Appendix A

 

Response to the Community Rail Development Consultation Paper

 

Consultation Questions

 

General Approach to Community Railways

 

  1. Do you agree with the general approach proposed for Community Railways?

 

The IW Council agrees with this approach but would stress that in taking this localised approach to certain lines that the advantages of the national network are not lost in terms of through ticketing, national publicity and national standards.  This approach is about building a new level of flexibility and services into the provision of railway services; it is not about off loading non-performing lines onto other public sector organisations. 

 

  1. Are there ways to increase the socio- economic value of local and rural lines, other than through the three broad objectives outlined?

 

Yes through the involvement of the railways in local planning, economic development, tourism and employment.  For too many years the railways have been seen as isolated off shoots of a far off national organisation and not an integral part of local communities they serve.

 

  1. Microfranchising might involve vertical integration (bringing train and network operations together under a unified management).  What role do you think microfranchising has to play in the development of Community Railways?

 

As Island Line has shown microfranchising with vertical integration can work, but the line is geographically distinct from the rest of the network.  However this needs to be matched with investment by the SRA in the infrastructure, this has not been the case with Island Line.

 

Definitions

 

  1. Do you agree with the broad definition outlined above for Community Rail designation?

 

Yes, but would point out that Island Line services have a frequency of twice an hour.

 

  1. Are there any other characteristics that could usefully be included in such a definition?

 

A more detailed analysis of the type of passengers using the five lines included in the proposed pilot would also be welcome.

 

  1. Do you agree that the lines listed in Appendix C are those that should initially be designated as Community Railways?

 

Yes, but only in the broadest possible interpretation of the concept of the Community Railway.  Specific models will take time to be developed on a local basis.

 

  1. Do you agree with the process proposed to include or exclude Community Rail lines in the future?

 

Yes

 

Increasing passenger use and revenue

 

  1. Do you agree that fares structures on Community Railways should be changed to provide for integration with local bus fares?

 

The Consultation document provides little evidence on how wide a differential exists between ticketing on buses and the railways and offers no examples or statistics to support this question.

 

In that case the answer must be no, this issue needs to be handled with care and should reflect local circumstances, environmental issues and requirements for integrated transport.  This needs to be tempered with a realisation that a competitive bus market might well not exist locally; this is more likely to be the case in non-urban areas.  

 

As an example one operator dominates the local bus market for Island Line and to date has been unwilling to integrate services with Island Line.  Again in this local market any parity in fares between the two would result in 100% fare rises, no return fares and only limited discount fares being offered.  This would be politically unacceptable and anti- competitive.

 

  1. What simplified local ticket retailing options do you think should be considered to encourage sales through local outlets such as newsagents and post offices?

 

The examples given in the Consultation document seem very appropriate to reduce the barriers to passengers purchasing tickets.  Also it is important to ensure there is an approved outlet/ agent in the area able to issue the various national railcards to local residents.

 

The outlets suggested in the document would be appropriate for unmanned stations along the selected lines.  An alternative would be to allow passengers to always have the opportunity to buy tickets on the train when station ticket offices are closed.  This method is operated by Island Line and is well supported by the local community as it delivers a safe environment and constant onboard ticketing service.

 

While for tourists and visitors to the lines in question, the option to purchase tickets on the Internet should be encouraged.

 

  1. Do you think that more flexible timetables, geared around seasonal variation in demand, would provide a better service within the resources available, and how would they best be communicated?

 

Yes flexible timetabling is essential especially for those lines that are in tourist areas requiring extra services at peak times of the year. 

 

The timetable needs to appear in a number of formats and mediums that can be easily accessed by residents and tourists alike.  Apart from the standard printed format, the timetable needs to be available online through a company website and reachable through links from key local websites.  Where possible local bus operators providing feeder or onward services should be encouraged to include the train timetable in their publications.

 

This practice is followed on the Isle of Wight with the main bus operator including the train timetable in their own publication while all key local websites have links to the Island Line website.

 

  1. What are your views on use of railway stations for retailing or community activities where the buildings are no longer required for railway use?

 

It is essential that stations are reengaged with their local communities in a way that is an asset to the area yet are seen as gateways to the railway network.  The type of operation will depend on local circumstances but might include catering establishments, retail or tourist information centres.  However any disposal of buildings should bear in mind what might be needed to support improved passenger use in the future on these lines.

 

Island Line is looking to make effective use of the existing buildings as offices, community facilities and tourist information centres.

 

  1. Do you think there would be value in the integration of bus and rail services in the way described?  To what extent do you think that buses and trains can substitute for each other?

 

It is important that feeder bus services from the catchment areas of stations are provided with through ticketing to help build passenger numbers.  For too long access to railways have been only seen as being the preserve of the communities directly served by the railways.  The use of flexible feeder services will dramatically expand a catchment area for rural railways.

 

There is plenty of proof in surveys that passengers are unwilling to accept bus substitution services.  They are seen as a second rate services and only acceptable when required to facilitate essential engineering works.  This at best ensures a constant service but at worse can add to traffic congestion that is a feature of many tourist/ rural areas during the summer months.  However there maybe times of the year on more tourist focused lines when a bus service would be more effective.  While in the past it has always been bus services replacing train services, maybe passengers where appropriate should be persuaded to use train services over bus services.

 

  1. What role do you see for community transport operators in providing rail-link services, including demand responsive services?

 

In terms of the flexible feeder services needed to connect rural communities to the railways community transport has a key role.  While the larger rural communities will be served by commercial or Council supported bus services, the more isolated communities and those groups unable to access mainstream provision require the more tailored services provided by community transport.

 

  1. How can local management best be introduced?  What would be the advantages and disadvantages?

 

As Island Line shows local management can be introduced successfully but this does require a clear framework to work within the wider network.  The clear advantages are being able to respond to local community needs, to ensure better local marketing and to manage a more committed workforce with a clear local identity.   The disadvantages include exclusion from the economies of scale enjoyed by larger TOCs and a degree of professional isolation of the local management from the wider rail network.

 

Managing Costs

 

  1. Do you agree with the approach of defining separate standards suitable for the characteristics of Community Railway?

 

Yes, in the case of Island Line the standards are just not appropriate for the level of service that is currently being delivered, this service is unlikely to change.  The effect of which is to misdirect maintenance funding towards work that is not required and away from investment in the line.

 

  1. Do you think passengers’ interests would be better served by altering or ending the performance regime, to incentivise operators to maintain connections, rather than to put the priority on punctuality?  Where do you think the balance of interests lies?

 

The current performance regime is just too rigid and does not take into consideration local needs; the outcome is alienation of passengers from the service.

 

This is particularly apparent with Island Line, where the company would be penalised for delaying departure from Ryde Pierhead by only a few minutes when a Portsmouth ferry is delayed by bad weather leaving passengers, many of whom are season ticket holders, stranded on the platform for the next service. 

 

A performance regime that showed some flexibility for seasonal weather and the needs of passengers yet guaranteed an overall punctual service would be welcomed.

 

  1. Do you think that local management of operations is likely to bring improved staff motivation and involvement, and better service for customers?

 

Yes, this can be seen with Island Line, and is supported by the findings of the RPC report ‘Where next for Island Line’.  However uncertainty over the future of the lines in question could cause issues around maintaining staff morale and ensuring future recruitment.

 

  1. Would you support the use of older heritage diesel units in the short term (up to five years) where they were retained to meet a specific local requirement?

 

Yes, but not if this is seen as a cheap permanent replacement for rolling stock.

 

  1. What scope is there for light or ultra- light rail solutions on some Community Rail routes?

 

In light of our response to Question 18, light or ultra-light rail would be welcomed to improve the service and quality of travel on many but not all lines.  The IW Council intends to explore the potential of such solutions (guided bus, trams, etc) as a means of delivering an effective and flexible mass transit system for the Isle of Wight.

 

  1. How can the future potential for rail freight best be protected and developed on these routes?

 

A difficult question to answer as Island line has always been a passenger only line since c1965.  We would support where appropriate that freight continued to be carried on rural lines, however the introduction of light or ultra-light rail would by definition exclude freight transit.

 

Community Involvement

 

  1. Do you agree with the extension of Community Rail Partnerships to all rural and local lines?

 

Yes, the IW Council agrees with the principle of community involvement, local management and improved services.  However the Council believes that there is no mone model of Community Rail Partnership that will fit every line and would ask the SRA to remain flexible in determining the eventual models for the lines in question.

 

  1. How could Community Rail Partnerships be funded to ensure they have a stable, long-term future?

 

This issue is at the heart of a community rail strategy, and it would be desirable for the structure and funding to be agreed by all concerned in advance rather than have to continually revisit this area year after year.  Funding from the SRA must be sufficient to support revised maintenance requirements and the same level of services with a more flexible performance regime that rewards improved services to the passenger.  Innovation should be encouraged through reintroducing the Rail Passenger Partnership Fund to target both the introduction of new services in need of pump priming as well as to be able to support new marketing and community engagement initiatives.

 

  1. Do you think that station adoption can be effective in improving conditions at stations and highlighting issues for station facility owners to address?

 

Yes, this is an ideal way for Community Railways to engage more fully with their local communities and tap into the goodwill towards the railways.

 

  1. Are there any other forms of funding that could be secured to provide improvements to stations, facilities or services on Community Railways?

 

There are a number of other forms of funding which depend on the geographic location of the suggested community railway lines and how they might qualify for available regeneration and European funding.  While specific projects might also benefit from the Lottery funds or from funding generated by the Planning process with Section 106 agreements.  A further source of funding might well be Private Finance Initiates (PFI) currently under consideration by a number of local authorities; such funding might be available through a PFI focused on integrated transport.

 

  1. Are there any other forms of community involvement on local and rural railways that ought to be considered?

 

Community involvement can take many forms from the practical day-to-day maintenance of station gardens through to specific input in the overall management of a line.  The SRA through their relationship with ACoRP can play a crucial role in identifying and disseminating best practice in this area.  Any business planning process for the community railway lines must include a local strategy for community engagement.

 

Pilot Schemes

 

  1. Do you agree that the lines selected could be used to trial some of the initiatives outlined in this paper as pilot schemes?

 

Any decision on how the IW Council will participate in this process will depend on a political decision by the Council and its relevant committee.  This will be taken in the context of how such involvement assists in the deliver of an integrated transport system.  While tempered by the extent of liability the Council might incur and how clear this will effect existing franchise agreements.

 

  1. Are there any other routes that you think should be used to trial aspects of this strategy and why?    

 

No

 

 

On Behalf of

Isle of Wight Council

20th May 2004