Submissions to the call for evidence from organisations Ref Organisation RD - 1 Abbey Flyer Users Group (ABFLY) RD - 2 ASLEF RD - 3 C2c RD - 4 Chiltern Railways RD - 5 Clapham Transport Users Group RD - 6 London Borough of Ealing RD - 7 East Surrey Transport Committee RD – 8a East Sussex RD – 8b East Sussex Appendix RD - 9 London Borough of Enfield RD - 10 England’s Economic Heartland RD – 11a Enterprise M3 LEP RD – 11b Enterprise M3 LEP RD - 12 First Great Western RD – 13a Govia Thameslink Railway RD – 13b Govia Thameslink Railway (second submission) RD - 14 Hertfordshire County Council RD - 15 Institute for Public Policy Research RD - 16 Kent County Council RD - 17 London Councils RD - 18 London Travelwatch RD – 19a Mayor and TfL RD – 19b Mayor and TfL RD - 20 Mill Hill Neighbourhood Forum RD - 21 Network Rail RD – 22a Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG) RD – 22b Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG) – Annex RD - 23 London Borough of Redbridge RD - 24 Reigate, Redhill and District Rail Users Association RD - 25 RMT RD - 26 Sevenoaks Rail Travellers Association RD - 27 South London Partnership RD - 28 Southeastern RD - 29 Surrey County Council RD - 30 The Railway Consultancy RD - 31 Tonbridge Line Commuters RD - 32 Transport Focus RD - 33 West Midlands ITA RD – 34a West Sussex County Council RD – 34b West Sussex County Council Appendix RD - 1 Dear Mr Berry In responding to your consultation exercise at https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london- assembly/investigations/how-would-you-run-your-own-railway, I must firstly apologise for slightly missing the 1st July deadline, but nonetheless I hope that these views can still be taken into consideration by the Transport Committee. The recent extension of London Overground’s reach into former Greater Anglia territory, raises an intriguing possibility – why not incorporate the Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey branch into the LO network? This 6.5-mile, single track, A.C. electrified branch with 5 intermediate stations fits comfortably into the ‘metro’ genre, yet suffers from a significantly less-than-convenient 45min frequency (hourly on Sundays), archaic over-staffing, significant ticketless travel, downtrodden 25-year old rolling stock (which has never seen an interior overhaul), a service that finishes far too early in the evening, and several stations which are fearful places to be after dark. All of this supresses demand for the service and puts people off from using it – just as the pre-London Overground network did. Regular users look enviously across the tracks at Watford Junction to the transformation of what is now the London Overground network, remembering how it used to suffer from very similar ailments, yet the ‘Abbey Line’ serves as a living reminder. Apart from the step change in quality and revenue that Overground-style investment would surely bring, there are also prizes to be had in terms of operating efficiency. The existing Train Operator, London Midland, has to run the branch using a small sub-fleet of 100mph Class 321s (soon to be replaced by 319s). This itself is an inherent inefficiency, but it is compounded further by the fact that they are maintained at Northampton, some 50 miles away. Beeching would surely have baulked at the idea of a 100-mile round trip to maintain just one unit for such a small stretch of railway. Allow us the use of some dual-voltage, 75mph Class 378s and those 321s/319s could go off to standardise or strengthen another fleet elsewhere. Following the announcement of Crossrail’s feasibility study into a WCML link last year, the advent of HS2 at Euston, the great success of London Overground and the arrival of the Croxley Rail link in 2018, Watford Junction’s status as a major outer-London transport hub is suddenly coming to the fore again. The ‘Watford Interchange Hub’ project looks set to become one of Hertfordshire County Council’s top investment priorities with the releasing of its revised Rail Strategy later this year. Significant funding has also been allocated by the Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) for the upgrading of facilities and access arrangements at several stations in Hertfordshire, which we understand to include Watford Junction. Furthermore, Network Rail have had the foresight to install last Christmas an upgraded ‘mainline- standard’ connection which would allow regular signalling of passenger trains on and off the St Albans branch if so required. This connection ‘faces’ Willesden depot, a mere 12 miles away and on the same side of the tracks, where of course the 378s are already maintained. To operate a higher frequency service on the single-track Abbey Line would require further infrastructure enhancements, namely a new passing loop and additional signalling, but in comparison to the cost of other railway mega-projects such as Crossrail and HS2, this is small fry. Though physically separated from the LO network, it is nonethless our view that the Abbey Line urgently requires upgrading in order to make it both the local people carrier of choice on the congested Watford to St Albans corridor, and a mass-transit feeder service fit for the 21st century. It 3 is without doubt that upgrading the branch in line with the LO model and absorbing it into the network would be welcomed very strongly by passengers. Think also of the benefits to TfL from serving St Albans – one of the UK’s most affluent dormitory towns - in direct competition with Govia Thameslink Railway. Would you therefore please consider in your current exercise the feasibility / business case for transferring the Abbey Line to the London Overground network post-2017 (when the London Midland franchise is due for renewal). Kind regards Dave Horton General Secretary Abbey Flyer Users' Group (ABFLY) Tel: (evenings) Mob: www.abfly.org.uk 4 RD - 2 ASLEF’s Evidence for the London Assembly Transport Committee - The Case for Rail Devolution in London 1. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) is the UK’s largest train drivers’ union representing approximately 20,000 members in train operating companies and freight companies as well as London Underground and light rail systems. 2. ASLEF is pleased to have this opportunity to submit evidence to the London Assembly Transport Committee on rail devolution. ASLEF understands and supports the idea of local authorities, bodies and people having more of a say over how their transport system functions and operates. Communications between national decision makers and local authorities as well as Local Transport Authorities are essential. However the British railway must always be considered a national entity. 3. One of the biggest drivers of inefficiency and high costs in running the rail network in Britain is the network’s fragmentation. This was something highlighted in the McNulty Report. McNulty explains that fragmentation has led to a lack of leadership in the industry. The report also suggests that fragmentation is the first barrier to efficiency. Unfortunately, the report then goes on to suggest greater fragmentation. ASLEF clearly opposes any further fragmentation. 4. For this reason, the union is cautious when devolution is discussed within the current framework of the UK rail network. This is not to say that ASLEF opposes devolution of power and responsibility for rail to regional representative bodies. When looking at European railway models, it is 5 clear that strong regional involvement is the norm and highly beneficial. However these are all in the context of a unified train operator. This system is highly successful. 5. ASLEF and the other rail unions; RMT, TSSA and Unite have published a research paper, “Rebuilding Rail”, which points out that from the European evidence, three overarching generalisations emerge. Firstly, bodies with geographical remits are best placed to define, represent and negotiate the needs of passengers within their catchment area as well as ensuring integration with other modes of transport. 6. In addition these bodies are far more likely to succeed in achieving their aspiration when they have financial strength. Whether this is in terms of money raised from within their catchment area or simply from the national budget. This is the case in France and Spain when dealing with a single national operator, or in Germany where the context is a single national operator competing against other operators. 7. Finally it should be noted that European rules allow these types of relationships without the need for a competitive tender process. ‘Competent authorities may decide to make direct awards (i.e. without tender) of public service contracts where they concern transport by rail’. 8. It is therefore clear that devolved powers to regional authorities with financial clout are a success story and one that should be repeated in the UK. The key difference however is that the examples of France, Spain and Germany all have a single national rail operator. Local bodies are therefore not dealing with an already deeply fragmented system and a whole rail franchise is not their sole responsibility. 9. ASLEF therefore supports a decentralised railway, however not within the context of the current franchise system. Devolution should not lead to 6 further fragmentation. The best way to maximise the benefits of decentralisation is to give local authorities influence over a single train operator. 10. There are lessons to be learnt by the alternative type of contract used by TfL on its London Overground services. One of the many problems created by the franchise system is that rather than creating competition or leading to quality provision for passengers it simply leads to line specific monopolies. As long as people have little option other than to take a specific rail service to commute to work, the Train Operating Company (TOC) will continue to get the passengers’ fares.