Memorandum by COASTLINERS (REN 30)
RAIL SERVICES IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND
COASTLINERS is the rail users' group for the
Sunderland-Hartlepool-Stockton line. As requested, we reply in
turn to the threefold statement of the Sub-committee's Terms of
Reference.
A—whether the existing franchisees provide
satisfactory services, particularly in relation to safety. punctuality,
reliability, comfort and frequency of services.
1. The short answer is No. Safety is
rarely in doubt: but Punctuality is variable, though it
can (from Middlesbrough towards Sunderland, at least) be excellent
for days on end, Members who commute between Tees-side and Sunderland
have been pleasantly surprised by the punctuality of most southbound
trains, even after sharing the Newcastle-Sunderland route with
the newly-extended Metro services; but it could he even better.
2. Reliability: mechanical failure
looms too large among the causes of those comparatively few delays
that do occur; and, often, there is an unacceptable reluctance
to take sensible initiatives to limit the length of such delays.
The larger-than-average proportion of unstaffed stations on this
line (including, believe it or not, Stockton itself) means that
the Public Address system must be used frequently and helpfully
when delays do occur: but in practice that is just when the whole
pa system goes dumb for long periods.
3. Comfort is highly variable, because
many trains on this and other lines in North-Eastern England are
still formed by 4-wheeled railbuses—including, too often,
trains that link Carlisle with Middlesbrough or even beyond (106
miles to Middlesbrough: over 150 miles if, as I directly experienced
on Thursday June 6, one of these railbuses from Carlisle also
goes on from Middlesbrough to York, using the high-speed East
Coast Main Line for its last 30 miles).
4. When a proper bogie-wheeled unit such
as a Class 156 turns up, comfort is far greater—though,
again, the end-to-end journey-length of some of these services
only serves to point out their crying need for refreshment facilities
on board for at least part of the run. This applies particularly,
but by no means solely, to the 190-mile journey of the 6.34 Dumfries-Newcastle-Middlesbrough-York,
also one of several trains in our region about whose bizarre routes
we shall comment (adversely) below, under the second main Term
of Reference.
5. Frequency may look quite good,
now that Hartlepool-Sunderland-Newcastle trains have been boosted
to half-hourly for much of the day. But two caveats need to be
entered:
(a) that now, as for many years, there remain
anomalous, yawning gaps in both of the weekday peak periods, at
the south end of the line in particular (nothing north from Middlesbrough
to Sunderland between the 15.32 and the 17.1, for instance); and
(b) that first trains along this highly-urbanised
line are no earlier than 7.0 from either end, and last trains—even
more inexcusably—leave Sunderland for Middlesbrough at 20.20
and Middlesbrough for Sunderland and Newcastle at 20.32 (earlier
still on Sundays). All this means, inter alia, that a high number
of medium-distance commuters, particularly those working in education,
just cannot get to work and back by train satisfactorily, or indeed
at all, no matter how hard they try. We know—we have talked
to several of them on this very point at our occasional Rail Users'
Surgeries and have taken up their requests, and our own, for better-spaced
peak-hour services, plus at least one later train from Sunderland
southward, to meet a known demand from those attending and/or
teaching evening class sessions at its university. The rail operators'
objections that a longer operating day would require longer signal-box
hours than those worked at present, have been laughed to scorn,
again and again, by every serving railwayman to whom we have put
them.
B—plans for investment in the tail network
in the region, and whether they meet the needs of additional network
capacity and other improvements.
6. The two largest conurbations in the North-East
region centre on Newcastle-upon-Tyne and on Middlesbrough. The
most direct rail link between these centres, however, includes
the goods- only Ferryhill-Stillington-Norton (Stockton) section.
Need we say more?
7. We are often told that the East Coast
Main Line, from York to Newcastle via Darlington and Durham, is
full to overflowing, and so more line capacity must be found elsewhere
in the region. With this we could not agree more: but then, when
even the Strategic Rail Authority goes on to talk about re-opening
the Leamside line as a priority to this end, we part company,
at least in the short-term.
8. Many of us have watched the Coast line
decline from being a well-used secondary main line, for passengers
originating mainly in (South Shields), Sunderland, Hartlepool
and Stockton, travelling to and from London and other destinations
all over England and Wales, to an insignificant branch worked
by diesel multiple-units running to Middlesbrough and, until a
few years ago, Darlington. This was part of a Beeching-era policy-decision
to concentrate as much traffic as possible on the York-Darlington-Newcastle
route, regardless of the extra travel time and inconvenience that
Tees-siders in particular (over 400,000 of them) thereby suffered.
9. This mentality survives too healthily
in too many rail operating circles: it was as if rail management
thought that those who could not afford to run a car to drive
to and from the main line at Darlington did not deserve to be
allowed on a train anyway. Introduction of direct Middlesbrough-York-Leeds-
Manchester-Liverpool Transpennine services in 1992 did a lot to
combat this attitude, it is true, but the fact remains that too
much reliance is still put on Darlington and the so-called high-speed
route to London.
10. This East Coast line "congestion"
is why we urge far greater use of the Coast line south from Sunderland,
and of the full route beyond Middlesbrough to Redcar and Saltburn,
at least for extension of the Transpennine network. [At a later
stage (as recommended, by implication, in the recently-published
Regional Transport Strategy), through train services between Tees-side
and London must be introduced: we comment on this more fully below,
under the "Economic and Social Development" heading.]
Meanwhile, we know of no operator whose plans for new Transpennine
franchises include any such extensions in their portfolios, except
for First Keolis, which includes an "Aspiration" to
serve Sunderland and the Coast line with direct Transpennine services
from 2004.
11. We have long been trying to persuade
operators, particularly Arriva (Northern), to extend the Transpennine
network along the Coast, again in response to voluble complaints
about the grim difficulties that face anyone in, say, Hartlepool
wishing to use rail to travel south. From time to time, extensive
engineering along the aforementioned East Coast Main Line has
caused some diversions, at week-ends, of the Liverpool-Newcastle-Sunderland
"Transpennine" trains away from the Darlington route
and along the Coast, through Stockton and Hartlepool, non-stop
to Sunderland. All such trains reach Sunderland over 20 minutes
earlier than they would do normally. Yet at no time has the Transpennine
operator taken the opportunity to test fully the market for through
services on this route by stopping the diverted trains at Stockton
and Hartlepool, despite frequent requests by "Coastliners",
and despite the minimal risk and extra expense that the operator
would incur.
12. Our case for trying this out is supported
by the fact that fully 60% (if not more) of Hartlepool station
booking-office's ticket revenue derives from rail journeys starting
and finishing at Darlington or Durham. In other words, quantifiable
numbers of Hartlepool residents are happy to buy tickets there,
so could be expected to use a direct, faster and high-quality
Transpennine train service from it, too, if only it existed.
13. We suspect that Arriva (Northern) is
frightened of letting anyone living in this area find out how
much quicker their local Coast route could be for so many rail
journeys. Our evidence is the galling fact that most of these
diverted "Transpennine" trains do actually stop in Stockton
station, for crew-changing purposes, in both directions. No official
word of this has ever been breathed to the travelling public,
except by friendly rail staff at, say, York, to those changing
from a London line train, Members of our User Group have often
seen several grateful people alighting at Stockton much earlier
than expected, from trains whose existence had been kept a dark
secret. We are at our collective wits end to find any honourable
reason for the operator's reticence over this, never mind its
refusal to stop at Hartlepool (on a sharp and speed-limited curve)
either. So much for privatisation releasing entrepreneurial flair!
14. So what is so bad about present services
southwards from Hartlepool and Stockton? Firstly, they in no case
take the shortest possible route, via Stockton and Eaglescliffe,
to York: most trains south from Hartlepool go no further than
Middlesbrough, a half-hour journey. For York or Darlington, passengers
change at Thornaby (25 minutes away) and hope not to miss their
next train, to Darlington (20-25 minutes) or direct to York (55
minutes): total journey-times to the main line, an hour (Darlington)
or almost one and a half hours (York), Some few trains actually
do form a through service to or from York, but only after diverting
into and out of Middlesbrough. The journey-time thereby is extended
to 100 minutes no less, for what would be 60 miles, and should
need little over 60 minutes from Hartlepool, by the most direct
rail route, And, quite apart from the confusion and exasperation
caused to passengers and rail staff alike by this needless "inning-and-outing"
to Middlesbrough, the trains concerned become so circuitous, end
to end, that unwitting passengers joining them at, say. Newcastle,
because their destination- blinds say "York", but not
"all stations and via Middlesbrough" too, gain a dangerously-jaundiced
view of the Coast route as slow, low-grade and uncomfortable,
and usually vow' never to use such trains again. "Illogical"
train-routes that incorporate Middlesbrough—visiting traps
for the unwary include the 6.34 Dumfries-York (mentioned at 4
above), and ones between Hull and Hexham or between Carlisle and
York. This is just absurd—and, as far as we can see, is
found only among train-services in North-Eastern England. Yet
we know of no plans by Arriva to rationalise these, or introduce
any other, Coast line services, to bring journey-times down to
the competitive level that could so easily be theirs. We conclude
that plans for investment in our area are at best inadequate and
at worst non-existent. A rail-service-pattern that in all seriousness
can recommend London-bound passengers from Hartlepool to travel
the 30 miles northward to Newcastle and a train-change there is,
frankly, the mark of a rail management that has taken leave of
its collective senses. Their policies for passenger rail traffic
in no way even begin to challenge the continuing growth or private
motoring, even here in the supposedly economically-depressed North
East, and we deplore them accordingly. See also below.
C—the influence of rail services on the
economic and social development in the region
15. Does this mean the influence now, or
the influence that rail services could have? There is a world
of difference, as those who have waded patiently through the foregoing,
will, we hope realise. From time to time we have heard of attempts
to move Government offices, or other large-scale organisations,
away from the London area to the North-East. Rarely, if ever,
have these come to fruition— and one reason could be that
the families affected have taken one look at the poor train services
locally, and/or the nonexistent through train services to London,
and refused outright to move here. As mentioned at 10, the recently-published
Regional Transport Strategy for North-East England does at long
last recognise that lack of direct London services could be holding
back the development of Tees-side and the Durham Coast areas.
Sadly, GNER has little inclination to add to its network east
of Darlington, and Hull Trains, who did look into adding Middlesbrough
to its range of London services, found that it would need a subsidy
to do this successfully. Virgin Trains has floated ideas about
linking London, Nottingham, South Yorkshire and Middlesbrough
with a train service whose course is novel to say the least, but
this was a long- term hope rather than a serious proposal now.
16. The best bets, then, for London direct
seem to be partly a subsidy to Hull trains to serve Middlesbrough
and partly the inclusion of some Northallerton-STOCKTON-Ferryhill
services in GNER's plans to expand Anglo-Scottish services generally.
This latter would sit neatly with Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit's
idea of a fast Newcastle-Middlesbrough(Redcar-Saltburn) service
along the goods-only Norton- Stillington-Ferryhill line referred
to at six, and the whole section, including the Saltburn line.
would benefit from electrification as well. (Yes. we know Stockton
station would need lengthening and rebuilding generally, but its
present condition is too disgraceful to be allowed to continue
unchanged. See also below.)
17. We continue with a list of local improvements
that would all contribute much to social, if not to economic,
development in our area. They are:
— new or re-opened lines to Guisborough
in this area, and to Ashington and Blyth further north:
— new or re-opened stations at Riverside
Football Stadium (alongside the Saltburn line, three quarters
of a mile east of Middlesbrough) and at South Cleveland Hospital,
in Berwick Hills, on the Middlesbrough-Whitby line:
— a far more frequent service between
Middlesbrough and Nunthorpe (four and a half fully built-up miles,
parallel to the route of the recently rejected East Middlesbrough
Corridor, alias new road, proposal):
— trains that link Stockton directly
with Eaglescliffe (3 miles) and Yarm (5 miles), either as part
of a new local rail service, or incorporated into the suggested
"Transpennine" service-extensions (cf 11, 12, and 13
above):
— later, and at times more frequent,
trains on the Saltburn line, particularly if Arriva Transpennine's
proposed round-the-clock Middlesbrough-Manchester Airport service
is ever introduced.
18. And the potential franchise operators?
We hope to fix a date for First/Keolis to discuss Northern Franchise
ideas with us, early in July. They have, so far, dealt with us
fairly well. Arriva Trains (Northern), however, has not. It emerged
from its vast driver shortages only to antagonise, simultaneously,
its booking-clerks and its conductor-guards, causing both to take
intermittent strike action recently. Its management has since
used bullying tactics against the conductors to such an extent
that we now fear a mass exodus of these vital rail staff members
to other companies with better working conditions. Arriva also
wrote to User Groups such as ours, blaming the unions for making
unreasonable demands and assuming that we automatically agreed
with the management view. When we wrote back to say (a) that we
did not, and (b) that we would like to discuss the pros and cons
of the staff and the management case in more detached detail,
Arriva's managing director curtly refused to come anywhere near
us, thereby also antagonising some of his most loyal customers!
19. It is indeed worrying to reflect that,
over the last 30 years or more, the main obstacles to growth in
rail passenger traffic on North-east services off the so-called
"East Coast main line have been set up by rail management.
Many Tees-siders, in particular, would be delighted to use trains
more often if only they were better publicised and more convenient
to use. Yet Arriva seems to shy totally away from publicising
even its better quality trains, never mind the many very reasonable
Day Return fares it offers. Instead, it spends money on frequent
glossy Newsletters telling User Groups round here what marvellous
improvements it is making in West Yorkshire, and, latterly, using
fully a quarter of an A4 page to criticise in detail its Conductors
for refusing to accept peanuts in place of living wages (an approach
that is hardly the hallmark of constructive management, we think).
20. Meanwhile, for the third year running,
not a single official rail timetable sheet has been put up at
Stockton's station, itself a desolate and even menacing structure,
difficult of access though quite centrally placed in the town
itself. Instead, it has been left to "COASTLINERS" to
produce a "Stockton Train Departures" summary leaflet,
with some example fares, too, and although such leaflets do not
always last very long when put up at the station itself, we have
also kept Stockton Tourist Information office adequately supplied
with them, as evidently a surprising number of visitors ask there
about local train services. Sadly, there are no records of the
subsequent reaction of these people to the realities of local
train use: suffice to say that Arriva only seems to post notices
at Stockton to say when it is not going to run trains, eg just
before RMT strike days, and to include in these notices a subjectively
moralistic homily on the wickedness of greedy rail staff at the
same time, This is hardly the behaviour of a rail operator that
seriously seeks to keep its franchise. It highlights, once again,
our group's firmly held view that rail patronage, short and long
distance alike, to and from Tees-side, Wearside and all points
between, is nothing like as great as it could be, thanks to a
hopelessly defeatist and indolent attitude of a succession of
local rail managers over the past three decades.
21. So we welcome, with open arms, Parliament's
decision to hold an Inquiry into Northern Rail Services at this
stage, and we hope that constructive action to improve these services
beyond present recognition will be taken as soon as possible,
as a result of what we and many others have written, Nothing less
will have any impact on the increasing gridlock of our road network.
P J Walker
Liaison Officer on behaIf of "COASTLINERS"
|
