HS2 and the Chilterns

Yesterday I and my family had lunch at The Plough at Cadsden.  This 16th century pub is on the route of the Ridgeway, and about a mile from Chequers, the Prime Minister's country retreat (this is off subject for this blog, but I can strongly recommend the beer and food...)

This was a first visit to this pub which I found thanks to the wonders of the world wide web.   While checking it out I stumbled on Is it a bird, is it a plane, or is it HS2?, a page on their website expressing opposition to HS2 (the proposed high speed rail line between London and Birmingham - High Speed Two - HS2 Ltd). In a separate news item the owners have pointed out the absurdity of the situation where plans for a major infrastructure development in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty can be forced through but they couldn't get planning permission for an outside shelter for customers who wish to smoke (Gimme Shelter!)

The Berks Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust have also expressed serious concerns about the environmental impact if HS2 goes ahead.  In their latest press release dated 21 December they state “The route announced yesterday will irreparably damage several important wildlife sites including Calvert Jubilee Nature Reserve in north Buckinghamshire and the Colne Valley Site of Special Scientific Interest in south Buckinghamshire.” (full BBOWT Press Release).

See also:

• Chilterns - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
• HS2 Action Alliance
• Stop HS2
• Stop the HS2 Route

The conservation/heritage/environmental argument is of course just one issue affecting how people view HS2. The Government and the rail industry say that the construction of a fast line is essential to provide meet capacity demands and claim that the saving in journey times (which may be as little as 20 minutes - See Daily Telegraph Is this another High-Speed train crash?) while groups (official and unofficial representing residents are concerned about the impact on the around around their homes. The economic argument is also split with claims of both positive and negative outcomes.

I have no idea how HS2 will (assuming it goes ahead) affect me as a resident of Buckinghamshire and a commuter into London, but I intend to do more reading and return to the subject over the next few weeks.  In the meantime, please feel free to express your own views (whether for or against HS2) by posting a comment below.



.

Fair Fares Now

The transport charity Campaign for Better Transport has launched Fair Fares Now, a campaign for 2011 to persuade the Government to ensure that rail travel has:

• Affordable prices, including peak times and turn-up-and-go tickets
• Reliable services that aren’t overcrowded
• Straightforward tickets that make train travel simple

Fair Fares Now is highlighting this week's increases and the Government's sanctioning of even greater increases from 2012.

If you share my view that commuters already get a raw deal in terms of cost and service then you will want to visit the Fair Fares Now campaign website to find out more about the campaign and how you can help spread the word.

See also on this blog:

• 7.2% not justified (London Midland 2011 increases above national average for Milton Keynes, Bletchley & Leighton Buzzard)
• Inflation +3%  (Government announces new formula for fare increases)
• How much?!!  (Government subsidy paid to London Midland and salary packages of the top executives)

.

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

.

Inflation +3%

"The cap on regulated rail fares will rise to RPI +3% for the three years from 2012, but that will help this country afford new rolling stock as well and improve passenger conditions."

George Osborne
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Comprehensive Spending Review - 20 October 2010

____________________________________________

So what do we think? 

After many years of seeing the price of commuting into London rise in real terms are we happy at the prospect of paying even more in the future? 

Are we content to hear that the rail operating companies will be levying an increase that is unlikely to be exceeded by any salary increase that we receive?

Do we think we will get value for money?

Season ticket price 2010 = £3,316
Season ticket price 2015 = £4,780?

Overcrowding? Us?

Last week the Office of the Rail Regulator released their report for 2009 (see National Rail Trends Yearbook 2009).  The press picked up and reported on some of the highlights.  Two operators were given a special mention - First Great Western and our own dear London Midland...


In 2008 the % of London Midland services which ran in excess of capacity during the peak period was 4.8%.  In 2009 that figure had increased to 5.9%.


After reading an article on this in my own newspaper I posted up the London Midland figures on Twitter.  This generated the following response:

 

I think that's a pretty fair reply.  It's good to hear that the numbers are improving but even better to be told that they recognise that they still need to do better.

So no complaints about London Midland, but what about their trade body, the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC)?  The ATOC Media Centre carries the following press release:

Complaints drop to record low levels 08/10/2010


In repsonse to ORR figures on overcrowding and customer complaints, a spokesperson for the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) said:


“These figures show that, overall, overcrowding fell last year and that passenger complaints across the country have recently dropped to their lowest level on record.’’


“Train companies are in the business of keeping their customers happy and dislike having to put passengers onto trains which are overcrowded. The figures highlight the importance of sustained and targeted investment to ease overcrowding on the railways.”

I don't know which claim I find funnier - the one about passenger complaint numbers dropping (do they not read Twitter?) or the statement that train companies are in the business of keeping their customers happy!!

Then there's the "repsonse" spelling mistake.  Amateur communicators like me can be excused errors like this, but paid PR professionals...?


. 

Our rails in their hands

This post is prompted by a pair of newspaper articles about Network Rail in today's Sunday Telegraph.  Neither are complimentary.

As rail passengers and taxpayers, we have a major stake in how the organisation which is responsible for our national railway infrastructure is run, and these articles highlight a number of serious issues and concerns.


Who is at the wheel of Network Rail?

The first piece is by Andrew Gilligan and is in the main body of the paper. I read it and came away with the conclusion that the senior leadership of this body isn't "fit for purpose".  Too much money, distorted performance & safety statistics, and a cavalier disregard for the interests of the travelling public.


Network Rail emerges from the ashes of Railtrack

The second piece is in the Telegraph's Business section, and is written by Andrew Cave.  It is a more sober, detailed analysis written around the theme of the appointment of David Higgins as CEO, but it is nonetheless still highly critical of this public-funded body's operation to date (it mentions for example that Mr Higgins' predecessor had a company Aston Martin on top of his £1.2 million a year salary/bonus/pension package).

(Nb: The paper and online versions of the Andrew Cave article have different titles, introductions and dates but the main body of content is identical)
The financial services industry has come in for a lot of grief over the last 2-3 years, much of it undoubtedly justified.  My personal view though is that greed, incompetence and the mismanagement of a public service is a far worse offence.

What do you think?


. 

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  :-)

    

MEP talks rubbish

Rubbish at Bletchley
railway station

In an open letter to Network Rail, a European Union transport politician has accused that organisation of treating Britain's railways 'like a rubbish tip' (see briansimpsonmep.co.uk).

Labour North West MEP Brian Simpson has specifically highlighted:

1. The amount of rubbish left on tracks
2. The lack of weed control
3. The problem of graffiti
4. The contractors' culture of leaving things 'hanging around'

So how do things look at Bletchley railway station?  A five minute wander before boarding the train to London last Thursday morning was all that was needed to find the following which would seem to support Mr Simpson's accusations...

Lamp post left in the car park from the building of the multi-storey in 2008:

'Redundant' lamp post in Bletchley
station car park.  In this position
for 2 years plus

Rubbish at front of station building next to skips between the car park and the bike shed (what was the post office loading bay):

Some of the rubbish lying next to
these skips at the front of Bletchley
station has been there for months.

Rubbish lying around skips at
the front of Bletchley station

Weeds regrowing on platforms (see also Best station garden):

Weeds growing at the northern end
of Bletchley's platform 3

Weeds regrowing in gutter
between platforms 4 & 5
at Bletchley

Waste and redundant equipment left adjacent to track:

Builders bags filled with rubble
and other rubbish lying close to the
sidings to the Bletchley stone depot

Don't know what it is but it's
large and black, has a green cross
on it and looks like it doesn't
belong where it's lying which is
at the northern end of Bletchley's
platform 6

Not a pretty sight or site...

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  :-)       

10% railfare increase?!!

The press has been full of stories this week about the comment from Philip Hammond, the new Government Transport Secretary, that there is no guarantee that the current inflation + 1% formula for railfare increases can be maintained.


Commuters are staring down the barrel of a 6% increase in 2011 anyway (5% inflation + 1%), and the prediction is that the Government may allow the train operating companies (including London Midland) to raise prices by up to 10%.  In the current climate of pay freezes and even salary cuts, that wouldrepresent a significant hit on commuters.


In a previous posting ("How much?!!") I mentioned that the cheque that the taxpayers have written out to London Midland to cover the 2010 subsidy is a whacking £185 million.  According to this week's press articles, the total subsidy paid to the rail industry is £5.21 billion.  That bill needs to be cut, but why should this be to the cost of the rail passengers?


London Midland seem to come out on top whatever happens.  If I've read the situation properly then there are two possible scenarious:

1. They keep the full subsidy for 2011 (the amount paid reduces year on year but for it's apparently £175 million); or
2. The subsidy is reduced but they then get permission to make up the difference by increasing our fares.

Is it an exaggeration to say that the arrangements between central Government and the train operating companies are scandalous?   London Midland et al are in a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation.  Private enterprise is meant to be about risk.  take the risk and you potentially get the reward.  These guys get the reward without any risk...  

Anyone interested in reading more on this subject may like to look at the following press articles

• Millions of passengers face inflation-busting fare rises of 'up to 10%' - Daily Mail
• Train prices 'could face even further price hikes', transport secretary warns - Daily Telegraph
• Rail industry prepares for public spending cuts - Guardian
• Why pile more pain on commuters, minister? - Evening Standard

How much?!!

Andrew Gilligan in the Daily Telegraph has done it again...  In his column in yesterday's Daily Telegraph ("The personal agony that will forever be public transport") he launched his second attack on our railway system in a fortnight (see also "High Speed rail?").

In this second article he suggests again that very little of the investment in railways since privatisation has gone into increasing capacity (he suggests that much of it has been spent on repainting carriages!)  This mention of subsidies interested me, so I did a quick search on Google and what I found shocked me. 

On the Investis website I found a summary of the subsidy payments that London Midland are receiving from the government (Go Ahead Group - London Midland operating review).   The total changes year on year from the start of the franchise to the end, kicking off with £203 million in 2008 dropping to £155 million in 2015, but for 2010 it's £185 million. 

For anyone who might be thinking that £185 million doesn't sound so bad given the scope and scale of London Midland's services, please do bear in mind that Network Rail separately receives government support for the maintenance and development of the railway infrastructure (I figure that identifying how much that would amount to for the London Midland area is an impossible task for an outsider).

Finding the above then left me wondering how much the senior management at London Midland were receiving in salary and other rewards.  A quick look didn't reveal any detail for London Midland's top executives, but I did find a useful summary on the Reuters website for the Go-Ahead Group (London Midland's parent company):

• Keith Ludeman, Group CEO - £916,000
• Nicholas Swift, Group Finance Director - £470,000. 

These gentlemen of course oversee the running of a number of rail and bus companies (plus Meteor, the company operating Bletchley's car park, and other transport-related businesses), and we need to be careful because whenever we get into a debate about how much the senior executives are getting paid there is no doubt that envy has a major influence on people's opinions. 

Quite honestly, I wouldn't care what the people who were responsible for the running of the trains that I use to get me into London were being paid as long as the service was satisfactory and offered value for money, but:

1. I don't believe that the train service that we have between Bletchley and London Euston is anything like as good as the one that we deserve
2. I don't believe we do get value for money given what we pay directly for our season tickets (in my case £3332 pa) and indirectly as tax-payers (this year's £185,000,000 susbsidy) 

Come back British Rail, all is forgiven (Andrew Gilligan does suggests in the 10/06/2010 article that the improvements in punctuality that we've seen have only taken us back to BR levels and that the only reason that they've managed that is because of the slack that we've now got built into the timetables). 


  

High-speed rail?

In Friday's Daily Telegraph (28/5/2010) there was an article by Andrew Gilligan titled For most of us, high-speed rail is anything but.   The piece covers a lot of ground and challenges a number of things that seem to be accepted as gospel, but what caught my eye was the paragraph which suggests that instead of spending money on grand flagship projects, the government should be investing in improvements to existing, ordinary services.

The West Coast mainline received a lot of funding aimed at increasing capacity and reducing journey times for the long-distance services, but what did it do for us commuters?   I reckon the answer is "not a lot".  We had to put up with a long period of inconvenience while track and signal 'improvements' were made, but some of the changes that have resulted include: 

1.  A significant reduction in the number of non-West Coast maninline (Virgin Trains) services using the fast-line.  There are fewer fast trains between Bletchley and Euston and the semi-fasts that we get are sandwiched between the 'all stop' trains.
2. Less flexibility when things go wrong - To increase line speeds Railtrack (as was) had to reduce the number of points on the line where trains could switch from fast to slow and vice versa.  What this means now is that if there is a problem on the line, perhaps a failed train or lineside equipment failure, then trains are more likely to get stuck.
3. A drop down the list in terms of priority when things go wrong.   This does seem to have improved in recent years but there certainly seemed to be a time when the local services were cancelled left, right and centre when there was a significant problem while Virgin Trains West Coast Main Line services appeared to come off significantly better.

The cost of the West Coast main Line upgrade apparently increased six-fold by the time it was finished, coming out an eye-watering £14.5 billion (National Audit Office).   Was it worth it?