Reviewing the Franchise Map
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research Project on Reviewing the Franchise Map Contract Reference RVFM10001 Final Report March 2011 Although this report was commissioned jointly by the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the DfT and the ORR. While the DfT and the ORR have made all reasonable efforts to ensure the information in this document is accurate, the DfT and the ORR do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of that information; and cannot accept liability for any loss or damages of any kind resulting from reliance on the information or guidance this document contains. Jacobs Consultancy UK Ltd 1180 Eskdale Road, Winnersh, Wokingham, Reading RG41 5TU Telephone: 0118 963 5000 Website: www.jacobsconsultancy.co.uk Department for Transport Office of Rail Regulation Great Minster House 1 Kemble Street 76 Marsham Street London London SW1P 4DR WC2B 4AN Telephone: 0300 330 3000 Telephone: 020 7282 2000 Website: www.dft.gov.uk Website: www.rail-reg.gov.uk Crown copyright, 2011, except where otherwise stated You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. To reproduce third-party material you need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Consultancy UK Ltd (“Jacobs Consultancy”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs Consultancy’s contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs Consultancy. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs Consultancy. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs Consultancy at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs Consultancy has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs Consultancy for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs Consultancy will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document. This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs Consultancy, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs Consultancy may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs Consultancy’s written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs Consultancy and Jacobs Consultancy, accordingly, assumes no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs Consultancy accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs Consultancy’s interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party. Franchise Map Review, Final Report, March 2011 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION AND REMIT 1 1.1 Study objectives 1 1.2 Study process 1 2 OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING FRANCHISE MAP 3 2.1 TOC Franchise Map 3 2.2 The Existing TOCs 4 2.3 Fit with existing Network Rail geographic structure 6 3 REVIEWING THE FRANCHISE MAP 11 3.1 Introduction 11 3.2 Issues to consider 11 3.3 Assessment measures for impacts of TOC mapping 16 4 OPTION IDENTIFICATION AND SHORTLISTING 18 4.1 Long list of options developed in Part 1 of the study 18 4.2 Development of option shortlist for more detailed appraisal 19 5 PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS 22 5.1 Merge C2C with Greater Anglia 22 5.2 Thameslink Options 23 5.3 Cross Country, East Coast and East Midlands Trains 31 5.4 Options Involving Transpennine 37 5.5 Options Involving London Midland 45 5.6 Potential for Northern Trains split into East and West sections 46 6 VFM APPRAISAL OF PREFERRED OPTIONS 53 6.1 Recommended package 53 6.2 Train service density 53 6.3 Passenger revenue effects 54 6.4 Operating cost effects 57 6.5 Overall appraisal 66 APPENDIX A DETAILS OF CURRENT FRANCHISES 67 C2C (CC) 67 Chiltern Railways (CH) 69 Cross Country (XC) 72 East Coast (EC) 77 East Midlands Trains (EM) 81 First Capital Connect (FC) 87 First Great Western (GW) 93 First Trans-Pennine Express (TP) 98 London Midland (LM) 103 National Express East Anglia (LE) 108 Franchise Map Review, Final Report, March 2011 Northern Rail (NT) 113 South West Trains (SW) 118 South Eastern (SE) 122 Southern (SN) 126 Virgin Trains (VT) 130 Franchise Map Review, Final Report, March 2011 1 INTRODUCTION AND REMIT 1.1 Study objectives The aim of the study is to review the geography of railway franchises managed by the Department and make recommendations on whether there are opportunities to improve service provision and/or reduce net industry costs by undertaking selective consolidation or other changes. The requirements for the study were defined in the brief as: Quantify the benefits and disbenefits of potential franchise remapping options and form a view as to the existence of a case for change; Account should be taken where possible of the impact of expected industry projects and changes including Thameslink, IEP, Crossrail etc; Account should be taken of emerging findings from other areas of the McNulty review including possible pilot schemes for vertical alignment. In particular the work should consider how franchise re-mapping might optimise alignments with infrastructure provision following proposals to improve integration between TOCs and infrastructure management; Where more than one potential answer exists these should be assessed and the pros and cons of each considered; Note should be made of implementation timescales and potential issues, but should not be a barrier to suggesting an otherwise beneficial change; and Highlight any issues that were unable to be addressed in time for the report due to constraints of time or information provision that could be the subject of further work. 1.2 Study process The study has included the following components: Review of the 15 existing franchises managed by the Department, including a review of route analysis material provided by DfT, and analysis of passenger databases. Key physical characteristics have been identified for each TOC, including an assessment of their passenger base. The physical overlaps between franchise train services are identified. The extent to which existing franchise geography fits with passenger journeys and the extent to which passenger flows are served by more than one TOC are also examined. Details are provided in Appendix A, with a summary provided in Chapter 2. Validation and research of the work undertaken so far. This work has looked at the impact of past franchise mergers (in particular from First Great Western), and also includes some feedback from TOC representatives and from past Long Form Reports. It has also drawn upon other technical advisor work on the benefits from improving inter-urban services in Northern England (which could be best unlocked through franchise combination of TPE and Northern) and a subsequent assessment of pros and cons of different franchise models in the north. Some of the issues arising from this review are discussed in Chapter 3. Franchise Map Review, Final Report, March 2011 Page 1 of 135 Based on our assessment of existing TOC characteristics and interfaces in terms of passengers, routes, services and resources, potential remapping options have been identified for each of the DfT managed TOCs. This long list of potential options was reviewed at a workshop with DfT and VfM teams, and distilled into a shortlist of around 5 or 6 main options where improvements could be expected, with a number of sub-options. A summary of the full (long) list of the possible franchise mapping options, and the derivation of a shortlist for more detailed appraisal, is provided in Chapter 4. We have examined the shortlisted possible future mapping changes – extrapolating effects from past examples as well as looking at the possible structural improvements and changes in the possible future TOC specifications. This has involved detailed consideration of passenger market implications, and potential industry cost efficiencies. Our analysis is described in Chapters 5 and 6. Franchise Map Review, Final Report, March 2011 Page 2 of 135 2 OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING FRANCHISE MAP 2.1 TOC Franchise Map Source: National Rail, Train Operators www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/maps/nationalrailoperatorsmap.pdf Franchise Map Review, Final Report, March 2011 Page 3 of 135 The map showing the existing franchises illustrates a significant amount of overlap and interface that currently exists between TOCs on many of the main line routes, and at key terminals in the larger centres.