Written evidence submitted by London TravelWatch (RPE0134)

Submission to the Transport Select Committee inquiry into improving the rail passenger experience

1      Introduction:

London TravelWatch is the official body set up by Parliament to provide a voice for London’s travelling public, including the users of all forms of public transport. Our role is to:

• Speak up for transport users in discussions with policy-makers and the media;
• Consult with the transport industry, its regulators and funders on matters affecting users;
• Investigate complaints users have been unable to resolve with service providers, and;
• Monitor trends in service quality
• Provide input to rail franchise and concession competitions, industry consultations and inquiries by public bodies. . 

Our brief covers the wider London Railway Area[1], that includes all of London’s airports and areas of commuting to and from the capital.

Our aim is to press in all that we do for a better travel experience all those living, working, or visiting London and its surrounding region.

Our remit and experience focuses on London’s transport systems – however, we feel that there are lessons that to be learnt from this that can be applied universally rather than just to the specific London modes that we cover.

2              The Inquiry

London TravelWatch welcomes the House of Commons Transport Committee’s inquiry, looking at improving the rail passenger experience, from planning a journey, arriving at a station, making the journey, and any necessary post-journey information. We engage regularly on these issues with the train operating companies in our area, with the rail regulators, with Transport for London and with Network Rail and the Department for Transport. We respond regularly to consultations on these issues from a passenger perspective, including on the specifications and awards of rail franchises. We also publish quarterly Performance Reports on the rail services within the London area, analysing trends that enable us to take up passengers issues from an objective and factually based perspective.. However, we have also conducted a number of self-standing pieces of research that cover the areas of the inquiry. These include ‘The London travelling environment; what consumers think’[2] , ‘Interchange

matters; passenger priorities for improvement’[3] , ‘Passenger ticket purchasing and journey experiences[4], and value for money on London’s transport services[5]

One key concern we have – and which we understand underlies the Committee’s enquiry – is that decisions on rail services should be based on high quality, reliable data and objective measures of the passenger experience. We make extensive use of the evidence provided by Transport Focus’s National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS), and of data provided by Transport for London. We have been closely involved with discussions on how to improve the NRPS, and on developing TfL’s transparency policies

3              We turn now to the specific questions raised.

4              Information provided to passengers before, during and after rail journeys including information provided at stations, in trains and via National Rail Enquiries, operator’s websites and online apps (excluding in relation to the process for claiming compensation for a delay/cancellation).

Our research[6] suggests that passengers regard the provision of information to be a basic ‘hygiene’ factor that the rail operators are expected to provide. Operators on most rail routes, except those with older signalling systems, have the capability to provide accurate and timely information. The problems for passengers often come, however, when unplanned disruption occurs, because the rail industry has a variety of different systems in use and in many cases these do not ‘talk’ to each other. It is not uncommon for passengers to be given conflicting information by staff, through their mobile phones or by customer information screens on the station. The rail industry has a project to create a ‘single source of the truth’ under the title DARWIN. This should eventually unify up to date provision of information during disruption.

However, at this time there remain two areas where information does not work as well as it should:-

1. In areas of operational complexity, where several routes converge and then diverge again, signallers’ choices make a significant difference at times of disruption. This can result in the order of trains changing and (on lines where there are several tracks) the changing of platforms at short notice.
2. On urban routes where drivers may be the sole member of staff present, on-rain information can vary in its quality and helpfulness. Particularly passenger frustrations relate to how long disruption is likely to last and whether there are any other alternatives that could be used in order to reach their destination.

These issues can be improved by completing the programme of DARWIN installation and by expanding the practice of co-locating control centres of train operators and Network Rail. Where this has occurred the flow of information and understanding of the impact on passengers of disruption has noticeably improved.

A recent example of co-location has been the relocation of part of Network Rail’s National Control Centre to Transport for London’s (TfL) central communication control. This has resulted in passengers being advised much earlier of disruption on both networks allowing them to make alternative arrangements in a timely manner.

Extending Wi-Fi provision to all trains would enable control centres to be able to give information directly to passengers on trains without recourse to requiring the driver or other staff member to relay information. This is particularly important at times of disruption where the driver is performing a safety critical function and should not be interrupted during it. Drivers may also not have a full picture of how disruption is affecting services and so would not be able to give authoritative advice for the varied requirements of passengers on their services. Wi-Fi would also enable the synchronisation of information with other outlets such as social media or websites that passengers may be using.

5              Ticketing, including overcoming obstacles to the more widespread delivery of ‘smart ticketing’ and part-time season tickets.

The rail ticketing system passengers tell us is far too complex in its structure and very difficult for passengers even with an informed knowledge to understand. Simplification of the fares structure is therefore needed. The experience of fares and ticket simplification in London - of zonalising National Rail fares in 2007, the introduction of Oyster in 2010 and Contactless payment in 2014 - has in each case resulted in a significant increase in usage and revenue taken, as fares and tickets became easier to understand and more transparent. This was despite some specific fares having very large increases and others very large decreases in cost. In each case, train operators had previously been very reluctant to contemplate change because it was perceived to be a risk to their known revenue streams. To get over this a number of contractual arrangements effectively transferred this risk to the taxpayer. However, in the event, the generation of additional income meant that these revenue guarantees were never called upon. This experience highlights the ‘risk averse’ nature of the franchised rail business, a characteristic that needs to be overcome if ticketing is to be reformed substantially to benefit passengers.

Complex fares and ticketing structures are the major barrier to the expansion of smart ticketing and to the development of tickets that meet the needs of part time workers. The simpler the fare structure the easier it is to implement a smart ticketing system. Our research on ‘value for money’ amongst passengers[7] and transport affordability[8] also shows that a simpler fares structure alongside smart ticketing systems such as Oyster / Contactless is seen by the public as more transparent, easy to understand and it in itself is better ‘value for money’.

In London the Oyster / Contactless system is relatively simple, however there are still four ‘families’ of tariffs in operation(TfL, National Rail, National Rail / TfL  hybrid, West Anglia / TfL Rail hybrid). This means that the cost of journeys covering similar numbers of zones varies by some margin. London TravelWatch advocates that these four tariffs should be simplified further to one single set of tariffs covering all journeys within the Oyster / Contactless system. The recent agreement between TfL and the DfT on partnership working should pave the way for this. However, it is dependent on the programme of franchise renewals, and so the process could take over ten years to come to fruition. Our view is that this needs to be dealt with much sooner. Our transport affordability research showed the big impact that the current tariffs have on low paid workers living in outer London. In the case studies, we found examples of the beneficial effects of the tariff change when TfL took over the Liverpool Street – Shenfield route from Abellio Greater Anglia: a low paid worker in central London was able to spend an extra hour a day with his young family, because he could now afford the fare from his local station instead of walking 30 minutes each way to a London Underground station. In addition, the range of job opportunities for people living along the route was expanded by this change. We found in some areas where there are only National Rail services, low paid workers had to spend around 10% of their take home pay on the daily travel costs, compared to those using only TfL services where this was around 5%.

Take up of Oyster / Contactless smart cards in and around London can be further improved by removing anomalies such as paper tickets being cheaper at certain times. An example arises on Mondays to Fridays between 1600 and 1900 when it is cheaper for a holder of an Annual Travelcard on Oyster wanting to travel beyond their existing zones to purchase a paper extension ticket than to use Oyster pay as you go. This is because the Goldcard Railcard facility that comes attached to the Annual Travelcard is valid at these times, but does not give a discount on the Oyster fare.

Similarly, extension of Oyster / Contactless - to areas just beyond Travelcard zones 1 to 6 on National Rail that are served by TfL buses, to Stansted and Luton Airports (widely assumed to be part of London), and to Heathrow Express / Connect - would remove the need for a significant number of tickets to be issued on paper.  It would also reduce the number of Penalty Fares issued to passengers who incorrectly assume that Oyster / Contactless must already be valid to these places. At Gatwick Airport prior to the recent introduction of Oyster / Contactless 5,000 passengers a year were receiving a Penalty Fare because they wrongly believed that Gatwick was a part of the Oyster system as it is described as London Gatwick Airport. We understand that in the first week of operation of Oyster / Contactless over 11,000 journeys were made by this means . That figure has now risen to 42,000 per week in less than 15 weeks. This compares to the much smaller take up of other smartcards such as ‘The Key’

In areas outside of the Travelcard area that are served by TfL buses, such as Potters Bar, Denham, Slough, Staines, Sunbury (Middlesex), Esher, Hinchley Wood, Leatherhead, Dorking, Epsom and Greenhithe for Bluewater, the cashless nature of TfL buses means that passengers travelling in these areas already have to have an Oyster or Contactless card. Extending Oyster / Contactless to rail services in these areas would therefore mean that a large number of journeys could be easily switched to a ‘smart’ system. Our estimate based on the Office of Rail and Road station usage statistics for 2014-15 is that up to 180 million rail journeys per year could be switched to Oyster / Contactless[9] if these systems were made available in the wider London commuter area. Many passengers in this area already possess Oystercards (for use when they travel within London) and we believe that, similarly, take up of contactless payment bankcards has been much higher than in other parts of the UK. This suggests that extension of Oyster / contactless would be the simplest and most cost effective way of expanding smartcard use on the rail network. It would not require the public to use cards that they are not using now, and it would make use of a tried and tested back office system. Some alterations and upgrade of capacity would be needed, but there would be no requirement for an expensive and potentially risky brand new system. Such a change should also be quicker to implement.

Expansion of Oyster / Contactless also in our view presents the most realistic opportunity to provide the equivalent of a part-time season ticket. TfL has successfully changed the structure of fares to offer part-time workers travel at the same rate as full time workers purchasing season tickets.

More generally, the major barrier to expansion of smart ticketing, and introducing the equivalent of part time season tickets is the complexity of the structure of fares and tickets on the rail network. The pricing of most tickets on the rail network now has no rational basis as fares have been altered over the years to reflect the differing commercial needs of franchises and public policy requirements of government. Meanwhile pre-existing anomalies have tended to be ‘baked in’ to the structure[10]. The result is that the cost of travel for similar distances varies considerably. Fares simplification should therefore be seen as a priority to enable further expansion of smart ticketing and the equivalent of part time season tickets.

For longer distance journeys the complexity of the system, and the differing objectives of train operators has led to the emergence of ‘split ticketing’, where by it is often cheaper for passengers to buy a more than one ticket for a journey rather than a single ‘through’ ticket. This often occurs where the journey involves more than one train operator, but where a sole operator who has little or no interest in pricing such journeys competitively or attractively sets the fare. The effect of this is to inflate fares for such hybrid routes. However, the existence of such cheaper combinations is often only available to those ‘in the know’.

A much fairer and more transparent system, and one that would be more compatible with smart ticketing, would be to set fares on a ‘chain link’ basis. This would entail guaranteeing that the fare would be no more than the sum of the parts of a journey, with no one operator controlling the overall level of the fare.

6              In-train facilities, including on-journey Wi-Fi and power

Our Travelling Environment research[11] in January 2014 found that passenger priorities for improvement could be summarised into three areas:-

• Basic hygiene or minimum requirement: such as access to ticket purchasing facilities at all times and at all stations; quality and quantity of information for a passenger to make an unfamiliar journey; stations and vehicles to be accessible to people with disabilities.
• Critical success or meeting expectations : where toilets and waiting rooms are available these to be kept in good condition and cleaned regularly; car and bike parking security is guaranteed; catering facilities provided at large stations; litter bins at all stations.
• Enhancement or exceeding expectation: Free Wi-Fi and power at stations and on trains.

This research showed that at the time passengers felt that operators needed to focus more on getting basic attributes of trains and stations in better condition, more accessible or more numerous. Only when these were satisfied was it considered that free Wi-Fi and power should be the next on the list of expectations. Passengers also expressed anxiety that increased Wi-Fi and mobile phone coverage would lead to more loud and overheard conversations, and that quiet zones of trains would become more difficult to police.

However, we think that since the publication of this research that public expectation of Wi-Fi provision will have increased. This is supported by recent research by Transport Focus[12]

7              Performance measures in relation to passenger experience, including passenger survey methodologies

London TravelWatch supports the National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS), as produced by Transport Focus as a means of assessing passenger perception of their rail travel experience. However, the NRPS only gives a snapshot of public perception in two periods a year and is based on the passengers’ last journey. Other surveys are conducted by Which? measure overall passenger sentiment over a longer period, but do not pinpoint satisfaction or otherwise to specific stations and trains. Therefore, to get a fuller picture of the passenger experience, other objective measures need to be taken account of

London TravelWatch advocates the use of service quality incentive regimes where an inspection of a train or a station will give an objective view as to whether information is available, a train or a station is clean. These have proved very effective mechanisms at improving items (such as station information and cleanliness) which are under train operators’ direct control and used widely by TfL and the major rail operating groups.

London TravelWatch produces quarterly performance reports relating to National Rail operators serving its area of responsibility. We do so using the rail industry’s own data but interpreting this from a passenger perspective, and adding trend lines so that comparisons can be made with previous years performance. However, there are limitations to the picture we are able to provide in these reports and to our ability to track actual passengers experiences. Public Performance Measure (PPM) and Right Time Arrival (RTA) data is based on train journeys rather than passenger journeys, and so it is perfectly feasible for an operator to delay a significant proportion of its passengers and yet seem to work very well if it runs services well at the times when fewer passengers travel. The advent of on-line train reporting sites opens the possibility of tailoring data much more closely to actual passenger journeys. Some app developers are now developing this using open data sources.

London Underground measure ‘excess journey time’. This is the total additional time that passenger journeys would have taken compared with the scheduled time, i.e. taking account of the numbers of passengers travelling. For high frequency ‘metro’ services, this is probably a much better measure of reliability than a PPM based on whether trains arrive at their destination (or central London station (Blackfriars) in the case of through journeys on the Thameslink route) within 5 or 10 minutes of their public schedule.

8              Mechanisms to hold operators to account for poor performance and spread the best practice across the industry             

In our recent National Rail performance reports we have noted the significant improvement in performance (3.9 percentage point improvement in PPM in 2015/16 compared to 2014/15)[13] that TfL Rail has experienced since its handover from the previous Abellio Greater Anglia franchise. This is despite the fact that this operator has used the same older rolling stock, staff, and assets that the previous operator had access to. The difference is the pro-active culture of TfL Rail and the contractual arrangements that they have with TfL that require them to actively manage their relationship with Network Rail – TfL Rail are incentivised to work with Network Rail to reduce the amount of delays to their trains and of others using the route. To do this they have:-

• Introduced additional staff on station platforms to manage passenger flows, reduce dwell times at stations and reduce the numbers of incidents / accidents involving people and trains
• Introduced additional Network Rail track and signal maintenance staff, allowing a quicker reaction to incidents when they occur
• Introduced more preventative maintenance on its’ rolling stock, to reduce the number of incidents occurring whilst in service

The results of these measures is a significant improvement in reliability of local services on the Liverpool Street – Shenfield route, but also a consequential improvement in the reliability of longer distance services into East Anglia. Similar measures formed the basis of the Office of Rail and Road’s reparations[14] package imposed on Network Rail for its failures in respect of the GTR franchise.

The NRPS results for TfL Rail for this period also showed a significant increase in overall passenger satisfaction with their journey over that for the previous operator.[15]

9              London TravelWatch recommendations and conclusions

London TravelWatch recommends the following priority measures to improve the experience of rail passengers:-

• Provision of Wi-Fi services on all trains would enable operators to communicate directly to passengers during times of disruption.

• Train operators, Network Rail and TfL continue to expand the role of joint control centres

• Simplification of fares structures should be implemented by DfT, TfL and train operators to allow the wider application of smart ticketing such as Oyster and Contactless cards and to create the equivalent of part time season tickets

• Expansion of the Oyster / Contactless system further into the London commuter area would be the simplest and most efficient method of enabling the spread of smart ticketing on the rail network

• A measure of ‘excess journey time’ performance should be developed for ‘metro’ type rail services to better reflect the actual passenger experience of these services

• Open data policies need to be pursued by train operators, Network Rail and the DfT in order to allow the development of passenger friendly apps that are able to measure individual experiences of service reliability.

• rail franchises and concessions should have a contractual obligation to actively manage their relationship with Network Rail with joint incentives to improve train service performance.

20 May 2016

.