Passenger needs neglected.

Journeys fall as criticism mounts of service delivery failures

All transport operations, including the railway, have days of service collapse - typically caused by infrastructure failures such as a ‘wires down’ event, bad weather, or staff disputes brought about by the need to improve workforce productivity.

Customers generally accept that these events will occur, but they expect sympathetic treatment by transport operators with alternative services provided and a fair system of compensation available to those who suffer disruption.

The woes of the May 2018 timetable implementation have gone beyond what rail travellers regard as disruption that can be accepted as part of modern- day life. As I write, it is nine weeks since the implementation date, although there is some comfort that changes made have finally restored reliability to the most disrupted services operated by Northern and Thameslink/Great Northern.

It’s time now to count the cost, with significant revenue loss as passengers ceased to use the disrupted services, and refunds for those with no other alternative than to wait for late overcrowded trains. Add to that the widespread use of replacement bus services, with drivers staying in local hotels to cover early morning shifts.

A recession in terms of rail passenger numbers was taking place even before the timetable hiatus. And it can be predicted that the results for the first quarter of the new financial year will show a further reduction, given the size of the two networks that could not deliver the train service.

Results for the 2017-18 financial year reveal a 1.4% decline in overall journey numbers, whereas industry planning assumptions had expected 2.5% passenger growth. The out-turn of 1,705 million journeys was therefore some 70 million trips fewer than expected.

And although fare box revenue rose 2.3% at £ 9.73 billion, this was below the level of inflation and fell short of an expected £ 10.08bn revenue - a shortfall of £ 350 million which was more than the Northern franchise support payment of £ 284m in 2016-17.

There is one month to go before the inflation rate on which the January 2019 fare increases will be based is made available. But if the current figure of 3.4% continues, there will be another price rise that exceeds the increase in average earnings (currently 2.5%). Higher fares are a cause of falling demand, and this trend can only worsen if the Government goes ahead with the 2019 increase based on retail price inflation.

There will not be easy financial savings, given the added cost of the May 2018 timetable that has provided extra capacity by running more train services and leasing additional rolling stock to offer more seats.

There is a big and growing hole in the Government’s rail budget, particularly as the DfT receives the revenue for Govia Thameslink Railway under the terms of the current management contract where operations account for 19% of all network journeys.

The main decline is in the ‘taken for granted’ market for season tickets. Sales of these tickets dropped 9.2% last year, and have declined from representing 48% of rail travel in 2007-08 to 37% in 2017-18, with a switch to tickets purchased for travel on the day.

London and the South East bore the brunt of declining numbers, which would have been even greater had it not been for increases elsewhere - such as in Scotland, where journeys grew by 3.8%.

This indicates that Abellio is making a success of the ScotRail franchise contract by paying close attention to customer needs. One such example is the fast response to the delay in the introduction of new trains, by hiring and introducing into service Class 365 rolling stock displaced by Thameslink Class 700s, and fitted out to express standards. Another is the proposed acquisition of surplus single-car Class 153 units for marshalling within existing train formations, to provide accommodation for bicycles and other equipment needed for leisure pursuits.

There is something very wrong with Thameslink product leadership. The ‘inners’ feature internal rolling stock design that works for short journeys, but the seating comfort is unacceptable and inferior to that provided in a London Underground vehicle.

For the ‘outers’, the journey time can take more than two hours, with a 2hrs 40mins timing between Peterborough and Horsham, and 2hrs 20mins to Gatwick Airport. A major re-think is needed about the purpose of these services and the passenger experience they offer.

In terms of the timetable revision made from July 15, the emphasis has been on restoring reliability for travel to work journeys to central London. Interestingly, timetable information for passengers from Cambridge and Peterborough is not provided beyond London Bridge, other than a footnote that trains continue to onward destinations.

Public meetings held at towns along the route have also heard about passenger priorities (such as collecting a child from a nursery) requiring the use of intermediate stations, which is more time- sensitive than most commuter journeys. Similarly, for children there is little latitude in their school arrival time. And yet control office staff continue to remove stops to recover late running, in seeming ignorance of the consequences.

While I was waiting at a station on the route, a parent asked me what safeguarding arrangements the railway had in place for looking after children when trains are cancelled, and whether designated staff had clearance from the Government disclosure and barring service about their suitability to perform this role. This was also raised at public meetings, and will be a subject to address in the future.

Two decades ago, the railway was a cosy operation moving 800 million passengers annually whose demand on the system was understood by operating staff. The evidence is that such staff are struggling with the needs of a 1,700 million journey operation where there are different demands that reflect changes to society. The silver lining of the recent timetable failure is that the industry is now more aware about how the railway is used.

The Rail Delivery Group (RDG) believes that growth is likely to resume in the long term. Be assured that it will not, until RDG and its members understand why it is running train services and that passenger needs - rather than operational convenience - must take precedence.

“The main decline is in the ‘taken for granted’ market for season tickets.”