HADRAG



HADRAG:The Halifax & District Rail Action Group on the Calder Valley LineJ Stephen Waring, Chair, 20 Manor Drive, HALIFAX, West Yorkshire HX3 0DU01422 350341 (home/voicemail); 07804 879994 (mobile) js.waring@hotmail.co.ukInitial submission to Williams Rail ReviewJanuary 2019SUMMARY:HADRAG is a long-established and respected campaigning rail users’ group with a strong environmental focus. We seek modal transfer from road to rail to reduce pollution and congestion, and to combat climate change.There should not be a conflict between the interest of passengers and taxpayers. Taxpayers benefit from the existence of a modern and effective rail network through its ability to reduce congestion, taking people to work and delivery goods. Railways directly reduce the number of vehicles on the roads. Government financial support for rail should be seen not as subsidy but as social payment for a public service with wide social, economic and environmental benefits. Because of that, the possibilities of rail travel should be made attractive to as great a percentage of the population as possible.Priorities should be:To re-integrate a railway that is fragmented in its structure. Removal of fragmentation to put functions under one roof can reduce costs and promote effective, agile decision making. Train-operation and system operation (including timetable planning) need to be unified. For example, in the North of England a single company should be responsible for internal services, planning service patterns, devising the timetable and delivery of the service. The present system for example of separate train-planning establishments within Northern and TransPennine Express TOCs and centrally within Network Rail does not make sense.Devolved structures to promote effective and prompt decisions as close as possible to the point of service delivery, responsive to passengers’ needs. Regional “track+train” operating companies may be in the private sector or may be socially or cooperatively owned. (HADRAG maintains a neutral position on the political question of private versus public ownership.) Expansion of the rail network with a fares system that encourages increasing use for an increasing range of purposes – culture, leisure and community as well as work and business. HADRAG initial submission to Williams Rail Review, January 20191 About us – background to this submissionThe Halifax and District Rail Action Group (HADRAG) is a campaigning rail users’ group centred on Halifax, Sowerby Bridge and Brighouse in Calderdale, West Yorkshire. We were founded in 1985 when the focus was on reopening of the lines through Brighouse between Halifax and Huddersfield. Brighouse station opened in May 2000, and HADRAG has continued to campaign for improvements to train services linking our area with the wider surroundings via Calder Valley Line and its branches. Our activity has been continuous over 34 years and through a realistic, reasonable but nonetheless ambitious approach we have gained the respect of rail industry, local and regional bodies. HADRAG has a strong environmental focus. We seek rail improvement and modal shift from road to rail in the interests of reducing road congestion, improving the local environment, and combatting climate change. Jointly with three other campaigning rail user groups and two branches of the national group Railfuture, we are founders of the Electric Railway Charter which calls for progressive transformation of railways across the North of England into a truly sustainable transport mode. Obviously 2018 was an extraordinary year, during which groups like ours were continuously occupied in a way that was unprecedented. Landmark events for us were:the announcement by Northern Rail in January that planned enhancements in May (2018) were likely to be delayed. At that point we were already engaging with the train company about issues with the proposed services on the Calder Valley Line (CVL); the chaotic May timetable change, and the following breakdown of reliability and punctuality which are still at an acceptable level;unsatisfactory changes made to the timetable in December 2019. It is still not clear when problematic aspects of the CVL timetable introduced in May will be improved, nor when franchise commitments on service improvements will be implemented and how they will affect users of some of our stations. We make the following observations in the light of the situation described above. These are our initial thoughts discussed in the short time since the call for evidence by the Williams Rail Review, and submitted for the requested 18 January date as a contribution to the review’s initial listening process. We many wish to submit further evidence with more detail before the 31 May final deadline. Our observations are primarily about passenger train services and how the delivery of these can be better organised to promote greater use of the passenger railway. 2 Initial observations, January 2018With reference to the six principles in the review terms of reference and the three whole-industry issues:2.1 Reaction to the six principles (a)-(f)Commercial models for the provision of rail services that prioritise the interests of passengers and taxpayers.Most passengers are taxpayers. Many taxpayers are also passengers. A key objective should be to make rail more attractive as a natural travel mode to an increasing percentage of the population. Whether they travel by train or not, ALL TAXPAYERS GAIN FROM THE NATION HAVING AN EFFECTIVE RAILWAY as part of the wider transport system. Rail already delivers, and must increasingly deliver, an improved environment, reducing congestion, promoting good growth. Passenger trains taking people to work mean thousands fewer cars on the road. Rail freight similarly reduces the number of lorries – and can do more. Taxes are paid by train companies and employees, all of whom contribute to the national ernment support for rail should must be seen as investment and a desirable payment by society for a valuable service that operates in everyone’s interests. It should not be criticised as “subsidy”. (It would be unusual to describe government support for roads, schools or the NHS as “subsidy”.)That is not to say that there should be an unlimited “pot” or that costs should not be kept under control. Rail receives a high level of government support, often pointed to by those who would argue for ever-increasing spending on roads at the expense of rail. Without government support (which includes investment and maintenance of rail infrastructure which is a national asset) rail would not survive. A return to mass closures would be politically unpopular as well as (on evidence of past attempts from the early 1950s through Beeching to Serpell) counter-productive in terms of financial performance for a given size of network. Hence, we make the argument that rail travel should be made attractive for as much of the population as possible. Rail can offer a sustainable, environmentally sound alternative to congested roads not just in terms of travel for work, but also to become an increasingly natural choice for personal, leisure and cultural purposes, playing the fullest role in dealing with local and global environmental challenges. This means not only having a reliable and comprehensive service but also one that is affordable – and perceived as such so it increasingly becomes first-choice mode of travel. The present commercial model for franchised passenger services has obvious unintended consequences – as seen with recent and ongoing issues in the current Northern and TransPennine Express franchises. Bidders are encouraged to offer large benefits, and will naturally do so with the minimum resources. Thus, there is a lack spare capacity to deal with unexpected circumstances. This ranges from issues such as inadequate “slack” or layover times for trains and crews between journeys, to lack of preparedness for foreseeable problems such as infrastructure projects not being delivered on time (e.g. Bolton line and Blackpool electrification schemes). TOCs are not encouraged to expect the unexpected. If the railway is to work effectively it must be adequately resourced to deliver a reliable service.The railway must offer a service that is not only reliable but grows and attracts more passengers (and freight customers), justifying the level of financial support provided by society through government. We should perhaps be seeking not to reduce the level of support but rather to increase usefulness and hence value for money. Given the previous points, not only local and regional but also inter-city services should operate to a publicly/socially determined pattern as they do now. A single inter-city operator could provide the national essential service. This could become a nationally recognised brand as it was when “InterCity” was introduced by British Rail in the 1960s.Open-access services should be retained to fill commercially identified gaps reaching the parts that franchised operations decline to reach. The Grand Central open-access operation linking West Yorkshire towns with London is a major success and its regular passenger feel a degree “ownership”. The idea of all inter-city services becoming open access or of budget-airline style operations should be rejected. The railway is a national network, fundamentally different in physical and commercial terms from the air-travel system. Flexible travel should be the aim for long-distance as well as local operations. The idea of encouraging flexibility, with attractive fares, is essential to the principle of getting more people to use rail, and value for money for the taxpayer as well as the fare-payer.Rail industry structures that promote clear accountability and effective joint-working for both passengers and the freight sector Major problems with present industry structure include:fragmentation coupled with lack of effective devolutionIn the context of May 2018 and continuing timetable issues in the North, two principle trains operators, Northern by Arriva and TransPennine Express operate almost all regional and local services. Both have their own train planners. Both must bid to Network Rail whose centrally (nationally) based train planning office finalises a timetable. This is three companies doing the job of one and the one that appears to make the final decisions the “system operator” is remote from the local and regional situation. We suggest there should be one organisation in the North of England responsible for designing a strategic passenger train service pattern, and then producing a timetable which optimises the needs of the train service specification. This could be a private company with a long contract and clearly defined outputs, or it could be a socially owned enterprise supervised by Transport for the North. lack of overall leadershipinability to make quick decisions or implement changes responding to perceived issues, gaps or demandsremote decision making on matters of local or regional concern, for example at Network Rail’s or DfT compounds inability to implement quick solutions.Need for real devolution and integration (as above).A system that is financially sustainable and able to address long-term cost pressures Long term planning is not encouraged by short-term franchises!Innovative “smart” approaches are needed to reduce costs of essential projects such as electrification.Unit costs should be reduced over time by increasing use of under-used routes. In time this should mean longer trains with greater capacity, increased service frequency on lightly used routes, and new services creating new journey opportunities opening up rail travel as a possibility for more people. This is surely about economies of scale. A railway that is able to offer good value fares for passengers, while keeping costs down for taxpayers Partly addressed by previous point.The fares system must encourage increased use on a walk-up basis, as a general principle, but with a secondary aim of filling off-peak services. Despite the existence of some very cheap advance-purchase fares (though often not on regional routes), rail is often perceived by the general population as an unaffordable means of travel. Again, this is about making rail the natural mode of travel, maximising the benefit to the population of taxpayer support. Aim should be simpler fares, progressively reducing in real terms over time. There needs to be a consistent system across all operators. Some of the highest fares need to be reduced. In recent years above-inflation fares rises have been justified based on future service improvements. But the improvements have been a long time in coming and it is no wonder that passenger view such justification with scepticism. Costs will be reduced by reducing the structural complexity of the railway.Improved industrial relations, to reduce disruption and improve reliability for passengers YES. There should be common standards throughout the industry particularly on safety-related issues such as the role of guards/conductors on trains. These standards should be negotiated with staff through their representatives. HADRAG does not take sides in the present dispute that is blighting services operated by the Northern TOC. A rail sector with the agility to respond to future challenges and opportunities… YES. Based on devolved and integrated management responsive to local and regional demands. The removal of fragmented structures is key to this. 2.2 Reaction to the three whole-industry issues (g)-(i)“The review will look at the whole rail industry, including……increasing integration between track and train” Essential. Our arguments in 2.1 (a) and (b) above are relevant. Perhaps the main thing here is to integrate train and system operation. Is there any reason, for example, why the principal train operator in an area should not operate all signalling and control functions? Train planning/timetabling needs to be brought “under one roof” on a developed, regional basis. There would have to be rules (as now, but perhaps strengthened) to ensure fair treatment of other operators (including open-access and freight) operating over the same regional tracks. Whether the combined train-plus-system operators should also be responsible for track maintenance is a question for consideration; this might continue to be a function of Network Rail “routes”. In contemplating any change, it is vital to be mindful of the dangers of outsourcing maintenance; the lessons of the Railtrack era must be recalled. Special purpose organisations might be set up to pursue specific development objectives, for example a rolling programme of electrification nationally or across a region where expertise is developed and retained through continuity. The above would still require a national “guiding mind”, but this could be quite a small office. It would be responsible for coordinating the various functions above, as well as for strategic planning and timetabling of inter-city and other services that cross regional boundaries. It would perhaps own National Rail (British Railways?) and InterCity brands. …how to improve transport services across UK regions and devolved nations, including exploring options for devolution of rail powers” Current examples with some degree of operational devolution and some integration of train and track include the ScotRail Alliance, Transport for Wales and the Merseyrail electric network. In the North of England Transport for the North could develop along similar lines with the public body overseeing the train-plus-system operator. The operator could be private sector or a socially-owned or cooperative enterprise. (HADRAG takes a neutral position on the political question of continued privatised operation versus “renationalisation” whatever form that might take.) Whatever the form of ownership referred to above the boards of operating companies and supervisory bodies might include passenger and employee representatives.…improving value for money for passengers and taxpayers” As implied in earlier comments, if we are to bring about modal transfer from less to more sustainable forms of transport (particularly in environmental terms) rail, like other forms of transport, is likely to require continuing government support in terms of both operational subsidy and investment, though investment might also be brought in by partnership with the private sector. If increased government support is required to bring about a rail sector that delivers more in terms of the totality of transport that should not be seen as a bad thing, but the aim should be to increase value delivered per unit cost.Unit costs should be reduced by reducing the number of bodies involved in running the railway. An example would be the integration of two train operators plus system operation across the North of England – a step beyond the Shaw proposal that Network Rail should have a North of England route (which Net R declined to implement)To repeat a key point: Value for money for the taxpayer is best pursued by increasing the percentage of the population that use rail. This should be done by improving services, making them more comprehensive and highly reliable so that rail becomes attractive to more and more people for more and more purposes. The aim should be to progressively reduce fares in real terms. This should be done in part by increasing efficiency or effectiveness to deliver more per unit cost. But if rail services are to be attractive, resources must be sufficient to allow robust operation with adequate allowance for unexpected events. J Stephen Waring18 January 2019 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download