InterCity West Coast Franchise Consultation Manager,
Department for Transport,
Zone 5/26,
Great Minster House,
76, Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DR
Dear Sir or Madam,
InterCity West Coast Consultation Document (January 2011)
Thank you for sending a copy of the InterCity West Coast Franchise Consultation document
for comment and for this opportunity to respond. I am pleased to offer the views of Lancaster,
Morecambe and District Rail User Group as follows.
1. OVERALL APPROACH
In general we support the overall approach being taken to renewal of the West Coast Franchise.
consultation on the approach to franchising and also in relation to the expected opening of high speed
line “HS 2”.
We welcome requirements for the franchisee to work with Network Rail to deliver better value for
money in light of the McNulty review.
during engineering work (disruption).
Our main concern is on the issue of Service Provision, as discussed below.
2. SERVICE PROVISION
While the last 15 years have undoubtedly seen many improvements to services at Lancaster, these
have come at the expense of some considerable losses:-
“Cross Country” services were initially accelerated (operation “Princess”) but were then
completely severed at Birmingham (DfT initiative);
Manchester – Scottish services improved at first but are now confined to class 185 units of
completely inadequate capacity (DfT initiative);
Comfortable but unreliable mark 3 rolling stock has been replaced by slightly faster, more
reliable but relatively uncomfortable Pendolino and Voyager trains lacking space for luggage;
After years of disrupted weekends and promise of better services, the WCML route
modernisation delivered a higher speed main line, with more reliable services to London
but with regional stops axed in order to secure some of the speed gains in the Very High
Frequency (VHF) timetable. To our minds this was never “part of the deal”!
Local services here are severely constrained by poor rolling stock, lack of available line
capacity and a “no growth” Northern franchise ((DfT fantasy).
Passengers are paying for this with above-inflation fare rises every year (this year’s big increase
effectively nulls last year’s exception to the rule) which are justified on the promise of improvements
to services.
Passengers must now start to get value for the fare increases year on year, through real and
tangible improvements on top of what already exists; not the robbing of some communities and
rail users in order to bring benefits to others, nor the improvement in one feature balanced by
detriment to another, as we have seen over the last 15 years.
We offer the following examples of the sort of service improvements we would like to see
delivered:-
2.1 Restoration of “Cross Country” Services.
We note the proposal to lengthen Voyager trains with an additional, pantograph car to allow diesel or
electric power supply (bi-mode operation). This clearly enables the former “Cross Country” services
between North West and South Coast or South West to be restored.
We would surmise that it would be easier to restore the Cross-Country franchise north of
Birmingham than to extend the West Coast franchise into the south and south west.
2.2 Restoration of Station Calls Missing from the VHF Timetable.
Despite the investment in Pendolino trains and major upgrade of the WCML, a lot of the journey
time improvements between the North West and London seem to have been “contrived” at the
expense of station calls that were a normal part of the timetable. This now leaves significant gaps in
the service to intermediate destinations. Additionally, it seems to have become acceptable for Virgin
Trains and First TransPennine to skip stops at their own convenience, making for an unacceptably
and messy service between stations inside the region.
Stations no longer served directly from Lancaster:-
Watford Junction (link to Heathrow Airport and London suburbs)
Milton Keynes (gateway to cross-London services)
Rugby and Stafford
Crewe has a much reduced service, now that only our Birmingham trains stop there. This
makes the “skip stop” pattern north of Preston completely unacceptable: there should be
an absolute minimum hourly service available from Lancaster, for onward connection to
services (e.g. to Cardiff) that do run hourly.
Oxenholme and Penrith are variously served together, alternately or not at all depending
on each individual service, without any clear pattern and with little thought for connections
to the Kendal & Windermere branch. The Lancaster – Kendal service is therefore well
below the national standard for adjacent centres of this size. It is occasionally direct, more
often by connection at Oxenholme and in some hours missing altogether (because of main
line services failing to call at Lancaster). Moreover, connections at Oxenholme are very
tightly timed and can therefore be very unreliable, e.g. in the morning peak towards Kendal.
Whether through the West Coast franchise, Trans-Pennine or both franchises together, the
service between Lancaster and Kendal should be hourly with dependable connections at times
when there is no through train.
Motherwell is virtually unreachable from any station on the WCML except by over-
travelling to Glasgow then doubling back. This negates any time saving in the VHF timetable
and makes the fare artificially high since it is the same as to Glasgow (poor value for money
on both counts). On page 55 you describe Motherwell as a smaller station comparable with
Lockerbie! This is a gross mis-representation of Motherwell as a huge town and gateway to
large tracts of the Glasgow suburban rail network.
2.3 Alleviation of Capacity Constraints at Lancaster
Introduction of the VHF timetable brought to light the capacity constraint between Lancaster and
Carnforth, when a long-standing and important local commuter service had to be severely retimed
to allow a flight of faster, long distance trains. We brought this to the attention of DfT and the train
operators at the time, but no-one seems prepared to accept responsibility for the problem. We also
criticised the recent Network Rail draft WCML RUS for failing to acknowledge the constraint.
Either sufficient route capacity should be provided or the WCML timetable should be adjusted, to
enable the present 0851 Morecambe – Lancaster service to be restored to its proper departure time of
0833. As it is, this service no longer meets the needs of commuters. From our passenger counts it is
evident that the preceding train has become overcrowded and also a significant number of former rail
commuters have found alternative transport, presumably by road.
Attempts by the Leeds – Morecambe line Community Rail Partnership to secure better services are
also thwarted by the lack of capacity between Lancaster and Carnforth; indeed existing services run
early at times only to stand wastefully once clear of the main line.
In commenting on Network Rail’s draft WCML RUS we offered a number of suggestions to improve
capacity without recourse to addition of a third track:-
Additional block signal at mid-point of Lancaster’s northbound Platform 3
Bi-Directional Signalling from Lancaster to Carnforth
Crossover at Lancaster South Junction for “down” services to gain access to Platforms 4 & 5
Increases in Crossover and Turnout Speeds at key junctions
2.4 Summary
In summary, and particularly in relation to aspirations to achieve faster journey times between
Euston and Glasgow with fewer station calls, we make the following points:-
Any reduction in calling pattern at Lancaster is completely unacceptable unless fares
are reduced;
Future timetables should place greater emphasis on an hourly interval, regional service
between stations north of Crewe, with robust connections at interchanges (Crewe,
Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme and Carlisle).
Yours faithfully,
David Bousfield, CEng MIET
Treasurer and Acting Chairman
Lancaster, Morecambe and District RUG
