Memorandum from TravelWatch East Midlands (EM2-11)

 

 

1. Summary

 

· The Midland Main Line continues to see less investment, and to lower standards, than neighbouring routes.

 

· Lincoln still awaits direct trains to London.

 

· Inter-regional rail services from the East Midlands are variously lacking, slow or crowded.

 

· Local rail services vary and are often inadequate to encourage modal shift from car usage. The Nottingham tram extensions face uncertain funding.

 

· Many stations lack step-free access.

 

· There is poor integration between rail and other modes.

 

· There is a need for a PTE-style regional transport authority and regional funding for investment in public transport.

 

· Operation of the national concessionary fare scheme in the region has been grossly under-funded.

 

2. Introduction

 

2.1 TravelWatch East Midlands is the public name of the East Midlands Passenger

Transport Users Forum, an alliance of groups representing the consumer interest across all modes of public transport.

 

An independent body which aims both to represent the interests and concerns of public transport passengers across all forms of transport, and to assist local and regional authorities' work towards an integrated and seamless quality public transport network for the East Midlands region, it has received support from the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA), Regional Assembly and local authorities.

 

2.2 This response presents a passenger view of rail and other public transport investment arising from consultations on issues of concern in the East Midlands. It draws on our work in determining passenger requirements for the new rail franchises which came into operation in November-December 2007; a study on accessing the railway by all modes; contributions to the development of Network Rail Route Utilisation Strategies (RUS); and work (with Passenger Focus) on crowding issues, especially on the Liverpool-Nottingham-Norwich route.

 

3. Main line services between the East Midlands and London

 

3.1 The Midland Main Line

The East Midlands is served by the West Coast Main Line (WCML) on its western fringe (Northampton) and by the East Coast Main Line (ECML) to the east (Grantham, Newark, Lincoln), but for most journeys to London from the region passengers rely on the Midland Main Line (MML). The MML serves the 'three cities'-Leicester, Nottingham, Derby-and other centres including Chesterfield, Loughborough and Kettering.

 

From a position of broad parity in service provision on the three lines in the late 1970s, the ECML has benefited from upgrading and electrification in the 1980s and the WCML saw a major upgrade in the 1990s--the latter at substantial cost. The MML, meanwhile, has stood still, apart from the provision of some new trains and increase in service frequency, and more recently new stations at Corby and East Midlands Parkway. Journeys are little faster than when (second-hand) High Speed Trains (HSTs) were introduced in 1982, and slow by comparison with the ECML, WCML and Great Western Main Lines-on all of which the maximum speed is 125 mph compared with 110 mph on the MML.

 

There has been no work since then to improve line speeds. However, work has at last been allowed for by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) during Control Period Four 2009-14 (CP4), but it is modest in ambition, saving no more than eight minutes between St Pancras and Sheffield, and modest in cost (£69M) compared with the hundreds of £M spent on the WCML. There appears to be an emphasis on budgetary restrain rather than investment for the long term, with minimal attention to the places where restrictions are most severe, such as Market Harborough and Wellingborough. Indeed, regional stakeholders had to lobby hard to get ORR to agree to £14M expenditure in CP4 to remodel the bottleneck approaches to Nottingham-had the draft decision to disallow this sum gone ahead the track layout would have been renewed ('fossilised') in its inadequate 1960s form, with consequent delays to passengers for a generation or more.

 

The Network Rail Electrification strategy has identified the MML has having the best case of any route for electrification, with a positive financial case over a 60 year appraisal period-operating cost savings being sufficient to fund the work. Nevertheless, the government has chosen to go ahead with electrification of the Great Western Main Line in preference to the MML, on which a decision is still awaited.

 

The new East Midlands Trains (EMT) franchise from November 2007 was let with no provision of additional rolling stock, so the main line timetable has to serve various markets as best it can within the resources available. Particularly disadvantaged are some intermediate passenger flows, such as from Northamptonshire northwards, through reduction in service frequency to hourly.

 

Lack of investment in the MML is disappointing given the doubling of passengers on the route since 1999, and the potential to further relieve the pressures on the M1 corridor-the M1 itself is seeing major investment in widening works.

 

The draft East Midlands Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) recognises that bottlenecks exist at Derby; through Leicester; and, for freight trains, between Leicester and Kettering and south of Bedford. Capacity problems at Leicester are likely to be exacerbated by anticipated growth of inter-modal freight trains following the upgrade currently in progress of the route from Felixstowe to Nuneaton. It is important that these constraints are dealt with in phase with the programme to replace 1960s-1970s signalling on the Midland Main Line and connecting routes over the next few years.

 

3.2 Lincoln

Exceptionally and astonishingly, Lincoln, a growing sub-regional centre and university city has had no direct through trains to London for 20 years, relying on haphazard connections into the ECML at Newark and Peterborough. Where else but in the East Midlands would such a situation be tolerated for so long? Lobbying during the specification of the EMT and East Coast franchises led to the introduction of a single daily EMT train by a circuitous route to St Pancras and the promise of direct East Coast trains to Kings Cross from December 2010. However, the East Coast franchise operated by National Express has recently been terminated, and there is concern as to whether or not the Lincoln service will go ahead during the period of government control.

 

4. Inter-regional, inter-urban and local services

 

4.1 Inter-regional links

The East Midlands adjoins five other English regions so good inter-regional links are essential to its economic and social well-being. Leicester, Derby and Nottingham have good rail links to each other, but beyond that services are patchy. Passengers aspire especially to good direct links to key nodal centres such as Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Journeys to all three centres from Nottingham are slow; Leicester and Derby have no trains to Manchester; and Leicester has none to Manchester and few to Leeds. Lincoln has no services to significant centres in other regions other than Sheffield, and Northampton has none at all except to Birmingham!

 

Service reductions to improve notional performance and simplify refranchising have led to the loss of through trains between Leicester and Cardiff, Shrewsbury, Liverpool and Norwich; Derby and Coventry and the South Coast; Nottingham/Leicester and Coventry; Nottingham/Derby to Worcester/Hereford; Lincolnshire/Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent/Crewe; and Lincoln and Birmingham. Lincoln is one of the largest places in England without trains to Birmingham.

 

However, two east-west services introduced in the 1980s which have survived and prospered are Birmingham-Leicester-Stansted Airport and Liverpool-Nottingham-Norwich. So much so that crowding now regularly occurs, and between Liverpool and Nottingham it is endemic with trains often carrying twice as many passengers as seats provided. Surveys by TravelWatch East Midlands in 2008 found that 36% of passengers on this route were able to get a seat on fewer than half of their journeys-and as the journey time between cities on the route is about one hour, passengers have to stand for at least this length of time.

 

The reason, once again, is failure to provide additional rolling stock to meet growth in passenger numbers. The Department for Transport (DfT) failed to allocate sufficient vehicles to the new franchises to meet reasonable needs. The DfT is concerned lest commuters in London and other major cities have to stand for more than 20 minutes, but is prepared to see inter-regional passengers stand for three times as long.

 

4.2 Inter-urban and local services

With changes in patterns of work, education and leisure the East Midlands has seen growth in rail usage for inter-urban journeys of 15-40 miles and local travel into cities. New services have been introduced between Nottingham, Mansfield and Worksop, train frequency increased between Nottingham and Matlock, and stations reopened between Leicester and Loughborough-largely through local initiative and funding. Elsewhere little has been done to encourage passengers to switch from car to train.

 

Nevertheless services are generally poor, with low service frequencies, and limited rolling stock leads to crowding at peak times. Breaking of inter-regional routes has lessened the opportunities for cross-city travel. The line between Sleaford and Spalding operates only over a nine-hour day, to avoid manning the route for more than a single working shift. This means that the Lincoln to Peterborough service runs only for restricted hours in the middle of the day, making commuting impossible, and not at all on Sundays. Nowhere else in Great Britain does this practice persist, yet another example of the East Midlands being short-changed by rail franchising.

 

Further developments, such as provision of a station at Ilkeston, and reopening the Leicester to Burton-on-Trent line, face the handicap of current rail industry structures and funding mechanisms. The Nottingham tram system is outstandingly successful yet authorised extensions face uncertain funding.

 

More account needs to be taken of demographic changes, as addressed by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) Connecting Communities study, in the development of new services and stations-and in reviewing the service at stations currently served by few trains.

 

5. Integration and funding issues

 

5.1 Stations

In the East Midlands most passengers access the railway on foot or by car. With some exceptions, notably Loughborough, there is low usage of buses for travel to and from the station and the railways have little engagement with the local authorities responsible for roads and buses. Simple details such as proper information and signage for connecting bus services at rail stations are sadly lacking.

 

Only a handful of stations in the East Midlands, and fewer than in any other region, have been awarding funding from the government 'Access for All' scheme. Yet even well-used stations lack step-free access; the most deserving case, Loughborough, was listed for funding in 2006 but work has yet to start.

 

5.2 Concessionary Fares

 

Several local authorities in the region have been worried by the problems of funding the new English National Concession Scheme.

 

The current DfT consultation paper on "Local Authority special grant funding in 2010-11 for the national bus concession in England" confirms that the East Midlands has been grossly under-funded compared with London and the PTE areas. Annex A of the paper proposes that the combined grant for 2010-11 for the three cities (Derby, Leicester and Nottingham) should be more than doubled, by increasing it from £4.66 million to £10.57 million. For the shire districts and Rutland, it is proposed that funding should increase in 18 cases, remain the same in 11 and be reduced in eight. The increase in the combined funding for these 37 authorities in the East Midlands is 37%.

 

The consultation paper reveals that the most under-funded authorities in England have been Chesterfield and Derby.

 

5.3 General

 

The region suffers through lack of a Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) reporting to an Integrated Transport Authority, as in the former metropolitan counties. Such a structure for Leicester/Derby/Nottingham would help to ensure equitable investment in local public transport.

 

Most of the region benefits from well-managed bus operators who have invested heavily in their commercial services and are willing to co-operate with local transport authorities in voluntary quality partnerships on existing routes. However, shortage of funds (particularly where revenue funding has been diverted to support concessionary fares) has meant a dearth of initiatives for new or improved services which would not be profitable in the short-term.

 

Currently housing growth and other developments are planned through Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks. Although Network Rail have the opportunity to contribute to these, rail investment remains inward looking in that most proposals relate to catering for existing flows of passengers and freight. Unlike with roads there is little sense that any proactive work with planners or developers to serve predicted flows.

 

In our view transport and transport investment, other than for the trunk routes of national importance, should be addressed on a regional basis with funds allocated equitably according to population and identifiable needs. The modification to the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) process so that it can now include rail schemes is a welcome first step.

 

26 November 2009