2 IMPROVING PASSENGER SERVICES
10. Prolonged access to the track for maintenance
and renewal work disrupts services for passengers. Some disruption
is inevitable, as there are stringent health and safety arrangements
associated with track operating restrictions or closure. Work
could be undertaken overnight or off peak during the week on some
lines, but there was less opportunity to do so on the West Coast
Main Line and other busy mixed rail traffic lines. The problems
experienced and the lessons learnt from the West Coast Main Line
upgrade are applicable network wide. In a typical six-hour period
between gaining access to the track and giving it back, just four
hours would be available for heavy engineering work. Rather than
close lines during the working week, most heavy engineering work
took place at weekends, usually starting on Friday evening with
hand back on Sunday night, giving around 36 hours access or more
on a Bank Holiday.[13]
11. One of Network Rail's longer term objectives
was to complete work earlier, so that track could be handed back
by midday on Sunday. Weekend engineering work was more efficient
for the rail industry, but passengers travelling on a Saturday
or Sunday were faced with less frequent services and longer journey
times than on weekdays, sometimes with the prospect of using bus
or coach rail replacement services. Passengers wanted a 'seven
day' rail service, but Network Rail conceded that there was no
prospect of weekend working reducing across the network for at
least the next five years. In places, additional track had been
laid to enable track work to be carried out while passenger services
continued. Network Rail was also seeking to reduce the time taken
to undertake some repair and replacement work by using prefabrication
and modularisation. The experience on the West Coast upgrade was
that fewer passengers than anticipated used rail replacement services
when rail services were affected by engineering works as some
passengers switched to the nearest station operating normal services.
[14]
12. Disruption to services could be reduced by starting
and completing planned engineering work on time. In 2005-06, around
22% of booked track access did not start on time, mainly because
the last train of the evening ran late. Delays reduced the available
working time and increased the likelihood of the work overrunning.
In around 30% of the 14% of cases where engineering work overran,
there was an impact on the start of the next morning's passenger
service. Network Rail monitored handback of track closely. It
estimated that on Monday mornings it achieved around 90% punctuality.[15]
13. Modernisation of the West Coast Main Line was
originally intended to increase capacity to meet anticipated growth
in passenger and freight numbers over the next 20 to 30 years.
Demand for the service has, however, grown more quickly than forecast
and by 2006 some parts of the route were already operating at
or near capacity, with further increases in demand expected following
step changes in journey times and service frequency after December
2008. Completion of enhancements at Rugby and Trent Valley in
2008 and at Stafford in 2012-15 were expected to ease capacity
pressures but the consensus in the rail industry was that by 2015-20
the line might have insufficient capacity to meet expected demand.
Other options under consideration included operating additional
services following completion of proposed congestion relief works
at Stafford (Figure 3) and increasing the length of Pendolino
trains from 9 to 10 or 11 cars. This option might require some
platform and depot lengthening. Some £100 million has been
spent so far, on extending platforms or building extra platforms
at some stations and enlarging other stations so that they can
accommodate longer London commuter trains. [16]
Figure 3 - Hourly seating capacity available
on the West Coast Main Line
Source: Department for Transport
14. Problems of capacity were particularly acute
on services into and out of London. Longer trains alleviated overcrowding,
but the principal constraint at the present time was the number
of slots in the timetable and tracks available, in a similar way
to the constraints posed by the availability of landing slots
at airports. More passengers than seats is commonplace on some
peak services. The Department considered that standing times of
30 minutes or less were not unreasonable on suburban services.
Faced with limited scope in the short term to provide more trains,
better use was needed of existing capacity. Options cited included
encouraging passengers to travel off peak and varying the proportion
of first class to standard seating on popular trains. In the longer
term, capacity could be increased by running more and longer trains
on the network, through making some infrastructure changes such
as lengthening platforms and tackling bottlenecks, and by running
trains closer together through improvements to signalling.[17]
15. Rail fares are already seen as high by many.
There is a risk that train operators might raise fares on the
West Coast Main Line to "choke off" demand. The Department
considered that passenger demand for train services could be influenced
by offering cheaper fares for those prepared to travel on less
busy services and higher prices for those travelling at peak times.[18]
It reported that the average fare per passenger kilometre had
fallen from 25p in 2001 to 20p today. The fall resulted from an
increasing proportion of tickets being bought in advance via the
internet to take advantage of the cheapest deals. In the Committee's
experience, passengers buying tickets at train stations are not
always offered the lower fares which are available on the internet.
Booking staff are instructed to offer the lowest fare available.
Recent checks by the Department on 33 routes show that for 21
medium to long distance journeys, the walk-up return fare offered
was on average 54% lower than the most expensive standard fare,
but for 14 of these journeys, the advance tickets were on average
67% cheaper.[19] There
is a risk that the lowest prices are only available to those with
internet access or who are able to plan their journeys in advance,
putting low fares beyond the reach of vulnerable and disadvantaged
members of society.[20]
13 Q 166 Back
14
Q 46; C&AG's Report, para 2.12 Back
15
Q 167 Back
16
Ev 22 Back
17
Q 164 Back
18
Q 140 Back
19
Ev 26 Back
20
Q 125 Back
| 
