Slimmed down



The original car park layout
(looking north)

 While the rest of us were enjoying Easter, London Midland staff were out remodelling the car park at Bletchley station.  I don't know how many spaces have been lost, but the removal of a large section of the top deck has probably reduced capacity by around 150-200.

The new car park layout (with
most of the decking shown in
the picture above removed
- looking south)

So why have these spaces been 'taken away'?  Is it a further sign of a degradation in service for Bletchley passengers?  Have LM reforecast demand following the cancellation of a couple of major housing projects in the area?  The answer to both questions is apparently 'no'.

It seems that when London Midland secured the franchise for the Euston-Northampton route they took on a commitment to provide an extra 1,000 parking spaces.  The result was the introduction of the rather clever, freestanding upper decks put in at several stations including Bletchley.  After hitting the demand-based targets for the stations involved, LM found themselves a couple of hundred slots short of the overall 1,000 figure.  There was room at Bletchley, so an extra section or two of deck went in there.

London Midland have now 'robbed Peter to pay Paul'.  Demand for car parking at Northampton has far exceeded supply while we have spare capacity at Bletchley.  The deck sections removed over the Easter weekend have therefore been transferred north.

Painted markings showing the
intended position at the front
of the car park for the up
ramp (adjacent to the
entrance to the lower floor)

Passengers at Bletchley can be thankful that London Midland changed their minds about the design for the new layout.  The evidence for what it would have looked like is still around - Look at the paint markings on the road at the front of the car park.  Their first plan was to relocate the ramps from the rear of the car park to the front!



Again, painted markings showing
the intended location of the
down ramp - over the entrance
and straight onto the roundabout!



Fortunately, following a short campaign on Twitter London Midland saw sense.   We already have chaos in the evenings with cars approaching the roundabout from umpteen different directions (including vehicles coming the wrong way out of the one-way car park entrance).  Cars coming down the ramp from the upper deck would have had to have priority which would have gone against the normal principles of access onto a roundabout.



As the saying goes, 'an accident waiting to happen...'



Multiple access points onto the station forecourt roundabout...



I don't get it...

I'm hoping that someone can explain what's going on with rail fares.

At a time when they are increasing taxes and reducing benefits, the Government has every reason to encourage (or even force) private companies to limit price increases.

Train operating companies (TOCs) receive income from two sources - the taxpayer (see How much!) and the rail traveller.   It doesn't look like there's any change on the former, but they are allowing major increases on the latter.  This year is covered by the old formula, RPI +1%, but future increases will be higher. 

Why?  There's talk of the rail fare increases being imposed now funding the future purchases of rolling stock, but the list of routes that are due to receive the new trains don't include London Midland.  Sorry, but I don't understand...

One final thought.  When it suits the Government they have been switching pricing formulae from being calculated against Retail Price Index (RPI) to being Consumer Price Index (CPI) based (e.g. with pensions).  This means lower increases.  For rail fares, despite the review of the formula, we remain RPI based.  Why?

Can anyone help make sense of this?  I know I can't.


See ATOC press release - Train companies confirm fare changes for 2011

.

Service improved? 3

London Midland have a page on their website titled Improving our services where they describe the steps they are taking to address a number of problems areas.


This is the third in a series of postings based on the aspects of the service that London Midland are working on (for the previous post, see Service improvements? 2).

More Trains

London Midland claim that they are addressing this item through an application to the Department of Transport for new carriages.  They say that if authorisation is granted then from 2011 new trains will be built and existing stock refurbished.

So the rail operating companies have to apply to the government for permission to purchase/lease new trains...  A previous posting (15 year franchises) covered the prescriptive nature of the contracts that companies like London Midland have to enter into when they take on the operation of rail services.   This is I'm sure a very complex subject which probably involves discussions on subsidy levels (London Midland receiving £185m of tax-payer funding to run our trains this year - see How much?!!) and consideration of the limited length of the franchise, but I still think it is absolutely daft that a commercial operator has its hands tied in this way.

For the other improvement areas covered so far it has been relatively simple to decide whether I think London Midland deserve a green tick or a red cross, but on the face of it here that's difficult when it appears that London Midland are in the hands of the Government.  But is that the whole story?  Does More Trains have to involve New Trains?  Are London Midland making the most of the trains that they have?

The 07:00 from Bletchley arrives on platform 11 around 07:37 and within minutes is moved out empty to make way for another train.  Is an empty stock movement during the morning rush-hour a good use of assets?  This might be only one train but are their more?

London Midland are rather proud of the fact that they have introduced trains on their new 'Watford Shuttle' which serve only outer London stations.  They have also continued with Silverlink's 'Tring specials' which also only serve a limited length of the Euston-Northampton route.  Is that a good use of assets?  These trains can obviously be turned around quicker but they are still taking up train units, crew and track slots.

How may trains do we see sat on platforms at Euston or their northern starting point for lengthy periods?  Is this a good use of stock?  Couldn't the turnaround time be made shorter so that additional services could be run using the same rolling stock?

There are a lot of question marks above and I have to say that this is probably a subject where I'm going to have to say that I have no idea what the answers are.  On that basis, I think London Midland probably have to get a yellow question mark on the basis that I don't know, but if you reckon that you have the answer then do please say so.

As usual, comments very very welcome.  Do you think that London Midland are doing enough to provide more trains then say so.  Equally, if you reckon that they need to do more to meet the needs of their customers in this area then please have you say below.

On the London Midland site their fourth improvement area is More Punctual.  I promise not to sit on the fence for that one  :-)

    

15 year franchises?

The BBC are reporting on a Coalition Government proposal that rail franchises could be granted for periods up to 15 years (see Train franchises to double under government proposals). 

The Government's proposal also includes giving the train operating companies more freedom to determine the frequency of trains and the stations served.

So what does this mean for our line?  The current London Midland franchise is up for renewal in September 2015 so the parent company, the Go-Ahead group would undoubtedly welcome an extension.   If the Government proposal went ahead and the terms & conditions of the franchise were made less prescriptive then the management would welcome this too (anyone interested in seeing how the Department of Transport have dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't' should look at DfT - current franchise agreements).  But would this result in improvements?  The jury has to be out on that one.

A cynic might suggest that the reason why this has cropped up now is that the Government is willing to consider any option to reduce costs, and the subsidies that they are paying out to the train operating companies offer plenty of scope for shaving tens if not hundreds of millions off the annual bill (London Midland subsidy for 2010 = £185 million - see "How much?!!).


There will apparently be consultation on this.  I eagerly await the opportunity to comment  :-)