Memorandum submitted by Mr Ian Murray
PASSENGER
RAIL FRANCHISING
What should be the purpose of Passenger Rail Franchising?
Passenger Rail Franchises should be designed
to meet the needs of the local communities, which the railway
serves, within the English regions—which are the non-inter
City services that are UK wide. The Department needs and must
commission a service that meets the need of the travelling public,
for example covering local "travel to work areas", access
to Health services, education and higher education centres, leisure
opportunities and good quality food shopping. Rail services should
help to promote Social Inclusion and diversity of local communities.
The franchise must and should fit within the
Regional Spatial and Economic strategies. Account should also
be taken of areas which are designated City Regions such as: Leeds,
Greater Manchester, Greater Bristol, Greater Nottingham, Stoke
on Trent, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Greater Plymouth
(including parts of Cornwall) Portsmouth and Southampton.
In the English Regions there appears to be no
meaningful input into the decision making process on timetable
specification, service quality awarding and service provision.
Since the loss of the Regional Rail Passenger Committee's this
has left a gap in the network for passenger representation. The
DfT and Government officers are failing to ensure DfT Rail Group
understands the needs of local communities, passengers, Local
Authorities and Regional Development Agencies within the contract
specification., leaving commuters with inappropriate train services
and no alternative provision by not using local knowledge and
input from local transport authorities and passenger groups when
planning services.
Other examples have been the Great Western Franchise
between Portsmouth—Southampton—Salisbury—Westbury—Bath
and the Bristol—Newport and Cardiff where the DfT appears
to be withdrawing three car units to be replaced by two car units
resulting in 1,000 less seats at peak times into Greater Bristol;
this area is one of the fastest growing economic belts in the
UK.
Other examples of DfT failure is the withdrawal
of the Southampton—Swindon via Melksham service, going from
a train every two hours to one every 14 hours and the loss of
services on the Exeter—Plymouth corridor, serving the towns
of Totnes and Ivy Bridge. This service is going from 12 trains
per day down to only three in each direction, again serving Plymouth,
which again is an area of economic growth. Cuts have also occurred
on the Saltash—Plymouth service, which has removed late
night and evening economy trains from around Exeter. Services
have equally been removed from the Bristol—Gloucester corridor
and have socially excluded the area of Dilton Marsh, a large council
estate on the edge of Westbury. There are few bus services and
the cuts have resulted in 14 trains per day to six. Also loss
of catering services on Cross Country and First Great Western
routes is not of benefit to customers using these routes.
Cornish branch lines have lost their Sunday
services, again with no alternative bus provision provided by
DfT, in many cases the local Government officers have watched
conflicts between LA's, DfT Rail and Regional Development Agencies
develop with no intervention. There is a need to ensure that DfT
Rail commission appropriate local rail services to meet the social
and economic need of all areas.
Within the Welsh Assembly Government, to which
the franchise has devolved to Transport for Wales and operated
by Arriva Trains Wales, there appears to be a well-focused approach
by Transport Minister, Andrew Davies with intervention directly
by Welsh Assembly Transport Civil Servants in managing Arriva
Trains Wales. This has resulted in the recent change of Managing
Director and leading to a more focused approach on capacity to
meet the needs of the Welsh Valley line services. This has lead
to the hiring of additional rolling stock to meet the needs of
peak hour travel for commuters, school children and students.
There are still issues around the cleanliness and quality of the
franchise, which Welsh Assembly Government needs to address, for
example, cleaning of train interiors and the integration of the
TRAWS—Cambrian coach network alongside the rail network
to provide an integrated network, and connectivity with the ferries
to Ireland. The problems with the franchising in Wales are the
cross border wide services. Before devolved railways there were
through services from West Wales and Cardiff to London Waterloo.
Bristol—Manchester via the Welsh borders, Swansea to Penzance
via Bristol, Taunton, Exeter & Plymouth and Cardiff—Liverpool;
these links are being lost owing to the focus of the Assembly
on services in Wales and the borders, with no thought of connections
to Bristol, Birmingham and Liverpool. The recent decision by WAGG
to run through services to Cardiff airport and Portsmouth Harbour
is welcomed. Whilst we welcome new services, these should not
be lost from main line economic corridors between South Wales
and the South Coast.
There is a lack of consultation with LA's Regional
Government, Passengers and User Groups. DfT civil servants within
the Government Offices and the Railway Directorate are failing
to attend public consultation meetings organised by the Travel
Watch Network, Passenger Focus & Bus Users UK and other groups
to facilitate stakeholder input into the franchise process.
In cases of Rail Service withdrawals DFT, unlike
the Beeching era and with the exception of Stoke on Trent,—Stafford
and Bristol Severn Beach have failed to provide any rail replacement
bus services leaving communities without public transport services.
Some of the worst locations in the South West where they have
left no public transport procurement are places such as Ivy Bridge,
Melksham, Ditton Marsh and Keynsham. Similarly decisions taken
to remove South West Train services from Exeter have left communities
such as Dawlish, Teignmouth, Totnes, Ivy Bridge and Plymouth with
reduced local services. In growing city regions, eg Exeter, Torbay,
& Plymouth, these decisions were made by civil servants in
London, Plymouth & Bristol with no meaningful public consultation.
We recommend a complete review of the consultation procedures
with DfT Rail Government Officers within the English and in Wales
there needs to be an urgency the setting up of public transport
user forums to replace the RPC; this also applies to Scotland.
Are franchise contracts the right size and length?
The awarding of franchises do not take into
account the needs of the local communities which the railways
are supposed to serve and the Government economic policies within
the English regions, spatial plans and regional economic strategies.
It would be better if the franchises were co signed by Regional
Development Agencies, Regional Assemblies, Passenger Transport
Executives (PTE's) or Regional Transport Boards (Transport Boards
need to be created in the English Regions); they will understand
the role of Public Transport provision in the City regions. They
should also be able to specify bus & ferry services and those
of light rail to ensure a seamless journey. This is the situation
in Western Europe, where is taken for granted!
The franchise agreements are too short and do
not allow for investment levels to go beyond the basic management
contract of refurbishing and managing train services, painting,
basic maintenance and improvement to rail stations, The Government
in England, outside of London, needs to decide if it should have
a 20 year franchise period where the private sector can invest
new rolling stock and general facility improvements jointly with
local and regional Government, or if a pure management contract
is the order of the day, which cleans the stock, operates the
service and provides the catering contracts, in return for a capitation
fee where the risk remains with the treasury to provide the capital
funding and re-sourcing to the level of public service the local
communities require.
Public sector organisations should be able to
operate franchises not just all be in the private sector provided
the public sector company is well rewarded for providing the services
especially where there is risk in purchasing buses, trains or
trams.
Do we need more competition and vertical integration?
All services should be specified by Regional
and National Government. ie; Scotland and Wales and take into
account Government policies on Transport, Global Warming, Social
Inclusion, Regional Planning and regeneration of major Cities,
as the Government is paying 88 million per week and six billion
per year in subsidies to Network rail. Non-specified private entrepreneurial
railway operations which do not make a contribution to infrastructure
costs or social need should simply not be allowed. Exceptions
to the rule could be the Hull Trains situation providing economic
development between Hull and London and the proposed Wrexham to
London service where support and direction is coming from the
Welsh Assembly Government. We would not support a pure open access
operation which undermines the viability of existing inter city
operations. We have major concerns regarding the Grand central
operation between Sunderland and London and would prefer all services
to be clearly specified and procured by Government.
The franchise should not be a way of generating
income out of vital public services. The money clearly needs to
be re invested into meeting the needs of the local communities
to provide revenue support to local regional and suburban and
metro services. eg; Great Western should have provided in local
services between Exeter, Bristol and Plymouth, Swindon, Southampton
and Portsmouth—Cardiff routes and the maintaining of the
Swansea—Penzance service. We would support vertical integration
of integrated franchises based on the eight large regional companies
in England, Scotland and Wales, with access rights and running
powers across the whole rail network.
The Government, as Network Rail should remain
the owner with local networks going to such as Merseytravel, etc
and self contained transport authorities/boards. The following
regional and national railway companies such as Scottish railways,
Welsh railways ie First Great Western and Arriva Trains, could
be vertically integrated through a joint company with Network
Rail providing a separate Welsh franchising authority, similarly
South West trains with a similar company but separate specification
with London.
Community railways could be vertically integrated
companies and in places, like the rest of Europe, be integrated
with the local regional authority to provide local bus, rail,
ferry and tram services.
Security and catering must be specified in the
franchise. The British Transport Police should remain as a separate
authority and should not have its offices and resources built
into the franchise arrangements. It should be the authority that
specifies the travel safe officers, community support officers,
rail enforcement officers and security officers these too should
be integrated across bus, rail ferry and trains.
Specification to franchise should also include
links to ferries such as Isles of Man, Wight, Scilly's Scottish
Highlands and Islands and the Channel Islands. Bus/Rail integration
including tickets, service specification, interchanges and rolling
stock eg Bridgend, Porthcawl, Exeter, Okehampton, Bude Taunton
and Minehead.
Station should remain under the control of Network
Rail and should not be constantly painted in corporate liveries
and should reflect government ownership and branding and not the
operating company colours—Wales should have Welsh Assembly
Government colours and a statement saying operated by Arriva Trains
Wales.
| 
