Appendix A
Cross-Country Passenger Rail Franchise Response
1. What are the particular services, routes, and times and times of day where you think crowding on Cross Country services needs to be addressed most urgently?
In a sense this question addresses one of the key issues with respect to the Cross Country franchise. The nature of the franchise should be to provide long distance direct links between major regional centres across the country. However, due to the development of the rail network since privatisation this objective appears to have been lost with some cities, such as Liverpool, falling off the Cross Country franchise map and the franchise being used to supplement local rail services in peak periods particularly in the Midlands.
The crowding issue is caused by the need to provide capacity which should be provided by franchises whose main aim is to deliver such services; not the Cross Country franchise. The issue, therefore, is not the crowding issue on Cross Country services but the potential to remap locally required services into relevant franchises allowing Cross Country to deliver the services it should be delivering.
2. 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? a. Removing calls from towns closest to the conurbation centre either completely or just at peak times; b. Retaining calls at such stations but restricting them to pick up/set down only; c. Removing the validity of local multi-modal tickets on long distance trains; d. Other (please suggest).
The key is to ensure that the services being delivered meet the needs of the people using them and thus allow the train operator to ensure that the needs of its passengers are met. Thus removing stops close to a conurbation centre from Cross Country services would allow to Cross Country to focus on the needs of its long distance passengers. Equally the passengers using local services would be better catered for by a service focussed on meeting local needs.
DGJ/LCR/10Aug18 3. Please rank the following in order of priority for improvement for your future Cross Country services: a. More frequent weekday services b. More frequent weekend services c. More additional summer only services d. Earlier times of first trains e. Later times of last trains f. Earlier Sunday morning services
In the case of the Liverpool City Region the provision of any service would be an improvement over the current position. In basic terms the delivery of relevant outbound and return journeys to locations in the south east and south west would be the priority.
4. If it were possible, would you agree with transferring these local routes to the West Midlands franchise? ● Birmingham to Nottingham ● Birmingham to Leicester Would you like to see any other routes or stations transferred to or from the Cross Country franchise.
As indicated above we believe that local flows should not be catered for by the Cross Country franchise and on this basis we would be supportive of any local routes or stops being taken out of this franchise.
5. If the network was unable to cope with all the service enhancement aspirations north of Northallerton on the East Coast mainline, would a: ● curtailment of one of the existing Cross Country services be acceptable (with the resources redeployed to enhance other existing or new routes?):
If there is no way of providing the service without considerable additional expenditure then curtailment of one of the services could be an option. However as indicated in earlier responses this does strike at the reason for such a franchise as Cross Country.
6. 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?
This would be acceptable only so far as it doesn’t result in the reduction of services at the extremities of the network and no location loses its Cross Country service.
DGJ/LCR/10Aug18 7. Do you agree that the current level of Cross Country services to the following routes are the minimum that must be specified for: ● West of Plymouth to Penzance? ● From Exeter/Newton Abbot to Paignton? ● North of Edinburgh to Aberdeen? ● Southampton to Bournemouth? ● Guildford? ● Bath? ● Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads? Do you agree that the changes to the following routes would be acceptable if a similar or improved service was provided by another operator: ● West of Plymouth to Penzance? ● From Exeter/Newton Abbot to Paignton? ● North of Edinburgh to Aberdeen? ● Southampton to Bournemouth? ● Guildford? ● Bath? ● Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads?
No comments.
8. Do you think the Department’s minimum specification should preserve exactly today’s pattern of services and station calls rather than offer an opportunity to change?
No. The Liverpool City Region is a major conurbation with a population in excess of 1.5m and is not served by the Cross Country network. This is a major aberration and deters people from using the rail network. It is an issue which needs to be addressed and therefore changes to the minimum specification are required.
9. Should bidders have some flexibility to make fewer calls at some stations, for example if that enabled them to accelerate services?
The issue of removing local stops has been discussed above. However there is an issue of connectivity here which shouldn’t be ignored. A careful assessment of any proposal to reduce calls at a station to ensure that good quality connectivity between services is not affected.
10. Should the minimum specification have the number of trains from each station to Birmingham but give bidders the flexibility to decide where trains go after Birmingham?
No comments.
DGJ/LCR/10Aug18 11. Are there stations or routes beyond the geography of the current Cross Country network that should receive calls that they currently do not receive?
Liverpool is one such station. Liverpool did have a Cross Country service in the past. However its demise is one of the reasons that Liverpool is one of the poorest connected cities within the UK. The work undertaken as part of the Liverpool City Region Long Term Rail Strategy highlighted that Liverpool has a very poor level of connectivity with other GB towns and cities with a connectivity rating of 27.6%. Of the 20 cities identified in the Strategy which have a greater level of connectivity only 7 have a greater level of population. Furthermore this does not take account of the wider population of the City Region which is extremely well served by the Merseyrail network which provides excellent levels of connectivity to Lime Street station.
If services from Liverpool to Bristol, Reading, Southampton and Cardiff were restored the connectivity rating would increase to 55.2%. All four of these stations are on the Cross Country network and would be relatively easy to link into Liverpool. Such services could potentially be restored by extending the current Liverpool-Birmingham services to locations beyond Birmingham. While this may necessitate the transfer of routes from one franchise to another, and not without difficulty, this should be considered.
In addition to this Liverpool is the 5th most visited city in the UK by overseas visitors and has strong domestic visitor markets in the southeast, southwest and Midlands yet two out of these three areas does not have a direct rail link with the Liverpool.
12. Are there stations within the geography of the current Cross Country network that should receive calls that they currently do not receive?
No comments.
13. What changes would you like to see to the way Cross Country currently sells and provides tickets?
Without going into specifics clearly the new franchise should be encouraged to make ticket purchasing as painless as possible with provision for both electronic ticketing and inexpensive walk up ticketing.
14. What changes would you like to see to the current Cross Country fares structure?
The issue of split ticketing should be addressed where possible.
15. What changes would you like to see to the Advanced Purchase on the Day (APOD) system?
DGJ/LCR/10Aug18 No comments.
16. What additional information would be useful to you when planning your journeys or making connections onto other services? How would you like it communicated to you?
The rail industry is moving towards better and more innovative ways of providing updates to rail passengers. We would not try at this stage to identify any particular systems to be used but would expect information provided to be in line with accepted railways standards as they develop.
17. How could the way in which Cross Country deals with your complaints and provides compensation to you be improved?
No comments.
18. What more could be done to improve access and provide facilities for those with disabilities or additional needs?
As Cross Country controls no stations its focus will be on rolling stock. Future rolling stock provision should aim to deliver easy access to and from trains and assistance should be provided were necessary. Within the Liverpool City Region Merseytravel is currently procuring new rolling stock which will provide near level access at all stations. This should be the aim of all future rolling stock procurements.
19. How do you believe Cross Country staff could be more effective in providing the service and assistance that passengers need on a modern railway network?
No comments.
20. What comment, if any do you have on improving the overall passenger experience before and after the journey?
No comments.
DGJ/LCR/10Aug18
21. Please rank your priority for improvement to the carriage layouts for regional/local trains on Cross Country: a. extra room for luggage b. cycle storage c. more seats d. greater leg-room e. more table seats as opposed to ‘airline’ seats f. seats that align with windows g. more comfortable room for short distance standing
Based on the premise that Cross Country should be providing high quality long distance services then seating capacity is a priority. Luggage space and appropriate seating for leisure travellers would also support this. Improvements focussed on short distance capacity for commuters should be a low priority.
22. Please rank your priority for improvement to the carriage layouts for long distance inter-city trains on Cross Country: a. extra room for luggage b. cycle storage c. more seats d. greater leg-room e. more table seats as opposed to ‘airline’ seats f. seats that align with windows g. more comfortable room for short distance standing
Based on the premise that Cross Country should be providing high quality long distance services then seating capacity is a priority. Luggage space and appropriate seating for leisure travellers would also support this. Improvements focussed on short distance capacity for commuters should be a low priority.
23. What other comments or suggestions do you have about the on-board experience?
Clearly free wi-fi should considered mandatory based on the proposed nature of the sevices provided.
24. Which initiatives would you suggest to try to reduce the disturbance caused by the ‘churn’ of passengers alighting and boarding at frequent station calls?
The aim of delivering services for long-distance users is likely to reduce this as short distance
DGJ/LCR/10Aug18 passengers should be catered for through other franchises. Ensuring all passengers will get seats and having appropriate luggage space will also help address this issue.
25. Are there any improvements to the level of stakeholder engagement by Cross Country that you would like to see? And how could stakeholder engagement be improved?
On the basis services are extended through to Liverpool, Merseytravel, the Transport Authority for the Liverpool City Region, would welcome a regular dialogue with the successful franchisee.
26. Does Cross Country provide a sufficient level of support to relevant Community Rail partnerships in your experience? Has this improved in the last year/18 months?
No comments.
27. Please provide ideas on what more you feel the franchise could do to help the relevant Community Rail Partnerships?
No comments.
28. 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?
No comments.
DGJ/LCR/10Aug18