1 Increasing passenger rail capacity |
1. The Department published a 30-year strategy
in July 2007 with the stated ambition to double the number of
passengers that could travel by rail. In the strategy £9
billion was allowed for the five years to March 2014, with £7.8
billion for infrastructure improvements by Network Rail (for example
lengthening platforms to accommodate longer trains) and £1.2
billion for train operating companies to provide extra carriages.
The intention was to allow more passengers to travel by rail into
London and other major cities without an increase in average levels
of crowding. The
investment programme to increase rail passenger capacity was put
on hold in May 2010 pending the current Spending Review.
2. The Department's plans (before investment
was paused) indicated that substantially fewer extra places for
passengers would be delivered by March 2014 than it had originally
estimated would be needed to prevent increased overcrowding. For
example, those plans indicated there would be 15% fewer extra
places on trains coming into London (99,000 compared to 117,000),
and 33% fewer in other major cities (25,500 compared to 38,000),
in the three-hour morning peak, than it had originally envisaged.
Nevertheless, the Department expected to avoid increases in crowding
because of the forecast effect of the recession in reducing demand.
3. An underlying problem is the lack of incentives
for the industry to supply extra capacity without additional taxpayer
support. National franchise terms require train operators to use
"reasonable endeavours" to deploy their train fleets
to give peak passengers a reasonable expectation of a seat within
20 minutes of boarding. However, the national terms do not require
train operators to expand their fleets or improve stations to
avoid excessive overcrowding. Instead, to get extra places on
trains the taxpayer has to bear much of the train operators' costs
as well as providing funds to Network Rail for it to build longer
4. The Chiltern Trains franchise is an exception
as it requires the operator to bear the costs of providing enough
capacity, in terms of both carriages and platform lengths, to
meet demand during peak hours without exceeding maximum loads.
The Department is currently consulting on the appropriate terms
to be included in franchise agreements in the future, including
on whether obligations to avoid overcrowding, similar to that
in the Chiltern Trains franchise, should be imposed more widely.
The Department will need to take care, however, that the quality
of information on which to base demand forecasts is improved and
made available to potential bidders so they do not overprice the
risk of dealing with overcrowding, due to a lack of information.
5. Despite the scale of the proposed five-year
investment, the Department did not have comprehensive data on
the actual numbers of passengers using each service, when it was
forecasting demand and planning how best to meet it. Its principal
sources of information were annual counts of passengers on a single
day at a single point on each route.
The situation has improved since, as new carriages are brought
into service, with the result that 39 per cent of carriages are
now fitted with automatic counting equipment. It is not clear,
however, whether such equipment is required for all new trains
procured by the Department and train operating companies, or whether
it is fitted as standard on new trains in any event. Moreover,
the Department does not have the IT capability needed to process
information on the scale produced by automatic passenger counting.
It has plans to acquire a new IT system to allow it to make full
use of the data but the acquisition is on hold pending the Spending
6. The Department's plans relate to blocks of
the country and fare increases are also set at the level of franchises.
In the area covered by the Southeastern franchise, for example,
fares have risen by RPI plus 3% regardless of whether the fares
relate to services which have benefited from investment. So, for
example, passengers using trains from Orpington pay higher fares
although the increased capacity has been provided on services
which do not stop there. The ability to align what the passenger
pays for a ticket with the investment they see and use on their
route does not exist in the British railway system at the moment,
though it is a key aspiration which the Department is pursuing
with train operators.
2 Q 47; C&AG's Report, paras 1 and 1.6 Back
C&AG's Report, para 2 Back
C&AG's Report, para 5 Back
Q 1; C&AG's Report, para 3.8 Back
C&AG's Report, Figure 8 and para 3.8 Back
Q 19; C&AG's Report, para 3.11 Back
Qq 19-25; C&AG's Report para 3.14 Back
C&AG's Report, para 1.7 Back
Qq 29-30 and 33-37; C&AG's Report, para 1.7; Ev 20 Back
Q 32 Back