Transport, Access & Safety Unit

______

______

______

______

______

Rail Consultation 2015

Freepost SG569

Transport, Access & Safety Unit

Hertfordshire County Council

Pegs Lane, Hertford

SG13 8DQ

______

Dear Rail Strategy Team

Draft Hertfordshire Rail Strategy 2015 consultation

Please find below my responses to selected questions from the consultation launched on 10th June.

Section 2.4: West Coast Main Line

Qu. 2.10: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed strategic priorities for the West Coast Main Line corridor? If there are any parts of the strategic priorities with which you do not agree, please specify and explain why.

I agree with the priorities listed; to promote and endorse the case for extension of Crossrail 1 services to Watford Junction and Tring, to develop plans with Network Rail for the longer term redevelopment of Watford Junction into a major transport interchange hub, and to Lobby for all regional long distance services to stop at Watford after the introduction of HS2 Phase 1.

Qu. 2.11: Which out of the listed strategic priorities for the West Coast Main Line corridor do you consider to be the most important?

I consider the most important strategic priority to be turning Watford Junction into a major transport interchange hub, offering better interchange facilities for local, Crossrail and London Underground services.As an Abbey Line user and supporter, these developments would only serve to enhance the value of the Watford to St Albans branch as a feeder service to the Watford Interchange Hub.

Qu. 2.12: Is there anything further you feel should be included in the list of strategic priorities for the West Coast Main Line corridor?If yes, what priority or priorities would you add and why?

As an Abbey Line user and supporter, I feel that the Council should be lobbying Network Rail (NR), the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), the Department for Transport (DfT) and future Train Operator Companies (TOCs) for paths to be found for through-services to London Euston and / or the West London Line, at least during peak hours, in order to capitalise on the fully mainline-signalled connection recently installed by NR at Watford Junction. Such through services would, I feel, make the Abbey Line service a much more attractive proposition to users and potential users, thereby increasing revenue.

Section 2.13: London to Aylesbury

Qu. 2.13: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed strategic priorities for the London to Aylesbury corridor? If there are any parts of the strategic priorities with which you do not agree, please specify and explain why.

I agree with the priorities listed; to promote the delivery of Croxley Rail Link, to develop a Watford Interchange Hub, to develop plans for a future Aylesbury-Watford Chiltern service via the Croxley Link, and to lobby for improved service frequency by the extension of the Bakerloo Line or by increasing the frequency of London Overground services.

Qu. 2.14: Which out of the listed strategic priorities for the London to Aylesbury corridor do you consider to be the most important?

I consider the most important strategic priorities to be promoting the delivery of Croxley Rail Link to deliver additional capacity and enhanced access to Watford town centre, and developing a Watford Interchange Hub at Watford Junction.

As an Abbey Line user and supporter, these developments would only serve to enhance the value of the Watford to St Albans branch as a feeder service to the Watford Interchange Hub.

Section 3.1: Orbital (East-West) movement

Qu. 3.1: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed strategic priorities for orbital/east-west movement in and through Hertfordshire? If there are any parts of the strategic priorities with which you do not agree, please specify and explain why.

I agree with the short-term aspiration to facilitate orbital movement between main radial rail lines with a good quality east-west bus or coach service between key stations, offering through ticketing and timetabled connections.

I strongly disagree with providing for east-west movement in the south of the county, if the solution for the Abbey Line is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)-based system.

BRT is a technology with limited applicability, typically for small sections of inner city running where buses are required to run at relatively high speed and close together.

The case for demolishing serviceable inter-urban electrified railway lines, such as the Abbey Line,in order to replace them with BRT, ishighly questionable.

Apart from the relative unpopularity of bus travel versus rail travel due to the ride quality, there are serious environmental concerns about BRTtechnology.

Firstly, there are the not insubstantial carbon emissions associated with the pouring of thousands of tonnes of concrete to create the guideways.

Secondly, the replacement of electric trains (zero emissions at the point of use) with, presumably, diesel buses (direct polluters) will only serve to increase local levels of noxious gases and particulates – with direct impacts on the health of local residents.

Finally, vehicles with rubber tyres on concrete roads are inherently less energy efficient as mass people carriers than vehicles with steel tyres on steel rails.

Furthermore, BRT has been imposed as an experiment in ‘low cost’ mass transit in other parts of the UK with disappointing results. The Cambridge Guided Busway cost nearly three timesas much as originally planned, opened 2.5 years late, is still beset by technical difficulties and now appears to be in an advancing state of decay.

Moreover it took away, forever, what could have been a locally and strategically important rail link for both passengers and freight.

More details about the failure of BRT to live up to expectations can be found at:

A Light Rail solution for orbital/east-west movement would be preferable to BRT since it would still utilise electric, rail-based technology – and Light Rail is known to be a popular mode of transport. However, experience from much larger and denser conurbations e.g. Leeds and Liverpool would suggest that, given how even they have failed to make the case for building Light Rail networks in recent years, it could take many years to make the case for such a network in the far less populous and more widely-scattered towns in the south of the county.

Such misplaced ambition could, therefore, stifle more practical, achievable and affordablesolutions in the short term, thus denying the Abbey Line much-needed service improvements for another generation or more.

What would be acceptable, however, providing it could demonstrate advantages in the short term, and providing it was not to the detriment of the line’s overall capacity (particular at peak times) - would be to explore the concept of ‘Ultra Light Rail’ as developed for use on the Stourbridge Town Branch (part of London Midland’s current franchise).

The model employed on this branch makes use of the innovative Parry People Mover (PPM) – essentially a low cost, light-rail style vehicle operating on existing heavy rail infrastructure, yet still within the established parameters, protection and safety regulations of the franchised rail system.

It is worth noting that the PPM has now been operating on the Stourbridge Town branch for 6 years, has led to a radical improvement in passenger numbers yet demonstrates reliability of over 99%. It is also worth noting that, whilst the PPM60 in use on the Stourbridge branch is only a small, single-car vehicle, Parry have in development some larger versions which may be more suitable for the Abbey Line. Visit the website of Parry People Movers or their operating arm Pre-Metro Operations Ltd for more information.

Qu. 3.3: Is there anything further you feel should be included in the list of strategic priorities for orbital/east-west movement?If yes, what priority or priorities would you add and why?

Section 4.6.1 of the consultation document correctly identifies that the key issues hindering the success of the Abbey Line are:

• physical constraints e.g. single line with no passing loop
• poor service frequency, which does not connect well with main line services
• lack of through services, forcing passengers to change at Watford Junction
• ‘extreme underutilisation’

It goes on to discuss various possible interventions, including:

1. Later running and revised stopping pattern
2. Passing loop at Bricket Wood to improve services
3. Non Heavy-Rail Rapid Transit solution

My objections to the third possible intervention have already been detailed under question 3.1, in particular I have made clear my objection to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

But may I also take issue with some of the discussion points under the other two interventions.

It is explained under ‘Later running and revised stopping pattern’ that, ‘Services cannot currently run through to London due to a lack of available paths and the track layout at Watford Junction (which has recently been revised by Network Rail). This means the short term focus needs to be on other enhancements such as the provision of later running services (beyond 10pm) to enhance usefulness and the introduction of ‘skip-stop’ services to enable enhanced frequencies and connectivity from key stations (closing three stations would allow the introduction of a 30 minute interval service).’

The first point, about through-services, is somewhat self-contradictory, because the track layout at Watford Junction has been revised with the specific aim of facilitating through-running from the branch, ‘should a train operator so desire it’. The line’s user group, ABFLY, have had this in writing from Network Rail (seeAppendix 1).The issue of available paths on the main line is often stated as a reason for maintaining the status quo, but this is something that Network Rail, the ORR, DfT and TOCs ought to be regularly challenged about it, for such challenges have succeeded in freeing up previously ‘impossible’ extra paths on the East Coast Main Line in recent years.

The second point, about later running services (beyond 10pm) is strongly welcomed. This should, and could, be implemented almost immediately without any new infrastructure or an additional train being required.

The third point, about skip-stop services and the possible closure of three stations, would seem to be an intolerable price to pay for a higher frequency service. After all, what is the point of having a ‘Community Railway’ if it doesn’t serve the communities along its route?

The only two possible candidates for amalgamation would be Park Street and How Wood, which could perhaps be served by a single new station at the bottom of Tippendell Lane, adjacent to the recreation ground, without unduly inconveniencing too many people. But station closure, in general, is not likely to be a popular approach.

May I also take issue with the description of the branch as suffering from ‘extreme under-utilisation’. Whilst the official station usage / revenue figures are acknowledged as being low, this has more to do with an extremely patchy revenue collection regime. This is a problem going back for years, and the line’s user group, ABFLY, have recently started collecting data aboutit. Their estimates, from February and June 2015, suggest that between 80-90% of journeys on the branch go unchecked (see Appendix 2and Appendix 3respectively).

A previous ABFLY study, comparing official station usage figures from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) and CRP-sponsored passenger count data, suggested that the revenue loss could be over £200k per year, based on 2006 data combined with 2014 ticket prices (unfortunately 2006 was the only year when discreet station-by-station passenger count data was available).See Appendix 4 and Appendix 5 for further details.

Such large amounts of lost revenue must surely undermine the case for investment, so statements about underutilisation, or indeed a ‘lack of demand’ should be rigorously challenged.

It is stated under ‘Passing loop at Bricket Wood to improve services’ that, ‘Most long term rail-based solutions for the line would require the addition of a passing loop to increase capacity by allowing a 30 minute interval service (currently 1 every 45 minutes) on clockface timings. This would significantly improve connections and produce a memorable timetable. However, it is unlikely to be considered by funders as a priority, as it would require provision of two train sets and train crew in place of the current one, making it difficult to achieve a favourable business case.’

It is acknowledged that several previous studies into a conventional heavy rail passing loop solution have been undertaken, the most recent concluding (negatively) in 2007 as part of the joint DfT/HCC ‘Community Rail’ Pilot Project. Millions have been spent on consultants looking at this over the years but with absolutely nothing material to show for it. The answer of these studies has always been ‘no business case’ for a heavy rail passing loop. But the calculations, assumptions and decisions involved in these studies have been kept largely secret from the general public – meaning that it could not be determined whether ‘received wisdom’ and inaccurate data had been challenged sufficiently.

Moreover, the rail industry has changed significantly in the last ten years.Firstly, the franchise bidders back in 2007 could not make a case for bringing in the second train which is required to operate a higher frequency service. This was partly because of a nationwide shortage of rolling stock. But leasing costs for second generation ex-BR electric multiple units (EMUs) are now said to be plummeting due to an influx of new-build EMUs in the market, brought about by the DfT’s U-turn on electrification in 2009. This opens up a unique opportunity for franchise bidders to acquire or lease several second hand units to operate the Abbey Line, suitably refurbished, and assuming the passing loop can be built.

Re-engineering of these older trains, bringing them up to modern standards of efficiency, safety and passenger comfort, making them feel and perform like practically new trains but without the cost of new trains, is steadily gathering momentum as train leasing companies (ROSCOs) look to extend the life of their fleets.

Secondly, on the passing loop itself, since the last feasibility study was conducted for the Abbey Line c.2005-07, Network Rail have installed passing loops at several places including the East Suffolk Line (at Beccles), the Truro to Falmouth line (at Penryn) and on the Redditch Branch (at Alvechurch).

In all cases the Local Authority has taken a strong lead in promoting the project, and in several places ‘innovative’ solutions have been used to keep the costs down. For example, at Penryn, a clever ‘split platform’ approach is used to pass the trains, which saves the cost of a second platform. This could be done at Bricket Wood.

But have the lessons learned from these projects since 2005 really been taken into account, and have Network Rail really been challenged on their costs? It seems unlikely, so the statement about, ‘making it difficult to achieve a favourable business case’suggest that received wisdom has been left unchallenged.

Finally, the rail funding landscape has significantly changed since 2007, with attitudes back then being very much about keeping subsidy levels down and costs under control. Now, however, investment in the rail network is at an all-time high, with strong cross-party political support, a long-term vision from central government and new projects being announced virtually every month.

There has never been a better time to attract investment into the Abbey Line through existing structures, but it requires strong leadership, vision and leadership from the County Council and clarity about what is trying to be achieved.

In summary, given my objection to the ‘non Heavy-Rail Rapid Transit solution’; I feel that the strategic priorities so far as the Abbey Line is concerned, should be amended. The key objectives should be:

1. Retention of the Abbey Line as a heavy rail feeder service using electric traction - owned, operated and managed as part of the National Rail network.

1. Promotion of an improved service frequency and ‘clockface’ timetable, 30mins or possibly even 20mins, by re-opening of a passing loop at Bricket Wood and provision of a second train. Amalgamation of two stations at How Wood and Park Street into one new one may help to reduce the overall end-to-end journey time, but I am clear that complete closure of three stations would not be acceptable. An hourly clockface timetable would not be acceptable.

1. Promotion, through the lobbying of NR, ORR, DfT and future TOCs, for paths to be found for through-services to London Euston and / or the West London Line, at least during peak hours, in order to capitalise on the fully mainline-signalled connection recently installed at Watford Junction. Such through services would, I feel, make the Abbey Line service a much more attractive proposition to users and potential users, thereby increasing utilisation.

Two further ‘desirables’ could be added: