Posted 9th November 2010 | 12 Comments
Peak time rail demand must be dampened, say MPs
THE Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons has warned that future increases in demand cannot be met indefinitely by longer trains, and is calling for peak time demand to be controlled by yield management. It is also very critical of Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the ORR.
In a new report published this morning, called ‘Increasing passenger rail capacity’, the Committee says that the Office of Rail Regulation has demonstrated a ‘lack of urgency and effectiveness’ in taking action over Network Rail’s costs.
It says the National Audit Office should be supervising Network Rail expenditure, having heard in evidence from the ORR that NR has ‘an expensive approach’. It gave the example of platform extensions, which it said could have been 25 per cent cheaper had modular construction been used.
The Committee is concerned that the Department for Transport is missing its targets on dealing with rail overcrowding, and that the DfT is wrong when it maintains that overcrowding depends on the level of public subsidy, when it could be reduced by better control of costs.
The Committee is also not convinced that there is sufficient information about where overcrowding is at its worst, and wants all new trains to be fitted with automatic passenger counters.
It says future franchise contracts should require obligations on operators to deal with future overcrowding themselves, and not rely on the DfT to enlarge the fleet or arrange platform extensions.
Committee chair Margaret Hodge said: “The Department for Transport’s latest plans show that all the relevant targets for increasing the number of passenger places on trains during the morning peak by 2014 will be missed. This Committee is concerned that, for commuters, the already unacceptable levels of overcrowding will simply get worse and ever more intolerable.
“At present there is no incentive for the rail industry to supply extra capacity without additional public subsidy. The Department should for future franchises require operators to take measures themselves to avoid overcrowding and to meet the costs of doing so.
“The mindset in the rail industry that believes that improvements can be achieved only with extra subsidy must change. All those involved should seek greater efficiency so that resources can be released to fund improvements. With serious cuts in public spending now agreed, it is imperative that the rail industry become more efficient – or the passenger will pay.
“The Committee also expressed concern that the regulator, who had been in place for more than a decade, had not succeeded in getting a grip on the railway industry’s efficiency. The Committee felt that the present Government’s arrangements did not provide effective scrutiny.”
Early reaction has included comments from transport minister Theresa Villiers, who said she accepted that the criticisms were serious, but blamed the policies of the previous government for the present problems.
The chief executive of Passenger Focus Anthony Smith said, “We welcome the importance this report places on getting a seat. Overcrowding is only going to get worse as numbers are already back up to pre-recession levels and are expected to rise. We need substantial long-term investment as soon as possible to provide longer and more frequent trains to help reduce crowding.
“Train companies’ franchise agreements state that services need to be planned so that passengers ought not to stand for more than 20 minutes. Our research shows that it is passengers’ fourth highest priority for improvement, but value for money still remains the most important issue.”
Michael Roberts, the chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies, pointed out that ‘only three or four per cent’ of farebox revenue is retained by train operators.
A spokesman for ATOC added: “Demand for rail travel has bounced back strongly since the recession and is expected to double over the next few decades. The delay in tackling capacity has coincided with the growing involvement of civil servants in buying new trains. The best way to get value for money and ensure extra capacity is delivered when and where it is needed would be to return to a situation where train operators take a greater role in ordering new rolling stock.”
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Rob, Derby, UK
If people need new trains we'll build them, but we need an order from someone!
Here in Derby we have been waiting for a decision from the DoT on Thameslink for over a year.
Other franchises won't buy as their franchise will expire before Delivery.
The DoT spent over 20 million on the IEP and saw nothing for it.
It's complete chaos, the government need to buck up!
Jessika, Swansea
Regarding doubledeck trains needing bridges to be raised (and tunnels rebored), surely a cheaper option might be to instead lower the track under the bridges/tunnels? A slab track (althou possibly ballast covered for sound dampening) could be installed acting simultaneously as a underpining foundation for the existing structure. Additionally, using multiple construction teams simultaneously due block occupations, numerous bridges on a stretch could be upgraded in the same time it would take to do one.
Of course this isn't a catch-all solution; many footbridges just need jacking up and extension pieces added underneath, and with some tunnels it may make more sense to dig new parrallel ones, then rebore the old ones (or mothball them with that as an option), thus getting future-proofed capacity in terms of removing bottlenecks to quading, while having near zero disruption, but if one forgos innovative thinking and just jumps for "demolish the lot and start again" then why are we even bothering, let alone worrying about waste in the process?
Andrew Wilkins, Witney, Oxfordshire
What a load of nonsense these MPs say. How do you reduce peak demand when so many people have to travel at peak. Here in Oxfordshire the morning peak already lasts over 3 hours having doubled over the past 30 years. Most employers have introduced flexible working hours, some permit work from home but the growth in travelling workers far exceeds these influences on travel patterns. The only alternative is for commuters to go back to using their cars to reduce peak time demand on rail services. There are many immigrants now using the trains around here. Part of this extra demand is the result of excessive immigration allowed by government over the last 10 years and more.
Greg Tingey, London, England
Oh so there's more demand for it, so MP's think it should be strangled of!
Insanity.
How about re-building/re-widening/re-opening some of the insane Marples (Beeching) closures and restrictions?
Lorentz, London
I agree with Bill Dickson; this committe has an over rated opinion of itself. A lot of their comments are aimed at their own constituencies, not about national rail transport issues. They seem to forget that yeild management is not in place and although it has had some effect, it has not be significant.
Only investment to substantially improve capacity at key locations (all the necessary data is available in RUSes etc) will address the issue.
Paul Scott, Portsmouth, Hampshire
Most of the railway's problems started with the Conservative's bothched privatisation under John Major. Remember British Rail was one of the most efficient railways in Europe. The coalition Government wont be much help as they are only good at cutting services. In fact the Liberals before the election even proposed reopening railways as happens successfully in Wales and Scotland. As with so many Liberal policies that went out the door when they obtained power. The answer lies in fewer companies with longer franchises and being responsible for the track they use. Also reopening some rail lines because people do want to use trains. It would be a vote winner though few politicians seem to realise this.
Andrew, Swindon, UK
It's a bit rich calling for peak time rail passenger demand to be dampened, when no such call is made for similar action on the nation's motorways and trunk roads. Imagine what peak time road tolling could do to get the nation moving (at different times to each other!).
Sam Smith, Royston, Great Britain
What's require is double decker trains (changes to the infrastructure would prove to be eye-wateringly expensive) or the government could force or persuade business to adopt flexitime to spread rush hour over a longer period and ease the over crowding problem and make earlier and later trains higher revenue earners.
Joe Grey, Folkestone, UK
Until demand can be spread more evenly it is always going to be difficult to justify providing extra stock: how do you produce a sensible business case when a £1m+ carriage is only needed for a 30 minute journey in the morning and one in the evening?
Using smartcards and differential pricing to encourage passengers to ask themselves 'can I travel an hour earlier/later once a week' may have a big impact. Employers should try and be more flexible with working hours where this is possible, and ditto with home-working on at least a part-time basis. Are more imaginative ways of encouraging peak spreading? Substantially faster shoulder services? This is obviously not often practical, but the all-stations early morning trains don't encourage people to use them unless thy have to.
What about some real blue-sky thinking? - free early morning breakfast bars at the city terminals - free or much reduced early moring tube/bus/tram fares for train commuters - only allowing commerical property development in city centres if it's accompanied by residential accommodation nearby?
With regard to improving capacity, train design has been improved with recent inner-suburban stock, allowing a greater 'practical capacity' and reducing station dwell times so that track capacity can be increased, but there are still plenty of examples of unsuitable stock. Pacers are the obvious ones, and I suspect that for a given passenger density a Pacer feels a lot more crowded than the new Lorol EMUs.
Roland Ridden, London, UK
As a commuter on the Brighton Line there's no doubt overcrowding is on the increase. Whilst longer trains will assist, for little or no cost improvements could be gained by smarter thinking. For example "extending" the Gatwick Express to Brighton has achieved little. Many trains now simply run to London Victoria half full which is an expensive way to move air! Despite the so called extra capacity nothing extra was provided to provide extra capacity to London Bridge and beyond where real improvements are still required. There are also still too many services which are less than 12 coaches, with some being a ridiculous four coaches which are "rammed" long before getting near to London.
Londonman, London, Uk
Immediate action is needed to introduce double decker trains on the busiest routes. This will mean raising bridges but this could be done given the political will . Perhaps a special National Lotttery fund or emergency Government Bond scheme similar to wartime savings could be introduced and individual sections of line targeted . I'm sure many people would buy into this if some action resulted . all we have right now is blather from the rail companies .
Bill Dickson, Millom, UK
The Public Accounts Committee have a very naive view of overcrowding by suggesting that passengers be forced off the busy trains. This is like saying that, in order to optimise assets, half of the House of Commons should attend on alternate months with the remainder filling in between to save on the price of replacement chairs. The nature of employment is still such that most people have start and finish times dictated by their "customers" and interactions depend on both parties being present at the same time. If the trains are running empty during the day, why can cleaning and other minor maintenance be carried out during the day saving the cost of anti-social night shifts for some staff and making for a safer working environment. If trains cannot be lengthened is it, perhaps, time for a rolling programme of gauge clearance in order to enable the use of double-deck stock which can be purchased "off the shelf" from several European manufacturers?