Appendix C Discussions With Representatives Of Community Rail Partnerships

Contacts with community rail representatives

Meeting notes summarising the discussions held with community rail organisations are provided below.

Mid Line Rail Users Association

Retrospective The quality of service offered was felt to have declined over the last 20 years. This is in part due to increased congestion associated with the Manchester Hub, restricting service opportunities (access) and flexibility (reliability) for Mid Cheshire line rail services. The service used to offer 3 peak period arrivals in Manchester, now reduced to just one, and 4 coach trains have been largely replaced by 2 car pacer units. The possibility of enhancing capacity through train lengthening is hampered by a lack of rolling stock. Despite this situation, patronage has grown by 8-10% per year over the last 6 years, up until the Dec 08 timetable, which has depressed usage into Manchester and Stockport by 22%. Evening peak departure has been particularly unfortunately retimed, leaving too soon after 17:00 and then a 70+ minute gap until the next departure.

Train Services The hourly frequency was felt to be too low, with half hourly being the ideal. Maintaining the link with Stockport was also important. A higher frequency would also provide benefits at the end, enabling rail access to be better tied in with travel planning to major employment sites in the city. The station footfall figures provided by ORR under represent true usage. There are difficulties in fare collection due to inability for conductor to pass through the busiest trains and the lack of platform ticket issuing machines at the many unstaffed stations. Unlike many commuter lines, the Mid Cheshire sees good use throughout the day. Sunday service use has risen considerably after recent timetable improvements from 3- hourly Chester-Altrincham to 2-hourly Chester-Manchester. It was felt that an hourly Sunday service was justifiable. MCRUA with support from Northern and GMPTE conduct their own counts and are willing to supply data to illustrate the above.

Rail Infrastructure The current line speed over the core section could be enhanced to 75mph (from 60) without large investment. The 20mph restriction over the Leftwich viaducts could also be raised to 50mph if Pacers were not used on the line. Stations: Overall quality is felt to be reasonable considering that most stations are unstaffed, however there are particular issues needing to be addressed.

Northwich has a lack of car parking, the opportunity for developing which was lost when the Tesco store was opened in recent years. There is almost non-existent integration with bus services. Delivering improvements will require movements from the south to be able to turn right into the station. Achieving positive changes had proved largely intractable in the face of efforts so far and needed a planning-based joined up approach. Lostock Gralam has huge potential for developing as a park & ride site, perhaps addressing the parking constraints at Northwich. There are section 106 funds available to assist this and a plan has been progressed by Vale Royal Borough Council. Chester station is important in a general sense: points raised were

„ Interchange between trains is not managed very well, despite the large numbers of connections made there. There is minimal staff presence to help passengers, as might be expected in a station like this;

„ It is undersold as a point of access to and from a wide catchment area of interest to visitors.

„ There should be a large Tourist Information Centre, complementing the City’s status, instead of merely a leaflet rack

„ Poor/misleading information is provided by the destination electronic display on the main concourse.

„ Points receiving plaudits include the completion of the station forecourt traffic arrangements, the prospects for continuing work to complete the island platform, the new Costa franchise and integration with Wrexham and Mold bus services and the Monday to Saturday free bus shuttle, though the Sunday one is poor. MCRUA also has interests in matters concerning the London Midland Birmingham- service, connections and the stations served by these north-south operations. Winsford station was considered to be in a poor condition and had very constrained parking, although opportunities for bus integration were better. Hartford station suffered from poor integration with buses, with only an hourly service passing the station, timed so as to miss rather than greet the train. Car park capacity is exhausted early in the working day as this is a popular station. Acton Bridge offers good strategic park & ride opportunities for north-south movements, if a scheme could be funded and sufficient trains arranged to call there. ’s encouragement of commuter and other travel opportunities to Liverpool from these stations was noted.

Miscellany Integration with Metrolink at Altrincham is considered poor, particularly in outbound direction. On arrival at Altrincham the trains are likely to be discouragingly full: trams are sometimes curtailed to Timperley, making the connection hazardous with only hourly frequency trains. There were boundary effects in respect of ticket/fares integration. Flexibility is limited and penalises users from outside GM who need flexibility of routing within the boundary. The situation for concessionary travel is more complicated for senior railcard holders.

On-train ticket issue to certain Metrolink destinations is not possible although it is available at staffed stations. The half hourly Sunday frequency of rail link buses at Chester was not considered to offer real value for travellers. Crewe is an important rail location for CW&C travellers from the Northwich area, as travelling to London is more easily achieved from there than via Stockport, Wilmslow (or Hartford) due to fare and time penalties at the latter. This highlights the importance of addressing north-south as well as east-west movements from that part of the authority’s area. Interchange to/from London services at Chester with Mid Cheshire line services suffers from poorly timed connections.

Major initiatives A tram-train future for the line has been extensively discussed and it came top of a league table of ‘lines with potential’ for this type of operation, prepared by independent consultants for ACORP in 2002. Reopening of services on the Middlewich line would work well in service planning terms, opening up opportunities for southbound movements from Northwich to Crewe and beyond as well as making it much easier from those destined for Northwich and Knutsford from the south. The Airport Western Link remains on the agenda and has been considered within the Manchester Hub studies. It offers potential to radically recast service patterns in a way wholly beneficial to Northwich and other Mid Cheshire locations.

Relation with planning context The A556 between Knutsford and Altrincham is one of the most congested roads in the country (IPPR studies). The impact on rail’s attractiveness for commuting/travelling to Manchester destinations should be beneficial. The Growth Point proposals also reinforce this by proposing major growth in housing supply. Further support may be derived from the situation in the housing market, as Northwich/Winsford is a relatively affordable location, and should be attractive to people unable to live in Knutsford or locations closer to Manchester. Rail offers very good potential to capitalise on these aspects and supporting the sought- after regeneration, however it is held back by the current pared-down nature of the railway and institutional obstacles to its improvement both within the rail industry generally and from the way transport planning proceeds within GM.

North Cheshire Rail Users Group

Train service groups N Wales – Chester – Manchester service Capacity of service an issue – use of 2 car trains (an occasional lapse) results in gross overloading of peak services Increasing flows leave the train at Warrington Bank Quay View that existing rates of demand growth will demand resolution in 5 years

Off peak services are generally not overcrowded, although there are exceptions, such as Chester race days or summer weekends The overall level of service (hourly) with peak strengthening was seen as satisfactory at present, with services running usefully late into the evening. Proposals to increase this to half hourly have been aired as part of the Manchester Hub testing work The main deficiency to address in the immediate future was lack of train capacity. Ticketless travel was also seen as a major problem: In the peaks, the recorded footfall could understate the true revenue figure, by as much as 20%; train guards cannot collect revenue of units full with standing passengers. No checking is carried out in Bank Quay: the loss from East (Halton) could fall into the £50-100,000 per annum. Connections at Chester and Warrington were important but not universally effective, particularly at the latter. The improvement proposed for Dec 09, is extension of the service to Manchester Airport. Ellesmere Port – Helsby service Current service almost useless, but retained as a result of franchise specification. It was thought that Northern Rail had little or no interest in its operation of this route due to it being so isolated from Northern’s other interests. There was concensus that the line sat more naturally within the Merseyside RUS area (and therefore within the Merseyrail franchise) which would fit with Merseyside’s “aspirational plan” to extend electrification from Ellesmere Port to Helsby (and connects closely with the Halton Curve project being led by Merseytravel). Merseyrail electrification to Ellesmere Port had been double edged at best, helping to kill-off a previously useful (and used) service pattern (has previously been a half hourly service) The EP Growth Point proposals are sufficiently large as to provide major justification for improving rail services, including the Helsby trains. Commuting in the Manchester direction would need significant investment, in the service and/or car parking and service capacity on the Chester-Manchester & Liverpool Airport Stanlow & Thornton was not considered as having any value and closure would not be a problem. Ince & Elton did have potential, even though it is only moderately convenient for either village. It is well placed for the large Quinn Glass plant however.

Accessibility Access from Cheshire West to out-of-centre locations in the conurbations was poor, with Liverpool Airport and Salford Quays being particularly significant. Helsby station was completely inaccessible for mobility impaired. It also suffered from low platform heights (platform 1 particularly). Ellesmere Port is very ‘cut off’ for rail commuters heading to Manchester. This was leading to travel by car to Helsby and in order to park & ride.

Bus-rail linkage at Chester to points beyond was patchy – Mold and Wrexham being directly linked, but places in Chester such as the Zoo, Upton, Blacon or Saughall not benefiting. The lack of a City Rail Link route to the Bus Exchange area did not help. Bus links from the hinterland of Helsby and Frodsham stations was poor, with Alvanley, Manley and Kingsley having no effective bus link to the coastal stations, or Mouldsworth. This contrasted with the Chester/Ellesmere Port – Helsby - Frodsham- Runcorn/Warrington axis services which were considered satisfactory during the day, if less so in the evenings. NCRUG support the concept of “Mersey Basin” connectivity, enabling communities around the river being linked by a type of outer circle, with Ellesmere Port – Helsby – Liverpool South Parkway – Liverpool being a major new potential service (ie the Halton Curve scheme).

Main Stations Helsby – severe lack of car parking; possible alternative to the north of the line, although it is not clear if good access could be provided, assuming a site could be secured. Frodsham – Car parking was just about sufficient except on market days. Introduction of car park charging in CW&C would cause problems for the (currently free) provision at the station. The derelict buildings have not found a use despite years of effort trying to attract users. Neither station was staffed and experienced some anti social behaviour. Frodsham’s CCTV system was old and ineffective. Neither station had real time information provision: Arriva were interested in cost sharing to provide this, but had not made an effective approach to the local authorities so far. Ellesmere Port – The station was not disabled friendly and despite having Secure station accreditation, did not look or feel secure. There is a large car park, which is hardly used due to fears about security (and the better frequency of services provided at Hooton). Better bus integration could be arranged. The Growth Point should provide a major stimulus to improving this facility.

Borderlands Line Community Rail Partnership

Neston Station Neston station suffers the same as other stations along the Borderlands Railway line. Public transport customers using Neston for the first time could assume/expect the station to be a public transport interchange hub, with assuming bus stops and railway station platform having detailed public transport information displays to match the level of public transport options available on both Rail and Bus services from the railway station. Unfortunately this is not the case, and both facilities are poorly signed posted to direct the customer to each facility. Additionally the information displays at both bus shelter and railway station are basic.

Liaison with the line’s manager has revealed that patronage grew by 2.9% from 2007/8 to 2008/9.

A rail station access study and travel plan has been commissioned from Faber Maunsell, with structured recommendations for the short and longer term. More immediate items falling into the short term category include:

„ Pedestrian access route quality and wayfinding improvements

„ CCTV improvements

„ Better public transport information

„ Enhancing bus service connections

„ Partnership with neighbouring supermarket on ticket sales and cycle parking

„ Automatic ticket machines provided at station

„ Better cross-border ticketing

„ Extra unit deployed to the line, to enable frequency increase. Amongst longer term items are:

„ Electrification

„ Service extension to Birkenhead

„ Further urban realm improvements to tie the station to the town more effectively. All of these items are aspirational, although would go a long way to transforming the line’s potential.

Station footfall data supplied by MCRUA A comparison between ORR footfall data and live counts carried out by MCRUA may be made from the following table. Note that a strict comparison is not possible as the latest ORR data is a year behind the 2007/08 MCRUA data. The association advises that 2006/07 “real” footfall could be up to 10% lower than the following year, which still shows differences with the ORR figures, with only Delamere under-recording on the association’s figures compared to ORR’s.

Station ORR 05/06 ORR 06/07 MCRUA 07/08 MCRUA-10% Mouldsworth 13,663 13,674 18,720 16,848 Delamere 16,736 20,996 21,892 19,703 Cuddington 46,583 48,809 56,420 50,778 Greenbank 73,086 80,667 129,896 116,906 Northwich 135,542 140,882 187,252 168,527 Lostock Gr’m 16,145 14,663 22,308 20,077