What should be the purpose of Passenger Rail Franchising?

  Passenger Rail Franchises should be designed to meet the needs of the communities, which the railway serves, within the English regions.

  The Department needs and must commission a public service that meets the need of the travelling public, for example to serve travel to work areas, access to health services, education and higher education, leisure and good quality food shopping. The service must be of sufficiently high quality to provide an alternative to those travelling by car in view of policies for modal shift, reduction of congestion on the roads, and sustainable travel.

  The franchise must and should fit within the Regional Spatial and Economic strategies. Account should also be taken of areas which are designated City Regions such as: Leeds, Greater Manchester, Greater Bristol, Greater Nottingham, Stoke on Trent, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Greater Plymouth (including parts of Cornwall) Portsmouth And Southampton.

How well does the process for awarding franchising work?

  The process is complex, and much of it appears to go on without openness to the public gaze. In the many English regions, many stakeholders got the impression that much was taking place behind closed doors and the intention to make fairly drastic cuts in local and inter-urban services was not made explicit until it was almost too late. Certainly in the South West it was unclear what briefing was delivered to the DfT regarding the desirability of cuts to services and reduction in the length of trains or changes to stopping patterns. It would have been useful if GOSW could have had discussions with stakeholders much earlier on in the process so that they could have communicated current government policy and spending on rail to such groups and organisations, and discussed where the constraints and where problems might lie. This would have enabled early feedback to the DfT regarding the true need for services and their future value.

  As it was, the process of awarding the Greater Western Franchise for example, franchise suffered from a real lack of meaningful input into the decision making process on timetable specification, service quality awarding and service provision.

  We feel that the Department for Transport failed to do their homework when it came to the future demands of the South West Regional Spatial Strategy, the expansion of Bristol, Plymouth and Exeter, and the wider needs of communities, passengers, local authorities and the SW RDA within the contract specification. Much of the liaison work was therefore left to groups such as Transport 2000 and the South West Passenger Transport Users' Forum (SWPTUF) who had to put in a great deal of extra work as a result.

  One of the more curious decisions was the reduction of services and the length of trains between Portsmouth—Southampton—Salisbury—Westbury—Bath—Bristol—Newport and Cardiff. These cuts fly directly in the face of the Bristol-Bath to South Coast Study which actually recommended in 2003 that trains were made longer and much more frequent. The decision to withdraw three car units and then to replace these by two car units resulting in 1,000 less seats at peak times into Greater Bristol is extraordinary in its own right. But to impose cuts on the whole corridor from Bristol to Southampton and Portsmouth when this is one of the fastest growing parts of the UK is surely nothing short of foolhardy. With trains already bursting at the seams and passengers often left stranded on the platform at Bath unable to board, how were the DfT briefed that it was reasonable to cut back rail services?

  The loss of services on the Exeter-Plymouth corridor, serving the towns of Totnes and Ivy Bridge is also unexpected. This service is going from 12 trains per day down to only three in each direction, even though it serves Plymouth, which again is an area of economic and housing growth. Other examples of cuts in the new franchise appear in Cornwall, Wiltshire, and so on. We feel that there was little meaningful discussion as to the rationale behind decisions.

  Outside of the South West, we regret very much the loss of Stoke on Trent local services, to locations such as the County Town of Stafford, Wedgwood, Barlaston, Stone and loss of both service and station at Etruria. The recent decision by DFT rail to withdraw peak services from Longton & Longport, leaving commuters without a train services, and no alternative provision owing to lack of local knowledge and input by local transport authorities and passenger groups.

  We regret very much the loss of the Regional Rail Passenger Committees as there is now a large gap in the network for passenger representation.

  Rolling stock has been an issue in the South West, and the lack of it has constrained services quite unreasonably. Contrast to Wales, where the Welsh Assembly Government, to which the franchise has devolved to Transport for Wales and operated by Arriva trains Wales, has a well-focused approach involving the Transport Minister, Andrew Davies with intervention directly by Welsh Assembly Transport Civil Servants in managing Arriva trains Wales. This has resulted in the recent change of Managing director and leading to a more focused approach on capacity to meet the needs of the Welsh Valley line services. This has lead to the hiring of additional rolling stock to meet needs.

  In summary then, we feel that the awarding of franchises do not take into account the needs of the communities which the railways are supposed to serve and the Government economic policies within the English regions, spatial plans and regional economic strategies. It would be better if the franchises were co signed by Regional Development Agencies, Regional Assemblies, Passenger Transport Executives (PTE's) or Regional Transport boards (Transport boards need to be created in the English Regions) Which will understand the role of Public Transport provision in the City regions. They should also be able to specify bus and ferry services also those of light rail to ensure a seamless journey. (This is the situation in Western Europe, which is taken for granted)

Are franchise contracts the right size, type and length?

  We feel that the franchise agreements are too short and this does not allow for investment levels to go beyond the basic management contract of refurbishing and managing train services, painting, basic maintenance and improvement to rail stations. A 20-year franchise period would at least allow the private sector to invest new rolling stock and general facility improvements jointly with local and regional Government. On the other hand, it may instead be that a pure management contract is the order of the day, which involves cleaning the stock, operating the service and providing the catering contracts, in return for a capitation fee where the risk remains with the treasury to provide the capital funding and resourcing to the level of public service the community requires.

Do we need more competition and vertical Integration?

  All services should be specified by Regional and National Government, taking account of government policies on transport, global warming, social inclusion, regional planning, regeneration of major cities and so on.

  The idea of non specified private entrepreneurial railway operations which do not make a contribution to infrastructure costs or social need should not be allowed. Exceptions to the rule could be the Hull Trains situation providing economic development between Hull and London, and the proposed Wrexham to London service where support and direction is coming from the Welsh Assembly Government. We would not support a pure open access operation which undermines the viability of existing inter city operations. We have major concerns regarding the Grand central operation between Sunderland and London and would prefer all services to be clearly specified and procured by Government.

  The franchise should not be a way of generating income out of vital public services. The money clearly needs to be reinvested into meeting the needs of the communities to provide revenue support to local regional and suburban and metro services. For example, Great Western should have provided local services between Exeter, Bristol and Plymouth, Swindon, Sothampton and Portsmouth-Cardiff routes. The maintaining of the Swansea-Penzance service should likewise mean that Virgin Stagecoach should provide the necessary services in the Stoke area.

  We would support vertical integration of integrated franchises based on the eight large regional companies in England, Scotland and Wales, with access rights and running powers across the whole rail network. The Government as Network rail should remain the owner with local networks going self contained transport authorities or boards.

  Community railways could be vertically integrated companies and in places like the rest of Europe be integrated with the local regional authority to provide local bus, rail, ferry and tram services.

  Security and catering must be specified in the franchise. The British Transport Police should remain as a separate authority and should not have its offices and resources built into the franchise arrangements. It should be the authority that specifies the travel safe officers, community support officers, rail enforcement officers and security officers these too should be integrated across bus, rail ferry and trains.

  Specification to franchise should also include links to ferries such as Isles of Man, Wight, Scilly Isles Scottish Highlands & Islands and the Channel Islands, and also bus/rail integration including tickets, service specification, interchanges.

  Station should remain under the control of network rail and should not be constantly painted in corporate liveries.

22 June 2006