Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
MONDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2000
20. All right. It is not for you to lay down
for him, it is for him to decide?
(Mr Jenner) That is right.
There has been much public comment on the complicated
structure of the railway industry, again Mr Corbett and others,
and its regulation. Will the re-franchising process that you talked
about and describe in paragraph four of the report resolve this
issue or is further restructuring required?
(Mr Grant) Re-franchising is within the current architecture
of the railway. If I can just refer to a recent request by the
Deputy Prime Minister to look at the situation we find ourselves
in, I need to make sure that the Committee understands that we
are not looking at the architecture, we have been asked to look
at the hotspots, where we can make the architecture work better.
In response to that we, with the rest of the industry, have put
together five working groups to look at how to do things better
in the existing architecture. Those five working groups are covering
performance, possessions, vehicle acceptance, the Railtrack contractual
regime and subcontracting and, finally, a group which is entitled
"The Scale of the Agenda", is the agenda capable of
being delivered. Those working groups are going to report back
in early December and will report to the Deputy Prime Minister
during December. The intention is that the findings of those groups
should be incorporated within our strategic plan in January. The
groups have been asked to look at, as I say, where the hotspots
are and where we can work better. They have been asked to identify
what those problems are, who the parties are that may be able
to resolve it and a general direction where the resolution might
be, but not to look at the overall architectural structure of
the railway as it stands.
21. Performance includes presumably, reliability,
punctuality and safety.
(Mr Grant) Safety is not on that particular agenda.
The performance issues are also going to look at perverse incentives,
where there may be a cancellation rather than running the train.
22. Possession, what is that? The industry asset
(Mr Grant) Possession is really how we
get more out of possessions because the actual work in possessions
is not as effective as it should be. Where you could get a long
possession by cancelling one train we need to get the industry
to work together rather than having ten short possessions. Also,
how does the economics work between Railtrack and the train operating
companies? Is in their best interest to allow long possession
or uneconomic short possession? It is how the whole economic situation
works on possession.
23. It sounds to me like possession is using
up the actual track, is that correct?
(Mr Grant) I did not quite hear that.
24. Never mind, I will press on. I am sure others
will come back to you on that. Paragraph 4.6 shows a continuing
increase in complaints by passengers, over 1 million in 1998/99.
What do you propose to do to remedy that?
(Mr Grant) Complaints by passengers are obviously
not something that will take, hopefully, many years to resolve.
A lot of the passenger complaints are not being handled adequately
and we produced this document which is called "On Track".
It is a survey of 20,000 passengers surveyed every six months
as to their concerns. Clearly the underlying problems will not
be solved in a short time but the way that the passengers are
responded to can be addressed quickly. That is one of the main
concerns we found in our sample population of 20,000 people. What
they were dissatisfied with was, value-for-money, that was a big
issue and also how train operating companies were responding to
their complaints. In the franchise agreement going forward we
will be using this document to sharpen up the act of the train
operating companies. Mr Jenner can go through them in more detail
in a minute. We will be able to use this document and the findings
of it to force the train operating companies to do something about
25. No doubt others will bring you back in.
After Ladbroke Grove, Southall and Hatfield there is obviously
a great focus on safety. I recognise you are not a safety regulator
but you may take a strategic view of the industry, how do you
intend to address the safety issue?
(Mr Grant) We have been giving evidence to Lord Cullen's
Inquiry and historically OPRAF had no express responsibility for
safety. The SRA will have a statutory obligation to have regard
to safety in particular as advised by the HSE. In the evidence
we have given to the Ladbroke Grove Inquiry, part two, we said
that it is not our role to second guess Lord Cullen, and we await
his conclusions. We did say there was a case for a single regulatory
body for safety, and that should be considered. We did advocate
a CAA-type model, as in the aviation industry. We did support
on a short-term basis the formation of Rail Safety Limited and
we did support the position about accident investigation being
separate from safety regulation. We have given quite a lot of
our views, but recognising that they are views and we await Lord
Chairman: Thank you.
26. I have a train to catch, unfortunately,
fairly soon. I do not suppose it will be delayed on leaving, it
may be delayed on arriving. Can I ask some questions about compensation.
Compensation as far as the passengers are concerned rely on their
train being more than an hour late?
(Mr Grant) As a general rule or in the current situation?
27. As a general rule. I am not talking about
(Mr Grant) It does vary from train operating company
to train operating company.
28. There are some ways you can get compensation
for less than an hour?
(Mr Grant) There are some.
29. Is that part of the franchise agreement?
(Mr Grant) It is part ofMr Jenner will correct
methe original set up. Looking forward under the new franchise
agreement there are new arrangements for compensation.
(Mr Jenner) Under the original franchising agreement
every operator was required to have in operation a Passengers
Charter under which the compensation arrangements are paid, no
less favourable than that existing with BR. BR's practice was
to pay compensation after an hour's delay. Under the new franchise
agreement with the replaced franchising we are asking counter
parties to make proposals to better that which is currently the
position. In the case of Chiltern and South Central they have
come forward to do just that. The general rule at the moment is
that compensation, other than monthly and yearly season ticket
holders, is paid after an hour's delay.
30. It seems obvious from Figure 8 that the
trains that go longer distances are more inclined to be more than
ten minutes late than the trains that go shorter distances. Is
there not a strong case for including within the franchise agreements
some compensation scheme which allows for a percentage of the
train's journey to be late rather than a straightforward one hour,
regardless of the length of the journey? My own journey from Newbury
takes about one hour, and it is about an hourly service, so if
the train is going to be an hour late I might as well catch the
next one and be on time or be within my hour, which means I will
never get compensated.
(Mr Jenner) Under the proposals, certainly for Intercity
operators such as First Great Western, the idea is to ally the
compensation payable to the operator from Railtrack with the compensation
payable to the passenger. The compensation to the passenger, certainly
on the Intercity regime, will be payable after 30 minutes. That
will be the form of payment that comes from railway through the
train operator to the passenger. It will be 30 minutes under the
Intercity regime going forward.
31. That was not the question I asked. Would
it not be more sensible to introduce a scheme under which the
shorter the journey the shorter the delay you had to have before
you got compensation?
(Mr Grant) It sounds logical, but the downside of
that is the complexity of the administration arrangements about
where you got on the train and what time it started, and how you
could check that would be considerable.
32. If compensation arrangements are to be an
incentive you are going to have to have some sort of scheme for
the short distance trains otherwise there is no incentive really.
(Mr Grant) Compensation is for the passengers. The
incentive regimes are more penal to the train operators and do
not necessarily reflect directly the compensation to passengers.
33. It seems to me, from personal experience,
it is quite likely that a lot of people who are eligible for compensation
do not claim it, they do not ask for the forms, they do not know
whether they are eligible, they are not sure how late the train
is, all sorts of different reasons. Do you have any figures for
what proportion of passengers who are eligible for compensation
actually claim it?
(Mr Grant) I do not have those figures to hand, but
we can follow that up.
34. Have you done the research already?
(Mr Grant) It would be a question of looking at the
numbers. We have not done the research. The most recent experience
is period eight of this current year, where there is a lot of
detailed material. Those are exceptional circumstances at the
35. One of the difficulties that passengers
appear to be having at present is proving they did the journey
that was delayed. One of reasons for that appears to be that very
often their tickets are removed from them by a man standing at
the gate or by an automatic ticket collection machine. What feelings
do you have about whether there is anything that can be done about
(Mr Grant) In the current situation with the train
operating companies and the Regional Rail Passenger Council we
agreed that it should be proof of travel as opposed to a ticket,
which is a little softer.
36. It is very difficult if you paid in cash
and you do not have a ticket.
(Mr Grant) The sort of thing that has been suggested
is if you went to a meeting or your employer gave you a letter
and said you were late. The train operating companies are going
to be sensible about it, but obviously it is open to abuse as
37. Can I go on to Figure 10, this is the original
Figure 10, we have had an update on this figure, which shows a
different position in more modern times. Can I ask why so many
of the call-ins for cancellations for Great Western, in particular,
are ignored because they are said to be force majeure.
There was a very large number in this last year, according to
our updated table.
(Mr Grant) There are a number of reasons. First of
all, the Ladbroke Grove incident; there was a line closure between
Reading and Paddington due to the defusing of a World War Two
bomb; there was a signalling system defect at Uppington, located
between Swindon and Didcot, and force majeure incidents
agreed to ten cancellations and six cancellations; a restriction
of access between Didcot and Swindon, a cable fault, which was
agreed as force majeure, which included four cancellations.
The total cancellations is 12 cancellations. Then there was no
access to Patchwaite Tunnel; and then there was a security alert
at Acton, between Ealing Broadway and Paddington. There were a
number of reasons that we looked at.
38. Some of those, the bombs and security alerts,
cannot be laid at the door of the operating companies or Railtrack.
It sounds from that as if quite a number of the problems were
something to do with the track or the way the track went over
or under. Does this indicate that the rail track itself that Great
Western runs over is in a worst state than some of the track across
the rest of the country?
(Mr Grant) I would not have that detailed information
about the comparison of the track between various parts of the
country. First Great Western does have a penalty incentive regime,
it is not like some of the intercity operators, where they do
not have at the moment but will have in the future.
39. Can I ask about passenger growth quickly.
Passenger growth was going ahead quite quickly for a long time
but it may, of course, have been cut back by the recent incidents
and some people think it may go into reverse as a result of the
recent incidents. What sort of research have you been doing into
why there has been that passenger growth and are you doing any
new research at present into whether that is likely to continue?
(Mr Grant) If I can deal with the second question
first. Whether it is likely to continue or not is a difficult
subject to forecast at the moment clearly in the light of Hatfield.
I can refer the Committee to 3.19 where that was work done by
ATOC and Railtrack where they suggested that one of the real drivers
of growth was traffic congestion as a main factor. We have done
a considerable amount of work on the reasons for traffic growth
and they were also listed, such things as what would drive growth:
cheaper fares, better stations, better connections? We have done
work and the principal reasons for them are listed in the document.