manageable for them (to do with knowledge, skills and confidence on stations, ticketing, journey planning and interchange), and, critically, whether people, and especially disadvantaged groups, are able to (and perceive that they are able to) afford it. This links in with the top passenger priority identified by Transport Focus for this franchise: value for money (p17 of the consultation).

An important way for the rail industry to bring about a more accessible railway network is to be responsive to ideas, innovation and opportunities developed through community rail, including listening to community rail representatives and volunteers (including community rail partnerships, station adopters and other community groups) about simple improvements, and supporting wider roll-out of successful community rail initiatives. Community rail partnerships and groups are often acutely aware of low-cost but important needs and opportunities, such as where signage or timetable information can be improved, or interchanges are a struggle, or staff might be better trained. Some community rail groups are themselves leading important improvements, such as a project to make the Bentham Line Britain’s first dementia-friendly railway. There are already important lessons emerging from this project that the new Cross Country franchise holder can learn from, particularly in regards to passenger information and staff training. ACoRP’s role in sharing good practice across the community rail movement means we can advise on lessons and ideas emerging across our membership, and facilitate sharing between community rail groups and industry (see also question 41 below).

It should also be noted that through the new franchisee providing ongoing financial support to community rail partnerships (see questions 41-43 below), this will help community rail to continue to impact on accessibility, and this should be joined up with wider franchise initiatives on this theme. Indeed, supporting the railway to be more accessible, and supporting communities to access rail, is a critical part of community rail’s purpose, and passion and concern for this area of work comes through strongly from our members. Community rail partnerships and groups are well suited to promoting knowledge and confidence in railway use among those facing barriers and non-passengers generally, given their understanding of rail and position as community-based and -led organisations, and therefore approachable, personable and local. They are therefore ideally placed to play a pivotal role in taking this critical issue forward in partnership with industry. We recommend this role is clearly recognised and supported within the franchise.

The role and impact of community rail in relation to social inclusion generally, is explored in detail in our recent report on Community Rail and Social Inclusion. We particularly draw attention to our recommendations to the rail industry on p26 of the report on how community rail work might be supported to develop its work in this arena, and barriers removed to unleash further potential. The new franchisee might be encouraged or required to work with ACoRP and community rail partnerships to take forward these recommendations and make the Cross Country network accessible, inclusive and welcoming for all.

To improve the on-board experience

39. Which initiatives would you suggest to try to reduce the disturbance caused by the ‘churn’ of passengers alighting and boarding at frequent station calls?

Responding as regular users of trains for delivery of our work, we highlight that capacity improvements, well-designed trains, and clear information at stations before you get on, go a long way to alleviate the disruption caused by alighting and boarding. When trains are over- crowded, alighting and boarding takes longer and is more uncomfortable and awkward for passengers, who have to squeeze past one another and wait for people to move out the way before they can get up, get their luggage, or get to their seats. As well as improving capacity as a key priority for this franchise, well-designed luggage facilities, so people can stow and retrieve their bags more easily, will also help.

Clearer information on platforms would also be hugely helpful in alleviating this problem and improving the passenger experience. Passengers should receive clear information on where to wait (at least which end of the platform – for example, being told that first class is at the ‘front’ of the train is no use if you don’t know which direction the train will pull in), which carriages are more empty, how to find your seat once on board, and advance warning if seat reservation systems aren’t working. We recommend that the franchisee is required to support the roll-out of technology at stations and on trains to enable this information to be provided.

We also strongly support the idea contained in the franchise document of including in the franchise requirements a more intelligent approach to seat allocations, perhaps with different parts of the train allocated to longer/shorter-distance passengers. We would highlight, though, that this is dependent on seat reservations systems working, which is often a problem at present, so something that would need to be addressed alongside any innovations. Again, this would need to be combined with better information at stations, on platforms in particular, especially so shorter-distance passengers less likely to have seat reservations know which carriage to board.

Engagement improvement Stakeholders are explained on page 30 of the consultation document.

40. Are there any improvements to the level stakeholder engagement by Cross Country that you would like to see and how could stakeholder engagement be improved?

As we stress above in the summary, and outline in more detail below, the success of community rail depends upon the support and collaboration of the rail industry. This includes financial support from train operators, which has become increasingly important as local authority funding has dried up, and which has been very welcome in relation to the Cross Country franchise, as we set out below. However, also vital is genuine collaboration and engagement, which enables community rail to deliver effective activities that build positive relationships between the railways and local people, and to enable community rail to act as advisor, critical friend, and help communities to have a voice in rail development. For this to work as well as possible, the relationship between train operator and community rail partnerships and groups needs to be founded on mutual respect and understanding, with train operators nurturing and empowering community rail groups, being responsive to their suggestions and queries, and listening to their needs and views. To ensure maximum impact, avoid duplication, and foster understanding and coordination, this work should be coordinated effectively with ACoRP.

As set out in more detail below, much headway has been made under the current franchise in regards to supporting community rail and building positive relationships. This support from the Cross Country franchise might be argued to be of particular importance to community rail, given the way this network connects so many community railway lines. Community rail is also of particular importance to this franchise – and could be increasingly so – given how it can provide a voice for communities within a geographically spread-out and far-reaching franchise, and given the proportion of leisure travellers using Cross Country trains, many of whom will be travelling on to the fascinating, beautiful, sometimes-remote areas that community rail often works in.

Improvements have been made under the current franchise both by way of financial support for community rail, and the way the operator engages with community rail and ACoRP. Additional training, advice and help has been provided in regards to PR, developing promotional videos, engaging with Scouts, and social enterprise. This has very much been welcomed by community rail partnerships, but there are of course ways to further develop this engagement. Specific ideas for themes, projects and workstreams are set out below, but we also recommend the new franchise adopts the following ways of working with ACoRP and community rail: • Ensure relationships are based on dialogue, with mechanisms in place to listen to and respond to community rail ideas, needs and requests, including a clear point of contact and attendance at meetings where relevant; • Deliver community rail support, projects and activities in a way that is in tune with community rail needs and opportunities, drawing on ACoRP’s advice; • Make use of ACoRP’s position as a national umbrella body to coordinate with the dispersed community rail partnerships and groups across the network; • Discuss and plan activities in partnership with ACoRP, to ensure effective coordination with ACoRP’s wider work, avoiding duplication and enabling sharing across the whole community rail movement; • Bring a clear focus on key ways the franchise can support community rail and ways that community rail can feed into the franchise (such as relating to the themes suggested below of communications, marketing & leisure promotion, and accessibility, affordability & inclusion), while respecting the independence and community-led nature of community rail, and allowing for emerging opportunities and needs.

As we have said throughout this consultation, ACoRP is happy to discuss these ideas further with bidders, and would be glad of a formal partnership arrangement with the new franchise holder to enable us to assist, advise and facilitate. Community Rail partnerships engagement

41. Does Cross Country provide a sufficient level of support to relevant Community Rail partnerships in your experience?

Y Yes No

42. Has their support improved in the last year to 18 months?

Y Yes No

To qualify our response to question 41, we do not see this as a black-and-white, yes or no question. We and our members are clear that Cross Country support of community rail has improved considerably in the past 18 months, and this has brought many benefits for the 17 community rail partnerships on the route. In particular, the direct core funding award has been extremely welcome and beneficial, helping community rail partnerships to continue and further develop their work at a time when local authority funding (previously a key source of income for community rail) has been drying up. Our CRP members have also greatly appreciated the availability of a fund they can bid into for project work, and we have examples from our members of this being used to positive effect (e.g. Derwent Valley Line station improvements). We therefore strongly recommend that the provision of both core and biddable funding continues, but with some refinements (below). Our CRP members have also fed back that engagement and contact with Cross Country has much improved, thanks to dedicated staffing, with some specific examples of how this has helped them, but also some suggestions for improvements (below).

To respond directly to the consultation question, this level of support might be argued to be ‘sufficient’ (certainly it is appreciated and beneficial), and indeed some of our members have fed back that it is sufficient overall, but we would also highlight that there remain numerous opportunities for further developing this support – and which we are eager to work more closely with the franchisee to help to realise. These key opportunities, from our broad perspective as the national umbrella body for community rail, are set out below. We would also, again, direct to CRPs’ individual responses for additional and more specific ideas.

43. Provide ideas on what more you feel the franchise could do to help the relevant Community Rail partnerships? There are a number of aspects of the current franchise which we urge are continued, to build on the benefits and improved support for community rail we have seen in the past 18 months. We have set out below both continuations and relevant improvements, as they are closely inter- related:

Continued core funding provision for all CRPs on the route – As noted above, this support has been extremely valuable, enabling CRPs to continue and in some cases expand their activities when local authority funding has mostly dried up. If this funding was not continued, at the same levels at least, it would be a backwards step, and have a detrimental effect on more than a quarter of Britain’s CRPs. A 2015 report by Transport Regeneration underlines why core funding for staffing is so important to CRPs. To provide security and enable community rail partnerships to plan long-term activities and development, funding should ideally committed for the lifetime of the franchise, or at least on a three-year basis. Simple agreements should be drawn up, so CRPs are clear about when to expect funding (at the start of each funding year), how it will be provided, and accompanying requirements, such as annual reporting. ACoRP can advise on making sure the process is smooth and transparent. We would also urge that the DfT ensures that provision of Cross Country funding should not encourage other operators to withdraw or reduce funding to those CRPs.

Continue with a biddable fund for projects, but with adjusted criteria – As noted above, the biddable project fund offered by Cross Country has been very welcome, and fits with our general recommendation that community rail benefits from a combination of core and project funding. However, we recommend refined criteria that allows for staffing of projects to be included. CRPs regularly feed back to ACoRP that they have lots of ideas and ambitions, and can see the opportunities to carry out additional projects, but they often don’t have the staff to carry out the additional work. This may deter CRPs from delivering projects, or even encourage outsourcing of work that can be better (and more cheaply) conducted in-house. Ensuring the criteria for a biddable funding pot allows for staffing time to deliver the work would therefore be helpful; ACoRP can advise on this so it provides greatest possible benefit. ACoRP would also appreciate a closer relationship with the franchisee on the provision of such funding, so we can support planning and delivery of funded projects effectively (or ACoRP can be commissioned to administer such a fund alongside other community rail grant schemes including the DfT’s).

Allow for additional support for new community rail partnerships and station groups – The community rail movement is growing, and at any one time ACoRP tends to be working to support around 10 emerging/embryonic community rail partnerships to become established. Station groups (station friends and larger station partnerships or development projects) are also growing in number, engaging their communities in highly beneficial station-based volunteering and gardening, and sometimes taking on major redevelopment of stations and social enterprise activity. We would therefore recommend that community rail funding in the new franchise allows for this growth. This might be achieved through the criteria for a biddable fund allowing for start- up core costs as well as project funding.

Continue to require dedicated staffing at Cross Country to provide a clear point of contact for CRPs – The appointment of stakeholder managers at the current train operator with responsibility for community rail liaison has been welcomed by our members, and generally we know that dedicated points of contact for community rail are important. There are, however, some suggestions for improving relationships under the new franchise, such as attendance at community rail meetings (where possible), and perhaps more clearly defining what CRPs can expect from their relationship with the new operator. We strongly recommend that this relationship should be founded on partnership working and collaboration, not directing, so the franchise can draw on CRPs as critical friends, and helping to ensure that community voices are heard, despite the size and breadth of this franchise. This would align with views that have come through in the DfT’s recent community rail consultation;

Work collaboratively with ACoRP to plan and deliver community rail support activities – Close partnership working with ACoRP to align avoid duplication and ensure synergy with ACoRP’s wider work should help to achieve maximum impact from community rail support in this franchise, and alignment with the forthcoming DfT community rail strategy. As mentioned above, this seems especially important for this large franchise with dispersed community rail organisations. This should include consulting with ACoRP on community rail support/activities in advance, considering linkages with ACoRP’s wider work or potential for ACoRP to lead or assist with delivery, and allowing for any additional resourcing needed for ACoRP to advise and engage with the franchisee in this way. This might include continuation of the below;

Continue to support communications and marketing in community rail, with a tourism and leisure focus – The current operator has developed a couple of initiatives to aid skills and development of communications and marketing among CRPs, including producing promotional materials, and offering training on broadcast media interviews. This has been well-received, and fits with our acknowledgement that this is an area where many community rail partnerships could develop their impact, although we believe there is scope to further tailor this activity to community rail needs. We have therefore now started to work with the current operator to integrate this activity with our own training and development programme, so between us we are providing complementary training and support that combines into a more holistic package of assistance on this topic (i.e. covering communications planning and integration across different channels, and practical advice on engaging with media, as well as messaging, and how to act as a spokesperson). We have also been linking the video production initiative with our Scenic Rail Britain campaign. We would be keen to further progress this area of work with the franchisee, in particular geared at developing skills and capacity within community rail in delivering marketing and communications aimed at a tourist/leisure travel audience.

Develop community rail initiatives that align with particular challenges of this franchise and needs and interests within community rail – The current franchise holder has delivered a well-received range of community rail projects and initiatives. We would suggest there is scope for the new franchisee to build on this, delivering community rail activity in a way that is fully- coordinated and planned with ACoRP to ensure it is focused on key community rail needs and opportunities, and aligns with both franchise development and the DfT’s new community rail strategy. In various places in this consultation response we have highlighted some key opportunities that might serve as areas of focus, which might be summed up as: - communications and marketing (with a leisure and tourism focus), and - accessibility, affordability and social inclusion. ACoRP is happy to explore more detailed ideas under these themes.

Ensure that community rail is integrated with wider work to develop the franchise – In our experience, community rail can sometimes be treated as a discrete area of work, and this is largely how it is presented in the consultation document. Yet community rail has a great deal to contribute to different aspects of rail development, as a source of local perspectives and ideas, a critical friend, a conduit between the rail industry and the communities it serves (both existing and potential rail users), and a way to communicate and engage people in rail development in a way that is meaningful and real at a local level. There is, therefore, a great deal that community rail can contribute in making this part of the rail network not only better for current users, but an attractive and aspirational way to travel across the country. For community rail to play this role effectively, it needs support and collaboration, but also understanding and acknowledgement of its importance across the new operators’ teams and activities – from on-board train crews to the communications team. ACoRP is again happy to advise and assist with raising awareness and integrating community rail across the business, such as providing input to internal communications and training.

Final comments

44. Any other comments?

Return your completed questionnaire Save this file and email it to @dft.gov.uk