DOCSLIB.ORG

Greater London Authority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Greater London Authority ORGANISING NATIONAL RAIL IN LONDON A statement of evidence from the London Transport Users Committee to the Greater London Assembly’s scrutiny of Mainline Rail Services in London Published by the London Transport Users Committee Clements House 14-18 Gresham Street London EC2V 7PR Phone : 020 7505 9000 Fax : 020 7505 9003 January 2002 This submission has been prepared before publication of the Strategic Rail Authority’s Strategic Plan on 14th January 2002 Introduction 1. The Greater London Assembly’s Transport Operations Scrutiny Committee is conducting a scrutiny entitled “Mainline Rail Services in London”, to which the London Transport Users Committee has been invited to make a submission of evidence. 2. The issues being examined by the scrutiny include: • The current arrangements for rail service and infrastructure provision in London, and the arrangements that are being put in place by the Mayor, Transport for London and the Strategic Rail Authority • The implications for London of Railtrack being placed in railway receivership • The desirability and practicality of the Mayor’s proposal for a London transit authority, and of other proposals put forward by Transport for London • Other models that could be considered, drawing on experience of models elsewhere in Britain, and overseas 3. In looking at the London transit authority idea, the scrutiny wishes to consider: • What such an authority might do (whether it should cover infrastructure, franchising, integration etc.) • The implications setting up such an authority might have for planning and implementation of major infrastructure projects • How a new authority might be organised, managed and held to account • The area a new authority might serve, and the relationship with the wider South East region and its local and regional authorities • Implications for long distance, international and freight services • Implications for organisation of rail services in the rest of the country. 4. The scrutiny is to start by analysing the nature of the problems currently facing National Rail services. We have therefore been requested to begin this submission by identifying what we consider are the main issues, and what their implications might be for any new structure for rail services, before moving on to identifying a preferred option and the steps that would have to be taken to put it in place. A list of the documents referred to in preparing this submission appears as Annex C to his submission, and a glossary of abbreviations as Annex D. 1 The main issues What do passengers want? 5. Our starting point must be to identify what passengers – and potential passengers – want and then briefly consider how successful (or otherwise) the national railways are at delivering this. 6. The basics of what passengers want from their railways are well stated in our Chair’s foreword to LTUC’s Annual Report 2000 – 2001, paras 1.17 – 1.19 & 1.21 - 1.25. There are three key factors which would improve the public transport system for its users – reliability, simplicity and raising the quality. In terms of reliability we want services we can rely on, that turn up on time and arrive without delay at our destination. For the railways we need enough drivers and enough trained staff to maintain track, signalling, trains and other crucial electronic equipment such as information boards and escalators. And, why can’t we have sufficient rolling stock to avoid short trains and the subsequent overcrowding? To make travelling simpler we need clear understandable information to enable us to plan our journeys, affordable user friendly and flexible tickets that can be used on all modes, well-lit pedestrian routes and areas to wait with accessible staff or monitored CCTV and help points. For the traveller information is a vital part of the journey and real time information should be available at all stations and bus stops. Very importantly, when things go wrong we need helpful, well-trained staff able to take responsibility – able to provide timely information about what is happening and what alternative services are available. To make it happen will require more co-operation between operators. They will also need to promote public transport as an understandable network. To raise the quality will require more investment in new trains and buses. At a minimum all facilities, trains and buses should be clean and litter free and in working order. Graffiti and damage caused by vandalism must be removed promptly, weeds and bushes removed from railway tracks, walls and bridges. Only by doing these basic tasks can you reassure us that you are back in control of the whole system. So my maxim for the future is to: - MAKE IT RELIABLE, MAKE IT SIMPLE, RAISE THE QUALITY. 7. These simple ‘traveller in the street’ observations embrace most of the basics to which all public transport professionals would subscribe, but it is appropriate to supplement them by referring also to integration and service frequencies. 8. The importance of integration has long been recognised, particularly in London where the London Passenger Transport Board was set up to integrate bus and Underground as long ago as 1933. Today, with the mass ownership of cars, the low perceived cost of using them and their comfort and convenience for any journey, the need to achieve easy and seamless transfer between street and train or bus, between train and bus or Underground, and then back to street again means that integration is more important than ever if people are to be encouraged to use public transport. 2 9. At the same time, with the rightful emphasis on accessibility for all and the scarcity of space in heavily built up streets, the physical elements of integration are difficult to achieve – not least because of the number of public and private bodies which have to be brought into agreement before transport interchanges can be improved. 10. Good service frequencies are no less important if the convenience of the car – available instantly at the turn of a key – is to be matched by public transport. For services within the GLA area LTUC is a leading advocate of ‘turn up and go’ – trains to run at least every 10 minutes (6 trains per hour [tph]) so that no-one needs to know the timetable – all day every day, and with the minimum possible interruption at night for maintenance of the tracks as already obtains on LUL and the Docklands Light Railway (DLR). 11. Beyond the GLA boundary as far as such important regional towns as Dartford, Swanley, Sevenoaks, Redhill, Caterham, Epsom, Woking, Staines, Slough, High Wycombe, Watford, Luton, Stevenage, Hertford and Bishops Stortford, LTUC looks for at least a train every fifteen minutes (4 tph). No station in the LTUC area – see map below – should have less than a train every half-hour (2 tph). How well does National Rail deliver? 12. There are any number of statistics used to demonstrate how the railways are performing. To interpret them in any detail is often difficult because of the number of caveats regarding precisely what they are measuring and what they mean. Nationally they are produced by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) (e.g. ‘On Track - Rail Performance Trends’ and ‘National Rail Trends’), and we at LTUC compile the quarterly ‘National Rail Passenger Services in the London Area’ which is submitted to the GLA Transport Operations and Scrutiny Committee. 13. However, two messages are clear. The first is that measures which relate to the basics of reliable service and quality of service show a clear downward trend for both London commuter and inter-city routes. This trend pre-dates the Hatfield accident, so it cannot be excused as a one-off blip arising from Railtrack’s mismanagement in the aftermath of that event. The second message is that (despite everything) rail traffic is increasing. Therefore in the absence of a clear strategy and sufficient committed funding to address the 3 consequences, the well publicised discontent of which we read and hear daily in the media and see in LTUC’s postbag will get worse. 14. Perhaps LTUC’s postbag provides a pointer to the basic truth. If we compare National Rail with LUL, we find that the latter – operating only in London (apart from small cross- boundary working to Watford, Amersham and Epping) carries as many passengers each day as the entire National Rail network spread across the whole of Great Britain. Put another way, the London commuter operators carry roundly two-thirds the number of passengers compared with the Underground. Despite this they generate around five times the volume of appeals. Even if we allow for the possibility that LUL is better at handling complaints than National Rail, this is a very large discrepancy. Add to this the fact that LUL is not short of critics and that its own performance (measured by much more comprehensive statistics than National Rail but not on a directly comparable basis) is in overall decline, and one can only conclude that the weaknesses of National Rail are serious indeed. 15. Looking at the main issues we have identified, let us point up some examples. 16. In terms of reliability, i.e. trains which arrive without delay at destination, ‘National Rail Trends’ (page 15) reports a latest figure of 79.3% of London & South East operators’ trains arriving at the terminus on time (only 77.5% in the peaks). These figures show that on average a daily commuter will arrive late on at least 2 out of 10 journeys per week. Worse, the figures are very misleading because a train is defined as being ‘on time’ if it arrives within 5 minutes of the scheduled time, and because many trains (we suspect the great majority) have artificial extra minutes inserted in their schedules between their last calling point and the terminus; so for example if you are going home from Paddington to Southall your train could be as much as 6 minutes late on a 12 minute journey and still be recorded officially as running on time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Competitive Tendering of Rail Services EUROPEAN CONFERENCE of MINISTERS of TRANSPORT (ECMT)
    Competitive EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS OF TRANSPORT Tendering of Rail Competitive tendering Services provides a way to introduce Competitive competition to railways whilst preserving an integrated network of services. It has been used for freight Tendering railways in some countries but is particularly attractive for passenger networks when subsidised services make competition of Rail between trains serving the same routes difficult or impossible to organise. Services Governments promote competition in railways to Competitive Tendering reduce costs, not least to the tax payer, and to improve levels of service to customers. Concessions are also designed to bring much needed private capital into the rail industry. The success of competitive tendering in achieving these outcomes depends critically on the way risks are assigned between the government and private train operators. It also depends on the transparency and durability of the regulatory framework established to protect both the public interest and the interests of concession holders, and on the incentives created by franchise agreements. This report examines experience to date from around the world in competitively tendering rail services. It seeks to draw lessons for effective design of concessions and regulation from both of the successful and less successful cases examined. The work RailServices is based on detailed examinations by leading experts of the experience of passenger rail concessions in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. It also
    [Show full text]
  • London to Ipswich
    GREAT EASTERN MAIN LINE LONDON TO IPSWICH © Copyright RailSimulator.com 2012, all rights reserved Release Version 1.0 Train Simulator – GEML London Ipswich 1 ROUTE INFORMATIONINFORMATION................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................... 444 1.1 History ....................................................................................................................4 1.1.1 Liverpool Street Station ................................................................................................. 5 1.1.2 Electrification................................................................................................................ 5 1.1.3 Line Features ................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Rolling Stock .............................................................................................................6 1.3 Franchise History .......................................................................................................6 2 CLASS 360 ‘DESIRO’ ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNUNITITITIT................................................................................... ..................... 777 2.1 Class 360 .................................................................................................................7 2.2 Design & Specification ................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Getting on the Right Track
    spotlight LEVERAGED FINANCE GETTING ON THE RIGHT TRACK JOANNA HAWKES OF ANGEL TRAINS EXPLAINS SOME OF THE ISSUES FACING THE ROLLING STOCK LESSOR IN THE FUNDING AND LEASING OF TRAINS TO THE OPERATING COMPANIES. he purpose of this article is to outline the issues facing the rolling stock lessor, both from the perspective of financing the purchase of rolling stock, as well as leasing it to the trains operating companies (Tocs). It focuses mainly on the Tactivities and experiences of Angel Trains (Angel). BACKGROUND. The three rolling stock leasing companies (Roscos) Angel, Porterbrook Leasing and HSBC Rail (formerly Eversholt tandem with extended and renegotiated franchises. As the market Leasing) were originally formed in 1994 out of the privatisation of has developed, lease contracts have become more bespoke and very British Rail. Their business is owning, maintaining and leasing rolling heavily negotiated. stock. At the time of public offer, fears of re-nationalisation under For a number of reasons – partly strategic, partly historic – Angel an incoming Labour government were high. Offers to buy from the Trains finances about 80% of its portfolio in the banking market, finance sector were limited and consequently two of the three were rather than via its parent. Figure 2 illustrates the current simplified the subject of management buy outs. Over subsequent years, industry structure. however, Roscos have migrated towards their natural home for UK leasing companies, and each has become a subsidiary of a big TYPES OF LEASES. There are a number of variations in the types of financial institution: Royal Bank of Scotland (Angel), Abbey National lease structures, but generally capital rentals are fixed.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Annual Return
    Annual Return Reporting on the year 2004/05 31 July 2005 Page 2 Contents Executive summary.....................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Network Rail’s regulatory targets....................................................................................................................................................................20 Key performance indicators................................................................................................................................................................................24 Section 1 – Operational performance .........................................................................................................................................................27 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................................27 Summarised network-wide data (delays to major operators) ........................................................................................28 National delay data by cause...............................................................................................................................................................30
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Monitoring Report on NATIONAL RAIL
    Performance monitoring report on NATIONAL RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES IN THE LONDON AREA Quarter 1 2002-03 (April to June 2002) Prepared by LTUC Research and Policy Team 6 Middle Street London EC1A 7JA October 2002 CONTENTS Section 1 Public performance measure (PPM) Section 2 Lost minutes Section 3 National passenger survey (NPS) (not reported this quarter) Section 4 Passengers in excess of capacity (PIXC) (not reported this quarter) Section 5 Passenger complaints (not reported this quarter) Section 6 Impartial retailing survey (not reported this quarter) Section 7 Glossary and definitions Annex A PPM results for Quarter 1 2001-02 (table) Annex B PPM results for Quarter 1 2001-02 (chart) Annex C 3-year PPM trends – all trains (chart) Annex D 3-year PPM trends – London and south east peak trains (chart) Annex E Lost minutes – Quarter 1 2002-03 (table) Annex F NPS results (not reported this quarter) Annex G Narrative commentaries supplied by the following operators : c2c, Chiltern, Connex South Eastern, First Great Eastern, Gatwick Express, Silverlink, South West Trains, Thameslink, West Anglia Great Northern, Anglia, First Great Western, Great North Eastern, Midland Mainline and Virgin West Coast. OVERVIEW OF QUARTER • Reliability of most London and south east operators has continued to improve but was still below the levels reached prior to the aftermath of the Hatfield derailment. • Wide variations between operators continued, ranging from 9% of trains delayed or cancelled to 24%. • Nearly all operators performed relatively well in weekday peaks, with only a slight decrease on c2c, First Great Eastern and Silverlink. • Longer-distance operators’ performance was 1.5% better than in the previous year and 2% better than in the preceding quarter.
    [Show full text]
  • Penalty Fares Scheme Template
    Penalty fares scheme – c2c rail limited 1 Introduction 1.1 c2c rail limited, give notice, under rule 3.2 of the SRA’s Penalty Fares Rules 2002, that we want to introduce a penalty fares scheme with effect from a date yet to be confirmed. This document describes our penalty fares scheme for the purposes of rule 3.2 b. 1.2 We have decided to introduce a penalty fares scheme in this area because 1. Although the vast majority of our stations is gated, it is still possible to access our railway system without a ticket and/or travel to a destination that is past the validity of tickets held and leave via a non-fully gated station. 2. The Penalty Fares Scheme is seen as a supplant to existing method of dealing with individuals who do not hold valid tickets for their entire journeys. 3. The Penalty Fares Scheme is seen as a visual deterrent, i.e. via the posters at all stations, that c2c rail limited is committed to reduce to the absolute minimum fraudulent travel on our trains. 1.3 We have prepared this scheme taking account of the following documents. • The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 1994. • The Penalty Fares Rules 2002. • Strategic Rail Authority Penalty Fares Policy 2002. 1.4 In line with rule 3.2, we have sent copies of this scheme to: • The Strategic Rail Authority; • London Transport Users Committee • Rail Passengers Committee for Eastern England 2 Penalty fares trains 2.1 For the purposes of this scheme, all the trains that we operate on the c2c route will be penalty fares trains.
    [Show full text]
  • Il Regulatorregulator
    2001 Annual Return to the Rail RegulatorRegulator Operational Logged–up CRR Summary Performance Activity Volumes Enhancements Asset Condition NMS Network Reconciliation Capability RAILTRACK 2001 Annual Return to the Rail Regulator Page 2 of 166 Document Contents August 2001 Contents CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................................................................7 SECTION 1 – OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE..................................................................................................................................................8 SECTION 2 – ASSET CONDITION AND SERVICEABILITY ..........................................................................................................................19 Number of Broken Rails ................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Number of Rail Defects................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Class 321 Electric Multiple Unit
    Class 321 Electric Multiple Unit Contents How to install .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Technical information ............................................................................................................................. 3 Liveries .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Class 320 ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Class 321 ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Class 322 ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Cab guide .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Keyboard controls ................................................................................................................................. 14 Features ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Driver only/guard operation ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Railway Organisations 20 SEPTEMBER 1999
    RESEARCH PAPER 99/80 Railway Organisations 20 SEPTEMBER 1999 The Research Paper provides reference information about the rail industry. Part I lists the names and addresses of the train operating companies and gives some background detail about the franchise award. Part II lists other organisations involved in the industry. It updates Research Paper 97/72 The Railway Passenger Companies. Fiona Poole and Andrew Dyer BUSINESS AND TRANSPORT SECTION HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY Recent Library Research Papers include: 99/65 The Food Standards Bill [Bill 117 of 1998-99] 18.06.99 99/66 Kosovo: KFOR and Reconstruction 18.06.99 99/67 The Burden of Taxation 25.06.99 99/68 Financial Services and Markets Bill [Bill 121 of 1998-99] 24.06.99 99/69 Economic Indicators 01.07.99 99/70 The August Solar Eclipse 30.06.99 99/71 Unemployment by Constituency - June 1999 14.07.99 99/72 Railways Bill [Bill 133 of 1998-99] 15.07.99 99/73 The National Lottery 27.07.99 99/74 Duty-free shopping 22.07.99 99/75 Economic & Monetary Union: the first six months 12.08.99 99/76 Unemployment by Constituency - July 1999 11.08.99 99/77 British Farming and Reform of the Common Agriculture Policy 13.08.99 99/78 By-elections since the 1997 general election 09.09.99 99/79 Unemployment by Constituency - August 1999 15.09.99 Research Papers are available as PDF files: • to members of the general public on the Parliamentary web site, URL: http://www.parliament.uk • within Parliament to users of the Parliamentary Intranet, URL: http://hcl1.hclibrary.parliament.uk Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Anticipated Acquisition by Firstgroup Plc of the Thames Trains Franchise
    Anticipated acquisition by Firstgroup Plc of the Thames Trains franchise The OFT's decision on reference under section 33 given on 26 March 2004 PARTIES FirstGroup plc (First) is a UK-based international transport company which operates both bus and rail services in the UK, as well as transport services in the USA. It operates four rail franchises in the UK — First Great Western, First Great Eastern, First North Western, and the TransPennine Express. The Thames Trains franchise (Thames franchise) operates services between London Paddington and the Thames Valley, Kennet Valley and Cotswolds areas, as well as on the North Downs line between Reading and Gatwick airport. The term of the franchise is 2 years, running from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2006. The franchise is currently operated by Thames Trains Limited, a subsidiary of the Go-Ahead Group, which in the year to 28 June 2003 had a turnover of £105.36 million. TRANSACTION First was selected as the preferred bidder for the franchise by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) on 4 November 2003. The SRA intends to combine the Thames franchise on its expiry on 31 March 2006 with the Great Western and Wessex Trains franchises, to become the Greater Western franchise. The parties notified the transaction to the OFT on 23 January 2004; the administrative deadline is 26 March 2004. JURISDICTION As a result of the transaction, First and the Thames franchise will cease to be distinct. The award of a rail franchise constitutes an acquisition of control by virtue of section 66(3) of the Railways Act 1993 as amended.
    [Show full text]
  • Modelling the Railways of East Anglia in 4Mm Scale
    Modelling the Railways of East Anglia in 4mm scale Paul Goldsmith Issue 8 February 2021 Cover photographs by Chris Nevard for Model Rail Magazine of my Colchester c1955 4mm/OO model railway. Modelling the Railways of East Anglia in 4mm Scale INTRODUCTION When first produced about 20 years ago, the from “the Central London Area Group (CLAG)”: aim of the document was to list locomotives http://www.clag.org.uk and click on the link to and rolling stock that operated on the GER, LNE supplier.text. (E), BR (GE Section) and the privatised railway of East Anglia to date, which had been produced as Over the last couple of years various questions a “ready–to-run” model or as a model “kit” in have been raised regarding liveries and painting 4mm scale. However, over the years the scope schemes and short sections and links to various has somewhat expanded. websites has been added. A section on Overhead Line Equipment has been added by In the 1970s the hobby benefited by the etched Paul Godwin. brass kit “cottage industry”, with the late Fred Blackman (Mallard Models) producing the first We hope the document is of value and etched brass loco kit (Class D16/3) and encourages more people to model the East subsequently various kits from the late George Anglian scene and manufacturers to produce Pring (George Allen Models), Dave Phillips more relevant items for the East Anglia railway (Stelfox Models) and Dan Pinnock (D&S Models), modeller. Note, we do not attempt to state if to name but a few.
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail Franchising – British Experience
    PASSENGER RAIL FRANCHISING – BRITISH EXPERIENCE Chris Nash Andrew Smith (ITS, University of Leeds)* ABSTRACT Given that virtually all British passenger train services were franchised out over the period 1995-7, and many have now been franchised for a second time, Britain should provide an excellent opportunity to study the impact of franchising passenger rail services. Moreover, since several different franchising models have been tried, there should also be some useful evidence on how best to go about franchising. In practice, however, the turbulent history of the British rail industry over this period makes drawing firm conclusions difficult. At the start, it appeared that franchising was very successful with strong competition for franchises, rapidly rising traffic, rising productivity and falling subsidies. Whilst most of the increase in traffic was due to external factors, the growth appears somewhat faster than would be explained by these factors alone. Despite this, a number of train operating companies got into financial difficulties, particularly in the Regional sector, where franchisees were relying on reduced costs rather than increased revenues to achieve subsidy reductions, and in the short term franchises were renegotiated or replaced with cost-plus contracts pending refranchising. After the bankruptcy of Railtrack not only have the costs and performance of the infrastructure manager severely deteriorated, but there has also been a large rise in the costs of train operating companies. Without a better understanding of the causes of this rise it is hard to form firm conclusions on the success of franchising. One argument is that one of the reasons franchisees found it difficult to achieve the anticipated cost reductions was the degree to which costs had already been driven down in the 1980s.
    [Show full text]