Written evidence from Passenger Focus
(HSR 136)
INTRODUCTION
1. Passenger Focus,[103]
the independent national rail consumer watchdog, welcomes the
opportunity to respond to the Committee's inquiry into High Speed
Rail. Our response takes a passenger centric approach to HS2 and
concentrates on the impact of the scheme on passengers rather
than the economic and technical analysis behind the business case.
THE CASE
FOR CAPACITY
2. As part of its input into the original High
Level Output Statement (HLOS) Passenger Focus commissioned research[104]
into passenger priorities for improvement. Around 4,000 passengers
were asked to rank 30 different aspects of rail travel. The top
10 priorities for improvement—in order of importance—were
as follows:
| Rank | Rail Service Attribute (30 in total)
|
| 1 | Price of train tickets offer excellent value for money
|
| 2 | Sufficient train services at times I use the train
|
| 3 | At least 19 out of 20 trains arrive on time
|
| 4 | Passengers are always able to get a seat on the train
|
| 5 | Company keeps passengers informed if train delays
|
| 6 | Maximum queue time no more than 2 mins to purchase tickets
|
| 7 | Information on train times/platforms accurate and available
|
| 8 | Trains are consistently well maintained/in excellent condition
|
| 9 | Seating area on the train is very comfortable
|
| 10 | Passengers experience a high level of security on the train
|
3. In January/February 2011, Passenger Focus carried out new
research throughout the West Coast Mainline franchise operating
area to identify what passengers wanted the new franchise (beginning
April 2012) to deliver. Just under 4,500 passengers were asked
to rank different aspects of rail travel. The table below shows
the top 10 priorities for the train company as a whole. It also
shows the relative importance of each attribute—the higher
the score the greater priority passengers assign to that service
aspect, with scores over 125 being particularly important.
| Virgin Trains (Whole TOC) | Priorities for improvement: rank order
| Priorities for improvement: indices
|
| Value for money for price of ticket | 1
| 246 |
| Punctuality / reliability of the train |
2 | 203 |
| Being able to get a seat on the train | 3
| 187 |
| Length of time the journey was scheduled to take (speed)
| 4 | 139 |
| Upkeep/repair and cleanliness of the train |
5 | 108 |
| Frequency of trains for this route | 6
| 96 |
| Provision of information during times of disruption
| 7 | 76 |
| Personal security while on board the train |
8 | 70 |
| Personal security at the station | 9
| 59 |
| Ease of buying a ticket | 10
| 57 |
4. Both our national and TOC specific research show the importance
of the "core product" itself—ie an affordable,
reliable, frequent service with passengers being able to get a
seat. Capacity is clearly one of the top priorities for improvement
among existing passengers and, we believe, one of the major challenges
facing rail in the coming years.
5. Network Rail's "New Lines" study[105]
looked at how best to solve the problem of growing demand for
rail travel on the routes between Britain's cities. It looked
at four main travel corridors:
— London
to Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland (eg Leeds, Newcastle,
Edinburgh).
— London
to the East Midlands (eg Leicester, Sheffield).
— London
to West Midlands, North West and Scotland (eg Birmingham, Manchester,
Glasgow).
— London
to the West (eg Bristol, Cardiff).
6. This study found that, despite all the investment
to date, the route that will be become full first (by 2020) is
the corridor to Birmingham and the North West. It recommended
that the best solution was the building of a new railway line.
7. The Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for the
West Coast Main Line reached similar conclusions on demand growth
on the route. It concluded that the route is nearly full to capacity
and is already experiencing crowding—something that would
only get worse as demand grew. For example, passenger demand for
travel between London and Manchester was forecast to grow by as
much as 61%.[106]
It recommended that a "continued programme of investment
is essential to deal with the expected increase in passenger numbers
and to help create a climate that allows the economy to grow and
flourish."
8. DfT's own analysis[107]
also gives priority to the main north-south inter-city routes
out of London, beginning with the West Coast Main Line.
9. We believe that all these studies firmly establish
the need for additional capacity and for this to focus, at least
initially, on the West Coast route. There has been much debate
about whether this could be delivered by upgrading existing infrastructure
or whether it requires a new line and, moreover, whether any new
line would need to be high-speed. From Passenger Focus's perspective
it is the provision of additional capacity that is the key priority—the
other decisions being driven more in terms of identifying the
most efficient and beneficial mode of delivery.
10.To this end existing studies on how to deliver
this additional capacity are consistent. Network Rail's new line
study advocated a new line should be built and said that the strongest
and best business case was made by making this new line capable
of carrying high-speed trains. Likewise DfT's consultation document
concludes that conventional speed lines would not offer the same
value for money as high speed rail and would not be significantly
cheaper to construct and operate.
11. Passenger Focus agrees with the conclusions
regarding the need for a new line, not least given the difficulties
of modernising an existing line. Passengers know from hard earned
experience that this will just mean a decade of disruption and
engineering possessions while, for its part, the industry will
lose valuable revenue at weekends and Bank Holidays. Virgin, for
instance, has reported significant growth in demand in weekend
travel since modernisation work ceased. The question of speed
is, as mentioned, less of an issue for us and we must be guided
by the detailed analysis provided by the experts which indicates
that the best all round business case is achieved by building
the new route with high speed capabilities.
CAPTURING THE
PASSENGER BENEFITS
12. A new railway line also provides a once-in-a-generation
chance to improve services—not just in terms of additional
capacity in its own right but by rationalising services on existing
routes. Passenger Focus believes that this aspect has not always
come across in the debate on the merits of the proposed High Speed
line—the perception being that unless it stops in "my
area" it brings no benefit whereas in fact it may allow the
existing conventional line to provide a better all round service
(eg in terms of greater regional or local connectivity). We believe,
however, that any debate on what to do with capacity released
on conventional lines must be based on what passengers want from
their railway. We are keen that these questions are explored further
and will be working with Network Rail and the DfT on research
designed to establish passengers' priorities.
13. We have also consistently argued that any
new line must not divert funding and attention from "today's"
railway. Getting a seat can already pose a problem for many passengers
travelling during peak times on busy lines. Recent announcements
on new trains and improved infrastructure are very welcome and
it is important that these be introduced as quickly and efficiently
as possible. Longer term it will be important to ensure that spending
on the new line does not squeeze out additional investment in
the rest of the network.
DEMAND MANAGEMENT
14. The Transport Committee asks about the pros
and cons of managing demand for rail travel through price rather
than supply. There are many within the rail industry who argue
that the best way of boosting revenue from fares is to simply
put them up; and that removing fare regulation and moving to airline
style pricing models allows better utilisation of capacity (particularly
during the "shoulder peak" period). We believe this
misses two fundamental issues: rail passengers are often "captive
consumers" and railways are not airlines.
15. There are a number of groups for whom the
train is effectively a monopoly service. People travelling into
central London often have no practical option but to take the
train because some parking restrictions and congestion in London
make it extremely difficult to drive. There are many people (eg
elderly people) who might feel unable to drive longer distances
and so the train is their only practical option. Similarly many
have no access to a car, often because they cannot afford the
fixed costs of owning a car.
16. The presence of many consumers unable to
respond to by switching supplier (constrained consumers) means
that train companies can maximise their profits by setting their
fares at a higher level than if the market consisted only of consumers
with other options. Where competition within an industry is insufficient
to control price then it is important that the market is regulated
to stop captive consumers being exploited.
17. In a truly competitive market, new companies
can enter a market and compete with existing suppliers, providing
a brake on existing suppliers' ability to increase prices. In
the case of rail, it is rare for new suppliers to enter the market—on
most routes the train company is a monopoly provider of rail services.
Sometimes it is argued that road is an adequate competitor. However
on many longer distance flows, rail is substantially quicker so
the train company only faces competition from an inferior product.
So this is not a market where supply can expand to meet demand.
18. In addition research by Passenger Focus in
2009[108]
showed that Great Britain benefits from some of the most frequent
services in Europe. The benefits of this are lost if you are tied
to a specific train. Turn-up-and-go frequencies do not align themselves
well to airline style book-ahead restrictions. Not everyone is
able, or wants, to plan their precise train journey weeks or days
in advance.
19. Another element identified by the research
was the high price passengers pay for flexibility in their travel
plans. Our European comparison showed that long distance travel
in Britain can be cheaper than anywhere else, but in return passengers
have zero flexibility—the ticket is for one train, and one
train only. At the other end of the spectrum, the price of complete
flexibility is very high compared with other countries. The price
of flexibility is high—up to 10 times higher than the cheapest
"one train only" ticket on some routes.
20. Flexibility was also an issue raised in research[109]
among business passengers. The high price of flexibility within
the ticketing structure, for example to allow for a meeting that
overruns by 30 minutes, was cited as a particular problem for
businesses.
May 2011
103 Passenger Focus is the operating name of the Rail
Passengers Council. Back
104
Rail Passengers' Priorities for Improvements, Passenger Focus,
April 2007. Back
105
Meeting the capacity challenge: The case for new lines. Network
Rail
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20Programme/5886_NewLineStudy_synopsis.pdf Back
106
West Coast Route Utilisation Strategy consultation. Network Rail.
2010. Back
107
High Speed Rail : Investing in Britain's Future. DfT. February
2011. Back
108
Fares and Ticketing Study. Passenger Focus. 2009. Back
109
Employers' business travel needs from rail. Passenger Focus. February
2009. Back
| 
