SERTUC Transport Industries Network – ‘Round-Up’ for March 2016 to June 2016

Government, political, legal, unions, major developments, major companies, accessibility Government, Unions, political and legal How *not* to win friends and influence people – offensive remarks by DfT official Peter Wilkinson at a public meeting in Croydon led to ASLEF General Secretary Mick Whelan demanding an apology. Wilkinson called train drivers ‘muppets’, lied about drivers’ salaries and got facts wrong. Unclear if he believed that or badly briefed, despite being DfT’s £265,000 pa Rail Passenger Services Director. Mick wrote to Patrick McLoughlin, Secretary of State for Transport: ‘Dear Secretary of State, am writing further to reported comments made by Peter Wilkinson, managing director of passenger services at the , on 18 February at a public meeting in Croydon hosted by Gavin Barwell, MP for Croydon Central. I would be interested to know the extent to which you think Mr Wilkinson’s reported views reflect those of the Department for Transport. You may aware that during this meeting Mr Wilkinson was reported as describing train drivers as “muppets” who earned £60,000 for working three days a week. He was also reported as saying that drivers still had the same rest stops as they did during the era of steam trains. I am sure you will appreciate that these statements are completely untrue. I have no doubt a man of Mr Wilkinson’s experience must have known this himself. Do you agree that Mr Wilkinson deliberately misled the public while speaking in his capacity as a senior DfT official? Also do you think that the term “muppet” is appropriate language to use about the staff who deliver the rail services we rely on every day? Mr Wilkinson was then reported to have said that he has a plan to enforce changes to drivers’ conditions. He was reported as commenting that “we’re going to have punch ups and we will see industrial action and I want your support.” He was reported to have told the meeting “we have got to break them… They have all borrowed money to buy cars and got credit cards. They can't afford to spend too long on strike and I will push them into that place.” I thought it was in the interests of the DfT and all rail industry stakeholders particularly passengers to try and avoid breakdowns in industrial relations and not to seemingly relish it. Can you confirm it is the DfT’s position to “break” train drivers and by extension their trade union ASLEF? You will know that railway relies on the good will of train drivers in terms of flexibility and the provision of overtime to function. This will be necessary going forward to meet requirements for future electrification, and the introduction of new rolling stock. I find Mr Wilkinson’s comments to be both offensive and deplorable as well as being insulting to all hard working rail industry employees. All of this surely leaves Mr Wilkinson’s position untenable? I look forward to your observations of the comments above. Yours sincerely, Mick Whelan, General Secretary’ [ASLEF website, letter UNedited] Not given much publicity was the apology issued by McLoughlin a few days later. Even less publicised (according to Private Eye) was that Wilkinson has been banned from public speaking, not for being offensive but for exposing government policy… NetRail asset sales must safeguard future rail requirements – asset sales by the newly-created Property will be subject to overview by the ORR and the Transport Secretary, said rail minister Claire Perry [having been made aware of the future threat to privateers’ profits if NetRail can’t expand the railway for them?]. Shadow Transport Secretary Lilian Greenwood MP asked Perry in a House of Commons question whether Network Rail Property will be responsible for disposing of the body’s operational estate. Perry replied that asset sales will only happen if NetRail satisfies its board, the transport secretary and the ORR that it is not in conflict with current and future operational needs. But – the newly-enhanced property business will lead on disposals. Network Rail has £50bn of debt by the end of the decade and is considering selling off its major stations and electrical power assets to balance its books. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added-to] Another Claire Perry pronouncement… - “Franchises must put passenger comfort at the of rolling stock” - rail franchises will be required to modernise their rolling stock in order to improve passenger comfort. The government will require new franchise bidders (such as West Midlands Rail) to include improving rolling stock in each bid, and will pilot a scheme where new franchisees (East Coast, TPE and Northern) have to invest a portion of their profits in rolling stock innovation for the first three years. The DfT’s report also said it wasn’t acceptable that the National Passenger Survey found that passenger satisfaction stays below 80%. Rolling stock recommendations include new solutions to reduce overcrowding, potentially double deck trains and alterable seat layouts, while passenger comfort improvements should include ergonomic seating, wi-fi and mobile phone reception available as standard. In future (as if it doesn’t happen ) trains will transfer between TOCs and routes. To allow for this common operating systems for coupling, train management and train control are necessary (but no sign of actually compelling this) and a long-term approach to livery [undefined – will all trains of the same type have a national livery for each type of train?]. Also, trains should be designed to improve their environmental impact by reducing emissions, being more easily recycled at the end of their life, and ending toilet discharge onto tracks by January 2020 [which may be before the working life of a train is complete]. NetRail must work more closely with train manufacturers in order to ensure that rolling stock is compatible with rail infrastructure. DfT recommends that TOCs work closer together to develop common ‘big ticket’ items for rolling stock, including standard train heights and widths, vehicle lengths and door positions, lighter trains and driver advisory systems [this ignores the different national track geometries and permitted weights on sections/routes – mere detail no doubt, to be dismissed as socialist pessimism, despite being from someone who worked in a railway Control Room for eleven years]. The report also promises that HS2 train procurement strategy, to begin in 2017, will “set new standards in passenger experience”, and that the European Train Control System (ETCS) will be installed on all trains as part of the introduction of the Digital Railway. [er, sounds like the return of nationalised rail?] [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added-to] DfT position on (not-yet-published then) Shaw report on Network Rail – in a Parliamentary answer it admitted it no options were ruled out for NetRail. One organised ‘leak’ in the Independent of 22 Feb suggests NetRail generate funds for major projects by either sell-off or long-leasing its ‘major stations’ ( Termini, Manchester Piccadilly, Leeds, Newcastle Central etc), to raise £1.8 billion. DfT claimed all options from full privatisation to continued public sector ownership were valid. The Shaw Report was expected in March, with an organised leak by Shaw Report team head, Emil Levendoğlu, in early March at a conference on next steps for the rail network in , suggesting it’s unlikely that Shaw will endorse keeping Network Rail entirely under public control. NetRail has made public its use of Citigroup bankers to examine selling off all or parts of its major stations to plug debt, set to hit £50bn by end- decade. Rail industry names also suggested foreign investment and private cash as forward funding sources. Concerns have been aired that NetRail’s £38.5bn Control Period 5 budget will be too small without private money, while National Infrastructure Commission chief Lord Adonis said wider sources of funding are “quite important” for bigger projects. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] DfT seeking advice on franchising contingency plan - the Department needs a mobilisation plan, should the normal franchising process fail, possibly for the CrossCountry franchise. In response to a written question from Shadow Transport Secretary Lilian Greenwood, rail minister Claire Perry said the DfT is currently consulting the Arup, SNC-Lavalin (InterFleet) and EY partnership on the CrossCountry franchise. In November 2015, the partnership was awarded a two-year £616,000 contract to advise DfT on fulfilling its duties under Section 30 of the Railways Act 1993. The Act requires DfT to provide, or secure the provision of, railway services where normal franchising arrangements fail. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] However… The DfT is so strapped for resource and franchising is now so complex and fraught with legal traps that it can only deal with three ‘competitions’ per year, hence the sudden rise in ‘extending’ current franchises without competing bids, just to buy time, adding ‘Taxpayers main comfort is that if profits [which any competent accountant can reduce to zero at the stroke of a key] turn out to be bigger than expected, DfT gets a share.’ Southeastern’s (main shareholder, Go-Ahead) performance has continued to fall since its new contract in Oct 2014, including the ‘Javelin’ service on substantially-dedicated lines. Hasn’t harmed profits (= delays make money for the operator), as it has made ‘maximum profit-share contribution’ of £147m to DfT in that last half-year, while also receiving £30m subsidy from government. This windfall has generated enough cash for profits and to cut fares as well as pay compensation to passengers – guess which of these hasn’t happened. GoVia’s (main shareholder, Go-Ahead) switched to a non-competed contract extension in April to last until Oct 2017 with a £130m subsidy, or roughly £41m per half-year, which is about DOUBLE the previous franchise subsidy of £20.1m for the second half of 2015… [Private Eye, issue 1414 (March; edited and added to)] CBI demands National Infrastructure Commission is kept independent of ‘politics’ – sensing a lot of money coming, they want fewest obstacles in getting it. They have eight ‘key areas’ in guise of ‘must focus on long-term planning to tackle the challenges the UK will face in coming decades’. Top of those are ‘secure, diverse low-carbon energy’, ‘5G’ mobile connectivity, ‘climate change impact factored into planning water supplies and flood defences’ and ‘creative solutions’ for future road, rail and port demand. Specifically for transport, the CBI insists: Rail - increased capacity is top priority for 90% of business, with digitisation, electrification and high- speed technology for future demand; Roads - as almost two thirds of UK journeys are by road, long-term upgrades and maintenance funding is vital; Ports and airports - connectivity is exporters’ key issue, for more direct access to emerging markets, plus ‘integrating the country’s rail and road network with national gateways’. [Wired.gov website, edited] Transport Committee report on ‘surface transport to airports’ - Government lack of clear lead on integrated transport planning is a major obstacle to better surface access to UK's airports. The Transport Select Committee (TSC) urged Government to state an integrated transport plan for nationals connecting facilities for airports, boosting regional access and economic development. For electronic readers, the three elements are: Report: Surface transport to airports; Report: Surface transport to airports (PDF 581 KB) and Inquiry: Surface transport to airports. The Inquiry examined UK airports with one million passengers or more per annum; members agreed poor surface access restricted growth, adversely affected passenger experience and forced airport users, local commuters and airport employees to choose transport which challenged environmental standards. An evident lack of leadership on strategic planning was clear. Heathrow and Gatwick were not the key focus of the inquiry, but lack of an airport capacity decision for the south east meant that difficulty in seeing how regional airports fitted nationally. ‘Devolution’ had potential to improve local planning and economic development, but NetRail and Highways England had to be willing participants: how they prioritised airport access schemes was vital to allow effective local plans. Access/egress modes should all be deliverable in both convenience and environmental grounds. Respective roles and responsibilities of the National Infrastructure Commission, Transport for the North, combined authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships had to be clarified. This was particularly important to ensure that advances such as integrated ticketing, could be implemented for passengers greater benefit. [Wired.gov website, edited] DfT rejects involvement in improving airport rail connections - recommendations from the TSC in February have been rejected. TSC said rail connections were crucial for improving airport access and urged government to do more; DfT replied that some of these recommendations were either outside its remit or already in place. The recommendation that as a first step DfT should publish plans to improve public surface transport options signposting at airports, had the reply that airport operators were best placed for that. When asked how DfT would encourage local authorities, NetRail and Highways England to avoid simultaneous local rail and road closures, it said engagement was already good and intervention was “unnecessary”. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Transport Committee inquiry seeks evidence on rail franchising - latest TSC ‘Future of Rail’ inquiry, on rail franchising, has sought submissions of evidence. It looked into how far the DfT’s approach to rail franchising achieved key policy markers of transferring financial risk to the private sector, promoting market while improving rail passenger experience and balancing cost, service quality and deliverability. It also assessed DfT’s ability to cope with high levels of planned franchising activity in 2016 - 2017. The DfT’s approach to rail franchising has changed to accommodate criticisms made in the West Coast franchise collapse analysed in the Laidlaw and Brown reviews. The committee was also interested in costs of bidding for franchises and extent to which increasing costs dissuade new operators, any actions to encourage new entrants, and practical recommendations to better manage the effects of rail infrastructure works on rail franchisees. Also covered was the feasibility of a significant increase in rail open access operators, which a House of Lords session [see immediately below] said might limit existing franchise operation commitments. The inquiry also evaluated lessons from the current East Anglia franchise bids, deferred to after the successful bidder is announced. Evidence was accepted until 03 Jun, and follows existing inquiries into rail technology, digital rail and passenger experiences. The next inquiries in the series will be about railway safety, governance and financing. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Increased open access trains will mean promises to expand franchises can’t be honoured - Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Randerson told Lord Ahmad, Parliamentary DfT and Home Office under-secretary, that increased franchising competition recommended by the Competition and Markets Authority would fill all the slots earmarked for Virgin services to Lincoln. However, Lord Ahmad said that there will be an additional six trains from London to Lincoln and five trains the other way from May 2019, as well as the introduction of upgraded train interiors. Lord Bradshaw pointed out that under the Railways Act 1993, ORR is obliged to promote competition when deciding open access applications but not obliged to consider the interests of passengers, the public purse or subsequent franchise competitions [a licence for mega-profits and to legally disregard passengers]. Transport Secretary McLoughlin had written to the ORR asking [‘asking’ is a quote, not ‘telling’] them to “put the customer at the heart” of franchise reforms, but ruled out regulatory changes; also asking ORR to show the DfT recommended changes to current open access charging structure before any new open access agreements were granted. Labour’s Lord Harris accused the government of “conniving with the train operating companies” after another Labour peer, Lord Rosser [former GenSec TSSA] said that ORR’s recommended improvements to passenger compensation arrangements were being delayed until Oct 2017. Lord Ahmad said he hadn’t read the ORR’s report but would write to Lord Rosser. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Some light reading (a mere 28 pages) – The House of Commons Library has released a paper on the process of calculating rail fares. For those reading this electronically, the direct link is http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01904/SN01904.pdf otherwise the formal ‘summary’ is (unedited): ‘Around 45 per cent of fares are subject to regulation (by the Secretary of State in England and Wales and Scottish Ministers in Scotland). Regulated fares are set by a formula based on the RPI figure for the previous July, and for many years with a degree of flexibility (called the ‘fares basket’ or ‘flex’). All other fares are set commercially by train operators. The regulated fare increase for 2016 was 1% (based on an RPI +/-0 formula); the total fare increase was 1.1%. This disguises variations across different routes. Almost without exception, when the annual fare increases are announced every year passenger groups express concerns that significant increases could ‘price people off the railways’ and put a strain on those who use the railways to commute to work, particularly into and out of London. However, it has been the policy of successive governments to rebalance the funding of the railways between passengers and taxpayers: reducing the relative contribution of the latter. A consequence of this is higher fares. The train companies themselves are keen to rebut claims that they are ‘profiteering’ off higher fares, noting that fares income is spent on upgrades and investment projects and, in some cases, is passed on to the Government as part of the financial package for the franchise. In terms of ticketing, successive governments, working with the industry, have made efforts to simplify the fares structure, though some passenger groups feel that it is still too complicated. In recent years, technological improvements combined in some cases with devolved decision making has led to the introduction of ‘smart’ ticketing across parts of the rail network, though there is concern about a lack of integration between these systems. The Government has also sought to promote ‘flexible’ ticketing, such as part-time season tickets and other innovations, but progress has been slow.’ House of Commons Library Briefing paper on Network Rail SN02129, 16 March 2016 – this 27 page document sets out the government’s view on funding and future. The electronic link is http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02129/SN02129.pdf and for hard copy readers, this is the Executive Summary [UNedited except for formatting]: “Network Rail is responsible for the operation, maintenance and improvement of railway infrastructure (i.e. the track, signals, bridges and stations) in England, Scotland and Wales. Its primary customers are the train and freight operating companies who run train services over the network. It was set up in 2002 as a company limited by guarantee, run on commercial lines but without shareholders, reinvesting profits in the railway. On 1 September 2014 the company became an arm’s-length body of the Department for Transport. “The company has been under pressure for several years due to engineering overruns and concerns over its governance structure and accountability. In 2014 NR was reclassified as a central government body in the public sector; the main effects of this are that NR’s debt (estimated to reach £50 billion by 2019) has moved onto the Government’s balance sheet and the Government is able to exert more direct control over pay and strategy. “Following delays and cost overruns in its major enhancements programme in 2015 the Government ordered a number of reviews into how NR is run and how it should change in the future. Two of these – Hendy and Bowe – reported in late 2015 and focused on how the enhancements programme could be put back on track, how much it would cost to do so and how similar problems would be avoided in future. “The Shaw Report on NR, published in March 2016 recommended that NR’s regulation be overhauled, that the company restructure and devolve its operations to better fit the political geography of the country and introduce more private finance into the network. The report’s main recommendation for achieving this is to let out concessions or time-limited contracts to the private sector to operate individual routes. This would also have the benefit of moving costs off the Government’s balance sheet. The Government has indicated it will respond fully to the report later in the year. [Shaw OPPOSED full privatisation of NetRail – omitted here] “Information on other railway matters can be found on the Railways Topical Page of the Parliament website.” Office of Rail and Road (ORR) supports better delay-repay for passengers – better information and monitoring of repayment processes are among recommendations from ORR to help rail passengers get more of the compensation they are due from delays. In Dec 2015, Which? lodged a ‘super-complaint’ about train company practices over delays, highlighting ‘double disadvantage’, as the claims process for compensation was neither clear nor straightforward. ORR noted some train companies were using new technology to improve passengers’ compensation [only applies to tickets bought online from the same company as having the delays]. However, passenger rights awareness is low and information is poor: around 80% of passengers do not claim compensation. ORR has “recommended a package of measures” [but not imposed any] to deliver better, faster results for consumers: a co-ordinated, national promotional campaign by TOCs to raise awareness; clearer, plain English forms with website information and written media to simplify claims, better delay-repay staff training, a review of consistency in train franchises to promote compensation more prominently and more often at the time of delay, and a clearer licence condition for TOCs so that compensation is clearer and enforced, it will closely monitor TOCs to make sure improvements are delivering for passengers. ORR is also working with Transport Focus on a compensation survey of 8000 passengers to measure the 'claims gap' between what passengers are entitled to from delays and how much is paid out. [mass media and government sources, edited and added-to] Another condemnation of train operators - confusing jargon is “widely used” by train operators’ ticket vending machines (TVMs) at UK rail stations, ORR says, seeking less use of industry jargon as well as clearer information on ticket restrictions. Phrases highlighted for lack of clarity included ‘London Terminals’ and ‘Any Permitted [Route]’. Abbreviations such as ‘Anytime R’ for Anytime Return were also highlighted by the ORR as leading to misunderstanding. All operators use jargon on ticketing but worst offenders included Abellio Greater Anglia, East Midlands Trains, Govia Railway, ScotRail and Southeastern [operators in bold serve SERTUC’s region]. ORR added: “While millions of tickets are purchased using ticket vending machines without obvious problems being encountered, it is equally clear that further improvements in the information provided by such machines - such as clearer information on ticket restrictions and less use of industry terminology or jargon - would assist passengers in making the best decision when buying tickets … [jargon terms were] “still widely used without explanation”. The study also found some passengers had to wait several minutes after the last peak-time service had left the station before they could buy off-peak tickets at many TVMs. Cheaper tickets were available “generally within five minutes”, but Northern Rail customers had to wait up to a quarter of an hour [some operators allow off-peak tickets to be bought at any time, even from 4pm the day before]. The report also published survey results showing passengers believed operators were “generally poor” at dealing with disruption on the network. [BBC website news page, edited and added to] ORR exploring options for route-based regulation - increased route-based regulation is likely to be introduced, in the ORR’s business plan for 2016-17, using the Shaw Report as justification, which recommended further route devolution. ORR is already researching how route-based devolution could look and how it would affect the structure of charges for passenger and freight operators. These changes have come following NetRail’s becoming a publicly owned body, subject to fixed borrowing limits, and needs to look at other ways to raise money. ORR will state in its periodic review PR18, potential options and ways NetRail can maintain value for money, including options for any plans to sell major stations. The regulator wants to improve rail safety by ‘safety by design’ in all new rail projects such as HS2, as well as focusing on level crossings, industry collaboration, occupational health improvements and stations. ORR is monitoring how the industry is implementing recommendations from its response to a super-complaint by Which? into passenger delay compensation, and later in 2016 will publish an annual report on consumers, ‘Measuring Up’, for the first time. It will also reduce turnover from £31.4m to £30.1m in the next accounting year. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] ORR – what it does and why – http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02071/SN02071.pdf takes you to a House of Commons Library paper on the formal role of the ORR. Their Summary states: “The ORR’s main job is to ensure that the rail network performs smoothly and, where it does not, to remedy any problems and hold those responsible to account. It is responsible for safety regulation, the performance of, access to and investment in the network. One of ORR’s key roles is regulating Network Rail, the infrastructure owner and operator. While the regulator does not have a role in regulating the train and freight operating companies, its decisions regarding Network Rail have a direct effect on train services. The regulator can fine Network Rail for breaches to its network licence, which it has done on a number of occasions since 2002. ORR is also one of the key players in the five-yearly periodic review process during which it sets Network Rail’s outputs and funding for the following review period (the next one will run from 2019 to 2024 and begin later this year). Plans for reform of ORR were put forward after the McNulty rail value for money study was published back in 2011 but little happened. There is now renewed impetus following the Bowe and Shaw reports on the future of the rail industry. The Secretary of State and the ORR have committed to reforming the role of the regulator in the future, focusing on customers, and improving cohesion and effectiveness. ORR also has a role in monitoring the performance of Highways England – that is not discussed in this paper.” Their words, not ours! [House of Commons website, mildly reformatted] ORR Business Plan 2016-17 published – http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/21613/business-plan-2016-17.pdf takes you to a 30 page report on the Office’s programme for the coming operational year. No Executive Summary but the chapter headers are: The Need for Regulation, Our Framework for Success, Our Strategic Objectives, Achieving our Goals, A Safer Railway, Better Customer Service, Value for Money from the Railway, Better Highways, Promoting a Dynamic and Commercially Sustainable Rail Sector, High Performing Regulation, Efficiency in our work, Transparency at the heart of ORR, Annexes on Service Standards and Organisation… ORR ‘Period 18’ consultation – on the basis that rail passengers and freight customers need a safe, reliable and efficient railway, ORR says its role is to support the rail industry to deliver this and to ensure that every pound of the public’s money is well spent. On 18 May, the Office launched its first major consultation on the 2018 periodic review, ‘PR18’. This will help determine what NetRail should deliver for 2019 - 2024, as well as the funding and incentives needed to support this. The first PR18 consultation is available to read at: http://orr.gov.uk/consultations/open-consultations/periodic-review-2018-initial-consultation The ORR’s website has more at http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/regulation-of- network-rail/how-we-regulate-network-rail/periodic-review-2018/about-pr18 Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) flags up recurrent safety concerns after near misses - dangers associated with track worker safety, track quality, freight train condition and platform interface all need to be reviewed, RAIB has warned in its corporate report. It identified a number of elements which repeatedly recurred in safety incidents in 2014-15, during which it said there were eight incidents in which a multiple fatality accident was only narrowly avoided. It is also concerned about management of recurrent track faults such as ‘twist and cyclic top’ after investigating six cases involving poor track quality. It found the freight industry suffered from issues including unevenly distributed loads, poorly designed spigots and design and maintenance of vehicles. RAIB repeated concerns about the door operating systems safety following a serious passenger injury at West Wickham, and also identified level crossings, earthworks and structures as recurrent concerns. Last year was the first year in history without a rail worker being killed, although Ian Prosser, HM chief inspector of railways, warned it is vital to avoid complacency. The corporate report also reveals that RAIB will have a funding decrease next year, from £4.8m to £4.7m. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited]

Buses Bill – (1) RMT position and interpretation – the Buses Bill is meant to allow widespread route and network franchising. Franchising currently places a heavy administrative and legal burden on local authorities – at least in terms of setting up a scheme. No council has yet successfully cleared existing hurdles. [Nexus Tyne and Wear’s attempt – known as “Quality Contract” - was rejected by the Traffic Commissioner on 3 Nov 2015]. The Bill, expected to receive royal assent by May 2017* (in time for the Manchester Mayoral election), is meant to make bus franchising relatively simple and attractive for local authorities. Implementation timescale could be long, between one and a half to five years from start of process, which can’t happen before the Bill/Act is law. Government may aspire to local authorities underwriting investment in buses and staff training as part of ‘re-regulation’. When bus franchising was previously proposed, the then Labour government was persuaded that TUPE should apply, to protect bus workers’ terms and conditions, especially for pensions. DfT concessions given then imply that TUPE will apply to the new Bill, but new watertight assurances are essential, as well as new legal protections. Irrespective of bus services framework changes, further cuts in central bus financial support are expected, which may lead to staff cuts. Franchising is a key part of regional devolution: the first regional authority - Cornwall Council – now has such powers [but has elected not to take them up – yet], in return for council commitments to meet service targets (not yet publicised) and contribute £2.35 million of its own funds toward vehicle improvement and public information / ticketing. Cornwall will also introduce a new governance structure to manage the network. The deal is similar to the TfL model, following on from a recent ‘Total Transport Initiative’. A significant aspect is that Bus Service Operators Grant devolves from going direct to operators, to Cornwall Council to award to bus companies. Passenger usage may rise from better integration of bus, rail and ferry services and with smart ticketing / cashless transactions, but as long as public transport costs more than private motoring and runs infrequently, along with funding cuts, this is far from certain. Cornish bus services have waned - since 2010, 24 out of 163 services (almost 15%) in Cornwall have been withdrawn. Patronage has declined over the last three years, bus passenger numbers have dropped by around 10%. RMT has met DfT officials and taken part in a workshop with bus operators, local authorities and civil servants. The union is working with the Campaign for Better Transport and others http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdfs/Charities_NGO_Joint_Letter_Spe nding_Review_2015.pdf, and mobilising the TUC to become involved, as well as investigate and model the likely outcomes if the outline Bill becomes law. [RMT, edited and reformatted] *: this is a long time-scale, indicating the government expects a fight in both Houses… (2) Queen’s Speech Wed 17 May - Bus Services Bill (England only) – ‘headlines’ of combined local authorities with elected mayors to have power to franchise local services, operators required to share route, fare and schedule data with app developers, councils to set standards for ticketing, branding and frequency of services, and clearer and simpler franchising arrangements. [BBC news website, reformatted]. Peculiarly the London listed ‘all 21’ Bills in the Queen’s Speech but not this one. It did show the ‘Modern Transport Bill’ for which they failed to mention Buses at all, focusing on the plans to build Britain’s first spaceport… (2A) – ‘It is important to note that the new powers will not undo the cuts which have seen so many local authority-supported bus services disappear in the last five years. To really deliver the bus services communities want and need, the Government will need to augment the new Buses Services Bill powers with assurances over sustainable levels of long term funding.’ [Campaign for Better Transport, website blog on Queen’s Speech]; (3) new clause prevents municipal bus companies starting up - government seems terrified that public operated services run more effectively and with cheaper fares than private operators. A new, last-gasp clause in the Bus Services Bill (formal title) bans local authorities from setting up their own bus companies, labelled "vindictive and unfair" by TSSA. England and Wales still has 10 municipal bus services operating, and one of them, Reading, was ‘operator of the year’ last year. The government’s fear appears to be that with a new raft of elected mayors at Bristol and Manchester etc, a revival in publicly operated bus services might happen, which have historically proven to be cheaper and more efficient than the private operators. This is in stark contradiction to the professed worship of devolution [TSSA website, edited]

Unstated risks from rural and country bus cuts – It’s received wisdom in Britain that car ownership is liberating, but catching the bus can be more liberating still if you're heading to the countryside for a walk. If you’ve arrived by bus, you can finish your walk at a different bus stop instead of having to return to your starting point. In mountainous areas, you’re free to plot a route on the map which connects two different valleys, either side of the uplands. Dedicated long-distance walkers break Britain’s long-distance National Trails into sections between bus stops which they can complete in a day. Buses are also liberating for tourists who can’t drive or choose not to, which includes many overseas people who holiday, study or work here. Many don’t hold driving licences or lack confidence to drive hire cars on the ‘wrong’ side of the road. Rail takes them out of cities, but buses reach most of our finest lakes, beaches, mountains, moors, villages and rural market towns. The attractiveness of rail-served towns for holidays or long weekends can be enhanced if visitors know there are buses to take them to, from and between outlying attractions to see during their stay. However, the economic benefits of inbound tourism rarely feature in deliberations on the costs and benefits of subsidised buses. Local government is under financial pressure to reduce public transport spending. Most authorities look beyond the naked ‘subsidy per passenger journey’ statistics to give weight to factors such as residents’ access to healthcare, employment and education facilities, but how often are the benefits to the local tourism sector quantified and included? In many rural areas, dial-a-ride or community transport services have replaced buses. Are they available to visitors and do they operate at suitable times? How easy is it for intending visitors (including those whose first language isn’t English) to find timetable and route information, understand the system and pre-book their journeys? Sunday bus services often bear the brunt of cuts, but for working people Sunday is often their leisure day. Some Gower Peninsula Sunday bus services users chose to visit after finding that other places they would have liked to visit had no suitable Sunday public transport. Over the past five years, approximately 30% of Gower passengers on Sundays have been from overseas. Sunday buses also provide routes back to local railheads for staying visitors. When Herefordshire County Council withdrew subsidy for Sunday bus services between Hereford and Hay-on-Wye, businesses in Hay were so alarmed at the potential impact on staying visitors and day-trippers that they funded Sunday services, helped by contributions from well-wishers. Elsewhere, businesses tend to be quiet about buses. Many chambers of commerce volunteer opinions on local car parking but may not appreciate existing and potential economic benefits of buses. Visitors aren’t around to lobby for retention or improvement of a bus service they used a few years ago or could use in the future. Perhaps local businesses should be visitors’ advocates. Where suitable bus services exist, businesses can help to secure their future by promoting the bus option, ideally with more than a vague reference to buses’ existence beneath detailed directions for motorists. Attractions could also offer discounts for visitors who arrive by bus, especially where the cost of ‘free’ parking is in the admission price. [Campaign for Better Transport, Rhodri Clark guest ‘blog’ on website, mildly edited] Government Office for Low-Emission Vehicles (OLEV) – this little-known department issues financial support for bids from bus operators to buy buses which emit less. Outside of our area: First Group has a national bid in for support to buy/operate 45 double-deckers (in Bristol), while Nottingham City Transport is seeking support for 82 double-deckers. OLEV has deferred its final awards decision from ‘now’ to a future date not given. Other low-emission bus news – Reading Buses has ordered five gas-powered Scania/Alexander double-deckers while RATP Paris will shortly receive five articulated single-deck Scania gas-powered buses. TOCs forced to pay for rail improvements? – legislation requiring train operating companies (TOCs) to spend compensation payments from NetRail for delays on improvement projects was introduced on 13 April in the House of Commons. Joan Ryan, Labour MP for Enfield North, who led the group of 12 MPs presenting the Improvement of Rail Passenger Services (Use of Disruption Payments) Bill, said that it was unfair that TOCs profit from Schedule 8 disruption payments from NetRail for maintenance failures which lead to delays. Of the £575m in Schedule 8 payments made between 2010 and 2015, only £73m was spent on compensation for passengers. Although this is more than double the amount before 2010, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) recently criticised lack of information on how to claim compensation in response to a Which? campaign. Many payments were funded by taxpayers’ contributions to NetRail. In NetRail’s latest figures, the public performance measure (PPM) of Britain’s railways was 90.5%, compared to 91.2% for the same time last year, with NetRail responsible for roughly 60% of delays. Virgin is the only TOC currently giving compensation as money, not vouchers, as TOCs are now obliged to do under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The proposed Bill will empower ORR to make TOCs disclose profit (something any competent accountant can reduce to zero at the stroke of a key) from Schedule 8 payments and ensure it is spent to improve passenger experience, including retaining ticket office staff, facilitating easier access to station platforms and trains, free wi-fi, or providing a guarantee that trains will not miss out stops. Ryan cited a £4m rail reparation fund, created last year by the ORR and NetRail to benefit passengers affected by delays on Thameslink, and Southern routes, which was spent on increasing station and maintenance staff and introducing incident management software. The Bill was introduced under the Ten Minute Rule, and was next due to be read in the Commons on 22 April. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Parliamentary inquiry into rail passenger experience launched - witnesses were invited to submit evidence on passengers’ experiences to the Transport Select Committee. The inquiry wanted written evidence on information provided to passengers before, during and after journeys, ticketing, in-train facilities, performance measures and mechanisms to hold operators accountable. Which? warned that “consumers are getting a raw deal” following their latest passenger satisfaction survey. The committee is carrying out a series of inquiries into the future of rail. Their other inquiries have been about rail technology and the future of digital rail. It will also look separately at the Office of Rail and Road (ORR’s) recommendations following a super- complaint by Which? about railway ticket compensation. The inquiry accepted written evidence until 25 May. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Women’s safety on public transport – three-quarters of UK women have been subjected to harassment or violence on urban transport, a report by Action Aid has stated. 36% of women felt at risk on public transport in UK cities, rising specifically in London to 51%. Between April and December 2015, 1603 sex offences were reported on London’s rail routes (Underground, Overground, main line) and buses, compared with 1117 events for the same period in 2014. Concerns have been expressed for women’s safety when starts running, specifically with the low staffing numbers in stations. UK women in age groups 18-24 and 25-34 expressed apprehension about passenger transport use, with up to 92% of those questioned having been victims of inappropriate behaviour. [Action Aid report, edited] Transport Unions ASLEF – on 26 Feb Mick Whelan was re-elected as GenSec; at close of nominations no-one ran against him for his second five-year term, first elected Nov 2011 and will be in position to 2021. BALPA - Brian Strutton will be the union’s next General Secretary, taking over on 01 Jun when current GenSec Jim McAuslan stands down after 13 years in post. [BALPA website, edited and added-to] Staff travel facilities on main line rail – all three key rail transport unions have joined together to promote fairness and equality for all staff in the rail industry, as opposed to the present two tier system where some staff receive travel benefits and some don’t. In the statement signed by Mick Whelan of ASLEF, Mick Cash of RMT and Manuel Cortes of TSSA the three General Secretaries reiterated their support for staff travel benefits across the board: “We note that rail workers who entered employment in the railways before 1 April 1996 are safeguarded and eligible for the full range of protected rail travel facilities for themselves and their families. We further note that nearly all those who entered the rail industry after 31 March 1996 are either not entitled to free travel at all or only restricted facilities on an individual company basis if they work for a passenger train operating company. Travel facilities are clearly an important benefit and we are concerned that despite representations by our unions the employers and government have allowed a damaging two tier system to develop amongst UK rail workers. Furthermore it is the case that rail workers from other countries such as Spain or France are entitled to free travel across the UK rail network yet a British rail worker employed after 1996 is not. We believe that all rail workers and their families, irrespective of service, should receive equal, free and improved travel facilities which may be multi-modal. We call on the government, devolved transport authorities and rail companies to ensure the introduction of a more equal and improved system of travel facilities provision forthwith.” [TU websites] (TfL) Rise in sexual harassment offences on London’s transport – sexual harassment reports on London’s transport have increased by 36% in the past year following a campaign to encourage action on the problem. The number of complaints was 1,603 between April last year, when the ‘Report It to Stop It’ joint campaign [Transport for London (TfL), the Metropolitan Police Service, British Transport Police (BTP) and City of London Police] began, and December, compared to 1,117 during the same period in 2014. The campaign’s key message to victims was that they didn't need to prove a criminal offence or intent to report an incident, was promoted by a video, viewed nearly four million times. Overall, sexual offences reports on Britain’s rails increased by 25% in the previous year. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited]. If there’s a staff dispute, TfL pushes it – since 21 Mar, TfL’s TSSA members have been taking action short of strikes over their pay dispute. TfL capped 2014-15 pay awards for staff at £2 million, equivalent to 1% of the pay bill for 5000+ Band 1-3 staff. By contrast, they paid almost £1 million in performance awards to 26 of their highest earners. 2015-16 pay talks should begin after the London Mayoral elections, allowing TSSA to consult staff on aspirations, including fair and equal pay aspects. Following consultation and members’ feedback, TSSA reinstated action short of strike for members in pay bands 1-3 from 1 Jan 2016 after being stonewalled by TfL: No work beyond contractual hours, including all non-contractual overtime, refusing out of hours phone calls, taking full meal breaks and VDU [‘DSE’] breaks; no participation in any Performance and Development Reviews, except those with line management responsibilities should conduct end of year reviews for staff not part of the current action. A further ban applies to ‘volunteer’ duties, mentoring and ‘buddying’. Template letters to inform bosses of non-participation were supplied by TSSA in line with legal advice. This action is integral with the wider strategy of achieving fair and transparent pay in TfL, which includes legal challenges via individual and/or collective equal pay claims, and for members to help identify unequal pay conditions. A separate parallel strategy is to build links with political and community allies, to improve existing links with Assembly members, who can publicly question the Mayor, and a range of community transport groups. [TSSA website, severely edited] New opportunities for disabled people – young adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities have a dedicated opportunity to help them on to the career ladder through a 12-month programme. The ‘Steps into Work’ scheme, jointly run by TfL, London Borough of Barnet, Southgate College and Remploy, offers people aged 16 work experience opportunities while studying for a BTEC Level 1 work skills qualification. TfL offered participants three work placements lasting between nine and 11 weeks, in a mixture of office-based work and on-the-job experience at an Underground station. Recruitment stays open until January 2017; three open days were held, 23 / 25 / 27 May for more information. The formal contacts were/are email [email protected] or call 020 3054 2718. [Wired.gov, edited] Fare payment systems – TfL continues to expand different non-cash ways to pay for ticketing, extending from ‘contactless cards’ to now mobile telephone ‘apps’ which can be swiped on bus, Underground and Overground ‘readers’ and all are gradually offering ‘capping’ on periodic spends, some more generous and flexible than others. At the moment, the charges are the same regardless of means of payment/registering, which does not penalise those who cannot or do not use these ‘alternatives’. The issue will arise when these systems users realise TfL is saving money by applying these, and demand a discount, which will affect disabled passengers who pay fares and overseas visitors whose mobile phones or contactless cards are not compatible with London’s fare collection systems… Not much changes… – TfL released the full response to their ‘consultation’ on the Tunnel – the electronic link takes you to an 1191 page (which does NOT include the ‘Appendices’) of detailed responses. A very quick study shows no addressing of noise issues and most individual comments have been negated. For the daring and with lots of time to spare, follow this: http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp- content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010021/2.%20Post- Submission/Application%20Documents/Reports/5.1%20Consultation%20Report.pdf TfL as property developer – (1) Earl’s Court – Tube maintenance workers will be balloted for strike action in a row over the future of maintenance depot which is likely to be demolished as part of the Earls Court regeneration scheme. TfL and developer Capco want to build hundreds of new homes but RMT claims the plans include demolishing . LU is accused of trampling agreed consultation timetables and threatening jobs / working conditions of staff, driven by Mayor Johnson’s desire to achieve something to call his own before he leaves office. LU says no decision has been made about the depot’s fate, and consultation processes will be observed. [London Mayorwatch website, edited]; (2) the new Mayor is pushing ahead with developing land over TfL stations as new housing – a target of 10,000 new homes has been set, many to be in ‘desirable’ locations within fare zones 1 & 2, making them unlikely to be ‘affordable’. 75 sites in Zone 1 covering 300 acres have been identified for development, notably Nine Elms, Parson’s Green and the Grade I listed 55 Broadway in Westminster. A further 300 homes will be built at each of two sites along the Extension, at Southwark and Bermondsey. In outer London, developments are scheduled for Harrow on the Hill, Northwood and Kidbrooke. Major termini will also see close-by homes built, not for locals presumably – Kings Cross and will see new accommodation, while rebuilds of currently demolishing sites at Victoria and later at Euston will add more ‘luxury flat’ opportunities. Waterloo will see existing office buildings torn down or revamped for more homes in desirable locations… [misc’ media, edited] TfL awards expanded new advertising contract to current contractor - Exterion Media, the existing LU advertising contractor has been given the world's largest outdoor advertising contract, beginning 01 Oct 2016. Advertising sold on trains and at over 400 stations on TfL, which supplies over 3 million journeys a day will be with one contractor, a US corporation. The new contract combines London’s Underground, Overground, , , and adverts. The rationale for a single contractor is part of TfL's commercial plans to maximise non-fare revenues, to reinvest in the transport network [to make up for loss of government support funding]. TfL wants to generate £3.4bn in commercial revenue by 2023, with this contract contributing an estimated £1.1bn, including new responsive digital screens, to carry different campaigns according to time of day. “London's population is growing from 8.6 million today, to 10 million by 2030. TfL's commercial development programme also involves developing its land to provide the homes, offices and retail spaces that London needs. TfL … will release more than 300 acres of land across 75 sites in the for the development of over 10,000 new homes.” [Wired.gov, edited] Paying dear for cheap staff? – the London Evening Standard reported TfL is paying over 2300 staff ‘off the books’, ie those people set themselves up as one person companies, which has massive tax advantages. This apparently rose substantially with Mayor Johnson. [Rail Professional magazine, edited] London Mayoral Election By the time you see this, the result will be evident! For the record, this is what the four front- runners [those whose first and second preferences might make a significant difference to the outcome] ‘promised’ for transport and housing, using only ‘direct quotes’:

Sadiq Khan Zac Goldsmith Sian Berry Caroline Pidgeon Labour Conservative Green Liberal Democrat came first second third fourth • Tackle the housing crisis, • Double home building to • 200,000 new homes, half • Continue the Olympic building thousands more 50,000 a year by 2020. of them built affordably by Games precept to build homes for Londoners each • Ensure development is in smaller developers, 50,000 council homes to year. keeping with the local area. communities and housing rent and 150,000 for sale or • Set an ambitious target of • Give Londoners the first associations. private rent. 50 per cent of new homes chance to buy new homes • Renters’ rights supported, • Crack down on rogue being genuinely affordable. built in London. with a London Renters Union landlords by extending • Homes to buy where we • Ensure a significant and a push for rent controls. mandatory registration and can give Londoners first dibs proportion of all new homes • Create a not-for-profit offering long tenancies. – building on brownfield are only for rent and not for housing company. • Half of housing in new public land. sale. developments should be • Get a better deal for affordable for the majority renters. of Londoners. • Freeze • I will not make reckless • Fair fares for commuters, • Half price tube, DLR and fares for four years. spending pledges that will with lower costs for outer TfL Overground fares before • Introduce a one-hour bus undermine the . 7.30am. ‘Hopper’ ticket, paid for by nervous system that London • Flat fares by 2025. • A one-hour bus ticket. making TfL more efficient. relies on. • Change between buses and • ‘Oysterise’ the Cable Car. • Explore new revenue- • Protect the trains without paying extra. • Review all the fare zones raising opportunities. for the entire Mayoral term. across London so passengers • Londoners won’t pay a are not disadvantaged. penny more for their travel in 2020 than they do today. • Increase the proportion of • Keep London moving by • Create people-friendly • Complete the upgrade of TfL budget spent on cycling. increasing capacity on key streets, with big ticket all the Tube lines. • Get off the underground lines. projects in every borough to • Deliver the Overground ground. • Take over substandard support walking and cycling. extension to Barking • Prioritise delivery of new suburban rail services. • Recognise that taxis help Riverside. river crossings in the east of • Conduct an urgent review fill the gaps in public • Develop plans for the city. into the outer London bus transport and reduce the additional tram, tube and • Maintain the Congestion network. need to own a car. rail services in areas Charge at its current level. • Stand up to the union • Reinstate the road user currently under-served by • Make cycling and walking bosses in order to prevent hierarchy, putting public transport. safer, with more segregated unjustified strikes. pedestrians and those with • Seek to ensure the impact cycle routes, action on • Work with Government to disabilities at the top and on London of HS2 is dangerous junctions, and secure the transport links private car travel at the minimised. safer lorries. needed to unlock more than bottom of priorities for • Seek to take over 270,000 homes and 250,000 schemes such as junction supervision of metro jobs for Londoners. improvements. services. • Cut wasteful projects by Transport for London. • Oppose a third runway at • Ensure Heathrow • No new runways at • Oppose the expansion of Heathrow and make the expansion stays absolutely Heathrow or Gatwick. existing London airports at case for a second runway at off the table. • Close City Airport to build Heathrow, Gatwick and Gatwick. • Protect the green belt a new quarter for London. City. • Restore London’s air from development. • A not-for-profit London • Bring in a new congestion quality to legal and safe • Tackle air pollution with Energy Company, to zone around Heathrow. levels, with action to make tougher rules on HGVs, and compete with the ‘Big 6’ • Protect school playing travel greener and by cleaning up London’s taxi and power Crossrail. fields from being built over. pedestrianise Oxford Street, and bus fleet. • End the crisis of filthy air, • Roll out solar across while protecting the green • Create more green spaces bringing pollution below 200,000 London rooftops by belt. and clean up local parks so legal limits by 2020 at the 2025. • Make London the first they are safe to visit and latest. • Switch London’s buses and ‘National Park City’. enjoy. • Get the most polluting taxis to fully electric and • Revive plans to part- • Crackdown on fly-tipping vehicles off the road, and help to switch commercial pedestrianise Parliament and litter. switch all buses and taxis to vans too. Square. • A cross-London recycling zero emissions. • Cut congestion by charging • Introduce Clean Bus guarantee. • Fair charges on motoring, extra for non-essential Corridors. • Roll out clean car to reduce congestion and workplace parking in central • Complete the Thames infrastructure across pollution and help pay for London. Path. London. public transport. [Diamond Geezer website, barely edited] Mayor Khan confirms one hour bus ticket to be introduced in September – three days after being elected, confirmed that bus passengers will be able from September to make an additional bus journey for free within one hour of touching in on the first bus, on a new one-hour ‘Hopper’ fare for Oyster Pay As You Go or contactless cards. This fulfils a key pledge, which was remarkably similar among ‘real’ mayoral candidates. Technology limitations prevent unlimited bus journeys within an hour, but City Hall says planned technology upgrades will allow this by the end-2018. TfL say around 86 million passengers annually make another bus journey within one hour. This will benefit Londoners on lower incomes who tend use the bus network to get around, the Mayor’s office said and for a near-first after eight years, something from that office is believable. Assembly non-winners called on the Mayor and TfL to say how the new concession would be funded and to say whether the existing day cap will stay. City Hall confirmed “no plans to remove the day cap”, adding implementing the Hopper would cost £30m a year “met through more efficient working within TfL.” [London Mayorwatch website, edited and added to] Mayor’s ‘fares freeze’ thaws a bit – mass media report that the ‘freeze’ will have limited application, with only cash fares solely on TfL staying unchanged for four years. All other fare types have a ‘rail’ element in them, which are set by government and/or the Train Operating Companies, neither of whom are bound by the Mayor’s policy. Opponents have criticised the Mayor for not making this clearer in his campaign. [multiple media, summarised] Val Shawcross appointed Deputy [London] Mayor for Transport – while Sadiq Khan will retain the chair-ship of TfL’s Board (as did Johnson) the closer watch on TfL will be maintained by Val Shawcross, who has extensive transport experience and has held that role on the governing body or opposition at GLA. Her appointment has been welcomed ‘across-the-board’. As the ASLEF website says ‘… At last London has a mayor, and now a deputy mayor for transport, who will work with us, rather than against us, to deliver for passengers and give Londoners the transport system that a world-class capital city deserves …’ Never let facts spoil a story or a policy - in the week ending 08 Apr, Goldsmith said that he would raise £25m to pay for an extra 500 police on the Tube by scrapping TfL staff nominee passes, a variation on last year’s Tory London Assembly proposal to ‘save’ £22.3m a year. This false accounting comes from assuming the pass has a value of a Zone 1-6 , which covers ALL modes, while nominee passes are only valid on TfL services. Tories really mean ‘lost revenue’, as the ‘cost’ is nil bar admin’. How was ‘£22.3m’ calculated? In 2014 nominees made just over 3.6m Tube or rail journeys [less than one day’s total TfL/Underground rail journeys, alone proving those passes aren’t used as a substitute for paid travel] and just under 4.8m bus or tram journeys [that’s equal to just over one’s day’s total bus journeys]. The average Tube fare was calculated as £3.60 by the arbitrary figure of the fare of a single Zone 1-6 peak time journey, £5.00, and a single Zone 1-2 off peak journey, £2.20, without ‘weighting’ that the smaller fare is used far more than the larger one. Average bus / tram fare of £1.92 is from adding a single bus fare, £1.45, to a single tram fare, £2.40, and dividing by two regardless that far more journeys are by bus than tram! TfL publicly estimates lost revenue from nominee passes as not more than £7m; this is without any allowance that nominees would still use public transport if they had to pay. It also excludes extra pollution and accident risk which might arise from diversion to car use. Withdrawing nominee passes would therefore at best provide 140 extra BTP officers, not allowing for their off-costs (and their passes). [And another thing… Last August, GLA Tory Andrew Boff put a video clip of himself on Twitter saying “I love the DLR, no driver, no one to strike” but three months later an RMT strike meant no DLR for two days. That’s the standard of transport-related political argument in London. No train can be truly staffless – someone still needs to check the train is safe to depart, close the doors and push the ‘start’ button, and be on board for a train’s failure to run automatically…]. [ASLEF Shrugged website, severely edited and added to] An unedited comment on London Reconnections website states – ‘The nominee pass is part of my negotiated pay and conditions. It’s not an extra cost, it’s part of my pay. So let’s have some honesty: these people believe that operational staff should be forced to take a pay cut.’ A later comment notes who else has perks (most corporate employees and MPs/Lords have something, negotiated or not) and why should they keep their ‘extras’? Major transport holding companies Arriva (Deutsche Bahn - DB) – sell-off by parent company - RMT warned on 04 May that a part- sale of Deutsche Bahn’s UK operations opens a new threat to jobs and services. The proposed sell off of up to a 45 per cent minority stake in Deutsche Bahn's foreign acquisition arm, Arriva and global freight logistics company, DB Schenker was on the agenda of the DB Board Meeting of the DB Supervisory Board for this date. RMT warned that rail workers in Britain employed by Arriva or DB Schenker will see their employer’s ownership status transformed in the next 3 years. This will affect rail users and workers, as since private investors expect very short term financial returns, via job and pay cuts as well as fare rises. Articles in the German press over the previous weekend predicted an ‘implementation decision’ for a part sale of Arriva DB by autumn 2016. The first tranche of share options would generate about €1.5 billion revenues in 2017. For 2018, according to the document a further €2 billion is expected from the sell-off and more than €1 billion again in 2019. It is not clear who potential buyers might be but the usual suspects are banks, hedge funds and industrial investors. The proposed sell-off also shows the key weakness of private franchising in that ownership and solvency of a parent company may change without workers, unions, rail users or even the government franchising body involved. On 06 May, RMT advised that the ‘fire sale’ had been approved: a sizable chunk of DB’s UK operations (Arriva and DB Schenker) was agreed by DB. Arriva Rail has claimed to staff that the stake sale is good for everyone. The sell-off impacts on all DB Schenker operations and Arriva Rail franchises and services of Arriva Trains Wales, , Cross Country, Grand Central, and Northern Rail [but not UK/overseas bus services, so far…] [operators in bold serve the SERTUC area]. The timetable for carrying out the ‘implementation decision’ for the part-sale of Arriva DB is by Autumn 2016. Professor Utz-Hellmuth Felcht, chairman of DB’s Supervisory Board, said after the meeting: “If we don't take action, group debt will increase substantially by 2020. A third-party equity interest limits the level of debt and creates the financial scope necessary to continue the quality and investment campaign in Germany.” Board chairman, Dr Rüdiger Grube added that DB’s “express intention” with this move is for Arriva, based in Sunderland, and for DB Schenker, the biggest freight operator in the UK, to “continue to be fully consolidated in DB’s balance sheet”. [in plainer terms, DB is offloading debt and will still be in charge]. [RMT website, and Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Go-Ahead – profits – group surplus rose from £20.3m to £32.9m for the first half of the current financial year; the company tries to carry one-third of the UK’s rail passengers and is very good at blaming others when it doesn’t. It tried for a slice of London’s Overground but wasn’t successful; however it is still London’s biggest bus operator, hiding under a variety of fleet names. London’s Buses was the sole revenue downturn, for which roadworks and congestion were apparently responsible (never mind that they’re constantly advertising for bus drivers), as those operating profits were still there but fell by 4.4% to £21.7 million, a lot of that drop being non-payment of ‘performance bonuses’ under London’s ‘Quality Contracts’, apparently from the excessive highway disruptions. [various sources, edited]. National Express – financial and operating results – corporate revenues rose 11% in the reporting period, mostly from finally being allowed to start new rail operations in Germany after protracted legal battles with DB, which protects its interests aggressively. Coach passenger numbers dropped after recent atrocities in Paris & Brussels, but forward bookings are up by 6%. Coach operations now run on long-distance routes in Germany, buoyed by the knowledge that overseas operators [allowing for Nat Exp being part-Spanish owned] are unlikely to get a foothold in UK long-distance coaches where they dominate, and the company now runs coaches serving Bahrain. [Evening Standard, edited and added-to] Stagecoach – (1) loses against HMRC – “HMRC wins Stagecoach sideways loss case over £11m tax bill” - A tax avoidance scheme used by Stagecoach Group to cut their tax bill by £11m has been stopped in its tracks according to a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) relating to a tax case heard last July. The bus and train firm went to the FTT over HMRC claims that it tried to avoid tax by using transactions within the Stagecoach group to artificially create a loss. At stake in the case, Stagecoach Group Plc & Stagecoach Holdings Limited v The Commissioners For HM Revenue & Customs [2016] UKFTT 0120 (TC) was a dispute about the recapitalisation of two companies, Stagecoach Holdings Ltd and Stagecoach Services by the ultimate parent company Stagecoach Group plc. This centred around whether internal loans amounting to nearly £40m should be treated as a deduction when computing the ultimate parent Group’s profits for corporation tax purposes. In this instance, Stagecoach’s tax adviser was KPMG. The case relates to corporation tax self assessments for the period ending 30 April 2011 and 27 April 2012. HMRC opened enquiries into the returns on 31 July 2012 and a subsequent closure notice was issued by HMRC claiming that there should be no deduction from taxable profits, effectively for the £39.4m claim. The complex artificial scheme involved moving money between companies in the Stagecoach group in an attempt to create a large loss in one company. However, there was no equivalent gain in the other companies. The scheme was intended to artificially reduce Stagecoach’s corporation tax bill in the accounting period ending 30 April 2011. The FTT ruled the scheme did not work, agreeing with all of HMRC’s legal challenges; Stagecoach confirmed that the historic tax involved here was already paid. The reporting journal (CCH Today) commented: ‘In this case a group of companies entered into a tax avoidance scheme designed to create a tax deduction in the parent Group without a corresponding taxable receipt in any other company … The tribunal ruled there was no loss for Stagecoach for tax purposes and therefore the scheme did not work so there could be no reduction in their corporation tax bill … This case has a potential knock-on effect on a number of outstanding appeals, with HMRC claiming that there are 11 other similar cases which will be affected by this decision and the total tax at stake is estimated to amount to £179m.’ [CCH Today journal, edited but not a lot]; (2) underperforming? - big fall in share value (4.5%) on the London Stock Exchange after bank HSBC downgraded its view of the company’s performance, saying it was ‘falling behind its targets.’ [Rail Professional magazine, edited]; (3) the parent company reported lower revenue growth for the year ended 30 April; outside London, bus revenue rose 0.2% and 1.1% in London, so the company will hold down fare rises beyond London ‘to encourage growth’; (4) corporate national bus orders include their first bulk order for some time for smaller single- deck buses, believed to be for downsizing capacity on outlying routes. Disabled and older passengers’ issues (national) ‘Access to transport for disabled people’ – House of Commons Library Briefing Paper SN00601 (UNedited) issued on 14 April (http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00601/SN00601.pdf )… Summary - this paper explains the legislative frameworks that apply to public transport passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility. The main UK legislation is now consolidated in the Equality Act 2010, but much of the law as it relates to the treatment of disabled passengers and the services they can expect derives from various EU legislative instruments. The UK is rapidly approaching the point where all buses, coaches and trains must be accessible to disabled people (January 2020) and in many cases these vehicles already meet the requirements. Taxis are also accessible in many parts of the country, though non-metropolitan urban areas and rural areas lag somewhat behind. There are also duties on air travel and sea travel providers to ensure that disabled people can access their services and expect a certain level of accommodation to their needs, though they can be denied travel on safety grounds. Many day- to-day problems for disabled people stem from confusion over the rules, poor or insufficient communication, inadequate training, and/or a lack of enforcement. Issues where these concerns overlap include the provision of assistance on vehicles and at stations; the carriage of mobility scooters, and buggies and prams using wheelchair spaces on buses. There are a number of organisations working to improve transport provision for disabled people and seeking to influence government policy. The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) can provide expert information, advice and support on discrimination and human rights issues and the applicable law. Information on other transport issues affecting disabled people, such as the Blue Badge parking scheme and the Motability vehicle scheme can be found on the Transport Topical Pages of the Parliament website. Overview - the consolidated legislative framework on transport and disability is now set out in Part 12 of the Equality Act 2010. This covers taxis, buses and coaches, and trains. This is supplemented by Part 3 of the Act which covers the equality duty for goods, services and facilities. These measures derive from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, and the Regulations made under it. Equalities & Human Rights Commission welcomes Government announcement to make taxis accept and assist wheelchair users - commenting in response to the announcement that the government will commence sections 165 and 167 of the Equality Act 2010 this year, which will impose duties on taxis to accept and assist wheelchair users without extra cost, Lord Holmes of Richmond, EHRC Disability Commissioner said: “We welcome today’s announcement, which is long overdue, and will finally give disabled people the right to travel by taxi on an equal basis. While this is a step in the right direction, there are still many provisions of the Equality Act which have not been brought into force. The Commission will continue to press government to fulfill its responsibility to remove the barriers which hold disabled people back, and place accessibility at the top of its agenda.” [Wired.gov website] European Union Fourth Rail Package [4RP] approved by EU – PLEASE NOTE THIS IS ONLY WHAT THE EU SAYS, NOT SUPPORT (plus comment…) [direct links to other web-pages are indicated in bold bright blue] the European Commission has welcomed agreement reached by the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers on the Fourth Railway Package [4RP]. It is claimed that the agreement will improve EU rail service performance to passengers’ benefit with a gradual opening of the domestic rail markets. The agreement needs endorsement by each Member State. Once adopted, the package will complete the single European rail area and therefore deliver the Commission’s agenda of a fairer and deeper internal market. 4RP will open domestic passenger rail markets to competition, in particular: 1. Revitalise domestic rail markets. Over the last decades, rail traffic has experienced a steady decline [does not apply to passenger traffic, notably in the UK], blaming “domestic monopolies”. All EU railway undertakings will be able to offer rail services throughout the EU. New entrants will be able to operate “commercial” services from 2020; by 2023, competent authorities must award public service rail contracts by competitive tender open to all EU railway undertakings, “except in specific cases”. 2. Make railways more responsive to market and consumer demand [this means smaller but vital traffic groups can be ignored]. Market-oriented rail will promote new business models, and offer more choice to consumers [ie the operator decides who it wants to carry, not the government]. Competitive pressure will force incumbents to adapt and become more consumer- oriented [ie play the same dirty tricks and ignore those who need the trains but can’t pay profitable prices]. Member States will still be able to directly award public service rail contracts, provided performance targets (quality, punctuality, etc) are met. 3. Deliver President Juncker's political priorities. In their letter of intent to the Presidents of the Parliament and the Council of the EU, Juncker and First VP Timmermans stressed what 4RP means toward the Commission's priorities. The package will complete the internal market for rail services for a fairer and deeper internal market [their words!], and open up “investments in the rail sector” and “a positive impact on job creation” [oh really? Net job totals on UK rail have shown year-on-year falls]. Finally, rail is by far the most sustainable form of transport and by making it more attractive, 4RP should enable a shift from other more polluting transport modes towards rail [sole seemingly good thing about 4RP], contributing to the EU’s decarbonisation objectives. The agreement has to be approved by each Member State and the European Parliament in the coming days, then formally adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. This is expected to be done by autumn 2016. Background - 4RP is a set of six legislative proposals first proposed in January 2013, passing its first reading in the European Parliament in February 2014, while the Council agreed on positions (“general approach”) on the different proposals between June 2013 and October 2015. The inter-institutional agreement reached on 19 April 2016 concluded negotiations between Parliament and Council, for a swift adoption of the package. For more, click on MEMO/16/1383 & http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/packages/2013_en.htm [Wired.gov website, quoting EU news release, edited and severely added-to / decoded [the bits in italic] – formal article says nothing in real terms – content buried in the links in legalese] As is usual with any regulatory body or authority, the terms of legal material are opaque at best: this is the public EU ‘Q&A’ on 4RP, edited to remove surplus language, take out opinion and to challenge patently misleading assertions: European Commission Fact Sheet - on 19 April 2016, the European Parliament and the Council reached an agreement on 4RP, six legislative proposals to revitalise rail, to deliver better service and more choice to passengers, in two ‘pillars’: ‘Market pillar’: (a) a Regulation which deals, inter alia, with the award of public service contracts for domestic passenger transport services by rail (‘PSO Regulation’) [PSO = Public Service Obligation], (b) a Directive regarding the opening of the market of domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure (‘Governance Directive’), and (c) a proposal to repeal an old Regulation on granting State aid to railway undertakings (‘Regulation on the normalisation of the accounts of railway undertakings’). ‘Technical pillar’: (d) a Regulation on the European Union Agency Railways, repealing Regulation (CE)n 881/2004, (e) a Directive on rail interoperability within the EU (Recast of Directive (CE)n 2008-57), and (f) a Directive on railway safety (Recast of Directive (CE) n 2004-49). Main elements of 4RP – it completes the Single Market for Rail services, establishing a right for European undertakings to operate anywhere in the EU with more stringent competition rules. Detailed rules ensure impartiality of infrastructure managers, especially vertically integrated structures, to guarantee non-discriminatory treatment of new entrants. New rules on financial transparency remove hiding cross-subsidies between state-financed infrastructure managers and transport operators in open markets. Tendering public service contracts will allow authorities to have best value for public money while retaining an optimal level of public transport services. Clearer rules on definition and scope of public service obligations and a new framework to guarantee non-discriminatory access to rail rolling stock. How will the proposed initiatives bolster the competitiveness of the EU railways? 4RP will boost this in two related ways: (a) gradual market-opening, incumbent railway companies obliged to become more competitive to survive competition from new entrants, and (b) a better service range will help rail become more effective compared to other transport modes. Rules agreed under the ‘market pillar’ will force open domestic passenger markets with mandatory tendering for public service contracts in rail. Monopolies will end and the public tenders will force railway operators to be more responsive to customer needs [disputed – plenty of proof in the UK that that has never happened], improve service quality and cost- effectiveness. Railway companies will have to use new technologies and ‘digitalisation’ [more job losses], but also use new business models. The ‘technical pillar’ will increase competition by: (i) saving firms from multiple applications if trying to operate in more than one Member State. The European Railway Agency (ERA) will issue authorisations valid throughout the EU for rolling stock on track and issue safety certificates for railway undertakings; (ii) create a ‘one stop shop’ as a single entry point for all such applications; (iii) streamline and consolidate many different national rules, which ERA has already started. These rules have insufficient transparency and disguise discrimination, which harms new investors. Reduction and simplification of the current rules will boost cross-border traffic and general rail competitiveness. How will 4RP contribute to rail safety? The new Railway Safety Directive will revise the role of the national safety authorities (NSAs) and reallocate their responsibilities between them and the European Railway Agency (ERA). ERA will play a major role as it will grant each single safety certificate to rail companies. NSA activities will focus on oversight of rail companies in their own countries and on activities requiring either presence on the territory or local linguistic skill, such as inspections/audits. To ensure NSAs do what the EU wants, ERA will monitor them. ERA will develop an improved safety culture, already working on occurrence reporting, to facilitate information exchange between relevant parties on safety risk, and for faster information sharing after an accident. (sample Q – rest not repeated here) I work in the rail sector: what is in 4RP for me? Market opening will not be made at the expense of workers. 4RP will clarify legal frameworks for staff protection. It will provide more legal certainty to competent authorities that want to take measures for staff protection based on an assessment of the local/national labour markets. Market opening will also boost the development of a dynamic rail sector and generate new business and growth opportunities. The experience from the Member States having already opened their domestic rail market suggests that this will create new and stable jobs. [this is demonstrably untrue] What are the next steps for 4RP? When it is adopted, Member States will need adequate time to transpose the new rules into national legislation. In particular for PSO, they will apply the new framework based on competitive award of rail public service contracts starting 2023. The Commission will monitor and assist Member States during preparatory phases to help develop the administrative capacity, expertise and technical know-how. ERA will deliver vehicle authorisation, ERTMS trackside pre-authorisations and safety certificates three years after the entry into force of 4RP. For other tasks, such as monitoring national safety authorities and national rules, ERA starts work immediately after publication of the new legislative framework. From euractiv.com, a further analysis (edited): EU member states are still in disagreement over draft rules to open up railways to competition, even after negotiators struck a deal last week on the long debated proposition. Several bloc members defied a ‘final agreement’ during a meeting on 27 Apr. UK, Germany, France and Greece are allegedly holding up the deal as a trade-off for more support to build high-speed rail lines. The Dutch EU Council presidency closed an agreement with the European Parliament and Commission on 20 Apr, but some EU countries stayed unconvinced. If enacted, the new rules will force member states to open up domestic passenger rail travel to newer competing companies. Some major national train operators tried to dilute the draft legislation during its three-year negotiation process. One contentious measure will force them to separate rail operators from managers of track infrastructure, which the European Commission pushed to prevent conflicts of interest that make it tough for new companies to break into the rail market. Officials from member states met again to review the sensitive parts of the new railway rules. Less controversial, technical legislation was separated last year so it could be passed sooner. The part of the bill easiest to sell to member states gives France-based ERA more power to approve trains for safety and cross-border trips, which faced a final vote in the 28 April Parliament plenary session. The Commission is pressuring member states to support the more controversial parts of the legislation to force companies to accept competitors. EU Transport Commissioner Violeta Bulc said the new rules could help unprofitable rail companies in Europe to regain ground lost to long distance buses, budget airlines and car-sharing. Final negotiations follow the Commission’s recent inquiries into national rail operators, where anti- trust authorities have focused on major operators in some EU countries. A top official at the Czech Transport Ministry reported that European Commission authorities raided the Czech national rail company České dráhy offices on 26 April, allegedly seeking information about České dráhy’s ticket pricing. The Commission refused to comment on the raids, as did the Czech competition authority. In December 2015, the Executive raided Austrian operator ÖBB, allegedly to collect information about how the company uses public money and prices services. Background - the Commission’s recast of the first railway package in 2001 was adopted in 2012, designed to address historic challenges to a consolidated railway market. The EU executive considers the rail sector as having too little competition, poor regulatory oversight and inadequate public and private investment. The 2012 recast consolidates the 2001, 2004 and 2007 legislation to strengthen regulatory oversight and performance of infrastructure operators. It also seeks to improve transparency in rail contracts and operations. The Commission’s 2013 proposal called for a separation of rail infrastructure managers and service operators, a full separation of passenger rail markets by 2019 and public tendering for most rail routes. [full item on http://www.euractiv.com/section/transport/news/divisive-rail-rules-held-up-by- uk-germany-france-and-greece/ ] Higher Finance UK bus industry profits – rose ‘slightly’ in 2013/14 after three years of falling [allowing for accountancy tricks to conceal surpluses via service charges etc], according to a TAS Partnership analysis. Revenue grew ‘by less than inflation’ [although which inflation criterion was used was not stated] while operating costs rose 0.6% despite fuel costs falling [most of which would not apply as bigger companies ‘hedge’ purchases up to three years ahead] indicating low wage rises. Bus operators beyond London reported rising increases in turnover, with national average operating margins [differences between costs and revenue] rising from an earlier 7.2% to 7.6%. The report [no indication of who commissioned it but the conclusion suggests the bus industry is behind it] summarises that operating margins [as opposed to profits] need to be between 9.9% and 10.3% to ‘meet future financial obligations and … future investment’, or, with lessened government and local authority support, higher fares and fewer buses? Out of our region but of interest Tyne & Wear Metro to be publicly-run after passengers ‘let down’ by DB Regio - Council leaders have said that the seven-year Tyne & Wear Metro contract with DB Regio, to end in Mar 2017, will not be extended. In a report to the North East Combined Authority (NECA), transport authority Nexus and operator DB Regio Tyne and Wear Ltd (DBTW) were both “dissatisfied” with the structure, finance and operational performance of the current contract. From 1 Apr 2017 until 31 Mar 2019, Nexus will run Metro in-house. In a joint statement, NECA leaders (from the region’s seven local authorities), said: “For too long now Metro passengers have been let down by DB Regio, and demand that the operator meets passengers’ expectations up to contract end. Ministers are clear that private sector involvement in the Metro will be enforced. An investment package has been agreed with DBTW to improve performance over the contract’s final year. In Dec 2015 government commitment to a ‘Northern Powerhouse’ was questioned after the DfT cut £33m from the Tyne & Wear Metro upgrade. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] END OF SECTION

Buses and water transport TfL - Buses & Trams Aldgate’s normal traffic jams resume – Cycle Superhighway works finished at this major east London junction over the May Day weekend, allowing all cut-back bus routes and frequencies to resume. Coincident with this, another 1960s gyratory traffic scheme was withdrawn with two way traffic restored to Aldgate High Street. Still a further several weeks before Aldgate and Liverpool Street Bus Stations came back into use, restoring safe interchange for passengers. Service cuts – little bits chopped here and there, now including central London. Route 2 (outer south London – Marylebone) lost a couple of peak hour buses, route 38 (run by NBfLs- see below – inner east London – Victoria) loses four buses, and due to LB Waltham Forest’s “mini-Holland” cycle scheme, buses will become less frequent with the same number of vehicles but longer running time due to reduced road space (routes 20, 56, 58, 97, 158, 357), while road works to eliminate the Archway Gyratory Scheme will so far only slow down buses on routes 41 and 143. Service improvement! – route 481 (Kingston – West Middlesex Hospital), an outer suburban route in sw London has had its frequency doubled, with new vehicles… New Bus for London (NBfL) / ‘New Routemaster’ / ‘BorisBus’ – (1) oh go on, Singapore – think again… – Go-Ahead has ‘borrowed’ an NBfL to take to Singapore (at whose considerable expense?) to show off that it has won a cluster of franchised local bus routes from a local operator in a re-bidding contest. This is pure bluster – no-one outside London (and not that many inside London) wants this bus model. [miscellaneous sources]; (2) the new short version has arrived – delivered to in late April, but now on its third identity. It should appear in due course on route 91 (Crouch End – Trafalgar Square); (3) opening windows, at last! Version 1 – a small number of the existing fleet working route 148 (Shepherds Bush – Camberwell Green) have been retrofitted with (sliding) opening windows; (4) opening windows, at last! Version 2 – newly released correspondence has revealed designer Thomas Heatherwick personally urged action to tackle complaints of “stifling” heat on the ‘New Routemasters’ after passengers lobbied him direct about the issue, causing concern that his studio’s reputation could be damaged by its association with the vehicle, almost from the start of service entry in 2013. After positive initial reaction with many praising the return of open rear platform, rising summer temperatures prompted complaints about “uncomfortable” interior heat, which many suspected was caused by lack of opening. As the project was so personally associated with the Mayor, any sustained criticism meant bosses at TfL had to downplay complaints and negative media coverage. Then-Commissioner Hendy repeatedly insisted ‘New Routemasters’ were “no hotter than any other bus” and claimed “the new bus, when the cooling is working properly, is cooler than the equivalent latest ordinary bus,” and told the BBC that the heat claims were “a folk myth”. TfL’s public comments were matched by City Hall’s strong resistance that fitting opening windows would avoid further negative headlines. Complaints resurfaced the following year led to open claims that some of the gripes were politically motivated. A letter sent by Mr Heatherwick to Leon Daniels, TfL’s head of surface transport, in Sep 2014, released under a Freedom of Information request rejected this assessment. Heatherwick told Daniels that the level of complaints, including “a number of irate calls to my studio” meant it was “clear that this has not been about Boris-bashing - travellers are simply too hot and uncomfortable in our busses in the hot months of the summer.” Although Hendy had put out a statement the previous summer clarifying that it was TfL’s decision not to include opening windows, Mr Heatherwick said “this perception has not lasted”; he was keen not to be publicly “at odds with TfL” but stressed his studio “is dependent on its reputation for the excellence of its design”. It was important that ventilation be satisfied either by fitting better cooling or revisiting the window issue. In a response sent three weeks later, and only after Heatherwick’s office had chased for an answer, Daniels suggested that a “workshop” consisting of members of Heatherwick’s team, TfL and Wrights be assembled to “look again at both the options.” TfL emails of Jan 2015 to an external contractor confirmed it was “looking at improved air volumes and circulation, we are also looking at opening windows and improved engine bay insulation to reduce radiated heat into the lower saloon.” However by Apr no final decision on how to address the complaints had been reached, prompting Heatherwick’s executive assistant on 28 Apr to contact Mike Weston, head of buses at TfL, saying Heatherwick was “concerned that there seems to have been no apparent action and feels that it is really important that we find a way to solve this, especially with summer coming.” The email also raised concern that the issue was beginning to impact on Heatherwick’s public appearances, with the sender writing: “The other thing that is currently happening is that Thomas is giving public talks and people are starting questions about it again and those questions (criticisms) are bound to increase and likely be much worse than last year given that it has not been resolved. How should he respond to people’s questions and what action can he say is happening?” Despite the constant public complaints, Heatherwick’s urging and growing political pressure to resolve the issue before Johnson stepped down as Mayor, TfL took a further six months to confirm that windows would be retrofitted to all existing buses at an estimated £2m cost to the taxpayer. [London Mayorwatch, severely edited] [impressions of political machinations vice operational need are unavoidable]; (5) new mayor has said ‘no more NBfLs’ – as the dash for new models was completed before former Mayor Johnson left office, TfL is contractually bound to accept another 200 of these buses. The conflict is that unless 1000 are built, Wright Brothers (the bus constructors) will retain the traction pack patents, which is why no other vehicles can yet have that equipment, and thus no independent comparison testing of just how good or not it is. The terms of those last 200 orders actually are not public – does the Mayor have any power to vary the contract or re-specify the vehicles? [various sources, edited]; (6) re-awarded tenders create surplus NBfLs – in early May, TfL announced that in ‘Tranche 540’ of new route contracts, Arriva retained routes 38 (daytime) / N38 (night), keeping the present 2014-built NBfL buses. However, the Peak Vehicle Requirement will reduce from 58 to 52, cutting six buses out of peak period operations, starting 05 Nov. What will happen to these six vehicles, owned by TfL? TfL owns the NBfL fleet and doles them out to route contract winners. However, each operator is allowed to make vehicle specifications within the group of buses it receives, which cover gear ratios, door control systems etc, to be compatible with other vehicles in their fleets. These six ‘surplus’ NBfLs are therefore only suited to Arriva, and to go to any other operator may require TfL to re-fit the vehicles. Two will join much-later generation NBfLs for a service increase on retendered NBfL route 159, also an Arriva route, but will stand idle from November 2016 when the 38 has its reductions until January 2017 when the 159 has its increase. The NBfL could still be London’s biggest and most expensive bus flop yet. ‘New Routemaster’ rivals – a second (cheaper, smaller) hybrid-powered alternative has been launched; the ‘Wrightbus SRM’, which looks like the ‘BorisBus’. This is a new body on a Volvo chassis, assembled/built by Wright Brothers, based in Ballymena and Antrim, the same people who are building the NBfL/’New Routemaster’. Another new hybrid bus has Volvo traction equipment with bodies by a builder new to double-deck buses, MCV (design titled ‘EvoSeti’) , to a more traditional design. However, the MCV double-decker is built in Egypt – twenty are in service with Go-Ahead, and 65 more have been ordered. Additionally, twenty open-top EvoSeti buses have been ordered by a London tour bus operator. Why built in Egypt? Possibly cheaper there, even with sea transport to the UK, or (more likely) lack of bus building capacity here. All-electric buses – three Alexander-Dennis all-electric double-deckers trialling in east London on route 69 were off road since early Feb, but have gradually returned to service. Reasons for off- road status are unknown but the type has problems recharging batteries between trips. A different model of all-electric double-decker is now operating in central London, three Chinese- built ‘BYD’ buses are part of route 98 (Willesden – Holborn) which have been joined by a fourth. Slow buses add to capital’s pollution – the slower an internal combustion engined vehicle travels, the less efficient it is and the more pollutants are emitted. Many are slowed by traffic to an average of walking speed end-to-end on their routes, which prevents engine efficiencies occurring. One of the most heavily polluting routes (source not given) is London’s route 11 ( – City – southern West End – Victoria – Chelsea – Broadway), where the buses are scheduled at an average speed of 4mph. Twenty years ago, the slowest scheduled route in London was route 159 which was programmed to transit central London in the peaks at 3mph. Slowed-running reduces engine efficiencies by a factor of three or four, adding to noise and pollution. [somewhat truncated report in London Evening Standard, authored by Professor David Begg, Thu 02 Jun] A fuller report was carried on ’s website in the Dave Hill ‘blog’, repeated here for the interesting asides within it… [edited for space]: All over Britain, buses are slowing down, in Brighton, Edinburgh, Manchester, Bristol and Hull, but most of all in London. Over the past year, speeds on one third of London’s buses have fallen by more than 5%, some down to walking speed: route 11, as above, averages just 4 mph at times. As a result, people are giving up on using buses. For ten years after the formation of TfL, the capital’s bus service was a huge success. Only three years ago, demand for bus services was expected to keep on rising. Now, London has one of the fastest declines in bus use in the UK. The implications are profound: the problem is increased road congestion, raising journey times in Central London by 12% a year since 2012, according to analysts Inrix. Congestion is also a menace to air quality, a drag on business efficiency and a growing nuisance to and visitors travelling around the city. It has hit buses especially hard. The facts and consequences of the London bus slowdown have been set out in a report for the Greener Journeys campaign, a bus industry-backed body supported by, among others TfL and the Campaign for Better Transport. The report has been compiled by Professor David Begg, a Greener Journeys adviser, former chair of the government’s (now defunct) Commission For Integrated Transport, ex-member of the TfL board, and currently Transport Times proprietor. Begg’s findings are in the context of TfL’s (newly-reduced) finances and new London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s pledge to freeze public transport fares for four years. Pointing out that the government is phasing out the capital’s public transport revenue subsidy from 2018/19, making it the only major city in the world expected to do without one except Hong Kong. Khan’s freeze startsat the same time; Begg says that part of the solution to making TfL’s ends meet “is to operate buses more efficiently by improving their speed”. If bus speeds could increase by 24% it would enable TfL to recoup its lost £461m annual bus subsidy. If buses can cover their routes faster, fewer are needed. This would reduce the cost of running routes without longer waits for buses. A more efficient, reliable bus service would also be more popular, generating new fares income. At the moment, everything is heading the wrong way. As former TfL commissioner Sir Peter Hendy writes in his foreword to Begg’s report, worsening congestion in London is increasing costs and decreasing revenue when the exact reverse is needed. Some of the newer congestion causes may lessen soon, as roadworks for CrossRail and cycle superhighways finish, but more and more delivery vans and private hire vehicles, together with road space loss for cycling have worked against the good effects of the congestion charge, introduced in 2003. This enabled the buses to thrive, by emptier roads and helping to pay for it. Johnson came to power in 2008 promising to “smooth traffic flow”, but made matters worse by his piecemeal policy appeasement of influential voter and lobby groups when he should have been implementing a coherent road space management strategy in a city in increasing need of it as its population rapidly grows. As Begg observes (pages 52/53): “… Johnson warned his successor that he will have to take action to cut traffic volumes by increasing the congestion charge. However, this solution has resulted from the decisions he [Johnson] took during his eight years in office. He exacerbated the problem by removing the western extension of the congestion zone and by reducing road capacity in central London by 25% on key routes through the introduction of cycle superhighways without taking action to curtail traffic in central London. Both decisions were taken against the advice of TfL.” Dealing with this legacy will be a challenge for Mayor Khan, a former transport minister and a London bus-driver’s son, and his incoming transport deputy Val Shawcross, who as a London Assembly member was a strong champion of the bus service. Khan’s manifesto recognised that congestion is a continuing problem, but he pledged to continue the cycle superhighways programme, including investing in new routes. He’s promised to try co-ordinating roadworks better and reduce heavy vehicles on London’s roads; he’s not pledged to expand congestion charging and has promised to maintain the charge at its present level. Enlarging the forthcoming and bringing it in a year sooner than Johnson’s target date of 2020 - already consulting on - might mitigate congestion, as the daily charge it will raise from polluting vehicles may deter them from London. How far this might help buses and passengers remains to be seen. Despite being by far the most heavily used of London’s public transport services, the bus service is too often ignored. Begg sums the problem up: “Too little focus is placed on the importance of the bus because bus passengers carry too little weight with opinion-formers and political decision-makers. The socio-economic profile of bus passengers is very different from rail users, motorists and cyclists, with a much higher percentage of those on lower income travelling by bus.” Full report on this electronic link: http://www.transporttimes.co.uk/Admin/uploads/prof-david-begg-the-impact-of-congestion- on-bus-passengers-digital.pdf For those with long memories, when Ken Livingstone introduced ‘fares fair’ in the 1980s, ‘London Transport’ ran out of buses to meet travel demands from new passengers, who proved that travel is a price-sensitive issue. However, the roads then were far less congested… Reducing the current road network congestion would also enable more buses to run the full length of their scheduled journeys. Intelligent Speed Assistance – after trials on two TfL routes, one serving central London and the other in the suburbs, the system has been shown to work satisfactorily, especially when vehicles enter / leave 20mph zones. While there are cost implications (to fund this, money must be taken away from something else), TfL is considering mandatory fitting of this technology for all new buses from 2017. Trams now on the Underground Map! – from 03 Jun, TfL added the Croydon Tram System to the Underground map. Helpful but it only connects with the Underground at Wimbledon and the Overground (in one direction only) at West Croydon. Most tram passengers interchange with either buses (already on the bus map) or main line rail (not on the Underground map). Buses & Trams – outside London Service cuts – Essex – Harlow ‘Bus Wars’ – with revocation of several, some inter-related operators’ licences at 2359 Friday 26 Feb, things have calmed down. Other local operators are now covering most of the former routes, which operated within and as feeders to/from Harlow. National operator Arriva was expected to revamp many of its Harlow operations from 10 Apr, and many other routes to change operator and/or roads served. Rurally - many contracts have changed, bringing different operators to current routes, some services being reduced and a couple changing from subsidised to commercial. Stansted ‘Coach Wars’ – the two new operators on the London – Stansted route appear to have successfully seen off an established service provider, with ‘Terravision’ gradually giving up (officially, one stopped and the other ‘suspended’) serving the airport or very nearly, as it had an ongoing dispute with the owners of Stansted Airport. ‘Taxis’ replacing buses on ‘shopper routes’ – (north-west Essex but expected to spread), a company called Arrow Taxis has been contracted to run routes ‘62’, ‘318’ and ‘SB14’ instead of conventional buses running fixed routes. These operate on a dial-a-ride minibus basis, now costing intending passengers the price of a phone call first and tying them to perhaps even more inconvenient timings. Days of operation and roads/villages served are ‘likely to change’. Herts/Essex – Bishops Stortford – massive re-organisations of local routes has devastated the network of market day (Thursday) routes, leaving a skeleton ‘dial-a-ride’ facility and a single scheduled bus route. Herts – ‘a lot of service reductions and withdrawals’ to quote one source. Key operators Centrebus and have massively reworked routes while other operators respond to reduced financial support from Herts CC. Herts/South Beds – Luton is suffering extensive cuts and service revisions, the latter often being used to hide the former. Route 49 (Leighton Buzzard – Ridgmont [Mon-Fri]) reduced from five to two buses a day while Leighton Buzzard – Woburn Sands [Sun] has been withdrawn. To be fair, some Beds bus operations have been improved, but only marginally. Bucks/ East Berks – route 61 (Aylesbury – Dunstable [Mon-Sat]) cut from regular hourly to irregular ninety min or two-hourly headway … – pan-county – Arriva and Stagecoach continue to revamp their route networks, as has Abellio. Sussex – the two Metrobus special long-distance daily early morning buses from the coast to Gatwick for shift-workers at the airport have been withdrawn. Kent – North Kent Arriva – many changes again, from 20 Mar, some reversing changes made in 2015. All of this (above) proves passengers don’t count, only profits. The instability of route networks interferes with ordinary peoples’ daily lives, forces them into cars, and raises pollution, noise, traffic, accident risk. English National Concessionary Travel Pass (‘Bus Pass’) Effects of Buses Bill and Devolution Bill? – while the Transport Acts of 2006, 2008 and 2009 introduce / protect the Bus Pass, and aren’t mentioned in the May 2016 Queen’s Speech, these two Bills are integral to the UK’s transport and could by stealth reduce or at worst eliminate the Pass. It is essential that progress in Parliament is monitored and actions are ready to brief MPs and Lords if threats appear to the Pass. Older people in non-urban areas need buses - as rural areas depopulate, fewer shops and facilities will be there, older people will lose the ability to drive (voluntary or medically enforced) and while it's a slowly diminishing number, they are unable to use the web. Another concealed danger in these two Bills is that they risk confining bus services to administrative boundaries instead of providing routes where passengers want to travel, especially where a population centre is just over the boundary from a work or shopping destination. [National Pensioners Convention, Transport Working Group, summarised] TfL – Contactless payment comes to the Thames – [MBNA ] from 20 May, River Bus services began accepting this form of payment for ferry and river bus operations, but fares are still outside the TfL pricing structure for other transport modes. Charges are applied based on the three river fare zones - West, Central and East. Contactless payments are charged at the same adult rate pay as you go fare as using an . River Bus routes cover around 28 kilometres of the Thames between Putney and Arsenal. Since TfL assumed involvement in the river bus network, passenger journeys along the Thames are expected to reach 12 million a year by 2020. Two pier extensions are being built at Bankside and Westminster, for extra capacity and allowing more boats to call. Live River Bus information is now available on TfL’s website. [Wired.gov website, edited] Out of our area but of interest Another Guided Busway… – Manchester – Leigh/Atherton opened on 03 Apr, this 4.5 mile dedicated bus route is shared by two operators, much as the Cambridge Busway is. Built with public money, the benefits will accrue to private operators. WYCA to invest Leeds trolleybus money in rail after McLoughlin blocks proposals - money earmarked for a new Leeds trolleybus system will be diverted to upgrade regional transport including rail, after permission for the scheme was denied. Transport Secretary McLoughlin denied scheme approval, on the basis of a public inquiry conducted in 2014, that it wasn’t value for money and would cause too much environmental disruption. Cllr Wakefield, chair of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) transport committee said that the £173.5m for the scheme had instead been ring-fenced for Leeds transport improvements, which could include extending existing rail upgrades, and that WYCA now wanted to work with government on a fully integrated tram-train system for Leeds. Trolleybuses are the most environmentally friendly form of road passenger transport, needing the least infrastructure changes combined with the lowest noise outputs and emissions almost zero. While our current ways of generating electricity are substantially polluting, that isn't the trolleys' fault - electric trains and trams aren't accused of polluting, so that argument against trolleys would be invalid. A double-deck trolleybus can shift more passengers than a diesel bus, or even a hybrid. Trolleys can run on 'opportunity charging' meaning wires do not have to be strung in sensitive locations. Arguments against trolleys are petty and political - they're just not as sexy as trams or trains, and some say how inflexible trolleys are, but never apply that to trams and trains. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added-to] Lancashire County Council - has reduced bus support to zero. West Midlands – has a mandatory ‘alliance’ of all bus operators, to ‘maintain standards by agreement’, replacing the former (statutory but not comprehensive) ‘Quality Partnership’. Cornwall – will not start ‘bus franchising’ despite now having powers for that. END OF SECTION

Rail – TfL, CrossRail, Network Rail, main line, Eurotunnel, train manufacturing TfL – Underground [LU], Overground [LO], new ‘TfL Rail’, Docklands Light Railway [DLR] Central Line tunnel collapse at Shepherds Bush – in the early evening of 22 Feb, Westfield site extension construction workers in west London drilled too far and penetrated the iron-ringed tunnel lining, putting masonry ‘the size of rugby balls’ on to a passing train. Given the tube tunnel is lined with thick metal rings and considerable external packing to insulate the bores from water ingress etc, the story has some gaps. The Central Line was suspended between Marble Arch and White City for several hours with a restricted service in the evening peak. In demonstrating its superior knowledge of the Underground, the Evening Standard reported the Underground line was ‘100 metres’ below the surface at that point; no part of the tube network is deeper than 60 metres but why spoil a good story? [multiple sources, edited] During this disruption, Central Line trains managed to provide a service on the eastern ends of the route by reversing at the little-used siding at the former ‘British Museum’ station as well as the more usual turn-back facility at Marble Arch. LU management appears to have forgotten this and announced that the rarely-used siding will be decommissioned ‘soon’, and the track lifted. LU also note that the sharpness of the curves for entering and exiting the siding means trains take disproportionately long to enter and leave the siding. That argument was irrelevant in February when very few trains were running west of ‘Holborn’ - never let facts spoil a story… extension to Battersea – more costs - will be extensively redesigned to allow for the Northern Line extension, although who will bear the extra cost of £240m is not clear – the developers are already committed to £200m contribution toward the Nine Elms / Battersea Spur of the Northern Line. The changes are for the ‘over-station development’ at ‘Prospect Place’, ie how the land over the station and entrances will be utilised, which require a stronger ‘station box’, the sub-surface area which will hold the station’s infrastructures and access/surface points. TfL is now in talks with the consortium of three Malaysian companies, SP Setia, Sime Derby and the Employee’s Provident Fund, to try to decide who will meet the changing costs. The changes could also require a revision of a £500m contract awarded in 2014 to Ferrovial Agroman Laing O’Rourke JV in order to cover more work. TfL’s finance and policy committee has approved supplemental agreements with Battersea Power Station’s developer. Board papers indicate major changes in the development, necessitating significant additional design work at Battersea Power Station. At the same meeting, the committee authorised TfL to submit a proposal for a final fixed licencing price to commercially exploit software used in its contactless payment systems. [Rail Technology eMagazine / Evening Standard, both severely edited] industrial action – walk-outs over management bullying and reneging on working agreements were scheduled for 26 and 27 April. However, LU caved in at almost the last moment to agree to resume talks they had previously refused to continue, and the action was suspended. Speculation centres on the potential disruption at Heathrow (and pressure from the airport’s owners and airlines) causing LU to review their position. Service Control Dispute – TSSA members in Service Control were balloted in the current dispute over terms, conditions and imposed (and inappropriate) increases in job responsibilities, resulting in a positive vote for industrial action. The vote led to TfL expressing a desire to re- meet staff instead of imposing changes. In the week of 23 Mar, TSSA met TfL via ACAS with further meetings scheduled. [TSSA website] ‘Vulnerable and unprepared’ TfL duped into £900m Tube disaster- A mix of poor commercial expertise, lack of IT procurement skills and ill-informed senior managers led to the failure of TfL’s sub-surface signalling upgrade contract with Bombardier. The London Assembly’s Budget and Performance Committee report says the failed contract made the upgrade five years late and added almost £900m to the original budget. TfL’s auditor, KPMG found the procurement process “not well thought out”, with selection and award criteria “fundamentally different”, with no pause to “follow up on any concerns identified at the first stage later in the process”. awarded the contract to Bombardier in Jun 2011, but terminated it two years later, paying a final settlement of £85m – of which £67m is estimated as “wasted expenditure”. The contract was re-let to Thales in 2015, revealing the “full implications of the failed Bombardier contract came to light”. The upgrade can’t be completed before 2023, five years late. Also, TfL increased the budget aspect for [developing] automatic train control by £886m,” the Assembly report said. TfL blamed Bombardier’s “shameful performance” and Mayor Johnson got in a dig, saying the company “totally stuffed it up”. TfL claimed it was misled by Bombardier “about its expertise and experience”. This ignores TfL’s flawed strategy for delivering the signalling; the report found “TfL relied on Bombardier to provide an end-to-end solution. The market is not mature enough to take this approach now and it certainly was not five years ago.” It also highlighted a TfL management culture of “only interested in presenting good news”, with its executives still claiming in 2014 that the project could be delivered by 2018 against expert views. John Biggs AM, chairman of the Assembly’s Budget and Performance Committee, noted that “In government, heads – political or official – would roll after such financial mismanagement. At TfL the key players have been promoted and nobody was to blame. It is a scandal.” TfL has “implemented the central recommendations from KPMG's independent review,” but implied it disagreed with some of the report’s negative views, as did Bombardier but openly. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] From frying pan to fire? - an Australia public transport leader has been appointed as the new London Underground managing director: Mark Wild leaves his current role as special advisor to the Minister and Secretary of the State Government of Victoria to start in June, replacing interim managing director Nick Brown… Wild has been chief executive of Public Transport Victoria from 2013 to 2015, where he supervised the tram, bus and suburban rail services in Victoria’s capital, Melbourne. Wild has previously worked on London Underground projects before, including introducing new signalling on the Jubilee and Victoria lines. [various media, added to] British Transport Police (BTP) halts plan to scrap London Underground Sexual Offences Unit - the dedicated police unit for tackling sexual offences on the London Underground will remain after protests by campaigners and unions. BTP initially said on 24 March that they were breaking up the London-based Sexual Offences Unit and handing the sexual offences work to the police at large, saying they wanted to ensure that the unit’s experience was “captured, standardised and embedded as best practice” on a national level. However, a week later they suspended the decision to carry out a review of that plan following feedback. BTP’s ‘Report It to Stop It’ anti- sexual harassment campaign led to a 36% increase in reports of offences, despite a 12.4% decrease in crimes on the Underground overall. It built on a 2013 campaign, Project Guardian. In 2014-15 1,399 sexual offences were recorded on the rail network, a 25.2% increase from the previous year, despite an 8% overall fall in crime. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Warning issued over out-of-date Underground safety advice after derailment - A train derailment at Ealing Broadway (see diagram below) may have been due to out-of-date signal documentation given to staff, prompting the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) to issue urgent safety advice. The derailment occurred at 1.30am on 2 Mar after the train was permitted to pass signal WP17 at danger. The train, from Upminster, had been held for an hour at the red signal, due to a track circuit failure. Staff had secured point 38, but point 39A was not identified as needing to be secured, causing the train to derail when it traversed 39A at 5mph with the signaller’s permission to go forward. No one was injured, damage occurred to the points but not the train, and the 19 passengers on the train were safely evacuated. RAIB’s preliminary examination found some points and signals documents issued to staff were out-of- date. Urgent safety advice has been given to London Underground to ensure an adequate process is in place for content and issue of critical staff safety documentation.

RAIB are also looking into other factors which could have led to the derailment, including the methods used to correctly identify and secure points, the effectiveness of non-technical skills training provided to staff, and management proceedings. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited]

57 Tube stations at high flood risk - an internal London Underground report says that 85 sites are at ‘high risk’ as a result of climate change. 57 of these are Tube stations, including Finsbury Park, Notting Hill Gate, Seven Sisters, Colliers Wood, Stockwell and Marble Arch. The rest are shafts and tunnel entrances. A further 68 sites are at ‘significant risk’, including 23 more stations. The report says: “London has been fortunate to escape the worst of recent storm events in the UK, but it is only a matter of time before heavy rainfall seriously affects London and the underground network. The risk is generally expected to increase [as] climate change predictions are that storms will become more intense.” London is now prone to flooding since de-industrialisation, which allows the ‘water table’ below the city to rise, with few if any ‘extraction industries’ drawing water from the underlying aquifer, the water-retaining rock structure which underpins London like a flattened ‘u’, comparatively close to the surface. Extreme weather linked to climate change has already closed the Newcastle-Carlisle and Carlisle-Settle routes by landslips near Hexham and Appleby respectively and the Lamington Viaduct on the . Research published by RSSB last year warned that climate change will affect the resilience of the whole of the UK rail network. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added-to] Night Tube – (1) You’ve spent how much on Night Tube adverts? – without agreements in sight (then), LU-TfL spent over £600,000 to let Londoners and others know what they’re not getting. [Time Out, edited]; (2) the next start date… – Sadiq Khan announced in late May that the first two Lines to start weekend night services would be the Central and Victoria Lines on Friday 19 August, with three more Lines (Jubilee, Northern, Piccadilly) following ‘soon’. A number of outstanding industrial issues and possible strike actions loom over the proposition, notably RMT’s maintenance and TSSA’s Service Control disputes, neither of which are close to resolution. [mainstream media (print and vision), edited]; (3) RMT votes for strikes – engineering and maintenance staff have voted for a walk out over unresolved issues related to Night Tube, announced shortly after the start date for Night Tube was revealed. Over 85% voted for strike action with an even larger majority for action short of a strike. The dispute is over the company’s refusal to discuss outstanding pensions issues until after Night Tube starts, plus major unresolved Night Tube staffing issues and undermining Performance Related Pay (PRP) agreements as Tube Lines refuses to base budgets on negotiated levels of PRP. [misc sources]. London Overground – (1) next operator – Arriva! After losing many London bus contracts, something has changed in this German State Railways-owned company [er, see above…], as they’ve won this and the Northern Rail franchise too… On 18 Mar, TfL announced Arriva had won the £1.5 billion contract for seven and a half years with an option to extend for up to two additional years, starting from Nov 2016. The deal includes customer facilities upgrades, modernised stations and more frequent services, starting with the North London line. New trains start in 2018 on Liverpool Street routes and on the Gospel Oak to Barking line. Some routes will have extended operating hours, and new Boxing Day services on some routes, plus performance criteria tightened, against harsh financial penalties, which will be up to staff to deliver. TfL’s operation has seen passenger numbers rise by 400 per cent since 2007. The shortlisted bidders were Limited, LoKeGo Limited (a joint venture between Keolis (UK) Limited and Go-Ahead Holding Limited), Metroline Rail Limited (Singapore global transport operator), MTR Corporation (Hong Kong Metro – ‘MTR’), and current operator LOROL (London Overground Rail Operations Ltd) alone, not as the current joint venture between MTR and Arriva-DB. [Wired.gov web-site, edited]; (2) Gospel Oak to Barking Line will close for eight months for electrification upgrades - starting from June, this will allow electrification upgrade work, but in stages followed by a complete shut-down. From 4 June to 25 September the South Tottenham to Barking section will close and the rest of the line will only run at weekends; the full Gospel Oak to Barking line will then close from 26 September to February 2017, covered by a TfL replacement bus service (which takes over an hour longer than the withdrawn trains). The full upgrade will allow four- carriage electric trains instead of the current two-carriage diesels from January 2018. Works include installing overhead wires, three new switching stations, lowering four sections of track, rebuilding four bridges and modernising six, and lengthening platforms and station works to accommodate longer trains. NetRail has been working on the foundations for the structures to support overhead wires since October. The scheme is funded by £25m from TfL and £90m from DfT. To keep the public updated about closures, TfL and NetRail are running drop-in sessions at affected stations and offering e-mail alerts, Twitter, posters and station announcements. TfL will try to work with Network Rail to try to reduce the closure period. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added-to]; (3) knock-on from Barking-Gospel Oak route closure? – LO’s North London Line has ceased running on Sunday mornings. [London Overground Summer 2016 timetable] TfL – CrossRail1 [‘Elizabeth Line’] and CrossRail2 How will present London bus routes be affected when CrossRail1 opens? – TfL is coy about this, not even responding fairly to a Freedom of Information request. Known from public comment that routes 7 and 23 will be re-cast but no further detail; generally, parallel routes may be cut back, diverted, rerouted. Other possible candidates may be routes 5, 8, 25, 86 in the east, 55, 94, 98, 148, 159 and 390 in central London, to the west 105, 140, 207, 427 and 607, and in the south-east route 180. Any persistence over this topic results in TfL’s lawyers’ interest. Some of this is because some affected bus routes are on contracts which run through the Line’s opening and have to be re-negotiated, which of course is ‘commercially sensitive’. Not as if passengers counted then, is it? Two contracts for London Bus routes have been altered – routes 25 (Ilford – Oxford Circus, paralleling CrossRail for most of its roads served), to run for 3.5 years instead of the usual 5, and 46 (Farringdon – Lancaster Gate via Hampstead, which barely touches CrossRail) was withdrawn from tendering and will stay with the present operator until at least CrossRail opens (no competing bids considered; the new contract would have started in April 2017) Stop ignoring East London! - CrossRail 2 must include east London to foster regional growth, council leaders have said. A new study from transport consultancy GHD, commissioned jointly by Essex, Newham, Hackney and Barking and Dagenham councils (still to be published in full), says a CrossRail 2 ‘eastern phase’ would support economic and population growth. The Line is currently planned to have one route from Angel to , but the study recommends a junction after Angel for a new branch to serve the eastern boroughs, linking with the Essex Thameside network, terminating at Basildon and Grays. This proposition may conflict with future CrossRail2 extensions which favour routes north (possibly to Stansted), but only speculation at this stage [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Rail (pan-industry) Oxford-Cambridge rail route [‘East-West railway’] – the central section will be on the Bedford- Sandy-Cambridge corridor [announced 31 Mar]. NetRail chose this route from a choice of 20; publication of methodology followed in May with a further consultation. This came after a NetRail draft suggested the project should be delivered in three phases instead of two, risking a completion delay of up to seven years. Factors included station catchment areas for population and employment, operating costs, forecast passenger demand, demand for short and longer distance journeys, need to reduce London rail network crowding, infrastructure needs, train service opportunities and other impacts. The operating objective is for a faster and more reliable train service to assist economic growth and employment in Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire and East Anglia. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Rail – Network Rail (NetRail) How much is our State-owned asset really worth? On 11 Apr, the published NetRail revaluation added £100 billion to the UK’s balance sheet, proving the case for keeping it public. Government confirmation that a long-overdue revaluation of NetRail’s assets makes it worth an extra £100 billion has straightened out a flaw post privatisation which systematically undervalued the UK’s rail assets. [RMT website, mild edits] [a government press release on this is curiously elusive] NetRail sets up property company to maximise estate income – a property company was set up by Network Rail in April to help increase income from its estate. Network Rail Property, previously Network Rail’s specialist transport property business, was established as a company with its own Board in order to achieve the parent’s goal of releasing £1.8bn funding for its enhancement plan through the sale of non-core assets, to allieviate up to £50bn of debt by the end of the decade, and is consulting about privatising major stations to generate revenue. The future of the stations including Waterloo, Manchester Piccadilly and Birmingham New Street, is not yet known, but NetRail has commissioned banking firm Citigroup to look at options to solve its financial problems, which will report back by the end of the year. Last month, NetRail also triggered the potential sell-off of its electrical power assets in a consultation to test the industry’s interest in buying thousands of its overhead lines, substations and pylons. The new managing director of Network Rail Property, said one of the new company’s goal is to unlock more land to fulfil its partnership with the Homes and Communities Agency to build more homes on land near railways. Thus: NetRail becomes homes-builder? - up to 10,000 new houses and businesses will be built near railway stations under a new agreement between NetRail and the Homes and Communities Agency. Local councils are being called on to take part in the scheme, which aims to contribute to regeneration of stations similar to that already seen at Birmingham New Street, Manchester Victoria and London King’s Cross. The first proposals under the scheme are to build up to 2,500 new homes near York station, to remodel the station layout and car park at Taunton and to redevelop land by Swindon station. Under government instruction, NetRail is reviewing its entire estate to identify land to be unlocked for development, which may pressure the body to ignore longer-term rail development need, such as new sidings or installing multiple tracks for more capacity. [both items Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added to]. Rail – High Speed Two (HS2) route High Speed Rail Committee publishes final report - following almost two years and 160 days of sittings, the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee published its second and final report. The Committee heard nearly 1,600 petitions against the Bill and its additional provisions. For electronic readers, the four Parliamentary reports on this are: High Speed Rail Committee Report (PDF 4MB), High Speed Rail Committee, High Speed Rail Bill, and Progress of High Speed Rail Bill. Committee recommendations include: a longer Chilterns bored tunnel with a north portal at South Heath; greater noise protection for Wendover; better construction arrangements in Hillingdon; Washwood Heath maintenance depot remodelled to maximise local job opportunities; and amendments to operation of discretionary compensation schemes for greater fairness and a more functional property market near to the proposed line. This report and the Committee’s recommendations mark completion of hearings of petitions against the Bill and against five sets of additional provisions. Next stage: Bill is reported to the Commons, to be ‘recommitted’ to a Public Bill Committee for line-by-line scrutiny, then for Report Stage and Third Reading. At least seven days before the Bill’s Third Reading, DfT will state its main reasons why Parliament should consent to the Bill and the main measures to mitigate adverse effects. If passed by the Commons, the Bill goes to the Lords. [Wired.gov website, edited] HS2 warned over putting community engagement ‘second place’ - HS2 Ltd failed to communicate properly with six families who will lose their homes to the high-speed railway development and risk continuing to fail to engage with communities as the project goes ahead, a new report has warned. Ian Bynoe, a former Independent Police Complaints Commissioner, published an independent report into HS2’s community engagement following a complaint by the families, who live in a village near Litchfield and were set to lose their homes to HS2, which has previously been reviewed by both the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Bynoe’s report says that HS2 has been too slow to develop a community engagement strategy. Its initial team at approval for HS2 Phase 1 consisted of five people, and has only now started developing community engagement plans. Residents faced delays when they tried to complain about HS2, through lack of easy access to an independent body and complaining to the Parliamentary Health Services Ombudsman took a long time. Bynoe warns that as HS2, whose Bill recently passed through the House of Commons, acquires new legal powers, it will be easier for it to ignore complaints from communities and individuals. HS2 has improved how it engages with communities, including hiring new staff, and referring complainants to the Department for Transport independent complaints assessors, but Bynoe lacks confidence that HS2 can make a “step change”, recommending HS2 approve and publish a strategy for community engagement, centrally record all complaints and make mobile numbers of senior staff available to residents who need contact urgently. Simon Kirby, HS2’s CEO, promised that HS2 will provide a full update on their progress in implementing the report’s recommendations next month. [Rail Technology eMagazine and Rail Professional, edited] Will it ever reach the ‘North’? – Manchester arm could be axed as HS2 admits ‘nothing is ruled out’ in cost-cutting. While this is an ‘insider leak’ to , it has to start from somewhere, about cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood’s review of how to keep the project within its £55bn budget is considering stopping the line at Crewe, requiring high-speed trains to run the last 35 miles to Manchester on conventional rail [not unlike how the French High Speed TGVs serve major centres such as Lyon]. Other smaller cost-cutting measures are being considered, such as removing Sheffield Meadowhall station and linking to the West Coast Main Line in Staffordshire, but were unlikely to meet the necessary savings demanded. More expensive elements, such as tunnels to reduce impact on the Chilterns and west London, could also be cut. The project could also be taken away from DfT, as ‘an HS2 spokesman’ told the Telegraph: “The Treasury have come to the meetings [with us] with the view that nothing is ruled out. They want to be much closer to HS2 – from their side they feel that DfT overlooking the project is not working. We are putting in £12 billion of contracts this summer and I don’t think the Treasury are entirely happy that safeguards are in place.” HS2 has promised to open the Birmingham - Crewe link by 2027, six years earlier than planned, the exact route for the rest of phase 2 is two years behind schedule, and won’t be announced before Autumn 2016, subject to Heywood’s review. The Bill is currently going through a House of Lords select committee; it has been criticised by former Independent Police Complaints Commissioner Ian Bynoe and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for problems in how it engages with communities. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Will it ever reach London? – new London Mayor Sadiq Khan has expressed doubts about the suitability of Euston as the line’s London Terminal, sharing the concerns of residents around Euston and LB Camden. How much weight that carries remains to be seen; he’s suggesting a short-term measure of terminating at Old Oak Common, which could not address the predicted volumes of traffic interchanging with other routes to and from central London (two new Overground stations and CrossRail, already shown to be under pressure for its loadings by 2020). [mainstream media, generalised] Adonis marches on… - National Infrastructure Commission [NIC] [interim] chair Lord Andrew Adonis is expected to run CrossRail 2’s construction project, after being jointly nominated by London Mayor Sadiq Khan, Chancellor Osborne and Transport Secretary McLoughlin following a meeting. That appointment is now subject to approval by the London Assembly and the TfL Board. Adonis was appointed NIC leader in October when the commission was created, and has since published a report into the future of CrossRail 2, which stressed that the project must be taken forward “as a priority” and be delivered by 2033. The former Labour transport posts holder has always been vocal about transport projects and has consistently vouched for private funding to ensure all planned infrastructure are delivered on time and on budget. Adonis originally recommended a national independent infrastructure commission in 2013 after his work for the Armitt Commission. [Adonis would then simultaneously chair three major transport bodies, not always in agreement with each other - NIC, HS2 and CrossRail2]. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added-to] Train Operating Companies (TOCs) [not ‘TfL Rail’] – currently operating - general Virgin East Coast had biggest performance decrease in period 12 – This TOC had the steepest performance decline compared to last year in the past month, latest NetRail figures show. The operator’s instant response was to blame NetRail for the decline. Virgin Trains East Coast had a public performance measure (PPM) of 84.6% for period 12 in 2015-16, an 8.9 percentage point drop from 93.5% at the same time last year. Grand Central had an 8.2% drop from 93.4% in 2014- 15 to 84.2% in 2015- 16. Other notable falls included Southeastern which had an 85% PPM, a 5.7% drop from last year, and First Hull had an 85.6% PPM, a

5% drop. Compared to the east coast, Virgin Trains West Coast had a shorter decline from a higher starting point, its PPM changing from 89.7% in period 12 last year to 87% in 2015-16. The figures reflect last month’s, but decreases are less steep. The TOC with the highest percentage of journeys ending in cancellation or failure was First TransPennine Express at 5.7%, followed by Govia Thameslink (5.5%), Virgin East Coast (5.3%) and Southeastern (4.8%). A passenger survey by Which? In Feb found the worst TOCs for delays were Arriva Trains Wales, Thameslink and Great Northern, Great Western Railways and Southern. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited]

UK rail’s worst performance figures in a decade - latest ORR data shows last year’s performance was the worst since 2006. National performance and punctuality measure (PPM) in 2015-16 was 89.1%, lowest since 88.1% in 2006-07. Worst PPM was (GTR) at 81.5%, followed by Virgin East Coast (85.2%) and Virgin West Coast and (86%) – all of which serve the SERTUC area. Caledonian Sleeper also had the biggest PPM drop since the previous year, with a 3.9% decrease, followed by Virgin East Coast (3.4%) and GTR (2.3%). Best PPM operators were (96.7%), Merseyrail (95.3%), Chiltern & London Overground (both 94.4%). However, both had a PPM decline compared to 2014-15. In recent monthly PPM data, TOCs with the biggest drop in performance were Grand Central, c2c and Virgin. The report noted that many of these issues were beyond TOCs’ control, eg London Bridge works.

Cancellation and significant lateness (CaSL) experienced an even longer historic low, with the national rate reaching 3.1%, the worst since 3.2% in 2004-05. Caledonian Sleeper had the worst CaSL at 10.4%, followed by First TransPennine Express with 5.8% and Virgin East Coast with 5.5%. CaSL increased in every sector except Regional and Scotland, where it remained the same. In the long distance sector alone it increased by 4.6%.

In contrast, c2c operates on a relatively simple route with little interaction with other TOCs. Open access operators, had a PPM of 91.8%, Grand Central had 86.6% and had 85.3%. Biggest PPM decline was in the London and south east, at 1.2%, compared to 0.7% nationally and 0.1% in the Regional and Scotland sector. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited]

Passenger complaints decreasing, but highest on Virgin West Coast - first ORR report on how the rail industry is meeting passenger obligations says passengers complaints are generally decreasing, confirming previous findings. Of the 18 TOCs which supplied data, 14 had fewer complaints for every 100,000 passenger journeys in 2015-16 second quarter than in 2014-15. However, Virgin West Coast had a much higher complaints level than any other TOC, with 198.2 per 100,000; their excuse was of no surprise as they’d made it easier to complain [but from personal experience, they just ignore you]. Arriva Trains Wales, the TOC with the next highest number of complaints, had just 62.8 per 100,000, same as 2013-14. The most common complaints were punctuality and reliability, following the publication of UK 2015-16PPM data, the worst figures in a decade.

The report, ‘Measuring Up’, recommended that the industry improve delays information to passengers, make ticket vending machines easy to use, and actively monitor assistance quality for disabled passengers, following an increase in the number of passengers requesting it. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Rail passengers face unpredictable charges to retrieve lost property - transport campaigners are seeking a standard national scheme for rail travellers to find items easily. Transport Focus says each TOC having its own rules is not user friendly. Rail Delivery Group said storage costs can vary; train operating companies and rail stations across the UK charge different fees to re-unite passengers with their lost property, with some using private companies to run their lost property service. Operators typically charge up to £25 but the maximum permitted under their franchise agreements is £30. Abellio Greater Anglia charges up to £25 but gives people 24 hours to come forward before imposing the fee. Arriva Trains Wales charges between £2 and £25, saying it made no profit from storing and returning lost property. Virgin Trains and CrossCountry hand over lost property to rail stations. charges between £2 and £20 to recover items PLUS a £1 storage a fee for electrical items and 50p for all others per 24 hours. East Midlands Trains (same company as SWT) scrapped all lost property fees. The Excess Baggage Company manages lost property for Southern, NetRail stations, Gatwick and Luton Airports [but as a private company, it only works for profit], charging between £3 for a left umbrella or keys to £20 for expensive goods such as laptop computers and video cameras, saying its charges are set by ATOC and supported by DfT. [BBC news website, edited and added-to] Virgin gives in, only nine months late, to paying delay compensation in ‘cash’ – it now makes compensation payments automatically by cheque, on both East and West Coast routes. However, all rail passengers have been entitled to cash since July 2015. It tried a sneaky version from last Oct whereby delayed West Coast travellers who had Advance tickets but only through Virgin’s website, were recompensed directly to their payment cards. The current ‘Delay Repay’ system is offered by around half of all train operators, while individual train companies offer different levels of compensation. The ‘best deals’ offer: . up to a 50% refund on a single ticket for delays of between 30 minutes and an hour . up to a 100% refund on a single ticket for a delay of between one and two hours . up to a 100% refund on the cost of a return ticket for delays of more than two hours The announcement came the day after rail passengers including Virgin Trains services faced delays and cancellations after overhead electric wires failed in the Midlands. Some 5% of Virgin trains were either cancelled, at least 30 minutes late or missed a scheduled stop in the 12 months to 05 Mar, according to NetRail, while the average for England and Wales rail firms is 3%. [BBC news website, edited] RAIB calls for power operated door review after serious passenger injury - a major accident on a Southeastern train at West Wickham where a passenger was injured after her backpack strap was trapped in the doors of a train, was caused by a door opening systems problem and the trainee driver failing to notice the passenger, a Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) report has said. The incident occurred on 10 Apr 2015, when the woman’s backpack strap became trapped as she tried to get off the 1100 train from London Cannon Street to Hayes. She shouted for help but became separated from the backpack and fell onto the tracks, suffering ‘life- changing injuries’. Staff at the NetRail / Southeastern joint control centre saw the incident on CCTV and stopped all trains, allowing her to receive emergency care. RAIB found the accident was caused by train doors closing quickly and unexpectedly, which can only happen when a passenger presses a door-open button less than a second after the driver has initiated door closure. This door behaviour response was not known to the owner or operator, causing RAIB to issue urgent safety advice. Rolling stock owners (ROSCOs, NOT the TOCs) then identified 21 other train types which allow passenger doors to be opened for a short period after door closure is initiated by train crew. ROSCOs have jointly commissioned a systems review and investigating alternatives. The train was being driven by a trainee who had only started practical work on 1 Mar, supervised by an experienced driver, an instructor-driver since 2004. The train was driver only, requiring drivers to check platform CCTV monitors for safety to depart. Two of these monitors showed a passenger seemingly trapped but although visible from the driving cab, neither the trainee nor the instructor was aware of this. RAIB has not established why both drivers were not aware of the trapped passenger but has identified a number of possible factors. RAIB recommended owners and operators of trains with power operated doors identify and correct door operating systems showing these characteristics. Rail Safety and Standards Board, which maintains British rail industry’s rulebook and was involved in aspects of driver training, seeks changes to guidance so that “where practicable” staff dispatching trains watch train doors as they close, and check doors after shutting. [this presumes railway platform staff for each train]. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Individual current Train Operating Companies (TOCs) [not ‘TfL Rail’] C2C (National Express) [Fenchurch Street] – more trains, but only temporarily – DfT had to step in after the TOC was unable to secure extra trains by itself. Six brand new 4-car trains (‘class 387’) are due between October and December, but only until 2019. c2c said the trains would add 13,000 seats at peak time to meet an “unprecedented” 8% growth in passengers. The franchise had already added 1,400 more seats and standing room for 3,000 more passengers at peaks, and is seeking 68 more carriages from 2019. Formal procurement has started, with a manufacturer to be appointed by summer. c2c experienced a PPM decline from 98% to 93.8% in March. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] East Coast (Stagecoach-Virgin) [Kings Cross] – (1) job cuts, ticket office closures – the operator wants to cut up to 100 jobs at enroute travel centres, moving staff into ‘customer service zones’ on platforms to sell tickets from hand held machines. TSSA pointed out that “Passengers will be faced with a narrower range of the cheaper tickets because hand-held machines do not offer a full service.” This latest attack is on top of over 100 jobs being axed on the GTR franchise [nb see EU justification for 4RP above, which says competition etc creates stable employment], and is another example of passengers having services cut for private profit. [TSSA website, edited and added-to]; (2) more than a rumour? - on 29 Apr, RMT responded to reports [the source is ‘confidential’, from the media] of mounting franchise financial losses. The union expressed deep concern at the franchise’s financial state, which appears to be confirmed in its [internal] financial documents. [a corporate failure could see the THIRD return of this key route to public ownership] [RMT website and sources, added to]; (3) ORR approves new services – while stamping in puddles that First Group can have five round trips a day (but not before 2021) between London and Edinburgh, East Coast has been granted new services between London and Edinburgh, Harrogate, Lincoln and Middlesbrough starting progressively from May 2019. These services formed part of the successful bid for the ECML franchise, which started in March 2015 and is planned to run until at least 31 March 2023. [various media and additions/edits] Grand Central Trains (Arriva-Deutsche Bahn) [open access operator, Kings Cross] – reaction to new competition – the knives are out… Grand Central’s managing director has warned that ORR’s allowing new Virgin and First services on the East Coast route may have a “significant impact” on its income. Grand Central had already spent years developing its open access East Coast market “at its own risk”. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] Hull Trains (FirstGroup) [open access operator, Kings Cross] – (1) future plans – ORR approved services to operate until at least 2029 – its current agreement expires in 2019. Not clear whether it’s the company intent to buy new bi-modal trains or if that’s a condition of continuing to operate. Bi-modal units with an earliest start date of 2020 will increase seat capacity by up to 50%, electric running under existing wires, and diesel where no wires are installed. Rail Delivery Group (ATOC’s apologists) said this week that ‘British railway needs a continued programme of electrification to allow for rolling stock growth’, but no mention that these new trains will be built in Japan and only assembled in the UK, nor who might fund that electrification. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited]; (2) not a peep… - Hull Trains doesn’t mind its revenue being abstracted by another part of the empire, when First start running London –Edinburgh [not a dickybird, unedited] London Midland (Govia) [Euston] – next franchise operator? – Govia [present operator], MTR (China) and joint Abellio/Japanese Railways East (Mitsui minority partner) have been shortlisted to run the franchise in October 2017. Planned franchise improvements include London Euston enabling works for HS2. [TSSA website and Rail Technology eMagazine, edited & added to] Great Western Railway (FirstGroup) [Paddington] – [1] no, the public doesn’t own GWR, First Group does –not getting much publicity is the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling against a GWR poster campaign implying public ownership by stating that ‘the railway belongs to the region it serves’. The wording is misleading and breaches advertising standards; they said that the advert breached rule 3.1 of the Committee of Advertising Practice code, which bans misleading advertising. GWR has been instructed not to suggest in future that the railway franchise was publicly owned. Four complainants pointed out that Great Western Railway was owned by an international company, and that the advert implied the railway was publicly owned. ASA said that ‘The railway belongs to the region it serves’ was likely to be understood by consumers to imply that GWR was publicly owned and there might be a resulting financial benefit to the region that GWR operated in. The advert “might encourage consumers to use or enquire about using the service, for example, out of regional loyalty or because they believed profits directly belonged to the local region. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.” [RMT website and other sources, edited]; [2] rail replacement only for the rich? – while the Severn Tunnel is closed from 12 Sep to 21 Oct for overhead wires to be installed, no through trains can run between Wales and England. However, business passengers needn’t fear, as Flybe will operate four ‘rescue flights’ on weekdays and two each on Sat & Sun between Cardiff Airport and . Flybe’s chief exec’ appreciates ‘thousands’ will have no through rail service but it ‘champions regional air travel’ offering 240-300 seats a day at airfare prices to help the richly-inconvenienced [‘The Wharf’ (Docklands free paper, 31 Mar - not an April Fool gag), edited] South West Trains (Stagecoach) [Waterloo] – (1) Waterloo development plans (with NetRail) – An £800m South West Trains improvement programme includes significant station expansion. Much of this is NOT news, just adding timescale and detail to earlier announcements. Improvements will take place over the next three years, to include station expansion, new Siemens Class 707 trains (first revealed in September 2014, to lease 150 new train carriages to manufacturer Siemens and leasing company Angel Trains), longer platforms at 10 stations on the Reading line, and depots / maintenance improvements, with parallel works at Vauxhall and . Former Waterloo International Terminal will return to full use of platforms 20-24 plus updating; existing platforms 1-4 will be extended for longer 10-car trains during August 2017, and a new concourse built near platforms 20-24. London TravelWatch noted the number of passengers using London Waterloo will have risen from 108m in 1996 to 234m now and to grow 40% by 2043. Most improvements will be funded by DfT as part of NetRail’s £40bn Railway Upgrade Plan. Class 707 units will first enter service in mid-2017, between Waterloo and Windsor; full introduction expected by mid-2018 allowing a ‘cascade’ of trains to other routes. The full announcement included SWT routes impacts, which may reflect that some services will move to London Overground, and interwork with CrossRail2. Platforms 1 to 8 inclusive will need a 23 day closure, leaving only TWO platforms instead of the current 5 or 6 for suburban services, requiring substantial cuts to operations. Also not clear whether local authorities, passenger groups etc have been made aware of these impacts. Buried in the full plan are service expansions for Haslemere, Farnborough, Fleet and Winchester. Not mentioned is that Waterloo is on NetRail’s list of potential sales. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and with correspondents’ comments, edited]; (2) Vauxhall fire, 05 May – a cable fire on the ‘Windsor’ side platforms managed to shut down not only Waterloo but also Clapham Junction, affecting Southern services to and from Victoria (and according to BBC teletext, Southeastern trains which go nowhere near Clapham Junction nor Vauxhall), which lasted for most of the rest of that day. Clapham Junction was shut for overcrowding risks, which added to SWT woes with repositioning trains, but the rail workers who restored the service went unthanked. [multiple media and TU website sources, edited] Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR)-(Thameslink, Southern, Great Northern, Gatwick Express and former parts of Southeastern) [Kings Cross/St Pancras, Victoria, Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street and London Bridge] – (1) ticket offices closures – given this operator’s idea of passenger consultation is a blackboard on a station concourse, exactly where passengers are least likely to pause, especially in peak hours, TSSA has publicly urged rail users to take part in the ‘consultation’ to close 80 ticket offices, which would wipe out 130 jobs, and to contact their MPs. It is a franchise condition that such changes must go through a prior consultation, which the operator tried to minimise, by the barest minimum publicity of a ‘poster on a notice-board’ in station foyers, where people rarely stop as they move between station and elsewhere. Transport Focus coordinated the consultation, but did not comment on this poor publicity, which echoes South West Trains’ similar actions about ten years ago – that scheme failed miserably as staff, passengers and local pressure groups mobilised to defeat the schemes. The ‘consultation’ ran from late Feb to 14 Mar, offering email or written response opportunities – provided users saw the poster in the first place. The first fifteen stations marked for the ‘first phase’ of ticket office closures include Alexandra Palace, , , Wandsworth Park and Streatham Hill. [TSSA, edited]. Transport unions mounted a better advice campaign with pre-printed postcards handed to passengers, and succeeded in raising the response rate by the closure date, with RMT saying the level of objection had become sufficient for London TravelWatch to recommend staying the closures [RMT website]. TSSA has warned that as more jobs and staff security come under threat (some of this from the consequences of shutting booking offices), strike action could escalate [TSSA website]. On 23 May 2016, RMT responded to an article in that day’s of the Train Operator’s open admission that they have deliberately set out to smash [rail] unions, clearly implying the current disputes have been deliberately engineered. All the rail unions for some time have suspected that there was more to the present range of disputes with this operator than met the eye, with passenger groups also fobbed off with evasions and misleading responses to legitimate questions;; (2) driver-only operation on new 12-car trains? - Govia wants 12-car trains on half its Gatwick Express services by June, but ASLEF has said the trains are too large to oversee without additional staff, putting passenger safety at risk. ASLEF said: “The agreements are in place to only have 10-car coaches as driver-only, and to stop any extension of driver-only operation. Longer trains without guards are not safe for passengers, especially with the rise in sexual assaults, and not safe for drivers. This is purely greed and a cost-cutting measure risking safety – no member of the public has ever demanded a train without guards.” ASLEF’s website states “As a result of a threat to impose 12 car DOO(P) working, without agreement, from 9 April on Gatwick Express, we are to ballot drivers on Southern, and Gatwick Express, for industrial action. GTR, in a letter dated 6 April, and received today Friday 8 April, says: 'We intend to begin implementing 12 car DOO(P) operation with effect from Saturday 9 April, or shortly thereafter. We will require all drivers who have been trained on using the new Class 387s to undertake these services when instructed to do so.' As a result of this threat to impose 12 car DOO(P) working without agreement GTR has been informed of our intention to ballot our driver members employed on Southern and Gatwick Express for industrial action.” Crawley News reported on 9 April, the first such 12-car train ran on the 05.30 London Victoria to Gatwick, but the driver refused to pick up passengers. The operator has since won a High Court injunction against ASLEF, forcing drivers to work solo on these trains until such time as the injunction is lifted or successfully challenged at Court. On 19 May, GTR sought a new injunction to stop ASLEF ballot over the introduction of 12-car driver-operated only (DOO) trains, issuing papers at the High Court to challenge the ballot of Southern and Gatwick Express drivers, which is open until 23 May. GTR’s previous injunction was to stop their drivers on the Gatwick Express from refusing to drive the trains. The operator added that because ASLEF induced drivers to refuse to drive trains in advance of conducting the ballot, it cannot now lawfully ask them to take industrial action, adding the company thought that ASLEF’S selection of drivers breached balloting laws. The case was expected to be heard in the High Court in the week commencing Mon 23 May. RMT’s ballot for strike action against driver-only trains secured a strong mandate to walk out. RMT’s website listed strike dates by their guards/conductors on Southern in support of retaining operational staff on trains “… your union’s National Executive Committee has again had the opportunity to consider this matter and believe that the only way to stop management introducing Driver Only Operation (DOO) that threatens your jobs, working conditions and public safety is by taking strike action. Therefore, your union’s National Executive Committee has taken the decision to call on all our Southern (GTR) Conductor and Conductor Instructor grade members to take the following strike action: Members are instructed not to book on for any turns of duty that commence between: •11.00 Tuesday 26th April 2016 until 10.59 Wednesday 27th April 2016 •11.00 Tuesday 10th May 2016 until 10.59 Wednesday 11th May 2016 •11.00 Thursday 12th May 2016 until 10.59 Friday 13th May 2016.”; Southern claimed on the first strike that ‘two thirds’ of services were running normally (a definition of ‘normal’ not known to around three-thirds of English language users). RMT later revised the strike dates to impact more on the franchise management and less on passengers, moving 11/12 May strikes to all-day (00.01 to 23.59) Fri 20 May. [various, edited]; (2A) “ASLEF is disappointed that GTR is taking legal action against our ballot of Southern and Gatwick Express drivers. We have yet to take any industrial action. The result of the ballot is due on Monday 23rd May following which ASLEF’s Executive Committee will determine the union’s next steps.” [ASLEF website, 19 May] (2B) GTR was awarded an injunction on 02 June, banning ASLEF members from further strikes over the proposed introduction of driver-operated only trains. GTR used grounds that ASLEF couldn’t lawfully ballot its members because it had previously induced them not to drive trains. Despite GTR’s efforts, 84.4% of ASLEF members have voted in favour of strikes. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited] (3) crew shortages – during May and heading into June, Southern cancelled a substantial number of trains daily for lack of staff. Stock defects also meant many trains ran short-formed, one classic example personally experienced was a four carriage train on a Friday afternoon from Victoria to Brighton, causing standing passengers for the entire journey. The true staffing deficit is both drivers and guards, but company publicity blames ‘shortage of conductors’ as part of the push to eliminate operating staff on trains apart from the driver. A guard-conductor shortage at Southern’s Horsham Depot has existed for a considerable period but Southern has never advertised to fill the vacancies. After considerable pressure, the company has been forced to modify its excuse to a generic ‘shortage of staff’ rather than blame one group of people. The operator is currently suffering from unprecedented levels of ill-health among its staff, which it is blaming as unofficial industrial action. [various, edited] (4) ‘secret’ adverse changes to GTR franchise - a new government agreement, designed to allow the government not to terminate the GTR franchise, allows an increase in non-penalty train cancellations by a third, from 23,391 to 32,000 a year, representing almost 9000 additional cancellations per year. The “remedial plan” was agreed by Government and slid out in Feb, but buried in a raft of complex franchise documents. The newly-amended franchise agreement is “to address GTR’s contractual breach of the Schedule 7.1 benchmark for cancellations…and admits that “the overall number of cancellations has increased and GTR have exceeded its threshold for TOC [Train Operating Company] cancellations.” The new plan lets GTR increase the “Default Performance Level” for train cancellations by a third from 2.01% of train services [original franchise] to a maximum of 2.75%. The Remedial Plan was agreed in Feb, ahead of any industrial action, admits that the improperly-imposed Driver Only Operation already running has “significantly increased the number of incidents … causing trains to be delayed and in some cases restricted to call at staffed stations only or cancelled.” [Given these changes were before industrial action, it is reasonable to presume this is to allow GTR to confront staff without risk of losing their franchise, and has government backing] Under an unique interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act, the Secretary of State for Transport McCloughlin ordered 25 redactions, mostly relating to staffing issues, from the 20 page document. Despite this the document admits that issues relating to drivers are caused by mismanagement and regular disruption to the franchise has had “a debilitating effect on frontline staff, including traincrew.” [RMT website, edited and added-to]; (5) who’s telling porkies then? – on 06 Jun, RMT issued evidence that proves conclusively that Govia/Southern Rail have been lying repeatedly to the public over the impact of staff sickness on the escalating crisis of cancellations and delays to Southern Rail services. In a letter to Southern MD Charles Horton RMT identified two recent examples of how the company is blaming front-line workforce for cancellations, leaving staff at risk of abuse and assault for faults not of their making. RMT’s letter draws attention to the following: • A driver, guard and train were available to work the 7.10 Brighton to Lewes (train identity ‘2F95’) on 01 Jun. The crew had reported for duty in good time, only to find the train was showing as cancelled due to shortage of train crew, and. • A member of the public ‘tweeted’ as to why the 16.46 train on 20 May from London Bridge to Tattenham Corner was cancelled. The twitter response from Southern was the cancellation was due to conductor (guard) shortage when the route is driver-only and has no conductors. RMT also noted that earlier this year the company signed an agreement to increase the current 472 guards establishment to 490 by end-May to meet new roster patterns, which has never happened. Southern had 25 vacancies by the most recent data, which added to the agreed 18 guards increase leaves a deliberate gap of 43 posts. It’s impossible to staff scheduled trains, purely from management deceit, to hide cost-cutting. On Fri 03 Jun, Southern’s evening rush hour was chaotic from sequences of breakdowns and consequent cancellations from a lack of resource to maintain trains, provoking a social media outrage outburst. [RMT news brief, edited] Southeastern (Govia) [Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street & London Bridge] – July 2015 Kent derailment – this was caused by cows on the track, leading to calls for obstacle deflectors to be retrofitted onto trains. The derailment occurred at 21.40 on 26 July when a Southeastern train hit eight cows at Godmersham, between Wye and Chilham. None of the 67 passengers and three staff members on board were injured. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) report said derailment was more likely because of the lack of an obstacle deflector on the front. It urged Southeastern, and all other users of ‘Electrostar’ trains to retrofit deflectors. The cows were on the track from faults in NetRail’s fence maintenance regime. A report an hour earlier had been made of a cow on the track, but the next train’s driver found nothing. The train’s radio was damaged in the accident, the driver using his mobile phone to alert the signalling centre. The report called on Southeastern, Siemens and NetRail to work together to understand the radio problem and implement reasonable measures to prevent recurrence. The report also recommended that NetRail modify its risk ratings for fencing inspections and provide improved guidance to signallers for dealing with large animals on the track. [RAIB, edited] Next franchise/management contract renewal dates – for reference (semi-permanent item)

Oct 2015: Northern Rail Jun 2017: East Midlands Trains awarded to Arriva Trains North (DEC 2015) see below ‘Out of our area but of interest’ Oct 2015: First TransPennine Express Feb 2018: Southeastern retained by First Group (DEC 2015) Jun 2016: Abellio Greater Anglia Jun 2018: Arriva Trains Wales solo bid, not with Stagecoach (DEC 2015) Nov 2016: Virgin Trains (West Coast route) Nov 2018: First Great Western Nov 2016: London Overground * Dec 2018: South West Trains awarded to Arriva (Deutsche Bahn) APR 2016 Feb 2017: London Midland** Jul 2019: CrossCountry contract extended by government deal Aug 2021: Chiltern Railways *=TfL management contract; ** - monopoly contract extension in December 2015, from April 2016 to October 2017 at taxpayer cost of £130m. Dates are for new contract awards. [Bring Back British Rail email to members] DfT reveals timetable for future franchise bids for the next ten years – on 23 May, DfT announced it is seeking interest from companies, consortia and not-for-profit organisations with the necessary financial strength, commercial experience and management capability to apply. Bidders must first apply for a Rail Franchise Passport, introduced last year. DfT also wants more revenue from franchises by ‘remapping’ [undefined] Great Western and Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern (TSGN) and partnering TfL to remap main line rail [surburban] London services for ‘better jobs, housing and better quality of life’. A new East-West franchise linking Bletchley, Oxford, Aylesbury and Bicester is being considered, and also allowing greater local control over the West Midlands franchise [by whom?]. DfT said that successful bidders should ‘aim to [but not ‘must’] place passenger needs at the centre of operations’, and reduce their environmental impact, including using small and medium sized enterprises in their supply chains [who do not have the economies of scale of larger firms to give smaller purchase costs] and implement major infrastructure and rolling stock projects smoothly. Published deadline dates for the new franchises are:

Franchise Passport Expression of Invitation to Contract Franchise application interest tender award start TSGN* Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Jul 2020 May 2021 Sep 2021 Chiltern Feb 2020 May 2020 Oct 2020 Aug 2021 Dec 2021 TransPennine Jun 2021 Sep 2021 Feb 2022 Dec 2022 Apr 2023 Express East Coast May 2021 Aug 2021 Jan 2022 Nov 2022 Mar 2023 Northern Jun 2023 Sep 2023 Feb 2024 Dec 2024 Apr 2025 East Anglia Dec 2023 Mar 2024 Aug 2024 Jun 2025 Oct 2025 *-TSGN - Thameslink, Southern & Great Northern, currently run as ‘GTR’. Items shaded grey occur before the May 2020 General Election… [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added to] Train Operating Companies (TOCs) – those who’d like to start one! Arriva (‘Alliance Rail Holdings’ – Deutsche Bahn) – refused London – Edinburgh trains – Virgin / Stagecoach and First (see immediately below) won that instead. ORR said that it rejected GNER’s Edinburgh application as costs were likely to exceed benefits, and the Cleethorpes/West Yorkshire proposal “did not provide a strong basis for preferring any of these options over the others, in light of inevitable modelling uncertainties”. [mainstream media, edited] FirstGroup – awarded a London-Scotland route from 2021 – ORR granted a ten year open access licence from 2021 of five trains a day each way between London King’s Cross and Edinburgh, claiming to challenge low-cost airlines, calling at Stevenage, Newcastle and Morpeth. The trains will be standard class only (implied online booking only which will penalise ‘non- tech’ people) – while the ‘open access’ regime allows operators at the moment (could alter in 2019) to avoid track access charges (and don’t pay premiums to government), they get few facilities at stations and can’t share revenue so no ‘controlled fare’ sharing will happen, ie when a passenger has a conventional single ticket on a route, a proportion of that price goes to all operators covering that journey, not just the operator carrying the passenger. First say they will start fares at £25 one-way booked in advance – a prediction which may be conveniently forgotten given they don’t start running until 2021. That’s assuming Virgin/Stagecoach don’t launch any legal challenge, despite knowing at the East Coast Main Line (ECML) franchise award date that at least two operators were bidding for open access rights between London and Edinburgh. ECML allegedly pays the Treasury £3.3 billion over the eight year life of the franchise which began in 2015, which they say would be under threat. [mainstream media and Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added to] Train Manufacturing Year 2045 rail fleet – could be double the present size, according to the (UK) industry’s Fourth Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy. More than 9 in 10 trains will then be electric, or diesel-electric switchable. However, this is a special pleading group, and the UK does not have the train manufacturing capacity to deliver even half of this. [Rail Professional, edited] Out of our region but of interest Spanish High Speed Train Crash in 2013 – overview of causation factors – relevant to UK / SERTUC as the incident involved switched-off signalling/warning systems, a transition from ‘high speed’ track to ‘ordinary’ track, and the use of the European Train Control System (ECTS). On 24 Jul 2013 a high speed train from Madrid to Ferrol travelling at 190kph (twice the permitted speed limit on that section) derailed on a sharp curve, killing 80 people and injuring 144. Driver errors were blamed in investigations but further elements have since been uncovered, which while not exonerating the driver, have shown his contribution to the event was not as great. He was on a mobile phone at the time, but the train’s automated speed warning and emergency brake application systems had been disabled since 2012, by national instruction. The train had not long made the transition from high speed track to conventional track, which requires a change of signalling system from the in-cab equipment used for the high-speed running to conventional colour light signals familiar to UK train users. Basically, the safety systems which should have over-ridden the driver’s actions were not switched on. These are required on all high speed trains, to ensure any driver misjudgement or error can be compensated for, reducing risk to all on board and in any train’s vicinity. The driver was a considerably experienced man, in line with most high speed rail operations where new drivers are not used. The high speed line the train had travelled has 31 tunnels and 38 viaducts – it is common for drivers to become fazed as to their true location, along with extremes of light changes which affect vision. On board ECTS had been switched off several years earlier under national instruction after repeated operational problems, thus depriving in this case the driver of visual (bright yellow flashes) and audible alarm warnings, and finally an automatic application of brakes. Had this system been operational, the crash could not have happened, over-simply. Spain like many other European rail operators has still to install ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System), because of questions over its reliability and operating standards, still not resolved after over a decade of development. While the driver’s use of a phone while ‘at the wheel’ cannot be justified, attaching all of the blame to him given other distractions and a lack of automated safety systems is far from an adequate explanation. Use of high speed trains on conventional track as well as dedicated routes is a major concern, ie where signalling and control systems change, as will happen with CrossRail1 and already applies to the ‘Javelin’ trains using . [Chris Langer, CIRAS Scheme Intelligence Manager, in Rail Technology Magazine (hard copy, not electronic, Feb-Mar 2016 edition), edited and (in bold) added to] Glasgow Subway (‘Clockwork Orange’) - Driverless trains will be introduced on Glasgow’s subway system. [Rail Technology eMagazine] Abellio ScotRail seeking scab labour - RMT revealed on 27 May that ScotRail was “declaring all out war on their workforce” showing emails confirming that Dutch owners, Abellio, are planning a scab-army. That proved nil intent to settle the dispute over train guards jobs. The emails, from Abellio’s projects director Mick Schofield, tease staff from other UK operations into a four week ‘training course’ from 13 Jun to become a scab guard in the event of any industrial action. [South West Trains did this years ago, when RMT threatened strike action –a copy of a letter to one manager exists, giving his ‘course’ training dates (less than a week), despite that manager being medically and operationally unfit to be a guard]. [RMT website, edited and added to] Northern Rail (1) New deceits in rail franchises – new franchise holder (Deutsche Bahn Arriva North) has claimed in local media to introduce new 100mph trains on the Carlisle-Newcastle line by 2019, which is untrue. Managing director Alex Hynes was guest speaker at a Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line meeting in Carlisle, telling the local News & Star that passengers would see new trains running at higher speeds on the line. RMT has found that trains for the ‘high(er) speed’ Carlisle-Newcastle route will be refurbished class158 trains, built for British Rail over 25 years ago. Even with new stock, maximum line speed is 65 mph, needing millions for upgrades and no plans exist for that. This deceit arose in the afterglow of other franchise awards… Northern Rail (2) Full Arriva take-over of Northern Rail franchise halted over competition concerns - the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) fears that Arriva will harm competition, creating a worse experience for passengers, and is deciding whether to have a full-length investigation. It has issued an enforcement order to prevent full integration of Northern and Arriva, which officially began on 1 April. The CMA’s review found that an Arriva takeover would leave little or no competition on 38 train routes and 44 parallel or feeder bus routes, stating “Arriva already runs significant existing train and bus operations in the area covered by Northern Rail. We have identified a number of services and routes where passengers have previously had a choice between competing operators, but which will now be run by Arriva. This situation could potentially lead to a rise in non-regulated fares for passengers so unless Arriva is able to offer suitable undertakings now, we intend to carry out an in-depth investigation to look in more detail at these concerns, and decide whether any remedies are required.” Arriva operates CrossCountry, Chiltern, Arriva Trains Wales, Grand Central, London Overground, Tyne and Wear Metro and 5,900 bus services. It also owns open-access rail company Alliance Rail Holdings. If Arriva doesn’t give the undertakings required, or the CMA rejects them, the Northern Rail franchise award will be referred for an in-depth ‘phase 2 investigation’. [linked to Deutsche Bahn’s decision to sell a significant stake in Arriva Rail?] [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added to] Northern Rail (3) Arriva stealing retired staff travel concessions – the new operator began badly with customers and staff. Arriva’s first act was to unilaterally withdraw retired staffs’ travel concessions on the franchise. They can’t touch ‘safeguarded’ staff (those employed before denationalisation) because they’re protected by the Railways Act 1993, but any other retired staff who had worked on that franchise can no longer travel free. This is a pure anti-staff move, as making this small number of people pay public fares for travel would amount to an increase in revenue of significantly less than 0.01%, nor will it ease congestion on trains. TSSA & RMT are acting to reinstate this. Arriva operates (as above) a number of franchises so this could spread throughout Britain and is in line with the unstated but becoming increasingly clear government policy to take on rail unions. [TSSA website and elsewhere, edited and added to] Major incident at unstaffed station with driver-only train – RMT is demanding answers from Scotrail on rail safety, and a rolling back of the introduction of Driver Only Operation, after a Saturday night incident at East Dumbarton when a man fell between the platform and a moving train. The Scotrail daily log states: INC 648 - 2217 hours – Male fell between platform and moving train at Dumbarton East. Conveyed to hospital. Injuries life changing but not life threatening at time of writing. Currently in surgery. The incident happened on a driver-only operated service at an unstaffed station; this is reinforcing union calls for retention of guards on Scotrail trains and staffing stations / platforms. END OF SECTION

Air, travel companies and maritime Travel Companies Tui asset sales – the tour operator is selling off fifty brands of specialist subsidiary operations (‘adventure’ holidays etc) including long-established names such as Hayes & Jarvis, never rebranded when bought up to leave a false impression of an independent operator. The parent comp-any is retaining some established other brands as they remain profitable and can be fitted into their new schemes. Tui’s new ‘business model’ [meaning fewer employees] is to integrate all bookings into one computer/website operation. Like most tour operators, the company reported a winter loss of €236.9m, which was less than the previous winter, and indicates (a) the profit margin on summer tours, and (b) dependency on a half year of good results to keep the company afloat. [mainstream media, edited and added to] Thomas Cook share price plummets – aftermath of the Brussels and Paris terrorist attacks and later events around the Mediterranean have deterred investors more than holidaymakers, with the share price falling 18% to its lowest value since March 2013. In 2015, 23% of Cooks customers went to Turkey, now on the edge of a conflict and migration crisis zone, and this area has seen the company’s biggest reduction in holiday demand, with no compensating pick-up in other locations. Belgian customers, who make up 5% of Cook’s market have virtually stopped using the company, and Cook’s earnings for the financial year are projected to fall by £40m. [mainstream media, edited] Maritime - Ports Pollution issues at Cruise Liner Terminal? – a local row has erupted over vessels at the proposed terminal allowed to keep their (diesel) engines running continuously during their berthing periods. This site would be inside London’s ultra-low emission zone where such ‘idling’ and constancy of engine noise and output would otherwise be banned for road vehicles. Many homes are within pollutant range of the terminal’s potential berths. [mainstream media, edited] Aviation – Airlines British Airways/IAG – (1) profitable but slowing growth - why? - in late Apr, BritAir’s parent IAG said it was deferring plans to fly more routes, due to the aftermath of the Brussels attacks (and coincidentally weaker demand from full-fare business travellers). IAG reported pre-tax profits of €124m (£96m) for the first quarter, compared with a loss of €37m in 2015. Its shares immediately fell 4.8% to 524.7p, making it the biggest faller that day on the FTSE 100. IAG’s operating profits (including subsidiaries Iberia, Aer Lingus and Vueling, the low-cost carrier IAG is re-equipping to undercut its own workers at Iberia) were €155m before ‘exceptional items’, compared with €25m in 2015. Profits had been boosted by the purchase of Irish flag carrier Aer Lingus, completed in Sep 2015 (this does not include paying for Aer Lingus – that’s in a different account…). IAG expected fuel costs to fall by about 1% in 2016 due to weak oil prices. IAG has fared better than some European rivals - Lufthansa and Air France-KLM - which were hit by strikes over cost-cuts, as well as increased competition from Middle Eastern and budget airlines. [BBC news website, edited and added to]; (2) no more ‘free’ food? – not on [unspecified] ‘short-haul flights – it’s already costed into the ticket price, but soon [unspecified] you may still pay for it in the fare but pay again on board; this only applies to economy class passengers, but nothing on the BritAir web-site that you’re getting less for your money. [Evening Standard, edited]; (3) BritAir reinstates Inverness (INV) route – carrier has resumed scheduled flights after ending the route in 1997. Not with much enthusiasm, just one daily flight each way all year round – northbound from Heathrow just before 10:00 and an afternoon return. BritAir quoted a 2013 survey of more than 290 businesses in the Highlands and Islands which suggested (three years ago) Heathrow remained a preferred destination to other London airports. INV had a link with London City Airport, but Flybe suspended the service in Feb 2015 for lack of demand. Easyjet flies to/from London Gatwick and Luton. [BBC news website, edited] Aviation – Airports Davies Inquiry into UK (south-east) airport capacity – (a) TfL and Airports Commission at odds over impact of Heathrow third runway - newly released documents (as of 25 April) show the Airports Commission’s estimate of rail link costs to support Heathrow Runway 3 is £11bn below that of TfL’s. Documents obtained by Greenpeace via a Freedom of Information request, show that the Commission based their estimate only allowing ‘Southern Rail’ access to Heathrow, estimated between £488m and £810m. TfL estimated the Southern Rail access cost to be £1.5- £2.5bn, AND allowed for additional costs, such as T4 shuttle (between £200m & £332m), CrossRail 2 extension (£2.9bn to £4.8bn) and a new rail link through Staines (£38m to £64m). TfL’s total estimated railway costs therefore range between £7bn & £12bn. Adding road costs, the Commission’s total estimate was £4.1bn against TfL’s £18.2bn. It was unclear who would pay – Heathrow is meant to pay infrastructure costs, but have said they will only pay £1.1bn. Papers uncovered by Greenpeace also raise concerns about the Commission’s estimates of the third runway’s impact on passenger levels on London’s railways. TfL had concerns that the Commission’s calculations assumed a three runway Heathrow would serve 103.6 million passengers yearly, needing 90,000 additional staff, against TfL estimating this as 149 million passengers and 109,200 staff. To view all the Greenpeace documents, click here; The Commission also assumed that rail projects which are only at the planning stage (Western Rail access to Heathrow, CrossRail 2 and the ) would definitely go ahead, and that CrossRail will run six trains an hour instead of the promised four. Campaign for Better Transport had expressed concern about the impact of the funding shortfall on the rest of London’s transport; (b) Heathrow ‘offers’ to help speed up a decision – (1) on 11 May Holdings (HAH) offered to agree to accept a legally-binding night flying ban to assist decision-making but chose different hours from those proposed by the Davies Commission (Davies wanted 23.30 – 06.00, HAH offered 23.00 – 05.30). Local campaigners still seek a minimum 06.00 morning start for flights. However, the present Prime Minister’s ‘no ifs, no buts, no third runway’ has yet to be u-turned. Following the Volkswagen emissions scandal, and truer descriptions of air contamination than the Commission accepted without question, the cleanliness and environmental acceptability of LHR expansion is unresolved, particularly with Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee. HAH also offered (i) to commit to no fourth runway, and (ii) to raise compensation and extend eligibility over a wider land-base for home/amenity loss; (2) if the government lets LHR have its third runway, the airport will introduce 40 new routes/destinations (airports don’t operate routes, airlines do, and don’t go anywhere except for profit). [various sources, edited]; (c) why the locals don’t trust Heathrow’s owners – Heathrow Airport’s communities are wary of more promises: “Dear Neighbour, "Our position could not be clearer, nor could it be more formally placed upon the record. Terminal 5 will not lead to a third runway.” (Sir John Egan, chief executive of Heathrow's then owner BAA Ltd, April 1999). It's not surprising that Heathrow Airport has some trust issues with its neighbours. In the fiery battle to build a brand new fifth terminal (T5) in the 1990s, the man who used to run Heathrow's parent company made a series of promises to ease concerns. The biggest was a commitment to permanently rule out a third runway. It might be 17 years since that neighbourly letter was sent out, but the memory still smarts for local opponents. That’s why many people have said they simply don't believe the new package of promises unveiled last week by Heathrow’s current boss, John Holland-Kaye. Some [of the promises] look remarkably similar to the 1999 list, including pledges to limit noise, night flights, new runways and a vow to get more than half of passengers arriving on public transport. The new boss has learnt from his predecessor’s errors. Just look at last week's talk about laying down new asphalt: Heathrow will “accept a commitment from government ruling out any fourth runway.” In other words, no pretence of not wanting it, but if the government blocks it, no fuss. The Heathrow CEO also recently said sorry for abandoning the pledge on a third runway but the letter still comes up in conversation with the locals. Trust is hard won, easily squandered.

Did the former owners keep any of the old promises? The old letter from 1999 [click on the bold lettering for the internet link to the original letter], written at the end of the public inquiry into T5, a couple of years before the final approval came through, says: Promise 1: “An additional Heathrow runway should be ruled out forever.” Promise broken. Promise 2: “A legal freeze on the night flight quota... at today's (1999) levels”: This one isn’t straightforward. The number of actual planes flying overhead between 11:30pm and 6am has stayed roughly the same since 1999, averaging around 16 a night. In 1999, 5,666 airliners in total, and last year it was 5,498. That excludes bad weather and emergency landings. But, that’s not the only measure. A points system called the quota count applies: it’s a formula that combines the number of aircraft with the type used, as some are noisier than others. The upper limit is set by the government. In 1999, Heathrow was allowed 11,140 noise points, but only used 9,312. In 2015 they were allowed 9,180 points, only using 5,322. These figures come from Heathrow [not independently verified]. So, the number of aircraft is the same, but they have cut right down on their government allocated ‘noise budget’, because the planes are quieter. Promise kept. Heathrow’s current third runway proposal would stop flights between 11pm and 5:30am, the biggest change for decades. In reality, it would mean the six flights that now touch down between 4:30am and 5:30am would be pushed a little later, to arrive between 5:30am and 6am, so there’s still 16 early flights, just arriving half an hour before 6am, give or take a few minutes. Promise 3: “We have proposed that if T5 is allowed there should be a legally-binding cap on noise levels at 1994 levels.” Noise is complex: different things irritate different people. For some its peak noise, for others it’s about having a regular break. The government currently says that 57 decibels (dB) is the point at which people start getting annoyed. Ministers set a noise contour, based on 57dB on a summer’s day between 7am and 11pm, the maximum area where the airport can be noisy. Heathrow’s noise contour is limited to 145 sq km. The latest Civil Aviation Authority figures show the actual, current 57dB contour is 104.9 sq km. Aircraft are quieter these days. Promise kept. Promise 4: “We promise to take steps to reduce the impact of cars travelling to the airport by setting a long-term vision of 50% of passengers using public transport to Heathrow.” It doesn't say how long ‘long-term’ is, but 17 years on, the current level is just 40%. Promise broken. Interestingly, the current proposal for a third runway includes a claim that “over 55% of passengers” will arrive on public transport. [assuming sufficient public transport for the number of new passengers and airport staff] [Only 2 out of 4 promises kept – not a credible basis for offering newer ones] Many people who live near Heathrow want it to expand. They rely on the airport for jobs and are used to the noise. They knew it was noisy when they moved there. People in Hounslow market had split views, half for and half against. But if the government picks Heathrow over Gatwick when it finally decides where to build a new runway, it faces a torrid experience, part of the reason being concern that promises on growth and noise will simply be broken. [BBC News website (London), Richard Westcott, edited, depersonalised and added to] (3) how much would the third runway and its associated works cost? – the last estimate was £15.7billion (several years old now), or around £23billion if the costs of new / upgraded roads and rails to serve LHR are included. The airport’s significant owner (a conglomerate runs it) is Ferrovial, a Spanish construction consortium: some UK doubt exists as to whether it could shoulder this additional debt, given commitments to other projects. Not clear if Ferrovial or a new company specially created for the purpose would raise the money, the latter having no credit history and could be borrowing at a higher interest rate to offset lenders’ fears. All such lending would be secured against future new income from the enlarged airport, which ultimately would fall on passengers, put pressure on airport workers’ wages and in support services costs. All major [UK] infrastructure projects are usually under-priced, so rising [ie, ‘true’] costs might cause additional borrowing and/or project shrinkage, all of which destroy confidence in the outcome. Timescale between acquiring/spending the loan and paying it back let interest build up significantly, adding to overall debt. LHR’s borrowings would be repaid by the airlines in increased landing fees which would be passed on to passengers in fare rises, adding long-term uncompetitiveness to the airport. Alternatives to a third runway are known, but not necessarily operationally proven, such as extending the northern runway to allow parallel movements, but this has air safety implications as well as intensity of conflicting planes and support services ground movements. But it ‘only’ costs £3.7 billion, although what that includes is not clear. [Evening Standard, Anthony Hilton column, THU 19 MAY, edited and added to] Heathrow (LHR) – happy seventieth birthday – on 31 May 2016, the airport was 70 years old, and managed to advertise that without a word about a third runway. [mass media, paraphrased] London City (LCY) – bad start to being “London’s Greenest Mayor” – new Mayor Sadiq Khan has withdrawn former Mayor Johnson’s block on developing the airport, within a week of taking office, on the grounds that the airport’s new owners had submitted better plans over noise and safety concerns. [mainstream media, edited] Other aviation facilities in SERTUC’s region – Luton – a pair of contracts £100m worth between £100m and £200m to build a 1.2 mile light rail link between Parkway station and London Luton Airport, including driverless trams, are being advertised. Luton Borough Council confirmed in mid-April that the project, which will run 24 hours a day, is set to go ahead [Luton BC has asked Thameslink to run more trains around the clock to serve the rail station, but will not pay for that]. The first contract is to design and build the transit system and the second is to design and build driverless rolling stock. Work is scheduled to start on 10 July 2017 and finish by 28 July 2020. [Rail Technology eMagazine, edited and added to]; Southend - this privately-owned airport, part of the Stobart Group, is pushing hard for more passengers, aiming to double throughput to 2.5 million annually by 2018; a hard-sell broadcast media campaign started in June 2016, coincidentally as Heathrow made an ‘offer’ to influence the decision on its Third Runway. [mainstream media, edited] Aviation – General (national and international) ITF and new world-wide union Airports United – airport workers around the world made an international protest against the ‘race to the bottom’ in wages, safety and service quality. Airports United (‘a collaborative effort between Airports Council International – North America (ACI-NA) and the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)’, website http://www.airportsunited.com/ ) is backed by global federations ITF and Uni, co-ordinated protests at over 30 airports globally to coincide with the AGM of IATA (International Air Transport Association). The principle behind the action is that airports and airlines are getting richer while their workers are being paid less, working longer and have lost job security. [various media, edited and added to] Despite cheap fuel the business is retrenching – the 2016 (Feb) Singapore Air Show reported fewest new signings for planes for some time, only agreeing contracts for US$ 20 billion of orders, down on the previous year’s US$32 bn. Another Virgin company changes ownership – again… - Alaska Air Group will buy Virgin America for $4bn (£2.8bn) to create the fifth largest US airline, giving flight rights into San Francisco and Los Angeles. Alaska and partner airlines already have about 5% of US domestic flight capacity, serving more than 100 cities in the US, Canada, Costa Rica and Mexico. The two boards ‘unanimously approved’ the deal, which Branson was unable to prevent because his shareholding is ‘non-voting’ as he’s not an American citizen, barred by US law from owning US-based carriers. The original New York stock market listing was as an offshoot of London-based Virgin. The four largest US airlines now control more than 80% of its domestic market, but that isn’t anti- competitive in US law. Deal still subject to approval by US regulators and Virgin America shareholders. Alaska was reported to have beaten rival airline Jet Blue for the company, which indicates the Virgin carrier was ripe for take-over. [BBC news website, edited] Lufthansa – as this is a hard-case ‘legacy’ airline, what they do is of interest – the carrier will slow down 2016 growth plans to concentrate on beating lower cost competitors (of which it happens to own two). The parent company reported a net loss of €8m (£6.3m) in the three months to the end of March against a profit of €425m a year earlier, saying it would only offer 6% more seats this year instead of 6.6%. Further cost cuts would be examined, despite in March resuming dividend payments to shareholders and the forecast raised 2016 profits being confirmed, even after adding cargo profits would be significantly below last year’s. Lufthansa is still trying to bring its main brand costs down to fight low cost carriers in Europe. It is also under pressure from Middle East rivals on long-haul routes and has been in a long-term dispute with pilots and cabin crew after trying to impose a new pay and pension deal resulting in strikes by pilots and cabin crew, which cost Lufthansa €231m in lost earnings. Lufthansa's yields (revenues per mile per passenger) fell 5.4% in the quarter but had no substantial financial impact since the Paris and Brussels attacks. [BBC news website, edited and added-to] Missing flight MH370 – two more parts of an aircraft which might be the missing Boeing 777 have been found washed-up on Rodrigues Island, in the Indian Ocean, not far from Mauritius. The plane’s disappearance in March 2014 has not yet been accounted for and searches for debris/wreckage continue. The two latest parts are a section of engine cowling with a Rolls Royce logo, and a cabin panel, totalling five pieces now discovered of what was probably that plane. [mainstream media, edited] European Union rules on foreign ownership of airlines – EU is considering easing restrictions on airlines owning more than 49% of a European carrier, which currently applies to a lot of Gulf carriers’ interests (Qatar Airways for example now owns 15% of BritAir parent company IAG). END OF SECTION

Taxis, cycles, highways, vehicle manufacturing Roads, Highways and Footpaths to shut for three months – this 1893 structure has been starved of major repairs for over three decades, and will close for major works from October for three months. Given all Thames crossings are over-worked at peak periods, ‘gridlock’ is cheerfully forecast with no pragmatic alternatives, or none anyone is prepared to take. 40,000 vehicles (and pedestrians) use the Bridge every day; no road or foot transit will be possible during the closure. Diverted road traffic using London or Southwark Bridges will be exempted from the Congestion Charge (Tower Bridge is the eastern boundary of the Zone). [mass media, edited] Electric Cars VW and Shell conspire to resist electric cars – these two have united to try to block Europe’s push for electric cars and more efficient cars, saying biofuels should be at heart of efforts to green the industry instead. The EU is planning two new fuel efficiency targets for 2025 and 2030 to help meet promises made at the Paris climate summit last December, but executives from the two industrial giants launched a study on Wednesday night proposing greater use of biofuels, CO2 car labelling, and the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) instead. In reality, such a package would involve the end of meaningful new regulatory action on car emissions for more than a decade, EU sources say. The Auto Fuels Coalition study, written by Roland Berger, makes pessimistic assumptions about the costs of fuel efficiency improvements, and optimistic noises about greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels. A recent EU study found the dirtiest biofuels three times more polluting than diesel. An EU source said: “these two industries have realised they have a shared interest. When you saw who was paying for the study, you knew what the answer would be.” Campaigners point out 400,000 pre-orders for the new Tesla’s Model 3 as a harbinger of the public’s view, as well as a bid by the Dutch Parliament to ban petrol and diesel engines by 2025. On Thursday Germany promised a €1bn subsidy boost for electric cars, while the study assumes a lack of public appetite for electric cars over the next decade continuing until 5m urban recharging centres have been installed and renewable electricity prices fall from current rates. Saudi Arabia’s recent declaration of detaching from oil dependency by 2030 was seen by campaigners as another positive step, along with increasing cost-competitiveness of renewables. The Dutch oil giant has invested heavily in Brazilian ethanol and stressed that biofuels would have a key role in the future, provided it received policy incentives. Road transport currently makes up about a fifth of Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions. The EU has set a target of a 60% reduction in transport emissions by 2050 as measured against 1990 levels. Emission levels are currently 20% above that rate, although they have begun to fall. By 2021, no new cars will be allowed to emit more than 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre, but electrification and wide-scale renewable electricity will be needed to approach zero emissions levels. Carlos Calvo Ambel, an analyst for the Transport and Environment think tank, said that Europe would miss its greenhouse gas targets altogether if it followed the Auto Fuels Coalition paper’s advice. [http://www.euractiv.com/section/transport/news/vw-and- shell-try-to-block-eu-push-for-electric-cars/ edited] Taxis (London - controlled by TfL) Green Cabs – Zhejiang Geely Holdings, the Chinese owner of black cab maker London Taxi Company, has raised US$400million (UK£276m) through the sales of ‘green bonds’ to fund development of full-electric vehicles. A hybrid version has recently been launched, due to be in passenger service by 2017, to meet the 2020 London ‘Ultra Low Emission Zone’ requirements for licenced cabs and private hire vehicles. [various mainstream media, edited] Taxis (beyond London) Another way to screw money out of the cab trade? – not in the SERTUC area but one to watch: RMT taxi drivers in Newcastle have a major fight with Virgin East Coast over rip-off permit charges to stand and ply for hire in Newcastle Central station forecourt, a double-standard when private hire operators can stand nearby without charge, as well as undercut licenced cabbies by and other apps. The train operator jacked-up the cost of a permit to ply for hire to £2,030 per year, more than the cost of a train station permit in Leicester, Birmingham and Preston combined. RMT cab drivers are discussing a campaign of action against Virgin, including direct action, to stop this attack on the trade. It is also another sign that private railways aren’t as ‘profitable’ as some like to think; to make up their ‘investment’ in the railway, operators are hiking up retailers’ rents in stations, forcing up car parking charges (often through sub-leasing the car parks to third parties) and rigging ticket vending machines to show highest fares first without any clear indication that lower fares exist. Taxi technology (booking ‘apps’ etc) Uber – (1) queuing at London Heathrow – Heathrow airport has been ‘forced’ to construct a holding area for Uber drivers waiting for work. Substantial complaints from local residents and businesses around the airport of drivers waiting with engines running from protracted periods, discarding litter from eating and drinking in their vehicles while waiting and blocking parking and road access led to this; Uber reckons its fair that someone else should pay to resolve the issue they created in the first place. [misc’ media, edited]; (2) Saudi mega-investment in Uber – the country’s ‘public investment fund’ has ploughed US$3.5 billion (UK£ 2.43 billion) into the parent company, ostensibly to develop Uber in the Middle East where gender issues play a role in deciding who may drive cars, on the basis of women travelling by cab is a market to exploit across the region. In return, the Saudis get a seat on Uber’s board. (no guarantee that that money is used only in the Middle East; no other ‘app’ could have that kind of money in Europe where Uber is fighting hardest for market share…) [BBC news website, edited and added-to] Who are Uber’s real victims? - small private hire companies face a battle on two fronts - for their customers and their drivers. Licenced Cabbies, who spend years learning ‘The Knowledge’ and have much higher running costs than a private hire driver, object to being undercut by Uber (and its competitors) who flout rules. But traditional minicab firms are at greatest risk. Before Uber’s arrival, only a few large private hire operators like Addison Lee existed. Most were (and still are) small firms with a couple of dispatchers, legally limited to passengers booked by phone. Uber, effectively a giant minicab firm (in London at least) is taking their customers by offering a cab within minutes. In London, home to around one third of Britain’s taxi and minicab drivers, total private hire vehicles (minicabs) rose by 25.9% to 62,800 in two years to March 2015, according to DfT. Over the same period the number of minicab firms dropped 4.8% to around 3,000. Many aren’t giving up: some, like Addison Lee, have moved to offer a high-end service to corporate clients. Some have joined citywide apps like Kabbee, Minicabit or Karhoo, which let users order a minicab via many different firms. They’ve still got an edge on important journeys like early morning airport runs, as Uber can’t take pre bookings. The number of private hire drivers may be soaring but is still finite: being self-employed, it’s easy to move on. Minicab firms, once picky now cast their net wider. Whether Uber is good news for private hire drivers is contentious: it pays low rates per ride, but its scale and popularity means drivers spend less time waiting for another fare. Justin Peters, Kabbee founder suggests that private hire firms have to get bigger to survive. In that respect the taxi market is similar to takeaways. Few now survive without online ordering such as Just Eat and Hungry House. Small local fleets may vanish in London, but beyond may be in a better position to resist Uber. The upstart works well in London because of its scale, but few other places (in Britain) have that advantage. Local fleets outside of the capital are better prepared. ‘There will always be a demand for pre- booked long-distance journeys – as evidenced by its £1bn market size- and this is where mini-cab companies rule supreme,’ says Minicabit boss Amer Hasan. Not everybody is optimistic. Unless politicians change their mind, we will be closing our doors soon, a minicab boss said. [Management Today magazine, May e-edition, edited] Private Hire Vehicles London Pedicabs to be ‘controlled’ – unregulated pedicabs charging extortionate fares for short journeys will apparently be driven off the road if government proposals become reality. An estimated 400 of these vehicles ply in central London, and will be regulated for safety issues and fare controls, while “protect[ing] hard-working drivers who already charge reasonable fares and ensure their vehicles are safe.” Current Police powers to control pedicabs exist but only through civil injunctions: the plans would give TfL further powers. Outside London, pedicabs are classed as taxis, but different laws apply in London. TfL would be responsible for setting reasonable charge regimes for short journeys, the government intent is for a licencing scheme to operate similar to taxi and private hire. Legislation is expected in 2017. [Wired.gov website, edited] Cycling 100,000 commuter cycles are faulty – a Southwark cycle repair firm says this, with one in five ‘highly dangerous’ in a report published on 23 Feb. Given the estimated number of cycles in London is 200,000 that means with 20% of bikes defective, the cycle repair business is expecting good trade, especially for brakes and chains. [Evening Standard, edited] END OF REPORT This is a quarterly document, compiled for SERTUC’s Transport Industries Network (‘TIN’), from acknowledged sources as above.