|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Its A Funny Old World (Read 1823 times)
|
|
Lee
|
Originally posted on 15 August 2006: A "Where do we stand" topic, posted one year after this site was started.How is it that First can make the money to pay the government 1 billion pounds over 10 years, as they've said they'll do under the Great Western franchise? Read the announcements carefully, and you'll see that they're actually receiving a subsidy for the first few years, which they then pay back and more towards the end of the contract. The award was announced in 2005. Where will things stand by 2010 and 2015? How can the operator (any operator) achieve those figures? Traffic levels ARE on 'the up', almost across the board, by rail. Nothing so spectacular as the 35% compund rise we've seen on the transWilts, but on 'the up' never the less. But the system's also creaking at the seams; 2 coach trains run on the Portsmouth to Cardiff service are inadequate, and breakdowns / substitutions on Weymouth, Severn Beach and other services - see here for further examples. I have been told that even if the 1 coach 153 train was packed every time it ran through Melksham, it would not make the money the operator needs - and that was from one of the operator's senior managers, who was also saying that the same thing applies to "even Exmouth" which is their flagship branch. So - it can't be done by traffic growth on the current setup. How csan the balance sheet be positively influenced? a) By raising fares. 16p per mile, Melksham to Swindon, 50p per mile, Chippenham to London. If you could get away with trebbling fares, you might have a better balance sheet. Now ... Melksham to Swindon Return COULD rise on a good service level to 9.50 return and I think most people would be happy to pay for the improvement. But to 21.00 return?? b) By cutting out all of the services on which a premium fare could not be charged / all the services that are run with shorter trains, with intermediate stops. This gives you a network (all expresses) in our area: 1) Cardiff, Newport, Filton Abbey Wood, Bristol, Bath, Bradford, Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster, Salisbury, Romsey, Southampton, Fareham, Portsmouth. Run every 2 hours with a unit such as an Adalente or a Voyager, you'll be back very much to the structure of my youth when there was a handful of Swansea to Portsmouth trains each day2) London, Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Stroud, Gloucester, Cheltenham Again, every 2 hours3) London, Reading, Didcot (alternate trains), Swindon, Chippenham, Bath, Bristol every 30 minutes possibly extended to Weston-super-mare and Taunton every 2 hours unless the cross-country service continues to run South of Bristil 4) London, Reading, Newbury, Pewsey, Westbury, Castle Cary, Taunton, Tiverton, Exeter, Newton Abbott, Plymouth, major stations only to Penzance every hour to Plymouth, every 2 hours beyond5) London, Reading, Swindon, Bristol Parkway, Newport, major stations to Swansea every 30 minutes to Cardiff, every hour beyondThese are all 50p / mile services; super-savers have gone already together with a lot of other economic ticketing options, and one of my influential contacts the other day described the new single book-ahead options as "unworkable" for him as he can't plan his timing to be sure of catching the appropriate train. So on average people will be paying closer to the full fare that has been historically the case. You'll note that my model includes no train service at all for Dilton March, Bruton, Frome, Yeovil Town, Chetnole, Yetminster, Maiden Newton, Dorchester West, Melksham, Avoncliff, Freshford, Avoncliff, Oldfield Park, Keynasham, Patchway, Pilning, Stonehouse, Kemble, nor for all staions from Stapleton Road to Severn Beach inclusive. (Further afield, it only serves Cheltenham, Gloucester, Bristol (2 stations), Weston and Taunton on that route, and it excludes branch services to Exmouth, Barnstaple, Paington, Gunnislake, Looe, Newquay, Falmouth, St Ives.) Existing passengers who require public transport from the places that my model does not serve? Why - there's so often a bus run by the same operator close at hand. And that operator is investing in buses, with DfT approval / grants, to parallel routes such as Bath to Bristol (covering Oldfield Park and Keynsham). The business plan just could be to have this "premier express" only train network running by 2010, and to cream in the money from it until 2015. With a continental style, high performance bus feeder interchange system integrated with it, with freed-up rail capacity being used to get freight off the roads, wouldn't that be great? Great theory - but I really fear for a half-baked measure that would give the operator all the profit, at the expense of an overall much worse service for those of us who have to travel. If "The Twigg and Forster plan" is indeed to turn the railways into an intercity and freight network with good integrate buses - if that's the vision - the would Mr Twigg and Ms Forster please come clean and tell us? Perhaps we could then all work together for the mutual benefit of government, supplier and customer. As it is at the moment, it looks like we may have a plan that's being implemented in a secretive and underhand way, and IMHO that's very unlikely to be a visionary way forward for the future. Well its 2010 now, and here we are discussing a very similar scenario: Hi We've realised one of the biggest threats to rail is that the Department for Transport is planning to give train companies a financial incentive to cut train services. This could be really bad news. The proposal is in The Future of Rail Franchising http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/futureoffranchising/ which isn't even a formal consultation, because it's said to be only of 'technical interest' to the industry. The Government appears to be trying to sneak through this change without giving passengers - or anyone - a chance to comment. Just to clarify, we've already written our official response to this document, together with 20 other groups - I emailed you about this before. But this response covered several issues and so lots of groups weren't able to sign up to it. We think now it would make sense to build a wider coalition focussed on this one particular issue of the incentive to cut services, and the need for a proper consultation. So I'm writing to ask whether your group would be willing to sign up to the open letter below to Lord Adonis? Could you let me know by next Monday 26 April? The deadline for the consultation is the end of April so we want to get it published in one of the big newspapers before then. Sorry this is all a bit last minute, we hadn't quite realised the scale of the threat. We did a press release on this but the volcano meant we didn't get much coverage. http://www.abtn.co.uk/press-releases/1714044-train-services-be-cut-stealth-press-releaseWe think it's important to raise this before the election, so that it's not a done deal afterwards. Let me know if you need more information. Many thanks Cat Its a funny old world, isnt it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 04:49:41 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
From the Department for Transport:Independent review to get better value for money in rail asked to give early initial report Transport Secretary Philip Hammond announced today that he wants an independent review of value for money in the rail industry to report back early with its initial findings. The review by transport industry expert Sir Roy McNulty will now speed up its work so that preliminary findings are ready in time to inform Government decisions on public spending in the autumn. The scoping study for Sir Roy’s report, jointly sponsored by the Department for Transport and the Office of Rail Regulation, was published today, setting out the key issues that need to be dealt with. The scoping study says that the overall cost of running Britain’s railway has risen but income from users has not kept pace, meaning an increased call on the taxpayer. The way forward will involve not just cutting costs, the study says, but identifying how the industry can work more innovatively, finding new ways of doing things. The study has no “no go areas” and will aim to create a range of short and long-term solutions across the entire industry. Its scope has been informed by feedback from about 100 stakeholders. The study will focus on eight broad themes: industry objectives, strategy and outputs; industry leadership, planning and decision-making; interfaces, incentives and structure; revenue; asset management; supply chain management; innovation, standards and safety; and people. The review was launched last December and asked to report in March 2011, its remit to make recommendations to improve value for money on the railway to ensure future growth is sustainable. Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said: "Passengers and taxpayers will rightly ask why it is that our railways in the UK are so much more expensive than those in the rest of Europe. “Given the very significant financial constraints that we face, it is essential that we drive out inefficiencies and reduce costs. Better value for money is the only way we are going to protect train services and avoid very high rises in train fares. “This report by Sir Roy McNulty will play a key role in informing how we go about creating an efficient and modern railway fit for the 21st century that provides taxpayers with value for money.” In setting the context of its study, the review published today said: - International benchmarking carried out by ORR suggested that Network Rail is 30 to 50% less efficient in terms of maintenance and renewals expenditure than comparable European railways. - The recent HS2 study found that civil engineering costs in the UK were typically up to double those in Europe. - Franchising of trains in countries such as Germany and Sweden has reportedly led to cost reductions of between 20 to 40%, while train operating costs in Great Britain are still above their level in 1996-7. The Office of Rail Regulation’s Bill Emery said: "In recent years there has been significant growth of passenger and freight traffic on the railway, while performance has improved considerably. However, the current cost of running the railway is too high, and the burden on the taxpayer too great. "The joint ORR and DfT Value for Money study will bring together the entire rail industry to explore ways in which we can reduce these costs so that our railway can continue to grow and prosper. The study will make recommendations about how the industry can meet the challenges of the future towards achieving our vision of a railway which delivers safety, efficiency and satisfaction levels to world class standards." Leader of the independent review of value for money in the rail industry Sir Roy McNulty said: “The railway as a whole faces significant challenges in terms of costs and affordability. Finding effective responses to these challenges will not be easy in such a large and complex industry. “The study team has been encouraged by the ready co-operation we are receiving from many people within the industry, and from ORR and DfT. Our aim, with their help and support, is to chart a route to a sustainable future for rail in this country”. Notes for editors 1. The full scoping study is available on the Department for Transport website at www.dft.gov.uk and the Office of Rail Regulation website at www.rail-reg.gov.uk2. The former Secretary of State for Transport announced a study into the value for money of the railway on 9 December 2009, jointly sponsored by the Department and the Office of Rail Regulation. Today’s scoping study is the first published output. The final report is expected by the end of March 2011. 3. The study is operating within the following Terms of Reference announced by the Secretary of State for Transport in the Pre-Budget Report in December 2009: 1. To examine the overall cost structure of all elements of the railway sector and to identify options for improving value for money to passengers and the taxpayer while continuing to expand capacity as necessary and drive up passenger satisfaction. 2. In particular, to examine: - what legal, operational and cultural barriers stand in the way of efficiency improvements; - the incentives across different parts of the rail industry to generate greater efficiency; - the role of new technology, processes and working practices in fostering greater efficiency; - ways of generating more revenue, e.g. car parking, gating at stations, better utilisation of property; and - to make recommendations. 4. The study will examine the whole industry costs and revenues and their composition. In doing so, it will look at comparable industries in the UK and abroad. 5. Sir Roy McNulty was appointed by the former Secretary of State for Transport in February 2010 as Chairman to lead a special Rail Value for Money Study. 6. Sir Roy was previously Chairman of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the specialist aviation regulator, a post he held for eight years. Prior to this he was Chairman of National Air Traffic Services Limited (NATS) from May 1999 to July 2001. He is a former Chief Executive and latterly Chairman of Short Brothers plc, the Belfast-based aerospace company now part of Bombardier Inc. Previous posts include being President of the Society of British Aerospace Companies and Chairman of the former Department of Trade and Industry Aviation Committee. 7. Sir Roy was appointed as Chairman of Advantage West Midlands in May 2009 and is also Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Olympic Delivery Authority, Chairman of the Ilex Urban Regeneration Company in Northern Ireland, and a non-executive Director of Norbrook Laboratories Limited. Scoping Report - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/strategyfinance/railvaluemoneystudyscopingreport.pdfHammond Statement - http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/hammond100614ORR Press Release - http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10111Although the press releases say that an aim is to protect them, it looks like TOC's could indeed be given a financial incentive to cut train services: From City Am:Ministers ask for rail saving plan
Rail bosses could have the upper hand in deciding their own spending fate as ministers have asked the UK’s major train companies to propose cost cutting ideas when it comes to running the UK’s railways. It is understood that the idea, which could see the train companies keep half their savings, is to provide incentive amongst the rail industry to agree to contract changes, which are some of the most complicated in the world and extremely detailed. Further extreme measures could be proposed in the future, it is understood, such as returning to the British Rail model when tracks and trains were run by one company. It is thought that Liverpool’s Merseyrail could test out the scheme. However, January passenger fares could go up substantially as a result of the drive to cut costs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
From the Department for Transport:The Department for Transport will shortly begin a consultation exercise on the future of rail franchising policy. This consultation will provide industry partners with the opportunity to comment on the Government’s approach to rail franchising and whether bidders for longer franchises would be able to offer investment in improvements to trains and services. It will also allow the industry to set out its proposals for improving the efficiency and value for money of rail franchises, for both taxpayers and fare payers. I will set out further details to the House in due course.
To enable the next Greater Anglia and Essex Thameside franchises - which are currently in the process of being re-let - to fully reflect the changes resulting from this review of policy the competitions for these franchises, which were started in January 2010, are to be cancelled.
It is currently expected that a new competition for the Greater Anglia franchise will be advertised by the end of the year, after the consultation responses have been considered, with the Essex Thameside franchise following in Autumn 2011.
It is also expected that there will be some consequent changes to the procurement timescales previously published for the InterCity East Coast franchise. Rail services will continue to run as normal on all affected franchises. A Prior Information Notice (PIN) setting out the Department’s proposed future rail franchising programme will be issued in due course. Let's hope the public are invited to respond this time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
The first sign of the service cuts to come? From the Lincolnshire Echo:Railway operator backtracks on 14-train direct-to-London commuter service
Highly anticipated direct train services between Lincoln and London are to be dramatically cut before they have even begun.
Train operator East Coast is to save £9 million a year by running just one daily return service to and from King's Cross from May next year, instead of the seven originally planned.
Most passengers from Lincoln will have to travel to Newark to catch onward trains.
East Coast, owned by Directly Operated Railways, which was set up by the Government, will also be using existing engines and carriages on the direct service in and out of Lincoln.
It will not now introduce a planned additional fleet of five Adelante Class 180 trains.
Elaine Holt, chief executive of Directly Operated Railways and chairman of East Coast, said: "We had believed the proposed new Lincoln services would provide more through trains for customers from the region – and this formed an important part of the Eureka! timetable changes.
"However, given the very tough economic climate, all parts of the Government are looking to see where efficiencies can be made."
The Echo reported in January this year that East Coast was to run the seven direct services each way between Lincoln and Kings Cross from May next year.
Lincoln MP Karl McCartney said: "Having 14 services a day between Lincoln and London would have been absolutely brilliant for us and put Lincoln on the map.
"I am very disappointed with East Coast's announcement, but I am pleased there will be two services.
"East Coast has made the decision to cut the services. It is not Government cuts."
A single direct service from Lincoln will depart at 7.22am, arriving at King's Cross at 9.21am. The return leg leaves London at 7.06pm, arriving in Lincoln at 9pm.
David Harby, 59, chairman of the Lincolnshire branch of Railfuture, said members had been anticipating the risk due to tighter public spending given that the service would have needed a Government subsidy.
Mr Harby, who lives off Brant Road, Lincoln, said: "I highlighted the risk to the service during the election campaign and Karl McCartney refused to give any assurance.
"We are sorry to see the service cut, but can take comfort from the two trains a day and the extra stops at Newark that will benefit morning trips to London.
"Also the use of nine-car trains instead of four-car Adelante trains will answer concerns of overcrowding." The mood on the ground has not been helped by Lincoln MP Karl McCartney's apparent gaffe: So our newboy MP Karl McCartney says that "East Coast has made the decision to cut the services. It is not Government cuts."
That just shows how amazingly uninformed he is - and what a big mistake we made in voting for him. Perhaps he's unaware that East Coast is government-owned? Or is it just a downright lie?
Or is it simply that, unlike the previous MP, he doesn't give a toss about Lincoln and isn't bothered to put any effort into getting the vital direct rail link? On the upside, the TransWilts Community Rail Partnership has been invited to contribute to both the Rail Value For Money Review and the Future Of Rail Franchising Policy Consultation. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 03:23:21 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
From the Lincolnshire Echo:Lincoln to London rail service could be saved by another train operator
Direct train services between Lincoln and London could be saved – if a new train operator throws its hat into the ring.
As reported in the Echo, East Coast will save £9 million a year by running just one daily return service to and from King's Cross from May next year, instead of the seven originally planned.
Most passengers from Lincoln will have to travel to Newark to catch onward trains.
Passengers can currently use East Midlands Trains' much slower direct service to St Pancras, which takes two hours and 50 minutes, departing Lincoln at 7.08am and leaving London at 6.30pm.
Now, it has emerged that Grand Central is interested in taking on the direct Lincoln to London services abandoned by East Coast.
Managing director Tom Clift made the revelation at a recent meeting of Railfuture Yorkshire.
Grand Central runs the Sunderland to Kings Cross and West Riding to London services as open access services.
This is when the operator receives no taxpayer support and operates services at its own commercial risk.
It would run the Lincoln to London services in the same way.
Grand Central spokeman Rupert Brennan Brown said the company would be looking at using the paths, or slots in the timetable, that East Coast is vacating.
"As I understand it, East Coast is proposing one train in the morning and one train in the evening between Lincoln and London and four return services from London to Newark," he said.
"It is Grand Central's contention that this is not the best use of these paths and that it may be possible to serve other places by extending the trains beyond Newark.
"At the moment, we are trying to get clarity as to what the final proposed timetable is.
"There was a suggestion it would cost £9 million to run the services that have now been scaled down. We are trying to find out what opportunities there might be for us as an open access operator, which is not supported by the taxpayer."
Network Rail spokesman Rachel Lowe said timetabling decisions would be needed before a company could operate.
She said: "Various train operators, whether they be franchises or open access, will be putting bids in for paths.
"If full agreement about timetabling, given the restraints of the network, cannot be made locally, the Office of Rail Regulation will have the final say on who gets to run what services." Previous related article - http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8229953.Grand_Central_gets_backing_of_MPs/Grand Central gets backing of MPs
York-based train company Grand Central Rail has called on the Government to help it find ways of linking more towns with London after its latest expansion won support from across the country.
MPs from Workington in Cumbria, Islington in London, Glasgow and Manchester have signed a House of Commons motion backing the company’s new Bradford and Halifax to London service.
A Grand Central spokesman said: “We call upon the Department for Transport to work with us so that we can jointly identifying new routes that franchised operators are unable or unwilling to serve.” Also today from the BBC:Rail firms call for review ahead of expected cuts
Train companies want a "swift and rigorous" review of all planned rail investment ahead of expected cuts.
The Association of Train Operating Companies says it accepts the £8bn earmarked for projects may be affected by the "unprecedented situation in the public finances".
But it has asked the government for involvement in deciding which go ahead.
Projects must be assessed in terms of value for money for both passengers and taxpayers, the companies say.
The government is already carrying out reviews of orders for new rolling stock and how the train franchise system works.
But the Association of Train Operating Companies (Atoc) wants ministers to assess future investment projects at the same time.
In a letter to transport minister Theresa Villiers, Atoc says it accepts the "unprecedented situation in the public finances" warrants a review of commitments, including the £8bn due to be invested in enhancing the rail network over the next four years.
Atoc wants to work with the Department for Transport and Network Rail in reviewing infrastructure projects in time for the Spending Review in the autumn.
BBC transport correspondent Richard Scott said the move was part of the industry's bid to gain greater control over what happened with the railways.
Atoc chief executive Michael Roberts said investment in Britain's railway remained "vital" if current levels of performance and customer satisfaction were to keep pace with demand - expected to double in the next 20 years.
But he accepted public spending was under "severe pressure".
"It is our shared responsibility, across the industry and with the government, to put rail on a more stable and sustainable footing," he said.
"But the unprecedented situation in the public finances means that, on balance, a swift and rigorous review is in the best interests of taxpayers, passengers and the railway."
The letter also points out that smaller, targeted projects focusing on specific problem areas can produce benefits for passengers as well as providing good value for money.
The association argues that a more commercially minded approach and a bigger role for companies would drive down costs and make the industry more attractive to private investors. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 11:55:30 AM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
When formulating our responses to the Rail Value For Money Review and the Future Of Rail Franchising Policy Consultation , I decided to first look at exactly what it is we want from the future of rail franchising – ie What type of future rail service do we want any reformed system to deliver for us? The Network Rail Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy recommended an hourly Westbury-Swindon service, as part of an enhanced overall Greater Bristol Metro suburban rail network concept. Such a service would undoubtably have a heavy focus on out-commuting – and indeed 24% of employed Wiltshire residents currently commute to outside the county, often to higher paid professional and managerial jobs in Bath and Swindon in particular, with official DfT data showing the TransWilts corridor as one of the top 50 commuting trips into and out of Local Authority Districts in the South West, and high forecast future delays on parallel sections of the A350. An improved TransWilts service of this nature would clearly have a key role to play in providing a quicker, more relaxing, lower-carbon and lower-congestion alternative to the car for those commuters currently making such trips. Also, as Graham Ellis points out in his own analysis, taking the train on such journeys is far more conducive to a “mobile office” environment when compared to taking the car. Out-commuting will remain an important factor in the future as well, growing as the forthcoming period of austerity and slow economic growth leads people to travel further to find work as jobs are cut. However, when deciding what type of future rail service we want, it is crucial that we also take into account how society in Wiltshire as a whole is likely to change over the coming years. A good barometer of this is the Wiltshire Community Plan. One of its objectives seeks to mitigate the current and future effects of out-commuting to jobs outside the county through the generation of sufficient numbers and types of jobs and the creation of local work facilities to attract these people back to working locally. Another is to strengthen the connectivity of the county, partly through the development of low carbon transport options, especially with respect to the main commuting corridors. An improved TransWilts service has the potential to significantly contribute to this, linking as it potentially could the four largest population centres in Wiltshire, namely Salisbury, Trowbridge, Chippenham and Melksham, and also serving other sizeable towns at Warminster and Westbury. A further objective is to agree a way forward where all can contribute to achieving a major shift to sustainable transport, such as walking, cycling and the use of public transport for local trips, especially in the larger settlements of Trowbridge, Chippenham, and Salisbury. Again, an improved TransWilts service has the potential to significantly contribute to this, given that people from these locations combined make up around 32% of the total number who have so far signed up in support of an improved TransWilts service.Last but not least, tackling climate change is listed as a key priority. According to figures on the South West Observatory website, Wiltshire was the only county in the south west actually to increase its total CO2 emissions 2005-2007, the most significant increase being in West Wiltshire which had the highest per capita emissions - 27% of the county total. Once again, an improved TransWilts service has the potential to significantly contribute towards combating this. For example, comparative CO2 emissions from Trowbridge to Swindon are as follows - Car 7.4 - 14.9kg, Coach 5.1 kg, Train 3.9kg. Therefore, it is clear that future changes in Wiltshire society as a whole as they relate to the TransWilts will involve a balance of competing priorities, and any future rail service along the corridor will have to reflect this. As a result, I have selected the hourly Westbury-Swindon service recommended by the RUS as a base, with some extensions towards Warminster and Salisbury provided by utilising existing rolling stock. This would provide a step-change in terms of service provision along the entire TransWilts Salisbury-Swindon corridor, whilst also providing excellent connections for those travelling further afield to destinations such as Bath, Bristol and London. As well as this, relatively poorly served TransWilts stations such as Melksham and Dilton Marsh would see a significant increase in terms of service levels and journey opportunities. The indicative timetable is also fully compliant with Greater Bristol Metro-based RUS recommendations such as additional hourly Bristol-Bath/Bristol-Yate services, and also additional services along the Bristol-Westbury corridor, along with extra carriages to relieve overcrowding. Indeed, the proposed improved TransWilts services would in themselves help to relieve overcrowding on Portsmouth-Cardiff services, by removing “Bath Dogleg” journeys. For example, Trowbridge-London would be significantly quicker by changing at Swindon, than it would be by changing at Bath Spa. Frome is not forgotten either, with additional services and a decent range of connections. In the wider context, the indicative timetable has the potential to transform the usefulness of the Heart of Wessex Line Ranger ticket, which is valid for a days unlimited travel after 0825 on Monday-Fridays and all day on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays on the Weymouth-Westbury-Bath-Bristol, Bath-Chippenham-Swindon and Westbury-Swindon routes. The indicative timetable would link all three with useful connections and thus provide a range of new journey and day out opportunities. Given the likely need to pool resources due to constraints on external funding, this could be promoted in conjunction with the Heart Of Wessex Rail Partnership through shared initiatives such as joint Line Guides, building on our emerging co-operation on projects such as the Westbury Station Adoption Group Project.Overall, one thing that stakeholders along the route have consistently agreed on is that any improved TransWilts service should form a multi-purpose link, not one dependent on any one particular aspect. I believe that the indicative timetable acheives this, and it can be found at http://www.twcrp.org.uk/spread/RUS25.xlsHowever, it is important to bear in mind that the above is just my own take. Recent quote from Philip Hammond, Transport Secretary, from his speech to the National Rail Conference: “Believe me, this is a consultation that really matters.”
He’s right. It will shape the future of rail for years to come.
Therefore, it is vital that as many of you as possible put forward your views, so I can make the TWCRP/STT responses as reflective of the views of its members as I possibly can.Dont forget also that the Future Of Rail Franchising Policy Consultation is fully open to the public until 18 October 2010, so you can send your own personal responses as well - see http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2010-28/ for further details. As I proceed with formulating our TWCRP/STT responses, more posts on its different aspects will follow that I would welcome your opinion on. In my next one, and in the context of the Rail Value For Money Review, I will seek to demonstrate how introducing station improvements at Melksham (new station building, car park, bus/rail interchange etc) along with an hourly Westbury-Swindon service with some extensions south towards Salisbury would pay for for itself through increased revenue over a 20-year franchise period. I will also seek to demonstrate how the very high car ownership levels in Wiltshire as a whole, and the fact that the TransWilts corridor is right at the very top in terms of forecast growth in car ownership 2006 to 2026 in the South West, can be harnessed in a positive manner in order to help achieve this. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 10:04:06 AM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
From the Daily Telegraph:Unprofitable rail services could be axed under Government proposals
Rail passengers could see fewer trains under Government proposals to overhaul the industry.
Services on some lines would run less frequently, could have fewer carriages and stop at fewer stations.
The proposals are contained in a Government consultation document on rail franchising.
While operators would be free to cut back services on unprofitable routes, they would also be given freedom to shift staff and trains to where there is greater demand.
In opposition the Conservatives accused the Labour Government of acting like a “fat controller” in Whitehall, dictating which services should be run and when.
The consultation, aimed at stimulating private investment in the industry, would give operators a greater say on what services they wish to run as well as offering longer franchises.
“We are also considering whether further flexibility could be provided so that operators could reduce service frequency or change calling patterns if planned demand did not materialise,” the consultation document says.
“This would enable them to deploy the trains or staff on routes with higher demand.”
But critics fear this would lead to train companies cherry-picking the most profitable routes and cutting back on services which are less lucrative.
The proposals were condemned by Stephen Joseph, executive director of the Campaign for Better Transport, an environmental lobbying group.
He voiced alarm that it could make it too easy for operators to cut unprofitable services and shorten trains.
“Passengers will end up blaming the Government for these cuts. Although the railway cannot be frozen, changes have to be made which are not just about short-term financial gain.”
Sadiq Khan, the shadow Transport Secretary, said the Government should not be cutting services.
'It's clear that under these proposals we could see some train operators cherry picking the best routes while neglecting the less profitable ones, with towns across the country seeing their rail services downgraded.
Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT transport union, said the document gave the green light to rail companies to exploit the travelling public.
“It is clear that by flexibility the train operators take that to mean that they can chop back services to suit them and concentrate on profitable routes.
“It also appears that the franchise holders will be able to alter calling patterns and cut out station stops as they see fit.”
Anthony Smith, the chief executive of the consumer watchdog, Passenger Focus, accepted that flexibility had to be built into the system.
“However, any substantive change must follow public consultation. We would be worried if this happens behind closed doors,”
The proposals were welcomed by the Association of Train Operating Companies.
“The Government is absolutely right to point out that franchising has become too prescriptive and limits operational flexibility at the expense of passengers and taxpayers,” a spokesman said.
“On the right terms, longer and more flexible franchises, with clear commitments on service quality, would allow train operators to deliver improvements more quickly, help drive down costs and open the door to more private sector investment.”
A Department for Transport spokesman defended the plans last night.
“We are keen to give operators more control to provide services where they are needed,” he said.
“However, we recognise that some services are socially important but not commercially viable Therefore, we will continue to specify services where appropriate.” |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
 |
